Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History

Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History

by ShinkoMochizuki Translated by Leo M Pruden

This e-book is based on the articles published on Pacific World Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies http://www.shin-ibs.edu/academics/_pwj/ For the class on Pure Land The International Buddhist College, Thailand, 2011 http://ibc.ac.th

Chapter One: A General Survey Author’s Preface and Chapter One: A General Survey Author’s

Preface and Chapter One: A General Survey

Edited by Richard K. Payne Institute of Buddhist Studies

EDITOR’S PREFACE THE FOLLOWING IS THE first two sections of one of the most famous sources for the study of Pure Land Buddhist thought: Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History (Ch¥goku Jødo kyørishi), by Shinkø Mochizuki (1896–1948). This work was originally published in 1942, and was translated by the late Leo M. Pruden in 1982. We wish to thank his estate for permission to publish this important work. Although the original is now quite dated, it remains a useful resource, for although many specialized studies have been made since that time, no similar, comprehensive work exists. We also want to thank Professors Masatoshi Nagatomi and Stanley Weinstein for their consultation and encouragement to pursue making this work publicly available. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the assistance of the late Rev. Philip K. Eidman in contacting the Pruden estate and gaining permission for this publication. The typescript of Pruden’s translation came to light in late 1994, when I was looking through a storeroom in the Institute’s building in Berkeley. There on a back shelf, I found six boxes of papers, containing two copies of the translation. Once I realized the importance of this work, I felt impelled to try to see it published—not only for the sake of the work’s inherent interest, but also in recognition of the many years that Pruden had been an active supporter of the Institute. Our plan is to publish the entirety of the translation sequentially in the Pacific World. When this is finished, we plan to publish the work as

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

This present book systemized the notes of lectures that I gave on numerous occasions at Taishø University. As these notes are now being printed in book form, this book will be entitled Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History, which points to the major concern of this work: the development and changes that Pure Land doctrines have undergone in China. However, religious doctrines are accompanied by faith, and this in turn carries within itself an impetus to dissemination and expansion. Therefore, while we are relating the changes and developments that Pure Land doctrines have undergone, we are at the same time narrating the historical facts of the faith’s growth and expansion. Buddhism in China has almost two thousand years of history behind it; moreover, China is vast in geographic extent, and the religious phenomena that have arisen within it from the time of its origins to the present day are innumerable. It would be almost impossible to study these phenomena one by one, and I believe that it would not be an easy task to bring together the data involved in such a history, regardless of the criteria adopted. In the present work, I have attempted, to the best of my abilities, to bring together as much relevant historical data as possible, and to delineate the antecedents and later ramifications of any given doctrinal theory in my exposition of that theory. However, when the final editing of this work was finished, I discovered several places where further revision was called for, and I am filled with remorse that in this respect the work remains incomplete. I sincerely look to corrections and the emendations which later generations of scholars will provide.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank Shøkø Kanayama, Sojun Moroto, Jøkø Katsuki, Sh¥kø Tanaka, Denjø Ishida, Shødø Takarada, and Kyøshun Tødø, for the assistance these young scholars have rendered to me in the compilation and writing of this book. Shinkø Mochizuki March 1942 a whole, together with a select bibliography that will assist the reader in locating more recent publications. Editing of the typescript has been limited to attempting to improve the readability of the translation, and updating some of the terminology to accord with more contemporary use.

CHAPTER I: A GENERAL SURVEY

The Pure Land teachings (ching-t’u chiao) form a separate tradition within Mahåyåna Buddhism. In these teachings, the devotee believes in the existence of a large number of various buddhas, and in their heavens, or pure lands; through this faith the devotee obtains, in this life, the protection of these buddhas and desires to be born into one of these pure lands after death. All of the various Mahåyåna scriptures and commentaries speak of buddhas “in all of the ten directions, as numberless as the grains of sand in the Ganges River.” Each one of these buddhas lives in his own individual pure land, and here he continues to preach and to teach to a multitude of the faithful who have obtained birth in this land. Despite these repeated references, very few scriptures speak of any of these buddhas or their pure lands in detail. It is only the Buddhas [[Amitåbha] (O-mi-t’o Fo), Aksobhya (O-shu Fo), and Bhaisajyaguru (Yaoshih Fo) who have separate, independent scriptures devoted to describing them and their pure lands. However, an extremely large number of scriptures are devoted exclusively to Amitåbha. These either describe his making of vows and his cultivation of religious practices while he was yet a bodhisattva, or they describe the adornments and the physical features of his pure land, the Western Land of Sukhåvati (chi-lo, “possessing extreme happiness”).

The large number of scriptural texts devoted to Amitåbha and Sukhåvat? attest to the fact that, from the very earliest period, the pure land of the Buddha Amitåbha was regarded as the best of all the pure lands of the buddhas. Consequently, the belief in Amitåbha’s Pure Land grew in India. In such works as Någårjuna’s Da?abh¥mivibhå?a (Shihchu pi-p’o-she), Sthiramati’s Ratnagotra vibhåga (Chiu-ching i-ch’eng Pao-hsing lun), and Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Amitåyus S¥tra (Amitåyus Sutra Upadesha, Wu-liang-shou ching Yü-p’o-t’i-she) we find the authors vowing to be born into Sukhåvati. Similarly, such scriptural texts as the second volume of the Ta-p’ei-ching, the first volume of the Ta-fa k’u ching, the Wen-chu shih-li fa-yuan ching, and the sixth volume of the Ta fang-teng Wu-hsiang ching record that a variety of people vowed to be born in Amitåbha’s Pure Land. These include such figures as the bhiksu Jivaka (Chi-p’o-chia), the young man Le?ya (Li-ch’e) “whom all the world delights in seeing,” the Bodhisattva Mañjusri, and “Queen Increase” (Ts’eng-ch’ang Nü-wang). When the Pure Land faith spread to China, it attracted many tens of millions of devotees, both clerics and laity, and the faith eventually spread to all the countries of the Far East, where it became the major faith of a vast majority of the populations of these lands. For this reason, although when we speak of

the Pure Land teachings, this term may be used to refer to the teaching that every buddha has a pure land, in light of the above, we shall employ this phrase in the sense of belief in the Buddha Amitåbha. The rest of this work will concern itself with narrating the history of the dissemination of belief in [[Amitåbha.] There are a variety of theories concerning the first introduction of the buddhadharma into China. The Preface to the Sutra of Forty-two Sections (Ssu-shih-erh chang ching), Mou-tzu’s Li-huo lun, volume two of the Ch’u-san-tsang chi-chi, and volume one of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan all place the first introduction of Buddhism during the reign of the Emperor Ming (reigned A.D. 57–75) of the Later Han Dynasty. According to this account, the Emperor Ming dreamt of a golden-colored man, and when he awoke, he dispatched Ts’ai Yin to the countries of Central Asia to search out the teaching of this golden-colored man. Ts’ai Yin returned to Loyang with the monk Kåsyapa-måtaçga and here in Loyang,

Kåsyapa-måtaçga translated the Sutra in Forty-two Sections, sometime during the Yung-ping period (A.D. 58–76). Based on this account, volume two of the Li-tai San-pao chi places the first introduction of Buddhism into China in the tenth year of Yung-ping (A.D. 67), during the reign of the Emperor Ming. However, it is well known that the Sutra of Forty-two Sections was composed in China at a much later date. Further, since there is no basis to believe that Kåsyapa-måtaçga ever actually came to China, this account, with all of its details, must have been fabricated by a later hand. Another account is given in the first volume of the Li-tai San-paochi, and in the last volume of Fa-lin’s P’o-hsieh lun (composed in the T’ang Dynasty). According to this account, some eighteen worthies arrived in China, headed by “the foreign drama?a Shih Li-fang,” sometime during the reign of Ch’in Shih-huang-ti (ruled 246 to 210 B.C.). Shih Li-fang brought Buddhist scriptures with him, and preached the teaching to the Emperor. Ch’in Shih-huang-ti did not believe in these teachings, and he imprisoned Li-fang and the rest of the group. However, that very night, a Vajrayåksa in the form of a man appeared, broke open the prison, and released the monks. Seeing this, the Emperor became terrified and prostrated himself to the monks, begging their forgiveness. The account ends with the statement that this incident is found recorded “in the Scriptural Catalogue of Shih Tao-an and Chu Shih-heng.” We do not know if Tao-an’s catalogue actually carried this account, since this catalogue has not been preserved for us. In a Japanese work, the Tøzai køshøshi no kenky¥ by Toyohachi Fujita, the author points out a statement in volume six of the Shih-chi, in an entry dated “the thirty-third year of the reign of Ch’in Shih-huang-ti” (214 B.C.), that “the temples of pu-te were prohibited” (chin pu-te ssu). The word pu-te

is a transliteration of the word “buddha,” and this entry would mean that Buddhist ceremonies and Buddhist institutions were banned as early as the Ch’in Dynasty. The Emperor Ch’in Shih-huang-ti believed in the spirits (shen-hsien), and he was involved in the search for an elixir of immortality. Perhaps he disliked the Buddhist teaching of impermanence, and so banned the religion. The word “buddha” was early transliterated into Chinese by a variety of characters, fo-t’u (##,##), or fu-to## so that the characters pu-te would thus appear to be the oldest transliteration of this word. However, if the religion of the Buddha was banned as early as the reign of the Emperor Ch’in Shih-huang-ti, then this fact would surely have been recorded in Tao-an’s catalogue. The thirty-third year of the reign of Ch’in Shih-huang-ti (214 B.C.) corresponds to the eighteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Ashoka, who in his turn had dispatched Buddhist missionaries to the lands of Gandhara and Bactria. Therefore, we cannot say that by this time one such mission could not have arrived on Chinese soil. In any case, the Buddhist scriptures did not survive from this supposed first missionary attempt, and in fact, the teachings were almost immediately proscribed, so in one sense this mission cannot be regarded as the origin of the buddhadharma in China. The first account of the buddhadharma in China must then be placed during the reign of the Emperor Ai (reigned 7 to 1 B.C.). The thirtieth volume of the Wei-chih contains a “Monograph on the Eastern Barbarians,” the Wu-wan and the Hsiang-pi. Commenting on this work, the Wei-chih quotes a text called the Wei-lueh by Yu K’un. This in turn states that in the year 2 B.C. (during the reign of the Emperor Ai, a scholar (po shih) named Ching Lu, heard about a Buddhist scripture (fot’u ching) from Yin Tsun, an ambassador from the Yueh-chih kingdom in western Central Asia. We do not know what type of Buddhist scripture this was. However, the account continues with a description of the birth of Siddhårtha, the details of his parentage, who his mother and father were, what kingdom he was born in, etc., so the text in question was perhaps a nidåna, or an account of the early life of the Buddha. This oral account of the life of the Buddha, told by a Central Asian ambassador to a Chinese scholar in the year 2 B.C., can be safely held to be the first undisputed appearance of the teachings of the Buddha on Chinese soil. Very soon, however, under the rule of Wang Mang, relations were severed with the Central Asian kingdoms in the year A.D. 9, only to be reestablished with the rise of the Later Han Dynasty (from A.D. 26 onward). From this time onward, we can see more clearly the introduction of various aspects of the buddhadharma into China. In volume eighty-eight of the Hou Han-shu, in the “Monograph on Central Asia” (Hsi-yu ch’uan), it is recorded that “for the first time King

Ying of Ch’u believed in this teaching (i.e., Buddhism) and, because of this, the dharma spread rapidly thereafter.” In volume forty-two of this same work, in the “[[Wiki|Biography}} of the Ten [[Kuang-wu Kings,” we are told that King Ying was very fond of the various wanderers who traveled around the country at this time. It says that he would greet them, entertain them in his palace, and listen to their teachings. We are told that in his old age he came to believe in the doctrine of Huang-Lao (the Yellow Emperor and Lao-tzu), that he followed the doctrines of the Buddha, and that he performed ceremonies replete with vegetarian feasts. In the year A.D. 65, the Emperor Ming ordered a general amnesty throughout the Empire for all those under sentence of death, and at this time the Emperor received presents from those to whom he had granted amnesty. King Ying sent a messenger with thirty rolls of silk cloth as a present to the Emperor, begging an amnesty for himself. The Emperor is recorded to have stated that King Ying recited the words of HuangLao, that he worshiped at the temple of the Buddha, and that he kept a vegetarian fast for three months as a vow to the spirits (shen). We are told that the Emperor said, “We find nothing odious, nor doubtful, in this.” The Emperor returned the rolls of silk and ordered that these be used in feeding upåsakas and ?rama?as. We know from this account, then, that by the year A.D. 65 King Ying had converted to Buddhism and was widely known as an upåsaka, as well as being noted for his vegetarian feasts. If this account is factual, then we can safely say that Buddhism had spread widely throughout China even before the Yung-ping period, and that the tale of the Emperor Ming dreaming of a golden-colored man, and receiving the dharma from the West, is merely a reflection of this historical fact.

The first appearance of what was to develop into Pure Land teachings was the translation in A.D. 179, during the reign of the Later Han Dynasty Emperor Ling, of the Pratyupanna-samådhi Sutra (P’an-shou san-mei ching) by Lokaksema. This translation was soon followed by the work of Wu Chih-ch’ien and the Western Chin Dynasty monk Chu Fahuo, who translated the Ta O-mi-t’o ching. Also the Ping-teng-ch’üeh ching was translated by Kumårajiva (of the Yao-Ch’in Dynasty). In addition Pao-yun and Kålayasas, both of the Liu-Sung Dynasty, translated the [[[O-mi-t’o ching]], the Shih-chu pi-p’o-she lun, the Wu-liang shou ching, and the [[Kuan]Wu-liang-shou ching]]. In this way, different texts appeared one after the other, and found greater numbers of devotees within the ranks of both the clergy and the laity.

The first person recorded to be seeking rebirth in the Western Pure Land was Ts’e, Duke of Ch’ueh (Ch’ueh Kung-ts’e, a person of the Western Chin Dynasty), and from this time onward larger and larger numbers of persons are described as longing for rebirth. The most renowned of such persons was the Eastern Chin Dynasty scholar-monk, Hui-yuan. With Hui-yuan, the Pure Land doctrines found their first eminent master, and the later Pure Land lineages in China regarded him as their first patriarchal master. It is with him that the Pure Land movement begins to be a significant religious movement. Hui-yuan founded the White Lotus Society (Pai-lien she) on the southern Chinese mountain, Mt. Lu (Lu-shan). This society was a meditation group whose members would meditate on the form of the Buddha Amitåbhai n an attempt to realize nien-fo san-mei (buddhaanusm®ti-samådhi), a samådhi based primarily on the above-mentioned P’an-shou san-mei ching. If a devotee was able to see the form of the Buddha, this was a guarantee that he would eventually be reborn in the Pure Land. It is this emphasis on meditation that came to be normative in Chinese Buddhism, and is the form of Pure Land teachings stressed in Japanese Tendai until the Kamakura period. From the period of the Liu-Sung Dynasty onward, the Pure Land faith spread widely throughout China: lectures on the Wu-liang-shou ching came to be frequently offered, and many images of the Buddha Amitåbha were constructed. Bodhiruci translated Vasubandhu’s Amitåyus Sutra Upadesha in the reign of the Emperor Hsuan-wu of the Northern Wei Dynasty. Soon thereafter, T’an-luan composed a commentary on it, and in this commentary adopted the theory of the division of the buddhadharma into an easy path and a difficult path (first taught in the Dasabhumi-vibhåsa). T’an-luan also stressed the power of Amitåbha’s fundamental or original vows (known as “other-power”), a teaching which came to be stressed by subsequent writers in the “exclusivist” tradition of Pure Land thought. In northern China, in the area of Ping-chou, many followers of the Pure Land doctrines are likewise recorded. Serious textual studies of the various Pure Land scriptures began in the Chou and Sui Dynasties. This period also saw the composition of many commentaries on both the Wu-liang-shou ching and the Kuan Wuliang-shou ching by such famous monks of other Buddhist traditions as Ching-ying Hui-yuan, Ling-yu, Chi-tsang, and Fa-ch’ang. Other masters composed works or essays on various problems of Pure Land teachings, masters such as Chih-i (the founder of the T’ien-t’ai tradition), Tai-chi, Chih-yen (of the Hua-yen tradition), and Chia-ts’ai. These works discussed the precise nature of the buddha’s body (kåya) and the nature of his pure land. At this time, too, the Ti-lun (Dasabhumi vyåkhyå) was a popular object of study, and many scholar-monks whose primary orientation was this text appear to have been deeply interested in Pure Land doctrines, and to have counted themselves as Pure Land followers. There also developed an early Yogåcåra tradition centered on the study of the She-lun ([[Asaçga’s Mahåyåna-saµgraha]). A number of masters from this tradition came to hold the view that the Pure Land teaching of the Kuan Wu-liang shou ching that ordinary persons (p®thagjana) could attain rebirth was a teaching “whose purport lay in a specific period of time” (pieh-shih-i). That is, the basic teachings of the Pure Land scriptures were an expedient teaching, designed to lead the simple to faith in the Buddha and further developing their religious consciousness. This would lead them to Yogåcåra philosophy or, in any case, out of purely Pure Land teachings. Because of the sophistication of this Yogåcåra teaching, and because this school of thought placed the Pure Land teachings in a subservient, but still meaningful, relationship to the rest of Buddhism, the Pure Land movement underwent an intellectual decline for a number of decades. In the T’ang Dynasty the Pure Land movement saw the appearance of the monks Tao-ch’o and Shan-tao. Both of these men became the inheritors of the tradition of T’an-luan, and in their writings stressed the power of the fundamental vows of Amitåbha. These men were also the first to introduce the concept of mo-fa (J. mappø) into Chinese Pure Land thought. The theory of mo-fa divides Buddhist religious history into two, or three, periods: the first period is that of the True Dharma, the second period is that of the Counterfeit Dharma, and these two are then followed by the period that sees the total Extinction (mo) of the Dharma (fa). In their writings, they taught that the Pure Land teachings were the teachings specifically designed by the Buddha to fit these historical conditions. Shan-tao most especially spelled out the Pure Land doctrines in the mold originally set by T’an-luan and Tao-ch’o. Presented in his Commentary on the Kuan´Wu-liang-shou ching (the Kuan Wu-liangshou ching Shu), his exegesis set a standard that was widely read and followed by many subsequent generations of Chinese Pure Land thinkers. In this work, Shan-tao refuted the theories of a number of other masters, and laid a firm foundation for subsequent Pure Land thought. In Japan, Shan-tao and his Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching Shu became very popular due to the emphasis placed on them by Hønen and by Hønen’s disciples. To the Japanese, Shan-tao came to be by far the single most important Chinese Pure Land writer. Contemporary with Shan-tao were such masters as Chih-shou, Ching-mai, Hui-ching,[[ Yuan-ts’e], Tao-hui, Tao-yin, and Huai-kan, all of whom were active in the capital city of Ch’ang-an. Each of these masters

wrote commentaries on the O-mi-t’o ching and the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching. Also quite important were the Korean scholar-monks of Silla, the masters Chajang, W?nhy?, ?isang, B?pwi, Hy?n’il, Ky?ngh©ng, ?ij?k, Taehy?n, and Dunryun. Each of these masters wrote commentaries, or carried out studies in the various Pure Land scriptures. It was clearly at this period—the early years of the T’ang Dynasty—that Pure Land studies reached a high watermark in the Far East, due in large measure to the influence of the flourishing state of Buddhist studies in general. The monk Hui-jih returned to China from his sojourn in India during the K’ai-yuan period (A.D. 713–741) of the T’ang Dynasty. At roughly this same time the emerging Ch’an school began an attack on the Pure Land teachings. They taught that the Pure Land teachings were fit only for the ignorant, for they were an upåya, or expedient teaching, designed to lead ignorant persons to something higher, and were ultimately “a lie and a delusion.” This attack generated a furious counterattack from the ranks of the Pure Land followers, which led to the gradual formation of a separate sect of Pure Land teachings within China. Pure Land scholars became self-conscious of their tradition in the ensuing debate with the Ch’an school. The Pure Land polemic was continued by such monks as Ch’eng-yuan, Fa-chao, and Fei-hsi, who held theories which appeared to reconcile Ch’an with Pure Land thought. These masters held that the nien-fo san-mei constituted an unsurpassed, most profound and marvelous meditation teaching (ch’an-men). However, in their writings, Pure Land masters heaped much abuse upon the heads of the followers of the Ch’an tradition. Despite this, there were in the Ch’an ranks monks who appear to have reconciled these two traditions. The monk Hsüan-shih, a disciple of the Fifth Patriarch of the Ch’an tradition, proclaimed the existence of a new tradition, the Nan-shan Nien-fo-men Ch’an-tsung, “the South Mountain Meditation Tradition of the Nien-fo Teachings.” Nan-yang Hui-chung, one of the disciples of the Sixth Ch’an Patriarch, Hui-neng, taught the simultaneous cultivation of “practice and understanding.” In this case, “practice” refers to nienfo recitation, and “understanding” to the insight gained through Ch’an. Yung-ming Yen-shou, a second-generation disciple of the Ch’an master Fa-yen, taught the principle of the mutual perfection of the truth of emptiness (in Ch’an), and of existence (in the Pure Land teaching). He taught that only an understanding of these two could bring about awakening. These masters, coming largely out of Ch’an ranks but also having their counterparts within the ranks of Pure Land masters, were instrumental in teaching widely the necessity of the dual cultivation of both meditation (Ch’an) and the recitation of the Name of Amitåbha (Pure Land practice). Eventually, this tradition of joint cultivation came to assume the proportions of a separate sectarian trend within Far Eastern Mahåyåna.

The Sung Dynasty saw the appearance of a number of monks who were known for their cultivation of the Pure Land teachings, such monks as T’ien-i I-huai, Hui-lin Tsung-pen, Ku-su Shou-na, Ch’ang-lu Tsungi, Huang-lang Ssu-hsin, and Chen-ko Ch’ing-liao. This period also saw, for the first time, the appearance of laymen who became renowned for their joint cultivation of Pure Land and Ch’an practices, laymen such as Yang Chieh, Wang Ku, Chiang-kung Wang, Wang Chen, and Wang Jihhsiu. The fame of these laymen strengthened this tendency towards joint Ch’an-Pure Land cultivation. The T’ien-t’ai tradition also produced a number of believers in Pure Land teachings, as well as a number of scholarly monks who worked in exegesis, among whom were the Sung Dynasty monks Hsing-ching, Ch’eng-yu, I-t’ung, Yuan-ch’ing, Wen-pi, Tsun-shih, Chih-li, Chihyuan, Jen-yüeh, Ts’ung-i, Ts’e-ying, and Tsung-hsiao. All of these masters either composed commentaries on the Kuan Wu-liang shou ching or the O-mi-t’o ching, or wrote works explaining various aspects of the Pure Land teachings. Chih-li’s Kuan-ching Shu Miao-tsung ch’ao is the most famous of these works. Its salient doctrinal feature was the teaching of visualizing the Buddha Amitåbha with respect to one’s own mind. This teaching came to be emphasized within T’ien-t’ai circles, contributing much to the development of a doctrinal basis for the joint cultivation of Ch’an and Pure Land practices, and to the fusion of Ch’an and Pure Land theories within Chinese Buddhism as a whole. Later, during the Sung, the monk Yuan-chao of Yu-k’ang, noted for his studies and writings on the Vinaya tradition (Lü-tsung), devoted the latter years of his life to propagating the Pure Land teachings. He composed a commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching, and in his own way set up a variant lineage and school within the broader Pure Land tradition. His disciples, Yung-ch’in and Chieh-tu, also wrote commentaries, and contributed to popularizing the philosophical views of their master. During the Southern Sung Dynasty, the Japanese monk Shunjø introduced the writings of Yuan-chao to Japan where, however, their circulation was initially limited. Thus it was that Pure Land thought developed during the Sung Dynasty. At this same time, Chinese Buddhism also saw the rise of Pure Land lay societies (chieh-she), or lay organizations established to promote Pure Land belief and practice among their members. Such groups became especially strong in South China, and we know the names of the major leaders of such groups. Indeed, a large number of the most renowned scholar-monks of their day organized such groups, masters such as Hsing-ch’ang, Tsun-shih, Chih-li, Pen-ju, Ling-chao, Tsung-i, and Tao-shen. All of these masters organized laymen and clerics into societies for the purpose of cultivating nien-fo practices. In almost all of

these cases, the organizers considered themselves to be reviving the tradition of Hui-yuan’s White Lotus Society on Mt. Lu, while also looking to the lives of Shan-tao and Fa-chao, themselves reputed to have formed such organizations, as precedents. At the beginning of the Southern Sung Dynasty, the master Tz’uchao Tzu-yuan founded an organization now actually termed the White Lotus Tradition (Pai-lien tsung). In its teachings and organization, the traditions to which this group hearkened back were written down by the monk P’u-tu of the same Mt. Lu in a major compendium of this sect’s teachings, the Lien-tsung pao-chien. In this work, we find a large amount of popular superstition and degenerate customs mixed with Buddhist doctrines. The work was banned on several occasions but, after each banning, the resentment of the masses became enflamed, leading to popular rebellions and local uprisings. The sect was often termed the Pai-lien chiao-fei, the White Lotus Teaching Rebels, in official documents. With the founding of the Yuan Dynasty, the tendency toward the joint cultivation of Ch’an and Pure Land became even more pronounced. Several renowned Ch’an masters became noted for their devotion to the Pure Land faith: such masters as Chung-feng Ming-pen, T’ien-ju Weitse, Ch’u-shih Fan-ch’i, and Tuan-yün Chih-ch’e. Within the T’ien-t’ai tradition, a number of well-known monks wrote works in praise of the Pure Land teachings, such as Chan-t’ang Hsing-ch’eng, Yü-k’ang Mengjun, Yin-chiang Miao-hsieh, and Yün-wo Shan-chu. The Ming Dynasty (1368–1627) was a period characterized by large numbers of monks who taught the practice of the joint cultivation of Ch’an and the Pure Land teachings. Among such masters were Ch’ushan Shao-ch’i, K’ung-ku Ching-lung, Ku-yin Ching-chin, I-yuan Tsungpen, Yün-chi Chu-hung, Tz’u-po Chen-k’o, Han-shan Teh-ch’ing, Poshan Yuan-lai, Chan-jan Yuan-ch’eng, Ku-shan Yuan-hsien, and Weihsiang Tao-p’ei. The most eminent of these was the master Chu-hung. During the Lung-ch’ing period (1567–1572), he went into retreat at an auspicious site in the Yun-chi Mountains in the area of Hang-chou, and there he cultivated the nien-fo san-mei (S.: buddhånusm®tisamådhi). He composed a commentary on the O-mi-t’o ching, and several works extolling the joint cultivation of Ch’an and Pure Land teachings. His influence spread widely and gradually influenced all of Chinese Buddhism. At this time, the T’ien-t’ai tradition also produced some eminent scholar-monks who wrote books elucidating Pure Land teachings from the standpoint of T’ien-t’ai thought. Among such masters were Wu-ai P’u-chih, Yen-ching Tao-yen, Chü-an Ta-yu, Yuan-hsi Ch’uan-teng, Ling-yueh Chih-hsü, and Ku-hsi Ch’eng-shih. The most eminent of these was the master Chih-hsü, who advocated the theory that “the

Three Learnings have One [Common] Origin.” Chih-hsü also stressed the necessity of upholding all three traditions—Ch’an, Pure Land, and Vinaya—as an exclusive reliance on any one of them would lead to the decay of Buddhism as a whole. Nevertheless, Chih-hsü believed that the most essential of these Three Learnings was the Pure Land tradition. Contemporary with these masters were the laymen Yuan Hung-tao and Chuang Kuang-huan, who also composed works extolling the Pure Land teachings. During the Ch’ing Dynasty (1616–1911), the Pure Land teachings came to be advocated by an ever larger number of laymen. Active during the K’ang-hsi period were the laymen Chou K’o-fu, Yü Hsing-min, and Chou Meng-yen, who all wrote works encouraging the practice of Pure Land devotions. During the Ch’ien-lung period (1736–1795), the laymen P’eng Chao-sheng and P’eng Hsi-su compiled biographies of persons who had attained rebirth in Sukhåvat?. P’eng Chao-sheng composed an especially large number of works praising Pure Land teachings, and worked for the wider dissemination of these doctrines. Toward the end of the K’ang-hsi period (1662–1722), the monk Shih-hsien Ssu-ch’i, emulating the work of Chu-hung, organized a Pure Land society (lien-she) in Hang-chou. The influence of this society spread widely, and Ssu-ch’i came to be called “Yen-shou come again” (Yungming tsai-lai), and became the object of much popular affection and veneration. This period also saw the activities of the monks Hsing-ts’e, Hsü-fa, Ming-heng, Ming-teh, Ch’i-neng, Fo-an, Shih-ch’eng, and Chihsing. These monks were active in the K’ang-hsi and Ch’ien-lung periods in their cultivation of the Pure Land teachings. At a slightly later period the monks Shui-chang and Hu-t’ing continued to compile biographies of persons who had attained rebirth in the Pure Land. Slightly later, the monks Ta-mo and Wu-k’ai, and the laymen Chang Shih-ch’eng and Chen I-Yuan, wrote works extolling Pure Land practices. From the time of the Sung Dynasty onward, Pure Land teachings especially flourished in southern China. However, with the founding of the Ch’ing Dynasty, the capital of China was moved to the north to the city of Yen-ching (re-named Pei-ching, meaning “the northern capital,” i.e., present-day Peking). At this court, the Tantric Buddhism of Tibet and Mongolia was especially honored, and so it happened that during this dynasty Pure Land doctrines and practices were largely limited to southern China. From the Ming Dynasty onward, Chinese Buddhism appears to have lost some of its vitality and much of its originality and creative genius, and this was evident too in the case of Pure Land literature. Much of the published Pure Land literature consisted of nothing more than excerpts from the writings and thoughts of the great masters of the past.

