Huaigan 懷感과 당나라 정토종

HUAIGAN AND THE GROWTH OF PURE LAND BUDDHISM DURING THE TANG
ERA
By
KENDALL R. MARCHMAN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2015
© 2015 Kendall R. Marchman
To my family
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project would have not been possible were it not for the many loving family
members, friends, and mentors who have supported me throughout my life. I would like
to take a moment to highlight just a few of the many people and institutions who have
helped me reach this goal. I would first like to thank all of the professors with whom I
have studied during my time at Mercer, Vanderbilt, and the University of Florida. I also
extend thanks to my new colleagues at Young Harris College for the encouragement
and opportunity they have provided. I am very thankful to my dissertation committee,
Mario Poceski, Jimmy Yu, Richard Wang, Guolong Lai, and Whitney Sanford for their
patience, inspiration, and support. One day in class Jimmy Yu mentioned that Huaigan
and the Qunyi lun needed further research, and I am thankful that he suggested them
as the subjects of my dissertation. I am obliged to Dr. Poceski who took me in as a raw
graduate student and has been essential in my process to become a better scholar,
though this process is far from complete. Many thanks to Travis Smith who provided
encouragement and advice throughout this process. I would also like to thank Richard
King who encouraged my evolving interests in Asian religions while at Vanderbilt. It was
a pleasure getting to know the faculty in the Department of Religion at the University of
Florida, especially the ringleader of that circus, Annie Newman, who was essential in
helping me negotiate the hurdles in this process. Many thanks as well to the Chung-
Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies for their financial support of my dissertation research.
Now to the more personal notes of thanks. I am very lucky to have so many close
friends throughout my life who have given me laughter, encouragement, and joy. I
especially want to thank the friends made while at the University of Florida for being
wonderful trench-mates. There could never be enough words and pages here to give
4
thanks for all that my family has done for me. Richard and Deborah Marchman, Elmer
and Katherine Kendall, Jeff and Teeny Binion, and Jimbo and Margie Bryant have
showered me with perpetual love and encouragement, and for that I am extremely
thankful and always indebted. Lastly, I am most beholden to my wife, Darbie Bryant
Marchman, for being an amazingly supportive and inspiring wife, travel partner, and
best friend.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 10
2 PURE LAND BUDDHISM BEFORE HUAIGAN ...................................................... 29
Pure Land Buddism Before China .......................................................................... 30

The Evolution of Mahāyāna and Pure Land ............................................................ 33
Buddha-Fields .................................................................................................. 34
The Origins of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī ........................................................... 39
Pure Land Scriptures ........................................................................................ 47
Early Chinese Examples of Pure Land Practice ..................................................... 56
The Maturation of Pure Land Buddhism in China ................................................... 59
The Many Representations of Shandao.................................................................. 64
Common Representations of Shandao ............................................................ 66
Differing Representations of Shandao .............................................................. 71
Concluding Remarks............................................................................................... 85
3 THE LIFE OF HUAIGAN ......................................................................................... 87
Biographical Sources .............................................................................................. 88

Buddhist Biographies ....................................................................................... 89
The Preface of the Qunyi lun ............................................................................ 97
Outside Resources ......................................................................................... 101
Huaigan’s Affiliations............................................................................................. 110
Yogācāra and Huaigan ................................................................................... 111
A Disciple of Shandao .................................................................................... 115
Friendship with Huaiyun ................................................................................. 123
Qianfu Monastery ........................................................................................... 127
Concluding Remarks............................................................................................. 129
4 THE SHI JINGTU QUNYI LUN ............................................................................. 132
Textual Overview .................................................................................................. 132

Format ............................................................................................................ 133
Pure Land Apologetics ................................................................................... 137
Manuscripts .................................................................................................... 143
Textual References ........................................................................................ 145
Major Themes in the Qunyi lun ............................................................................. 149
The Bodies of the Buddha and Their Corresponding Lands ........................... 149
6
The Nature of Sukhāvatī................................................................................. 155
The Inhabitants of Sukhāvatī .......................................................................... 164
The Process of Rebirth in Sukhāvatī .............................................................. 171
The Practice of Nianfo .................................................................................... 188
5 HUAIGAN’S TEACHINGS IN COMPARISON ...................................................... 199
Huaigan and the Pure Land Masters .................................................................... 200

Tanluan .......................................................................................................... 201
Daochuo ......................................................................................................... 208
Jingying Huiyuan and Jiacai ........................................................................... 215
Shandao and Huaigan – Master and Student ....................................................... 221
The Nature of Amitābha and His Pure Land ................................................... 222
Pure Land Practice ......................................................................................... 225
Defending Pure Land Belief and Practice ............................................................. 229
Against the Shelun ......................................................................................... 230
Against the Three Stages Sect ....................................................................... 232
Against Maitreya Worship............................................................................... 235
6 HUAIGAN’S HISTORICAL STANDING AND HIS IMPACT ON THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURE LAND TRADITION ........................................... 242
Huaigan Beyond China ......................................................................................... 243

Remembering Huaigan ......................................................................................... 254
Huaigan and Faxiang Buddhism .................................................................... 254
Huaigan’s Acceptance of Pluralism ................................................................ 258
APPENDIX
CHARACTER LIST .............................................................................................. 264
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 271
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 282
7
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
HUAIGAN AND THE GROWTH OF PURE LAND BUDDHISM DURING THE TANG
ERA
By
Kendall R. Marchman
December 2015
Chair: Mario Poceski

Major: Religion
Huaigan 懷感 (died c. 700 CE) was an influential Buddhist monk in China during
the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE). He was a disciple of the well-known Pure Land
patriarch Shandao 善導 (613-681), who popularized the practice of reciting the name of
Amitābha Buddha (nianfo 念佛). The practice of nianfo heavily influenced later
Japanese Pure Land Buddhism and remains a hallmark of Pure Land practice today.
Supposedly motivated by his own nianfo experience, Huaigan wrote the Shi jingtu qunyi
lun 釋淨土群疑論 (Resolving the Multitude of Doubts about the Pure Land), which seeks
to clarify common questions about the Pure Land, as well as explicate beneficial
practices that lead to rebirth there. The text was well-received by Huaigan’s
contemporaries, and was later included in the Buddhist canon (T 1960 vol. 47), and yet
Western scholarship on Pure Land Buddhism has largely ignored Huaigan and his
contributions to the development of Pure Land Buddhism. Moreover, despite its
inclusion in the Taishō version of the Chinese Buddhist canon, there has been little
8
research on the Qunyi lun in the West. The dissertation will therefore be the first
detailed study of Huaigan and his text in any Western language.
The dissertation first focuses on the life, teachings, and writings of Huaigan.
Various Chinese biographies are critically examined in order to arrive at a better
understanding of this seventh century monk. I engage primary texts such as the Qunyi
lun with a historical-critical methodology in order to provide an account of the
development of Pure Land Buddhism. Using this analysis, I challenge traditional
assertions about Huaigan, and determine his position and participation within the
burgeoning Pure Land movement during the Tang Dynasty.
9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This project investigates the life and writings of Huaigan (懷感), a seventh-
century Chinese monk who practiced and defended a type of Buddhism known as Pure
Land Buddhism against critics who believed Pure Land practice to be ineffective. Pure
Land Buddhism emerged around the turn of the millennium as Buddhism was spreading
out of India into Central Asia and entering China. Practitioners of Pure Land Buddhism
believe that particular practices and beliefs allow for one to be reborn in the Pure Land
of the Buddha Amitābha (amituo 阿彌陀). Upon rebirth in Amitābha’s realm, one is
guaranteed to only progress and never regress (butui 不退) on the path toward full
Buddhahood. The popularity of Pure Land Buddhism in China began to blossom during
Tang dynasty (618-907), and was ultimately imported by Japan where it remains one of
the most popular forms of Buddhism to this day.
Despite its ubiquity throughout the East Asian Buddhist landscape—both
presently and historically—Pure Land Buddhism has not received the same amount of
rigorous research as other types of Buddhism like Zen, Tiantai, or Tibetan Vajrayana.
This is especially true of recent Western scholarship, and there are a number of
reasons to explain this reality. First, there are few reliable and available translations of
important Pure Land texts and commentaries.1 Thus, it is more difficult and time-
consuming for Buddhist scholars to acquire information about Pure Land Buddhism in
1For the few available translations of Pure Land scriptures, see Luis O. Gómez, The Land of Bliss: The
Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light: Sanskrit and Chinese versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha
Sutras (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996); Hisao Inagaki, The Three Pure Land Sutras
(Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2003); and the recently published The
Shin Buddhist Classical Tradition: A Reader in Pure Land Teaching, 2 vols., ed. Alfred Bloom
(Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2013).
10
their native language, which likely dissuades many scholars from pursuing research on
Pure Land Buddhism. It is then necessary to inquire as to the reasons behind this lack
of interest and research in Pure Land Buddhism, which goes back to the inception of
Buddhist Studies in the West. Some scholars have suggested the reason for this reality
is due to the nature of Pure Land belief, which is perceived as being too similar to the
religious preferences of the West (i.e., Judaism and Christianity).2 If accepted, this is a
damaging claim against Western academics who feel it necessary to spend their
creative insights on the more “exotic” or “original” types of Buddhism.3 Whether or not
one finds agreement with this orientalist assertion, there is, no doubt, a paucity of
modern Western research available on Pure Land Buddhism in comparison to other
forms of Buddhism.
Another reason why Pure Land studies have been limited is that the majority of
studies are focused on the same historical figures and texts. Whereas this is the first
study concentrated on Huaigan, there is significant research on the more famous
Chinese Pure Land patriarchs like Shandao 善導, Tanluan 曇鸞 (476-542), and
Daochuo 道綽 (562-645). Accordingly, the research on these popular figures often
includes analysis of their most famous works, and how they influenced and shaped
2See Fujita Kotatsu, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” in The Pure Land Tradition: History and
Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne (Berkeley: Regents of the
University of California, 1996), 1-42; and the preface to Georgios T. Halkias, Luminous Bliss: A Religious
History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2013), xxv.
3For more on the idea of Orientalist influence and legacy within Buddhist Studies see Charles Hallisey,
“Roads Taken and Not Take in the Study of Theravāda Buddhism,” in Curators of the Buddha: The Study
of Buddhism Under Colonialism, ed. Donald S. Lopez (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995),
31-61. Within the study of Pure Land Buddhism in particular, see Galen Amstutz, Interpreting Amida:
History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1997).
11
Pure Land Buddhism. This research certainly has been instrumental in increasing
awareness on the need for Chinese Pure Land scholarship, but it is now time to begin
looking outside this handful of figures and texts in order to gain a better understanding
of the larger milieu in China, and the broader tradition overall.
Complicating this issue further is the indelible influence of modern Japanese
Pure Land schools who seek to espouse their own ideology and lineages. These
contemporary Japanese Pure Land schools often perpetuate traditional sectarian
ideology that was formed long ago. Japanese patriarchs and recognized founders like
Hōnen (1133-1212) and Shinran (1173-1263) and their pupils defined the parameters
for their respective schools. Modern sectarian scholarship, though often very
informative, tends to stay within the prescribed doctrinal borders nonetheless. Thus,
any study of Pure Land Buddhism must endeavor to move beyond this combination of
redundancy and sectarian rhetoric, which is a goal of this project.
The dissertation introduces Huaigan to Western scholars, and demonstrates his
role in defending and popularizing Pure Land Buddhism. In doing so, it also examines
his only extant text, the Qunyi lun, in hopes of gaining better insight into the concerns
and growth of Pure Land Buddhism in China during the early Tang era. Most Western
studies of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism only mention Huaigan in passing, if at all. Why
have Huaigan and his Qunyi lun been neglected in Western scholarship? Essentially,
scholars mention Huaigan and other notable Pure Land figures in order to bridge the
chronological divide between Shandao and Hōnen, the founder of the Japanese Jōdo
sect. Was his significance in Tang dynasty China really so minimal? That is hard to
believe, especially if the common claim is accepted that Shandao, his teacher, was
12
responsible for the popularization of Pure Land practice, particularly nianfo. Shandao’s
prestige likely extended to his disciples, meaning Huaigan would have been in a
respected monastic position granting him some authority, even if it was not to the same
extent of his teacher. Some kind of doctrinal disagreement perhaps could have
prevented Shandao’s legacy extending to Huaigan. Yet, in reality, the teachings of
Huaigan and Shandao were very similar: both advocated a rounded approach to Pure
Land practice that incorporated meditation, visualization, and repentance rituals. In
other words, their prescribed practices were much more diverse than commonly
depicted in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, an established narrative that states that
the two held incongruent views continues to circulate in scholarship. This study
questions these normative assertions which are informed by traditional Pure Land
sectarian ideology, and provides a clear and more accurate representation of Huaigan,
Shandao, and Pure Land Buddhism in general during that time. Below I highlight some
of the most important questions surrounding Huaigan, and explain why further research
is necessary. Additionally, I explain the means and methods of research employed in
the proposed investigation of these topics.
The fundamental question asked in this dissertation is simply, “Who was
Huaigan, and what place did he occupy within the incipient Pure Land tradition?” There
is no simple answer to this question. Currently, Huaigan is not a well-known monk even
amongst Buddhist scholars. Moreover, the two major Japanese Pure Land sects
disagree about his historical importance and his contributions to the development of
Pure Land Buddhism, an issue which will be covered in more detail below. The fact that
there is so much current uncertainty surrounding the life and thought of Huaigan, even
13
despite Hōnen’s later designation of Huaigan as a Chinese Pure Land Patriarch,
demonstrates the need for this study.4 A comprehensive and nuanced representation of
Huaigan will be an important tool for further research that can clarify the development of
Pure Land practices and beliefs during his time.
The various biographical accounts about Huaigan are collected and compared in
order to acquire a clearer picture of this neglected Pure Land figure. Although his
biography appears in several collections of monastic biographies,5 they often relay the
same information. Moreover, they all share a comparable style and format. The
biographies provide a number of important details despite their similarity. First, the
biographies locate Huaigan as a Dharma-master at Qianfu Monastery 千福寺 in
Chang’an, the main capital of the Tang dynasty. Thus, the first task will be to investigate
other historical sources about Qianfu Monastery. A historical contextualization of the
monastery should allow for a more comprehensive portrait of Huaigan. Unfortunately,
extant biographical accounts provide little information regarding his whereabouts during
his life. Therefore, I consult secondary resources, including local archives and
compendiums, to determine whether they can provide any clues to help establish
Huaigan’s position in Chang’an.
Dates of Huaigan’s birth and death are notably missing from each biographical
account; while not unheard of, it is somewhat odd given his notability during his life, and
that the dates of Shandao and his other disciples are available. The earliest extant
4For more on Hōnen designation of the Five Pure Land Patriarchs see the Senchakushū translation:
Hōnen. Hōnen's Senchakushū: Passages on the Selection of the Nembutsu in the Original Vow
(Senchaku Hongan Nembutsu Shū), (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1998), 62.
5 These will be discussed further below.
14
biography of Huaigan appears in the Wangsheng xifang jingtu ruiying zhuan 往生西方淨
土瑞應傳 (Record of Auspicious Signs of Those Reborn in the Western Pure Land, T
2070, vol. 51), 6 which was produced during the Tang dynasty by Shaokang 少康 (d.
805), nearly a century after the Huaigan’s death. There is also another account in
Zanning’s 贊寧 (919-1001) Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent
Song Monks, T 2061, vol. 50).7 The collections list the dates of Shandao and Huaiyun
懷惲 (640-701), each a contemporary and associate of Huaigan, yet his dates remain
unknown.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Huaigan’s relationship with Shandao is
another important research topic. However, the biographies do not give a specific
timeframe of when Huaigan studied with Shandao. Furthermore, as Julian Pas has
demonstrated, though the general dates Shandao lived in the capital are known, it is
fairly difficult to pinpoint Shandao’s movements. His biographies mention that the Pure
Land master was active in a number of monasteries in Chang’an.8 Yet, no resources
affiliate Shandao with Huaigan’s Qianfu Monastery. Therefore, I will again rely upon
non-canonical materials to support this research. Thus, in addition to researching more
6 Hereafter referred to as Ruiying zhuan. For Huaigan’s entry, see T 2070, vol. 51, 106. The Taishō
shinshū daizōkyō, ed. Takakusu Junjirō et al., 100 vols. (Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924-32)
hereafter will be abbreviated as T with text and volume, followed by the page, register, and line numbers
when necessary. Chinese chacters will be introduced one time in the main text, and will also appear in
the character list in appendix A.
7Narita Kansai examined this biographical account in “Ekan no Tsutō-ki ni tsuite ─ ─ tokuni botsunen o
chūshin to shite.” Bukkyō ronsō 12 (1968): 163-166.
8See Julian Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī: Shan-tao's Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang shou-fo ching
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995).
15
about Qianfu Monastery, the dissertation also further investigates where and when
Huaigan was a disciple of Shandao.
Huaiyun, a fellow disciple of Shandao and colleague of Huaigan, is another
important associate that warrants mention. Not only was Huaiyun a contemporary and
brother disciple of Huaigan, but apparently a close friend. The preface of the Qunyi lun
indicates that Huaigan died before finishing the text, and that actually Huaiyun
completed it.9 This is another claim that will have to be investigated further, especially
since all biographies of Huaigan credit him solely with the authorship of the Qunyi lun.
Regardless, Huaiyun’s detailed biography—especially in comparison to Huaigan—
indicates that the former was as notable and perhaps more dear to Shandao. It is
evident, therefore, that Huaiyun is another vital resource for any attempt to understand
Huaigan.
Following the discussion about the life of Huaigan and his place within the
nascent Pure Land tradition in Chapter 3, the focus of Chapters 4 and 5 shifts to his
only extant work, the Qunyi lun. Important portions of the text are translated and
analyzed. The analysis highlights the doubts about Pure Land belief and practice during
that time, and considers the implication of Huaigan’s inclusion of these doubts and
fears. Overall, the goal is to produce a critical examination of the text—its provenance,
motivations, and major themes—in hopes of illuminating the larger Tang Pure Land
landscape.
9The preface of the Qunyi lun (T 1960, vol. 47, 30) is attributed to Mengxian 孟銑 (d.u.), a younger
contemporary of Huaiyun.
16
One central question that will guide the investigation of the text is Huaigan’s
reasoning for its creation. I will employ two methods to help answer this question. The
first and most reliable method is textual analysis. Using Huaigan’s writings, I will deduce
the reasons that compelled him to write this text. It appears more than likely that
Huaigan wrote the text to defend Pure Land belief and practice against the polemics of
opposing Buddhist monks, which are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The other
resources that must not be ignored are the biographical accounts, because they
unambiguously suggest that Huaigan wrote the Qunyi lun based on an experience from
practicing nianfo. However, these accounts should be questioned and not taken as the
absolute authority. As is standard for most hagiography, they were often filled with
elaborations and hyperbole in order to fascinate readers and raise the status of their
subjects, associated doctrines, and practices. Of the two resources—textual analysis of
the Qunyi lun and the biographical accounts—the former will undoubtedly yield the
stronger results given that the analysis is informed directly from Huaigan’s text instead
of a constructed posthumous narrative. Nonetheless, it is still important to review the
biographical accounts, for analyses of their narratives can challenge accepted notions
about Pure Land belief during that time.10 In order to show the importance of both
resources, each is discussed in more detail below, beginning with the biographical
accounts.
10Mario Poceski’s recent research demonstrates how hagiographical accounts of Chan monks in China
were often in conflict with historical reality. For more, see “Monastic Innovator, Iconoclast, and Teacher of
Doctrine: The Varied Images of Chan Master Baizhang,” in Zen Masters, ed. Steven Heine and Dale
Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3–32.
17
Many of the biographies emphasize that Huaigan was an excellent student and
a highly educated monk. However, despite his great learning, he was not fully satisfied
with his training. This sense of discontentment was apparently the catalyst that led him
to Shandao and Pure Land practice, which eventually resulted in a nianfo samādhi
(deep concentration) experience of Amitābha. All biographies declare that Huaigan
wrote the Qunyi lun directly as a result of this miraculous experience. However, the
actual experience is never directly mentioned within his text. 11 Although that certainly
does not invalidate the biographical accounts, the exclusion of such a powerful life-
changing experience weakens the claim that Huaigan’s nianfo samādhi directly led him
to produce the Qunyi lun. Considering the nature of hagiographies, it is tempting to
brush aside the inclusion of the samādhi experience as a formulaic and convenient
device used to link Huaigan and the Qunyi lun. However, when combined with an
examination of primary sources from Huaigan and Shandao, it is apparent that the
attainment of samādhi was a significant goal of their Pure Land practice. Despite the
seemingly fantastic claims in the biographical accounts, they cannot be dismissed
entirely.
The similarity of the various biographical accounts, in addition to their lack of
dates of birth and death, suggest that there was a single account that served as the
primary source and basic template for the later biographies. As Mario Poceski and other
scholars have demonstrated in their examinations of monastic hagiographies,
embellishments were often added over time as editors expanded old accounts or
11At least not in the Qunyi lun. Feixi’s 飛錫 Nianfo sanmei baowang lun 念佛三昧寳王論 (T 1967, vol. 47)
credits Huaigan with another text, called the Wangsheng zhuan 往生傳 or Tales of Rebirth in the Pure
Land, and it is possible that Huaigan included it here instead of the denser Qunyi lun.
18
created new ones.12 Although these accounts provide some value in regard to how Pure
Land masters were conceived of after Huaigan’s death, they are not the most accurate
resource from which to draw conclusions about the creation of the Qunyi lun. Returning
to the point made above, the biographical accounts make clear that, nearly a century
after Huaigan, samādhi was still attached to what the creators of the biographies and
the editors or the larger collections felt was memorable about Huaigan. Furthermore,
samādhi as spiritual praxis was a central part of Huaigan’s legacy that was inherited
from his teacher, Shandao. This is one example that illustrates how the biographies and
textual analysis of the Qunyi lun can work together to support a clearer understanding to
Pure Land Buddhism during the Tang era.
The textual analysis of the Qunyi lun produces a variety of informed possibilities
that acted as catalysts for its creation, and draw out the major themes that Huaigan
emphasizes throughout the text. The conclusions drawn from the textual analysis not
only provide more information about Huaigan, but also about the larger Pure Land
milieu in which he was active. Like the biographical accounts, the Qunyi lun was
carefully constructed so that its readers glean a certain understanding of Pure Land
Buddhism. For that reason, Huaigan chose to structure the text in a question and
answer format, a popular writing style for Chinese Buddhist texts during the time. This
textual format benefits the research because Huaigan explicitly stated and addressed
the critiques directed at the Pure Land tradition. In order to ensure that the textual
12For more on the role of hagiography from a Chan perspective, in particular, see Mario Poceski, The
Records of Mazu and the Making of Classical Chan Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
19
analysis advances a quality understanding of Huaigan’s thought, a series of questions
inform the research.
The first of these questions consider the “numerous doubts” about Pure Land
Buddhism that Huaigan wanted to address. Indeed, the answers to this question should
be very helpful in getting a better understanding of Huaigan and the Buddhist
community around him. Therefore, the material that Huaigan chooses to discuss and
explain in the Qunyi lun will be analyzed in order to uncover possible reasons for his
creation of the text and exactly the audience for which he intended it. Huaigan does not
shy away from detailed theoretical discourse. In fact, it seems that Huaigan intended the
Qunyi lun to be one of the first attempts to define a comprehensive system of Pure Land
thought and practice. Therefore, it is likely that the text was not intended to clear the
doubts of the masses, but rather to convince clerics who doubted Pure Land teachings,
or defend against those who were suspicious or critical of them. In other words, the
Qunyi lun is also a work of Pure Land apologetics.
It is probable that Pure Land practice was popular among the laity due to the
accessibility of its beliefs and techniques. The Qunyi lun defends the tradition against
outside derision and apprehension that resulted from its popularity and general
concerns about the efficacy of Pure Land practice. While from the beginning some
monastics were accommodating, others labeled it as too simplistic. Still, before long,
many critics were won over, and elements of Pure Land practice were interwoven into
many different Chinese Buddhist doctrines.13 Therefore, rather than Huaigan’s
13See David Chappell "From Dispute to Dual Cultivation: Pure Land Responses to Ch'an Critics," in
Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, ed. Peter N. Gregory (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1986), 163-198.
20
miraculous nianfo experience, the main motive for the creation of the Qunyi lun is likely
Huaigan’s attempt to address these early concerns about Pure Land belief and practice.
Again, even a cursory review of the Qunyi lun reveals that Huaigan intended a
fairly sophisticated audience—both monastic and lay—for his text. Huaigan’s creation of
the Qunyi lun systematized Pure Land and elevated it to a more elite level, so that both
the lay and monastic communities could appreciate it. Huaigan did not limit himself to
discussing different kinds of practices. Instead, he designed an entire framework of
Pure Land belief and practice. In contrast to the traditional focus on nianfo practice,
which reflects the influence of Japanese sectarian concerns and interpretations, the
Qunyi lun demonstrates that Huaigan was more broadly focused. He tackles a wide
range of questions, their significance ranging from whether beings in the Pure Land are
clothed to the very nature of Sukhavati. This move to address the larger Pure Land
framework, ostensibly aimed at the legitimation of Pure Land belief, was probably
heavily influenced by Huaigan’s familiarity with the various types of Buddhist schools
that flourished, including Faxiang 法相 Buddhism, a Chinese version of Yogācāra that
was popular at that time.14 It has recently been popular among Japanese scholars to
label Huaigan as a Faxiang Buddhist due to possible associations with other Buddhist
masters (e.g. Xuanzang, the popular Tang monk who traveled to India seeking clarity
regarding the many different interpretations of Yogācāra that had proliferated in China),
14Faxiang (Dharma Characteristics) or Weishi 唯識 (Consciousness-Only) Buddhism was a brand of