With the establishment of the Republic, Chinese Buddhism underwent a slight revival. However, with the advent of the Second World War and the subsequent socialist revolution on the Chinese mainland, much Buddhist work came to a halt. This work has been only slightly revived in the last two decades on the island of Taiwan, in Hong Kong, and in certain Southeast Asian centers.

Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History Chapter Two: The Earliest Period, Chapter Two: The Earliest Period, Chapter Two: The Earliest Period, Chapter Two: The Earliest Period, Chapter Two: The Earliest Period, Chapter Three: Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, and Chapter Three: Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, and Chapter Three: Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, and Chapter Three: Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, and Chapter Three: Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, and Chapter Four: The Translation of Texts; Spurious Scriptures Chapter Four: The Translation of Texts; Spurious Scriptures Chapter Four: The Translation of Texts; Spurious Scriptures Chapter Four: The Translation of Texts; Spurious Scriptures Chapter Four: The Translation of Texts; Spurious Scriptures Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki

Translated by Leo M. Pruden

Edited by Richard K. Payne Institute of Buddhist Studies

CHAPTER II: THE EARLIEST PERIOD

1. The Translation of the P’an-shou san-mei ching

Buddhism was introduced into China from the countries of Central Asia and from India, so it is only natural that one of the first requisites of the new faith was for its scriptures to be translated into the Chinese language. The first translation project was initiated in China during the reign of the Latter Han Emperor Huan (reigned 147–167). The monk An Shih-kao is considered to be the first to translate texts into Chinese and is termed “the scripture-translating Tripi†aka Master” ( i-ching

san-tsang ). After him, towards the end of the reign of this Emperor Huan, the monks Chu Fo-shuo and Chih-ch’ien (var. Chih Lokak?ema) arrived in the capital city of Loyang. Here they translated many works of the Prajñåpåramitå corpus, and in so doing effectively began the introduction of Mahåyåna Buddhism into China. Of special interest to us is the fact that at this time Lokak?ema, together with Chu Fo-shuo, translated a text entitled the P’anshou san-mei ching , the Pratyutpanna samådhi s¥tra , a translation finished in the tenth month of 179. It is recorded that two natives of Loyang, Meng Fu and Chang Lien, served as the copyists in this translation work, which is the first text dealing with the Buddha Amitåbha to be translated into Chinese. This work does not give a detailed description of the adornments of the Pure Land, Sukhåvat?, but rather teaches that by means of a certain

meditation, and concentration of mind, one is able to actually see the Buddha Amitåbha of the Western Land. In other words, this text is famous for teaching a method by which one is enabled to see the Buddha while in a state of samådhi . Of all works dealing with Amitåbha and his Pure Land, this was probably the first to be edited into final form, and other Pure Land scriptures, such as the O-mi-t’o

ching and the Ta O-mi-t’o ching , are detailed elaborations of this basic and original text. At the present time, there exist in the Chinese canon some four editions of this one work. Of these four, two of them are identically entitled the P’an-shou san-mei ching : one of these texts being made up of eight chapters (in one Chinese volume, or chüan ) and the other of some sixteen chapters (in three Chinese volumes). Both of these works bear the statement “translated by Chih Lokak?ema of the Latter Han Dynasty,” but it is improbable that one person would have translated two editions of the same work, which differ greatly one from the other, and yet give them exactly the same title. Volume two of the Ch’u san-tsang
chi-chi records that, independently of the above, the Western Chin Dynasty monk, Chu Fa-huo (Dharmarak?ita?) translated a two-volume edition of this work, also entitled the P’an-shou san-mei ching . Perhaps, therefore, one of the two texts ascribed to Lokak?ema was actually translated by this Chu Fa-huo. Also, a certain Pa-p’o P’u-sa ching is a variant translation of the P’anshou san-mei ching . This work is in one Chinese volume, and does not have any chapter divisions in it; the name of its translator has not been preserved for us. In volume three of the Ch’u-san-tsang
chi-chi , in the Catalogue of Old and Variant Scriptures compiled by the Master An (An Shih-kao?), the name of this scripture is given as the Pa-p’o-ta P’u-sa ching . Thus we are able to tell that this work is from the oldest period of scriptural translations, the period dating from before the Fu-ch’in (the Yao Ch’in) Dynasty. Volume one of the Ta Fang-teng Ta-chi ching , in the Bhadrapåla section (the Hsien-huo fen) , also includes this text, and here it is entitled the Hsienhuo ching (the Bhadrapåla s¥tra ). It is divided into seventeen chapters (in five Chinese volumes), and was translated by the monk Jñånagupta. This work is the longest and the most detailed in its narration of the four editions of this one text. In addition to the above, in volume four of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , in a section entitled “The Newly Compiled Continuation of the Scriptural Catalogue of Miscellaneous Scriptures of Unknown Translators,” two other works are mentioned. The first is a one-volume P’an-shou san-mei Nien-fo chang ching (the Pratyutpanna Samådhi Scripture , the Section on Calling the Buddha to Mind), and the second a one-volume I-ch’u P’an-shou san mei ching (the Pratyutpanna samådhi s¥tra , a Variant Translation). This Nien-fo chang ching is perhaps a translation of only one of the chapters of the longer work, whereas the I-ch’u ching is perhaps a variant of the Pa-p’o P’u-sa
ching .

2. The Translation of the Ta O-mi-t’o ching and the Ping-teng ch’üeh ching In the San-kuo period of Chinese history, that is, from 222 to 253, the monk Wu Chih-ch’ien translated a large number of Buddhist scriptures, one of which was the Ta O-mi-t’o ching , in two Chinese volumes, translated at some unknown date during this period. This work is presently included in the canon under this name, but the Kory? edition of this work has the title O-mi-t’o san-ya-san-fo-sa-lo-fa-dan-kuo-tu-pien-tao ching . The Sung Dynasty and the Yuan Dynasty editions give the title as merely the O-mi-t’o ching . [A different work was translated by the monk Kumåraj?va entitled the O-mi-t’o ching and, in order to distinguish these two works, the earlier and longer work has traditionally been entitled the Ta O-mi-t’o ching ]. This is the oldest translation of the Wu-liang-shou ching , a very important Pure Land scripture which describes in great detail the various vows generated by the Buddha Amitåbha while he was still a Bodhisattva (lit: “still in the causal state”), and also describes the various adornments of the Pure Land, Sukhåvat?. Now, it appears that, based on the records of the Li-tai san-pao chi and the K’ai-yuan Shih-chiao lu , the Wu-liang-shou ching had been translated several times from the time of the Latter Han Dynasty onwards. According to these works, the first such translation was the two-volume edition, the Wu-liang-shou ching , translated in the Latter Han Dynasty by the monk An Shih-kao. The second translation was the originally two-volume (not four-volume) edition entitled the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching translated by the monk Chih-ch’ien. The third translation was the above-mentioned Ta O-mi-t’o ching , by the monk Wu Chih-ch’ien, and the fourth translation was a two volume Wu-liang-shou ching by the Wei Dynasty monk K’ang Seng-hui. The Wei Dynasty monk Po-yen translated the fifth, a two-volume work entitled the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching . The sixth translation was a two-volume work, entitled the Wuliang-shou ching , translated by the Western Chin Dynasty monk, Chu Fa-huo. Now, of the six translations of this one work, the only ones mentioned in the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi are the translation of Wu Chih-ch’ien (the third listed above) and the translation of Chu Fa-huo (the sixth listed above). The only editions of these translations which presently exist are the Ta O-mi-t’o ching and the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching (the second and third listed above). This perhaps reflects the fact that in actuality there were only two translations of the Wu-liang-shou ching carried out up to the time of the Western Chin Dynasty. Of these two extant works, all the various scripture catalogues are unanimous in ascribing the translation of the Ta O-mi-t’o ching to the monk Chih-ch’ien. There seems to be no known variation to this attribution.

However, several different names are given as the translators of Chu Fahuo’s edition of the Wu-liang-shou ching ; that is, the remaining four editions of the six listed above are now recognized as these variants. Volume one of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan states that sometime in the Kan-lu period of the Wei Dynasty (256–259), the monk Po-yen translated the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping teng ch’üeh ching . However, the fifth volume of the Li-tai san-pao chi , in turn quoting the Chin-shih tsa-lu , [the Miscellaneous Catalogue from the Chin period , compiled by the Liu-Sung Dynasty monk Tao-tsu] and the Chung-ching

Mu-lu [the Catalogue of Scriptures , compiled by the Liang Dynasty monk Pao-ch’ang], states that sometime during the Chia-ping period of this same Wei Dynasty (249–254) this work was translated under the title of Wu-liang-shou ching by the monk K’ang Seng-hui. But the fourth volume of this same work (the Li-tai san-pao chi) , in its narration of the life of the monk An Shih-kao, states that, according to “a different catalogue” (a pieh lu ), this scripture was translated by An Shih-kao. Furthermore, in this work’s account of the life and activities of the monk Chih-ch’ien, Tao-tsu’s Catalogue of Wu (the Wu-lu) is quoted to the effect that Chih-ch’ien translated this work as the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching . In actual point of fact, however, these are nothing more than variant theories concerning the translation history of this important Pure Land scripture. In the second volume of this same Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , the Chu Fa-huo text, the Wu-liang shou ching , has the variant name of Wu-liang ch’ing-ching
ping-teng ch’üeh ching . Thus it appears to be clearly the case that the various different scripture catalogues called this work either the Wu-liang-shou ching or the Wu-liang ch’ingching ping-teng ch’üeh ching . Although these names differ considerably, they refer to only one text of this scripture. The Li-tai san-pao chi relies heavily on a number of other, earlier scripture catalogues, such as the Chin-shih
tsa-lu , and even the “different catalogue” (the pieh-lu ) [both mentioned above], but can we consider these [presently lost] catalogues to be totally reliable? These various catalogues (more properly, the compilers of these catalogues) did not notice that one and the same scripture is attributed to a number of different translators, living for the most part in different dynasties. These catalogues appear to incorporate (and so to canonize) various theories with respect to the translators’ identities without the least bit of critical judgment being brought to bear. If we arrange these theories in a chronological order, the attributions appear all the more ludicrous. For the present then, we shall adopt the theories given in the Li-tai sanpao chi and the K’ai-Yuan Shih-chiao lu , that is, that the present text of the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching
ping-teng ch’üeh ching is a product of the Latter Han Dynasty translator, Chih-ch’ien. The Wu-lu of Tao-tsu also gives this attribution. However, since this work has not been preserved for us, and

was already lost by the time of the compilation of the Li-tai san-pao chi , it would appear very strange indeed if the compiler of this latter work had trusted to this earlier compiler’s opinions. Even if the compiler of the Li-tai san-pao chi had seen this reference in some other document existing at that time, it is impossible to believe that there would be any reason to acknowledge this one specific tradition as the most accurate from among the rather many variant theories. Of the presently existing scripture catalogues, the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi is the oldest, and has proven to be a reliable source. We can thus safely believe that the Western Chin Dynasty monk, Chu-Fahuo, translated the present text entitled the Wu-liang ch‘ing-ching pingteng ch’üeh ching. Even so, the attribution of this text to Po-yen (attribution in the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan or to K’ang Seng-hui (attribution in the Paochang Lu ) both place this translation in the Liang Dynasty, so perhaps it was a contemporary problem determining who the translator actually was. The descriptions of the Pure Land given in this scripture are almost identical to those given in Chih-ch’ien’s Ta O-mi-t’o ching ; the number of the vows—twenty-four—is also identical, although the order of the vows and their contents differ. Thus, the Sanskrit texts upon which these translations were based, although similar, were different. In addition to the above, the San Kuo—the Three Kingdoms—period and the Chin Dynasty saw the translation of a number of scriptures which recorded many tales giving biographical data concerning the person of the Buddha Amitåbha. Such texts were Wu Chih-ch’ien’s translations of the Hui-yin san mei ching (the Scripture of the Prajñåmudrå Samådhi ) and the Wu-liang men wei mi chih ching ; as well as, the Teh-kuang t’ai-tzu ching (the Scripture of Prince Gu?aprabha), the Ch’ueh-ting tsung-ch’ih ching (the Scripture of the Definitive Dhåra??), the Hsien-ch’üeh ching (the Bhadrakalpa s¥tra), the Ch’eng Fa-hua ching (an edition of the Saddharmapu??ar?ka s¥tra ), the Ch’i chu-fang teng hsüeh ching , the Sheng ching , and the (now lost) Kuang-shih-yin Ta chih-chih shou-ch’üeh

ching (the Scripture on the Future Buddhahood of Avalokite?vara and Mahåsthåmapråpta), all translated by Chu Fa-huo. In volume four of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , in the section “Catalogue of Miscellaneous Scriptures of Unknown Translators,” two short works are mentioned, the O-mi-t’o Fo chieh (A Gåthå [in praise of] the Buddha Amitåbha, and a Hou-ch’u O-mi-t’o Fo chieh (The Latter Work, a Gåthå [in Praise of] the Buddha Amitåbha). The first of these works, the O-mi-t’o fo chieh, is no longer preserved, but the Hou-ch’u O-mi-t’o fo chieh does exist, and is in the Buddhist Canon. It is a short work, with only fourteen lines of five-word verses. The phrase “his twenty-four vows” ( shih erh-shih-ssu chang ) occurs in this work, and while it is not clear whether this is a translation from a Sanskrit or Indic original, or a native Chinese composition, there is no doubt that it does date from before the Liu-Sung Dynasty.

3. The Earliest Period of the Pure Land Faith.

As mentioned above, the monks Wu Chih-ch’ien and Chu Fa-hou translated scriptures concerned with the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitåbha, and soon thereafter these came to be read and recited, and there gradually grew up a number of devotees who sought rebirth in this Western Pure Land. Volume forty-two of the Fa-yuan chu-lin , which quotes the Minghsiang chi , records that the Western Chin monk Ch’üeh Kung-ts’e and his disciple, the layman Wei Shih-tu, were in fact reborn in the Pure Land. According to this passage, Ch’üeh Kung-ts’e was a native of the land of Chao; he was always of a dignified and calm nature, and was diligent in attending religious ceremonies. During the reign of the Emperor Huan of the Chin Dynasty (265–274), Kung-ts’e died in Loyang. His friends and admirers, both monks and laymen, held a memorial service in the Po-ma ssu monastery in that city. When the scriptures were being read that evening, he suddenly appeared before them and said, “I have now been born in the world of Ease and Happiness (Sukhåvat?) in the West, but I have come with a multitude of the Bodhisattvas to listen to the scriptures.” This Ch’üeh Kung-ts’e is thus perhaps the first instance of a Pure Land devotee to appear in the extant Chinese literature. The second volume of T’ang Dynasty monk Fei-hsi’s Nien-fo

san-mei Pao-wang lun records that the Eastern Chin monk Chih Tao-lin and the layman Yü Hsiao-ching both composed a work praising the faith and the character of Kung-ts’e. According to the Ming-hsiang chi, Kung-ts’e’s disciple, the layman Wei Shih-tu, was born in Chi chün (present-day Chi hsien , Honan). According to this account he was a layman who gave himself over to painful ascetic practices, was skilled in literary composition, and on one occasion composed a confession ritual to be recited for the Upavåsatha Ceremony. He is reported to have died in 322. The miraculous character of his personality is recorded in great detail in Hao-hsiang’s Sheng-hsien ch’uan (Biographies of Saints and Worthies), and it is also said that he was reborn in the Pure Land. Volume two of the Ch’u san-tsang
chi-chi also records that Wei Shih-tu compiled an abridged edition of a Prajñåpåramitå text, a two-volume Mo-k’o
P’an-jo po-lo-mi Tao-hsing ching , so, if this account is accurate, he appears to have also been an ardent student of the Prajñåpåramitå. During the end of the Western Chin Dynasty, there lived the monk Chu Seng-hsien. He was a native of North China, and was earnest in both his study of the scriptures and in his cultivation of meditation. Sometime near the end of the T’ai-hsing period of the Eastern Chin Dynasty (321), he journeyed to South China. Here he contracted a serious illness and turned his thoughts to the Pure Land. Upon his death, the Buddha came himself and welcomed him into the Pure Land. At a slightly later date lived the

monk Chu Fa-kuang. A native of Hsia-p’i, he initially studied with the master Chu T’an-yin. After a while he left his master and came to reside in a cave on Mt. Hsien-ch’ing, where he would elucidate the ekayåna teaching of the Lotus S¥tra and teach the methods for attaining rebirth in the Pure Land based on the teachings of the Wu-liang-shou ching . He would constantly recite these two scriptures: if there was an audience he would lecture on these texts, and if he were alone he would merely chant them. In the Hsing-ning era (363–365), Chu Fa-kuang journeyed to Yu-ch’üeh (present day Yuan-wei shan, located in Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang), where he made the acquaintance of Hsi Chao and Hsien Ching-chu. On one occasion he is also recorded to have aided in the curing of villagers during an epidemic. At this time, the monk Chu Tao-lin constructed an image of the Buddha Amitåbha, and Chu Fa-kuang collected donations from various devotees and had a large temple constructed to house this image. These events are recorded in the fifth and the eleventh volumes of the Liang Kaoseng ch’uan . In this account, however, when it speaks of Fa-kuang lecturing on the Wu-liang-shou ching , this I believe refers to the Chu Fa-huo translation of the Wu-jiang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching . In any case, it is the first record of a lecture being given on a Pure Land scripture in China. In the early years of the Eastern Chin Dynasty, there lived the monk Chih Tun ( tzu Tao-lin). A native of Ch’en-liu (the present-day K’ai-feng), he early studied the Tao-hsing ching (a Prajñåpåramitå text, see above) and the Hui-yin san-mei ching . He was a close friend of the laymen Wang Hsia, Hsi Chao and Sun Ch’o. Chih Tun composed some works, among which are the Chi-hsin Yü-hsüan lun , and the Tao-hsing Chih-kuai , and died at age fifty-two in 366. On one occasion he commissioned an artist to cast an image of the Buddha Amitåbha, and himself composed a work in praise of this Buddha. This is preserved in volume fifteen of the Kuang Hung-ming chi , entitled the O-mi-t’o Fo-hsiang

ts’an ping hsü (Introduction and Praises of the Image of the Buddha Amitåbha). This work contains the words, “In the five last reigns of this the Chin land, the true precepts of the Buddha have been esteemed. The O-mi-t’o ching has been recited, and [many] have vowed to be born in that Pure Land. Those who have not been lax in their sincerity have seen the miraculous welcoming at their deaths, and in transformation ( hua ) they have gone there and seen the Buddha. Their spirits ( shen ) have been enlightened and they have attained bodhi.” This composition reflects the fact that Chih Tun himself recited Chih-ch’ien’s translation of the O-mit’o ching , and that he too sought rebirth in the Pure Land as taught in that scripture. It is unclear which of the two above Buddha images, that of Chu Tao-lin or that of Chih Tun, was made first, but in any early years of the Eastern Chin Dynasty onwards, more and more images of the Buddha Amitåbha came to be made and enshrined in various places.

In the sixteenth volume of the Fa-yuan chu-lin , in the section on the Bodhisattva Maitreya, it is recorded that during the Chin Dynasty there was a man by the name of Tsai K’uei ( tzu An-tao) of the land of Ch’iao. He fled to the state of Wu and there studied the Buddhadharma. He made statues of the Bodhisattvas attendant on Amitåbha, but those who looked at them criticized these works. So he continued work on them, improving their appearance. After three years they were finally finished and enshrined in the Ling-pao ssu Monastery in Shan-yin (located in present-day Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang). Soon thereafter, the layman Hsi Chao of Kaoping came and did homage to them; when he did so rays of light were emitted by the backs of the images, and it is recorded that “all those who witnessed this, be they cleric or laymen, gave rise to the Bodhi Mind.” The ninety-fourth volume of the Chin Shu (the Standard History of the Chin Dynasty) records that during the reign of the Emperor Hsiao-wu of the Eastern Chin Dynasty this Tsai K’uei passed his civil service examination. This entitled him to be an Imperial Tutor to the Crown Prince. However, he declined this post, and on this occasion he fled his native state of Ch’iao for Wu. So, based on this information, he must have cast these images sometime during the T’ai-yuan period, 378 to 395. The twenty-ninth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan and the thirteenth volume of the Fa-yuan chu-lin state that the monk Tao-an in the fourth month of the third year of Ning-k’ang (of the Eastern Chin Dynasty, 375) had cast a metal image of Amitåbha, approximately six feet seven inches in height, for the T’an-hsi ssu Monastery in Hsiang-yang (located in Hupei province). In the winter of the following year, its decorations and adornments were completed, and the monastery’s name was changed to that of the Chin-hsiang ssu (the Monastery of the Golden Image). Furthermore, the fifteenth volume of the Kuang Hung-ming chi preserves for us a poem of praises of this image composed by the monk Tao-an. This work is entitled “Introduction and Praises for the OneChang SixSun Golden Image of Hsiang-yang, of the Chin Dynasty,” but it does not say anything about this image being a statue of the Buddha Amitåbha, nor does it anywhere refer to his Pure Land. The poem, however, has the phrase: “eminent indeed are the actions of Ûåkya[muni] in the world.” Furthermore, the fifth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan only speaks of a copper image, and does not mention any name for it. Therefore, this image is not of Amitåbha, but must be acknowledged as a statue of the Buddha Ûåkyamuni. Soon after this event, the eminent monk Hui-yuan organized the White Lotus Society ( Pai-lien-she) on Mt. Lu in the year 402, during the rule of the Eastern Chin Dynasty. In the organization of this society, its members made collective vows in front of an image of the Buddha Amitåbha in a monastery, the P’an-jo t’ai ching-she (the Prajñå Pavilion Vihåra), as recorded in the text of these vows, composed by the layman Liu I-min. Thus, there was an image of the Buddha Amitåbha enshrined on Mt. Lu

(located in present-day Chiu-chiang hsien , Kiangsi), at roughly the same period as the construction of the above-mentioned images. A number of scriptural passages refer to the construction of Buddha images. The chapter “Four Things,” in the P’an-jo san-mei ching , states that, if one wishes to quickly attain to this pratyutpanna-samådhi , he should construct an image of the human form of the Buddha. Also, in explaining the reasons for constructing an image of the Buddha, the chapter “On the Bodhisattva Dharmak?ema” in the tenth volume of the Tao-hsing p’an-jo ching states that even though the spirit ( shen) of the deity is not within the image, if one should call the Buddha to mind, and make p¥jå offerings to his image, then he will attain blessings. The P’u-sa penyeh ching , translated by Wu Chih-ch’ien, has the passage, “If one sees a picture of the Buddha, or his image, he should vow that all sentient beings may see such in all of the ten directions, and that their eyes may be without obstruction or covering.” With these references as the authority for such activities, the Three Kingdoms period and afterwards saw an increased interest in the construction of Buddha images. Most especially, the P’an-jo san-mei

ching states “if one wishes to quickly attain to this pratyutpanna-samådhi , one should construct an image of the human form of the Buddha.” This says clearly that if one visualizes, with one-pointedness of mind, an image of the human form of the Buddha, he will quickly attain to samådhi , and be able to see the True [[[form]] of the] Buddha. Such teachings are also taken up in the ninth volume of the Kuan Fo san-mei hai
ching , in the chapter “Visualizing the Buddha,” and the Visualization on an Image [of the Buddha] given in the Kuan Wuliang-shou ching . Such texts teach that one should set up an image of the Buddha and use it as a source of visualization. Also at this time, the passage in the Tao-hsing p’an-jo ching to the effect that construction of such images would be a source of blessings served as a further source of incentive for such pious works. Nevertheless, the primary and original purpose for the construction of an image of the Buddha was to serve as an object of meditation or visualization, for the more rapid success in the attainment of samådhi , and more specifically for the attainment of the pratyutpannasamådhi , the samådhi in which the devotee sees at the present time ( pratyutpanna ) the real and true form of the Buddha. Thus, the construction of images of the Buddha Amitåbha, in the early decades of the growing faith in him, was a response to this religious need. Later generations were to see the construction of these same images as actual representations of the deity in whom one was to take refuge, and who was to be worshiped and prayed to. Such images came to be worshiped and venerated, and the image then came to be regarded as an image of the True Buddha, of the Dharmakåya of the Buddha Amitåbha, a function of the image somewhat at variance with the original, and scriptural, teaching with respect to such images.