Chinese Yogācāra that emerged as a result of Xuanzang’s (600-664) journey to India, and especially his
disciple Kuiji (632-682), who is recognized as the first patriarch of the school. The school rose to fame in
the seventh century before fizzling out only a century later. For more on Faxiang Buddhism, see Dan
Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch'eng
Wei-shih lun (London: Routledge, 2002).
21
and some inclusion of Faxiang terminology in the Qunyi lun. These assertions will be
addressed in Chapter 6 using the scant details of Huaigan’s biographies in conjunction
with the textual analysis conducted earlier.
Huaigan’s teachings and writings are often accused of being in disagreement
with the teachings of Shandao.15 Chapter 5 will consider this critique of Huaigan in order
to determine whether it is legitimate or if Huaigan’s system has been misunderstood.
Could it be that some scholars have mistakenly misconstrued Huaigan’s attempt at
enriching Pure Land thought as an outright disagreement with his teacher? As Julian
Pas has demonstrated,16 there are many different textual interpretations of Shandao,
yet the most recognized—though not necessarily most accurate—depiction is of
Shandao as popularizer of an accessible and somewhat anti-intellectual Pure Land
tradition. Huaigan’s scholasticism clearly places him in opposition to this particular
interpretation of Shandao, which is not coincidentally the preferred version of later (i.e.,
Japanese sectarian) Pure Land Buddhism. Instead of accepting the traditional claim that
Huaigan disagreed with Shandao, I suggest that it is more likely that Huaigan was
demonstrating that Pure Land thought and practice can supplement popular forms of
Buddhism in China during his life (e.g., Faxiang). Therefore, the claim that Shandao and
Huaigan disagree is based on a misrepresentation of the former and a
misunderstanding of the intent of the latter.
15Fujiwara Ryosetsu, The Way of Nirvana: The Concept of the Nembutsu in Shan-tao’s Pure Land
Buddhism (Tokyo: Kyoiku shinco sha, 1974).
16 Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 79-104.
22
The last topic discussed in the dissertation is the legacy of Huaigan. Determining
Huaigan’s legacy is just as difficult as uncovering the details of his life. It is surprising to
note that the Jōdo Shū in Japan acknowledge him as the fourth of five Chinese Pure
Land Patriarchs, despite the scant details of Huaigan’s life and the perception of division
with Shandao. As mentioned above, even Huaigan’s total contribution to the Qunyi lun
is uncertain due to the involvement of Huaiyun. Perhaps these reasons explain why, in
contrast to the Jōdo Shū, the Jōdo Shinshū do not recognize him as a patriarch. Of the
five Chinese Pure Land Patriarchs designated by Hōnen in his Senchakushū—the
founding text of the Jōdo Shū—it is Huaigan that is probably the least known.17
Therefore, the dissertation will question why Hōnen felt it necessary to include Huaigan
into his patriarchate. Was it simply because there was too large a chronological gap
between Shandao and Shaokang? It is interesting to note that it is Shaokang, not
Huaigan, who is remembered as the “latter-day Shandao.” Was there something
valuable in the Qunyi lun that Hōnen liked enough to include Huaigan in the lineage? It
also might be possible that Huaigan was simply a convenient link in transmission that
helped legitimize the Jōdo Shū against Japanese Buddhist critics.
In conclusion, the dissertation investigates the identity of Huaigan and his role in
the development of Pure Land thought. Biographical accounts of Huaigan and Buddhist
catalogs that mention him or the Qunyi lun are all studied. A historical-critical analysis of
17
Hōnen’s Senchaku Hongan Nembutsu shū (Passages on the Selection of the Nembutsu in the Original
Vow, shortened to Senchakushū) is a seminal work in Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. The Five Chinese
Pure Land Patriarchs designated by Hōnen and recognized by the Jōdo Shū are Tanluan (467-542),
Daochuo (562-645), Shandao (613-681), Huaigan, and Shaokang (d. 805). For more on created Pure
Land patriarchates, see Daniel Getz, "T'ien-t'ai Pure Land Societies and the Creation of the Pure Land
Patriarchate," in Buddhism in the Sung, ed. Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz (Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1999), 442-476.
23
the Qunyi lun will be one of the most crucial and valuable parts of the study. Lastly, it
will conclude with an evaluation of how Huaigan should be remembered today. Through
this process, it is the goal of this project to clarify the life and thought of the mysterious
figure of Huaigan. In addition, his role within the cultural milieu of Chinese Pure Land
Buddhism will be reconstructed, which suggests that teachers of Pure Land belief and
practice were highly attuned to concurrent political developments. Thus, not only will the
project present new and thorough understandings of Huaigan, but also add to the
scholarly understandings of Buddhism in China during that time.
Chapter Summary
This dissertation is the first comprehensive Western-language study of Huaigan
and his Qunyi lun. As of now, there is only one other English language work—a brief
1986 journal article by Hojun Nishi—that focuses on either Huaigan or his extant text.18
Thus, this research will fill a notable void in the study of Pure Land Buddhism.
Additionally, this study of Huaigan will be critically important in helping scholars
obtain a more accurate picture of Pure Land practice during the Tang dynasty, and how
it gradually developed into contemporary Pure Land practice. Since Huaigan’s text is
explicit in dealing with doubts and misconceptions about the Pure Land, the study will
reveal the problems associated with it during Huaigan’s life and how he responded to
them. Although Huaigan and the Qunyi lun are the central foci of the research, the
implications of the study are applicable to a wide range of related topics including the
development of Pure Land Buddhism in Tang China, the relationship of the elite
18Hojun Nishi, “Huai-kan’s View on the Pure Land,” The Pure Land: Journal of Pure Land Buddhism 3
(1986): 57-66.
24
monastic community with the state, the development of Japanese sectarian Pure Land
Buddhism, and the scope and nature of Buddhist polemics in Tang China.
The former neglect of Huaigan by scholarship focused on Pure Land Buddhism is
a common problem within the field of Buddhist Studies, and Religious Studies in
general. When Western scholars of Buddhism began studying the development of Pure
Land in China, they relied heavily on Japanese sectarian interpretations of its history
which were developed much later. Although these sectarian histories have their own
inherent value, they often prioritize certain figures that they believe are uniquely
important. Obviously, this is a common agenda within any construction of history from a
given point of view. In other words, Japanese Pure Land sectarian history is not guilty of
duplicity any more than other commonly accepted histories. However, as research on
the Pure Land continued, scholars kept focusing solely on the same figures and ideas
that were important to the Japanese sects. These ‘orthodox’ figures were retroactively
granted important titles like Pure Land “Patriarch” by later Japanese monks like Hōnen
and Shinran. Through this process, Japanese Pure Land sects gained legitimacy due to
the transmission of Pure Land teachings that could be traced back to China and
eventually India as well.
As these accounts hardened into Japanese versions of Pure Land “history,”
scholars such as Kenneth Ch’en and Ryosetsu Fujiwara often accepted the accounts of
the Japanese sectarian scholarship without any thorough or critical analysis. It has only
been over the last couple of decades that the interpretations of Pure Land history
presented in these early studies have started to be questioned. Recently, scholars have
produced more credible research on Pure Land Buddhism in China, and some studies
25
have been at odds with traditional Japanese sectarianism. However, as Kenneth
Tanaka has pointed out, these recent studies continue the pattern of focusing on a
select few ‘orthodox’ figures and texts.19 On one hand, the continuation of this pattern
can be understood in that scholars are trying to correct or clarify what was gleaned from
Japanese sectarian models in the past. On the other hand, the root of the problem–the
neglect of other figures and texts–remains. Therefore, in order to move closer to a more
accurate understanding of Pure Land Buddhism, the field must move forward in multiple
directions. First, scholars must continue to reevaluate past works and interpretations
within the field. Although it is unfortunate that in order to move forward with a greater
focus on Pure Land in China that we must go back to weigh and test the early research
on the orthodox figures, it is necessary nonetheless. Second, that narrow focus must be
expanded outward to include figures and texts that have been heretofore ignored by
scholars. Hopefully, through testing the conclusions of past scholarship and
supplementing those outcomes with the findings of future research, we will gain a
clearer picture of how Pure Land Buddhism operated in China. Lastly, Jimmy Yu has
recently suggested different directions for Pure Land study, which include examining
Pure Land Buddhism as demonstrated in popular fiction, ritual, performance, and lay
movements.20 Thus, we must begin to look beyond of text alone if we are to better
understand Pure Land Buddhism in China. This project aims to correct these problems
which have plagued much of the research about early Chinese Pure Land Buddhism.
19 Kenneth Tanaka, The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Doctrine: Ching-ying Hui-yuan's Commentary on
the Visualization Sutra. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990).
20Jimmy Yu, “Pure Land Devotion in East Asia,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to East and Inner
Asia, Mario Poceski, ed. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2014), 201-220.
26
Chapter 2 examines how Pure Land Buddhism was popularized in China. It
includes a survey of available research by scholars such as Kenneth Tanaka’s study on
Pure Land Buddhism in China up to the time of Shandao, Huaigan’s master.
Additionally, Chapter 2 recounts the various speculations about Pure Land Buddhism
before entering China. However, since there is no general consensus and a dearth of
research available, it is but a cursory survey. The “orthodox” figures of Pure Land
Buddhism, like Tanluan and Daochuo, in addition to Shandao, are all introduced in
detail. Due to the overarching importance of Shandao—both to Huaigan and the later
Pure Land tradition in general—I conduct a survey of his complicated legacy in some
detail.
Chapter 3 analyzes various Chinese biographies of Huaigan in order to paint a
clearer picture of this enigmatic figure. In addition to the biographical accounts of
Huaigan, associates such as Huaiyun are examined as well. This is in hopes of trying to
shed some light on the uncertainty surrounding the dating of Huaigan. Additionally,
there is a discussion of the sterling education of Huaigan, which directly influenced his
interpretation of the Pure Land. Lastly, Huaigan’s own experiences with Pure Land
practice are also discussed in order to segue into Chapter 4, which begins the detailed
examination of the Qunyi lun. This is a vital discussion because Huaigan’s biographies
indicate that it was a direct encounter with Amitābha through nianfo practice that led him
to write the Qunyi lun.
Chapter 4 features a critical analysis of the Qunyi lun, and an investigation of its
provenance and textual history. First, there is a review of the various extant manuscripts
of the text. Crucial parts of the Qunyi lun are translated in block quotes as the analysis
27
delves into more detailed exposition. Chapter 4 approaches the text thematically,
selecting key themes throughout the Qunyi lun in order to gain a better understanding of
the role of the text and Huaigan’s ideology.
In the Chapter 5, Huaigan’s systematic thought is examined largely through a
comparison with other notable Pure Land figures, such as Tanluan and Daochuo. In
particular, the Pure Land teachings of Shandao and Huaigan are juxtaposed. As
mentioned above, it is traditionally asserted that Huaigan’s teachings disagree with
Shandao, and this contention is debated. Additionally, the battles that Huaigan waged in
the Qunyi lun against what he viewed as threats to Pure Land belief and practice are
examined.
Chapter 6 assesses Huaigan’s place among his Pure Land counterparts and
explores his lasting legacy within the development of Pure Land Buddhism in Tang
dynasty China. A related discussion follows that considers Huaigan’s influence outside
of China. The conclusion reviews the research produced and summarizes the main
findings. It reconsiders Huaigan’s affiliation with Faxiang Buddhism, and posits that
political events during Huaigan’s life may have had significant influence on portions of
the Qunyi lun. Moreover, the results are placed in dialogue with more recent Pure Land
research to view whether they strengthen each other to point toward new areas of
study. The conclusions seek to demonstrate that a clear picture of Pure Land Buddhism
is still far away, and there is still much work to be done. Thus, my research renews the
conversation about Chinese Pure Land Buddhism in hopes that others will join the effort
to illuminate this important tradition, and its growth during a complicated period of
Chinese Buddhist history.
28
CHAPTER 2
PURE LAND BUDDHISM BEFORE HUAIGAN
Generally speaking, Pure Land Buddhism currently designates a collection of
beliefs and specific practices oriented toward achieving rebirth in the Pure Land known
as Sukhāvatī (The Land of Bliss), upon which those who are reborn are guaranteed the
final attainment of supreme enlightenment. This Land of Bliss is described in detail in
two seminal Pure Land texts, the Larger and Smaller Sukhāvatīvyuha Sutras. These
scriptures indicate that Sukhāvatī is located countless Buddha-fields to the west of this
world. The Land of Bliss is a creation of Buddha Amitābha (Immeasurable Light),
sometimes referred to as Buddha Amitāyus (Immeasurable Life), depending on the text.
However, a more nuanced description of Pure Land Buddhism is far more
complicated, and this is especially true of Pure Land Buddhism in China. In recent work,
Robert Ford Campany has noted the scholarly tendency to reify religious traditions as
organic monoliths that grow and develop while maintaining their unique essence.1
These tendencies often serve to legitimize the later forms of the tradition. All of this is
certainly true in regard to Pure Land Buddhism. For example, there was no independent
Pure Land tradition in India and China, and yet a fair amount of research (some of
which is discussed below) either seeks to locate one or assumes there was one.
Therefore, when I reference “Pure Land Buddhism,” it is strongly recommended to keep
this mind. As Campany has suggested, instead of conceiving of Pure Land Buddhism
as a holistic tradition passed from India to Japan and through until today—which
1Robert Ford Campany, Signs from the Unseen Realm: Buddhist Miracle Tales from Early Medieval
China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2012. 30.
29
certainly did not happen—it is best to think of it, “as constantly changing repertoires of
resources created and used by participants in imagined conmmunities of identity,
discourse, and practice.”2
This chapter provides a general overview of research, notable events, and
figures related to “Pure Land Buddhism” up until the life of Huaigan. Several central
ideas that would become important to early Pure Land belief are reviewed. These
concepts began their development even before Mahāyāna was recognized as a
different vehicle from the early mainstream Buddhist schools in India. As these ideas
matured, they spread across India, both to the north and south, and they were
eventually transmitted into China by both land and sea routes. As Buddhism became
more understood and blossomed in China, new beliefs and styles of practices were
gaining prominence. Therefore, the earliest adopters of Pure Land belief and practice in
China are presented. The chapter ends with an analysis of common representations of
Shandao, the most popular figure within the Chinese Pure Land movement, and the
teacher of Huaigan.
Pure Land Buddism Before China
Tracking the etymology of the term “Pure Land” and its usage is complex. There
was no recorded practice or teaching designated as Pure Land in India until the eighth
century, which is subsequent to its initial development in China. Moreover, even the
early Pure Land manuscripts did not use the term “Pure Land.” Instead, Sukhāvatī is
often referred to as Anle guo 安樂囯 (Country of Peace and Bliss) and Jile 極樂
(Extreme Bliss) in these texts. Chinese monks including Tanluan, Daochuo, and
2 Ibid.
30
Shandao (all of whom will be discussed in further detail) are commonly remembered as
catalysts for this popularization of both the term “Pure Land” and its related practices
and beliefs.
The origins of Pure Land belief and practice are entangled in the early
development of Mahāyāna Buddhism. While most agree that there was no unified Pure
Land tradition in India before its development in China, there is mixed speculation about
where and when certain events took place. There is little reason to believe that the
Chinese developed the Pure Land tradition ex nihilo. It is probable that many of the
basic facets of the tradition were established or popularized in Central Asia before
entering China in the third century CE. Japanese scholars have conducted a significant
amount of research trying to link modern Pure Land schools back to India.3 However,
there is little evidence to support that claim. Although there is no evidence of a Pure
Land school or tradition in India, there are clues that indicate the possibility of an
Amitābha cult, though such a claim is inconclusive at best. Thus, there is no scholarly
consensus on the degree or exact nature of Amitābha worship in India, if it existed at all.
The sole piece of evidence is an Amitābha image near Mathura dated to 104 CE during
the Kushan Empire (30-375 CE). The inscription accompanying the Amitābha image is
an early example of merit transference, and could be the earliest evidence of Mahāyāna
Buddhism.4 Despite this early Amitābha reference, no more iconographic or
epigraphical evidence appears in India until the seventh century.
3 Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 4.

4Shinkan Murakami, “Early Buddhist Openness and Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Nagoya Studies in Indian
Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā, vol. 27 (2008): 127.
31
Additionally, there are some textual references that could refer to an Amitābha
cult in India. In addition to the Sukhāvatīvyuha scriptures, which are discussed below in
some detail, Amitābha worship is implied in two early Mahāyāna sutras, Flower of
Compassion Sutra (Beihua jing 悲華經) and the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra. Both sutras
belittle Amitābha worship, mostly by criticizing the ranking and the abilities of Amitābha
and his bodhisattva attendants Avalokiteśvara and Mahāstāmaprāpta.5 These early
critiques of Amitābha and nascent Pure Land belief may have affected the popularity of
Amitābha worship in India. Regardless, these texts demonstrate the first example of
attacks on Pure Land belief from other Buddhists, which was an impetus for the creation
of the Qunyi lun.
Nonetheless, despite these critiques, beliefs centered on Sukhāvatī and
Amitābha continued to gain momentum, especially outside India. This is interesting
given Gregory Schopen’s assertions that rebirth in a pure land such as Sukhāvatī
became a common aspiration even for those outside the Amitābha cult.6 In other words,
rebirth in Sukhāvatī became a general aspiration that may have excluded Amitābha
worship entirely. However, thanks to important Mahāyāna concepts that matured and
extended beyond India’s borders, belief in Amitābha and Sukhāvatī would reach far
greater heights.
5
See A.W. Barber, “The Anti Sukhāvatīvyūha Stance of Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra,” The Pure Land, 16
(1999): 190-202.
6 Gregory Schopen, “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature,”
Indo-Iranian Journal, 19 (1977): 177-210.
32
The Evolution of Mahāyāna and Pure Land
Much of Pure Land development is housed within the larger mystery surrounding
the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Many of the doctrinal developments that led to Pure
Land and Mahāyāna Buddhism in general were both progressive and reactionary. They
were progressive in that the ideas that would come to characterize Mahāyāna, of which
Pure Land Buddhism was an integral part, originated within various schools of
mainstream Buddhism in India around the turn of the millennium. Many of these ideas
were expanded upon and taken to their logical extent within later Mahāyāna schools.
The Mahāyāna doctrinal developments were reactionary as well; they did not develop in
a vacuum, but competed within a robust Indian milieu containing both established and
nascent philosophies and traditions. Due to the organic development of new Mahāyāna
ideas that became crucial to Pure Land belief, a rough outline of important
developments is necessary.
The first development important to Mahāyāna and Pure Land occurred not too
long after the death of the Buddha. By the reign of Ashoka (r. 269-232 BCE), it was
widely accepted that there were six fully enlightened Buddha predecessors of Gautama
Buddha. The details of their lives are nearly indistinguishable, except that the most
ancient Buddhas had much longer lifespans.7 The lifespan of the Buddhas deteriorated
gradually downward to Gautama Buddha, who had the shortest life of the seven
Buddhas by far (though still a relatively impressive eighty years). Once this precedent
was established, the names and numbers of the Buddhas within these lists vacillated,
7
The first of these predecessors, Vipasyin, lived ninety-one kalpas ago for 80,000 years. See Jan Nattier,
Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Fremont: Asian Humanities Press,
1991), 20.
33
including as many as twenty-five past Buddhas, perhaps in order to rival the Jain
Tirthankaras.8
Over some time the list of was trimmed to just five Buddhas.9 Unlike the previous
lists, for the first time Gautama’s successor, the bodhisattva Maitreya, was added. Jan
Nattier argues convincingly that the inclusion of Maitreya had important ramifications.
This shift of focus toward the future opened the door for the inclusion of even more
Buddhas-to-come.10 The list of future Buddhas rapidly expanded to a thousand,
accompanying the realization that, not just Śakyamuni, but all people could become
Buddhas.11 This development marks a key innovation of the incipient Mahāyāna
tradition.
Buddha-Fields
The second development important to Mahāyāna Buddhism, and Pure Land belief in
particular, was the expansion of the Buddhist cosmos beyond just this world. Previously,
enlightened beings, whether past or future, were confined to earth’s realm. Even
Maitreya waited in Tuṣita, a heavenly abode above the earth. Eventually, Buddhist
cosmology expanded to include various universes in all ten directions, which included
innumerable worlds. Like earth, unenlightened beings that inhabited the new worlds
were thought to need their own Buddhas to preach the Dharma. Thus, enlightened
beings were no longer contained to the past or the future of earth, but were currently
8 Ibid., 21.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 22.
11 Ibid., 24.
34
active in some of these new realms. This radical development was too controversial for
most of the mainstream Buddhist schools of the time, but it did gain traction in a
significant minority.12 Although textual analysis is unable to pinpoint an exact time for
this development, there is a scholarly consensus that it was circulating in the second
century BCE.13
Over time, these new realms were given the label of buddha-kṣetra, or buddha-
fields. Some of these lands existed outside the tainted realm of saṃsāra, and thus were
the ideal locations for learning the Dharma from perfected beings. This attractive feature
of the buddha-fields reveals the needs of a Buddhist community that was still trying to
account for the absence of Gautama while competing against the advancements of
other indigenous religions. These lands were largely represented as the antithesis of
this world. Among other things, their environments were bejeweled, and every kind of
spiritual goodness was present in abundance. The buddha-fields were stocked with
literally anything the Buddhist imagination could conceive. Many of those who heard of
these realms wanted to experience these incredible landscapes firsthand. Thus, rebirth
in these perfected realms became preferred alternatives to the more arduous paths to
supreme enlightenment. The presence of the Buddhas teaching the Dharma in their
perfected buddha-fields ensured that any inhabitant would ever retrogress (avaivartika)
12The Mahāsāṃghika and Lokotaravāda schools were the early adopters of this concept. Textual
sources disagree as to which of the schools should be credited with the idea. See Fujita, Genshi Jodo
Shiso, 361-376.
13 This date is based on the Kathāvatthu, a Theravādin text, which mentions the Mahāsāṃghika doctrine
of buddhas in all directions. The Kathavattu is believed to have been completed by the end of the second
century BCE. See Kenneth K. Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 5; and Sengaku Mayeda
Genshibukkyō Seiten no Seiritsushi Kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankibobusshorin Publishing Co., 1964), 588-590.
35
in its path toward supreme enlightenment.14 These perfected lands were given
appellations that reflected their awesome nature: Ghanavyuha, the Land of Mystic
Splendor; Abhirati, the Land of Extreme Joy; Vaiduryanirbhasa, the Land of Luminous
Lapis Lazuli, and, the most popular, Sukhāvatī, the Land of Bliss.
There are likely a number of factors that led to the significant addition of buddha-
fields. The early Cittamātra scholar Asaṅga (fl. fourth century CE) provided the earliest
explanation for the development. Asaṅga posited that because only one Buddha could
inhabit a world at any given time, the glut of new Buddhas (as a result of the increasing
popularity of the Mahāyāna bodhisattva path) with nowhere to reside created new
realms to serve as their own domains.15 Although this was a convenient explanation for
the majority of Buddhist history, modern scholars disagree. Asaṅga privileges his
specific Mahāyāna understanding of the Bodhisattva path that was likely not fully
developed before the idea of buddha-kṣetras originated.16
A more likely explanation is that the concept evolved out of the nascent doctrinal
emphasis on skillful means, which became a central feature of the Mahāyāna tradition:
Under this view, the Buddhist cosmos is not an objective and material but
a subjective and spiritual reality. The transcendent Buddhas and their
realms that fill the universe are concretized expressions of the eternal
Buddha-principle (dharma), which as the basic reality of the universe is
ever active to lead all beings to enlightenment. In other words, the
14The idea of non-retrogression did not originate in Mahayana Buddhism. Pali texts indicate the desire to
become a “non-returner” (anagamin) to the desire realm in preference of the heavens in the saha realm;
See Fujita, Genshi Jodo Shiso, 19. However, these realms were still contained within saṃsāra, unlike
perfected Buddha-fields.
15 Ibid., 357-360.
16 Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 6.
36
universe is the domain of the Buddhas and is, thus, fashioned and
sustained by their work to lead beings to spiritual enlightenment.17
Thus, the motivation in the creation of these realms is intended to serve all beings, and
their existence is wholly dependent upon the subjectivity of the individual. Ultimately,
these realms are nothing more than specific manifestations of the dharmakāya, the
shared ultimate form of all Buddhas.
The skillful means approach did not end there, for in its explanation it created a
new problem. If these fields are truly expressions of the dharmakāya–in their most
reduced state–then they must be completely pure. However, the saha realm of
Gautama Buddha is seemingly impure. Yet, it is nothing like the descriptions of other
buddha-fields in which there is no suffering and complete bliss. Śāriputra supposedly
realizes this problem, according to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. When Śāriputra asks
the Buddha why his realm appears impure, the Buddha answers:
The fact that some living beings do not behold the splendid display of
virtues of the buddha-field of the Tathāgata is due to their own ignorance.
It is not the fault of the Tathāgata. The buddha-field of the Tathāgata is
pure, but you do not see it.18
The Buddha touches the ground with his toe, granting Śāriputra a glimpse of how pure
the world looks to the enlightened mind. The description of this sight favorably
compares to many other purified realms, and is explicitly correlated with the jeweled
realm of Ratnavyūha Buddha. Śāriputra and the unenlightened audience marvel at their
exquisite view, until the Buddha returns them to their normal perception.
17 Ibid.
18T475.14, 538c11. Translation from Robert Thurman, The Holy Teaching of Vimalakīrti: A Mahāyāna
Scripture (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976), 18.
37
The above passage introduces an important point that becomes central to Pure
Land belief and practice. Death and rebirth are not required to access the Pure Land; it
is ever-present to the enlightened mind. Ironically, once one has the capability to see
the Pure Land through supreme enlightenment, the emptiness of it becomes apparent.
The aspiration to be reborn in a purified buddha-field is merely a tool to help
conceptualize a deeper goal. Ultimately, Pure Lands are devoid of substance
(svabhava). They are merely constructions used in order to help those who seek
enlightenment, though this philosophy would not please most Pure Land Buddhists who
view the Pure Land as real.
There is yet another cause that likely factored into the development of the notion
of buddha-fields. Buddhism was one of many competing religious philosophies
circulating India. This reality certainly created a marketplace in which popular opposing
ideas were borrowed and adapted. In particular, important ideas contained in the
Bhagavad Gita were gaining momentum.19 The text introduces the idea of a salvific
figure with the power to help any who desire to be saved.20 The promise of liberation
through personal surrender to a savior was certainly appealing.21 The Buddhist
believers may have begun to desire these same benefits. Before long, there were active
Buddhas throughout the cosmos performing the same function.
19Dating the composition of the Bhagavad Gita is difficult, and there is no scholarly consensus. The
dating ranges from the fifth to the second century BCE. The later the composition of the Gita, the stronger
a case can be made that its ideas were influential to the early development of Mahāyāna doctrines.
20
Bhagavad Gita 18:66: “Relinquishing all sacred duties to me/ make me your only refuge/ do not grieve/
for I shall free you from all evils,” trans. Barbara Stoler Miller, The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in
Time of War (New York: Bantam Classic, 1986), 144.
21Pas has argued for the influence of bhakti within the rise of the Amitābha cult. See Pas, Visions of
Sukhāvatī, 29. While some of his claims are outmoded, this theory still resonates.
38
In order for this salvation to work, it was necessary to adapt previous
understandings of how karma operated. It was not long after the Buddha’s death that
practitioners began circumambulating stupas housing relics of the Buddha and giving
offerings in hopes of receiving some kind of karmic or immediate benefit. This belief
eventually finds support in the popular Pali text Questions of King Milinda. This acted as
a prototype for the merit-transfer system that matured within the early Mahāyāna
movement. The karmic system still functioned on the individual level in which one is
completely responsible for the fruit of an action. However, these new active Buddhas
had acquired inexhaustible amounts of merit along their Bodhisattva path and were able
to transfer these vast stores for the benefit of the less fortunate. This bounty of merit
also accounted for the existence and mission of these Pure Lands. Similar to the main
innovation within the Bhagavad Gita, whoever truly desired liberation could be aided by
any one of the many Buddhas throughout the universe. It was no longer necessary to
suffer through countless karmic rebirths on the bodhisattva path. Instead, one could be
born in a buddha-field and learn the Dharma at the feet of a buddha. Once this system
was established there was a boom of merit-making activity on behalf of the less
fortunate.
The Origins of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī
The expansion of the Buddhist cosmos and the notions of Buddha-fields highlighted
the new notion that other Buddhas existed and were currently working throughout the
universe, leading to a fascination with the realms in which they operated. Sometime
during this period, focus shifted to Amitābha and Sukhāvatī, his Pure Land. However,
while traditional accounts in the Pure Land scriptures document their origin, the
39
origination of the very ideas of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī is much less clear to
scholars.
Amitābha is the heart of the Pure Land tradition, since his vows created Sukhāvatī
and grant the opportunity for the devotees’ rebirth there. Interestingly enough, the
believers play a key role in Amitābha’s Buddhahood and his pure realm. Because
Amitābha’s vows to become a Buddha were conditionally based on support from
believers, they share in the creation of Sukhāvatī and its rewards. In other words,
anyone can enjoy the Pure Land because Amitābha vowed they could as a condition of
his becoming a Buddha. Were any of his vows proven incorrect, it would bring into
question Amitābha’s Buddhahood and the existence of his Pure Land.
From his introduction into China, Amitābha’s popularity rose steadily. Today,
Amitābha is the most worshipped celestial Buddha in East Asian Buddhism. Amitābha’s
appeal extends beyond the Pure Land tradition, and it is not uncommon to hear his
name spoken by Buddhists of any affiliation. It is not a stretch to suggest that Amitābha
is bigger than the tradition itself. Wherever Mahāyāna Buddhism is located, it is a virtual
guarantee that Amitābha worship has a presence as well.
Origins about the notion of Amitābha are less clear. As was noted above, there is
scant evidence of an Amitābha cult in India, but it is certain that he was known in
Northwest India by the middle of the Kushan Empire (30-375 CE), an important period
for the dissemination of Buddhism across South and Central Asia.22 Complicating this
matter are the two names used to signify the deity: Amitābha (“Immeasurable Light”)
22For more about this period of Indian history, see David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian
Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors (Boston: Shambhala, 1987).
40
and Amitāyus (“Immeasurable Life”).23 While these names provide some clues, they
also lead to more questions. Eventually, the two names referred interchangeably to the
same deity, though the assumed history of this synonymizing process has been
questioned.24 Still, this conflation must have become standard rather early, as the
Larger Sukhāvatīvyuha sutra uses both names. However, there is at least one
exception: in Tibet, Amitābha and Amitāyus are depicted differently in visual
representations. Why Tibet maintains their distinction while other cultures have
conflated them is a mystery.25 Some have suggested a link with an early Buddhist
tradition, but no Indian Mahāyāna scriptures preserve the distinction.26
The aforementioned period of the Kushan Empire was an important time for
Buddhist development. It was mentioned above that the first Amitābha image dates
back to this period. The Kushans claimed Bactria and Sogdiana, and extended their
empire into areas of India and up into present-day Afghanistan. Previously, these areas
had been conquered by the Greeks and it is likely that the trade routes they established
were still vital to commerce during the Kushan Empire. This is a crucial point for
scholars who suggest that Amitābha is the result of Persian influence that was
circulating in the northwest Indian subcontinent at that time. They point to the similarities
23Amitābha will be used as the main name of the deity, except for cases in which Amitāyus provides
particular illumination. In either case, they are referring to the same Buddha.
24For instance, Jan Nattier has recently argued that early Han Chinese translations do not produce any
evidence to suggest synonymous connection Amitāyus and Amitābha, as has been traditionally asserted.
See Jan Nattier, “The Names of Amitābha/Amitāyus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2),” The
Report of the International Research Institute of Advanced Buddhology 10 (2007): 359-394.
25Giuseppe Tucci, The Temples of Western Tibet and Their Artistic Symbolism (New Delhi: Aditya
Prakashan, 1989), 84.
26 Halkias, Luminous Bliss, 30-31.
41
between Amitābha’s “immeasurable light” and the Zoroastrian solar deity Ahura
Mazda.27 Although this is an interesting comparison, Luis Gómez has noted that light
imagery was present in India at that time, and he sees no reason to attribute the
creation of Amitābha to Zoroastrian influence.28
An alternate suggestion for the origin of Amitābha and Pure Land worship is the
emergence of devotional (bhakti) Hinduism, which eventually became popular
throughout India. Akira Hirakawa posited a link between Amitābha and the immensely
popular Hindu deity, Krishna.29 His argument looks at the similarities in Krishna worship
and Pure Land devotion to Amitābha. However, Hirakawa’s theory does not account for
the fact that it was not until the Gupta Empire (ca. 320-550) that bhakti became a
significant movement. This fact also hampers other theories, including the notion that
Amitābha resulted from Hindu mythology, specifically amitaujas (“immeasurable
power”), the seat of Brahmā.30 Other scholars have tried to link Amitābha to Hinduism
through the etymological roots of his name. Soho Machida links the root amita with the
Sanskrit word amṛta (“immortality”), a sweet potable mentioned in the Vedas which
produces immortality.31
Another interesting theory on Amitābha’s origin links him to solar cults in India
and Central Asia. Iconographic representations of Amitābha and the Indian sun god,
27 Patricia Eichenbaum Karetsky, “The Evolution of the Symbolism of the Paradise of the Buddha of
Infinite Life and Its Western Origins,” Sino-Platonic Papers 76 (1997): 1-28.
28 Gómez, Land of Bliss, 35-36.
29 Akira Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 290.
31Soho Machida, “Life and Light, the Infinite: A Historical and Philological Analysis of the Amida Cult,”
Sino-Platonic Papers 9 (1988): 1-46.
42
Sūrya, are markedly similar.32 Furthermore, textual evidence makes clear that solar rites
were performed by Buddhists in India and Central Asia.33 Moreover, an image of Sūrya
dating to the third or fourth centuries CE was located inside a Bamyan Buddhist
monastery.34 In addition, it is unmistakable that Amitābha’s name lends itself to this
theory, as what other heavenly body could emit “immeasurable light” than the sun?
Georgios Halkias has recently suggested that Amitābha could be an organic
development from these solar cults. As the cults matured, their gods became more
powerful, gaining new powers and functions to help and protect worshippers. The gods
travelled with merchant traders to other cultures and were easily shared because of the
familiarity of the heavenly bodies used to navigate their paths.35 These solar deities
likely transcended any strict adherence to one philosophy—perhaps even tied to
political powers to ensure it—and, eventually, they were appropriated into a cultish form,
perhaps like Amitābha. Combined with the textual and iconographic evidence, this is
certainly a compelling theory.
The final theory of Amitābha’s origin is mainly posited by Japanese Pure Land
scholars. This could be the result of sectarian bias, and the hope that Pure Land is a
wholly Buddhist development. Nevertheless, these theories are backed with substantial
research. These scholars claim that Amitābha is exclusive to Buddhism, and always has
32 Karetsky, “Evolution of Symbolism,” 8.