CHAPTER III: HUI-YUAN OF MT. LU

1. The Life of Hui-yuan

The monk Hui-yuan (334–416) organized the White Lotus Society on Mt. Lu (located in Chiu-chiang hsien) , in Kiangsi province, and together with his disciples, both lay and clerics, he is reputed to have strenuously cultivated the nien-fo san-mei , the samådhi of calling the Buddha to remembrance. These were events of outstanding fame in the history of Chinese Buddhism for, beginning with them, Pure Land teachings underwent a sudden growth in popularity, and the influence of this organization, and of the personality of Hui-yuan, had a lasting impression on subsequent generations of Pure Land followers. Even today, Hui-yuan is generally venerated as the First Patriarch of the Pure Land Tradition, termed the “Lien tsung,” or the “Lotus (i.e., the White Lotus) Tradition.” Hui-yuan was born during the reign of the Emperor Ch’eng of the Eastern Chin Dynasty, in Lo fan in the province of Ying-men (located in present-day Kuo hsien, Tai-chou, in Shansi). At the age of twelve he began his studies in the city of Hsü-lo (present-day Hsü-chou, Honan). He studied all of the six Confucian Classics, and is recorded to have been especially proficient in the teachings of Chuang-Lao (the works of Chuangtzu and Lao-tzu). At age twenty he went to the monastery of Tao-an, in the T’ai-hsing-heng Mountains (located in present-day Hun-yuan chou, Tat’ung fu, Shansi), and there attended Tao-an’s lectures on the Prajñåpåramitå . Here, too, he attained a state of awakening. Then, together with his younger brother, he shaved his head and became Tao-an’s disciple, taking now for the first time the name of Hui-yuan (his brother became Hui-ch’i). Day and night, Hui-yuan was earnest in the continuation of his studies. Soon Hui-yuan, with some four hundred other disciples, followed Tao-an to the city of Hsiang-yang, which, in 379, fell to the army of Fu Ch’ien. Taoan was about to leave the city of Hsiang-yang to return to the city of Ch’angan, but Hui-yuan parted from his master and, together with ten of his disciples, went to Ching-chou (present-day Ching-ling hsien , Ching-chou fu, Hupei). In 381, he first settled on Mt. Lu, lodging in the Lung-ch’uan ching-she (the Dragon Spring Vihåra). Soon thereafter, the Military Commander of Chiang-chou, Huan Yin, constructed the Tung-lin ching-she and contributed it to Hui-yuan for his use. Hui-yuan took up residence in the Tung-lin ching-she, had a meditation hall constructed within the compound of this monastery, and had a temple raised with pictures of the Buddha painted on its walls. Soon, a statue of the Emperor A?oka was

received from the city of Wu-ch’ang, and this image was installed in the temple. During this time Hui-yuan and his disciples gave themselves over to a constant round of services in the monastery. In 391, the Kuchan ?rama?a Sanghadeva was welcomed to Lu-shan, and it was here that he translated the O-pi-t’an

hsin lun (the Abhidharma H®daya ) and the San-fatu lun . In the following year Hui-yuan dispatched his disciple, Chih Faling, to Central Asia to search for Sanskrit manuscripts of scriptures. Hui-yuan’s fame spread far and wide, and he gathered together a large number of both monastic and lay followers. Since it was his desire that his followers avoid worldly fame and devote themselves to the spread of the Buddha’s teachings, in the seventh month of 402 he assembled some one hundred twenty-three of his followers, including the laymen Liu I-min and Lai Tz’u-tsung, in front of an image of the Buddha Amitåbha within the P’an-jo t’ai ching-she. There they had a p¥jå offering and together made vows to be reborn into the Western Pure Land, and began their cultivation of the nien-fo san-mei . This is what has come to be known as the founding of the White Lotus Society, the Pai-lien she , and, as such, is the first founding on Chinese soil of a religious confraternity or fellowship dedicated to the worship of the Buddha Amitåbha. Originally, however, it emphasized cultivation of the visualization-meditation of this Buddha. On this occasion, the layman Liu I-min composed the text of their vows. Later he composed a series of poems in praise of the Pure Land of Amitåbha, and in all, this work has come down to us as the Nien-fo san-mei shih chi , (A Collection of Shih poems on the Samådhi of Recalling the Buddha). Hui-yuan himself composed the Introduction, the Hsü , to this collection. In the following year, Huan Hsüan proclaimed himself king in the Chiang-tung region and commanded that all should bow down to him in submission of his kingship, including the Buddhist monastic clergy. In opposition to this order, Hui-yuan composed the Sha-men
pu ching wangche lun , (An Essay on Why Ûrama?as Do not Tender Homage to Kings). When Kumåraj?va arrived in the northern capital city of Ch’ang-an, Hui-yuan initiated a correspondence with him, sending him articles in token of his friendship and respect for him. In his correspondence, Huiyuan asked Kumåraj?va to answer some eighteen doubts that Hui-yuan had with respect to certain points in Mahåyåna Buddhist doctrine, the Wen Ta-ch’eng chung shen-i Shih-pa-k’o . In 405 (the seventh year of Hung-shih, of the Yao-Ch’in Dynasty), Kumåraj?va finished his compilation of the Tachih-tu lun , a work traditionally held to be the master Någårjuna’s commentary on the Prajñåpåramitå scripture. The Emperor Yao Hsing, ruler of the Yao-Ch’in Dynasty, sent a copy of this work to Hui-yuan, and requested him to compose an Introduction for it. Hui-yuan is also reputed to have compiled a twenty-volume abridgement of this work, the Ta-chih-tu lun Yao-lüeh .

At roughly this time, too, the monk Buddhabhadra arrived in the capital city of Ch’ang-an; he soon left Ch’ang-an and took up residence on Mt. Lu, and there Hui-yuan requested him to translate the Ta-mo-to-lo ch’an

ching (the Dhyåna Scripture According to Dharmatara). When this work was finished, Hui-yuan requested Buddhabhadra to give instruction in its meditational techniques. Hui-yuan lived on Mt. Lu for over thirty years without once leaving the mountain. He would see honored guests off, but only as far as the Hu Stream that bounded the fastness of the mountain. Hui-yuan became ill in the eighth month of 416; on the sixth day of this month his condition became critical, and all the inhabitants of his monastery stood watch around his bed. He was requested to take a little wine as medicine, but he refused to do so on the grounds that it was not allowed in the Vinaya . He was requested to take a little rice gruel as medicine, and this he also refused to take for the same reason. He was then requested to take a little water mixed with honey; he summoned a Vinaya master and asked if such was allowed by the Vinaya. The master then began to read through the pages of the Vinaya Pi†aka searching out such legislation, but before he could finish his search, Hui-yuan died, being at that time eighty-two years of age. He was buried on the western slope of Mt. Lu; stones were gathered for a memorial st¥pa , and the eminent writer Hsieh Ling-yün composed his memorial inscription. Some four hundred years later, in 848, during the reign of the Emperor Hsuan-tsang of the T’ang Dynasty, Hui-yuan was awarded the posthumous title Pien-ch’üeh ta-shih, “the Great Master, Discerner of Enlightenment.” In 939 he was again awarded the title of Ch’eng-ch’üeh, “of Correct Enlightenment.” In 978 he was awarded the title of Huan-wu, “of Perfect Awakening.” Finally in 1166 the Southern Sung Dynasty Emperor Hsiaotsung combined a number of the above titles into a fuller title, Ch’engch’üeh Huan-wu ta-shih, ”the Great Master of Correct Enlightenment and Perfect Awakening.” So we can see that his virtue was the object of veneration and honor for many generations after his death. Hui-yuan composed a large number of works. The sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan records that Hui-yuan composed over fifty assorted “essays, introductions, inscriptions, praises, poems, and letters,” filling ten volumes. His corpus is known as the Lu-shan chi , the Mt. Lu Collection , and this collection holds his complete works. The seventh volume of the Li-tai san-pao chi and the third volume of the Ta-T’ang Nei-tien lu record fourteen titles in a total of thirty-five volumes, beginning with his major works, the Ta-chih-tu lun Yao-lueh (in twenty volumes) and the Wen Ta-ch’eng chung shen-i Shih-pa-k’o (in three volumes). Of the works listed, his Sha-men pu
ching wang-che lun , Shamen tsu-fu lun , Ming pao-ying lun , and San-pao lun are preserved in the fifth volume of the Hung-ming chi . Various of his shorter works, such as

the Nien-fo san-mei shih-chi hsü (his Introduction to Liu I-min’s poems on the Pure Land, see above), and his Ta-chih-tu lun ch’ao-hsü are preserved in such compilations as the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , the Hung-ming chi , and the Kuang Hung-ming chi . His Wen Ta-ch’eng chung shen-i

Shih-pa k’o also has the variant title of Chiu-ma-lo-shih
fa-shih ta-i (The Major Teachings of the Dharma Master Kumåraj?va), and this work has been included in the Taishø Daizøkyø under this title.

2. Hui-Yuan’s nien-fo Thought The organization of Pure Land activities initiated by Hui-yuan consisted of seeing the Buddha by means of the nien-fo san-mei , the Samådhi of Calling the Buddha to Remembrance; through this cultivation Hui-yuan and his disciples hoped to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Since the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching had not yet been translated into Chinese, it must be recognized that the basis for this practice lay in the teachings of the P’anshou san-mei ching According to his own Nien-fo san-mei shih-chi hsü (preserved in the thirtieth volume of the Kuang Hung-ming

chi ), samådhi consists of concentrating the mind ( ch’uan ssu ) and calming the thoughts ( chi hsiang) , that is, developing one-pointedness of mind so that it is not dispersed in various kinds of thoughts. When one’s thoughts are thus stilled, one can “penetrate into things” ( ch’e wu ). If the mind is one-pointed and thoughts are stilled, one’s ch’i becomes empty and his spirit ( shen ) becomes clear and bright. A wisdom that clearly reflects all things will automatically be generated, and one will be able to penetrate into profound and minute things. However, there are various different kinds of samådhi , the most meritorious and the easiest to progress in being the nien-fo san-mei . The reason for this is that the Tathågata has penetrated the mysterious and has exhausted all stillness; his spirit is totally at one with change and so conforms to all beings in accord with what is fitting for them. When one has entered this samådhi , all obscure knowledge is forgotten, and one is able to clearly reflect the external spheres of sense perception which normally condition the mind. That is, since this reflective wisdom has become clear, internal clarity of perception reflects external events, and all the myriad forms and images are generated; even those spheres which are not within the range of the eyes and ears are nevertheless heard and seen. If one’s mind becomes exclusively concentrated and one-pointed, and all other thoughts are stilled, one will automatically generate this reflective mind, and it is clear that one will be able to see the realm or the sphere of the Buddhas. In the vows written by Liu I-min for the White Lotus Society, the Pailien she shih-wen (preserved in volume fifteen of the Ch’u san-tsang chichi ), it says, “The spirit can be felt, but cannot be discovered by means of

any tracks if one would feel it. If there is anyone who feels that he perceives it, then it is mysterious and beyond knowing. If one would search it out, then it is masterless and as vast and deep as a river or bay . . . .” That is, if one takes the Buddha as the object of his visualization, then it is easy to feel this spirit. But if there is no object of visualization or meditation, then it is vague and formless, and can be as unknown as the depth of a bay or river, and one will be unable to accomplish his samådhi . We can see to what extent Hui-yuan regarded the nien-fo san-mei as being lofty in its merits, and easy to progress in. Also, a letter sent from Hui-yuan to Liu I-min (preserved in the seventeenth volume of the Kuang Hung-ming chi ) records that “I-min was extreme in his diligence and energy, kept all of the prohibitory precepts, and spent over half a year in one-pointed sitting in meditation. He perceived the Buddha in samådhi , and would encounter the image [of the Buddha] while walking along the road. The Buddha would appear to him in the sky, and his light would brighten both heaven and earth, turning all things to a golden color.” That is, Liu-I-min attained this nien-fo san-mei , the samådhi of calling the Buddha to remembrance, and saw the Buddha everywhere. From the above testimony then, we can clearly see that the White Lotus Society founded by Hui-yuan on Mt. Lu had for its aim the cultivation of the samådhi as described in the P’an-shou

san-mei ching . The goal of this cultivation was to see the Buddha while one was still alive ( hsien-shen chien-fo ). In his correspondence with Kumåraj?va, Hui-yuan once asked him concerning the Buddha that is perceived in samådhi , and Kumåraj?va’s reply is preserved. When one sees the Buddha in the samådhi as described in the P’an-shou
san-mei ching , the scripture likens this to going to another country in a dream, and there talking with people, and the scripture uses this simile of the dream many times. But a dream is of the realm of ordinary, unenlightened beings, and is ultimately not real; if in a dream one gives rise to delusions, or if he gives rise to understanding, this is still nothing more than a construction of the mind. But, according to that scripture, it is taught that if one sees the Buddha through this nien-fo san-mei , one can ask the Buddha questions concerning Dharma, and have one’s doubts resolved. Now, if seeing the Buddha in this samådhi is identical to seeing the Buddha in a dream, it will be only a construction of one’s own mind, and he will be only a Buddha seen in a dream. It is impossible that such a Buddha would be able to put an end to our doubts. But if the Buddha truly comes to us from a sphere external to ourselves, then it is not fitting to use the dream simile. Also, the scripture teaches that the samådhi is attained through three things—the keeping of the Precepts without transgressing them, the power of the merits of the devotee, and the miraculous, supernormal power of the Buddha. Now, is this miraculous, supernormal power of the Buddha that of the Buddha as perceived in the samådhi , or is it the power of the Buddha

that comes to the devotee from outside of himself? If this refers to the Buddha perceived in the samådhi , a mere construction of one’s own thoughts, his miraculous powers likewise simply come out of the devotee’s own person. But if this really refers to a Buddha external to the samådhi , and this holy one exists apart from any dream, it is not fitting that its existence should be likened to a dream as in the simile. In reply to this, Kumåraj?va answers that there are many ways in which one may see a Buddha. One may attain divine eyes and divine ears and so see the Buddha, or one may attain supernormal powers ( ®ddhi ) and fly to where the Buddhas of the ten directions reside. One is then able to see the Buddha, and ask the Buddha concerning the Dharma, having one’s doubts removed. But, if one has not yet cut off his desires, and so has not attained these supernormal powers, it is best to constantly meditate on all the various Buddhas of the present time, such as the Buddha Amitåbha. If one is able to concentrate his mind on one object, then he will be able to see the Buddha and have his doubts resolved. Keeping one’s mind in one place is the basic reason for searching out the path of the Buddhas. But if one is without faith, then one will not know how to cultivate the teachings of dhyåna and samådhi and, if one is unable to attain supernormal powers, then he will never be able to see all the Buddhas. It is for this reason, then, that the scripture uses the simile of a dream, for by the power of a dream one is able to travel to distant places and see distant things. In a similar manner, if one enters into the pratyutpanna-samådhi , it is by the power of the samådhi that one is able to see the Buddhas in other distant places. Now the Buddha seen in the samådhi comes basically from one’s own cognitive discriminative thoughts, but the sphere that does the seeing is neither empty nor false. The reason for this is that all the scriptures taught by the Buddha Ûåkyamuni clearly teach that the Buddha Amitåbha does possess all the marks of a physical body. Also, the P’an-shou san-mei ching posits many different kinds of teachings, one being that one should call to remembrance the fact that the Buddha Amitåbha is now in the west. And not only this, but the body of the Buddha has, indeed, definite and definitive marks. So even though some may say that this image is the product of cognitive and discriminative thoughts, and is both empty and false, it is taught in scripture that the body of the Buddha arises from all of its various conditions and is without self-nature, being ultimately empty and still, like a dream or a phantom. Therefore, if one cultivates as one is taught (in scripture), one should not hold that only the seeing of the body of the Buddhas is empty and false. For if one holds that this is empty and false, then one must also say that all things are empty and false. With respect to the use of the dream simile in the P’an-shou san-mei ching , Huiyuan asks, since dreams are empty and false, is not the Buddha perceived in the samådhi likened to a dream also empty and false? In response to Huiyuan’s question as to whether this samådhi is not the “sphere which is only

a shadow,” as taught in the Wei-shih Tradition, Kumåraj?va answers that the use of the dream is only a simile, and that the Buddha perceived in the samådhi is not empty and false like the realm of dreams, but that it is through the power of the samådhi that one is able to see the Buddha Amitåbha who is presently existing in the far distant West. This image of the Buddha as perceived by the devotee is best explained as being of “the sphere which embraces substance,” as taught in the Wei-shih Tradition. Hui-yuan’s acceptance of this teaching is seen in a phrase composed by him in his Introduction to the Nien-fo

san-mei shih-chi , where he says, “The Honored One who has plumbed the mysterious and who has delimited stillness is termed the Thus-Gone ( Tathågata ). He has embodied his spirit and is one with change, and this without any limit whatsoever. Thus, in order to cause one to enter into this samådhi , in a most mysterious manner he forgets all cognitive thoughts, and his mind is illumined by the reflection of the external spheres of sense perception.” In other words, Huiyuan now came to understand that the Buddha comes from a sphere external to the devotee, and causes the devotee to see his form.

3. The White Lotus Society: Hui-yuan’s Disciples North China, at this time, saw the capital city of Ch’ang-an conquered and overrun several times, and was in a state of almost uninterrupted war and chaos. The south of China was a land of peace and tranquility, and, most especially, Mt. Lu was a scene of serenity and great natural beauty. Not only was it truly a location cut off from the affairs of the outside world, but it was a site wherein a great monk dwelled, Hui-yuan, and where the Buddha-dharma was proclaimed. Thus, many Chinese literati of the day, longing for a site for still contemplation and rest from the turmoil of the world, flocked to Mt. Lu in great numbers, until it came to be said that the visitors on the mountain numbered some three thousand! The members of the White Lotus Society numbered one hundred and twenty-three, as is stated in the vows composed by Liu I-min. Through the years, various works have attempted to give us the names of the members of the society. The fifteenth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi gives the names of only four of the society’s members: Liu I-min of P’eng-ch’eng (present-day Hsuchou, Kiangsi), Chou Hsü-chih of Yin-men (present-day Tai hsien , Shansi), Pi Ying-chih of Hsin-ts’ai (present-day Hsin-ts’ai hsien , Honan), and Tsung Ping of Nan-yang. The sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan gives only three more names in addition to those given above: Lai Ts’utsung of Yü-chang (present-day Nan-ch’ang hsien , Kiangsi), Chang Laimin, and Li Shih. The T’ang Dynasty monk, Fei-hsi, in the second volume of his Nien-fo san-mei Pao-wang lun , gives the names of nine members of the White Lotus Society; Hui-ch’ih (Hui-yuan’s younger brother), Hui-yung, Tsung Ping, Chang Yeh, Liu I-min, Lai Tz’u-tsung, Chou Hsü-chih, Hsieh Lingyun, and Ch’üeh Kung-ts’e. The Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan (the Biographies of the Eighteen Eminent Worthies of the Tung-lin Monastery) gives the names of eighteen persons: Hui-yuan, Hui-yung, Hui-ch’ih, Tao-sheng, T’an-shun, Seng-ying (a mistake for Hui-ying), T’an-heng, Tao-ping, T’an-hsien, Taoching, Buddhayasa, Buddhabhadra, Liu Ch’eng-chih, Chang Yeh, Chou Hsü-chih, Chang Ch’uan, Tsung Ping, and Lai Tz’u-tsung. The twenty-sixth volume of the Fo-tsu t’ung-chi mentions the one hundred and twenty-eight members of the original White Lotus Society in a section separate and apart from these eighteen worthies. The Fo-tsu t’ung-chi then gives the names of some thirty-seven persons who in the authors opinion were original members of the society: T’an-i, T’an-yü, Seng-chi, Hui-kung, Fa-an, and Fa-ching; Fa-ling, Hui-pao, Hui-yao, Sengch’e, and Hui-jan (whose biographies are included in the Tung-lin ch’uan) ; T’an-wei and Tao-hung (who are mentioned in the Lu-shan chi); T’an-lan and Fa-yeh (who are mentioned in the Ch’ih-shih ch’uan); Hui-i, Hui-yen, Hui-kuan, and T’an-kuo (who are mentioned in the biography of Buddhabhadra); Yuan-pi (mentioned in the biography of the master T’anyu, above); Seng-kuang (mentioned in the biography of the master Sengch’i, above); Hui-chan, Hui-lan, Ch’ueh-kung Ts’e, Pi Ying-chih (mentioned in the biography of the master Hui-kung, above); Meng Huai-yü (mentioned in the biography of Liu I-min); Wang Chiao-chih, Yin Yin, Mao Hsiu-chih, Ku wei, Wang Mu-yeh, Ho Hsiao-chih, Fan Yueh-chih, Chang Wen-i, and Meng Ch’ang-shih (mentioned in the Lu-shan chi); and Meng Ssu-ma and Lu Hsiu-ching. In addition to these names, the Fo-tsu t’ung-chi also gives T’ao Yuan-ming, Hsieh Ling-yün, and Fan Ning as the names of “various worthies who did not enter the society.” The many names given in the Fo-tsu t’ung-chi are perhaps the names of the clerical disciples of Hui-yuan, or just the names of persons who happened to have visited Huiyuan on Mt. Lu, many of whom had no direct contact with the founding of the White Lotus Society. Let us take a closer examination of the names given in the Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan . Hui-yung is listed, in the sixth volume of the Liang

Kao-seng ch’uan , as being the abbot of the Hsi-lin ssu Monastery on Mt. Lu, and as being a close personal friend of Hui-yuan. He is also reported to have desired to be reborn in the western Pure Land by means of his intense cultivation of severe physical austerities, so perhaps he became a member of the White Lotus Society. Hui-ch’ih was, as we have seen, the younger brother of Hui-yuan. Although he may have desired rebirth in the western Pure Land, he left Mt.

Lu for the state of Shu in 399 (three years before the founding of the society), so he could not have participated in the society’s founding. Tao-sheng and Hui-ying are both recorded, in the fifteenth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi and in the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , respectively, to have lived on Mt. Lu, but it is not recorded that they especially strove for rebirth in the Pure Land. T’an-shun was, according to the sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan (in the biography of Tao-tsu), a native of Huang-lung. When young, he studied under Kumåraj?va, and afterwards studied under Hui-yuan. He later moved to the Chu-lin ssu Monastery in Chiang-ling (present-day Chiang-ling hsien , Hupei), where he became its abbot. According to the Tung-lin Shih-Pa Kao-hsien ch’uan , he died in 425 at the age of seventyeight. T’an-heng is listed in the Index to the Ming-seng

ch’uan Mu-lu (written by the Liang Dynasty monk Pao-ch’ang) as a resident of the Tung-ssu (the Eastern Monastery) on Mt. Lu, even though his biography is not included in the Meisødenshø of Sh¥shø. According to the Tung-lin Shih-pa
Kaohsien ch’uan , T’an-heng was a native of Ho-tung (present-day Yung-ch’i hsien , Shansi); he became a monk under Hui-yuan and was widely read in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist literature. Going to Mt. Lu, he is reported to have exclusively practiced Pure Land practices, dying in 418 at the age of seventy-one. Tao-ping is reported, in the Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan , to have been a native of Ying-ch’uan (present-day Yu hsien , Honan). At an early age, he became a disciple of Hui-yuan and read both the scriptures Vinayas , as well as being conversant in the Chuang-Lao teachings. He is reported to have constantly practiced the nien-fo san-mei . At the request of the Governor of Yu-chang, one Wang Ch’ien, Tao-ping was requested in 418 to succeed Hui-yuan as the leader of the monastic community on Mt. Lu, dying in this position at the age of seventy in 435. Thus Tao-ping was the second master of the Tung-lin Monastery on Mt. Lu. T’an-hsien is described in the Ming-seng ch’uan Mu-lu as a (Liu)-Sung Dynasty inhabitant of Mt. Lu and, in the biography of Tao-tsu given in the sixth volume of the Liang
Kao-seng ch’uan , was described as having a cultivated and refined demeanor. He composed a commentary on the Weimo
ching (the Vimalak?rti-nirde?a ), as well as a work entitled the Ch’ingt’ung lun (An Essay that Penetrates All). In the Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan , T’an-hsien was a native of Kuang-ling (present-day Chiang-tu hsien , Kiangsu), who compiled the records of the White Lotus Society and wrote the biographies of those who attained rebirth, dying in 440 at the age of seventy-nine. Tao-ching was, according to both the thirteenth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan and the Tung-lin ch’uan , a great-grandson of the eminent calligrapher Wang Hsi-chih. At an early age he became a disciple of Hui yuan, but only undertook one precept, as well as the nien-fo practice, which he cultivated day and night without ceasing. After the death of Hui-yuan, Tao-ching moved to Mt. Jo-hsieh (located in present-day Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang), dying there at the age of age of fifty-one in 420. According to the twenty-third volume of the Kuang Hung-ming chi , the Liu-Sung Dynasty layman Chang Ch’ang composed a eulogy for the Master Tao-ching upon his death, the Jo-hsieh shan Ching Fa-shih lei , which is preserved for us in the pages of the Kuang Hung-ming chi The above five monks—T’an-shun, T’an-heng, Tao-ping, T’an-hsien, and Tao-ching—were direct disciples of Hui-yuan, and so may have become members of the White Lotus Society. The biography of the monk Buddhaya?a is given in the fourteenth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi and in the second volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , but nowhere in these works is it recorded that he ever lived on Mt. Lu. However, according to the Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan , he moved to Mt. Lu in 412, and there became a member of the Society. This account is perhaps not factual. Buddhabhadra, however, did live on Mt. Lu. Acceding to the request of Hui-yuan, he translated a meditation scripture, and later, after leaving Mt. Lu, Buddhabhadra lived in Yang-tu (present-day Chiang-tu hsien , Kiangsu), where he translated the Hsin Wu-liang-shou ching and the Kuan Fo san-mei ching . According to the second volume of the Nien-fo san-mei Pao-wang lun , Hui-yuan learned the nien-fo san-mei from Buddhabhadra. If this was the case, relations between Hui-yuan and Buddhabhadra must have been very close, but I think it improbable that an Indian Tripi†aka Master would have joined the White Lotus Society. Let us now take a close look at some of the individuals who are reputed to have been among the one hundred and twenty-three members of the White Lotus society. According to the thirteenth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk T’an-i was a native of Yu-hang (present-day Ch’ien-t’ang hsien , Hang-chou fu , Chekiang). He initially went to Mt. Lu, where he studied with Hui-yuan, and later left for North-Central China (the Kuan-chung area), where he studied with Kumåraj?va. In 417, he went to Mt. Ch’inwang near K’uai-chi (located in present-day Hang-chou, Chekiang), where he constructed the Fa-hua ching-she (the Lotus [ S¥tra ] Vihåra), dying there in 450 at the age of sixty-nine. T’an-yu was, according to the Ming seng-ch’uan Mu-lu , a resident of the Tung-ssu Monastery on Mt. Lu. According to the sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , he was a native of the Kuan-chung area of NorthCentral China, and was an official in the employ of the state of Ch’in, rising to the rank of General. He met the master Tao-an and became a monk under his guidance, and later moved to Mt. Lu to study under Hui-yuan. It was T’an-yu’s task to write letters for Hui-yuan, and on several occasions he

delivered them to Kumåraj?va in Ch’ang-an. He carried out this task for over ten years, moving later to the Chu-lin ssu Monastery (the Bamboo Grove Vihåra, Skt. Veluvana-vihåra) in Ching-chou (present-day Chiangling hsien , Hupei), where he eventually died. The monk Seng-chi moved to Mt. Lu sometime during the T’ai-yuan period (376–397), where he studied under Hui-yuan. Later, he became seriously ill and began to concentrate his thoughts on the Buddha Amitåbha. Hui-yuan sent a light to him; he took this and set it on a low table for use as an object of concentration, and thus stilled his thoughts. At night, the congregation of monks would assemble and recite the Wu-liang-shou ching repeatedly, and as a result it is reported that Seng-chi perceived the Buddha of Unlimited Life in his dream. Since these above monks were disciples of Hui-yuan, it is probable that they joined the White Lotus Society. Hui-kung was, according to the Tung-lin ch’uan , a native of the city of Feng-ch’eng in Yu-chang (present-day Feng-ch’eng hsien , Kiangsi), and was a fellow student of the monks Seng-kuang, Hui-chan, and Hui-lan. These three monks died one after the other, each giving off miraculous signs. Later, Hui-kung himself became seriously ill and turned all of his attention to the Pure Land. At his death, the Buddha came in person and welcomed him to the Pure Land. Fa-an was, according to the sixth volume of the Liang

Kao-seng ch’uan , a disciple of Hui-yuan; he was energetic in the keeping of the Precepts, lectured on many various scriptures, and at the same time also cultivated meditation. Sometime during the I-hsi period (405–419), he is reputed to have removed a plague of tigers that was terrorizing the inhabitants of the Hsin-yang hsien (is this present-day Ching-shan hsien , Hupei?). In their gratitude the villagers turned a local shrine into a Buddhist monastery, installing Fa-an there as its abbot. Fa-ching was the monk, according to the fifteenth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi (in the biography of Hui-yuan), whom Hui-yuan dispatched to Central Asia to search out the Sanskrit manuscripts of Buddhist scriptures. Fa-ling, according to the Hua-yen ching chi (an Account of the Hua-yen Scripture), preserved in the ninth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , brought a Sanskrit edition ( hu
pen ) of the Hua-yen ching (the Avataµsaka) from Khotan to China, this edition of the text being 36,000 gåthås in length. Also, the Introduction to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pi†aka records that Fa-ling went to Khotan in 392, where he met Buddhaya?a. Hui-pao’s name occurs in the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan biography of Hui-yuan. Hui-yao is mentioned in the biography of Tao-tsu in the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan as having constructed a water clock in the mountain (Mt. Lu?). In the waters of a spring he set up some twelve leaves, and when they had all revolved in the current one knew that some twelve hours had passed.