33Lalta Prasad Pandey, Sun Worship in Ancient India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), 125. Pandey
notes that the Brihat Samhita mentions that Buddhists monks participated and conducted in Surya
worship.
34C.S. Upasak, History of Buddhism in Afghanistan (Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies,
1990), 161.
35 Halkias, Luminous Bliss, 31.
43
been.36 The most vocal and respected voice to espouse this theory is Kōtatsu Fujita,
who points to Buddhist scriptures to demonstrate that the fundamental ideas that are
associated with the Amitābha cult were nascent in the texts. Fujita points to passages
that describe the Buddha’s unlimited power and life, and finds textual comparisons to
light and the Buddha’s immeasurable intellect.37 However, just because a phenomenon
such as Amitābha can be retroactively explained using canonical literature does not
totally preclude the influence and appropriation of foreign ideas and practices. Instead
of developing entirely within a Buddhist context, it is likely that one or any combination
of theories briefly mentioned above can shed light on the conception of Amitābha.
The same kind of mysteries cloud the origins of Sukhāvatī. As a result, many
scholars link the development of Sukhāvatī to corresponding theories about Amitābha.
Thus, many of the same ideas recur when relaying these theories. Similar to the
theories about Amitābha’s origins, there is no consensus as to how the notion of
Sukhāvatī developed. However, it is likely that it relied upon the same blend of
influences that were essential to the evolution of Amitābha.
An examination of the etymological root of Sukhāvatī, sukha, does not yield
many clues. Sukha is ubiquitous in the earliest Buddhist texts as well as in most of
Mahāyāna literature. It relays the experience of worldly happiness and the realization of
spiritual bliss from nirvana.38 It is the antithesis of duḥkha, the suffering inherent in
existence in saṃsāra. The name, then, hints at the perfected nature of the Pure Land,
36For example, see Shinkō Mochizuki, Jōdokyō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Sentā, 1977 Reprint),
69-71.
37 Fujita, Genshi Jodo Shiso, 322-334; Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 8.
38 Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 21.
44
while also alluding to the extreme joy experienced by those who are reborn there. The
name is a sort of promise to practitioners that they will experience both of these traits of
Sukhāvatī. Thus, whereas scholars can question whether the etymology of the name of
Amitābha is intrinsically Buddhist, there is no such etymological debate about
Sukhāvatī.
However, just because the etymology of Sukhāvatī appears endemic to
Buddhism does not necessarily imply the same for the idea of a western pure land.
Seeking to link their theories about the origins of Amitābha with Sukhāvatī, some
scholars return to Iran and Zoroastrianism as the basis for the idea of a pure land.
These claims are often made by early Orientalists who make reductive assertions about
both religions. For instance, Charles Eliot writes,
The essential features of Amidist doctrine are that there is a paradise of

light belonging to a benevolent deity and that the good who invoke his
name will be led thither. Both features are found in Zoroastrian
writings…Thus all the chief features of Amitābha’s paradise are Persian:
only his method of instituting it by making a vow is Buddhist.39
There have been other Orientalist claims positing links between western paradises like
the Garden of Eden, Elysium, and others, to the idea of the Pure Land. Although these
claims are provocative, they lack substantial evidence. However, Persian influence
cannot be eliminated at this time.
Many scholars have noted that the vast store of indigenous Indian mythology is
sufficient enough to have influenced the development of Sukhāvatī. Max Müller
suggested that Sukhāvatī was a derivation of the Western city of Varuna, described in
39 Charles Eliot, Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch (London: Curzon Press, 1998), 220.
45
the Puranas.40 Other Hindu paradises like the Brahmaloka are also invoked.41
Buddhism owes much of its cosmological outlining to early Hindu ideas, and it is
possible that Sukhāvatī is an evolution of Uttarakuru, the northern continent.42 The
Puranas describe it as a paradise in which all beings have long lives. Uttarakuru also
features much of the same bejeweled flora that exists in Sukhāvatī. Uttarakuru is indeed
a possible prototype for Sukhāvatī when the striking similarities and the Buddhist
appropriation of Hindu cosmology are taken into account.
Lastly, there is a contingent of scholars who claim that, like Amitābha, Sukhāvatī
could be a completely Buddhist development. As indicated above, the Pure Land can be
explained as a logical extension of the development of buddha-kṣetra during the early
Mahāyāna period. As this idea matured, buddha-fields came to be qualified as pure or
impure. Certainly, this was foundational to the development of Sukhāvatī. After all, as
Pas writes, “It is almost tautologous to say that Sukhāvatī is a particular exemplification
of the ‘pure Buddha-field idea.’”43 However, this doctrinal development was likely not the
only factor in the creation of Sukhāvatī.
Hirakawa claimed that the framework of the Pure Land is a metaphor for stupa
worship.44 He noted how the architecture and function of the stupa have similarities to
iconographic representations of the Pure Land. Later scholars have criticized this
40Interestingly, according to Müller, the city is also called Sukha, and is the city of the sunset. Max Müller,
Sacred Books of the East, vol. xlix, part II (1894): xxii.
41 Isshi Yamada, Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1968), 69ff.
42 Julian F. Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 21.
43 Ibid., 22
Akira Hirakawa, “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas,”
44
Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tōyō Bunko 22 (1963): 57-106.
46
theory, citing a lack of evidence. 45 Although Hirakawa’s theories were very influential to
the early academic study of Buddhism, recent scholarship has often disagreed with his
interpretations.
Pure Land Scriptures
The Pure Land scriptures were the most important development for worship of
Amitābha and Sukhāvatī. As noted earlier, there is not yet significant evidence that
suggests the presence of a cult specifically dedicated to Amitābha in India. However,
that does not negate the reality that Amitābha appears in early Mahāyāna scriptures
likely composed in India, a few of which would become central to Pure Land Buddhism.
While the Pure Land tradition borrows from many different scriptures, there are
three canonical texts that represent the core of the tradition: The Larger Sukhāvatīvyuha
Sūtra, The Smaller Sukhāvatīvyuha Sūtra, and the Guan wuliang shoufo jing 觀無量壽
佛經 (Sutra on the Visualization of the Buddha of Infinite Life, T 365, vol. 12; hereafter,
Guan jing).The first two are directly related in that they share a title and provide an
etiology of Amitābha and his pure land. To differentiate between them, they are
distinguished by their length, producing the colloquial labels of larger and smaller
scriptures.46 These two scriptures were likely at least partially composed in India
presumably sometime in the second century CE. Upon their earliest Chinese
translations in the third century CE, the two sutras became enormously popular, which
led to later translations of the sutras. However, as popular as they became in China,
45David Chappell, “Chinese Buddhist Interpretations of the Pure Lands,” Buddhist and Taoist Studies, ed.
Michael Saso and David Chappell (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977), 23-55.
46Henceforth, I shall refer to them using these labels, using Larger and Smaller to denote which text is
being referenced.
47
they were never very influential in India. The last scripture in this corpus is the Guan
jing, commonly referred to as the Visualization or Meditation Sutra. The Guan jing is
often identified by its Chinese title, since there is no extant copy in Sanskrit.47
When they were translated in China, the Larger and Smaller sutras were given
separate titles: the larger is identified as Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 or Da jing 大經,
while the smaller is called the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 or Xiao jing 小經. While there is
some good research on the two sutras, there are few definitive answers. Scholars agree
that significant portions of the texts were collected in India during the Kushan Empire.48
However, it is likely that the texts were still evolving at the time of their arrival and
translation in China, as early as the second century CE.49
Although both texts are revered, the Larger Sutra has more authority, while the
Smaller Sutra is more popular. Of the five different Chinese versions of the Larger
Sutra, Samghavarman’s (d. 280 CE) is the preferred authoritative recension, which
dates to the mid-third century.50 However, the early translation is difficult to read, often
leading to its pairing with Bodhiruchi’s (693-713 CE) more lucid translation.51 There is
47There is actually no consensus on the Sanskrit title of the Guan jing. It is either Amitayur-dhyana-sutra
or Amitayur-buddhanusmrti-sutra.
48 Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 10-11.
49The texts were likely written in the Gandhari vernacular which was circulating in Northwest India and
Central Asia from the third century BCE to the third century CE. See Etienne Lamotte, History of Indian
Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, trans. Sara Webb-Boi (Louvain: Université Catholique de
Louvain, 1988), 568-572.
50Samghavarman was known as Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 and hailed from Sogdiana. There is some debate
over Samghavarman’s role in the translation as scholarship has recently suggested the attribution is
tenuous. Instead, it appears the text was at least revised by Buddhabhadra (359-429 CE). See Gómez,
Land of Bliss, 126; and Jan Nattier, “The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest
Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha,” Pacific World Journal 3.5 (2003): 189.
51 Gómez, Land of Bliss, 126.
48
some scholarly disagreement over whether the Chinese translations are based on the
same source.52 In addition to the Chinese versions, there is a later Sanskrit manuscript,
from Nepal, and a Tibetan translation from the Sanskrit.
There are just two extant Chinese translations of the Smaller Sutra. Both were
translated by renowned translators. Kumarajiva’s (344-413) translation was finished in
402 CE and is simply titled Amituo jing.53 The other was a translation done by the
famous Xuanzang (602-644). Kumarajiva’s translation is the most popular version of all
extant versions of the Larger and Smaller sutras.54
In the Sukhāvatīvyuha sutras, Śakyamuni relays the tale of Dharmākara’s sincere
vow to become a Buddha, thereby creating his own pure land for the benefit of all
sentient beings. Dharmākara eventually becomes Amitābha Buddha, and his devotees
are said to be reborn in his pure Buddha realm, Sukhāvatī. A detailed description of
Sukhāvatī follows, and though it is remarkable, it closely resembles other pure lands
described in various Mahāyāna texts.55 According to the Sukhāvatīvyuha sutras,
Amitābha’s abode is an awesome creation featuring jeweled flora, sublime music,
perfected climate, and more.56
52Mark Blum claims that all the translations derive from the same source; see his The Origins and
Development of Pure Land Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 149-150. Fujita maintains
otherwise (“Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 7-9). The latter claims that later translations are clearly more
developed than the earliest versions.
53 Gómez, Land of Bliss, 125.
54 Ibid.
55 Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 21-25.
56Ibid. Fujita has a list of twenty-three feature of Sukhāvatī based on the Larger Sutra, and
chronologically divides the different aspects mentioned in the different translations.
49
Amitābha’s vows to attain Buddhahood are the centerpiece of the Larger and
Smaller Sutras. In addition to providing the cause and effect structure of the narrative
within the text, the vows are the centerpiece of later commentarial discussions.
Interestingly, the exact number of Amitābha’s vows fluctuates depending on the
translation.57 The content and order of the vows also changes. Nevertheless, the
present Pure Land tradition agrees on a formulation of forty-eight vows, which was a
later development.58 The central meaning behind all the vows is Dharmākara’s desire to
save all sentient beings. Noticeably, this goal is a defining feature of Mahāyāna
Buddhism in general. In the vows, Dharmākara clearly states his goals for reaching
supreme enlightenment. He also discusses his future pure land and the inhabitants who
will be reborn there. The importance of the vows to the Pure Land tradition cannot be
overstated; they are the device by which all beings can ultimately gain enlightenment.
Of the forty-eight, the eighteenth vow is the most notable and significant, as it is used as
the impetus for Pure Land practice:
If, when I attain Buddhahood, the sentient beings throughout the ten
quarters, realizing sincere mind, joyful faith, and aspiration for birth in my
land and thinking of me up to ten times, do not attain birth, may I not attain
the supreme enlightenment, excluded are those who commit the five
transgressions and slander the true dharma.59
Despite this vow only appearing in certain versions of the Larger Sutra, it plays a pivotal
role in later Pure Land belief and practice. Regardless, whether a translation or
57 Ibid., 16-17. The so-called Samghavarman version features forty-eight vows. The later Chinese
versions have twenty-four or thirty-six vows, while the extant Sanskrit has forty-seven, and the Tibetan
translation has forty-nine.
58 Ibid. The twenty-four vow formulation is the earliest, and Fujita warns against suggesting the vow
systems between twenty-four and forty-eight were developed in between. Instead, those versions were
likely based on the forty-eight vows.
59 Ibid.
50
commentary, there is a consistent emphasis on this crucial idea of mindfulness
(translated as “thinking” in the above passage) of the Buddha.60 The ambiguity entailed
in this mindfulness of the Buddha becomes a central debate issue in later
commentaries. Buddhānusmṛti, nianfo 念佛, and nembutsu 念仏 are the Sanskrit,
Chinese, and Japanese translations, respectively, of mindfulness of the Buddha.
The third Pure Land scripture, the Guan jing, could be considered the most
influential of the three, especially in East Asia. The Chinese text is traditionally attributed
to the Central Asian monk, Kālayaśas (fl. 440), who translated the Guan jing in China
before leading meditation groups in present-day Sichuan province.61 However, there is
much uncertainty surrounding the authorship of the text, as well as its place and time of
its composition.62 It is generally accepted that the text was translated, and perhaps
expanded, in China by the fifth century. The text advocates meditation and visualization
practices that were popular in India and Central Asia at least a century earlier. The
Guan jing was one of a number of visualization sutras that were translated into Chinese
early in the fifth century.63 The frequency of these translations indicates a strong interest
60 Ibid., 18.
61 T 2059, vol. 50, 343c.
62See Tanaka’s translation of Fujita’s “The Textual Origins of the Kuan-Wu-liang-shou-ching: A Canonical
Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism,” in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. Robert Buswell (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1990). More recent research has suggested Turfan as the composition
location. See also, Nobuyoshi Yamabe, “An Examination of the Mural Paintings of Toyok Cave 20 in
Conjunction with the Origin of the Amitāyus Visualization Sutra,” Orientations 30.4 (1999): 38-44.
However, Nattier (“Indian Roots,” 189) is dubious of this claim. Jonathan Silk asserts that sections of the
Guan jing, particularly the prologue, were likely composed in India, though it is unlikely it was completed
there. See Jonathan Silk, “The Composition of the Guan Wuliangshoufo jing: Some Buddhist and Jaina
Parallels to Its Narrative Frame,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25.2: 181-256.
63 Fujita, Genshi Jodo Shiso, 121.
51
in visualization and related meditation practices which presumably aided the growing
popularity of Pure Land belief in China.
Unlike the Sukhāvatīyuha sutras, the Guan jing concentrates more on detailing
the central element of Pure Land belief rather than establishing a foundational narrative.
As a result, later sectarian Pure Land doctrine is mostly drawn from the Guan jing and
its commentaries. The text describes a graduated sequence of thirteen visualizations in
which the practitioner visualizes Sukhāvatī, the appearance of Amitābha, and the
beings already inhabiting the Pure Land. Through this process, a dedicated practitioner
might reach a samādhi state which leaves no doubt regarding the existence of the Pure
Land and the future attainment of Buddhahood.64 The Guan jing also indicates that
there are nine grades of rebirth in the Pure Land. Those who are able to practice the
advanced visualization practices are rewarded with the highest rebirths. However, the
text also advocates vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha for those who are not as
advanced. Those who recite the name of Amitābha with the purest intentions are able to
become free from karmic entanglements and are guaranteed a place in the Pure Land,
though likely the lowest rebirth.
The recitation of Amitābha’s name eventually became a hallmark of Pure Land
practice. Shandao is often credited as the popularizer of this practice, a claim that will
be discussed below in more detail. That does not mean, however, that vocal recitation
originated with the Guan jing. Earlier texts, including the Mahāvastu and the Lotus
Sutra, often featured recitation of prayers or the name of a buddha or a bodhisattva,
especially in times of immediate peril—a flood or fire, for instance. The outcome of
52
these recitations was an immediate rescue from danger. The recitation featured in the
Guan jing appears to be a logical extension of this earlier type of recitation. The
prospect of immediate salvation of the earlier form of recitation is expanded into a fully
developed soteriology. The recitation of the name of Amitābha (nianfo) wipes away
karmic outcomes and, instead, produces rebirth in the Pure Land.
There are plenty of other brief mentions of Amitābha and the Pure Land in Indian
commentarial literature. However, there is not enough compelling evidence to suggest
the existence of an Indian scholarly tradition associated with the Pure Land texts.65
Other texts important to Pure Land Buddhism were most likely appropriated into the
tradition by later proponents seeking to link Pure Land belief and practice back to India.
It is therefore not surprising that Nāgārjuna (fl. third century) and Vasubandhu (fl. fourth
century)—two of the most revered Indian Buddhist scholars—are recognized by the
Jōdo Shinshū as the first two Indian patriarchs. Both of these connections will be briefly
discussed further due to their importance in the later tradition.
There are many texts that are attributed to Nāgārjuna, but just one holds
relevance to the Pure Land tradition. In a commentary on the Daśabhūmika sūtra, there
is a chapter entitled, “On the Easy Practice.” This chapter advocates worshipping a
litany of Buddhas as an alternative to the difficult Bodhisattva path. Amitābha is one of
many Buddhas mentioned, and the text also references his vows. These connections
seem to be the sole basis of the claim that Nāgārjuna was a proponent of Pure Land
practice. However, the context of “easy practice” mentioned in the text at no point
65In the Genshi Jodo Shiso, Fujita notes a variety of Pure Land references in thirty-one Sanskrit texts and
over a hundred Chinese and Tibetan translations (339-341).
53
references the reliance on “other-power” (tali 他力) that becomes central in the later
tradition.66 Furthermore, Amitābha is just one of a large number of Buddhas referenced,
and their inconsistent organization suggests that there were multiple authors and
revisions of the text.67 Yet, though it is entirely unlikely that Nāgārjuna ever considered
himself a Pure Land Buddhist (or even knew what such a term meant), the connection
persists.
Another example of this kind of tenuous connection is Vasubandhu’s Rebirth
Treatise which Tanluan and later Pure Land patriarchs treated as a commentary to the
Larger Sukhāvatīvyuha, though it shares more in common with the Guan jing. Again,
although the text is traditionally attributed to Vasubandhu, scholars are doubtful about
that claim.68 Like the Guan jing, the text focuses on visualization practice, while also
mentioning the efficacy of vocal recitation. Originally adopted by Tanluan, both Shandao
and Huaigan reference the Rebirth Treatise often in their writing, specifically the
concept of the “Five Methods of Mindfulness” (wunianmen 五念門).69 Instead of
advocating for one practice, the text promotes a diverse approach, including both
visualization and recitation. However, the text clearly states that the ultimate goal of
66 Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 55

67 Ibid.
68Richard K. Payne, “The Five Contemplative Gates of Vasubandhu’s Rebirth Treatise as a Ritualized
Visualization Practice,” in The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael
Solomon, and Richard K. Payne (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1996), 233.
69The Five Contemplative Gates are vocal recitation or praise, worship, aspiration for rebirth, visualization
and transfer of merit. Its influence on Huaigan and Shandao will be discussed further in Chapter 5. For
more on the Rebirth Treatise, see Minoru Kiyota, “Buddhist Devotional Meditation: A Study of the
Sukhāvatīvyūhôpadeśa,” in Mayahana Buddhist Meditation Theory and Practice, ed. Minoru Kiyota
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1978): 249-276; Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 11-13; and
Payne, “Five Contemplative Gates.”
54
practice is the attainment of supreme enlightenment, not rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Thus,
scholars note that the text should be read as a manual for the bodhisattva path, and not
as a Pure Land text.70 Nevertheless, the text continues to be recognized within the Pure
Land tradition especially because of its frequent use in the Chinese commentarial
tradition.
All of these aspects of Pure Land belief and practice entered China at different
times ranging from 200–500 CE Their scattered arrangement indicates that Pure Land
belief was present in Northwest India and Central Asia, but that there was no unified
school or lineage. Instead, these elements were likely a heterogeneous mix of early
Mahāyāna beliefs that interacted with non-Buddhist indigenous beliefs along its journey
to China. Tansen Sen’s research demonstrates the role of merchants in the migration of
Buddhism out of India. He argues that merchants—Sogdians, Parthians, and Indians—
contributed to the transmission of Buddhism into China.71 In addition to their donations
to monastic institutions, these merchants would often escort monastics into (and
eventually out of) China. Given that these motley crews of merchants and monastics
traveled vast distances together on treacherous routes—perhaps equally land and sea,
as Sen has recently argued—it is not inconceivable that the monastics emphasized the
presence of powerful beings to aid their journey.72 Surely an enlightened being such as
70 Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 56.

71Tansen Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003): 164-165.
72 For more on the maritime transmission of Buddhism, see Tansen Sen, “Buddhism and the Maritime
Crossings,” in China and Beyond in the Medieval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-Regional
Connections, Dorothy C. Wong and Gustav Heldt, ed. (Amherst: Cambria Press, 2014): 39-62. Sen
specifically discusses Samghavarman (or Kang Senghui) as an example of a Central Asian monk who
traveled the maritime routes to reach southern China. As mentioned above (and in fn. 48), the preferred
translation of the Larger Sutra is traditionally attributed to Samghavarman.
55
Amitābha, who offers both immortality and light, would be a comforting travel partner,
along with his attendant bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, who aids those in times of peril.
Moreover, if praying to Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara delivered these travelers through a
particularly menacing circumstance along their journey, the monastics would be all the
more willing to share their experiences upon arriving at their destination. The monastic
could even make it his duty to translate or expand a scripture like the Larger or Shorter
sutras as a symbol of his gratitude. It is clear that this connection of Buddhist
transmission and mercantilism provides rich potential for new research in the origin of
Pure Land Buddhism.
Further research on early Pure Land practice in China is important because it will
help pinpoint which ideas were most popular upon their entrance into China. In this
section, several theories posited about the origins of Pure Land Buddhism were
reviewed. However, there is an unfortunate lack of solid evidence to verify many of
these claims. Although the search for origins in Pure Land Buddhism is certainly a
fascinating endeavor, the heretofore ambiguous results should not prevent scholars
from studying later Pure Land Buddhism as well.
Early Chinese Examples of Pure Land Practice
Early Pure Land practice in China was very different from its later form, including
late Tang dynasty Pure Land. The most important reason for this is the relatively late
translation of the aforementioned Guan jing by Kālayaśas. The Guan jing became
arguably the most important sutra for the Pure Land tradition. However, Pure Land
56
practice in China can be dated back to the late third century.73 The scattered information
about the early adherents of Pure Land practice provide glimpses as to how the tradition
was carried through Central Asia and received in China.
Another reason why early Chinese Pure Land practice was different was the
greater popularity of Maitreya during that time. Led by the monk Daoan 道安 (312-385),
practitioners sought rebirth in Tuṣita heaven, where it is believed that Maitreya awaits
his rebirth as the future Buddha. Maitreya’s popularity can be seen prominently in the
proliferation of earlier images of him, especially in Buddhist caves like Longmen. The
number of Maitreya carvings is unrivaled by those that feature Amitābha or
Avalokiteśvara until the mid-seventh century.74 Dorothy Wong has also conducted a
study of early Sichuan Buddhist steles, which discusses the rivalry between the
respective cults of Amitābha and Maitreya that did not see a victor until well into the
Tang dynasty.75 Huaigan was a central player in the long-standing rivalry, and the
Qunyi lun is a great source that records the fundamental points for both sides of this
debate. Chapters 4 and 5 feature much more on this crucial topic.
Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 (334–416) is the best-known figure who is often
referenced as the earliest proponent of Pure Land practice. He was a disciple of Daoan,
but he did not favor his teacher’s preference of Maitreya. Huiyuan founded a society of
Pure Land believers in 402 CE, whose members vowed to be reborn together in
73Kenneth Ch’en, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1964), 342-343.
74 Ibid., 172.
75
Dorothy C. Wong, “Four Sichuan Buddhist Steles and the Beginnings of Pure Land Imagery in China,”
Archives of Asian Art, 51 (1998/1999): 56.
57
Amitābha’s Pure Land. It is because of this that he is usually regarded by early scholars
as the founder or first patriarch of Pure Land Buddhism. Most later scholars are
cautious or dismissive of this label because Huiyuan’s lineage—which was never
designated as a “Pure Land” or a “school”—apparently ended after a few generations.76
However, Charles B. Jones, has recently challenged the scholarly dismissal of Huiyuan
as the first patriarch. While admitting that claim can be misleading if not contextualized,
Jones views claiming Huiyuan as the first Pure Land patriarch as “defensible.”77
Nevertheless, the founding of this White Lotus society, as it was labeled, remains as
one of the lasting legacies of Huiyuan.78
As mentioned above, because the Guan jing was not yet available to the
Chinese, the early stages of Pure Land practice took a different form. The most
recognizable element—devotion to a Buddhist deity in the hopes of being reborn in that
deity’s realm—was still present, but practices such as nianfo and visualization were still
foreign to Pure Land practice in China. Instead, this early form of Pure Land was a
highly eclectic mix of prajñāpāramitā ideas and meditative practices.79 Although they
could not rely on the essential Pure Land texts, they used the Pratyutpanna Samādhi

77Charles B. Jones, “Was Lushan Huiyuan a Pure Land Buddhist? Evidence from His Correspondence
with Kumarajiva About Nianfo Practice.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 21 (2008): 179-195.
78Although Lushan Huiyuan’s group was identified as a White Lotus Society, it should be noted that it
does not appear to have been political in nature, as many other groups named White Lotus were,
especially from the twelfth to the nineteenth centuries. However, Maitreyan eschatology was a central
feature for the majority of these rebellious sects. Although most of the rebellion under the banner of White
Lotus came much later in Chinese history, there were at least a few rebellious Maitreyan movements
during the fifth and sixth centuries as well. For more see Daniel Overmyer, Folk Buddhist Religion:
Dissenting Sects in Late Traditional China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 80ff.
79 Wong, “Four Sichuan Steles,” 56.
58
Sūtra which advocated meditation on the Buddhas of the Ten Directions.80 This
meditative practice was a precursor of the Buddha visualization practices that would
become fundamental to Pure Land Buddhism. Unlike later Pure Land belief in the grace
of Amitābha, early Pure Land practitioners believed their actions were the single
determining factor for rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Prayers and offerings to an icon of Amitābha,
in the hope of rebirth in the Pure Land, were the closest these early practitioners came
to the later forms of Pure Land Buddhism.
The Maturation of Pure Land Buddhism in China
There have been a handful of Chinese Pure Land masters that not only helped to
popularize the tradition, but are also responsible for the way it is practiced today. Some
of these monks are included in the various Pure Land patriarchates that were later
created by different Japanese Pure Land sects. These lineages were created to
legitimize their schools by claiming direct transmission from these Chinese masters. In
addition to the Pure Land masters, famous monks traditionally linked to other Chinese
Buddhist schools have also exerted great influence on Pure Land practice. In other
words, Chinese Pure Land Buddhism was a pan-Buddhist phenomenon which led
various monks from different traditions to write commentaries on Pure Land sutras and
advocate certain styles of practice. This fact often raises the question of whether or not
Pure Land should even be considered a traditional school in China. This is a crucial
question to the future research on Pure Land Buddhism, and one that will be handled in
depth later. Regardless, Pure Land masters used the influx of new texts and ideas to
shape the way Pure Land Buddhism was practiced and understood.
80 Ibid., 68.
59
Tanluan is remembered as a great master of Pure Land Buddhism. He is
traditionally identified as a Taoist concerned with the longevity of life, when a chance
meeting with an Indian esoteric monk named Bodhiruci (fifth-sixth centuries) sent him
along the path of escape from saṃsāra. For Tanluan this goal was apparently better
than mere immortality within samsaric existence. Bodhiruci then gave Tanluan the Guan
jing, which impressed him so much that tradition says he renounced Taoism and burned
his Taoist texts.81 He was posthumously named a Pure Land Patriarch by the Japanese
monk Shinran in the twelfth century.82 Roger J. Corless has contributed a good deal of
interesting research on Tanluan. Most of his work seeks to correct the sectarian myths
that have reframed Tanluan into a Pure Land patriarch. For instance, Corless believes it
highly unlikely Tanluan ever renounced Taoism:
Chinese pluralism is a climate unfavorable to rigid sectarian division and

consequent angst over membership and conversion; Taoist recluses are
reluctant hosts, and do not give away secrets easily; [Tanluan’s] Buddhist
writings not only show Taoist influence but also quote from the supposedly
burnt texts of his “former faith.”83
He goes further to suggest that, during his life, Tanluan was known more as a Taoist
(he was in fact a physician—a very Taoist occupation at the time) than a Buddhist. 84
Hence, it was not until the twelfth century that he could be rediscovered by Shinran—
expunged of further Taoist inclinations—and proclaimed a Pure Land patriarch.
81
Roger J. Corless "T'an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism," in The Pure Land
Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne
(Berkeley: Regents of the University of California Press, 1996): 109.
82
Roger J. Corless "T'an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva," in Buddhist and Taoist Practice in
Medieval Chinese Society: Buddhist and Taoist Studies II, ed. David W. Chappell (Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1987): 36-45.
83 Corless, “The First Systematizer,” 109.
84 Ibid., 110.
60
Tanluan’s Pure Land practice was influenced by his Taoist partiality. He authored
the first Pure Land treatise: the Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuansheng jie zhu 無量壽
經優婆提舍願生偈註 (Annotations to the Buddhist Verses on the Resolution to be Born
in Sukhāvatī with the Dialogue on the Sutras of Amitāyus, T 1819, vol. 40), which is
abbreviated as the Lun zhu.85 The texts demonstrate Tanluan’s preoccupation with
immortality through the glorification of rebirth in Sukhāvatī which, in his opinion, lies
outside samsaric existence.86 Tanluan also prescribes five nianmen 念門 (gates or
methods) for Pure Land practice, the most famous of which has become his suggestion
to call upon the name of Amitābha. These five gates were not new developments to
Buddhism, and are in fact borrowed from Vasubandhu’s Treatise of Rebirth, as
mentioned above. Although Tanluan only discusses invocation of Amitābha’s name
briefly, it has become the most famous practice in the Pure Land tradition. Corless
intriguingly posits that this invocation can be linked to the casting of spells in Taoism.87
Thus, Tanluan’s recognition solely as a Pure Land practitioner could be questioned.
However, another point can be taken from Corless’ study; perhaps Pure Land Buddhism
has been linked with Chinese popular religion since its beginnings in China. It is this
connection from which Pure Land practice draws its uniqueness and attraction. Tanluan
is but one example of this synthetic blend of Buddhism and popular religion.
Daochuo is recognized as the next influential figure in the Pure Land tradition.
Although he has not been researched as much as the other Pure Land masters, David
85 Corless, “Taoist Sage,” 36.

86 Ibid., 38.
87 Ibid., 40.
61
Chappell has written an excellent essay on him. Daochuo grew up during a turbulent
time in Chinese history. He lived near the traditional Chinese capital of Chang’an during
the decline of the Northern Zhou (557-581) and the rise of the Sui-Tang dynasties (581-
907). In addition to constant battles for supremacy, China was in the midst of periodic
famines due to several crop failures in the middle of the sixth century.88 Furthermore,
some claim that Daochuo was defrocked in the Buddhist persecution enacted by
Emperor Wu in 574.89 These negative events surrounding Daochuo were evidence to
him that the world was in a state of decline; moreover, he believed that the dharma was
in a state of decline (mofa 末法) as well. Thus, humanity was no longer able to deliver
itself from saṃsāra; instead, Daochuo believed that humans had to rely on the saving
grace of Amitābha. Daochuo prescribed a formula to aid humanity: “The miraculous
power of one practice (nian-fo), directed toward one Buddha (Amitābha), to achieve
rebirth in one place (the Western Pure Land), so that in one more rebirth Buddhahood
can be attained.” 90 This “nianfo wangsheng doctrine” was a radical departure from
previous Pure Land practice. Before, Pure Land devotion accompanied various other
Buddhist practices; now Daochuo was advocating that not only was one practice
sufficient for rebirth in Sukhāvātī, but, because of the onset of the mofa period, it was
the most efficacious (and perhaps only) way to be reborn there. This doctrine set the
88David W. Chappell "The Formation of the Pure Land Movement in China: Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao,” in
The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K.
Payne (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California Press, 1996): 139-172, 147.
89 Ibid., 149.
90 Ibid., 153-154.
62
stage for the popularity of Pure Land practice because it was easily understood, easily
executed, and very accessible, even for lay Buddhists.
Chappell aptly demonstrates that Daochuo was borrowing heavily from Tanluan.
However, whereas Tanluan was more of an academic (one with Taoist inclinations at
that) who got lost in the shuffle of new dynasties, Daochuo was a Pure Land apologist
who advocated a simple solution for everyone.91 Biographies of Daochuo recall his
relentless advocation of reciting the name of Amitābha. For example, his followers used
beans to count their recitations, and one claimed to have completed a million recitations
in a week.92
Daochuo might have become more famous were it not for his student, Shandao.
He is without parallel within the Pure Land tradition; so much in fact, that the Japanese
Pure Land devotees believe him to have been an incarnation of Amitābha.93 Daochuo
and Shandao were responsible for the pinnacle of the Pure Land movement in China.
Under their leadership, the Pure Land tradition was localized in Shanxi and became a
more unique, defined, and popular tradition. Various Buddhist schools were competing
against each other in the early half of the Tang dynasty. Pure Land devotion was seen
as “the easy path” while other styles of Chinese Buddhist practice still seemed too
foreign and difficult for many lay devotees.94 This led many other traditions to critique
the simplicity of the Pure Land tradition, which will be discussed in Chapter 5. However,
91 Ibid., 155-158.
92 Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 346.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid., 166.
63
as the Tang dynasty progressed, these traditions became more familiar and the schools
began to integrate new practices. Not surprisingly, Pure Land practice flourished due to
its adaptability and inclusiveness.
The Many Representations of Shandao
Shandao was Huaigan’s master, and the Japanese Pure Land schools recognize
him a cornerstone of their formation. In light of that, a detailed examination of his
complicated legacy will be beneficial in hopes of contrasting the traditional model of
Shandao with a more accurate historical model. A comparison of Huaigan with his
master will follow in Chapter 5. Like many important historical figures, it seems that the
legacy of Shandao was exaggerated well after his death. Moreover, the teachings and
writings of Shandao have been filtered through Japanese sectarian interpretations for
so long that many scholars never questioned the accuracy of these received views and
explanations.
It is often asserted, especially by Japanese authors, that Huaigan’s teachings in
the Qunyi lun are at odds with the beliefs of Shandao. If one accepts the traditional
sectarian portrayal of Shandao, mainly that he simplified and popularized Pure Land
practice, this disagreement may indeed appear true. However, when sectarian rhetoric
is pushed aside, a real examination of Shandao’s work does not draw the same
conclusions. Thus, it is important to understand both sides of the argument and to
consider how they work to prove and disprove their conclusions before moving forward.
Oddly enough, when telling the story of Shandao, it is best to begin in Japan with
Hōnen (1133-1212 CE) and Shinran (1173-1263), his disciple. Hōnen founded the Jōdo
Shū (Pure Land school), and Shinran became the founder of the Jōdo Shinshū (True
Pure Land school). Both monks reinterpreted (or, perhaps, misinterpreted) earlier
64
Chinese Pure Land texts in order to formulate a lineage of Pure Land teachers that
extended back to Śākyamuni. The creation of the Pure Land lineage granted authority
and legitimacy to their teachings, even though neither ever traveled to China or were
taught by Chinese monks. No other historical figure benefitted more than Shandao from
this process. Arguably, were it not for Hōnen and Shinran, it is likely that Shandao
would be no more important than the many other neglected monks, like Huaigan,
mentioned in the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks, who were interested in Pure
Land teachings and practices.95 Shandao was crucial to Shinran’s patriarchate because
of the former’s putative emphasis on nianfo practice above all others.96 Shandao was
thus hailed as the innovator and popularizer of nianfo and Pure Land belief. It does
indeed appear that Pure Land Buddhism was growing during Shandao’s life, though that
popularity was already underway thanks to Daochuo. However, Shinran had a very
particular and interested reading of Shandao, and subsequent sectarian scholarship has
served to perpetuate that interpretation. Blame cannot be placed solely at the feet of
Japanese sectarian scholarship, because many non-sectarian scholars also
wholeheartedly accepted the interpretation of Shandao that was given to them without
critically analyzing it. Therefore, Shinran’s interpretation continually appeared in many
scholarly materials, in some cases up to the present day. However, within the last
twenty years, scholars have begun to problematize Shinran’s interpretation of Shandao.
95 While it is true that a couple of thirteenth-century Chinese Tiantai monks included Shandao in their own
Pure Land patriarchate, it is probable that this (somewhat artificial) patriarchate would have also been lost
to history like much of Chinese Buddhism that was not exported to Japan. For more, see Daniel A. Getz,
“T’ien-t’ai Pure Land Societies and the Creation of the Pure Land Patriarchate” in Buddhism in the Sung,
ed. Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999): 477-523.
96 Here nianfo is taken to mean, exclusively, recitation of the name of Amitābha.
65
Once the centuries of sectarian rhetoric and interpretation are removed, Shandao does
not appear quite the same.
Common Representations of Shandao
Kenneth Ch’en’s Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey is a seminal work in the field
of Buddhist Studies. Many scholars are familiar with the book, and it has been widely
cited as a result. The book provides a great case study in which to examine a typical
representation of Shandao in Western academic work that has been influenced by later
Japanese sectarian interpretations. Although Ch’en’s Shandao entry is short—only a
page—it is important for a few of reasons. First, the book is still an important resource
for scholars of Chinese Buddhism, though it is dated in many ways. Every scholar in the
field has likely read it, and it is probable that this was their first introduction to Shandao.
Also, it already demonstrates the confusion that scholars face when dealing with the
Pure Land icon. Lastly, the book’s importance influenced subsequent surveys of
Buddhism that used Ch’en as a template when handling the Pure Land tradition and
Shandao’s role in it. It introduces key (problematic) concepts for the Pure Land that
were passed to later scholars. For those reasons, this passage will be thoroughly
dissected in order to see how the entry came to influence later depictions of Shandao.
Ch’en introduces Shandao as “instrumental in the spread of the [Pure Land]
school.”97 Immediately, the choice of “school” is evident. Whether or not Pure Land
could ever be considered a school in China is debatable, but most contemporary
Western academics deny its existence. The contention resides in the translation of zong
宗 as school. Zong can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, and while a few of them
66
may describe the Pure Land as a “movement,” the most common designation of
“school” within the medieval Chinese milieu (a localized institution recognized by the
government and propagating a unique teaching) does not accurately portray Pure Land
Buddhism in China at any time. Regardless of the term used to describe Pure Land
Buddhism, correcting the notion that there was ever a Pure Land school in China
remains one of the biggest tasks for scholars.
Ch’en then introduces the Japanese Pure Land sectarian belief that Shandao
was an incarnation of Amitābha.98 Despite clearly drawing from Japanese
interpretations of Shandao, Ch’en does not include any discussion of Hōnen, Shinran,
or the Japanese Pure Land sects in the section. Instead, he moves on to the most
misunderstood and, consequently, disputed area of Shandao’s teaching, the “five right
practices.” Set forth in Shandao’s central work, the Guan jing su (Commentary on the
Visualization Sutra), Ch’en describes the practices as “(a) uttering the name of the
Buddha, (b) chanting the sutras, (c) meditating on the Buddha, (d) worshiping images of
the Buddha, and (e) singing praises to the Buddha.”99 Moreover, Ch’en claims these
practices were split into two categories: the primary practice, which includes invocation
of the name of Amitābha, and auxiliary practices that encompass everything else. This
is the traditional Japanese sectarian understanding of the five right practices, and it will
be critiqued below.
Ch’en then begins a discussion of the primary practice, but makes a common
mistake. Previously, in the entry on Daochuo (Shandao’s teacher), he writes that nianfo
98 Ibid., 346.
99 Ibid.
67
is “invoking the Buddha,” while koucheng 口稱 nianfo is “uttering the name of the
Buddha.”100 In his explanation of Shandao’s five right practices, he then points out the
importance of nianfo—now conflated with uttering the name of the Buddha—to Shandao
because it was the primary practice. This demonstrates another main issue in the field
of Pure Land Buddhism: nianfo is now commonly and solely understood as reciting of
the name of Amitābha. However, that meaning is a later Japanese Pure Land
conflation. Many scholars believe that, for Shandao and other Chinese Pure Land
figures, nianfo was akin to the classic Buddhist practice, buddhānusmrti (mindfulness of
the Buddha). Numerous practices were included in the term, and it eventually became
central to Pure Land practice, to a large degree through the recognition of the previously
mentioned Pratyutpanna Sūtra. Buddhānusmrti allowed the practitioner to visualize the
Buddha face-to-face through deep meditation.101 This calling-to-mind of the Buddha is in
all likelihood the nianfo that Shandao and his contemporaries practiced. Regardless,
due to later Japanese sectarian ideology, currently nianfo is used almost exclusively to
indicate reciting the name of Amitābha. The messiness of the term and its genealogy
makes it easy to see why so many have misunderstood the nature of Shandao’s Pure
Land practice.
Lastly, Ch’en concludes the entry with another famous aspect of Shandao, his
dedication to making copies of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyuha Sūtra. Ch’en writes, “in the
capital [Chang’an], Shandao was said to have made several ten thousand copies” of the
100 Ibid.
101Paul Harrison, “Buddhānusmṛti in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra,”
Jounal of Indian Philosophy 6 (1978): 40.
68
sutra.102 This is yet another traditional depiction of the Pure Land patriarch. The only
sources for these claims appear in several of Shandao’s biographies, which are often
guilty of exaggeration. Nevertheless, Julian Pas suggests that Shandao and his
disciples copied the sutra and gave them out to non-Buddhists so that they would aim to
be reborn in the Pure Land.103 Thus, in just one short entry, Shandao is seen as a
student, teacher, author, apologist, and evangelist. All of these appear in considerably
short section on Shandao, and though these depictions are in no ways mutually
exclusive, it is clear that there are several problematic claims throughout it.
Paul Williams’ Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, another widely-
read book, was originally published in 1989, and its coverage of Chinese Buddhism was
clearly influenced by Ch’en’s Buddhism in China. It is often used in Buddhist survey
classes for both graduate and undergraduate students, and has been reprinted several
times. The entry on Shandao is illustrative of how earlier scholarship (like Ch’en) helps
perpetuate sectarian interpretations. The entry starts almost identically to the Ch’en
passage. Williams includes a lot of the same information, citing Ch’en a few times in the
process. Thus, it is evident that in the few decades between the publishing of the two
books, nothing was corrected. This demonstrates how long it takes to correct particular
interpretations that are included into important resources like Ch’en’s Buddhism in
China.
However, there are some notable additions that were not present in the Ch’en
article. For instance, Williams uses Shandao’s Guan jing commentary to discuss major
102 Ch’en, Chinese Buddhism, 347.

69
themes present in Pure Land belief as a whole. This is an interesting approach because
the topics he selects are not necessarily linked to Shandao, though that does not mean
they had no role in the shaping of his thought. The two fundamental ideas Williams
highlights are the onset of mofa (the decline of the dharma) and self-power versus
other-power. These two ideas are prevalent in Pure Land Buddhism, but are usually
attached to Daochuo, Shandao’s teacher, and they later become central foci in
Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. Nevertheless, Williams returns to Shandao’s five right
practices where he repeats the same argument and the mistake made by Ch’en.
Williams adds that these practices are only effective in conjunction with a threefold
faith.104 This is especially telling because it appears that Williams has mixed Shandao’s
three kinds of mind (sanzhong xin 三種心) with the later Japanese Pure Land
understanding of faith popularized by Shinran. Williams even cites Alfred Bloom’s work
entitled Shinran’s Gospel of Pure Grace to support the claim. Once again, Shandao is
described through the filter of Shinran’s ideas, and not based on his own work.
Consequently, like Ch’en, Williams concludes that the primary practice Shandao
advocated was reciting the name of the Buddha. In fact, he goes farther in stating that
recitation of the name of Amitābha “truly determines entrance into the Pure Land.”105
Later, however, Williams does include a note about the importance of “meditation and
visualization practice” through buddhānusmrti.106
104 Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (London: Routledge, 2008), 261.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid., 262. Not surprisingly, Williams cites Pas here.
70
These two short passages focused on Shandao from two notable scholarly
textbooks illustrate some of the main problems associated with understanding Shandao
and the Pure Land tradition. Both books rely on generalizations of Pure Land ideas
based on later Japanese sectarian doctrine that, among other things, perpetuate
partisan accounts of Shandao. One reason for this is that Ch’en relies on research
about Pure Land in China, which, for the most part, was conducted in Japan. Afterward,
Williams relied upon the little scholarly research conducted on Chinese Pure Land and
written in English, and clearly turned to Ch’en’s work. The scope of both books was too
large to allow Ch’en and Williams to conduct their own research; therefore, they used
what was available, which for the most part turned out to be Japanese sectarian
scholarship. Once Ch’en included it in his book, this certain interpretation of Shandao
was disseminated widely. Future projects (including Williams’ book) freely cited from the
previous scholarship, and saw no reason to question Ch’en’s conclusions. This cycle, in
which all share some blame, to a large degree describes the current state of scholarship
on Shandao and the Pure Land tradition in China. As is often the case, it is up to later
scholars to correct the misunderstandings of the previous generations. However, some
of them were content to maintain the paradigm established by the Japanese Pure Land
sects.
Differing Representations of Shandao
Although the previous section demonstrates how Shandao is most often
represented, that does not mean there is only one way to represent him. As we will see,
Shandao was much more complex than the common representations indicate. In fact,
the more nuanced depictions of Shandao tend to complicate the traditional accounts to
the point where it is necessary to question their accuracy.
71
Ryōsetsu Fujiwara, a respected Japanese scholar, authored The Way to
Nirvana: The Concept of the Nembutsu in Shan-tao’s Pure Land Buddhism, which was
published in 1974. As is obvious from the title, nembutsu (nianfo) is as much the focus
in the book as Shandao. Like Kenneth Ch’en’s Buddhism in China, he is clearly writing
from a perspective that has been informed by the views of the Japanese Pure Land
sects. Fujiwara begins the book with an overview of nembutsu throughout history. He
then includes two sections, one a “basic study” of Shandao, and the other delving into
his interpretation of nembutsu. Lastly, the subsequent development of nembutsu by
Shandao’s disciples and Japanese Buddhists concludes the book.
Fujiwara establishes a clear genealogy of nembutsu practice in the beginning of
the book. Using a blend of texts and figures important in Pure Land Buddhism, he
traces a line from Indian Buddhism to Shandao. He quickly asserts that Shandao’s main
characteristic is his belief that anyone may be reborn in the Pure Land, and that vocal
recitation of Amitābha’s name is the correct method for rebirth.107 While the second
point was present above, there has yet to be any discussion of Shandao’s
egalitarianism. This idea is commonly introduced along with his advocacy of recitation of
Amitābha’s name. It is unnecessary to refute the claim that Shandao’s (and Huaigan’s)
writings are egalitarian, because they do indicate that he believed the Pure Land was
available to everyone. However, often accompanying any mention of Shandao’s
egalitarianism is the idea that he only prescribed vocal recitation, or held it above all
other practices. Thus, scholars often assume that this easy practice means Shandao
107 Fujiwara, The Way of Nirvana, 37.
72
focused on the laity, which, in addition the idea of nianfo only, does not square with his
extant work.108
Fujiwara solely relies on the Xu gaoseng zhuan (Further Biographies of Eminent
Monks) to recount the biography of Shandao. Although there are plenty of other
biographies, he claims that many of them are no more than “absurd legends and
artificial tales.”109 His biography section suffers as a result of solely relying on one text,
and it ends up being a little longer than the textbook entries discussed earlier. Fujiwara
first speculates about the birth and location of Shandao before moving to his life as a
monk and the subsequent meeting with Daochuo. The end of the biography includes an
impressive list of Shandao’s accomplishments, and one cannot help but question why
more detail is not provided. They include his teaching, living on a mountain, giving
sermons in Chang’an, living in multiple monasteries across China, and leading the
erection of an imperial Buddha sculpture in Longmen.110 It is clear that the picture of
Shandao is becoming more complex. The list does not even account for his enthusiasm
for sutra-copying and paintings of the Pure Land, both of which are often listed as an
important part of Shandao’s practice. Therefore, it is unclear how he can be boiled down
to any one simple interpretation. It also warrants mention that many of the claims in
Shandao’s biography may be fabrications. This should preclude scholars from a single
representation of Shandao, as the reality was likely much more complicated.
108 This point is discussed below in more detail.

109 Ibid., 66.
110 Ibid., 68.
73
After briefly introducing Shandao, Fujiwara gets to the heart of his book where he
analyzes the patriarch’s works. His corpus contains five extant texts, of which the
aforementioned Guan jing su is unanimously recognized as the most important.
Because no precise dates for the texts are available, there are a number of theories
about their chronology. Some believe that the Guan jing su was Shandao’s first work,
and his more demanding texts came after. Others believe exactly the opposite, stating
that his commentary of the Guan jing represents “the most advanced stage of faith” for
Shandao which could only have been achieved in his later life.111 Fujiwara divides the
corpus into two main groups, in accordance with Shandao’s division of the five right
practices: the Guan jing su (advocating the primary practice of recitation of Amitābha’s
name), and the rest of the works which are believed to have been earlier (the auxiliary
practices).
Implicit in his division of the texts above, Fujiwara believes that Shandao
practiced different levels of nembutsu, and that the most “advanced” style was
recitation. One can only speculate whether Shandao would agree with this judgment,
but no guesswork is needed as to know how Shinran and other Jōdo Shinshū scholars
would feel about it. Fujiwara sees the “earlier” practices advocating samādhi meditation
as “primitive nembutsu.”112 Moreover, these practices are classified as primitive
because they are displays of self-power. These earlier, “uncharacteristic” practices are
posited to be handed down from Daochuo, but eventually supplanted once Shandao
focused his interpretation of Pure Land practice on the eighteenth vow. Once that is
111 Ibid., 71.