Seng-ch’e is recorded in the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan as having studied with Hui-yuan. He widely studied all of the various scriptures, but was most proficient in the Prajñåpåramitå texts. At age twenty-three, he lectured on the Hsiao-p’in Prajñåpåramitå , and later moved to Chiang-ling, where he died in 452 at the age of sixty-nine. Nothing is known about the monks Hui-jan and T’an-wei. The monks Tao-hung and T’an-lan were disciples of Hui-ch’ih, the younger brother of Hui-yuan. The monks Fa-yeh, Hui-i, Hui-yen, and Hui-kuan participated in Buddhabhadra’s translation activities. Of them, the monks Hui-yen and Hui-kuan followed Buddhabhadra in his move to Mt. Lu, but there is no record of any interest by them in the Pure Land activities of the mountain. T’an-kuo was the disciple of T’an-yu, and the monk Yuan-pi was the disciple of Seng-chi. The monks Seng-kuang, Hui-chan, and Hui-lan were fellow students with Hui-kung, but they appear not to have had any direct relationship with Hui-yuan. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the layman Ch’üeh Kung-ts’e died during the reign of the western Chin Emperor Wu. The layman Lu Hsiu-ching was a Taoist adept ( tao-shih ) and it is reported, in the sixth volume of the Pien-ch’eng

lun , and in the twentythird volume of the Hsü Kao-seng
ch’uan (in the biography of T’an-hsien), that in the year 555 he debated the relative merits of Buddhism and Taoism with the monk T’an-hsien. Since the activities of these two persons are over a century and a half later than the formation of the White Lotus Society, it is of course impossible that they could have participated in its formation. Thus, the obvious conclusion that we must draw is that the biographical information given in both the Tung-lin Shih-pa Kao-hsien ch’uan and in the Fo-tsu t’ung-chi , at least with respect to the formation of the White Lotus Society, is unreliable and in general poorly compiled. In the account of the formation of the White Lotus Society, given in the fifteenth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang
chi-chi , only the names of laymen such as Liu I-min are given. However, based on this account, we can see that the society was organized primarily with lay membership, and that there were comparatively few clerical members among the disciples of Hui-yuan. Let us then take a closer look at the lay disciples of Hui-yuan. Liu I-min ( wei Ch’eng-chih, tzu Chung-ssu) was, according to the Tung-lin ch’uan , proficient in the Chuang-Lao teachings. Later in his life, he moved to Mt. Lu where he studied under Hui-yuan. Constructing a house for himself on Mt. Lu, he constantly gave himself over to meditation, often perceiving the light emitted by the Buddha. It was here that he died in 401, at the age of fifty-eight. In light of the fact that he composed the vows of the White Lotus Society, he was perhaps the lay leader of the society. He is also reported to have been well versed in the teachings of the Prajñåpåramitå scriptures, and was a close friend of the monk Tao-sheng. According to the Fa-lun Mu-lu (preserved in the twelfth volume of the Ch’u

san-tsang chi-chi ), he composed a text entitled the Shih-hsin wu i (The Principle of the Emptiness of the Mind), as well as a letter to the monk Chu Tao-sheng. Chou Hsü-chih ( tzu Tao-tsu), according to the ninety-third volume of the Sung Shu , was at an early age proficient in the Five Classics, and also in apocryphal texts. He also enjoyed solitude, and there would read the texts of Lao-tze and the Book of Changes . He later moved to Mt. Lu and took Hui-yuan as his master. Chou Hsü-chih, Liu I-min, and T’ao Yuanming were termed the ”three recluses of Hsün-yang” ( Hsün-yang san-yin ; Hsün-yang is the present-day Chiang-ning fu , Kiangsu). During the reign of the Liu-Sung Emperor Wu, he was formally invited to move to Chienk’ang (present-day Chiang-ning fu , Kiangsu), and it was here that he died in 423 at the age of forty-six. Tsung Ping ( tzu Hsiao-wen) is also mentioned in the Sung Shu . According to this work, he was skilled in playing the chin and in calligraphy. “Energetic and profound in principles,” he eventually moved to Mt. Lu, where he studied under Hui-yuan. He later moved to the San-hu (Three Lakes) section of Chiang-ling and built himself a house there, where he lived in seclusion. He declined an invitation from the Emperor Wu, and eventually died at the age of sixty-eight in 443. The second volume of the Hung-ming chi preserves a work written by him entitled the Ming Fo lun (An Essay Elucidating the Buddha; it has the variant title Shen pu-mieh lun , Essay on the Indestructibility of the Spirit). The third volume of the Hungming chi also contains a series of questions and answers that Tsung Ping had with Ho Ch’eng-t’ien. Lei Tz’u-tsung ( tzu Chung-lin) is also mentioned in the ninety-third volume of the Sung Shu . In his youth he moved to Mt. Lu, taking the master Hui-yuan as his teacher. He enjoyed studying and became proficient in the three li -s ( I-li , Chou-li , and Li-chi ) and in the Shih-ching , the Classic of Poetry. He took the official examinations in 438 and, moving to Chienk’ang, he opened a school on Mt. Chi-lung where he taught for many years. He eventually returned to Mt. Lu; later he built himself a hermitage called the Chao-yin kuan on Mt. Chung, dying here at the age of sixty-two in 448. Chang Yeh ( tzu Lai-min) is mentioned in the Tung-lin

Shih-pa Kaohsien ch’uan as a relative by marriage of T’ao Yuan-ming. He studied both Chinese literature and the Sanskrit language, and was very proficient in literary composition. He left his family and moved to Mt. Lu, where he cultivated the Pure Land practices together with Liu I-min, and it was here that he died at the age of sixty-eight in 418. Chang Ch’uan ( tzu Chi-shih) was a distant relative of Chang Yeh. He is said to have “deeply entered into enlightenment,” and died at age sixty-four in 423. Hsieh Ling-yün is mentioned in the sixty-seventh volume of the Sung Shu , where it relates that he was a native of Yang-hsia, Ch’en chün (presentday T’ai-k’ang hsien , Honan). He was enfeoffed as Duke of T’ang-yueh,

and was renowned in his day for his literary compositions. He died at the age of forty-eight in 434. The story is told that he once sought to join the White Lotus Society, but that Hui-yuan refused him entry because “his mind was dispersed.” Hsieh Ling-yün wrote Hui-yuan’s memorial inscription (preserved in volume twenty-six of the Fo-tsu

t’ung-chi ). Also, in the fifteenth volume of the Kuang
Hung-ming chi , there is preserved a piece, the Wu-liang-shou
sung (Verses in Praise of the Buddha of Unlimited Life), written to cap the verses of his nephew, the monk Hui-lien. Volume twenty-three of this same work preserves a eulogy written by him for Hui-yuan, the Lu-shan Hui-yuan fa-shih
lei , but in this work, the year of Hui-yuan’s death is given as 417 (I-hsi 13), and his age at death as eightythree. This does not tally with the information given in the inscription on Hui-yuan’s memorial st¥pa ( Fo-tsu
t’ung-chi , vol. 26), nor with the biography of Hui-yuan given in the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , so the authenticity of this piece is suspect. Volume thirty of the Kuang Hung ming
chi also contains a four-stanza poem, the Nien-fo san-mei
shih , composed by the King of Lang-yeh, Wang Ch’i-chih, but perhaps this has been included in the Nien-fo san-mei
shih-chi .

CHAPTER IV: THE TRANSLATION OF TEXTS; SPURIOUS SCRIPTURES

1. The O-mi-t’o ching : Kumårajiva

Kumårajiva was brought from Ku-tsang (present-day Wu-wei hsien , Kansu) to Ch’ang-an in 401, and here he translated, among other important texts, the O-mi-t’o ching and the Shih-chu

pi-p’o-sha lun . The O-mi-t’o ching is in one Chinese volume and has the variant title Wu-liang-shou ching . This scripture describes in summary form the adornments of the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitåbha. From the time of its translation into Chinese, it was immensely popular and came to be read and recited throughout the country. It was retranslated from the Sanskrit into Chinese in 650 by Hsüan-tsang, and this translation is entitled the Sheng-tsang Ching-t’u Fo She-shou ching . The authorship of the Shih-chu pi-p’o-sha lun (Skt. Da?abh¥mikavibhå?å ) is ascribed to Någårjuna. It is made up of some thirty-five chapters, and in its Chinese translation it fills seventeen volumes. This work gives the teachings of the two types of paths, the difficult and the easy path, in its chapter “On Easy Practice,” and here it is taught that calling on the names of the ten Buddhas of the ten directions, and thereby attaining the stage of “non-regression,” constitutes the Path of Easy Practice. This same chapter also has a gåthå which especially praises the Pure Land of Amitåbha. Kumåraj?va also has a one-volume work, the Ssu-wei
lüeh-yao fa , which has the phrase in it, “the meditation on the Buddha of Unlimited Life,” but this work is perhaps his own composition, and so may not reflect an Indian original. Another work, the Lo-shih fa-shih ta-i , in three volumes, records Kumåraj?va’s answers to the questions posed to him by Hui-yuan, and gives his views on perceiving the Buddha in pratyutpanna-samådhi , as we have mentioned in the previous chapter. Någårjuna says, with respect to the Pure Land, that there are those who say that each Buddha has his own land, gained as a result of the fruition of his good karma (a kuo-pao t’u ). Ordinary sentient beings do not have such lands and can only be born within them, or are only able to see such “recompense lands” ( ying-t’u ), as are manifested to them by a Buddha. In other words, only a Buddha attains such a land. In opposition to this, Kumåraj?va’s disciple, Tao-sheng, teaches that the Buddhas do not have Pure Lands, for they are beings who are totally liberated from all bondage to physical matter, and one should not say that they actually dwell in such

lands. These “lands” are actually resultant states experienced through the karmic force of all sentient beings; Buddhas merely enter into these “recompense lands” in order to save their inhabitants. These views are given in volume one of the Chu-Wei-mo

ching , and in Tao-sheng’s Shih-ssu k’o Ching-t’u i (Fourteen Points with Respect to the Pure Land), preserved for us in volume twenty-one of Yen-shou’s Tsungching lu . In this work, Tao-sheng stresses his belief that the state of Buddhahood does not include within itself any trace of physical matter ( r¥pa ), and that the True Body ( kåya ) of the Buddha is not a physical body, but is only the place where the nature of the Buddha’s wisdom abides. As a consequence, one cannot say that this True Body has any such dwelling. According to the fifth volume of Chi-tsang’s Ta-ch’eng
hsuan lun , the Liang Dynasty monk Fa-yün also taught these doctrines of Tao-sheng. This monk taught that “when speaking with regard to the teacher, one says ‘the land of the Buddha,’ but the Buddha actually does not have a ‘Pure Land’; such a land is only experienced in response to the karmic actions of sentient beings.” Prince Shøtoku, in the first volume of his Yuimakyø gisho states that there are two types of lands: the recompense land of all sentient beings, and the response land ( ødo ) of the Tathågatas. Pure or impure lands are experienced due to the good or evil karma of sentient beings, so such lands should both be termed the “recompense lands of sentient beings.” The Tathågata is immersed in the principles of the Absolute, and he has long freed himself from the sphere of names and characteristics, so such lands should not be termed his own lands; rather, he merely enters into the recompense lands experienced by sentient beings in order to carry out his work of converting and saving them. It is for this reason then, that these lands are called “lands of response.” Prince Shøtoku’s theories also teach that the Buddha does not actually have a Pure Land, a theory perhaps adopted by Prince Shøtoku from the theories of the monk Fa-yün. Also, according to Chi-tsang’s H u a - y e n c h i n g y ü - i , a disciple of Kumåraj?va—the monk Seng-ying—had the theory that the various lands could be divided into five kinds: the Pure Land, the Impure Land, an Impure-Pure Land, a Pure-Impure Land, and a Mixed Land; a land that was totally pure was termed a Pure Land; a land that was totally impure was termed an Impure Land; a land that was at first impure, but which later turned into a pure land, was called an Impure-Pure Land; a land that was at first pure, but which later turned into an impure land, was called a PureImpure Land; and a land wherein both pure and impure aspects subsisted together was called a Mixed Land. We do not have any details of Sengying’s theories, but Chi-tsang employs this five-fold division very frequently. According to him, all sentient beings and Buddhas have these five types of lands, so that there are ten different types of lands altogether. Chitsang therefore holds that both Buddha and sentient beings have Pure

Impure Lands, and is perhaps trying to reconcile his own theories with those of both Kumåraj?va and Tao-sheng. Volume nineteen of the Sui Dynasty monk Ching-ying Hui-yuan’s (not to be confused with the Chin Dynasty master of Mt. Lu) work, the Tach’eng i-chang , criticizes these three theories in the section dealing with the Pure Land. Tao-sheng maintained that beings have a land and that Buddhas do not have one; but that the Buddha manifests himself as a phantom, and in this way dwells in the same land as do sentient beings. With respect to this theory, we could say that since it embraces the Absolute and proceeds from characteristics (i.e., is posited from the Buddha’s point of view), it is the theory that “embraces the Absolute and which proceeds from characteristics” ( she-shih ts’ung-hsiang lun ). Alternately, Kumåraj?va holds that all Buddhas have lands, but that sentient beings do not actually have any; and that they see only one Buddha Land, and that in accord with their karmic attentions. With respect to this theory, we would say that, since it embraces the characteristics [of the lands] and proceeds from the Absolute, it is the theory that “embraces characteristics and which proceeds from the Absolute” ( she-hsiang ts’ung-shih lun ). The third theory, held by a certain person (i.e., Seng-ying), states that both the Buddhas and sentient beings have lands, and is based on the principle that such lands differ in their resultant states according to individual karma. Since this theory acknowledges real lands to both these beings (to Buddhas and to unenlightened sentient beings), this is the theory which “differentiates characteristics and which allows for different, actual [lands]” ( fen-hsiang i-shih lun ). Volume nine of Chi-tsang’s Fa-hua ching hsüan-lun criticizes these masters. This work states that Kumåraj?va’s theory holds that only the trace body [of the Buddha] has a land, but that he loses sight of the basic land; while Tao-sheng’s theory holds that only the Dharmakåya Buddha has a land, and loses sight of the fact that there is a trace land. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that at this time there was a lively controversy between Kumåraj?va and his disciples with respect to the real nature of the Buddhas’ lands. It is recorded in the sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan that Seng-ying was a native of Ch’ang-yueh, Wei chün , and that he studied with Kumåraj?va and learned meditation from him. He also participated in Kumåraj?va’s translation activities, and is recorded to have upheld all the rules of conduct in his daily deportment, and to have widely praised (i.e., disseminated) the teachings of the scriptures. He transferred all the merit of his various actions to his vow to be reborn in the Land of Peace and Nourishment (Sukhåvat?), and due to his devotion to the Western Pure Land, whether he was walking, standing still, sitting down, or lying down, he would always face the West. Eventually, he became aware that the end of his life was approaching; he went into his room, bathed, lit incense and

bowed in prostration; he then faced the west, joined his palms together, and in this fashion died. We know from this account that he was a sincere seeker of rebirth in the Western Pure Land. 2. The Wu-liang-shou ching , the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching , and Related Texts In the Liu-Sung Dynasty, various scriptures were translated one after the other, the Wu-liang-shou ching , the P’ei-hua ching , and the Kuan Wuliang-shou ching , and with their translation the major corpus of the Pure Land scriptures was completed. According to the account given in volume two of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , the monk Buddhabhadra translated the Hsin (New) Wu-liangshou ching in two Chinese volumes in the year 421, during the Liu-Sung Dynasty. The translation was carried out in the Tao-ch’ang ssu Monastery in the city of Yang-tu (present-day Chiang-tu hsien , Kiangsu). But this work also records that, in the same year and the same monastery (with the variant, in the Liu-ho-shan ssu Monastery), it was the monk Pao-yün who translated the Hsin Wu-liang-shou ching . However, it is inconceivable that two Tripi†aka masters would translate exactly the same work at the same time and place. Perhaps these accounts mean to tell us that, initially, two persons worked on the translation, that is, Buddhabhadra and Pao-yün, and that later Pao-yün revised the translation. This we may infer from the fact that the second volume of Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , in the section “Catalogues of Newly Compiled and Variantly Translated Scriptures,” mentions among the different translations of the Wu-liang-shou ching only the scripture translated by Pao-yün, and does not mention the text translated by Buddhabhadra at all. Furthermore, these two texts are listed in all the catalogues subsequent to the Li-tai fa-Pao chi as missing texts, even though the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi does not list the text as missing. We know from this, then, that the text ascribed to the hand of Pao-yün was in circulation at that time. Now the present text of the Wu-liang-shou ching which is preserved in the Buddhist Canon has traditionally been considered a translation by the monk K’ang Seng-hui, who worked during the Ts’ao Wei Dynasty. It is my opinion that this scripture was actually translated by Pao-Yün, and that the attribution of it to K’ang Seng-hui is a mistaken attribution. As we have mentioned above, the Chin-shih tsa-lu (A Catalogue of Miscellaneous Works from the Chin Period) says that K’ang Seng-hui translated the Wu-liang-shou

ching , but that this actually refers to the scripture entitled the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng-ch’üeh ching . This attribution, then, is nothing more than another theory concerning the translator of the Ping-teng-ch’üeh
ching . We have also mentioned that the

Wu-liang-shou ching translated by Chu Fa-huo is also variously called the Wu-liang ch’ing-ching ping-teng ch’üeh ching, as listed in the Ch’u santsang chi-chi . But, regardless of this, the Li-tai san-pao chi holds that this text is actually a different work, that is, that the Ping-teng-ch’üeh ching was translated by the Latter Han Dynasty monk Chih-ch’ien, while the Wuliang-shou ching was translated by K’ang Seng-hui. Now the scripture translated by Pao-yün was called the Hsin (the New) Wu-liang-shou ching , in order to show that this work was greatly different from the older Ta O-mi-t’o ching and the Ping-teng-ch’üeh ching . The two older texts did not have an introduction section, and Amitåbha is only given some twenty-four vows. In opposition to this, Pao-yün’s scripture has an introductory section, and Amitåbha’s vows have exactly doubled to forty-eight. In the latter text, too, Ajåta?atru does not attend this sermon, and the Parinirvå?a of Amitåbha and the attainment of Buddhahood by Avalokite?vara are not mentioned, as in the earlier texts. There are, in addition, many differences between the earlier two texts and this later text, and I think that this is perhaps the reason the later scripture was called the “new” scripture, the Hsin Wu-liang-shou

ching . Furthermore, a number of words and phrases used in the Introduction to the scripture are very similar to those used in Pao-yün’s translation of the Fo pen-hsing
ching , a biography of the Buddha. Most especially it is his use of the phrase “Fo hua-yen san-mei” (the Buddha Avataµsaka samådhi ) which testifies to the fact that the monk Buddhabhadra, the translator of the full Hua-yen ching , participated in the translation of this scripture, too. Our conclusion, then, is that the present Wu-liang-shou ching as it is preserved in the Canon was not translated by K’ang Seng-hui, as is traditionally supposed, but is none other than the Hsin Wu-liang-shou ching , which was translated by the monk Fa-yün, working in the Liu-Sung Dynasty. The scripture entitled the P’ei-hua ching (Skt. Karu?å
pu??ar?ka ) was translated by the monk Dharmarak?a during the Northern Liang Dynasty. He came to Liang-chou (present-day Wu-wei hsien , Kansu) sometime during the reign of the Eastern Chin Emperor An, and in 419 (the eighth year of Hsüan-shih, of the Northern Liang Dynasty) he translated this scripture, which is made up of some fourteen chapters, and, in Chinese translation, fills some ten volumes. The second volume of the Ch’u santsang chi-chi lists this work, and gives the following comment: “another catalogue says that this was translated by the upadhyaya Kung.” The master Kung is the monk Tao-kung, who translated the Pao-liang ching sometime during the reign of the Eastern Chin Emperor An, in Ching chou , and who was, in addition, a contemporary of Dharmarak?a. There is also another translation of this same scripture, entitled the Tach’eng P’ei fen-t’o-li ching (The Mahåyåna Compassion Pu?dar?ka Scripture), of thirty chapters, filling in translation some eight Chinese volumes. All the catalogues list this as a scripture “of an unknown translator,” but

this translation of the text was perhaps done by the monk Tao-kung. Both translations of this scripture are generally the same in their contents. The story of the s¥tra centers on a previous incarnation of the Buddha Amitåbha, when he was the King “Uncontentious Mind,” and the scripture contrasts the person of the Buddha Amitåbha with that of the Buddha Ûåkyamuni, and also contrasts the Pure Land of Amitåbha with the Impure Land of Ûåkyamuni. The figure of Amitåbha is representative of those Buddhas who attain to Buddhahood in a totally pure land; the text goes into some detail concerning the marks of the future Buddha Amitåbha’s giving rise to Bodhicitta, and speaks of his vows, numbered at fifty-two. By virtue of the fact that the Buddha’s vows are also fifty-two in the P’ei-hua ching , this scripture is presumably related to the Wu-liang-shou

ching , mentioned above. This scripture became very popular during the Ch’i and Liang Dynasties, and many episodes and stories were excerpted from it and given an independent circulation. Volume four of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi , in the section “A Catalogue of Miscellaneous Scriptures whose Translators are Unknown,” lists five works which appear to be independent texts, but were merely excerpts from this longer P’ei-hua ching : these are the Wu-pai wang-tzu tso ching-t’u yuan ching (The Scripture of the Five Hundred Princes Making Vows for the Pure Land), the Pao-hai fan-chih
ch’eng-chiu ta-p’ei ching (The Scripture of the Brahmin Ratnasamudra Perfecting Great Compassion), the Pao-hai
fan-chih ch’ing ju-lai ching (The Scripture of the Brahmin Ratnasamudra Requesting the Tathågata), the Kuo-ch’u hsing t ’ a n - p ’ o - l o - m i c h i n g , (The Scripture of the Past Cultivation of Dåna Påramitå), and the Tang-lai hsien-ch’e chu-o-shih-chieh ching (The Scripture of the Future Selecting of All Evil Worlds). In addition, the second volume of the Chung-ching

mu-lu (A Catalogue of All Scriptures), compiled by the Sui Dynasty monk Fa-ching, lists nineteen other scriptures, such as the Kuan-shih-Yin ch’iu shih-fang fo ko-wei shou-chi ching (The Scripture of Avalokite?vara Searching out the Buddhas of the Ten Directions for the Purpose of Receiving Predictions), and records that they are all excerpts from the larger P’ei-hua ching . This serves as ample evidence of the great popularity of this work at this time.

• * *

The Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching is a scripture which explains in detail the existence of the Buddha Amitåbha, the two Bodhisattvas Avalokite?vara (Kuan-shih-yin) and Mahåsthåmapråpta (Ta-shih-chih), and the visualization of all the various adornments of the Pure Land Sukhåvat?, which would serve to remove one’s karmic hindrances and enable one to attain rebirth in that land.

The Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching , together with the Wu-liang-shou ching and the O-mi-t’o ching , have come to be termed “the Three Pure Land Scriptures” ( ching-t’u

san-pu-ching ), and, especially in Japan, these three texts are the Pure Land scriptures par excellence , to the exclusion of almost all other scriptures. Who is the translator of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching ? The fourth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi records that the name of the translator is lost, whereas the third volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan records that in the first year of the Yuan-chia era (424), during the reign of the Emperor Wen of the Liu-Sung Dynasty, this work was translated by the monk Kålaya?as in the city of Chien-yeh, (present-day Chiang-ning fu , Kiangsu). Beginning with Fa-ching’s catalogue, the Chung-ching mu-lu , all subsequent catalogues have adopted this attribution. The Li-tai san-pao chi states that, in addition to this translation by Kålaya?as, there have also been two other translations of this work, one done in the latter Han Dynasty, and one done in the Eastern Chin Dynasty, both by unknown translators. This account appears to combine both theories of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan and the Ch’u san-tsang

chi-chi , but the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi’s statement that the translator of this scripture is unknown, and that the work was done in two dynasties, the Latter Han and the Eastern Chin, is without foundation or reason, and we need not pay any attention to it. This work went through only one translation, and its translator according to the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , is Kålaya?as: only the Ch’u san-tsang chichi says that the translator is unknown. According to the second volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi and the third volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk Gu?abhadra arrived in Kuang-chou (present-day Kuang-tung city, Kwangtung) by the sea in the year 435, and a while later translated the Wu-liang-shou ching , in one Chinese volume, in the Hsin-ssu in Chiang-liang (present-day Chiang-ling hsien , Hupei). This work is another translation of the O-mi-t’o ching , which traditionally has been lost, and so has not been preserved for us. However, at the present time, there is a text preserved in the Buddhist Canon entitled the Pa i-ch’ieh
yeh-chang ken-pen teh-sheng ching-t’u shen-chu , with the annotation following the title that says: “excerpted from the Smaller WuLiang-shou ching .” It further states that it was “re-translated by Imperial Command by the Liu-Sung Dynasty Indian Tripi†aka Master Gu?abhadra.” This dhåra?? text was excerpted from Gu?abhadra’s translation of the Wuliang-shou ching , but is not recorded in any of the catalogues listed in the Ch’u-san-tsang chi-chi . According to the O-mi-t’o ching pu-ssu-i shen-li chüan (Account of the Inconceivable Powers of the Amitåbha S¥tra), The Bodhisattva Någårjuna vowed to be born into Sukhåvåti, and in a dream perceived this dhåra?? .