112 Ibid., 83.
74
clarified, another familiar Jōdo Shinshū tenet appears—the central importance of
gratitude. Shandao’s earlier writings and continued devotional practice, according to this
interpretation, were signs of gratitude toward Amitābha and Śākyamuni.113 Although
nembutsu recitation was the highest practice, Shandao and his disciples did not give up
their daily rituals and practices, despite the assurance of rebirth in the Pure Land noted
in Amitābha’s vows. Fujiwara feels it necessary to explain why they still practiced
meditation and visualization practices, and he does it using the Jōdo Shinshū concept of
gratitude.
Fujiwara briefly discusses three of Shandao’s disciples—Huaigan, Huaiyun, and
Jingye—but only Huaigan is covered in more than a paragraph. He analyzes the Qunyi
lun and finds a picture that is not consistent with his view of Shandao. Instead of one
single practice ensuring rebirth in the Pure Land (recitation of the name), Huaigan
emphasized many different ways for the realization of rebirth. Fujiwara writes that
Huaigan did not rank these methods; all are equally valid, though some are more
meritorious.114 Fujiwara ends his discussion of Huaigan by comparing him to Shandao:
Huai-kan revealed the easiness of the Utterance of the Nembutsu as

being the most suitable practice for a sinful person. However, from the
standpoint of value, he considers the life-long repetition of the utterance
more meritorious than the ten time utterances, the meditative Nembutsu
better than the recitative Nembutsu, and of the meditative Nembutsu, the
meditation on formless Tathatā more worthy than the meditation on
Buddha’s form. This order is just the opposite of the position of Shan-tao’s
thinking.115
113 Ibid., 91.

114 Ibid., 125
115 Ibid., 129.
75
While it is common for students to disagree with, or reinterpret their master’s teachings,
it is appropriate to question whether that is the case here. Why would Huaigan study
under Shandao—a charismatic teacher who prioritized vocal recitation above all else—
only to return to favoring the more “primitive” form of nembutsu? If it is true that
Shandao successfully disseminated his teachings to the masses, how could he not
convince his own disciple that the recitation of the name is the single most important
practice for rebirth? Again, this is not a case of a student building or extending the
teacher’s thought, because, as Fujiwara indicates, he finds recitation of the name as the
highest form of nembutsu practice. If Fujiwara’s understanding of Shandao is correct,
then Huaigan must have learned nothing from his teacher. Therefore, there was either a
stark disconnect between Huaigan and his master that is difficult to explain, or these
sectarian interpretations of Shandao and Huaigan are false due to misinterpretations of
the writings from both authors.
While Fujiwara’s depiction of Shandao is consistent, it clearly suffers from
sectarian bias. In nearly all cases, Fujiwara aligns with the Japanese Pure Land
schools’ later recreation of Shandao and his teachings. He only breaks with the
traditional understanding when discussing the unproven dating of Shandao’s corpus.116
Yet, even this is merely a superficial break from tradition because neither claim can be
proven correct. Although Fujiwara’s discussion of Shandao is more detailed than both
Ch’en’s and Williams’ attempts, it is another excellent example of how sectarian-
influenced scholarship on Pure Land is prevalent in many academic circles. Although it
is certain that Shandao advocated recitation of Amitābha’s name along with many other
116 Ibid., 71.
76
practices, one must question why Shandao spent so much time and effort engaged in
other forms of practice if recitative nembutsu was the most effective form.
Julian Pas’ Visions of Sukāhavatī: Shan-tao’s Commentary on the Kuan Wu-
Liang-Shou-Fo Ching does not suffer from the same problems as the texts mentioned
above. However, that does not mean that Pas is completely unbiased in his
interpretations. Like every author, Pas has certain motivations behind his depiction of
Shandao, and perhaps Pas leans too much on his own interpretation of Shandao.117
Pas seeks to correct the common sectarian interpretation of the Pure Land patriarch. He
writes that Jōdo Shinshū has colored most understandings of Shandao’s views. 118 Pas’
main thesis is that the Guan jing is a meditation guide. According to him, the recitation
practices are later interpolations, and only a minor feature of the text. Therefore,
Shandao must have valued meditation and visualization practices more than previous
scholarship is willing to admit. Pas extracts the sectarian agenda from Shandao’s life
and his most important commentary, which results an alternate representation of
Shandao and his writings.
Using a variety of Chinese Buddhist compilations (including the Xu gaoseng
zhuan entry used by Fujiwara) and inscriptions to reconstruct a basic outline of the life
of Shandao, Pas presents a detailed biography of Shandao. The first point of interest is
Pas’ claim that Shandao was educated in the Sanlun 三論 tradition, which was a
Chinese Mādhyamika school. Using various resources, Pas asserts that Shandao
117For instance, Jérôme Ducor, in his review of the book, suggests that Pas errs in focusing on Shinran
instead of Hōnen’s arguments. See: “Shadao and Hōnen. Apropros of Julian F. Pas’s book Visions of
Sukhāvati,” Journal of the Association of Buddhist Studies 22.1 (1999): 251-252.
118 Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, xi.
77
became disheartened with his lack of progress, and somewhat serendipitously was
drawn to either a painting of the Pure Land or a copy of the Guan Jing, depending on
the source.119 Thus, Shandao’s difficultly with Sanlun philosophy and practice pushed
him into the “easier path” of Pure Land Buddhism.
After Shandao focuses on Pure Land belief and practice, the sources become
more disparate. However, many agree that Shandao sought out Daochuo, studied
under him for several years, and also spent time in the Zhongnan Mountains 終南山
located in modern Shaanxi province. There is no proven order of these events, but Pas
suggests that Shandao must have studied with Daochuo before living in the mountains,
because their ages would have not matched subsequent events had it been the
opposite. It is believed that Shandao was in residence at Wuzhen Monastery 悟真寺 on
the mountain.120 Pas misses a suggestion that would have been helpful to his argument.
Why would Shandao be interested in spending several years perfecting his meditation
and visualization practices at a strict, secluded monastery if he truly believed that nianfo
recitation was primary? Consequently, there is no mystery why Shandao’s career as a
“mountain monk” is neglected in the sectarian depictions of his life.
The most important section of Shandao’s biography deals with what Pas terms
as “Shandao’s ‘evangelical’ activities.”121 Each source that Pas employs has numerous
stories about the effectiveness of Shandao in spreading the teachings about rebirth in
the Pure Land. While many of these stories are exaggerations, Pas makes some solid
119 Ibid., 82-83.

120 Ibid., 88.
121 Ibid., 91.
78
arguments that challenge previous interpretations. One story claims that, upon hearing
the teaching of Shandao, many laymen renounced their families. Pas astutely suggests
that if Shandao was teaching the recitation of Amitābha’s name as an exclusive
practice, there would be little need to take such extreme action.122 Therefore, it appears
likely that Shandao used expedient means, advocating different practices for various
groups of people, as Huaigan does in the Qunyi lun.
Pas writes, “[Shandao’s] idea of [nianfo] is not just mechanical or magical.
Everything depends on the inner attitude and…on the degree of sincerity and faith
which [nianfo] (as well as all other actions) is performed.”123 Nianfo is not merely
recitation of Amitābha’s name, but includes visualization, meditation, and other
practices. An example, which will be discussed in Chapter 3, in which Shandao helped
Huaigan progress from the simpler recitation nianfo to the more advanced visualization
nianfo solidifies the claim that there was more than just vocal recitation. If recitation was
solely efficient for rebirth, how could there be a more advanced practice, and what
would necessitate it? Shandao continually emphasizes the value of practices beyond
recitation, which perhaps implies that there were different degrees of rebirth or
excellence in his understanding of the Pure Land.
Unfortunately, Pas’ analysis of Shandao’s commentary on the Guan jing is
clearly an attempt to prove his predetermined conclusions. As a result, Pas is treating
the commentary much in the same way that Hōnen and Shinran did almost a thousand
years earlier. To disguise this, Pas does not solely blame later Japanese Pure Land
122 Ibid., 92.

123 Ibid., 93.
79
scholars for their interpretations of Shandao. The Guan jing itself is also partly
responsible. All commentaries on the text struggle, Pas asserts, because the text is
unbalanced, contradictory even. This is due to the later interpolations, which
presumably were added to the scripture during its long journey from its likely place of
origin in Central Asia to China.124 That none of the commentaries can agree on the
fundamental message of the sutra is further evidence that the text is inherently difficult
to interpret. Consequently, sectarian scholars focused on Shandao’s commentary of the
later, interpolated portions of the Guan Jing, thereby excluding the majority of
Shandao’s commentary that discusses the earlier portion of the text. Pas logically
suggests that the ignored commentary must be understood before moving on to the
latter portion. When read this way, Pas argues that Shandao’s goal for the commentary
was to construct a bridge accessible to the laity. In order to accomplish this, he relies on
two methods. First, Shandao emphasized meditation and ethical conduct as practices
available to the laypeople. Second, he advocated nianfo practice—including vocal
recitation, but not limited to it—because of its accessibility and effectiveness for all
people.125 Shandao’s inclusion of the laity is central to Pas’ argument, and this will be
problematized later. First, it is necessary to examine Pas’ reading of Shandao’s
commentary a little further.
As the examination of the commentary gets more technical, Pas noticeably drops
his rhetoric about Shandao’s concern for the laity. The first aspect of Shandao’s
teaching that Pas elucidates is his “first gate” of practice—meditation, which is often
124 Ibid., 191-192.

125 Ibid., 132.
80
ignored as a part of nianfo and Pure Land practice. However, the central message of
the Guan jing is to allow practitioners to master a meditative visualization of Amitābha.
Pas posits that Shandao was trying to synthesize the difficult explanation of meditation
and doctrine with common practice, so that anyone could meditate successfully.126
Shandao did this by constructing a threefold meditation system in which one progresses
gradually. First, the devotee holds (xiang 像) an image in the mind. Second, the image
is thoroughly inspected and contemplated (guan 觀). Finally, the image is truly
perceived (jian 見), and it appears as if it were real. Through this process, Shandao
believed any practitioner could gain ultimate samādhi in which the Pure Land could be
experienced (even tangibly) on earth. Shandao included meditational aids in the
commentary, to help people on all levels to accomplish this goal.
Following the discussion on meditation, Shandao turns to the second of his two
gates, non-meditative action, which is often misunderstood. Pas does his best to try and
clarify the misunderstandings. First, one must realize that there are different levels and
grades for rebirth in the Pure Land. Naturally, Shandao aimed his teaching for the
highest level and highest grade. Shandao believed that three kinds of mind needed to
be cultivated, and strict ethical conduct were required to be reborn at the highest level.
The three kinds of mind are sincere, deep, and compassionate.127 This mind must be
cultivated in order for one to receive any benefit from meditation or ethical practice.
Julian F. Pas, “Shan-tao’s Interpretation of the Meditative Vision of Buddha Amitāyus,” History of
126
Religions 14 (1974): 98.

81
Accordingly, Pas suggests that the three kinds of mind act as the bridge between
Shandao’s two gates.128
In this part of the commentary Shandao’s presentation is a bit confusing as to
what practices are most beneficial, but as we saw above, there are generally five
practices selected as “right” practices. Pas translates these differently than Fujiwara:
visualization-inspection, worship, oral invocation, and praise-and-offering. These are the
practices espoused in the Pure Land sutras, and they are most effective because each
is done with regard to Amitābha. Pas suggests that all these practices belong in the
“right” category, though nianfo (here meaning more than just recitation) is the highest.129
However, the auxiliary practices are also important, just less so because they are not
devoted to Amitābha. Shandao includes an eclectic list of auxiliary practices, including
Chinese cultural touchstones like filial piety and respect for teachers, as well as
Buddhist practices like upholding the precepts.
Pas does not deny the importance of recitative nianfo. Rather, he contextualizes
it within the larger soteriological framework prescribed by Shandao. Along with the three
kinds of mind and meditation, recitative nianfo could ensure the devotee’s rebirth in
Amitābha’s Pure Land. In contrast, done in isolation, nianfo recitation was nothing more
than a “back door” to the Pure Land, which Shandao only recommended for the
weakest individuals.130 Thus, like many notable teachers before him, Shandao used
expedient means to spread his teaching to a wider audience.
128 Ibid., 247.

129 Ibid., 248.
130 Ibid., 275.
82
Although it is true that Shandao advocated specific practices to help the laity, it is
unclear whether that indicates that he was primarily focused on the non-monastic
community. Pas places significant value on the biographies on Shandao that claimed
his affinity for teaching laypeople. Subsequently, he is able to formulate a supporting
interpretation, using Shandao’s commentary on the Guan jing to match his claim that
the Pure Land patriarch focused on the laity. Nonetheless, outside these biographies,
which have numerous inclusions of hyperbole and miracles, Shandao’s focus on the
laity is not readily apparent. If one examines his writings, Shandao was a very technical
author, making it hard to argue that Shandao intended his writings for a broad audience.
Even the selections of the Guan jing su that Pas highlights are quite dense. Moreover,
the commentary is arguably Shandao’s most accessible work. If Shandao was truly
focusing his work toward the laity, it was surely only the most educated followers, not
the average layperson.
Shandao’s instructions on the correct performance of the seven-day rite of nianfo
samādhi serve as a pertinent example that illustrates this point. The rite is an intense
week of practice in which no sleeping is allowed.131 Deep meditation is conducted and
practitioners are expected to perform hundreds of thousands of recollections and
recitations. The rite is reminiscent of some of the practices incorporated into Zhiyi’s
fourfold samādhi.132 It is unlikely that many of the laypeople that Shandao taught were
taking part in this and other similar practices. In addition to the intensity of these
131Daniel B. Stevenson, “Pure Land Buddhist Meditation and Worship in China,” in Buddhism in Practice,
ed. Donald S. Lopez, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995): 377.
132Daniel. B. Stevenson, “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ian-t’ai,” in ed. Peter N. Gregory
Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986): 45-97.
83
practices, which would require significant training, most non-monastics simply could not
afford to devote a week to Buddhist meditation. Yet, these are the prescriptions of
Shandao, a teacher who supposedly wrote for the masses. Any accurate depiction of
Shandao must take into account his monastic inclinations along with his presumed
desire to teach the laity.
An argument could be made that Shandao’s interaction with the laity did not
come through his writings, but through his artistic endeavors, which have only been
alluded to briefly up to this point. Some biographies claim that a painting of the Pure
Land inspired Shandao to seek rebirth there. The painting had such a profound impact
that there are multiple accounts of Shandao creating hundreds of paintings throughout
his life. If the original painting had the power to produce such a degree of change in
Shandao’s life, he likely believed that new paintings could produce the same effect for
others. Several biographies recount that he was so respected for his artistic endeavors
that he was selected by the imperial court to oversee the creation of the Vairocana
Buddha statue at Longmen.133 Pas also suggests that Shandao is responsible for
popularizing paintings of hell.134 In her study of the Taima mandara, Elizabeth ten
Grotenhuis suggests that Shandao’s commentary on the Guan jing is responsible for
the mandara’s formal configuration.135 Thus, there is a very strong link between
Shandao and the arts. Although it is possible that Shandao interacted with the laity
133 However, one has to wonder whether it was originally supposed to an Amitābha instead.
134 Chappell, “Pure Land Movement,” 161.
135
Elizabeth ten Grotenhuis, Japanese Mandalas: Representations of Sacred Geography, (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1999), 22.
84
through his possible artistic endeavors, it is just as likely that these claims are merely
the results of exaggerated biographical accounts.
It is apparent that Shandao has a complicated historical legacy, confused further
by the many interpretations of his extant works. There is the “traditional” interpretation
exemplified in Fujiwara’s work which demonstrates the considerable influence of
Japanese sectarian scholarship, particularly that associated with Jōdo Shinshū. This
interpretation is still dominant in most textbooks and encyclopedias. For example, the
Encyclopedia of Buddhism, a highly respected scholarly reference, features an entry on
Shandao that is authored by Fujiwara. Although the encyclopedia was revised in 2005,
the editors chose to include Fujiwara’s untouched 1987 entry. The only updated portion
of the entry is the bibliography. The article is similar to the previous entries by Ch’en
and Williams in that they all tie Shandao’s “originality” to his claim that the recitation of
the name of Amitābha is the “single direct cause of the attainment of supreme
enlightenment.”136 In opposition to the traditional interpretation is the “alternate” given by
Julian Pas. His reading of Shandao seems to have produced some change in later
scholarship, though many still end up prioritizing the traditional view.137
Concluding Remarks
This chapter examined the growth of the Pure Land tradition up until the time of
Huaigan. Although the origins of Pure Land Buddhism are likely to always remain
unclear, we know that it evolved as Buddhism travelled into China. Despite the fact that
Ryōsetsu Fujiwara, “Shandao,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.12, ed. Lindsay Jones (Detroit:
136
Macmillan Reference USA, 2005): 8288-8299.

137This is understandable in some regard. For so long Shandao has been painted in the image of
Japanese sectarianism, that it truly is a part of how he should be remembered now. The fiction has
become hyperreal, and, in a sense, more important than the actual fact.
85
there is no solid evidence yet to support the many theories that non-Buddhist cultural
influences in Central Asia were the catalysts for the nascent Pure Land development,
they indeed may have played a significant role. Upon its introduction to China, Pure
Land belief and practice grew in popularity, and eventually surpassed Maitreya worship
as the most popular faith-based system of belief and practice. In addition, the chapter
discussed the key Chinese figures in the development of the Pure Land tradition. They
will appear again in Chapter 5, where they are compared with Huaigan. A more
thorough examination of common representations of Shandao demonstrated the
difficulty of separating truth from fiction, especially given the time period. Moreover, it is
also apparent how particular representations of Shandao have been perpetuated
throughout Western scholarship. This problem will again surface in Chapter 3, as
Huaigan’s affiliation with Shandao is examined in some detail, along with other sources
that deal with Huaigan.
86
CHAPTER 3
THE LIFE OF HUAIGAN
Due to a curious lack of biographical details, recounting the life of Huaigan is not
a simple process. Despite the paucity of information available about his life, records
indicate that Huaigan was an important figure to the Chinese Pure Land milieu, though
he certainly was not on the level of his master or other famous monks during the early
Tang. Chapter 2 introduced the general history and development of Pure Land
Buddhism up to the time of Huaigan. This chapter provides a biographical survey,
drawing from several sources in an attempt to connect the details of Huaigan’s life and
fill in some of the lacunae. However, it is inevitable that portions of his life will remain a
mystery. This process aims to produce a clearer understanding of Huaigan that is not
currently present in the vague details located in the biographical accounts.
The dates of Huaigan’s birth and death are unknown. It is clear that Huaigan was
active in Chang’an during the latter half of the seventh century. Emperor Gaozong 高宗
(r. 650-683) was in power during much of Huaigan’s life, which was a bountiful era for
the Buddhists. Unlike his father, Emperor Taizong 太宗 (r. 626-649), Gaozong did not
criticize Buddhism, and, in fact, established more than twenty new Buddhist
monasteries during his reign.1 Huaigan’s later years and death occurred during the
reign of Empress Wu Zetian 武則天 (r. 690-705), who raised the status of Buddhism
over Daoism. Tracking Huaigan’s movements in Chang’an proves a legitimate
challenge. The biographies claim that Huaigan taught in Chang’an, and provide no
1 Victor Cunrui Xiong, Sui-Tang Chang’an: A Study in the Urban History of Medieval China (Ann Arbor:
Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 2000), 259. Gaozong would often establish them in
the name of his children.
87
further details on his location. The city was both the dynastic and cultural capital of
China during the Tang. Chang’an was also the terminus of the Silk Road, and was
replete with travelers, goods, and ideas from many different cultures along the route.
In addition to the uncertainty of his dates of birth and death, there are no details
about his formative years. The lack of this information is not unique to Huaigan. The
biographies of many Chinese monks feature little to no biographical account of their
early lives. These missing details could be due to the fact that Huaigan was deceased
before the completion of the Qunyi lun. By the time the text gained popularity, many
aspects of his life were likely forgotten. Of course, there is no one simple answer to this
problem, but likely a combination of a number of different reasons.
Biographical Sources
The main points that are most often asserted about the life of Huaigan come from
a handful of biographies contained in collections of biographies of eminent Buddhist
monks. Without fail, each of the biographies relay the same information. Unfortunately,
this repetition does not necessarily strengthen the claims made in the biographies.
Rather, it indicates that the earliest account was often the main or only source for the
later biographies. Thus, although these biographies will be viewed as authoritative
sources, they should not be viewed as completely accurate. It is not uncommon for the
biographies of monks and nuns to be exaggerated or even fabricated.2
Unfortunately, there are few other sources outside of the biographies. The most
reliable of them is the preface to the Qunyi lun. The preface was written by Meng Xian
2This appears to be a rampant practice throughout Chinese Buddhism. For more, see Alan Cole,
Fathering Your Father: The Zen of Fabrication in Tang Buddhism (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2009).
88
孟銑 (d.u.), who, according to the text, wrote the preface in hopes of accruing merit.3
The biographical information contained in the preface does not appear in the
biographies, and is a critical source for understanding Huaigan and his text. The other
non-biographical sources still extant are a handful of accounts preserved in gazetteers.
Generally, these later accounts do not offer much new information but are still worthy of
consideration given the lack of details available regarding Huaigan.
Buddhist Biographies
There are five biographies of Huaigan featured in five different Chinese collections of
biographies of eminent monks. Chronologically, these five biographies are located in
these texts:
 Wangsheng xifang jingtu ruiying shan zhuan 往生西方净土瑞应刪傳 T 2070, vol.

51 (hereafter abbreviated RSZ).
 Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 T 2061, vol. 50 (hereafter abbreviated SGZ)
 Fozu tongji 佛祖統記 T 2035, vol. 49 (hereafter abbreviated FT)
 Wangsheng ji 王生集 T 2072, vol. 51 (hereafter abbreviated WSJ)
 Jingtusheng xianlu 淨土聖賢錄 X 1549, vol. 78 (hereafter abbreviated JXL)
The RSZ was written in the late eighth century—approximately a century after
the life of Huaigan—and is attributed to Wenshen 文諗 (fl. ninth century) and Shaokang.
The text is a collection of biographies of notable people who sought rebirth in the Pure
Land, or Sukhāvatī. The RSZ biographies begin with the aforementioned putative
founder of Chinese Pure Land, Lushan Huiyuan, who lived during the Eastern Jin era
(317-420), and continue into the mid-Tang period. The text is the first extant collection
3 T 1960, vol. 47, 30c15-16.
89
of biographies exclusively consisting of monastics recognized for their commitment to
Pure Land belief and practice.
Huiagan’s life is recounted in the seventeenth entry. The RSZ biography is the
first extant biography of Huaigan outside of the Qunyi lun. Moreover, as will be
demonstrated below, it is the template for each of the later biographies as well. The
biography states:
Dharma-master Gan resided in Chang’an at Qianfu Monastery. Although

he possessed an extensive knowledge of the sutras, he did not believe in
(the practice of) nianfo. He questioned the Buddhist monk Shandao,
asking, “What is the method for nianfo?” Shandao responded, “If you
practice it whole-heartedly, you will soon have realization.” Huaigan
replied, “Then I will see the Buddha, right?” The teacher said, “The
Buddha has spoken it, so how could you doubt it?” After three weeks of
practice he did not yet have a response. Huaigan resented himself for his
grave sins and wished to fast himself to death. The master stopped
Huaigan and would not permit it. For three years Huaigan concentrated
intensely. As a result, he obtained a vision of the Buddha’s golden light
emitting from the spot between his eyebrows. Huaigan obtained [nianfo]
samādhi to validate his experience. He then began writing the seven
volumes of the Wangsheng jueyi lun. At the moment of his death, the
Buddha Amitābha came to greet him. Huaigan placed his hands together
and went westward [toward the Pure Land]. 4
For the most part, this biographical entry is centered around an anecdote that illustrates
how Huaigan came to write his text, listed here as the Wangsheng jueyi lun 往生決疑論.
While the biography raises more questions than it answers, its core information is
repeated in all the subsequent biographies of Huaigan.
The account locates Huaigan in Chang’an, and specifically at Qianfu Monastery.5
Although the passage reads as if Huaigan and Shandao are both in residence at
4 T 2070, vol. 51, 106.

5 Qianfu Monastery is discussed in detail shortly.
90
Qianfu, this may not be the case as there are no records of Shandao teaching there.
Additionally, the account seems to indicate that, initially, Huaigan was a gifted student
who had doubts about Pure Land practice, especially the practice of nianfo. The text
emphasizes this by using the characters buxin 不信, indicating that Huaigan did not
believe in the practice. Shandao is easily able to eliminate Huaigan’s doubt by noting
the Buddhist axiom that buddhavacana (the words of the Buddha) is well-spoken and
true.6 It is evident that this discussion has a profound effect on Huaigan, because not
only does he practice for three weeks afterward, but also considers suicide upon his
failure to master nianfo samādhi. Surely Huaigan would not be so rash if he still
harbored doubts about nianfo. Nevertheless, Shandao does not permit Huaigan to take
his own life, and three years later, he is rewarded with a samādhic vision of Amitābha
Buddha.7 The experience leads to Huaigan writing a text in defense of Pure Land
practice. Upon his death, Amitābha supposedly greets him and escorts him to
Sukhāvatī.
Despite the information about Huaigan provided in the RSZ, there are just as
many unanswered questions. A thorough discussion of each of the lingering issues will
follow the biographical analysis. The most obvious exclusion in the RSZ biography is
the lack of dates for Huaigan’s life. This is not a major issue because Huaigan is directly
connected with other historical figures for whom we have dates. Still, any listing of the
6 For more on the discussion of buddhavacana, see Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism, 41-43.
7Studies of Shandao often refer to Huaigan’s biography to demonstrate that Shandao did not condone
suicide. Some accounts go so far to claim that Shandao himself committed suicide. A biography of
Shandao in the Jingtu Wangsheng Chuan 淨土往生傳 (T 2071, vol. 51, 119a25-c04) written by Jie Zhu 戒
珠 (985-1077) claims that Shandao committed suicide by jumping from a willow tree. See, Pas, Visions of
Sukhāvatī, 98-101.
91
years of his birth and death is nothing more than an educated guess.8 The RSZ is also
unclear about what role Huaigan held at Qianfu Monastery. The text merely claims that
he lived at the monastery while he was in Chang’an.9 Moreover, the text does not
indicate whether the conversation with Shandao or Huaigan’s nianfo samādhi took
place at Qianfu. It is only certain that Huaigan resided there at some point during his
life.
Next, the RSZ entry never explicitly asserts that Huaigan was a disciple of
Shandao. The beginning of the entry even highlights their differences in that Huaigan
did not believe in nianfo. This claim does not lend itself to any interpretation that
Huaigan was a disciple of Shandao’s before their conversation relayed in the RSZ.
However, because of Shandao’s instruction after their initial contact, certainly it may be
inferred that Huaigan becomes Shandao’s disciple at that point. After his initial failure,
Huaigan continues to practice for three years before his transformative experience. It
can only be assumed that he remained under Shandao’s tutelage during this period.
The last issue that deserves some attention is the author’s decision to mention
Huaigan’s text as the Wangsheng jueyi lun rather than the full name of the text. This is
notable because Huaigan’s treatise was not the only apologetic text defending the Pure
Land.10
8 There is a more thorough discussion of Huaigan’s possible dates of birth and death below.
9The RSZ uses the character ju 居. The only title used to refer to Huaigan in the opening line is the
standard title of fashi 法師, Dharma Master.
10 Two other apologetic texts were likely released around the same time as the Qunyi lun. They are:
Jingtu shiyi lun 淨土十疑論 (T 1961, vol. 47), which is falsely attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597); and
Xifang yaojue shiyi tonggui 西方要決釋疑通規 (T 1964, vol. 47) by Kuiji 奎基 (632-682).
92
The next biography of Huaigan is included in the SGZ, which was compiled by
Zanning toward the end of the tenth century. Zanning included Huaigan’s biography in
his section on exegetes (yijie 義解), indicating that Huaigan was famous for examining
scripture.11 In a study of the SGZ, John Kieschnick has noted that the biographies often
copy previous accounts word-for-word. However, in some cases the biographies draw
from oral sources and inscriptions as well.12 Although most of the basic information in
the SGZ account is identical to the RGZ, the former is more elaborate. Additionally,
Huaigan’s decision to seek Shandao’s instruction is discussed in a bit more detail.
There is little known about Huaigan’s background. Despite diligent and

persistent study under his master, he did not yet know the essence of
[Buddhist] doctrine, or attain [awakening]…13 Although he did not believe
in nianfo, he experienced its tranquility in practice. His doubt hardened like
ice and did not melt. Thereupon, he visited Shandao in hopes of resolving
this issue. Shandao said: “You teach the people; do you believe in what
you explain to them? With uncertainty there are no attainments.” Huaigan
said: “Everything the Buddha said was sincere, and without belief there is
no teaching.” Shandao said: “If that which is experienced causes
salvation, how is it wrong to say so? If you believe that you will reach
salvation, you will have your verification.” Then, he entered the temple for
three weeks, but he did not see any spiritual response. Huaigan resented
himself for his misdeeds, which caused a profound barrier. He wanted to
fast himself to death, but Shandao did not allow that. Subsequently,
Huaigan practiced nianfo piously for three years, and suddenly had an
auspicious response. He saw the golden light emitting from the Buddha’s
eyebrows, causing him to reach nianfo samādhi as proof. He was
sorrowful and resented his prior heavy karmic defilement. He felt reckless
for implicating the masses in his errors. He repented his sins and
confessed (his transgressions). Then, he wrote an account, the Jueyi
lun in seven fascicles, now known as the Qunyi lun. Around the time of
11For more on the SGZ and the divisions of the text see: John Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk: Buddhist
Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997).
12 Ibid., 10.
13 The meaning of the passage, “四方同好就霧市焉,” is unclear.
93
his death, a nirmāṇakāya of the Buddha came to meet him. He put his
hands together, faced the West and went [to the Pure Land].14
The SGZ introduces some new information about Huaigan, but the source of these
extra details is unclear. It is possible that the new details were simply expansions of the
RGZ account. It is equally possible that another account was circulating in the two
centuries between the RSZ and SGZ entries, but is no longer extant. Regardless, the
new details offer a more dramatic narrative to the SGZ biography. Huaigan’s doubting of
nianfo practice is deemed to be egregious because he “implicated the masses” in his
teachings. Also, his samādhi experience is more redemptive and transformative
because there is more at stake due to the harm he caused himself and his students. In
general, the story is more captivating due to the emphasis on Huaigan’s transition from
disbelief to belief, which is followed by his final journey to the Pure Land.
Although the SGZ account is more detailed, many of the same questions are left
unanswered. Again, no biographical dates are listed. Additionally, the loci of Huaigan’s
life are still uncertain. Not only does the SGZ not identify Huaigan’s position within the
monastery, but it does not even mention Qianfu monastery. Instead, Huaigan is a
discontented student who decides to visit Shandao at some point. This is an important
detail because, like the RSZ, the account in the SGZ never explicitly states that Huaigan
was a disciple of Shandao. That the SGZ account mentions that Huaigan visited
Shandao further illustrates that the former sought the latter to help him with his doubts
about Pure Land practice. Thus, it is unlikely that he was Shandao’s disciple until this
particular meeting. Lastly, the SGZ account names Huaigan’s text as the Jueyi lun, but
14 T 2061, vol. 50, 738c11-24.
94
also states that it is known as the Qunyi lun as well. This is a welcomed inclusion, and it
lends authority to the shared details in the RSZ account that solely names the text as
the Wangsheng jueyi lun. Furthermore, the SGZ account likely lists both names due to
the possible confusion around the label of Jueyi lun. As mentioned above, there were
several texts defending doubts about the Pure Land. In the two centuries between the
two accounts, it has clearly become necessary to identify Huaigan’s text more explicitly
to avoid confusion.
The last three biographical accounts do not introduce any new details about
Huaigan. The FT and WSJ clearly use the RSZ as a template, while the JXL borrows
heavily from the SGZ. All three are short, recounting only the bare essentials of
Huaigan’s biography, and, in some cases, copying the earlier accounts word-for-word.
This includes naming Huaigan’s text as the Jueyi lun. Unlike the SGZ account, none of
the last three biographies mention that the text is also known as the Qunyi lun. Again,
this is a curious because it indicates that either the text was most popularly known as
the Jueyi lun, or that later biographies were just copying the RSZ account.
Both the FT and the WSJ connect Huaigan to Qianfu Monastery, but do not
indicate if he held an official duty there. Seemingly, both accounts indicate that Huaigan
had the nianfo samādhi experience at Qianfu.15 However, that could be due to the
sparse nature of the accounts. For example, the FT neglects to even mention Shandao,
while the WSJ only mentions that he forbid Huaigan from committing suicide. The JXL is
15The FT states that Huaigan “lived in Chang’an at Qianfu Monastery [and practiced] nianfo for three
years,” 居長安千福寺念佛三年 (T 2035, vol. 49, 276c08) which may be interpreted that Huaigan was in
residence at Qianfu during the three years at Qianfu. The WSJ states that Huaigan, “lived in Chang’an at
Qianfu Monastery. [He] entered the place for nianfo,” 居長安千福寺.入念佛道場 (T 2072, vol. 51, 132c08)
which is a little more unclear. However, given the lack of transition, it can still be interpreted that Huaigan
began practicing nianfo at Qianfu.
95
slightly more detailed than the FT and WSJ. Interestingly, the JXL does not mention
Qianfu, indicating it might have used the GSZ biography instead of the RSZ. Also
drawing from the GSZ, the JXL explicitly states that there are no reports about where
Huaigan came from.16 Although these biographies provide no new information about
Huaigan, they demonstrate that the RSZ and GSZ entries were accepted as
authoritative sources of information about his life. Furthermore, they suggest that there
was no other biographical information available, leading the compilers of the later
biographies to rely upon the earlier accounts.
As is evident, the biographical accounts of Huaigan are little more than an
anecdote about his interaction with Shandao centered on his initial doubts about Pure
Land practice, and his subsequent realization that the practice is very effective. The
information given in these accounts is very basic, and there are still many questions
about Huaigan’s life that need to be resolved. None of the biographies indicate that
anything is known about Huaigan before the meeting with Shandao, other than that he
was a bright student. Questions regarding when and where he was raised, when he was
ordained as a monk, and his monastic education are all still a mystery. Even the
common claim that Huaigan was a disciple of Shandao could be questioned. Other than
the episode recounted in the biography, there are no details about when Huaigan began
studying under Shandao. In addition, there are no clues regarding how long their
master-disciple relationship lasted. The relationship is also never fully explained; did
Huaigan practice nianfo under another master before Shandao? The accounts mention
his skepticism toward nianfo practice, which could indicate that he had tried it before
16 The JXL states, “不詳其所出,” (X78.1549, 238b13).
96
meeting Shandao. Finally, it is uncertain exactly how Huaigan is connected with Qianfu
Monastery. Of the five biographical entries, the RSZ, FT, and WSJ mention that
Huaigan resided there, while the SGZ or JXL do not. Additionally, they make no claims
about his position in the monastery, or if the recorded interaction with Shandao occurred
at Qianfu. Even the JXL, the latest biography compiled during the Qing dynasty, offers
no new information. Thankfully, there are more resources available that might provide
some clarity.
The Preface of the Qunyi lun
The Qunyi lun begins with a short preface written by Meng Xian. Not much is
known about him, but he does include some information about himself in the preface. In
the first line of the preface, Meng Xian identifies himself as a tuntian yuanwailang 屯田
員外郎, meaning a vice-director for the State Farms Bureau in the Ministry of Works,
from Pingchang 平昌.17 Toward the end of the preface, Meng Xian indicates that at
some point not long after the text was completely written, he wrote the preface to the
text in order to accrue good karma and aid his journey to the Pure Land.18 Meng Xian
never states whether he met Huaigan, Huaiyun, or Shandao, nor does he ever mention
the latter. However, although the preface does not address all the lingering questions
about Huaigan’s life, it does offer some new information.
17T 1960, vol. 47, 0030c15. For more on tuntian yuanwailang 屯田員外郎, see Charles O. Hucker, A
Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China (Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe, 2008), 550 and 597.
Pingchang is a county in modern day Sichuan Province. It is unclear whether this is the same Pingchang
reference made in the preface of the Qunyi lun.
18Ibid. Mengxian mentions that he is responsible for the preface (xuyin 序引) of the text, and it is not clear
whether he actually added or edited other parts of the text. However, earlier in the text Mengxian does
state that the Qunyi lun was completed by Huaiyun.
97
Like the biographies, the preface mentions that Huaigan was highly educated.
While the previously discussed biographies do not mention the particulars of his
education, they do explicitly state that Huaigan moved away from his previous
education in pursuit of the Pure Land teachings. This new claim does not contradict any
of the biographies, all of which note Huaigan’s high level of education. Furthermore,
they support the idea that Huaigan sought Shandao’s expertise. It is logical that
Huaigan would look for instruction after leaving behind his previous teachers. However,
the preface and biographies disagree about the main reason Huaigan began Pure Land
practice. As mentioned above, Huaigan’s suspicion regarding the practice of nianfo is a
key plot point in the biographies. The doubt he harbors acts as the catalyst for his later
practicing of nianfo, and eventually the writing the of the Qunyi lun.
Meng Xian does not mention of this in the preface. Instead, Huaigan turns to
Pure Land practice after reaching the pinnacle of his previous learning, and still
remaining unsatisfied with his spiritual progress. If the biographical claims accurately
reflect Huaigan’s doubts that nianfo practice could lead to a transformative samadhic
experience, it seems likely that it would be recorded in the preface of the Qunyi lun.
However, Meng Xian does not mention it, and at no time is nianfo even discussed. This
suggests that at least some of the claims in the biographical accounts were fabricated,
though the mere fact that they are not featured in the preface is not enough to totally
discount them.
The preface also discusses the need for the Qunyi lun. According to the
biographies, the text is a result of Huaigan’s nianfo samādhi. The transforming
experience was so profound that it compelled Huaigan to write the treatise. However,
98
this experience is never mentioned in the preface or in the text itself. Meng Xian offers
another reason for its composition: Huaigan was responding to the “numerous
criticisms” from other Buddhist monks who critized Pure Land belief and practice.19
Meng Xian goes as far as describing the critiques of Pure Land practice as “bullying and
slandering.”20 Thus, Pure Land belief and practice were in danger because of these
attacks from opposing Buddhists. Based on the preface, this is the reason Huaigan
authored the Qunyi lun. Meng Xian views Huaigan as a defender and advocate for Pure
Land belief, which is apparent in Meng Xian’s use of militant language to describe the
encounters with these critics:
[The critics] looked intently [at Pure Land belief] with the keen vision of a
hawk seeing a hedgehog open and vulnerable. Then they began bullying
and slandering. Wanting battle, their officials joined the fray. In order to
ambush the followers of the gang, Master [Huaigan] first seized upon his
inexhaustible ability and his unmatched discourse….21
Meng Xian paints a dire picture of the attacks directed toward Pure Land believers. The
critics viewed these believers—and perhaps Pure Land belief itself—as their prey, to
extend Meng Xian’s metaphor. Based on the passage above, if not for Huaigan’s timely
defense, Pure Land Buddhism might have been crippled during this vulnerable time of
its development. Therefore, according to Meng Xian’s interpretation, Huaigan is an
important champion of Pure Land Buddhism.
Meng Xian’s excitement regarding how Huaigan defended the Pure Land
tradition from peril is notable, yet none of the biographies take note of that. Instead, as
19 T 1960, vol. 47, 30b09.

20 T 1960, vol. 47, 30b29.
21 T 1960, vol. 47, 30b28-c04.
99
noted above, they prefer to retell Huaigan’s interaction with Shandao. The biographies
have a plot structure in which Huaigan moves from disbelief to an inward struggle,
which eventually culminates in a profound experience that fortifies his Pure Land belief,
and the whole story resolves with the creation of the Qunyi lun. Undoubtedly, the plot
creates a good story. Moreover, it offers an easy explanation of why Huaigan wrote a
text that aims to resolve doubts about Pure Land belief and practice. However, Meng
Xian’s account of Huaigan is also a compelling story. If anything, his depiction makes
Huaigan appear more brave and important than the biographical accounts.
We might question why the biographies did not use the preface as a source.
Furthermore, its absence suggests that the version recounted in the biographies was an
oral account until it was eventually recorded in the RSZ. It is also possible that the
preface to the Qunyi lun was not yet included with the text. The RSZ contains the first
biography of Huaigan and it appeared nearly a century after Huaigan’s death. Given
that the Qunyi lun was not complete upon Huaigan’s death, and that Meng Xian
reordered the text, and possibly added to it at a later point, it is not certain that the RSZ
even had access to the information in the preface. This could explain the differences
between the the preface and the RSZ. However, it does not explain the preference of
the later biographies to ignore the preface, unless the preface was added at a
considerably later date.
It was briefly mentioned above that Huaigan did not finish writing the Qunyi lun.
Meng Xian reveals this important information toward the end of the preface. He does
not indicate how much Huaigan completed before his death, and there are no definitive
clues within the text. Each fascicle begins with an attribution to Huaigan as the author.
100
According to the preface, the grieving disciples decided that the Qunyi lun should be
finished posthumously.22 Huaiyun was a close friend to Huaigan and a fellow disciple
under Shandao, and Meng Xian’s framing of this episode implies that Huaiyun was
nominated for the job. Despite Huaiyun’s involvement in completing the text, the Qunyi
lun is most often solely attributed to Huaigan, which is apparent from examining the
biographical accounts. Obviously, Huaiyun’s life and relationship with Huaigan is of
some importance, so a more thorough discussion is warranted.23
The preface of the Qunyi lun contains valuable bits of information about Huaigan
that are ignored in the biographical accounts. However, instead of filling in the blanks of
the many questions about Huaigan, the preface mostly focuses on different information
than the biographical accounts. There are subtle distinctions between the preface and
biographies, especially regarding Huaigan’s motivations for turning to Pure Land
practice and writing the Qunyi lun. The preface allows a more nuanced understanding of
Huaigan, unlike the brief biographical blurbs. Inarguably, the single most important
piece of information is the revelation that Huaigan was unable to finish the Qunyi lun,
and that it was completed by his friend Huaiyun, which reveals another possibility for
research. First, however, there are a few more sources that deserve attention.
Outside Resources
Tang China, and Chang’an in particular, is a relatively highly documented
society, especially in comparison to other cultures around the globe during that time.
Given that Huaigan studied with Shandao—one of the most famous monks of his era—it
22 T 1960, vol. 47, 30c14-15.

23 See below.
101
should come as no surprise that both are mentioned in several outside sources.
Although these sources are not focused directly on Huaigan as their subject, they still
provide important information. This is significanct given the lack of details and dates
available for Huaigan. However, like the biographies, not everything in the sources
examined below can be accepted as fact.
Huaigan appears in a few Tang dynasty scripture catalogs. These texts
catalogued notable Buddhist scriptures, as well as the figures and events that led to
their creation. The information about Huaigan found in the catalogs is unique, in that
they do not seem to rely on the biographical accounts examined above. Instead, the
catalogs introduce new information that ties Huaigan to new monasteries, figures, and
texts. Unfortunately, the majority of the information in the catalogs largely does not
agree with the biographical accounts. Thus, further examination of these catalogs is
necessary in order to reconcile the pertinent chronological issues.
The first appearance of Huaigan in a Tang scripture catalog is located in the Da
zhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄. The catalog was collected by
Mingquan 明佺 (d.u.), at the behest of Empress Wu Zetian.24 Huaigan is mentioned just
once in the final fascicle, albeit briefly. The text provides a roster of monks that were
active in the first year of the Tiance 天冊 era, or 695. However, no further details are
given besides their names. Huaigan is one of several monks prefaced by “jiaojing
museng 校經目僧 (Monks who Examine Scriptures),” indicating that he was a monk
24T 2153, vol. 55. For more on the text, see Kazuo Okabe, “The Chinese Catalogues of Buddhist
Scriptures,” in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu kenkyū kiyō 38 (1980): 1-13.
102
known for examining the scriptures.25 Thus, it is clear that Huaigan was active and
respected enough to warrant inclusion in the catalog even before the Qunyi lun was
completed. Furthermore, he was still alive and active in Chang’an in 695, meaning his
death must have occurred after the catalog’s completion.
Two later Tang Buddhist scripture catalogs worth examining are the Da Tang
zhenyuan xu kaiyuan shijiao lu 大唐貞元續開元釋教錄 (hereafter referred to as DTZY),
and the Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 (hereafter referred to as
ZYXD).26 Both texts were collected and edited by Yuanzhao 圓照 (d.u.). The DTZY was
completed in 794 and the ZYXD was finished in 800. The ZYXD discusses Huaigan
more than the DTZY, but both texts include a notable addition to his name. Two times in
the ZYXD Huaigan is written as 懷感, whereas five different times the character deng 等
follows directly after his name.27 This construction is also used in the DTZY, though just
once. It appears that the two are used interchangeably to refer to the same person.
Thus, I am left to conclude that Huaigan deng 懷感等 should be read as, “Huaigan and
the others…” In order to demonstrate this, it is important to review the two instances in
the ZYXD in which Huaigan is simply listed as 懷感. The first time, Huaigan is the first in
a list of other monks that were requested by the emperor to translate the Ren Wang
25 T 2153, vol. 55, 475b16.

26 T 2157, vol. 55.
27For Huaigan as 懷感, see T 2157, vol. 55, 884b25; c23. For 懷感等, see T 2157, vol. 55; 884a24;
886a27; a28; and b07-b09.
103
Jing 仁往經.28 Huaigan is listed without the 等 in this instance because the other monks
are all named after him. In the only other instance in which Huaigan is written normally,
the text states that Huaigan served as the head monk (shangzuo 上座) for both Ximing
Monastery 西明寺 and Da’anguo Monastery 大安國寺.29 The text then notes that
Huaigan “proved righteous” in these duties.30
Both of these monasteries were notable in Chang’an at the time; Ximing, in
particular, was perhaps the most active center of Buddhist learning in the city. Thus, to
hold the position of head monk at both of them would have been a great
accomplishment by any objective measure. Although the DTZY states that Huaigan was
the head monk at Ximing, it does not connect him to Da’anguo.
Unfortunately, the dating of Huaigan in Yuanzhao’s two catalogs is entirely
inconsistent with the previous accounts. Shortly after the texts mention Huaigan’s
position at Ximing Monastery, both recount an interaction between Huaigan and
Emperor Daizong 代宗 (r. 762-779) during the first year of the Yongtai 永泰 era (765).31
This date occurred at least half a decade after the completion of the Qunyi lun, meaning
that it is incongruous with the assumed death of Huaigan. Moreover, the entirety of
Huaigan’s inclusion in the catalogs is related to his involvement in the later translation of
28The Ren Wang Jing is an apocryphal text that promotes humane leadership. There are two versions of
the text: The first (T 245, vol. 8) is a translation attributed to Kumārajīva, while a team of translators led by
Amoghavajra (不空) translated the second version (T 246, vol. 8).
29 T 2157, vol. 55, 884c23.
30 Ibid. I translate zhengyi 證義 as ‘proved righteous.’ This inclusion may be an allusion to the biographies
of Huaigan in both the RSZ and the GSZ in which Shandao instructs him to practice nianfo until it is 證
zheng, proven.
31 T 2157, vol. 55, 886a27-b10.
104
the Ren wang jing, which was not completed until 795.32 Thus, there are a number of
possible explanations for his appearance in the text. First, there could have been
another Buddhist monk named Huaigan that flourished shortly after Huaigan’s death.
This is unlikely given that both texts seem certain that the Huaigan is the Pure Land
master. Second, perhaps the assumed dates of Huaigan’s death are incorrect. This too
is implausible because of the confidence in the dates of Huaigan’s associates—
Shandao and Huaiyun in particular—which will be discussed in detail below. Third, his
appearance could have been an honorary posthumous inclusion. It was not entirely
uncommon to add notable monks posthumously as coauthors.33 The inclusion of these
famous names loaned the texts their authority and gravitas. Furthermore, it would
ensure that the texts were taken seriously.
Lastly, Huaigan’s inclusion may have been simply a mistake. Frustratingly, this is
likely the best conclusion. Although these catalogs can be helpful sources for studying
monastic involvement in large translation projects, it is not uncommon for them to
perpetuate inaccuracies, often due to the sloppiness of the authors or the copyists.34
For example, in the earlier text (DTZY), Huaigan is only linked to Ximing Monastery,
while, just some six years later, the same editor connects him to the Da’anguo
Monastery as well. This inconsistency is notable given the similarity of the accounts and
32Ming-wood Liu 寥明活, “Huaigan de sheng pinghe foshen, fotu sixiang 懷感的生平和佛身,佛土思想,”
Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiu jikan 中國文哲研究集刊 21 (2002): 121.
33Julian Pas suggests this may have happened to Shandao as well with his attribution in the Nianfo jing
念佛經 (T 1966, vol.47), which was written centuries after Shandao’s death. See Pas, Visions of
Sukhāhavatī, 112ff.
34For more on the inaccuracies that plague some Tang Buddhist catalogs see Okabe, “Chinese
Catalogues,” 5-7.
105
the relatively short period between them. Moreover, the fact that none of the later
biographies—including the account in the SGZ some two centuries later—add this
information is particularly damaging to its veracity. On the other hand, the appearance
of the extra information in the later account is not entirely abnormal, as the period
between the two texts allows the editor more time for research. Thus, while it is certainly
still a possibility that Huaigan occupied a high position at notable monastic institutions
and interacted with the emperor, the dating of this account and its exclusion in later
accounts leaves some uncertainty about its accuracy.
Huaigan also appears in texts written by two important later figures, Feixi 飛錫 (fl.
eighth century) and the Japanese monk Ennin 圓仁 (794-864).35 Feixi wrote the Nianfo
sanmei baowang lun 念佛三昧寳網論 (T 1967, vol. 47), which briefly mentions Huaigan.
This appearance is notable because Feixi attributes to Huaigan a non-extant text called
the Wangsheng zhuan 往生傳, in addition to the Qunyi lun. Given that Feixi lived not too
long after Huaigan and resided at Qianfu Monastery, his account is dependable.
However, this is the only text that mentions that Huaigan wrote the Wangsheng zhuan.
If it truly was written by Huaigan, it is hard to understand its absence in the biographical
accounts and the Qunyi lun preface. The first biographical account of Huaigan in the
RSZ was written during Feixi’s lifetime by Shaokang, another famous Pure Land
contemporary.
35 Feixi is another of the monks listed in the ZYXD that helped Amoghavajra translate the Ren wang jing.
In fact, this is the basis for most of his biography in the SGZ (T 2061, vol. 50, 0721c03). Additionally, Feixi
is linked to Qianfu Monastery.
106
There could be a more nuanced answer to this problem. Daniel Stevenson notes
the existence of a “distinctive genre of Pure Land compendium known as ‘accounts of
[successful] rebirth [in the Pure Land],’” translated as wangsheng zhuan.36 This genre
collected miraculous tales that proved the efficacy of Pure Land belief and practice.
Furthermore, the beginnings of this genre can be traced to Shandao, who advocated
the recording of these phenomena in his Guannian famen 觀念法門 (T 1959, vol. 47).37
Thus, Huaigan was likely intimately familiar with these tales and practices; it is also
likely that he participated in recording miraculous accounts that he encountered, like his
master. It is uncertain whether he collected these into one text, or if they were
completed posthumously, much like the Qunyi lun. It is also possible that these
accounts were stored at Qianfu, which could explain why Feixi was familiar with them,
whereas the more itinerant Shaokang was not.38 In addition, Qianfu was one of many
monasteries affected by Emperor Wuzong’s 武宗 (r. 840-846) proscription and
campaign against Buddhism, which would explain why it is never mentioned again, if it
was lost during this period.39 Although there are no other records of the Wangsheng
zhuan, there is a strong possibility that Huaigan contributed to this genre, in some
fashion.
36Daniel B. Stevenson. “The Ties that Bind: Chinese Buddhists Rites for Securing Rebirth in the Pure
Land,” Hōrin: Vergleichende Studien zur japanischen Kultur 15 (2008): 139-202; 155.
37 Ibid., 157 and T 1959, vol. 47, 24b21-c4.
38Shaokang’s biography in the SGZ (T 2061 vol. 50, 0867b11-c26) indicates that he was constantly
moving around the country until later in his life when he settled on Wulong Mountain 烏龍山 in modern-
day Hunan province.
39 Xiong, Urban History, 273.
107
Ennin was a Japanese monk who travelled to China in 838, where he stayed for
nearly a decade, visiting Buddhist sites and learning from Chinese Buddhist masters.
He wrote a famous travel diary, Nittō Guhō Junrei Kōki 入唐新求聖教目錄, that
chronicled his journeys in China. The text remains an important resource for
understanding Chinese Buddhism, especially before and during the reign of Emperor
Wuzong. Upon his return to Japan, he established a new style of Tendai Buddhism on
Mt. Hiei, called Taimitsu, and he is still recognized as an important patriarch of the sect.
Ennin attributes a number of writings to Huaigan, but neglects to mention the
Qunyi lun. Huaigan is credited with working on a portion of the Ren wang jing, which
was dismissed above as unlikely. Additionally, Ennin attributes to Huaigan a one
fascicle commentary on the Amituo jing, or the Smaller Sukhāvatī Sūtra.40 There are two
more entries attributed to Huaigan, and both credit him with working on a commentary
of the Da fo ding 大佛頂 (T 945, vol. 19), commonly known as the Śūraṇgama Sūtra.41
Like the attribution in the Nianfo sanmei baowang lun, this is the only text that attributes
these two commentaries to Huaigan. It seems sensible that Huaigan would have had
enough interest in both texts to write a commentary. Obviously, the Amituo jing is a
foundational text for Pure Land belief and practice, and the Śūraṇgama Sūtra includes
meditative practices that are similar to the ones Huaigan advocates in the Qunyi lun.
Regardless of whether Huaigan would write a commentary on these texts, the facts that
40 T 2167, vol. 55, 1083b18.

41It is not clear why Ennin chose to divide the two citations. In the first entry, Ennin seems to indicate that
Huaigan revised the commentary, while in the second, Huaigan seems only responsible for one section of
the commentary. See T 2167, vol. 55, 1083b19-21.
108
they are unavailable and that there are no other records of them again prevent any
decisive conclusions.
The final text which mentions Huaigan is the Dongyu zhuandeng mulu 東域傳燈
目錄 (hereafter as the DYZD), which was compiled by a Japanese monk named Eichō
永超 (1014-1095) in 1094.42 Like the other texts mentioned above, the DYZD is notable
because of its unique attributions to Huaigan. The text catalogs commentaries and
original works of famous monks, and Huaigan appears twice. It should be no surprise
that he is credited with the Qunyi lun. However, earlier in the text, Eichō links him to a
commentary on the Guan jing and a commentary on the Xuanyi 玄義, both of which
were two fascicles.43 The Guan jing is a foundational text for Pure Land Buddhism, and
it is again likely that Huaigan had great interest in the text. Shandao’s most famous
extant work is a commentary on the Guan jing. The second attribution is more
problematic. Xuanyi most often indicates a commentary on the Lotus Sutra, but usually
it is within a Tiantai Buddhist context.44 The Lotus Sutra is obviously a critical text to all
Mahāyāna Buddhists, and it does expound upon the notion of a buddha-kṣetra, which
presumably interested Huaigan.45
Because all these texts attributed to Huaigan are no longer extant, and are also
uncorroborated by other sources, these attributions only add more complexity to the
42 T 2183, vol. 55.