1 This dhåra?? , in turn, was recited by the Tripi†aka Master Ya?a to the monk Hsiu of the T’ien-p’ing-ssu Monastery with the following comment: “This scripture has not originally come from a barbarian land . . . .” Now this Tripi†aka Master Ya?a is the Northern Ch’i Dynasty Master Narendraya?a, and the T’ien-p’ing ssu Monastery is the monastery where he did his translation work in the capital city of Yeh (present-day Lin-chang hsien , Honan). If this is the case, then the translation of this dhåra?? should have been recorded in the biography of this Narendraya?a, and its attribution to the hand of Gu?abhadra is a misattribution.

3. Spurious Scriptures

In China there have been a very large number of works composed to resemble scriptures. The fifth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi records the contents of An kung’s Catalogue of Doubtful Scriptures (An kung: the monk Tao-an), which records twenty-six different titles (in thirty Chinese volumes) which are of doubtful (i.e., non-Indian) origin. The Ch’u santsang

chi-chi also lists the contents of the Hsin-chi i-ching
wei-hsien tsa-lu (Newly Compiled Miscellaneous Catalogue of Doubtful Scriptures and Spurious Compositions), which in turn lists forty-six titles of works connected with bhik?us and twenty-one titles connected with the bhik?u??s. Various other catalogues have also set up the two categories, “doubtful scriptures” and “spurious scriptures”; these categories being seen in such catalogues as Fa-ching’s Chung-ching mu-lu (Sui Dynasty), Yen-tsung’s Chung-ching mu-lu (same dynasty), and Chih-sheng’s K’ai-Yuan ShihShih-chiao-lu (T’ang Dynasty), and these catalogues list a large number of works within both of these categories. Spurious or forged texts began to appear from earlier than the Fu-Ch’in period onward, and their number began to increase gradually as time progressed. Most such texts have been lost over the years, but some, listed as spurious in the K’ai-yuan Shih-chiao lu and in other catalogues, have found their way into the Canon. Furthermore, spurious texts have been quoted extensively in such anthologies as the Ching-Lü i-hsiang , Chuching yao-chi , and the Fa-yuan chu-lin . In addition to this, manuscript finds have been made of these works at Tun-huang and various other places, so we can get at least some idea of their contents and ideas. A number of such spurious works are concerned with the Buddha Amitåbha, such works as the Shan-wang huang-ti
kung-teh tsun ching (The Venerable Scripture of the Meritorious Qualities of the Good King and Emperor), the Yao-shih liu-li kuang ching (The Vaid¥rya Light Scripture of the Buddha Bhai?ajyaguru), the Hsü-mi ssu-yü ching (Scripture of the Four Areas around Mt. Sumeru), and the Shih wang-sheng O-mi-t’o fo-kuo ching (The Scripture of Amitåbha’s Buddha Land of Ten Rebirths).

The first of these works, the Shan-wang huang-ti kung-teh tsun ching , is first listed in the An kung I-ching

lu (above, Tao-an’s Catalogue of Doubtful Scriptures) where it is stated as being of either one or two volumes in length. Passages from this scripture are quoted in the last volume of Tao-ch’o’s An-lo chi (see below, Chapter XII). The passage in question says that if there is a person who practices the way, and who wishes to be reborn in the Western Land of Amitåbha, he should call [this Buddha] to remembrance for one or seven days, both day and night, and furthermore during this period of time he should repent [of his transgressions]; and should he hear someone speak of the merits of this Good King, at the end of his life there will appear eight Bodhisattvas who will fly towards him and welcome him, and take him to the Western Land of Amitåbha. The teaching of the eight Bodhisattvas, such as Badava, etc. welcoming the devotee to the Pure Land (the same list of eight Bodhisattvas as given in the P’an-shou
san-mei ching ), is also recorded in some earlier texts, such as the Pa Chi-hsiang shen-chu ching and the Pa-yang sheng-chu ching . In the fifth volume of the Li-tai san-pao chi , it is recorded that the Pa chihsiang shen-chu ching was translated by the monk Wu Chih-ch’ien, and in the sixth volume of this same work it is recorded that the Pa-yang shen-chu ching was translated by the Western Chin translator, the Indian monk Chu Fa-huo. However, the fourth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi lists both of these texts in the catalogue the Shih-i tsa-ching lu (The Catalogue of Miscellaneous Scriptures whose Translators are Unknown). The text of the Shan-wang huang-ti kung-teh tsun ching is in all likelihood based upon these texts. The fourth volume of the Kuan-ting ching (the Abhi?eka S¥tra), in the section entitled “The Scripture of the dhåra?? by which the Four Hundred Binding Deva Kings Protect One’s Person,” also teaches that eight Bodhisattvas, beginning with the Bodhisattva Badava, will conduct the spirit of the devotee at his death to rebirth in the West, and the twelfth volume of this same Kuan-ting ching , the Vaid¥rya Light Scripture of the Buddha Bhai?ajyaguru (see above) teaches that if anyone in the four classes of Buddhist devotees constantly keeps the six days of the monthly fast, and cultivates three long fasts yearly, and if he is energetic in austerities both day and night, and if he vows to be reborn in the Western Land of Amitåbha, and so calls to remembrance [this Buddha] for one to seven days, and if furthermore during this period of time he repents [of his transgressions], and should he hear of the merits of the fundamental vows of the Buddha Bhai?ajyaguru, then, at the end of his life, eight Bodhisattvas— Mañju?r?, Avalokite?vara, Mahåsthåmapråpta, Ak?ayamati, Pao-ts’anshan, Bhai?ajyaguru, Yao-shang, and Maitreya—will fly to the devotee and welcome his spirit, conducting it to birth in the middle of a lotus. This teaching is identical to that of the Shan-wang huang-ti kung-teh ching, the sole exception being that the deity Shan-wang (the Good King)

is replaced by the person of the Buddha Bhai?ajyaguru, and that the phrase “the eight Bodhisattvas” is replaced by their being named. We can thus easily see that there is a close connection between these two scriptures. This is especially the case when we see that, according to the “Newly Compiled Miscellaneous Catalogue of Doubtful Scriptures and Spurious Compositions,” preserved in the fifth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang chi-chi (see above), this Vaid¥rya Light Scripture of the Buddha Bhai?ajyaguru is reputed to have been excerpted by the bhik?u Hui-chien of the Lu-yeh ssu Monastery, Mo-ling (present-day Chiangning hsien , Kiangsu), in the year 457, thus proving its spurious (i.e., non-Indian) origins. The Hsü-mi ssu-yü ching (The Scripture of the Four Areas around Mt. Sumeru), also termed the Hsü-mi-hsiang t’u-shan ching (The Scripture of the Configurations of Mt. Sumeru), is quoted in the Erh-chiao lun by the Northern Dynasty monk Tao-an (preserved in the eighth volume of the Kuang Hung-ming chi), in the last volume of Tao-ch’o’s An-lo chi , and in the fifth volume of Fa-lin’s Pien-ch’eng lun . According to the quotation in the An-lo chi , at the creation of Heaven and Earth, at a time when there were no sun, moon or stars, and people were very much afflicted, the Buddha Amitåbha sent the Bodhisattva Pao-ying-sheng to China to become Fu-hsi, and sent the Bodhisattva Pao-Chi-hsiang to become Nü-kua. At this time, these two Bodhisattvas discussed among themselves what needed to be done, and they ascended to the Heaven of Brahma and there took seven precious stones, and with them made the sun, moon, stars, and the twentyeight major constellations and so illumined the whole world; and they determined the four seasons, spring, autumn, winter, and summer. The reason that the sun, moon, and all the stars revolve in a westerly direction is that all celestial bodies, and all mankind, bow in reverence to the Buddha Amitåbha, who dwells in that direction. In this work, then, the ancient and famous Chinese gods Fu-hsi and Nü-kua are made messengers of the Buddha Amitåbha. Based upon a legend that it was she who created the heavens, Nü-kua is now made the creator deity of the sun, moon, and stars, and the teaching that the sun and moon move in a westerly direction to worship the Buddha Amitåbha shows that she is the messenger of the Buddha Amitåbha. These are all contrived legends, based, it would appear, on the Ch’ingching hsing ching , wherein the Buddha Ûåkyamuni sends Mahåkå?yapa to China to become Lao-tzu, the Bodhisattva Kuang-ching (Vimalaprabha?) to become K’ung-tzu (Confucius), and the Bodhisattva Yueh-kuang (Candraprabha?) to become Confucius’ famous disciple Yen-hui. This work was probably created during the Northern Chou Dynasty, a period which saw a flourishing of the debate between the Buddhists and the Taoists. The Shih wang-sheng O-mi-t’o fo-kuo ching is also termed simply the Shih wang-sheng ching . The major thrust of this scripture is the teaching of

the ritual of the ten types of right remembrance (of calling to remembrance, of recitations?) which will lead to rebirth in the land of the Buddha Amitåbha This work has been included in the Dai-Nippon Zokuzøkyø , and teaches that the Buddha Amitåbha dispatches twenty-five Bodhisattvas, headed by Avalokite?vara, to protect the Pure Land devotee from being plagued and disturbed by evil demons and spirits. This text and passage have been quoted in Tao-ch’o’s An-lo chi , and in Shan-tao’s Wang-sheng litsan and Kuan-nien fa-men as the textual proof of such protection of the Pure Land devotee. Furthermore, this scripture has obvious connections with the Ssu t’ienwang ching (the Scripture of the Four Heavenly Kings) and the third volume of the Kuan-ting ching (the Abhi?eka S¥tra; see above), where it is taught that if one keeps all the Five Precepts, then twenty-five good spirits ( shan shen ) will be dispatched to the devotee’s front door, there to guard against evil spirits. Also, the Ching-tu san-mei ching (quoted in Shan-tao’s Kuan-nien fa-men) teaches that if one keeps the precepts of abstinence during the six fast days and the eight days commemorating these good kings, then the Buddha will order the six Deva kings of kåma-dhåtu to dispatch some twenty-five good spirits to the devotee to always protect him. It is perhaps from these above scriptures that the Shih wang-sheng ching took its teaching of the twenty-five protective deities. Furthermore, the second volume of Chieh-chu’s Wang-sheng

ch’uan (preserved in the Shimpukuji temple, Nagoya) records that the Indian Jñånadharma brought a representation of Amitåbha and his twenty-five Bodhisattvas to China from India, and if this account is true, perhaps it is this picture which was the direct impulse for the teaching of these twenty-five deities protecting the Pure Land devotee. The biography of Chi-tsang, preserved in the eleventh volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , states that in the early years of the T’ang Dynasty Chi-tsang constructed images of twenty-five deities, and that he worshiped them with great devotion. What deities did these images represent? If they were the images of these twenty-five Bodhisattvas, then we must also say that Chi-tsang was a believer in the teaching of the twenty-five Bodhisattvas’ protection of the Pure Land devotee. The third volume of Seng-hsiang’s Fa-hua ch’uan chi records that when the monk Chih-yuan of Chiang-nan was about to die, he saw twentyfive holy beings coming to welcome him to the Pure Land, and so was reborn in the Pure Land. This doubtlessly records a belief in the Shih wangsheng ching , and we must realize that this text served as the scriptural basis for the teaching, in Japan, of the devotee’s being welcomed into the Pure Land by the Twenty-five Bodhisattvas. In more recent times, a scripture entitled the O-mi-t’o fo ch’üeh chu tachung kuan-shen ching (The Scripture of the Buddha Amitåbha Awakening All the Multitude and Seeing Their Bodies) was discovered among the manuscripts of Tun-huang. This scripture is an elaboration of the Shih wang-sheng ching , and so constitutes a further proof of the popularity and spread of the belief in these twenty-five Bodhisattvas, and of their close tie with the Pure Land faith. Volume fifteen of the Ta-Chou kan-ting chungching mu-lu lists the Shih wang-sheng ching as a forgery and, later, the eighteenth volume of the K’ai-yuan Shih-chiao lu lists the Shih wang-sheng ching together with the above Ch’üeh chu ta-chung ching as being forged texts. There are, of course, other forged texts relating to belief in the Buddha Amitåbha, such as the Sui-yuan wang-sheng shih-fang ching-t’u ching (volume eleven of the Kuan-ting ching ), and the Chan-ts’a shen-o Yeh-Pao ching . More and more, such texts came to be composed during the years that saw the growth of the Pure Land faith, and this must be seen as a result of the general importance of the faith.

Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China

Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki

Translated by Leo M. Pruden

Edited by Richard K. Payne Institute of Buddhist Studies

CHAPTER V: THE EARLY PURE LAND FAITH SOUTHERN CHINA

1. Hui-Yuan’s Disciples

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Hui-yuan established the Pailien she (the White Lotus Society) on Mt. Lu and, together with his followers, he cultivated the nien-fo san-mei , the meditation on the Buddha Amitåbha and his Pure Land. Due to his reputation for diligent religious practice, his fame spread throughout the country. After the death of Hui-yuan, his disciple Tao-ping became the abbot of the Tung-lin Monastery ( Tung-ling

ching-she ). Others of his disciples, such as T’an-heng and T’an-hsien, also remained on Mt. Lu, and there spread Hui-yuan’s teachings, so it is not hard to imagine that Mt. Lu continued for a long time to be an important center of Pure Land activities. At the same time, many of the monks and laity who had joined the White Lotus Association, among them many who were Hui-yuan’s disciples, traveled to various parts of China, converting others to the Pure Land faith. Due to their activities, the Pure Land faith spread throughout all parts of China and soon embraced a large portion of the population. The monks T’an-shun, T’an-yü, and Seng-ch’e initially remained on Mt. Lu after the death of Hui-yuan, but after a while they moved to Chiang-ling (present-day Chiang-ling hsien , Hupei), and there began to preach. The layman Tsung Ping is also reported to have constructed a lodging in the San-hu (Three Lakes) region of Chiang-ling and lived there in seclusion.

Subsequent to this, the monk T’an-chien also moved to the same region, and began to preach there. According to the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng

ch’uan , T’anchien was a disciple of Hui-yuan’s disciple, Tao-tsu; he was diligent in keeping all the rules of the Vinaya , and studied many of the scriptures. Subsequently, he went to Ch’ang-an where he studied with Kumåraj?va, and then moved to Chiang-ling where he lived in the Hsin-ssu Monastery. Here he cultivated devotions to Amitåbha, desiring to be reborn in the Pure Land. Based on these references then, we know that the Pure Land faith was at an early period spread throughout the Chiang-ling region of China. The city of Ch’eng-tu (the present-day city of Ch’eng-tu, Szechwan) was the location where Hui-yuan’s younger brother, the monk Hui-chih, preached. According to the sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , Hui-chih was a constant devotee of the Pure Land faith. He left his brother’s company in 399, and traveled west to the land of Shu (Szechwan). Here he lived in the Lung-yuan Monastery, and widely propagated the Buddhadharma. Many clerics and laity became his disciples, two early disciples being the monks Hui-yen and Seng-kung. Hui-chih died at the age of seventy-five in 412, and it is recorded that his chief disciples were the monks Tao-kung and T’an-lan. The monk Tao-wang, one of the disciples of Hui-yuan, also taught in Szechwan. According to the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , and the Ming-seng ch’uan chao , Tao-wang became a disciple of Hui-yuan at an early age. He is described as having been widely versed in both the scriptures and the Vinaya , but specialized in the study of the Nieh-p’an ching (the Mahåyåna Parinirvåna S¥tra) , and for several decades confined his diet to uncooked, vegetarian foods. Later in his life he moved to Ch’engtu, where he lived and taught in the Chih-yüan Monastery (“the Jetavana Monastery”), dying in the year 465. It is reported that, sometime during the Later Ch’i Dynasty (479–502), the monk Fa-lin also moved to Szechwan and there cultivated Pure Land devotions. The city of Chien-k’ang (present-day Chiang-ning fu, Kiangsu), the capital city of southern China at this time, was also the scene for the preaching of the Pure Land faith by Hui-yuan’s disciples. Hui-yuan’s disciple, the monk Tao-yen, and two lay members of the White Lotus Association, Chou Hsü-chih and Lei Tz’u-tsung, moved to Chien-k’ang after the death of Hui-yuan. According to the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk Tao-yen was a native of Ch’ao-na, in An-ting (present-day Ping-kuo hsien , Kansu). He moved to Mt. Lu and there became a student of Hui-yuan, later moving to Ch’ang-an where he studied with Kumåraj?va. Sometime during the Yuan-chia period (424–453), he was living in the T’an-hsi ssu Monastery, in the city of Hsiang-yang (the present-day city of Hsiang-yang, Hupei). In the early years of the Hsiao chien period (454–456), he received an Imperial Order to become the abbot

of the Chung-hsing ssu Monastery, in the capital city of Chien-k’ang. It was evidently here that he died in the early years of the Ch’in-shih period (466– 471) at the age of sixty-eight. The city of Yang-tu (present-day Chiang-tu hsien , Kiangsu) was the site of Buddhabhadra and Fa-yün’s new translation of the Wu-liang-shou ching (the Hsin Wu-liang-shou ching ) in the year 421, and it was to this city that Hui-yuan’s disciple Fa-chuang moved. According to the twelfth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk Fa-chuang was a native of Huai-nan (present-day Shou hsien , Anhwei) who, at the age of nine, left the householder’s life and became a disciple of Hui-yuan. Later in life he moved to north-central China (the Kuan-chung region) and studied with Seng-ying, a disciple of Kumåraj?va. In the early years of the Yuan-chia period (424–453), he moved to Yang-tu and there lived in the Tao-ch’ang ssu Monastery. It was here that he recited the Nieh-p’an ching , the Fa-hua ching (the Lotus S¥tra ), and the Wei-mo ching (the Vimalak?rti-nirde?a ), dying here in the early years of the Ta-ming period (457–464) at the age of seventy-five. There also appeares to have been considerable missionary activity in the Chekiang region. According to the fifth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , Hui-min, who at an early age had become a monk and lived on Mt. Lu, moved to the Chia-hsiang ssu Monastery in Shan-yin (present-day Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang) in the early years of the Yi-hsi period (405– 418). He later contracted a serious illness, and his thoughts turned to the Pure Land. He fervently prayed to Kuan-yin (the Bodhisattva Avalokite?vara), and it is reported that, at the moment of his death, he was rewarded by the appearance of auspicious signs. Hui-yuan’s disciple, the monk Tao-ching, left Mt. Lu and took up his residence on Mt. Jo-hsien (located in Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang), where he preached the Buddhadharma. The monk T’an-i moved to Mt. Ch’inwang (located in present-day Hang-chou, Chekiang), where he constructed a monastery (which has been mentioned above in Chapter III. 3 [ Pacific World, Third Series, 3 (2001)], p. 259). It is also reported that the monk Taotsu moved to the state of Wu (present-day Wu hsien , Kiangsu) after the death of Hui-yuan. According to the sixth volume of the Liang Kao-seng

ch’uan , the monk Tao-tsu first left the householder’s life under the master Chih Fa-chi; later, with his companions, the monks Seng-ch’ien and Tao-liu, he moved to Mt. Lu and there received the full number of precepts. These three monks were favorites of Hui-yuan, but the monks Seng-ch’ien and Tao-liu both died at the early age of twenty-seven. Tao-tsu continued the literary work begun by his friend Tao-liu, and so put into final form a scriptural catalogue entitled the Chu-ching mu-lu . Tao-tsu later returned to the T’ai ssu Monastery in the state of Wu, dying there at the age of seventy-one in 419. According to the seventh volume of the Li-tai san-pao chi , the catalogue

compiled by Tao-tsu was in four Chinese volumes. The first volume, a scriptural catalogue of those works translated during the Wei Dynasty, was entitled the Wei-shih lu-mu . The second volume, recording those scriptures that appeared during the Wu Dynasty, was entitled the Wu-shih lu-mu . The third volume, recording those scriptures that appeared during the Chin Dynasty, was entitled the Chin-shih tsa-lu . And the fourth volume, recording those works that appeared “west of the river,” was entitled the Ho-hsi lu-mu . It was reported that this four-volume catalogue enjoyed a wide circulation at this time. Indications have been preserved for us pointing to considerable Pure Land activity at this time among monks and laymen who were not disciples of Hui-yuan. According to the biography of the monk Seng-ch’uan, preserved in the seventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan and in the Ming-seng

ch’uan chao , he was a native of Hai-yang (located in presentday Hsing-ch’eng hsien , Feng-t’ien, in Manchuria), in the western part of the region of the Liao. He early began his studies in the regions of the states of Yen and Ch’i, and a while later moved to Mt. Hu-ch’iu (present-day Wu hsien , Kiangsu), where he constructed a golden image. Subsequently, he moved to Yü-hang (present-day Ch’ien-t’ang, Chekiang), taking up residence in the Fang-hsien ssu Monastery. He is reported to have constantly desired rebirth in Sukhåvat?, and to have copied out by hand several thousand copies of the O-mi-t’o ching . According to the biography of T’an-hung, preserved in the twelfth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , this monk was a native of Huanglung (perhaps the present-day Chi-lin area of Manchuria). He devoted himself to a study of various Vinaya works and, in the Yung-ch’u period (420–422), traveled to the city of Fan-yü in the far south of China (in presentday Kuang-tung province). In his later years, he moved to the region of Chiao-chih (in the present-day Tongking region of Annam), taking up residence in the Hsien-shan ssu Monastery. Here he recited the Wu-liangshou
ching and the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching , desiring rebirth in Sukhåvat?. One day in 455, he gathered together a pile of firewood and immolated himself, being perhaps the first person to commit “religious suicide” in the history of the Pure Land faith (see below, Chapter XV). T’an-hung was also perhaps the first propagator of the Pure Land faith in the area of Chiaochih. Sometime later, there was received from the land of Champa (south of Tongking) a stone image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life, Amitåyus, which may be in some way related to the early Pure Land preaching of T’an-hung. The eleventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , as well as the Mingseng ch’uan chao , mentions the monk Hui-t’ung (var. Chih-t’ung), who lived in the T’ai-hou ssu Monastery in Ch’ang-an, learning the practice of meditation from the master Hui-chao. He was always devoted to the Pure Land faith, and it is recorded that at his death he saw the light of the Buddha.

In volume seven of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , in the biography of the monk T’an-chien, it is reported that there were many others who, through their desire to be reborn in the Pure Land, experienced auspicious signs at the time of their deaths. Such events are recorded for Tao-hai (of Chiangling), Hui-k’an (of Pei-chou), Hui-kung (of Tung-chou), T’an-hung (of Huai-nan; present-day Shou hsien , Anhwei), Tao-kuang (of Tung-yuan shan), and Tao-kuang (of Hung-nung; present-day Ling-pao hsien , Honan). In addition to these names, the Ming-seng ch’uan chao also records that the monks Fa-i, Seng-hung, and Seng-ch’ang saw auspicious signs at their deaths. And the fifteenth volume of the Fa-yuan

chu-lin , quoting the Minghsiang chi , records that in the Liu-Sung Dynasty, the upåsaka Ko Chi-chih, the bhik?un? Hui-mu, and the laymen Wei Shih-tzu and Ho T’an-yuan desired rebirth in the Pure Land, and were rewarded at their deaths by the appearance of auspicious signs.

2. The Pure Land Faith in the Ch’i and Liang Dynasties

There also appeared to be a considerable number of persons during the Ch’i (479–502) and the Liang (502–557) Dynasties who sought rebirth in the Pure Land. It was during this period that lectures on the Wu-liang-shou ching came to be especially popular, and the Pure Land teachings gradually came to be more and more studied. In perusing the various biographies of monks of this period, we find that in these dynasties a number of monks are recorded to have desired rebirth in the Pure Land: the monks Hui-chin, Seng-hsing, Ch’ao-pien, Fa-ming, Fa-ling, Seng-jou, Fa-tu, and Pao-liang. According to the twelfth volume of the Liang Kao-seng

ch’uan , the monk Hui-chin was a native of Wu-hsing (present-day Wu-hsing hsien , Chekiang), who lived in the Kao-tso ssu Monastery in the capital city of Chien-k’ang. He would always lecture on the text of the Lotus S¥tra , and caused over one hundred copies of this scripture to be made, transferring the merit from this pious deed to the attainment of his desire to be reborn in the Pure Land. He died at the age of eighty-four in 485. According to his biography in the Ming-seng ch’uan chao , the monk Seng-hsing was a native of Shan-yin (located in present-day Shao-hsing hsien , Chekiang), and was the disciple of the master Hui-chi. He later moved to the Ch’eng-shan ssu Monastery in Yü hsien (present-day Yuch’eng hsien , Honan), where he preached the Buddhadharma. He always visualized ( nien ) the Western Pure Land, and longed for rebirth there, dying at the age of fifty-eight in 493. The biography of Ch’ao-pien is found in the twelfth volume of the Liang-sao-seng ch’uan , and in the Ming-seng ch’uan chao . Here it is recorded that he lived in the Ting-lin shang ssu Monastery (the Upper