43 T 2183, vol. 55, 1151a07.
44Zhiyi (538-597) and other Tiantai masters wrote commentaries on the Lotus Sutra, and often signified
them by using Xuanyi in the title.
45For instance, T 262, vol. 9, 52c27. Huaigan discusses the nature of Sukhāvatī heavily in the first two
fascicles, which will be examined in Chapter 4.
109
mystery that shrouds Huaigan. However, it does appear very likely that Huaigan wrote
other works besides the Qunyi lun. Unfortunately, none of these other works are extant,
which is not uncommon.46 The connection between Huaigan in these texts, which span
over five centuries, indicates that he was a notable figure during his lifetime, and
remained influential after it as well.
Huaigan’s Affiliations
Despite examining all the available historical accounts of Huaigan’s life, there are
still a bevy of questions that remain unanswered. For instance, nothing is known about
Huaigan’s early life and formal education. The exact relationship between Shandao and
Huaigan is also somewhat unclear. The biographies recount a possibly legendary
meeting between the two, and not much else. The preface of the Qunyi lun does not
even mention Huaigan’s supposed master. The only explicit mentions of Huaigan as a
disciple of Shandao originate in accounts about or biographies of Shandao, which is a
troubling fact. Furthermore, Huaigan’s biographical accounts are ambiguous about his
relationship with Shandao, specifically regarding how long their master-disciple
relationship lasted, and if, after Huaigan’s nianfo experience, Shandao was his only
master. Thus, if even the assertions about Huaigan that are taken for granted can be
questioned, it is necessary to dig even deeper. Therefore, this section will map
Huaigan’s life through his relationships and affiliations. By tracking his known
friendships and locations, hopefully more information will emerge.
46
For more on the common occurrence of lost books from this period, see Glen Dudbridge, Lost Books of
Medieval China (London: The British Library, 2000).
110
Since there are no records of Huaigan’s early life, the earliest point of discussion
available is his monastic education. All of the biographical accounts cited above indicate
that Huaigan was an excellent student. Moreover, his knowledge of Buddhist scriptures
and current criticisms of Pure Land Buddhism is apparent in the Qunyi lun. It is without
question that Huaigan was well educated. It was noted above that, before moving to
Pure Land practice, Huaigan likely studied with a different school or tradition.
Additionally, the preface of the Qunyi lun indicates that Huaigan was unsatisfied with his
early learning. Although the preface does not delve into further detail, Huaigan’s text
features significant clues that suggest his possible early influences and affiliations.
Yogācāra and Huaigan
As mentioned in the Introduction, it has become popular to suggest that Huaigan
must have studied Faxiang (also known as Weishi 唯識) Buddhism before his focus on
Pure Land belief and practice.47 This assertion will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6; however, it requires some attention here as well. Xuanzang’s quest to India
(in hopes of clarifying the many different Yogācāra philosophies in China at the time)
resulted in a specific interpretation of Yogācāra that he brought back from India, which
would become known as Faxiang Buddhism.48 Upon his return from India, Xuanzang
was recognized as a celebrity. He used that status to build a translation center for the
47This is a common claim of East Asian Buddhist scholars. For example, see Hojun Nishi, “Huai-kan’s
View,” 57-66.
48Yogācāra was popularized in China by the sixth century. The Dilun 地論 school divided along Northern
and Southern geographic lines due to diverging opinions regarding Vasubandhu’s commentary of the
Shidi jing lun 十地經論 (T 1522, vol. 26). Paramārtha 真諦 (499-569), an Indian Buddhist monk, brought
his own brand of Yogācāra later in the sixth century, which was eventually known as Shelun 攝論. For
more on the development of Chinese Yogācāra, see Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology: A
Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun (London: Routledge, 2002).
111
dozens of Sanskrit texts he collected while in India. Xuanzang’s popularity attracted
many students from across East Asia, and Kuiji 窺基 (632-682) was eventually
recognized as his leading disciple, primarily due to his collaboration with Xuanzang on
the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (T 1585, vol. 31).49 The text was a compilation of various
Indian commentaries on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā, and became the foundational text for
Faxiang Buddhism.50
The claim that links Huaigan to Faxiang thought is often backed with textual
analysis of the Qunyi lun. Yogācāra influence is unmistakable in some of Huaigan’s
explanations, particularly on the nature of the Pure Land and the bodies of the Buddha,
which accounts for significant portions of the text.51 Although it is logical to infer that this
influence indicates that Huaigan studied Faxiang Buddhism, it still remains a
questionable assertion, which is based on textual analysis alone. First, the biographies
examined above merely relay that Huaigan was a great student, but never mention his
exact studies. Second, there were a couple of other competing Yogācāra schools in
Chang’an during his early life. Interestingly, earlier Pure Land figures, especially
Huiyuan and Tanluan, have connections to those schools. Both Pure Land “patriarchs”
have been linked to the Dilun 地論 school, though, like Huaigan, those connections may
be more legendary than factual.52 Lastly, Huaigan’s mission for the Qunyi lun was to
49Dan Lusthaus, “Faxiang,” Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Robert E. Buswell, ed. (Farmington Hills:
Macmillan Reference USA, 2004): 283-284. Woncheuk 圓測 (613-696) was another leading disciple of
Xuanzang, and challenged Kuiji as successor to Xuanzang.
50 Ibid.
51 This will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter 4.
52For Tanluan’s supposed conversion to Pure Land see Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 183. For Huiyuan’s
tenuous connection to early Chinese Yogācāra, see Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 20-21.
112
answer criticisms from other Buddhist monastics. It is completely logical that he relied
on the fashionable Buddhist doctrines of that era, like Faxiang, to validate Pure Land
belief.
In addition to Huaigan’s Yogācāra influence, there is a related claim that must be
discussed. Taking the next logical step, Jōji Atone claims that Huaigan was a disciple of
Xuanzang.53 Unfortunately, although Atone claims this in two separate works, neither
cite any evidence. Mark L. Blum has made the same assertion, yet also lacks support
for it.54 This is a fascinating and exciting claim; however, there is no real evidence to
back it. If Huaigan was a good student and had an interest in Yogācāra, it follows that
he would want to learn under Xuanzang. If this connection was real, surely it would
warrant an inclusion in Huaigan’s biographical accounts. The only reason for its
exclusion could be the fact that the RSZ was basically propaganda literature, primarily
meant to support Pure Land belief. Still, Huaigan’s “conversion” to Pure Land is all the
more exciting if he was indeed a disciple of Xuanzang. It illustrates the power and
efficacy of Pure Land teachings over other Buddhist doctrines.
If we provisionally accept Atone’s claim that Xuanzang taught Huaigan, it is
intriguing to bring Kuiji back into the discussion. Kuiji died around fifteen to twenty years
53 Jōji Atone, Shan-tao: His Life and Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, PhD
Dissertation, 1988), 323; and Jōji Atone and Yōko Hayashi, The Promise of Amida Buddha: Hōnen’s Path
to Bliss (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2011), 22. In an email exchange with Dr. Atone, he notes, “Thank
you for referring to my work on Hōnen and making an inquiry about Huai-kan. Actually, you are right! I
wrote, ‘Huai-kan was a disciple of Xuanzang,’ but actually he was a follower of the Fa-hsiang School of
Xuanzang. The Fa-hsiang School is missing here—this is my mistake.” Again, there is still little to no proof
that Huaigan was a Faxiang Buddhist other than recent claims based on textual analysis. Nevertheless, if
Huaigan was indeed a follower of the Faxiang School as Atone suggests, he likely would have had some
connection with Xuanzang and Kuiji, so I will continue this line of thought to see what it produces.
54
Mark L. Blum, The Origins and Development of Pure Land Buddhism: A Study and Translation of
Gyōnen’s Jōdo Hōmon Genrushō (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 172, fn 27.
113
before Huaigan, but at a relatively young age of fifty. Huaiyun, another contemporary of
Huaigan, was born just eight years after Kuiji. Thus, Huaigan and Kuiji could have been
around the same age, which chronologically makes it possible that they both studied
under Xuanzang. This is particularly interesting because of Kuiji’s writings about Pure
Land Buddhism. Kuiji was more prolific than Huaigan, and more of his works have
survived. Kuiji wrote three commentaries discussing Pure Land issues.55 Thus, it is
apparent that Kuiji, like many of his contemporaries, recognized the surge in Pure Land
belief and wanted to respond to it. As I will discuss in Chapter 5, parts of the Qunyi lun
seem to clearly respond to Kuiji and these three texts. 56 When Huaigan is not disputing
Kuiji’s claims, it appears as if he is adapting or even plagiarizing them.
The biggest divergence of opinion between the two monks centers on the
superiority of Amitābha or Maitreya. Kuiji repeatedly advocates for the superiority of
aspiring to be reborn in Maitreya’s Tuṣita rather than Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī.57 It would
be very interesting if any further evidence emerged that linked these two monks as
disciples under Xuanzang. But currently, this connection is nothing more than informed
but debatable speculation.
There is one last point to consider in regard to Huaigan’s possible Yogācāra
inclinations—the incorporation of Vasubandhu’s philosophy into Pure Land doctrine.
Vasubandu serves as the common link between the Pure Land and Yogācāra
55The three are the Amituo jingshu 阿彌陀經疏 (T 1759, vol. 37), Amituo jing tongzan 阿彌陀經通贊 (T
1758, vol. 37), and the Xifang yaojue 西方要決 (T 1964, vol. 47). These will be discussed in Chapter 4.
56For more see: Murakami Shinzui “Shaku Jodo gungiron ni tokareru Amidabutsu to bonpu to no koo
kankei.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 44.1, 59-63.
57 T 1772, vol. 38, 274a-b, 277a-b, and 297c.
114
repertoires, and Huaigan and Faxiang in particular. Vasubandhu is attributed with key
works for both types of Buddhism. Yogācārins were not the only Buddhists writing
commentaries on Vasubandhu’s works. Tanluan wrote a commentary on Vasubandhu’s
Rebirth Treatise, a foundational text for Pure Land Buddhism.58 Moreover, it was
already mentioned that Shandao likely borrowed Vasubandhu’s idea of five gates of
contemplation in his commentary on the Guan jing.59 Given this strong connection,
Huaigan’s occasional use of Yogācārin ideas developed from the work of Vasubandhu
does not seem that out of place or unusual, and certainly does not qualify him as a
Faxiang Buddhist. Perhaps the reason why untangling the Pure Land tradition from
Yogācāra is not easy is because their origins are not wholly separate, as the two are
often bound to one another.60
A Disciple of Shandao
Tracking Shandao’s movement through Chang’an is another useful method to
trace the arc of Huaigan’s life. Although there are still several gaps of knowledge
regarding Shandao’s time in Chang’an, there is enough information to allow for some
intriguing connections. It is likely that Shandao spent time in a number of monasteries
both inside and outside of Chang’an. He is most often linked to four monasteries, based
on textual and epigraphic evidence. There is no way to be certain that Huaigan studied
with Shandao at any of these monasteries, but circumstantial evidence is strong enough
58Rebirth Treatise is its most common appellation. The short title in Chinese is 往生論 (T 1524, vol. 26).
Tanluan’s commentary on the Rebirth Treatise is T 1819, vol. 40.
59 Pas, Visions of Sukhāvati, 56.
60This idea will be discussed more in Chapters 4 and 5, but for more see Richard K. Payne, “Seeing
Sukhāvatī: Yogācāra and The Origins of Pure Land Visualization,” The Pure Land: Journal of Pure Land
Buddhism 20 (2003): 265-283.
115
to necessitate a discussion. Each of the four monasteries will be discussed in order to
determine the likeliness that Huaigan studied under Shandao at that location.
The biographical accounts indicate that Shandao entered monastic life at a very
early age.61 Although there is not a lot known about his teacher, a monk named
Mingsheng 明勝, recent scholars have linked him to the Sanlun tradition, a Chinese
Mādhyamika school that relied on the translations of the famous Kuchean translator,
Kumārajīva (344-413).62 This is an interesting claim because it would make Shandao
obviously sympathetic to a discontented student like Huaigan. Shandao was also a
restless student of Buddhist doctrine, until he began studying the Guan jing.63 Before
traveling to Chang’an, one of his biographies mentions that Shandao mastered
concentration and meditation at Wuzhen Monastery on Mount Zhongnan.64 The
biographies indicate that Shandao was an itinerant monk, and it appears that Wuzhen
was like a homebase for him.65 During his time in the mountains, Shandao met with
Daochuo, the most famous advocate for Pure Land practice at the time. The SGZ
biography of Shandao relates that, after his meeting with Daochuo, he solely practiced
nianfo.66 While this is likely exaggerated in an effort to promote Shandao’s legacy, all

62 Ibid., 81.
63 T 2070, vol. 51, 105b24-27.
65See Atone, Shan-tao, 50ff. The biography indicates that Shandao stayed at Wuzhen before meeting
Daochuo; however, Atone believes he likely returned to Wuzhen after the meeting and before moving to
Chang’an. Pas seemingly backs this assertion, believing that Shandao spent enough time on Zhongnan
Mountain to be designated as a “mountain monk” (89).
66 T 2060, vol. 50, 684a12ff.
116
the biographies relate that Shandao’s meeting with Daochuo was a significant occasion
for both monks. However, not much is actually known about their relationship, though
Shandao is traditionally considered to be a student of Daochuo.
It is unlikely that Huaigan met or studied under Shandao during his time on
Mount Zhongnan. There is some disagreement about when Shandao’s meeting with
Daochuo occurred, but all except one biography place it before the beginning of
Shandao’s teaching career.67 Moreover, Shandao did not relocate to Chang’an until he
was around the age of thirty-five.68 Lastly, it is also possible that Huaigan would have
been too young during Shandao’s time on the mountain. When adding the fact that
Huaigan was a highly educated student before his conversion to Pure Land belief and
practice, it is even more unlikely that he studied with Shandao at Wuzhen Monastery on
Zhongnan Mountain.
Thus, it is probable that Huaigan met and studied with Shandao in Chang’an.
Ci’en Monastery 慈恩寺 was likely one of Shandao’s first residences in Chang’an. The
monastery was built by Emperor Gaozong in 648 in memory of his mother, Wende 文德
(601-636), who suffered an early death.69 Intriguingly, the empress was disciple of
Daochuo, and the temple was constructed in gratitude to his memory.70 The monastery
was incredibly lavish, and well-stocked with expensive icons and expansive
67 HHWSC-b is the only one that indicates that Shandao had disciples before Daochuo’s death. It is the
latest biography of Shandao, and the most contradictory in general. However, many scholars have
discounted much of the HHWSC-b account because the tales seem to stretch reality even more than
normal hagiography.
68 Atone, Shan-tao, 55.
69 Xiong, Urban History, 260.
70 Ibid, 90.
117
courtyards.71 Additionally, the Great Wild Goose Pagoda would become the central
feature of the monastery a few years later in 652, a later rebuilt version of which still
stands in Xi’an today.72 Upon its inauguration, fifty notable monks were invited to reside
in the monastery. Julian Pas suggests that Shandao’s connection with the respected
Daochuo may have allowed him to be one of the original monks that took residence at
Ci’en.73 Regardless, two inscriptions—the first dated to the year of Shandao’s death in
681—definitely link Shandao to the monastery. 74
The Ci’en Monastery was among the most important centers of Buddhist learning
in Tang Chang’an.75 A large reason for that claim is that the monastery became a large
translation center of Buddhist sutras under its abbot, Xuanzang, who occupied that
position for a decade, 648-658. If the theory that Xuanzang mentored Huaigan is
accepted, then there is an obvious connection between the three monks at Ci’en.
Unfortunately, there is no record that Shandao and Xuanzang ever met, though that
does not mean that it never occurred. In fact, if they were both at Ci’en at the same
time, it seems likely that they would have met, despite the enormity of the monastery.
Xuanzang at least oversaw the translation of the Sukhāviīvyūha sutras. Furthermore,
Kōtatsu Fujita hints that Xuanzang may have been the first translator to exclusively
71 Ibid, 260.
72The original pagoda collapsed not long after its construction, but Empress Wu Zetian oversaw the
reconstruction some fifty years later (Xiong, Urban History, 261).
73 Ibid.
Its only competition would have been Ximing Monastery 西明寺, which was also built by Emperor
75
Gaozong later in 656.
118
connect the colloquial use of “jingtu 淨土” as a specific reference to Sukhāvatī.76 Thus, it
is evident that Xuanzang had some interest in Pure Land teachings. Given that
Shandao was an emerging figure—and possibly also notable as a student of
Daochuo—it is not unreasonable to suggest that the two were acquainted. However,
even if they did know each other, it does not mean they were close. In his study of
Shandao, Jōji Atone notes the curious fact that Shandao exclusively used the
Kumārajīva translation of the Larger Sūtra, even though Xuanzang produced his own
translation in 650.77 He goes on to speculate, “The fact that Hsuan-tsang was a
Yogācāra master with faith in Buddha Maitreya of Tuṣita Heaven, and Shan-tao was a
Pure Land master with faith in Buddha Amitābha could account for a schism between
them.” 78 If indeed there was a rift between the two, it could support the biographical
accounts’ claim that Huaigan had doubts about nianfo and Pure Land practice.
Even if all three were at Ci’en during the same period, it is not unreasonable to
question if Huaigan would abandon the tutelage of the most famous living monk at the
time. Besides the emperor, Xuanzang was essentially the biggest celebrity in
Chang’an.79 Thus, it may be too great a leap to suggest that he left the famous monk for
Shandao, unless Huaigan felt that Xuanzang’s fame was hurting his eduction. Many of
the biographies indicate that Huaigan was unsatisfied with his learning, which would be
76 Fujita, Genshi Jōdo Shisō, 507-511.

78 Ibid.
79Xuanzang’s biography (Da Ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩三藏法師傳, T 2053, vol. 50) discusses
an event in which Xuanzang was gifted with an inscription made by Emperor Gaozong that was attended
by an audience around a million people. See Xiong, Urban History, 197.
119
a reason to seek a new teacher. Additionally, Huaigan would have been in need of a
new teacher after Xuanzang’s death in 664. If Huaigan was a similar age to his
companion Huaiyun, then he would only be in his mid to late twenties. Shandao lived for
seventeen years after Xuanzang’s death, giving Huaigan plenty of time to study and
master Pure Land teachings. Still, given the lack of substantial evidence, nothing more
definitive can be stated.
The Guangming Monastery 光明寺 is another locus for Shandao’s teaching
activities. All of his biographies mention Shandao’s presence at Guangming, even
though there is some slight confusion about the name of the monastery.80 Due to their
dating, it is traditionally held that Shandao was teaching at Guangming before the death
of his earliest biographer Daoxuan in 667.81
The monastery is most famous for its connection with the Three Stages School
(Sanjie jiao 三階教). The school shares some ideas with Pure Land doctrine, but with
notable differences. Important figures from both schools—most notably Daochuo and
Xinxing 信行 (540-594), the Three Stages founder—believed in mofa, the end or decline
80 Ibid., 244, 306, and 319. Sui Emperor Wendi (r.581-604) built the most famous Guangming Monastery
in 584. The Monastery was located in the Huaiyuan ward near the western boundary. However, Empress
Wu Zetian renamed the monastery Dayunjing 大蕓經 in 690 after the text that helped her maintain her
power (The Cloud Sutra). However, two other Tang catalogs indicate the presence of another Guangming
Monastery 光明寺 in the Kaiming ward near the southern boundary. Unfortunately, no figures or dates are
associated with the second monastery.
81 Daoxuan is likely responsible for Shandao’s earliest biography in his Xu gaoseng zhuan (T 2060, vol.
50, 684a11-19). Pas suggests that Daoxuan may not have written the entry on Shandao given that he
was only a generation older than Shandao (Visions of Sukhāvatī, 71-72). However, it is likely that
Shandao would have warranted inclusion in the text even before Daoxuan’s death. For more on Daoxuan,
see Huaiyu Chan, The Revival of Buddhist Monasticism in Medieval China (New York: Peter Lang
International Academic Publishers, 2006).
120
of the Dharma.82 As a result of the Dharma’s decline, both also held that humans had
limited capacity to free themselves from saṃsāra. Whereas Pure Land believers relied
upon the vows of Amitābha to extract themselves from their helpless condition, The
Three Stages School emphasized pufa 普法, universal teachings that allowed the mind
to see through duality and uncover the tathāgatagarbha.83
Huiliao 慧了(d. 656) was another important Three Stages teacher connected to
the Guangming Monastery. It is possible that he lived there while Shandao was in
residence. Records indicate that the monastery featured several halls dedicated to
different types of Buddhist practice, and included halls designated for both Pure Land
practice and the Three Stages school.84 Shandao would have been in his fifties while
teaching at Guangming, and it is likely that he would have disciples by this point in his
career. The notable fact that the monastery was open to a variety of teachers who likely
were espousing their preferred doctrines while debating the merits of the other
interpretations means that, if Huaigan were a disciple under Shandao at this time, he
would be intimately familiar with many critiques of Pure Land belief. However, there is
little evidence to connect Huaigan to Guangming, other than that Shandao was in
residence there around the time of Xuanzang’s death in 664. Moreover, the plural,
tolerant environment of the monastery was not necessarily unique. Many monasteries
82Of course, there were differences in their interpretation of mofa. Pas writes, “Whereas Hsin-hsing
distinguished three stages in the gradual process, Tao-ch’o seems to have believed that there were five
periods of five hundred years each” (Visions of Sukhāvatī, 141). It is not clear to what degree Daochuo’s
ideas influenced Shandao.
83Jamie Hubbard, “Sanjie Jiao (Three Stages School)” in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Robert E.
Buswell (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003), 744-745.
121
housed monks associated with different schools or traditions, all advocating different
ideas. Thus, while it is convenient to suggest that Huaigan developed his responses to
Pure Land critiques at Guangming, it is just as likely that he could have done this at
another monastery. Still, it will be important to see if any of his responses are directed
toward criticisms from the Three Stages School, which is discussed in Chapter 5.
The last monastery that is affiliated with Shandao, and possibly Huaigan, is Shiji
Monastery 實際寺. There is no textual evidence that links Shandao to Shiji; however,
two inscriptions note his presence there. The first mentions Shandao’s residence at Shiji
in passing while discussing the cave project he supervised at Longmen.85 The second
inscription holds more value to this discussion. Essentially, it is a biography of Huaiyun,
another disciple of Shandao. It states that Huaiyun joined Shandao at Shiji Monastery,
and that he remained a disciple there for more than a decade. A more thorough
discussion of the inscription will follow below. Combining the details of the two
inscriptions places Shandao at Shiji around 670. Considering that Huaiyun likely spent
time here learning from Shandao, it is highly probable that Huaigan resided here for
some time as well.
More discussion regarding the relationship between Huaiyun and Huaigan is
presented below, but it is important to know that they were good friends. Unless the two
were acquainted before Huaiyun joined Shandao, it can be assumed that they
developed their friendship during their time at Shiji. For some amount of time, Huaiyun
was an appointed official. Around the age of thirty, he entered the monastery, where he
studied under Shandao. Huaigan died before Huaiyun, so it is often assumed that he
85 Ibid., 63.
122
was older. Thus, when Huaiyun joined Shandao, Huaigan would have been in his mid-
thirties. Furthermore, if Huaigan joined Shandao around the time of Xuanzang’s death,
he would have been Shandao’s disciple for more than six years by the time Huaiyun
joined the Pure Land master.
While Huaigan’s affiliation with Shandao offers some intriguing connections, the
uncertainty of Shandao’s movement around Chang’an makes it difficult to state anything
definitive. In addition, the scanty details regarding the duration and intensity of the
master-disciple between Shandao and Huaigan raise questions. For instance, did they
remain together until Shandao’s death? Perhaps examining another of Huaigan’s
associates will provide some more clues to help answer these questions.
Friendship with Huaiyun
Huaigan’s relationship with Huaiyun offers yet another opportunity to gain more
insight into the life of Huaigan. The preface of the Qunyi lun indicates that both monks
were talented disciples of Shandao. Furthermore, both were of equal standing regarding
their knowledge and abilities. The preface further states that they both were important
disciples of Shandao who demonstrated a deep understanding of the ten paramitās.86 It
has already been noted that Huaigan died before Huaiyun, and that the latter finished
the Qunyi lun. The preface suggests that Huaiyun was nominated or asked to finish the
text. Moreover, Meng Xian refers to Huaiyun as Huaigan’s “old friend.”87 Thus, a closer
examination of Huaiyun’s life might reveal some more clues about Huaigan.
86 T 1960, vol. 47, 30.

87 Ibid.
123
Although there are not a lot of sources that recount Huaiyun’s life—interestingly,
he does not appear in any of the collections of biographies of eminent monks that
contain Huaigan’s biography—there is one solid source that provides a good deal of
information. An extant stele that dates to 743 lists Huaiyun’s dates as 640-701.
Obviously, since there are no dates available for Huaigan, Huaiyun’s dates are a good
tool with which to speculate about the year of Huaigan’s death. Thus, it is without a
doubt that Huaigan died sometime before 701. Because there are no indications about
how much work the text required after Huaigan’s death, we do not know how long
Huaiyun worked on it. However, if we pair the knowledge that Huaigan died in or before
701 with the earlier clue that Huaigan aided with the collection of the Da zhou kanding
zhongjing mulu (Revised Catalogue of Buddhist Texts Compiled by the Zhou dynasty) in
695, then a definite window of his death appears. Therefore, it is safe to assume that
Huaigan died at some point during the 695-701 period. Unfortunately, there are no
definitive statements that compare the ages of Huaigan and Huaiyun that would allow
us to speculate about the former’s year of birth.
The epitaph also mentions that Emperor Gaozang appointed Huaiyun as an
official. However, Huaiyun wanted to become a monk, and the emperor accepted his
resignation. Huaiyun was tonsured at Ximing Monastery. After an unspecified amount of
time there, Huaiyun left to study under Shandao at the aforementioned Shiji Monastery.
Huaiyun spent at least the last decade of Shandao’s life learning from him. Shandao
died in 681, when Huaiyun was forty-one. Thus, Huaiyun did not begin studying with
Shandao until he was around the age of thirty, which verifies the account that he joined
Shandao at Shiji Monastery around that age. Upon Shandao’s death, the text indicates
124
that Huaiyun traveled south to the foot of Mount Zhongnan where he buried Shandao.
The account of Shandao’s burial is corroborated in the funeral account of famous Chan
Master Mazu Daoyi 馬祖道一 (709-788).88 Mount Zhongnan was mentioned above as
the location of the first monastery affiliated with Shandao, Wuzhen, and was a hub of
religious activity and learning in general. In honor of his master, Huaiyun erected a
pagoda named Chongning ta 崇寧塔 and built a monastery named Xiangji si 香積寺,
both of which are still there today.89 Several years later, in 689, Empress Wu Zetian
appointed him as the abbot of Shiji Monastery. The Empress must have continued to
think highly of Huaiyun, because after his death, she posthumously bestowed upon him
the title of Grand Enlightened Dharma Master (longchan dafashi 隆闡大法師).90
Although the text does mention that Huaiyun taught the Pure Land sutras and nianfo,
there is no account of specific writings or extant texts attributed to him.
There is no mention of Huaigan in the text, which is not exactly surprising given
that Huaiyun is the focus. However, it is notable in that the preface of the Qunyi lun
emphasizes their friendship, and that Huaiyun finished the text for Huaigan. Given the
positive reception of the Qunyi lun within the Buddhist community, it is puzzling why
Huaiyun’s biographer would leave out his role in its completion. However, if, as Meng
Xian claims in the preface, the text was in further need of organization and editing even
88 For translation, see Mario Poceski, The Records of Mazu, 271-272.