Ting-lin Monastery) in the city of Chien-k’ang, where he was earnest in his worship of the Lotus S¥tra and of the Buddha Amitåbha. The monk Faming lived in the Ling-chi ssu Monastery, where he always recited the Lotus S¥tra and the Wu-liang-shou ching . According to the eleventh volume of the Liang Kao-seng

ch’uan , the monk Fa-lin lived in the P’ei ssu Monastery in Shu chün (present-day Ch’eng-tu hsien , Szechwan), where he was renowned for his adherence to the Vinaya rules. He subsequently accompanied the monk Seng-yin to the province of Shensi, returning eventually to the Ling-chien ssu Monastery in Shu (Szechwan). He was always concerned with the Pure Land faith, and recited both the Wu-liang shou
ching and the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching . He died at an unknown age in 495. According to the eighth volume of the Liang Kao-seng
ch’uan , the monk Seng-jou was a native of Tan-yang (present-day Tan-yang chen , Ch’ang-t’u hsien , Anhwei). He early became proficient in the scriptures and began lecturing on them, subsequently moving to Shan-yin where he studied with the master Hui-chi. He then moved to the Ting-lin shang ssu Monastery (see above) in Chien-k’ang. Here his fame reached the attention of the emperor, and he was richly rewarded for his scholastic abilities by the Emperors Wen-hui and Wen-hsüan, gaining great fame during his lifetime. He constantly vowed to be reborn in Sukhåvat? and, at every sunset, he would stand in a formal position, facing west with his palms together in reverence. He died at the age of sixty-three in 494. The monk Fa-tu was also a native of Huang-lung. Early in his life, he traveled to the north for study and, towards the latter years of the Liu-Sung Dynasty, he moved to the city of Chien-k’ang and took up residence in the Chi-hsia ssu Monastery on Mt. She (located in present-day Chiang-ning fu, Kiangsu). He was held in esteem by the Emperor Wen-hsüan, and always desired to be reborn in the Pure Land, often lecturing on the Wu-liang-shou ching . He died at the age of sixty-three in 500. The monastery in which Fa-tu lived, the Chi-hsia ssu, was founded sometime during the T’ai-shih period (465–471) of the Liu-Sung Dynasty. It seems that a retired scholar from Chi-chou by the name of Ming Sengshao moved to Mt. She and there built himself a rude hut. Subsequently the monk Fa-tu, who was “a companion in the Way” of Ming Seng-shao, also moved to Mt. She, and there, in a small mountain temple, he began to lecture on the Wu-liang-shou ching . Once, during the night, Ming Sengshao saw a bright light coming from this temple. Moved by this miracle he converted his hut into a Buddhist monastery in 489. After his death, his son Ming Chung-chang constructed a more permanent dwelling against the face of a cliff at the western base of the mountain. Here, together with the monk Fa-tu, he carved a seated image of the Buddha Amitåbha, over thirty feet in height, with a backdrop forty feet high, and seated figures of two bodhisattvas, over thirty feet in height. Chung-chang and the monk Fa-tu

were aided in their construction work by the various emperors of this dynasty, the Emperors Wen-hui, Wen-hsien, Wen-hsüan, and Shih-an. The wife of the Liu-Sung Prime Minister, the Lady Tsui, and, later, the Ch’i Dynasty military governor of Yung-chou, one T’ien Hsiung, contributed money for the completion of this work. With their contributions, the workmen were able to carve onto the face of these massive rocks “hundreds of millions” of forms of the nirmå?akåya Buddha, Ûåkyamuni. These figures were later decorated through gifts made by a Liang Dynasty king, King Ching-hui of Lin-ch’uan. (This information is based on a memorial inscription, the She shan

chi-hsia ssu p’ei-ming , which was composed by the Ch’en Dynasty official, Chiang Tsung-chih, and preserved in volume four of the Chin-ling fan-she chih [A Monograph of the Buddhist Monasteries in the Chin-lin area]). These carvings became famous, and were known as the She-shan Ch’ien-Fo yen, “The Grotto of the One Thousand Buddhas on Mt. She.” However, another account differs considerably in its account of the origins of these carved images. This is the one preserved in a memorial inscription erected in honor of one Lord Ming-cheng, a stele written in the hand of the T’ang Dynasty Emperor Kao-tsung and erected within the precincts of the Chi-hsia ssu Monastery. This memorial inscription is also preserved in the fifty-ninth volume of the Chin-shih ts’ui-pien . This latter account records that the monk Fa-tu had over ten new carved images. It also records that in 516 (not in 511 as given above) the King of Linch’uan had constructed one image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life (Amitåyus) which measured (from base to tip of halo) some fifty feet in height! It is not certain which of these accounts is the correct one. According to the account preserved in the eighth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk Pao-liang initially lived in the Chung-hsing ssu Monastery, in the city of Chien-k’ang. Later, he moved to the Ling-wei ssu Monastery, and here would often lecture on the Nieh-p’an ching , the Sheng-man ching (the Ûr?målådev? S¥tra ), the Wei-mo ching , and the Fahua ching . In 509, upon an order from the Emperor Wu, he composed a seventy-one volume commentary on the Nieh-p’an ching , the Nieh-p’an ching chi-chieh , in which he gathered together all the theories propounded by the various masters who had previously commented upon this scripture. His biography also records that he lectured on the Wu-liang-shou ching close to ten times. Based on these accounts, then, we can see that lectures on the Wu-liangshou ching were gradually becoming more popular at that time in southern China, but it would seem, too, that there were no written works as yet composed by these lecturers. The monk Fa-yün was a disciple of the master Pao-liang. He lived in the Kuang-che ssu Monastery in Chin-ling (one of the names of the city of Chink’ang). There he lectured often on the Ch’eng-shih lun (the Tattva-siddhi ) and the Fa-hua ching . Together with the scholar-monks Seng-min and

Chih-tsang, Fa-yün was counted as one of the “Three Great Dharma Masters of the Liang Dynasty” ( Liang san ta-fa-shih ). It is not recorded that he sought rebirth in the Pure Land. However, in the fifth volume of his work on the Lotus S¥tra , the Fa-hua ching i-chi , in the section where he elucidates the fourth chapter, “On Faith and Understanding,” the wealthy man in the scripture is likened to the Buddha Amitåbha. Similarly, in the eighth volume of this same commentary, Fa-yün discusses the passage from the sixteenth chapter, “On Length of His Life,” where the text says, “he manifests his own body, or the body of another.” Fa-yün explains that “his own body” refers to the form of the Buddha Ûåkyamuni, while “the body of another” refers to the body of Amitåbha. Based on these fragmentary passages, it would appear that Fa-yün held that the Buddha Amitåbha (here identical to the Buddha Amitåyus) is the basic underlying form ( pen shen ) of the Buddha Ûåkyamuni, which, if true, is profoundly significant for later thought. In his Ching Kuan-yin ching shu , Chih-i (founder of the T’ien-t’ai tradition) discusses the ideas of the Master An-lin of the Ch’i-an ssu Monastery, whom Chih-i considered to be one of the “Seven Masters of the North.” According to Chih-i, An-lin held that Ûåkyamuni was the “response body, the trace body,” whereas Amitåbha was “the true body, the underlying body.” “The response body” ( nirmå?akåya ) was unable to conquer the effects of poison, but the “true body” ( dharmakåya or sambhogakåya ) was able to remove all types of poisons. This theory of Anlin is clearly the teaching that there are two aspects to the Buddha’s manifestation, a basic ground whence the manifestation arises, and the manifestation, “the trace body” itself, and that these bodies were the Buddha Amitåbha and Ûåkyamuni respectively. This theory was perhaps borrowed by An-lin from the teachings of the master Fa-yün. We know that in 509, a nineteen-foot high golden image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life was cast and enshrined in this same Kuang-che ssu Monastery. Based upon these accounts, then, we can see that this Kuang-che ssu was the primary center for the Pure Land faith in this region. According to the fourth volume of the Pi-ch’iu-ni

ch’uan ( Biographies of Nuns ), the nun Tao-kuei of the Ting shan ssu Monastery recited the Sheng-man ching and the Wu-liang-shou ching continually both day and night, dying at the age of eighty-five in 516. According to the sixteenth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng
ch’uan , the monk Tao-ch’in lived on Mt. Lu in the early years of the Liang Dynasty, constantly cultivating Pure Land devotions. One night in a dream he saw a ship about to set sail in the direction of the Buddha land of Amitåbha. Although he asked to board the ship, he was not permitted to do so. This was because he did not recite the O-mi-t’o ching , and he had not paid for the construction of a bathhouse on the grounds of the monastery! From this time onward, we are told, Tao-ch’in recited the O-mi-t’o ching , and he was

eventually reborn into the Pure Land, his death being accompanied by auspicious signs. The account of Tao-ch’in is preserved also in the O-mi-t’o ching pu-ssui shen-li ch’uan ( Accounts of the Miraculous Power of the O-mi-t’o ching ), and in a Postface ( hou chi ) to the O-mi-t’o ching , dated 728 (K’ai-yuan 16), which was discovered at Tun-huang. In these accounts, the monk in question is referred to simply as “the Meditation Master Ch’in” (Ch’in ch’an-shih ), and his dream occurred sometime during the T’ien-chia period (560–565) of the Ch’en Dynasty. Ennin’s catalogue of scriptures, the Nittø-guhø mokuroku (dated 838), lists among other works a one-volume nien-fo san-mei chih kuei ( Instruction in the Nien-fo Samådhi ), composed by the Sui Dynasty monk Hui-ch’in, of the I-ai ssu Monastery, on Mt. Lu. Now if this Hui-ch’in is the above-mentioned Meditation Master Ch’in, he could not have lived in the early years of the Liang Dynasty, but sometime during the years of the Ch’en Dynasty and the Sui Dynasty instead. 3. Early Images of Amitåbha From the end of the Chin Dynasty onwards, the construction of images of the Buddha Amitåbha continued apace with the gradual growth of the Pure Land faith. Most of the images in north China were carved out of rock, while those in the south were metal. According to an account given in the thirteenth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , as well as in the Ming-seng ch’uan chao , the monk Senghung lived in the Wa-kuan ssu Monastery, in the city of Chi´en-k’ang (present-day Chiang-ning fu, Kiangsu). At this time, at the end of the Chin Dynasty, the prohibition on the use of copper was very strictly enforced, but notwithstanding, Seng-hung solicited donations from believers and was able to have cast a sixteen foot-high image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life. He was arrested and thrown into prison for this deed, but he began to recite the Kuan-shih-yin ching (the scripture of the Bodhisattva Avalokite?vara, the twenty-fifth chapter of the Lotus S¥tra ), while fervently worshiping an image of the Buddha. Suddenly, he perceived a miraculous vision, and was able to escape from the prison. According to an account preserved in the thirteenth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan , as well as in the Ming-seng ch’uan chao , the monk Seng-liang lived in Chiang-ling. He wished to cast a sixteen-foot golden image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life. However, since the copper necessary for the casting was insufficient in that region, he hired one hundred craftsmen and rented some ten large vessels, and sailed with the craftsmen to the border of Hsiang-chou (present-day Ch’ang-sha hsien , Hunan). He arrived at the shrine of Wu-tzu Hsü, located in Tung-hsi, “Copper Canyon.” Here they mined some copper and cast the image. However, there was not enough copper for the casting of the halo surrounding the image,

so the Liu-Sung Emperor Wen constructed a gold-plated halo and presented it to the image. The finished image was enshrined in the P’engch’eng ssu Monastery. Subsequently, during the T’ai-shih period (465– 471), the image was moved to the Hsiang-kung ssu Monastery by the Emperor Ming. There is preserved in the Fa-yuan tsa-yuan yuan-shih chi mu-lu (quoted in the twelfth volume of the Ch’u san-tsang

chi-chi ) an account of the construction of a golden image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life that was sixteen feet tall by the monk Seng-liang. This account is entitled the Chingchou

sha-men Shih Seng-liang tsao Wu-liang-shou chang-liu chin-hsiang chi . Volume two of the Liang Dynasty monk Pao-ch’ang’s composition, the Pi-ch’iu-ni ch’uan , records that the nun Tao-ch’iung (of the Chien-fu ssu Monastery, Chin-ling) had constructed a golden image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life in 438. The Ming-seng ch’uan chao records two additional instances. The LiuSung Dynasty monk Tao-ching, of the An-lo ssu Monastery (the Sukhåvat? Monastery), had a five-foot gilded image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life cast. Also, the monk Hui-ching (of the Chih-yuan ssu Monastery, see above) constructed a sixteen foot-high image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life. The twenty-eighth volume of the Fo-tsu t’ung-chi records that the LiuSung Dynasty nun Tao-yüan had constructed some seven large images, which she placed in various monasteries, and further records that she had a copper and gold alloy image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life cast. The above-mentioned Fa-yuan tsa-yuan yuan-shih chi mu-lu also contains two further inscriptions. One is a record of the Liu-Sung Emperor Hsiao-wu constructing a golden image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life (the Sung Hsiao-wu Huang-ti
tsao Wu-liang shou shin-hsiang chi ). The other is an inscription on the cast metal image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life sent as tribute from the country of Champa (the Lin-i kuo hsien Wuliang-shou t’ou shih hsiang chi ). The Japanese Buddhist scholar Seigai Ømura, in his Shina
Bijutsu-shi: Chøsø-hen ( History of Chinese Art: Sculpture ) records a slightly defaced stone inscription, dated 448, from a border region of China. The inscription reads: “For the benefit of my father and mother, as well as for my mate of the Hsiung clan, and our children, I have made the vow to be born in the land of the Buddha #-liang-shou#” (## !"#$%&'(#### ##[square boxes represent illegible or missing characters in the original]). The character liang #=is an error for liang #, and so the image was clearly an image of the Buddha Amitåbha. We can see from these above accounts that the construction of images of the Buddha Amitåbha continued apace throughout the Liu-Sung Dynasty. There are a considerable number of references to the construction of such images during the Ch’i and Liang Dynasties as well. The sixteenth volume of the Kuang Hung-ming chi preserves for us an inscription on an

embroidered hanging of the Buddha of Unlimited Life, which was crafted by a certain Madame Ch’en in company with the bhik?un? Pao-yuan of the Yueh-lin ssu Monastery, and dated 486. The thirteenth volume of the Liang Kao-seng ch’uan records that the monk Fa-yüeh of the Ch’eng-ch’ueh ssu Monastery in Chien-k’ang, together with the monk Chih-ching of the Paima ssu Monastery, made a solicitation for donations in order to construct an eighteen foot-high image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life. In the early years of the Liang Dynasty, they received imperial permission for the construction of this image, and in 909 work was begun on it within the Hsiao Chuang-yen ssu Monastery. The amount of copper available for the construction was insufficient, so additional copper was presented by the Imperial Court, and eventually a nineteen foot-high image of the Buddha was completed, which was enshrined in the Kuang-che ssu Monastery. The account concludes by saying that this image was the largest golden image existing anywhere east of the Kunlun Mountains (i.e., in all China!). The account of the casting of this image is given in the Kuang-che ssu changchiu Wu-liang-shou chin-hsiang chi , preserved in the Fa-yuan tsa-yuan yuan-shih chi mu-lu (which in turn is preserved in the twelfth volume of the Ch’u

ains an inscription to an image of the Buddha Amitåbha, composed by the Liang Dynasty literati Shen Yueh. The thirty-ninth volume of the Nan-shih ( Standard History of the Southern Dynasties ) preserves the inscription from a stele erected within the Chin-hsiang ssu Monastery (the Monastery of the Golden Image) in Yung-chou (the Yung-chou Chin-hsiang ssu Wu-liang-shou Fo-hsiang p’ei ) composed by the Liang Dynasty layman Liu Ch’ien. The ninetieth volume of the Ku-chin t’u-shu chi-ch’eng , in the Monograph on Spirits and Prodigies ( Shen-i tien ), records an inscription to an image of the Buddha Amitåbha composed by the Liang Dynasty Emperor Chien-wen. In his O-mi-t’o ching shu , the Sung Dynasty scholar-monk Yuan-chao (see below Chapter XXVIII) records that the layman Ch’en Jen-leng raised a stele within the precincts of the Lung-hsing ssu Monastery, Hsiang-chou (present-day Hsiang-yang, Hupei), with the text of the O-mi-t’o ching on it. The text had some twenty-one additional characters in it: following the words “one-pointedness of mind, undisturbed,” the text continued with the words: “exclusively hold to the Name . . . with many good roots and various meritorious and virtuous causes and conditions.” Yuan-chao himself had this inscription copied and carved on another stele, and erected it on the grounds of his own monastery, the Ch’ung-fu ssu Monastery in the Hsi-hu (the Western Lakes) region of Hang-chou, in presentday Chekiang province. Eventually, this latter inscription was again copied and brought to Japan, and raised on a stele presently in the precincts of the Shuzo-jinja, in the province of Echizen. This stele has been declared a National Treasure.

CHAPTER VI: THE EARLY PURE LAND FAITH NORTHERN CHINA

1. The Northern Wei Dynasty

Under the influence of Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, coupled with the translation by Pao-yün and Kålaya?as of Pure Land texts, the Pure Land faith spread to all parts of south China. In the north, however, there were no major spokesmen for the Pure Land teachings. Civil wars and insurrections continually ravaged the area, and in 446 the Northern Wei Emperor Wu began a systematic destruction of Buddhism. Texts were burned, and monasteries and st¥pa -s were laid waste. Thus, for a while Buddhism was effectively destroyed in the regions under the effective control of the Northern Wei Dynasty. When the Emperor Wen-ch’eng took the throne, Buddhism underwent a revival. In 454, the monk T’an-yüeh was given an Imperial Command to construct five shrines out of caves and grottos carved into the north face of the mountains facing the Sai-shan ku Valley, in Wu-chou, to the northwest of the Wei capital, Heng-an (present-day Ta-t’ung, Shansi). Later, T’anyüeh constructed over ten stone chapels and temples in the vicinity of these caves, and images of the Buddhas were enshrined in all of them. This was the beginning of the famous Ta-t’ung Caves. In 494, the Emperor Hsiao-wen moved the capital of the Wei Dynasty to the city of Loyang, and soon thereafter work was begun on the Lung-men caves (located in present-day Lo-yang hsien , Honan). Over the years, a large number of both caves and temples came to be constructed in this area, and images of the Buddhas were enshrined in them. The largest number of images were those of the Buddha Maitreya, followed in number by images of Ûåkyamuni and Avalokite?vara. There were comparatively few images of the Buddha Amitåbha, and those that exist are of a somewhat later date. According to Seigai Ømura’s Shina Bitjutsu-shi:

Chøsø-hen , the first image of the Buddha Amitåbha to be constructed at Lung-men was one raised by a pious laywoman, one Madame Chiang, in the year 518. This image was followed at Lung-men by images raised in 519, 522, 523, 526, 527, 533, and 545. Nevertheless, at this early date, concepts of the Pure Land were still in the elementary stage, and in most cases the faith in the Pure Land of Amitåbha was identified or confused with a faith in the appearance of the future Buddha Maitreya and his Pure Land, Tu?ita. This is shown with great clarity by one inscription, dated 499, preserved in the Kuyang Cave in Lung-men. This inscription was composed by the bhik?u

Seng-hsin on a stone image of the Buddha Maitreya constructed by him. The inscription says: I have raised this one stone image of Maitreya for the benefit of the rebirth of my father and mother, and for all of the masters and members of the Saçgha related to me. I desire that they all be born in the Western Land of the Buddha of Unlimited Life, that they may hear the Three Preachings of the Dharma under the Någa Flower Tree. May they all be reborn in their human state as the sons and grandsons of lords and kings, and may they be born together with the Great Bodhisattvas in the dwelling of Tu?ita Heaven.

An inscription on an image of Maitreya raised by the bhik?un? Fa-ching in 501 states that she desired to be born in the Western Land of Sublime Bliss (Sukhåvat?), and that she be born as a duke, a king, or a millionaire. We find a similar sentiment in an inscription on an image of the Buddha Ûakyamuni raised in this same year by the bhik?un? Hui-chih. She also desires to be born in this same Western Land of Sublime Bliss as a duke, a king, or a millionaire, and she desires to hear the Three Preachings of Maitreya given under the Någa Flower Tree. These inscriptions show that the belief in a future Pure Land involved both belief in the future appearance of Maitreya, and belief in the Pure Land of Amitåbha, Sukhåvat?. These devotees wished to be reborn in Sukhåvat? by virtue of the merits accruing from the construction of an image of Maitreya. Then, when the Buddha Maitreya appears in the world, they wish to be born as human beings, the sons of feudal lords or kings, and to hear the Three Preachings given by the Buddha Maitreya under the Någa Flower Tree. Many devotees desired to be born in Heaven, among the deva -s, through the merits acquired by raising an image of the Buddha Amitåbha. In one inscription, dated 526, on an image of the Buddha Amitåbha raised by the upåsikå (laywoman) Huang Fa-seng, she desires that her deceased relatives be born in Heaven, where “they will cast off suffering, and obtain pleasure.” In an inscription on an image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life, raised in 545 by (the monk?) Hui-chien, the donor says: “For the benefit of my deceased father and mother, I have constructed an image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life [here: Wu-shou Fo], desiring that they may be born in the Heavenly Land.” Another inscription dated 549 on a stone image says that the donor has constructed four Buddha and four Bodhisattva images, by the merits of which the deceased may ascend to Heaven, and there be born in the Western Land of the Buddha of Unlimited Life. An inscription on a stone image of Amitåbha carved in 597 records that the donor desires to cast off his present defiled form, and meet Maitreya face to face, and that he may be born in the Western Land (of Amitåbha).

What specifically do these donors mean by Heaven, t’ien ? We can, of course, regard this Heaven in the Confucian sense of the word. However, these are not Confucian inscriptions, but inscriptions at the base of Buddha images, so the Heaven referred to must be one of the Pure Lands of Buddhism. From this very early period, however, the belief in the Pure Land of Maitreya, Tu?ita Heaven, was bound up with the belief in the Pure Land of Amitåbha, Sukhåvat?. So these inscriptions doubtlessly refer to the one Pure Land which is commonly called a “heaven” ( t’ien ), in Buddhist writings, the Tu?ita Heaven of Maitreya. If this is the case, these inscriptions must be read and understood as evidence of this confusion of beliefs, on the one hand a belief in “birth in Tu?ita” ( tou-shuai shang-sheng ), and on the other, “rebirth in the West” ( hsi-fang wang-sheng ). The later result of this confusion of beliefs led to Sukhåvat? coming to be called the t’ienshou kuo , the “Heavenly Land of Long Life.” In a Postface ( hou-chi ) to the forty-sixth volume of a copy of the Huayen ching , found in Tun-huang and dated 583, we find what is perhaps the first occurrence of the phrase t’ien-shou kuo. This is in the phrase: “I desire that my deceased father and mother are born in the Western Heavenly Land of Long Life.” Also, an inscription on an image of Amitåbha in the Mo-ai Cliffs in the Ling-yen ssu Monastery, located in the Ch’ien-fo Mountains of present-day Li-shan hsien , Shantung province, and dated sometime in the Sui Dynasty, states: “I have respectfully constructed this one image of the Buddha Amitåbha, with the desire that I, together with all sentient beings, may ascend to #####, there to maintain our heavenly long lives” (## !"#$%&'()%*+,-./##### ## ). In Japan, in 622, the Empress Suiko had constructed an embroidered hanging, entitled the “Tenj¥koku Embroidered Hanging,” as an offering upon the death of Prince Shøtoku. Such a hanging clearly reflected the north Chinese belief of the two previous centuries. Prince Shøtoku was, it was thought, reborn in Amitåbha’s Pure Land, and this embroidered hanging is thought to represent this Pure Land, Sukhåvat?. In any case we can see that, although confused with Tu?ita Heaven in the minds of some monks, nuns, and laity, belief in the Pure Land of Amitåbha came to be more and more widespread in north China.

2. Bodhiruci and the “Six Great Worthies of the Pure Land Teachings.”

The monk Bodhiruci was a native of north India who came to China, arriving at the capital city of Loyang in 508, during the reign of the Emperor Hsuan-wu of the Northern Wei Dynasty. Bodhiruci was the famous translator of such important texts as the Shih-ti ching lun (the Da?a-bh¥mi vyåkhyåna ) and the Ju-Leng-chia ching (the Laçkåvatåra S¥tra ). Impor 63 (E-book, IBC 2010) Mochizuki: Pure Land Buddhism in China 273 tant for the Pure Land teachings, however, was his translation of the Wuliang-shou ching

Yü-p’o-ti-she Yuan-sheng chieh ( An Upade?a [Instruction] on the Amitåyus S¥tra: A Gåthå on Desiring Rebirth ), traditionally ascribed to Vasubandhu. This work is also known by a variety of shorter titles, either the Wu-liang shou ching lun ( A Commentary on the Amitåyus S¥tra ), the Wang-sheng lun ( A Commentary on Rebirth ), or simply the Ching-t’u lun ( A Commentary on the Pure Land ). It was an important work to later Pure Land thinkers for its teaching of attaining rebirth by the fivefold practice of the nien-fo ( wu nien-fo wang-sheng ). According to the ninth volume of the Li-tai San-pao chi , this work was translated in 530 during the Northern Wei Dynasty; the sixth volume of the K’ai-yuan Shih-chiao lu gives the date of this translation as 529. However, there is nothing in the biography of Bodhiruci (preserved in the first volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan ) that would attribute a belief in the Pure Land to him. Rather, the first reference to him in a Pure Land context is a master-disciple lineage recorded in the second volume of the An-lo chi ( A Collection of Works on Sukhåvat? ), composed in the T’ang Dynasty by the monk Tao-ch’o (see below, Chapter XII). In this work, Tao-ch’o gives a lineage of six masters who, in their profound investigations of the Mahåyåna, came to believe that the most essential teachings of the Mahåyåna were the Pure Land teachings. These six masters are Bodhiruci, Hui-ch’ung, Tao-ch’ang, T’an-luan, Ta-hai, and Fa-shang. Thus, according to Tao-ch’o, Bodhiruci is the first Patriarchal Master of the Pure Land teachings in China. In the biography of T’an-luan, preserved in the sixth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , the story is told that when T’an-luan was traveling in south China, he passed through Loyang and there met the master Bodhiruci. T’an-luan asked Bodhiruci whether there was in the Buddhadharma any art or technique that equaled the Taoist techniques for attaining perpetual life. Bodhiruci responded to this by spitting on the ground and berating him. Handing T’an-luan a copy of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching , Bodhiruci said that this was the technique of the Great Sage, Ûåkyamuni, and that if he were to cultivate its teachings, he would obtain liberation from the round of birth and death, and hence attain the deathless state. If this account is true, then Bodhiruci must be regarded as a believer in the Pure Land teachings. However, it is not recorded in either the An-lo chi , nor in Chia-ts’ai’s Ching-t’u lun . Perhaps this account is no more than a pious legend appended to account for Bodhiruci’s translation of a major Pure Land text, the Wu-liang-shou ching lun . In any case, it is hard to credit this account with any basis in historical fact. The name Hui-ch’ung ## is perhaps a misprint for the name Taoch’ung ## . According to the seventh volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , the master Tao-ch’ung studied the Shih-ti ching lun with Bodhiruci. In his day he was as famous a master as his contemporary, Hui-kuang (see

below), for Tao-ch’ung came to be counted as one of the patriarchal masters of the northern Ti-lun tradition. The northern Ti-lun tradition was a major academic tradition in Chinese Buddhism which centered on the study of Bodhiruci’s translation of the Da?a-bh¥mi-vyåkhyåna . The study of this text prepared the way for the eventual development of the Hua-yen tradition of Buddhism. In any case, there is no evidence in the biography of the master Tao-ch’ung that he was especially interested in the Pure Land faith. According to the twenty-fourth volume of the Ta-chih-tu lun shu (composed by the Northern Chou Dynasty scholar-monk Hui-ying), the master Tao-ch’ang ## (also written Tao-chang ##) was a disciple of Hui-kuang. Subsequently he attended Bodhiruci’s lectures, but became the object of the jealousy of Bodhiruci’s other students, and moved to Ch’ungkao shan (located in present-day Teng-feng hsien , Honan), where he lived for ten years, studying the Ta-chih-tu lun . He eventually left the mountain and returned to the city, where he began to lecture on this work, and the subsequent popularity of the Ta-chih tu lun is said to be based on Taoch’ang’s lectures on the text. In the biography of one Chih-nien, preserved in the eleventh volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , there is mention of the Dharma Master Taoch’ang ## (##) who lived in Yeh-tu (located in present-day Lin-chang hsien , Honan). He was well-versed in the Ta-chih-tu lun , and was a major scholar of this tradition. In the biography of the monk Ming-chan, in the twenty-fourth volume of this same Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , mention is also made of the Dharma Master Tao-ch’ang, who lived in the Ta-chi ssu Monastery, in Yeh. It states that his exclusive topic of study was the Tachih-tu lun . Thus, we can see from these accounts that he lived in the Tachi ssu Monastery in the capital city of Yeh, and that his lectures on the Tachih-tu lun were popular and well-attended. According to accounts preserved in the second volume of Tao-hsüan’s Chi Shen-chou San-pao kan-t’ung lu , and in the fifteenth volume of the Fayuan chu-lin , sometime during the reign of the Sui Dynasty Emperor Wen, the ?rama?a Ming-hsien visited the monastery of the master Tao-ch’ang. While there he saw a picture of the Buddha Amitåbha surrounded by some fifty attendant bodhisattvas. This picture was supposedly based on an Indian model preserved in the Kukku†åråma Vihåra in Magadha, showing the Five Bodhisattvas of Supernormal Powers ( ®ddhi ). Tao-ch’ang copied this picture and caused it to be circulated. Since this Tao-ch’ang is, without doubt, the same Tao-ch’ang mentioned above, and if this account is historically true, then he was a believer in the Buddha Amitåbha, and the work that he obtained was the so-called “ Ma??ala of the Five Supernormal Powers.” According to the third volume of Fa-lin’s Pien-ch’eng lun , the Northern Wei Emperor Hsiao-wen constructed the An-yang ssu Monastery (the

Sukhåvat? Monastery) in the capital city of Yeh in memory of his deceased mother. It is clear then, that the Pure Land faith enjoyed a great prosperity in the capital city of Yeh. The fifth of the “Six Pure Land Worthies” listed by Tao-ch’o is the monk Ta-hai, which is perhaps a variant name for the monk Hui-hai. According to the twelfth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , the monk Hui-hai first studied with the Dharma Master Chiung who lived in the Kuang-kuo ssu Monastery, in the capital city of Yeh, and here studied the Nieh-p’an ching and the Leng-chia ching . Later Hui-hai constructed the An-lo ssu Monastery (the Sukhåvat? Monastery) in Chiang-tu (present-day Chiang-tu hsien , Kiangsu), and lived there until his death at the age of sixty-eight in 609. Throughout his life he desired rebirth in the Pure Land. On one occasion he received from the monk Seng-ch’üan (of Ch’i-chou, located in present-day Li-ch’eng hsien , Shantung) an image of the Buddha of Unlimited Life copied from the above-mentioned picture of the Bodhisattvas of the Five Supernormal Powers. He in turn caused this picture to be copied, recording on it that viewing it only deepened his desire for rebirth in the Pure Land. From this account, it is clear that the master Hui-hai was also a believer and a worshiper of the “ Ma??ala of the Five Supernormal Powers.” The reputed history of this ma??ala is given in the second volume of Tao-hsüan’s Chi Shen-chou San-pao kan-t’ung lu . In the Kukku†åråma Monastery, in Magadha, there were five Bodhisattvas who possessed supernormal powers ( ®ddhi ). They went to Sukhåvat? heaven and there they met Amitåbha, requesting him to descend to this sahå world in order to benefit the living beings here. At that time, the Buddha was seated with fifty of his attendant bodhisattvas, each one on his lotus throne. The Buddha then appeared in this world, together with these fifty attendant bodhisattvas, and they manifested themselves on the top of a tree. The five bodhisattvas took the leaves of this tree and drew pictures of this scene on them, and distributed these leaves far and wide. During the reign of the Han Emperor Ming, a ?rama?a , the nephew of Kå?yapamåtaçga, brought a copy of this ma??ala to China. Tao-hsüan continues that time of the Wei and Chin Dynasties is distant from the time of the Buddha, and the world has entered into the period of the Extinction of the Dharma. For these reasons both scriptures and religious pictures are on the verge of extinction, and this ma??ala too was almost lost. During the reign of the Sui Emperor Wen, there was a ?rama?a by the name of Ming-hsien. He obtained a copy of this ma??ala from the Dharma Master Tao-ch’ang, and Tao-ch’ang in turn told him the circumstances of its composition in India, and of its transmission to China. From the time of Tao-ch’ang onward, copies of this picture spread widely throughout China. The Northern Ch’i Dynasty painter, Ts’ao Chung-ta, was especially good at mixing colors, and he drew facsimilies of this ma??ala on the walls of monasteries all over the country.

As we have seen from the above, this ma??ala is reputed to trace its origins to the Later Han Dynasty, but this tale is obviously not based on historical fact. Previously we have referred to the second volume of the Wang-sheng

ch’uan , which was composed by one Chieh-chu, and is now preserved in the library of the Shimpukuji Monastery, Tokyo. This text records that the Indian monk Jinadharma was a firm believer in the Pure Land teachings, and that in India he drew a picture of Amitåbha surrounded by twenty-five attendant bodhisattvas. He brought this picture with him to China, and composed a gåthå expressing his devotion to the ma??ala . The gåthå says, “If you desire the Pure Land, you should make images and pictures. At the moment of your death, they will appear before you, and shall point out the Path to you . . . .“ These twenty-five attendant bodhisattvas perhaps have some relationship with the twenty-five bodhisattvas mentioned in the Shih wang-sheng O-mi-t’o Fo-kuo ching , and since this ma??ala is a picture of Amitåbha and his attendants, the figure twenty-five is perhaps also a scribal error for the figure fifty-two. If this is the case, then perhaps it was the Indian master Jinadharma who first brought this ma??ala to China, sometime during the Northern Ch’i Dynasty (479–502). According to volume X:4 of the Yuishiki-ron Døgaku-shø , the master Chih-chou of P’u-yang (present-day P’u-yang hsien , Hopei), constructed images of Amitåbha, Avalokite?vara, Mahåsthåmapråpta, and the fiftytwo bodhisattvas within the Hsi-fang Ching-t’u yuan (the Western Pure Land Chapel). His mind was solely concerned with the Pure Land, and suddenly some miraculous signs appeared to him. According to this account, the representation of these fifty-two bodhisattvas continued to be produced well into the T’ang Dynasty. The representation of Amitåbha and his fifty-two attendant bodhisattvas was introduced into Japan as well. The volume Amida of the Kakuzen-shø ( Kakuzen-shø: Amida-no-kan ) gives pictures of these bodhisattvas.

3. Hui-kuang

The scholar-monk Hui-kuang was as famous in his day as was the monk Tao-ch’ung, the disciple of Bodhiruci. He was counted as the founder of the southern branch of the Ti-lun tradition that centered on the study of the Da?a-bh¥mi scripture. According to the twenty-first volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , Hui-kuang was initially the Monastic Supervisor ( kuo-seng-t’u ) in the capital city of Loyang. Later he was sent by Imperial Order to Yeh, where he became the Monastic Supervisor for the whole kingdom ( kuo-t’ung ). During his whole life, he desired rebirth in the Pure Land. However, it is not certain which

Pure Land it was that he was so devoted to (the Sukhåvat? of Amitåbha, or the Tu?ita of Maitreya). His biography does state that when he was about to die, he desired to be reborn in Sukhåvat?. Fa-shang, the last of the Tao-ch’o’s “Six Pure Land Worthies,” was a disciple of Hui-kuang. According to the eighth volume of the Hsü Kaoseng ch’uan , he was as famous in his day as Tao-ch’ang. Throughout his life he worshiped Maitreya, and thus desired to be reborn in Tu?ita Heaven, dying at the age of eighty-five in 580. According to this, he was not a devotee of the Sukhåvat? Pure Land faith. The reason Tao-ch’o included him among the “Six Pure Land [here: Sukhåvat?] Worthies” was perhaps that the meaning of the term “Pure Land” as employed by Tao-ch’o was the broad meaning of this term. In this usage it would have also included the idea of Tu?ita Heaven as a Pure Land, on an equal footing with Sukhåvat?. Furthermore, Hui-kuang’s disciple, the monk Tao-p’ing, was noted for being a devotee of Sukhåvat? and, according to the eighth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , at the time of his death saw the light of the Buddha. According to the ninth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , Tao-p’ing’s disciple was the monk Ling-yü, who composed three commentaries. One was on the O-mi-t’o ching (the O-mi-t’o ching shu ), one on the Kuan Wuliang shou ching (the Kuan Wu-Liang-shou ching shu ), and one on the Upade?a of Vasubandhu (the Wang-sheng lun shu ) in which he elucidated and clarified the Pure Land teachings. Based on this, then, we can clearly see that Pure Land faith and devotion was highly regarded in both the Northern and the Southern branches of the Ti-lun tradition. It was approximately at this period, too, that the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun ( The Awakening of Faith in the Mahåyåna ) first came to be noticed in Chinese Buddhist circles. It was traditionally taught that this work was composed in India by A?vagho?a, and was translated into Chinese by the monk Paramårtha. This work teaches origination from out of the Tathågatagarbha, and that the absolute ( tathatå , chen-ju ) constitutes the basis and the support of all the dharmas, a position which tallied with the contemporary teachings of the Southern branch of the Ti-lun tradition. In volume five of the Chung-ching mu-lu (compiled in the Sui Dynasty by the monk Fa-ching), the Ta-ch’eng ch’ih-sin lun is listed within the section “Doubtful Works” ( I-huo lu ). The notation indicates that the work does not appear in any list of Paramårtha’s translations, and so the compiler relegated it to the “doubtful” category. Volume ten of the Ssu-lun hsüan-i by the T’ang Dynasty monk Hui-chun is preserved in the second volume of Chinkai’s Sanron-gensho Mongiyø . Here it states that the masters of the Northern branch of the Ti-lun tradition held that this work was not composed by A?vagho?a, but that it was forged (i.e., written in China and ascribed to an Indian master) by some master of the Ti-lun tradition.

The Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun itself says in one passage at the end of the section “Cultivation and Faith”: If one desires to cultivate stilling and insight ( ?amatha and vipa?yanå ), and to search out correct faith, because one lives in this Sahå world, it is not possible to ever personally encounter the Buddhas, and to make p¥ja offerings to them. It is very difficult to generate faith. So, if someone fears regressing, he should with onepointedness of mind concentrate on the Buddha of the West, Amitåbha, and be reborn in his Pure Land, and abide in the number of those truly assured. This passage borrows heavily from the teaching of the two paths, the difficult and the easy path, attributed to Någårjuna. Furthermore, it is also closely related to T’an-luan’s teachings that divide these paths into two: the difficult path is the path of practice in this world, whereas the easy path is the path of rebirth. We can see, then, that many of the masters of the Ti-lun tradition were believers in the Pure Land faith, and, as Hui-chün points out, this work was probably composed by a master of the Southern branch of this Ti-lun tradition. Another work whose first appearance dates from this period is the two-volume Chan-ts’a shan-o Yeh-pao ching . The text itself, which is included in the present-day canon of Buddhist scriptures, bears the name of the Indian Tripi†aka Master Bodhid?pa as its translator. Bodhid?pa, however, is totally unknown. According to the twelfth volume of the Li-tai San-pao chi , the scholar-monk Fa-ching (the compiler of the Chung-ching mu-lu ) was asked to examine this work in 593 in order to determine its authenticity. Fa-ching declared that it was a forgery, and as a result, it was officially prohibited from circulating. Fa-ching, in both the second volume of his Chung-ching

mu-lu and the fourth volume of Yen-tsung’s Chung-ching mu-lu , relegates this scripture to the section “Doubtful Works,” so we can confidently say that this work is not the translation of an Indian original. The last volume of the Yeh-pao ching states that it teaches the “true significance” of the Mahåyåna but, in fact, its teaching in this section is almost identical to the teachings of the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun . Furthermore, the Yeh-pao ching praises the Pure Land teachings in terms that are very close to those used in the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun . The Yeh-pao ching says, towards the end of its last volume, that even if one were to practice adhimok?a (one’s resolutions, lit: one’s faith and understanding), because his roots of good are still shallow, he will be unable to progress in his spiritual cultivations. However, anyone who fears regressing should meditate on the name of the Buddha and visualize the dharmakåya of the Buddha. Should he thus cultivate the practice of faith, he will be born, in

accordance with his vows, in that Pure Land which is even now in that other direction. There his good roots will grow and increase, and he will be able to speedily attain the state of non-regression. The monk Jin’go of Silla wrote the Tamhy?n-gi Jesam-sagi ( Private Notes on the Third Volume of the T’an-hsüan chi ), which is in turn quoted in the eighth volume of Kembø’s Høsatsu-shø. There, Jin’go states that the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun was composed based on another forged text, the Chien-ch’a ching . Thus, it would naturally follow that the Ta-ch’eng ch’ihsin lun would be a forgery. The words chien-ch’a ##=appear to be a transliteration of the words chan-ts’a ##, so it would appear that Jin’go is saying that the Ta-ch’eng

ch’i-hsin lun was written based on the Chants’a shan-o Pao-yeh ching . Whatever the case may be, it is clear that from the very earliest days, both the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun and the Pao-yeh ching were regarded as similar texts. Now, if we were to assume that the Ta-cheng ch’i-hsin lun was the composition of one of the masters in the Southern branch of the Ti-lun tradition, then we would be obliged to acknowledge that the Chan-ts’a shan-o pao-yeh ching is from the hand of a master from this same school. These problems have already been discussed in detail in my work, the Daijø-kishin-ron no kenky¥ ( A Study of the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun). If this above conclusion is accepted, then it is clear that the Pure Land faith came to be viewed with increasing importance among the masters of the Ti-lun tradition.

Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History A Doctrinal History Chapter Seven: T’an-luan Chapter Seven: T’an-luan Chapter Seven: T’an-luan Chapter Seven: T’an-luan Chapter Seven: T’an-luan

Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki Shinkø Mochizuki

Translated by Leo M. Pruden

Edited by Richard K. Payne Institute of Buddhist Studies IN THIS ISSUE WE continue with the publication of selections from Leo Pruden’s translation of Shinkø Mochizuki’s Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History . Given the theme of this issue, we have chosen to publish chapter seven, on T’an-luan, out of order. As mentioned in the previous issue, editing of Pruden’s typescript has been limited to improvements in the readability and updating some of the terminology employed. We again wish to express our appreciation to everyone who contributed to initiating this project, especially the Pruden estate for their permission to publish the work.

CHAPTER VII: T’AN-LUAN

1. T’an-luan’s Life and Writings

T’an-luan was counted by Tao-ch’o as one of the “Six Pure Land Worthies. His influence over later generations of Pure Land thinkers was considerable, due to his commentary on the Wang-sheng lun of Vasubandhu, his Wang-sheng lun chu , and his teaching in this work with respect to the “other-power” of the Fundamental Vows of Amitåbha. Hønen, in his Senchaku-sh¥ (the Senchaku-hongan-nembutsu sh¥ ), divides the Chinese Pure Land movement into three major traditions. First is the tradition founded by Hui-yuan of Mt. Lu, second is the tradition represented by the Tripi†aka Master Tz’u-min, and third is the tradition represented by the two masters, Tao-ch’o and Shan-tao. The first patriarchal master of this third tradition was the master T’an-luan.

As we have mentioned earlier, Hui-yuan’s tradition centered on the cultivation of the visualization, in meditation, of the form of Amitåbha, a meditation based upon the teachings of the P’an-shou san-mei ching . In opposition to this practice, T’an-luan stressed rebirth in the Pure Land after one’s death, that one attained this rebirth by means of the powers inherent in the Fundamental Vows of the Tathågata, and that once there, one could speedily attain to the state of non-regression. In later years, these three traditions came to merge with one another in China, but in Japan, largely through the influence of Hønen, the third tradition (that of Tao-ch’o and Shan-tao) came to be the mainstream tradition of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. It is due to this that the master T’an-luan has come to be esteemed in Japan as the first of the five Chinese Pure Land patriarchs, whereas in China itself the master Hui-yuan is regarded as the first Pure Land patriarchal master. According to his biography in the sixth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , T’an-luan was a native of Ying-men (present-day Tai-chou, Shansi). Another source states that he was a native of Wen-sui, in Ping-chou. His family home was located close by the sacred mountain of Wu-t’ai shan (located in present-day Wu-t’ai hsien , Shansi), and when he was a little over ten years of age he climbed this mountain and there visited its monasteries and holy sites. This left a lasting impression on him, and soon thereafter he left the householder’s life and joined the Sangha. He read widely in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist writings, specializing in the Ssu-lun (the Madhyamaka Tradition) and the Fo-hsing lun (The Treatise on Buddha-nature by Vasubandhu). Subsequently, he planned to write a commentary on the Ta-chi ching (the Mahå-sa?nipata corpus), but became gravely ill in the middle of his work. He recovered, but had now become intensely aware of the transience of human life. He then began to search out and study various Taoist formulas for long life. In this search he traveled to the south, to the capital city of Chien-k’ang, where he is reported to have had an audience with the Liang Dynasty Emperor Wu. He departed the capital city and traveled to Mt. Chü-yung, where he met the adept T’ao Hung-ching, from whom he received instruction in ten volumes of Taoist texts. He then left the company of T’ao Hung-ching and visited a number of other famous mountains, visiting the masters there and cultivating the different Taoist arts of prolonging life. While traveling home, he passed through the city of Loyang, where he met the Indian master Bodhiruci. He is reported to have told Bodhiruci of his Taoist studies, to which Bodhiruci responded that the deathless state could not be attained in China, and then presented T’an-luan with a copy of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching , as being a scripture of the Greatest Sage, the Buddha. Reading this scripture, T’an-luan became suddenly awakened, and burned his Taoist texts. He subsequently returned home, where he began to cultivate the Pure Land teachings, converting many clergy and

laity. His fame spread, and he came to the attention of the Emperor of the Wei Dynasty, who bestowed the title of “shen-Luan” (the divine Luan) upon him. The Emperor gave over the Ta-yen ssu Monastery, in Ping-chou, to T’an-luan. Later, T’an-luan moved to the Hsüan-chung ssu Monastery, at the foot of the Pei-shan cliffs, in Fen-chou (present-day Chiao-ch’eng hsien , Shansi). Here he gathered around him a group of disciples, and together they cultivated the Nien-fo practice. T’an-luan is reported to have died in the year 542, at the age of sixty-six, in a “mountain monastery” in Ping-yao. As we have mentioned above, the account of T’an-luan meeting Bodhiruci and receiving a copy of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching from him, is highly doubtful. Furthermore, in his composition, the Wang-sheng lun chu , T’an-luan criticizes the choice of words used by the translator of the Wang-sheng lun (i.e., Bodhiruci). Especially, in a note to the passage “one searching out” in the Wang-sheng lun , T’an-luan says, “The translator uses the word ‘to search out.’ How obscure this meaning is!” Now if Bodhiruci were T’an-luan’s master, who introduced him to the Pure Land teachings, then these words would have been extremely rude. In a word, we do not know who the teacher was, who introduced T’an-luan to the Pure Land teachings and their practice. However, it is recorded in his biography that T’an-luan was a student of the Ssu-lun Tradition (the Madhyamaka Tradition), which was based on four treatises: the Chung-lun , the Pai-lun and the Shih-erh lun , plus the Tachih-tu lun . Also, among the “Six Pure Land Worthies” listed in the An-lo chi , the order Tao-ch’ang and T’an-luan is given, so perhaps T’an-luan studied under the master Tao-ch’ang, who was the leading authority on the Ta-chih-tu lun of his day. We have also mentioned above that Tao-ch’ang had received a copy of the Ma??ala of the Five Bodhisattvas of Supernormal Powers, so perhaps T’an-luan may have received his introduction into the Pure Land faith from this master. The Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan places T’an-luan’s date of death in the year 542 (the fourth year of Hsing-ho, of the Eastern Wei Dynasty). However the name of a bhik?u Seng T’an-luan appears among some twenty-seven names listed on an inscription carved in the second month of 554 (the fifth year of T’ien-pao, of the Northern Ch’i Dynasty). Assuming that this Seng T’an-luan is this same T’an-luan, then his death must be placed some time after the year 554. Furthermore, the last volume of Chia-ts’ai’s Ching-t’u

lun gives the biography of T’an-luan, and mentions that he was still alive “at the end of the Wei, and at the beginning of the Kao-Ch’i Dynasties.” The biography of Tao-ch’o in the twentieth volume of the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan , as well as the Wang-sheng Hsi-fang Ching-t’u shui-ying shan-ch’uan , lists him as “the Dharma Master T’an-luan of the Ch’i era.” It is clear from the above that T’an-luan did not die any time during the Eastern Wei Dynasty, but was alive well into the Ch’i Dynasty.

Pacific World

Only three works have come down to us from the hand of T’an-luan: the two-volume Wang-sheng lun chu , the one volume Ts’an O-mi-t’o Fo chieh , and the one-volume Lüeh-lun An-lo Ching-t’u i . The first work, the W a n g - s h e n g l u n c h u , is a commentary on Vasubandhu’s Wang-sheng lun. The first volume of his work comments on the twenty-four lines of gåthå in this work, and the second volume comments on the prose section. In various places throughout this work T’an-luan presents his Pure Land philosophy. The Ts’an O-mi-t’o Fo chieh (Gåthås in Praise of the Buddha Amitåbha) is a short work, consisting of 195 seven character lines. This work is a collection of praises of the various qualities of Amitåbha and his Pure Land, based largely on the Wu-liang-shou ching . This work is also variously entitled the Wu-liang-shou ching feng-ts’an (Praises Offered to the WuLiang-shou ching ) or simply the Ta-ching feng-ts’an (Praises Offered to the Greater S¥tra). The Lüeh-lun An-lo Ching-t’u i raises, and answers, several questions with respect to the Pure Land: • whether it is within the three dhåtus or not, • how many adornments it has, • what are the various types of capacities of devotees who can be reborn therein, • the nature of womb birth in the peripheral areas of the Pure Land, • the doubts and delusions of the Five Wisdoms, and • the problem of ten continuous recitations. This work’s authenticity has been called into question by a number of writers. In his Yanggw?n Muryang-gy?ng jong’yo , the scholar-monk W?nhy?—from the Silla dynasty in Korea—claims that the simile of crossing the river employed in the Lüeh-lun can be traced back to Kumåraj?va. The Japanese Tendai scholar-monk Shøshin, in the sixth volume of his Hokke-gengi shiki , claims that Kumåraj?va composed this work. However, the Lüeh-lun quotes a number of works, specifically the Kuan

Wu-liang-shou ching , and the Wang-sheng lun , which were translated into Chinese only after the death of Kumåraj?va, so the work cannot possibly be his work. In the Edo period the scholar-monk Reik¥ Køken composed a work entitled The Lüeh-lun An-lo Ching-t’u i is not a Work by T’an-luan ( Ryakuron Anraku Jødo-gi Donran-sen ni arazu ). In this he claimed that the Lüehlun was composed in Japan by someone very uneducated, and that it was not really from the hand of T’an-luan. However, in the last volume of his Ching-t’u lun , Chia-ts’ai mentions, in addition to the Wang-sheng lun chu and the Wu-liang-shou ching feng-ts’an , one volume of Questions and Answers , and here refers to the Lüeh-lun , which is written in a catechical

form. The Lüeh-lun is also quoted many times in Tao-ch’o’s An-lo chi . In addition to this, an old manuscript copy of the Lüeh-lun has been discovered among the finds in Tun-huang, so it is clear that the Lüeh-lun is not a Japanese composition. Besides the above three works ascribed to T’an-luan, his biography in the Hsü Kao-seng ch’uan also mentions a work entitled the Tiao-ch’i lun (An Essay on Regulating the Breath). Additionally, The Monograph on Bibliography (the Ching-chi chih ) in the Sui Shu mentions two other works by T’an-luan, the Liao pai-ping tsa-wan fang (Prescriptions for Mixing Pills for the Cure of All Illnesses), and the Lun liao-fang (A Discussion of the Role of Breath in the Curing of Illnesses). Finally, the Monograph on the Arts and Literatu re (the I-wen chih ) of the Sung Shu mentions a work entitled the Fu ch’i yao-ch’ueh (Essentials for Regulating the Breath). We can see from this that T’an-luan was considered to have been very learned in the homeopathic sciences. These works are probably the result of his own studies in recuperative techniques, carried out in the period early in his life when he was gravely ill.

2. The Two Paths

T’an-luan’s major teachings are to be found in his Wang-sheng lun chu . At the very beginning of this work, he quotes the “Chapter on Easy Practice” from the Shih-chu pi-p’o-sha (the Da?a-bh¥mi vibhå?å ), traditionally ascribed to Någårjuna. There are two paths by which the Bodhisattva can search out the stage of non-regression (Skt: avaivartika ), the path of different practice ( nan-hsing-tao ) and the path of easy practice ( i-hsingtao ). To search out the stage of non-regression in this world, which is full of the five defilements, and in this present age, which is without the living presence of a Buddha, is regarded as the path of difficult practice. But to be born in the Pure Land due to one’s faith in the Buddha (lit.: by means of the causes and conditions of believing in the Buddha), to be empowered by the Buddha and so enter into the Mahåyåna assembly of those definitively assured [of such a rebirth] is termed the path of easy practice. In a world full of the five defilements and without a Buddha, the nonBuddhists propagate doctrines of tangible, existent characteristics. These teachings disturb the characteristic-less cultivation of the Bodhisattvas, and the self-centered discipline and the self-benefitting teachings of the H?nayåna ?råvakas cause the Bodhisattva to turn away from his own practice of great compassion and benevolence. Also, evil and unreflective beings destroy the distinguished qualities of the Bodhisattva, and, seeing the perverted, defiled results of these beings disturbs the mind of the Bodhisattvas, and so brings about a disruption of their religious cultivation.

Furthermore, in a world without a Buddha, one cannot rely on the power of the Buddha, and one must cultivate religious practices through his own powers. For these reasons, then, it is extremely difficult to attain the state of non-regression. Therefore, the author likens this path to walking on land, and so terms it “the path of difficult practice.” In opposition to this, however, the path of easy practice takes advantage of (lit.: rides on) the power inherent in the Buddha’s Fundamental Vows, and leads to rebirth in the Pure Land. Furthermore, by being empowered by the Buddha, the devotee enters into the Mahåyåna assembly of those whose rebirth is assured, and thus abides in the stage of nonregression. That is to say, he attains the stage of avaivartika by means of “another power,” a power that is not his own, and this is likened to riding a ship over the water (and not walking on land). This is termed “the path of easy practice.” The theory of the two paths, the difficult and the easy path, is originally borrowed from Någårjuna. Någårjuna holds that to strenuously cultivate religious practices in this world for a long time, and to thus attain the stage of non-regression, constitutes the path of difficult practice. However, calling upon the Names of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas will allow the devotee to speedily attain the stage of non-regression. These would include the Names of the Buddhas of the ten directions, such as the Buddha Sugu?a (Fine Qualities) in the East, etc., and the Names of other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, such as Amitåbha and Loke?vararåja. Thus, this path is called the path of easy practice. In other words, according to Någårjuna, both paths allow the devotee to attain the stage of nonregression, the only difference being in the time that it takes to reach the goal. However, T’an-luan modified this teaching slightly, and taught that the attainment stage of non-regression in this world is the path of difficult practice, whereas attaining the stage of non-regression through rebirth in the Pure Land constitutes the path of easy practice. In other words, he discusses the differences in these two paths by virtue of the difference between this world and the Pure Land. To Någårjuna, the problem of the attainment of the stage of non-regression did not especially give rise to the necessity for rebirth in the Pure Land. For T’an-luan, however, the attainment of the stage of non-regression within the path of easy practice was considered to be one of the benefits ( teh-i ) attained after one had been reborn in the Pure Land. According to his teaching, then, in order to attain the stage of non-regression, one must first be reborn in the Pure Land, and rebirth in the Pure Land became a necessary condition for the attainment of the stage of non-regression. Also, Någårjuna held that calling on the Names of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas constituted, in its totality, the easy practice, whereas T’an-luan, in opposition to this, held that faith in one Buddha, the Buddha Amitåbha, constituted the path of easy practice. Furthermore, T’an-luan

strongly stressed the power inherent in the Fundamental Vows of Amitåbha, and that such attainments as rebirth in the Pure Land, and the attainment of the stage of non-regression once one is reborn in the Pure Land, were all due to the empowerment ( chu-chih ) derived from these vows. It is in these points, then, the teachings of T’an-luan differed greatly from those of Någårjuna. T’an-luan drew these teachings from both the Wu-liang shou ching and the Wang-sheng lun , and it was he who first introduced this theory of the two paths into the Pure Land faith. From that time onward, this theory came to be used very frequently in subsequent Pure Land writings. T’an-luan deeply revered Någårjuna, for we find in his Tsan O-mi-t’o Fo chieh the phrases: The Great Master Någårjuna, the Mahåsattva, was born at the beginning of the period of the Counterfeit Dharma, and served as a model of Truth. He closed and locked the doors of error, and opened the pathway of Truth. For this reason, all eyes in Jambudv?pa look to him in reverence, he who is enlightened in the Stage of Joy. I go to Amitåbha for Refuge, that I may be reborn in Sukhåvat?.

And in another passage: In the manner that when the dragons move, clouds must follow in Jambudv?pa, he gave off hundreds of rays of light. Homage to the Venerable One, the most compassionate Någårjuna, we bow down to him in reverence. In the above passages, the phrase “He who is enlightened in the Stage of Joy” (Skt. pramuditå-bh¥mi ) refers to a passage in the ninth chapter, the chapter “On Stanzas” in the Ju Leng-chia ching , translated in 513 by Bodhiruci. In this chapter, the Buddha predicts the eventual rebirth of Någårjuna into Sukhåvat?. T’an-luan had studied the Ssu-lun Tradition (the Madhyamaka Tradition), and it was probably at this time that he first became a devotee of Någårjuna. His faith was deepened by this reference in the Ju Leng-chia ching , and it was probably based on this that his faith in the Pure Land teachings became as firm as it did. In addition, the Chapter on “Easy Practice” mentions the Fundamental Vows of Amitåbha, and Amitåbha and his Pure Land are praised in a gåthå of some thirty-two lines in this same work. T’an-luan clearly got his inspiration from these works of Någårjuna, and so developed his theory of easy practice with respect to this one Buddha only, as well as the teaching that the stage of non-regression is attained only after the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land.

3. The Other Power of the Fundamental Vows

Needless to say, T’an-luan’s stress on the power of the Fundamental Vows of Amitåbha is based on the teachings of the Wu-liang-shou ching , but we also get some hints for this theory from the writings of Någårjuna. The Wu-liang-shou ching circulated early in South China and we know from the monastic biographies that the monk Fa-tu of the Chi-hsia ssu Monastery and the monk Pao-liang of the Ling-wei ssu Monastery lectured frequently on this scripture. However, we do not have any idea what their views on these Fundamental Vows were, since no works from their hands, or from their disciples exist. Nevertheless, it was T’an-luan who was the first person to employ this scripture in the north, and to stress the power of these vows in his teaching. It is for this reason that he exercised a great influence on all later Pure Land writers and thinkers. T’an-luan teaches the greatness of the power of these Fundamental Vows of Amitåbha in the last volume of his Wang-sheng lun chu. In this passage, he states that cultivating the practice of the five types of nien-fo , benefiting oneself and others, and speedily attaining samyaksambodhi (supreme, perfect enlightenment), is due basically to the Tathågata Amitåbha. In this way, Amitåbha is considered the “predominating condition” ( ts’eng-shang yuan , Skt: adhipati-pratyaya ) for all these attainments. The power of the Fundamental Vows of the Tathågata Amitåbha also conditions birth in the Pure Land, and the performance of all types of good deeds by bodhisattvas, humans, and devas. If these powers of the Buddha did not exist, then his forty-eight vows would have been set up in vain. Hence, what T’an-luan teaches is that birth in the Pure Land, etc., is made possible by means of the power of the actual attainment ( ch’eng-chiu , Skt.: siddhi ) of these forty-eight vows by Amitåbha. Of these forty-eight, T’an-luan lays particular stress on the eleventh, eighteenth, and twenty-second vows. It is by means of these vows that one can be reborn in the Pure Land, attain the stage of non-regression, and can speedily attain Buddhahood. The eleventh vow is the fundamental vow that the devotee will abide in the assembly of those definitively determined [to be reborn in the Pure Land]. T’an-luan holds that it is by means of the power of this vow that those reborn in the Pure Land all abide in the assembly of those definitively determined, and are able to attain this stage of non-regression. The eighteenth vow is the fundamental vow of rebirth in the Pure Land, and T’an-luan holds that it is by means of the power of this vow that all beings in the ten directions are able to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. The twenty-second vow is the vow that the devotee will certainly go to the abode just before the stage of total enlightenment. It is by means of this vow that, when the devotee is reborn into the Pure Land, he will do so by

jumping over all of the various religious practices of the different bh¥mis, and will presently cultivate the qualities of the Universally Auspicious One (Samantabhadra). T’an-luan teaches that it is by means of the power of this vow that the devotee who is to be born into the Pure Land does not need to gradually traverse all the different bh¥mis in sequence. Rather than going from the first bh¥mi to the second, from the second bh¥mi to the third, and so on, the devotee is enabled to jump over all of the various practices of these different bh¥mis, and speedily attain the stage of “only one more rebirth” ( i-sheng pu-ch’u ). In a word then, T’an-luan borrowed heavily from the thought of Någårjuna, taking for his point of departure the problem of non-regression. Since it was his aim to attain Buddhahood as quickly as possible, he laid special emphasis on the eleventh and the twenty-second vows. But all of these benefits are benefits attained only after the devotee’s rebirth in the Pure Land, so as a preparation for the attainment of these benefits, T’anluan also stressed the eighteenth vow, the vow that enables the devotee to attain rebirth by calling on the name of Amitåbha. T’an-luan then constructed his theory of the “other-power” of these Fundamental Vows, centering on these three vows. The path of difficult practice is a path centered on one’s own power, and the cultivation of this path is not supported by any other power. The path of easy practice takes advantage of the power of the Buddha’s Vows, and one is able to be reborn in the Pure Land and, sustained by the power of the Buddha, to speedily attain Buddhahood. In this manner, T’an-luan taught what he considered to be the true message of the Pure Land faith. In later years, the theory of the Fundamental Vows propounded by Shan-tao will be seen to derive directly from the theories first taught by T’an-luan.

4. The Five Teachings of Nien-fo In his teachings, T’an-luan stressed the power of the vows of the Buddha, and centered his theories on the concepts of birth, non-regression, and the speedy attainment of Buddhahood. Of these three, non-regression and the attainment of Buddhahood were automatically realized by virtue of the power of the vows of the Buddha. However, in order to attain rebirth, a specific type of religious practice was demanded of the devotee: these were the Five Nien-fo Teachings ( wu nien-fo men ), which were ultimately based on the Wang-sheng lun of Vasubandhu. These five are: “Prostrations” ( li-pai men ), “Singing Praises” ( tsan-t’an men ), “Making Vows” ( tso-yuan men ), “Insight Meditation” ( kuan-ts’a men ), and the “Transfer of Merits” ( hui-hsiang men ). The treatise attributed to Vasubandhu explains these practices, but T’an-luan explains them in greater detail, and gives many of his own opinions in these explanations.

“Prostrations” means that one should always turn his thoughts to the desire for rebirth and make prostrations to the Tathågata Amitåbha. T’anluan’s understanding of this item does not differ from that of Vasubandhu. “Singing Praises” means to recite the names of “the Tathågata of Unhindered Light in all the Ten Directions” ( chin-shih-fang wu-ai-kuang ju-lai : Amitåbha). In explanation of this practice, the Wang-sheng lun states: “One’s verbal actions sing the praises of, and recite the Name of the Tathågata. / The wisdom and glory of the Tathågata / are the meaning of his Name; one should want to truly cultivate its aspects.” T’an-luan understands this passage as saying that light (the glory, Skt.: åbha ) is the mark of the Buddha’s wisdom, so he is called “the mark of wisdom and glory.” This light illumines all the worlds in the ten directions. It removes the darkness of ignorance from all beings, and fulfills all the vows and aspirations of all creatures. Thus, if one truly cultivates this practice, and if one is in union ( hsiang-yin , yogic union) with the meaning of the Name of the Tathågata, the darkness of ignorance will be destroyed, and all aspirations will be satisfied. However, if beings should call on the Name, and their ignorance is not destroyed and their aspirations remain unsatisfied, this is only because they are not in union with the significance of the Name in their practice. They do not know that the Tathågata is the “true aspect body” ( shih-hsing shen ), and that he is a form for the benefit of living beings ( wei-wu shen ). Furthermore, it is because their faith is not honest, sometimes being there and sometimes not: their faith is not one-pointed and definitive, and is not continuous, being interrupted by other thoughts. For these reasons, then, their practice is not correct, and they are unable to attain a yogic union with the significance of the Name of the Buddha. If, however, the devotee’s faith is sincere, if it is definitive and continuous, he will be able to attain a yogic union with the significance of the Buddha’s name, and will be able to fulfill his every aspiration. This theory owes much to the Ta-chih-tu lun . In the thirty-fourth volume of the Ta-chih-tu lun , it is taught that the Buddha has two bodies or modes of appearance. First, there is the body arisen from Dharmatå ( fahsing sheng-shen fo ). Second, there the transformation body manifested, in either a superior or an inferior manner, in accord with the world in which it arises ( sui-shih chien-yü lieh hsien-hua fo ). The first type of Buddha, the body arisen from Dharmatå, is without limits, and is able to fulfill all aspirations. It is taught that if one but hears the Name of this Buddha, one will be able to attain enlightenment. Since the Buddha Amitåbha is the Buddha whose body has arisen from Dharmatå, when one truly (correctly) cultivates these practices, all of one’s aspirations should be fulfilled. The Wang-sheng lun also has the passage: “With oneness of mind I go for refuge to the Tathågata of Unhindered Light, which fills all the ten directions.” If one’s faith is definitive and continuous, one will be in a yogic

union with the significance (the light) of the Name of Amitåbha, and will be able to destroy the darkness of ignorance. Of these various theories, the teaching that one’s faith must be “definitive and continuous” ( hsin-hsin

ch’üeh-ting hsiang-hsu ) was later elaborated by Shan-tao, and came to be regarded by him as the primary cause ( ch’eng-yin ) for one’s rebirth into the Pure Land. Nevertheless, this portion of the explanation is T’an-luan’s own understanding of the problem, and we would do well not to consider this theory as part of the original intention of the Wang-sheng lun . In any case, the phrase in the section on “Singing Praises”—“one should want to truly cultivate its aspects”—is parallel to similar phrases in other sections. For example, in the section “Making Vows”, we have “one should want to truly cultivate ?amatha,” and in the section “Insight Meditation,” we have “one should want to truly cultivate vipa?yana.” From these remarks we can clearly see that, according to T’an-luan, the purport of these passages is that one should want to correctly cultivate the religious practice of yogic union. If this is the case, then the Chinese phrase hsiang-ying must be considered a translation of the Sanskrit word yoga. The sense of this section, then, is that singing the praises of Amitåbha is for the purpose of correctly cultivating the religious practice of a type of yoga. There are four types of yoga (union): yoga with respect to the external sphere of sense perception ( vi?aya ), yoga with respect to the religious practice ( cårya ), yoga with respect to the resultant state ( phala ), and yoga with respect to the Teaching ( de?anå ). Singing the praises of Amitåbha’s qualities corresponds to the yoga of the resultant state. The practice of ?amatha and vipa?yana is the yoga with respect to religious practice. The passage describing the ornaments of the Pure Land corresponds to the yoga with the vi?aya . The whole of the five nien-fo teachings is largely arranged as the yoga with respect to the teaching. We have already discussed this in detail in the thirteenth chapter of my Jødo-kyø gairon (An Outline of the Pure Land Teachings), and so will not go into it here. We must conclude in any case, that T’an-luan devised the teaching of the yogic correspondence of the significance of the Name (light) because he was dissatisfied with the explanation given by Vasubandhu. The third teaching, that of “Making Vows,” means that the devotee, with one-pointedness of mind and a full and exclusive concentration of thought, makes the vow to attain rebirth in the Pure Land; he correctly cultivates stilling of the mind, or ?amatha. T’an-luan explains this word “stilling” as “the stilling of evil,” the ending of evil deeds. He divides this into three aspects. First, if one thinks only of the Buddha Amitåbha with one-pointedness of mind, and so desires to be reborn in the Pure Land, the Name of this Buddha and the Name of his land are able to put an end to all manner of evil. Second, since the Pure Land of Sukhåvat? transcends the Three Dhåtus, if one is reborn into this land, all the evils generated by his

body, speech, or mind, will automatically be stilled. Third, the power of the Tathågata Amitåbha, which is maintained through his enlightenment, will naturally still the striving after the Two Vehicles (that is, striving for the stage of Arhat or Pratyekabuddha) on the part of those beings who are reborn in the Pure Land. These three types of stilling all arise from the true and actual ( ju-shih ) meritorious qualities of the Tathågata, and so the text speaks of the correct or true cultivation of the practice of ?amatha. The fourth teaching is that of “Insight Meditation.” This means that with “right thought” ( ch’eng-nien , part of the Eightfold Path), one is to visualize or meditate upon the twenty-nine different types of adornments of the Pure Land. That is, one should correctly cultivate the practice of vipa?yana, or insight. T’an-luan divides this vipa?yana into two different types. First, in this world the devotee should direct his thought to, and visualize the qualities of the ornaments of the Pure Land. Since these qualities are real and true ( ju-shih ), the person who cultivates this visualization will also attain (through yogic union) these true qualities, and thus will certainly attain birth in the Pure Land. Second, when one is reborn in the Pure Land, he will then be able to see Amitåbha, and a Bodhisattva who has not yet been awakened to his own pure mind will be able, exactly as the Bodhisattvas of pure mind, to realize his own Dharmakåya. This is why the author speaks of the correct ( ju-shih ) cultivation of the practice of Vipa?yana. In his explanation of the word ?amatha as “putting an end to evil,” and not as mental stilling, he was clearly in opposition to the accepted understanding of this word. This is also the case with his understanding of the word Vipa?yana as meaning to see the Buddha after one had attained rebirth in the Pure Land. Both of these explanations are at variance with the understanding of the original author of the Wang-sheng lun , Vasubandhu. Rather, we must understand that T’an-luan is concerned primarily with the Buddha himself, and with the power inherent in the Buddha and his Name, and that he explains the whole of this text in this light. Although there are passages which are inconsistent with the meaning of the original text, T’anluan is himself consistent throughout the whole of his commentary. The fifth teaching is that of the “Transfer of Merits.” This means that the devotee transfers the merits that he has accumulated through the practice of “the roots of good,” his good deeds, not for the attainment of his own personal enjoyment, but for the relief of the sufferings of all sentient beings. He should desire to take all beings to himself so they may be reborn into the Pure Land with him. T’an-luan also divides the transfer of merits into two different aspects: “The aspect of going” ( wang-hsiang ), and “the aspect of returning” ( huanghsiang ). The “aspect of going” means that one gives his own stock of merits to all sentient beings, with the vow that he may, together with them, be reborn in the Pure Land. The “aspect of returning” means that, after he has been born in the Pure Land, he attains ?amatha and vipa?yana. Then, if he

attains success ( siddhi ) in the power of expedient means, he will return to this Saha world to work for the conversion of all sentient beings, so that together they may follow the path of the Buddha. The intention to transfer these merits (the hui-hsiang

hsin ) is none other than the “unsurpassed Bodhicitta” ( wu-shang p’u-t’i-hsin ) spoken of in the Wu-liang-shou
ching , in the passage describing the three types of persons who are reborn into the Pure Land. This unsurpassed Bodhicitta is identical with the aspiration to attain Buddhahood (the yuan tso-fo hsin ). This aspiration to attain Buddhahood is identical with the thought to save all beings (the tu chung-sheng hsin ), and the thought to save all beings is identical to taking all beings to oneself and causing them to be reborn in a land that has a Buddha. Consequently, if one desires to be reborn in the Pure Land of Sukhåvat?, one must generate this Bodhicitta. If one does not generate this Bodhicitta, but seeks rebirth in this Pure Land only in order to enjoy the pleasures of this land, then, it is argued, he will not be able to do so. In other words, if one does not generate Bodhicitta, one will not be able to be reborn in the Pure Land. The teaching of the necessity of the Bodhicitta for rebirth is termed “the theory of the Bodhicitta being the primary cause” ( p’u-t’i-hsin ch’eng-yin shou ; Japanese: the bodai-shin shøin setsu ). In this way, then, T’an-luan taught that all of these five Nien-fo teachings constitutes the means by which the devotee could attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Borrowing from the ideas of Vasubandhu’s Wang-sheng lun , it appears that he taught that the most essential of these five teachings was the fourth teaching, that of insight meditation ( kuan-ts’a ). However, as we have mentioned above, he firmly believed in and taught the importance of the “easy practice of calling on the Name” ( ch’eng-ming i-hsing ), a teaching based ultimately on the Shih-chu p’i-p’o-sha lun . T’an-luan thus stressed the recitation of the Name of the Tathågata in the second teaching, that of “singing the praises” of the Buddha. He laid great stress on the calling on, or the recitation of, the Name of the Buddha, for he believed that the very Name itself contained a profound number of merits, and exhorted Pure Land devotees to hear it frequently, and to believe in it. In the beginning of his Wang-sheng lun chu , T’an-luan says that the Name of the Buddha Amitåbha constitutes the “nature” ( t’i ) of the Wuliang-shou ching . He explains that the Name of the Tathågata of Unhindered Light possesses the “function” ( yung ) of destroying the darkness of ignorance. Also, the Name of the Tathågata and the name of his land (Sukhåvat?) are able to put an end to all forms of evil. Additionally, even if the devotee has transgressions and impurities from countless numbers of births and deaths, when he hears the “highest, unarisen, pure and pear-like gem of the Name of the Tathågata Amitåbha, and when this Name is cast into his defiled mind, his transgressions will be extinguished from thought

to thought, his mind will become pure, and he will attain rebirth.” His Wuliang-shou

ching feng-tsan also states that

If all who hear the meritorious Name of Amitåbha but have faith in, and take joy in what they have heard, and if for one instant of thought they have utmost sincerity, and if they transfer these merits and desire rebirth, then they shall attain rebirth. T’an-luan taught that ten continuous recitations ( shih-nien hsianghsü ) constitute the cause by which one attains rebirth. He based this on two passages. First, there are the words of the eighteenth vow in the Wu-liangshou ching , “If one is not reborn into the Pure Land with but ten recitations, then I shall not attain to Supreme Enlightenment.” Second, there is the passage describing the lowest rank of the lowest grade of rebirth in the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching. This latter states that if one recites “Na-wu Omi-t’o Fo ” ten times, all his transgressions will be extinguished and he will attain birth. T’an-luan interpreted this phrase as signifying that the work necessary for birth had been accomplished. As he states in the first volume of his Wang-sheng lun chu , the word nien (here “recitation”) signifies calling to remembrance ( i-nien) the Buddha Amitåbha. This is further divided into its “general aspect” ( tsunghsiang ) and its “specific aspect” ( pieh-hsiang ). Whichever of these two one chooses to visualize, he is not supposed to have any other thoughts in his mind. It is these ten continuous thoughts which T’an-luan terms “the ten recitations,” and this is also the case for ten continuous recitations. In illustration of this one-pointedness of mind, T’an-luan employs, in his Lüeh-lun An-lo ching-t’u i, the example of “taking off one’s clothes in crossing the river.” Suppose that there is a man walking through a deserted land, and bandits rush upon him, intent upon killing him. He begins to flee, but suddenly in front of him appears a river that he must cross. If he crosses the river, he will escape the danger of the bandits: so this person is concerned only with a way to cross the river, and no other thoughts preoccupy him. He thinks, “When I get to the bank of the river, should I throw myself into the river with my clothes on, or should I take them off? If I go into the river with my clothes on, I shall perhaps drown, but if I try to take my clothes off, I probably will not have the time to do so.” At the time, this person has only the thought of how to cross the river, and he has no other thoughts. It is in this manner, then, that the devotee should with singleness of mind think on the Buddha Amitåbha, and his mind should be interrupted with no other thoughts: when ten such thoughts succeed one another, this is what is termed “the ten continuous thoughts.” This also applies to the recitation of the Name of the Buddha, or the visualization of the major and minor marks of the Buddha. In both of these cases the

devotee should exclusively and totally concentrate his mind, and should have no other thoughts in his mind, and if ten such thoughts succeed one another, this is termed “the ten thoughts or recitations.” If in this manner he concentrates his mind and visualizes the marks of the Buddha, etc., the devotee will be unable to know just how many thoughts have elapsed, since he will not be concerned with any other thoughts, such as counting the thoughts from one to ten. But if initially he remembers the Buddha, and then thinks of something else, and then thinks on the Buddha again, and then thinks of another thing, he will in this manner be able to know the number of his thoughts, but his thoughts will be interrupted, and so these thoughts cannot be termed continuous. In opposition to this, however, T’an-luan holds that these full ten thoughts ( chü-tsu shih-nien ) signify the completion of the work or practice necessary for rebirth, so it is not absolutely necessary for the devotee himself to know the number of his thoughts. The cicada is born in the summer and dies in this same summer, so he does not know spring or autumn (the passage of time, a quotation from Chuang-tzu ). However, if someone who does know the passage of longer periods of time views the cicada, it becomes clear to the viewer that his lifespan is very short. In this same way, then, we unenlightened beings are unable to know the successful completion of these ten thoughts, but when we are viewed by someone who has attained the supernormal psychic powers ( ®ddhi ), it is clear to him whether we have done so or not. The devotee need only recollect the Buddha with one-pointedness of mind, with a mind undisturbed by any other thing, and he need only continuously accumulate such thoughts. If, however, he feels the need to know the number of thoughts that he has accumulated, T’an-luan teaches that there is a special method for knowing their number, but this method is only transmitted orally, and cannot be written down. Based on this, then, T’an-luan lays great stress on the continuation of concentrated thoughts, for this constitutes the essential truth of the completion of the work necessary for rebirth.

5. Amitåbha and the Pure Land

In the period in which T’an-luan lived, there had not yet developed any teachings or theories with respect to the classification of the Pure Lands. Drawing on the teachings of the Wang-sheng lun and the Ta-chih-tu lun , T’an-luan states that the Pure Land of Amitåbha transcends the Three Dhåtus. The Lüeh-lun states that the land of Sukhåvat? is not included within any of these Three Dhåtus, for this is the teaching of the Ta-chih-tu lun . And why is this the case? It is not within kåmadhåtu (the realm of desire) since there is no desire in Sukhåvat?. On the other hand, it is a real abode, a bh¥mi , so it is not included within the r¥padhåtu (the realm of form). Finally, because there are shapes and colors in the Pure Land, it is not included within the år¥pyadhåtu (the formless realm). The Wang-sheng lun contains a passage stating that “it far transcends the realms of rebirth of the Three Dhåtus.” T’an-luan comments on this passage in the first volume of his Wang-sheng lun

chu . He states that while viewing these Three Dhåtus, the Buddha saw them all to be illusory and unsubstantial, constantly revolving and endless in and of themselves, like a caterpillar in its wanderings, and like a cocoon enmeshing itself in its own bonds. For this reason, the Buddha initially gave rise to these pure qualities. Taking compassion on the living beings who were bound in these Three Dhåtus and subject to perverted views and much impurity, so the Buddha wished to establish a place that was not illusory and insubstantial, nor in a constant state of Samsaric flux and endlessly cyclical. In short, he desired a place that was pleasurable ( sukhå ) and pure, and it is for this reason that he gave rise to these qualities of pure adornment. Furthermore, T’an-luan does not list any names for the various bodies of the Buddha—Sa?bhogakåya, Nirma?akåya, etc. In his Wang-sheng lun chu , T’an-luan says that the Bodhisattva Dharmåkara attained the stage of non-regression ( anutpådadharmak?ånti ) in the presence of the Buddha Loke?vararåja. His stage of spiritual development at this time was that of the Årya-gotra, “the clan of the Åryans” (he was now bound for eventual full enlightenment). In this Årya-gotra, he set up forty-eight vows, which in turn gave rise to the Pure Land. This land was attained while he was still in the causal state (the state of a Bodhisattva, and not a Buddha). In his Lüeh-lun An-lo ching-t’u i , T’an-luan further writes that the Bodhisattva Dharmåkara made these great vows in the presence of the Buddha Loke?vararåja, taking for his purview all the different Buddha Lands. These vows were completed during the course of numberless asaµkhyeya kalpas, during which time, too, he cultivated all the Påramitås, eventually perfecting good and attaining unsurpassed Bodhi. This Pure Land was thus something attained by means of a specific karmic action, and for this reason, this Pure Land is not included within any of the Three Dhåtus. Based on this, then, T’an-luan without doubt holds that the Buddha Amitåbha was a Sa?bhogakåya, and that his Pure Land was a Sa?bhoga Land. Chi-tsang, in his Kuan-ching i-shu , says that a master (or masters?) of the north holds that Amitåbha’s Pure Land is not included within any of the Three Dhåtus. Instead, the claim is that the Bodhisattva Dharmåkara made his vows while in the stage of Dharmakåya, a stage above the eighth bh¥mi. It was by means of these vows that he created his Pure Land, termed a Sa?bhoga Land. This North Chinese master may, of course, be T’an-luan. T’an-luan was also the first to attempt to reconcile two contradictory teachings within the Pure Land corpus. The Wu-liang-shou ching says that countless numbers of (H?nayåna) ?råvakas dwell in Amitåbha’s Pure Land.

In apparent contradiction, the Wang-sheng lun teaches that beings in (lit.: the seeds of) the Two Vehicles (?råvakas and pratyekabuddhas) are not born into the Pure Land. T’an-luan attempts a reconciliation on two points: first, in this world of the five impurities, the one (the One Vehicle teaching) is divided into three (the Three Vehicles). In the Pure Land, these five impurities do not exist, so there is no distinction between these Three Vehicles, and beings in the two lower vehicles therefore do not dwell in the Pure Land. When the Wu-liang-shou ching says that ?råvakas dwell in the Pure Land, this is referring only to the Arhats (those who have reached the goal of the ?råvaka path), and does not refer to real ?råvakas. The Arhat has cut off the defilements ( fan-nao ; kle?as) , and is no longer reborn in any of the Three Dhåtus, but has not yet—which is outside of the Three Dhåtus— and it is here that he must now continue to seek out unsurpassed Bodhi. When the Arhat is born into the Pure Land, he merely keeps his original name of “?råvaka” without actually being one. The second point that T’an-luan makes is that the seeds ( chung-tzu ; b?jas) of the Two Vehicles do not arise in the Pure Land. Thus the Wangsheng lun can say that the “seeds of the Two Vehicles do not arise” ( erhch’eng chung

pu-sheng)
in the Pure Land. However, this does not prevent beings in the Two Vehicles here on earth from being reborn in the Pure Land. For example, the orange tree does not produce any fruit in North China, but its fruit can be seen in the market places of South China. In this way, the seeds (beings) of the Two Vehicles do not arise in the Pure Land, but this does not mean that beings who are ?råvakas in this world cannot go to the Pure Land. In this hypothesis, then, real ?råvakas are allowed to dwell in the Pure Land. This problem was also examined in later years by Shan-tao, as well as by various other masters. It is clearly Vasubandhu’s teaching in the Wang-sheng lun that the Pure Land is the abode of Mahåyåna Bodhisattvas only, and that there are no ?råvakas or pratyekabuddhas there under any guise. Despite this, a large number of these masters adopted this latter explanation, holding that actual ?råvakas dwelt in the Pure Land.