89“Stele Commemorating Buddhist Master Longchan.” Olvwork303272. Harvard University Library:
Harvard University. Accessible at http://vc.lib.harvard.edu/vc/deliver/~rubbings/olvwork303272.The
epigraph mentions how Emperor Gaozong and Empress Wu Zetian often visited the temple.
90 Ibid.
125
after Huaiyun’s work on it, then perhaps the Qunyi lun was not yet widely read or even
released before the creation of Huaiyun’s epitaph.
Huaiyun’s role in Shandao’s funeral is also worth some discussion. The epigraph
makes no mention of any of Shandao’s other disciples other than Huaiyun. Based on
the above estimate of Huaigan’s death sometime between 695-701, it is certain that
Huaigan was still alive at the time of Shandao’s death. Again, given the close friendship
between Huaigan and Huaiyun, and the master-disciple relationship both had with
Shandao, it defies belief that Huaigan and the rest of Shandao’s disciples would be
absent from the funeral. Thus, although it is not possible to assert that Huaigan was
actually present during Shandao’s burial at Mount Zhongnan, it is also likely that
Huaiyun was not the only disciple in attendance. Shandao was one of the most famous
monks in Chang’an, and it is highly unlikely that his funeral was overseen by just one
person, even if it was his capable disciple. The SGZ biography Mazu compares the
collective grieving at Mazu’s funeral ceremony to Shandao’s.91 Mazu’s disciple noted
that during his master’s funeral, “Monks and lay people, young and old, lost their voices
[from crying too much].”92 This sort of sentiment is quite common in descriptions of
famous figures in medieval China, and it is safe to assume that Zanning’s (the author of
SGZ) comparison of the two funerals is accurate. Interestingly, another one of
Shandao’s disciples, Jingye 淨業 (d. 712), was buried next to Shandao, and many
91 T 2061, vol. 50, 766b24.

92Translation from Mario Poceski, Ordinary Mind as the Way: The Hongzhou School and the Growth of
Chan Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 34.
126
monks and laypeople were reportedly in attendance.93 It is clear that Shandao’s
disciples greatly respected and cared for him; therefore, it is most likely that Huaigan
was present at the funeral. Given that Xiangji Temple—the location where both
Shandao and Jingye were buried—is still active to the south of present-day Xi’an, and
there is no mention of Huaigan’s burial there, it is likely that he was not buried next to
his master, unlike Jingye.
Qianfu Monastery
Huaigan’s place of residence is the last affiliation that may provide more clues
about his life. As is evident above, Qianfu is not the only residence linked to Huaigan.
However, Qianfu appears in most of the biographies, while the other institutional
affiliations are featured in shorter accounts of questionable authenticity. Although it is
likely that Huaigan spent time at other monasteries in Chang’an—like Ximing and
Da’anguo—Qianfu seems to have held special significance. Although Huaigan is most
often reported to have resided at Qianfu, that does not preclude the possibility that he
resided and occupied high positions at other monasteries. Many monks in Chang’an
during this time served as head monks at two institutions.94 The first chronological
account of Qianfu is Huaigan’s biography. With one notable exception that is discussed
below, the listings regarding Qianfu in the Taisho Tripitaka are mostly repeated
93Atone and Hayashi, Promise of Amida Buddha, 23. Additionally, a shorter pagoda was built next to the
one Huaiyun built for Shandao. It is still present at Xiangji Temple today.
94As demonstrated above in the ZYXD account, Huaigan was perhaps the head monk at both Ximing and
Da’anguo. The SGZ mentions several monks who occupied roles at two monasteries, and there is even a
precedent for serving at both Ximing and Qianfu—the two monasteries most often connected to Huaigan.
For example, see the biography of Yunsui 雲邃 (d.805-809; T 2061, vol. 50, 894a08 ff), who lived and
served as shangzuo 上座 at both monasteries.
127
accounts of Huaigan or Feixi, both recognized as Pure Land masters.95 Thus, the
residence of both monks at Qianfu during the seventh and eighth centuries indicates
some kind of Pure Land presence at the monastery, if not a robust one.
Qianfu Monastery was established during Gaozong’s reign (649-683) by his son,
the Crown Prince Zhanghuai 章懷 (653-684) in 673.96 It was one of the many
monasteries established in Chang’an by Gaozong and his progeny. Qianfu was located
in the southeast corner of the Anding 安定 Ward, just west of the palace.97 Originally the
residence of the Crown Prince Zhanghuai (also known as Li Xian 李賢), the palace
underwent extensive remodeling before it was established as a monastery.
Nevertheless, Qianfu was still beautifully outfitted, as were most of the monastic
additions during Gaozong’s reign. The defining characteristic of the monastery was a
wooden pagoda that housed many treasures.98 This tower was likely built to emulate or
rival the famous Great Wild Goose Pagoda that stood at Ci’en Monastery. 99
Unfortunately, none of the sources about Qianfu mention Huaigan, other than
referring back to his biography. The most detailed account of the monastery appears in
95The other monks affiliated with Qianfu in the eighth century: Chujin Yunsui 雲邃, Zilin 子隣, Fachong 法
崇, Zhaowen 趙溫, Gaozhi 高氏; and in the ninth century: Datong 大通, Lingsui 靈邃; and those with dates
unknown: Chaowu 超悟, Zhicheng 志誠, and Cenxun 岑勛.
Multiple sources mention this: Chang’an zhi 長安志 (CAZ) 10.5 and Tang liangjing chengfang kao 唐兩
96
京城坊考 (LJCFK) 4.114.

97 Ibid.
98Song Xu and Jianchao Li, Zeng ding Tang liang jing cheng fang kao 增訂唐兩京城坊考 (Xi’an Shi: San
qin chu ban she, 2006): 218.
99Interestingly, it is likely that the original Great Wild Goose Pagoda had collapsed by the time Qianfu
was established. The replacement Pagoda was not rebuilt until the reign of Wu Zetian (Xiong, Urban
History, 261).
128
the Fozu tongji biography of Chujin 楚金 (698-759).100 Like many Tang accounts of
religious institutions, supernatural occurences are linked to the pagoda: heavenly music
and unusual fragrances emitted from its foundation, and auspicious colored clouds
formed in the sky.101 The accounts indicate that Chujin’s chanting of the Lotus Sutra
was the catalyst for these miracles.102 Although Huaigan discusses and uses the Lotus
Sūtra many times throughout the Qunyi lun, he never advocates chanting it. However,
the efficacy of chanting it is discussed in the Lotus Sutra, so it is possible that
discussing it was viewed as redundant.
Although it is disappointing that no extant sources about Qianfu mention
Huaigan, there is a lot to glean from his affiliation with the monastery. If we take the
ZYXD mention of Huaigan as at least partially accurate, it is evident that Huaigan was a
respected and powerful monk given his position as the abbot of two major monasteries
in Chang’an. Both monasteries were strongly tied to ruling and aristocratic families,
which also made it a target in later proscription campaigns. Unfortunately, during these
turbulent times, a lot of valuable sources were lost to history, possibly including
information regarding Huaigan.
Concluding Remarks
Despite all of the information presented in this chapter, much of it is
circumstantial. This is an unfortunate consequence of having to rely on sketchy and
sometimes contradicting sources. Thus, most of Huaigan’s life still remains a mystery.
100 T 2035, vol. 49, 375b16-b23.

101 Ibid., 375b18; b22
102
For more, see Eugene Yuejin Wang, Shaping the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Visual Culture in Medieval
China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005): 274-275.
129
However, the research in this chapter definitively shows that there are claims that, if not
verifiably true, are probable. Using those claims, this chapter will conclude by restating
what we have discovered about Huaigan.
Huaigan was most likely born near the middle of the seventh century. There are
no sources that indicate his place of birth. He was a great student, familiar with a wide
range of Buddhist philosophies. Some scholars claim that he was a disciple of the
famous Buddhist monk Xuanzang, and studied his form of Yogācāra Buddhism, also
known as Faxiang. At some point Huaigan sought out Shandao while the latter was in
Chang’an, either because Huaigan was a critic of nianfo practice, or because he was
unsatisfied with his earlier education. Shandao taught Huaigan about proper nianfo
practice, which was very difficult for Huaigan, initially. It was a few years before Huaigan
mastered the practice, and it is unclear whether he remained as a student under
Shandao during or after that period. Upon mastering the practice of nianfo, Huaigan
may have had a profound religious experience that proved to him the value and efficacy
of the practice.
Huaigan’s only extant text is the Qunyi lun, which he was unable to finish before
his death. His friend and brother disciple, Huaiyun, was elected to finish the text, and
sometime later an official named Meng Xian added a preface, at the very least. It is very
likely that the Qunyi lun was not the only text written by Huaigan, and that his lost works
were important enough to warrant his inclusion in various Buddhist catalogs. Huaigan
likely continued the work of his master known as Wangsheng zhuan, a compendia of
rebirth tales, which recounted successful journeys to the Pure Land. Huaigan also may
have written short commentaries on important Pure Land sutras.
130
Huaigan certainly spent a portion of his life at Qianfu Monastery in Chang’an. It is
reported that he was the abbot at Qianfu, and perhaps another monastery in Chang’an
called Da’anguo. Both monasteries were hubs of monastic and aristocratic activity,
during and after Huaigan’s lifetime. Given his positions at these respected monasteries,
it is likely that Huaigan was a highly respected monk. He may have also received
imperial patronage, like many of the subsequent abbots at these monasteries. Monks
from many different sects who espoused various doctrines resided at these
monasteries, some of whom were critical of Pure Land belief. It is likely that repeated
interaction with these critics was one of the main catalysts for Huaigan’s decision to
produce an apologetic text about Pure Land belief and practice.
Huaigan died sometime between 695 and 701. Biographical records indicate that
it was commonly accepted that Amitābha accompanied him to the Pure Land at the time
of his death. The preface to the Qunyi lun recounts that many disciples grieved
Huaigan’s death, and that they turned to his friend Huaiyun to finish his work. It is
unclear what kind of teaching career Huaigan had, as all of his biographies emphasize
him as more of an exegete than a teacher. Because there are no records of Huaigan’s
students, and no other extant texts, the only way to know his teachings is through the
Qunyi lun, which is the focus of Chapter 4.
131
CHAPTER 4
THE SHI JINGTU QUNYI LUN
Huaigan wrote the Shi jingtu qunyi lun during a time when Pure Land belief and
practice was increasing in popularity, not only in the monasteries, but especially among
the laity. Earlier proponents of Pure Land belief and practice—mainly, Daochuo and
Shandao—raised its status, and were largely responsible for its popularity during the
Tang dynasty. This relatively rapid ascent of Pure Land belief in the Chinese Buddhist
milieu produced many critics who were either envious of its popularity among the laity or
actually believed it to be a misguided form of Buddhism. After the death of these notable
figures, the Pure Land movement was left unshielded to these attacks. Consequently,
apologetic texts like the Qunyi lun were written and popularized, filling the void left after
the deaths of Daochuo and Shandao, in particular. However, as we will see below,
these texts were not addressed to the average layperson; instead, they were primarily
responses to the skeptics of Pure Land belief. Moreover, whereas earlier Pure Land
compositions were most often commentaries, these apologetic texts were wholly
original works, and helped create a sense of Pure Land orthodoxy. This was an
important step in the gradual transition of Pure Land Buddhism from a small devotional
cult, to a mature popular movement. This chapter will examine the Qunyi lun in detail,
including an analysis of its format, manuscripts, purpose, and major themes.
Textual Overview
The Qunyi lun consists of seven fascicles, or juan 卷, all of which are attributed to
Huaigan. Despite Meng Xian’s claim that Huaiyun finished the text after Huaigan’s
death, Huaiyun’s name does not appear anywhere in the Qunyi lun other than the
preface. In addition, there are no stylistic clues within the text that suggest a change of
132
author. While this is no reason to doubt Huiyuan’s involvement with the text, his exact
contributions are difficult to discern. Given the likelihood that the text was reorganized—
and possibly later expanded—it is not even prudent to suggest that Huaiyun worked
only on the later fascicles.1 Therefore, because it is not possible to ascertain the nature
and scope of Huaiyun’s contribution, the Qunyi lun will be discussed as if Huaigan was
the sole author.
Format
The format of the Qunyi lun is not unique to the text. It is strictly formatted as a
question-and-answer arrangement between a created interlocutor and Huaigan. This
style was a common feature of commentarial texts of this kind. Essentially, it mimics a
live debate between two rivals. Ideally, the authors tried to avoid creating weak
arguments on behalf of their opponents. After all, the purpose of these texts was to
show the efficacy and validity of the author’s ideology. A strong opponent, even if
imaginary, demanded a stronger defense. On the other hand, plenty of polemical texts
are guilty of misrepresenting the positions of their opponents. The origin of this popular
genre may trace back to qingtan 清談, or Pure Conversation; a type of discourse that, in
its earliest forms, predates Buddhism’s popularity in China.2 As more Chinese literati
became familiar with Buddhism in the second and third centuries CE, the qingtan style
1 T 1960, vol. 47, 30c15ff. Meng Xian claims that he is cultivating practices that produce rebirth in the
Pure Land (xiu jingye 修淨業) by writing the preface. It is possible that Meng Xian may have even added
to the text, or reorganized it.
2 Erik Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early
Medieval China (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959), 93. Pure Conversation was central to early medieval Chinese
literati, who gathered in order to debate various Neo-Taoist philosophical concepts. A good performance
at these meetings could lead to high political office. See Alan Chan, “Neo-Daoism,” The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta, ed. (2013):
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/neo-daoism/.
133
remained influential.3 Subsequently, the question-and-answer format developed and
was ubiquitous in Buddhist commentaries.4
As mentioned above, a strong opponent forced the author to be at his best in
order to win the debate. Therefore, the questions are always very technical and point to
knowledge of various popular Buddhist philosophies. Although many of the questions in
the Qunyi lun represent common criticisms of Pure Land practice, they are often very
informed about the relevant texts and practices. Accordingly, many of the questions in
the text are not short, and some can be rather lengthy. It is not uncommon for a single
question to occupy many lines of text. The first question in the third fascicle of the Qunyi
lun is a good example of the knowledge Huaigan attributes to his imagined interlocutor.
The question begins by quoting Amitābha’s vows from the Larger
Sukhāvatīvyuha Sutra, before moving to a seemingly contradictory passage in the Guan
jing.5 The interlocutor is clearly familiar with the Pure Land texts, and presumably these
questions are influenced by real critiques from opposing Buddhists of the time. Even
when the questions are brief, they often elicit or require very detailed and complicated
responses. This is illustrated in the very first question in the Qunyi lun. The opponent
asks: “How many bodies does the Buddha possess, and how many types of Pure Lands
are there?”6 Uncharacteristically, the question is contained in just a single line
3Wing-tsit Chan, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973),
336.
4 Zürcher, Buddhist Conquest, 93.
5 T 1960, vol. 47, 43c09-43c16.
6 Ibid., 30c23.
134
consisting of only nine characters. Despite the seemingly simple question, Huaigan’s
answer exceeds thirty lines of text.
The complexity of the debate between Huaigan and his interlocutor indicate that
the intended audience of the Qunyi lun consisted of monastics, well-educated lay
Buddhists, and literati. This is especially evident given that the subject of the text is the
beliefs and practices associated with the Pure Land of Amitābha. Unlike other more
philosophically abstruse types of Buddhism that were popular during and after
Huaigan’s life, the appeal of Pure Land belief, especially among the laity and some
monastics, is that it is relatively simple to comprehend and practice. However, if these
same people read the Qunyi lun expecting simplicity, they would be overwhelmed
quickly. Huaigan references and adapts many abstract Buddhist concepts and texts to
explain and defend Pure Land belief.
Although Huaigan wrote the text to elucidate and safeguard the beliefs of Pure
Land practitioners—many of whom were lay people—it was presumably not exactly
intended to be read by them. Instead, the Qunyi lun was mainly directed toward two
different groups of monastics. The first group was made up of the critics opposed to the
teachings of Pure Land belief and practice. Huaigan addresses their critiques
throughout the text, directly mentioning some of these rivals on occasion.7 The second
group consists of future monastics aspiring to rebirth in Sukhāvatī who would reference
the text as a sort Pure Land catechism. Huaigan does not address this group explicitly,
7 The third fascicle is focused on the criticisms from the Three Stages Sect. Huaigan explicitly mentions
the group dozens of times throughout the third fascicle. This sect will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
135
but the qingtan-style debate clearly serves a foundation for explicating Pure Land belief
and practice.
In all, Huaigan answers 121 questions in the seven fascicles of the Qunyi lun.
Like the questions, the responses are of varying lengths, but most of them are quite
detailed. The majority of the questions in the text can be placed into four categories:
theoretical basis and clarification of Pure Land concepts and practices; apparent
contradictions found in Pure Land texts; differences between Pure Land texts and other
Buddhist texts; and responses to specific threats to Pure Land belief and practice.8 The
first category, theoretical basis and clarification of Pure Land concepts and practices, is
a basic catchall for questions that do not belong in any of the three other categories.
These questions are usually featured at the beginning of a new discussion topic.
Huaigan often uses these questions as a foundation for the more specifically targeted
questions that follow.
The second category, apparent contradictions found in Pure Land texts, notes
differences that appear in the Sukhāvatīyuha sutras and the Guan jing. Typically, the
questions ask how two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true, or which
one is the correct interpretation. Huaigan is quite skillful in handling these questions in
particular. The subjects of these apparent contradictions often concern who can be
reborn in the Pure Land, or how many recollections are required to ensure rebirth
there.9 The third category, differences between Pure Land texts and other Buddhist
texts, demonstrates Huaigan’s tremendous knowledge of canonical literature. A wide
8 Three of the categories appear in Hojun, “Huai-kan’s View,” 60.

9 For instance, the third fascicle discusses these subjects at length. See T 1960, vol. 47, 43c09-44b01.
136
range of Buddhist texts are referenced and quoted in the Qunyi lun. Of course, Huaigan
features a handful of texts more often, which are discussed in detail below. The last
category, responses to specific threats to Pure Land belief and practice, is the clearest
indication that Huaigan was writing to other monastics and not necessarily the laity.
Huaigan was not hesitant to answer critiques that he felt were damaging to Pure Land
belief and practice, and, in some cases, unapologetically undermined the credibility of
sources of these critiques.
The structure of the text emulates the natural flow of a discussion. The Qunyi lun
begins with basic inquiries about the trikāya (the three bodies of the Buddha) and the
nature of the Pure Land, and Huaigan’s responses lay the foundation for the remainder
of the conversation. The questions and answers on a given topic continue until Huaigan
feels the subject has been addressed completely. The transitions from one topic to the
next are not always coherent. Huaigan’s ability to formulate and answer 121 questions
about Pure Land belief and practice indicates that he was likely already familiar with
many of the critiques. Given the traditional structure of Buddhist monasteries in China
during his life—monks with different training generally lived with each other in a
monastery—it is probable that he heard these questions first-hand from monks who
were skeptical of Pure Land belief and practice. Thus, the Qunyi lun could be loosely
based on some of the discussions Huaigan participated in throughout his life.
Pure Land Apologetics
The Qunyi lun is not the only Pure Land work of its kind in the Buddhist canon;
however, it is among the first examples of the genre. Pure Land apologetic literature
began to appear in the seventh century, around the time of Shandao’s death, as Pure
Land doctrine was maturing. Kenneth Tanaka writes that apologetic literature followed
137
shortly after the Pure Land commentarial tradition, in which many monks were writing
about the Pure Land sutras, mainly the Guan jing.10 While these commentaries were
essential for establishing Pure Land doctrine, apologetic texts, like the Qunyi lun,
supplemented the commentaries and responded to critiques. Several texts belong to the
genre, but two of the most notable are the Jingtu shiyi lun 淨土十疑論 (Discussing Ten
Doubts about the Pure Land; T 1961, vol. 47) by Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597), and the Xifang
yaojue shiyi tonggui 西方要決釋疑通規 (Resolving Doubts about the Common Customs
of the West; T 1964, vol. 47) by Kuiji. These texts have a similar goal to the Qunyi lun.
However, unlike Huaigan, neither Zhiyi nor Kuiji are remembered as Pure Land
masters.
The Jingtu shiyi lun is a much shorter text than the Qunyi lun. Although the text is
traditionally attributed to Zhiyi, the founder of the Tiantai school, scholars agree that the
text was produced after his death.11 In addition to the Jingtu shiyi lun, the
pseudonymous Zhiyi is responsible for three other texts dealing with the Pure Land:
commentaries on the Guan jing (T 1750, vol. 37) and the Amituo jing (T 1755, vol. 37),
and an original text titled Wu fangbian nianfo men 五方便念佛門 (The Five Expedient
Gates of Nianfo; T 1962, vol. 47). In addition to these Pure Land texts, many of Zhiyi’s
later biographies record his enthusiasm for Pure Land practice.12 Based on Zhiyi’s
prioritizing of the Lotus Sutra above all other texts, it is certain that he held great
10 Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, xvii.

11 Leo Pruden, “The Ching-t’u lun Shih-lun,” in Eastern Buddhist 6.1 (May, 1973): 126-157.
12For more on Zhiyi, see Leon Hurvitz, Chih-I (538-597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a
Chinese Buddhist Monk (Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1962).
138
reverence for Guanyin. Moreover, Daniel Stevenson has demonstrated how Pure Land
imagery was often present in meditational practices recommended by Zhiyi. 13
The oldest biography of Zhiyi indicates that his deathbed was placed in front of a
statue of Maitreya, and during that time he chanted the names of Guanyin and
Amītabha while the Guan jing was being read to him.14 The biography even includes the
dream of a respected monk named Huiyan 慧延, who dreamed about Zhiyi following
Guanyin to the West.15 These records illustrate that, though it is probable that Zhiyi
wrote none of the Pure Land texts attributed to him, he did have an affinity for Pure
Land practice. These biographical events likely helped to legitimize these works as
authentic writings of Zhiyi. Regardless, these texts were either written to sell Pure Land
ideas to the Tiantai community, or written by Tiantai monks possibly in hopes of either
feeding off the popularity of Pure Land belief and practice among the laity, or a genuine
desire to incorporate it into the community. Daniel Getz has demonstrated how this was
common practice in Tiantai monasteries, though later in the Song dynasty.16 Sato
Tetsuei has suggested that Zhiyi’s Guan jing commentary was the result of popular
13 Daniel Stevenson, "The Four Kinds of Samadhi in Early T’ian-t’ai,” in ed. Peter N. Gregory, Traditions
of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986), 55; and Neal Donner
and Daniel B. Stevenson. The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study and Annotated Translation of
the First Chapter of Chih-i's Mo-ho chih-kuan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993): 89-90.
14These events are recorded in the Guanding Biography of Zhiyi (T 2050, vol. 50). For more on this
particular biography, see Koichi Shinohara, “Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi, the Fourth Patriarch of the
Tiantai Tradition,” in Speaking of Monks, ed. Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, (Oakville: Mosaic
Press, 1993): 97-218.
15 T 2050, vol. 50, 196c21-28.
16 See Daniel A. Getz, "Popular Religion and Pure Land in Song-Dynasty Tiantai Bodhisattva Precept
Ordination Ceremonies," in Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya: Essays Presented in Honor of
Professor Stanley Weinstein, ed, William M. Bodiford, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005): 161-
184; 181. Tiantai-Pure Land syncretization reached its peak in the Northern Song (960-1127). Tiantai
monks were integrating Pure Land elements into lay and monastic precept ceremonies to attract more
attendees, and gain local support.
139
demand for a Tiantai response to the dominance of the Guan jing, and that it was likely
written in the late seventh or early eighth century. 17 Thus, these Pure Land texts
attributed to Zhiyi very well could be products of Tiantai endeavors to capitalize on the
popularity of Pure Land Buddhism, or begin to integrate it into a specifically Tiantai
setting.
Scholars disagree about Kuiji’s contribution to Pure Land apologetics. It is
without question that he was incredibly prolific during the fifty years of his life, possibly
writing forty-eight works, twenty-eight of which are extant and collected in various
canons in East Asia.18 However, scholars question whether Kuiji actually wrote all of
those texts—specifically those regarding the Pure Land. Three Pure Land texts are
attributed to Kuiji: Amituo jingshu 阿彌陀經疏 (T 1759, vol. 37), Amituo jing tongzan 阿
彌陀經通贊 (T 1758, vol. 37), and the aforementioned Xifang yaojue (T 1964, vol. 47).
Alan Sponberg portrays Kuiji as a rigid sectarian who was unlikely to step outsides the
boundaries of the nascent Faxiang school.19 Citing Kuiji’s focus on Yogācāra, Sponberg
is skeptical that he authored Pure Land texts. However, this ignores the fact that Kuiji’s
master, Xuanzang, translated the Sukhāviīvyūha sutras, demonstrating that he found
them important and valuable resources for Chinese Buddhists.
If Kuiji’s authorship of the Pure Land texts is accepted, it is intriguing to again
note Jojī Atone’s assertion that Huaigan was originally a disciple of Xuanzang, which
17 Satō Tetsuei, Tendai Daishi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hyakken, 1960): 567-597.
Wei Jen Tang, Recontextualization, Exegesis, and Logic: Kuiji’s (632-682) Methodological
18
Restructuring of Chinese Buddhism (Boston: Harvard University, PhD Dissertation, 2011): 17.
19Alan Sponberg, The Vijñaptimatrata Buddhism of the Chinese monk K’uei-chi (A.D. 632-682)
(Vancouver: University of British Columbia, PhD Dissertation, 1979): 27, 32.
140
would make him a brother disciple to Kuiji.20 This would demonstrate that, despite his
affinity for Yogācāra, Xuanzang was likely inclusive of a number of Buddhist beliefs and
practices, and help explain why Kuiji authored Pure Land texts. However, one possible
limitation to this theory is Kuiji’s authorship of the Guan mileshang sheng doushuaitian
jing zan 觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊 (Commentary on the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascending to
Tuṣita Heaven; T 1772, vol. 38). In this text, Kuiji states that seeking rebirth in Tuṣita is
greater than seeking rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land.21 Huaigan and Kuiji clearly
disagreed over this matter. Huaigan also discusses the Mileshang sheng, but to argue
that opposite of Kuiji—that Amitābha worship is more beneficial than Maitreya
worship.22 Given Kuiji’s preference of Maitreya over Amitābha, it does seem odd that he
would write texts espousing Pure Land belief and practice. However, like Huaigan, Kuiji
likely saw the benefit in Pure Land practice, he just did not rate it as highly as Maitreya
worship. This is somewhat understandable given the importance of Maitreya to
Yogācāra proponents, and the popularity of the Maitreya cult during Kuiji’s formative
years and his education under Xuanzang.23 Akin to discussion above regarding the
pseudonymous Zhiyi, even if Kuiji did not write the Pure Land texts attributed to him, the
20 Atone, Shan-tao, 323; Atone and Hayashi, The Promise of Amida Buddha, 22.
21 T 1772, vol. 38 274a-b; 277a-b, 297c
22 More on this discussion will follow in Chapter 5. See Qunyi lun T 1960, vol. 47, 53b12ff.
23Maitreya occupies a central role in Yogācāra due to the legend that Asaṅga, the founder of the Indian
Yogācāra tradition, received the Yogācāra bhūmi śāstra from Maitreya. For more, see Richard King
Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought (Washinton D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1999): 99-100. Some scholars have suggested that Kuiji’s Maitreya worship may have
developed as early as childhood given the popularity of Maitreya in China during the Northern Wei period
(386-534). For more, see: Jenkuan Shih’s Doctrinal Connection between Panjiao Schemata and Human
Capacity for Enlightenment in Jizang’s and Kuiji’s Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison,
PhD Dissertation, 2006): 29.
141
actual author thought it was necessary to have Kuiji’s voice in the discussion about Pure
Land Buddhism.
Whereas the Pure Land apologetic works attributed to Zhiyi and Kuiji were
possibly not authored by them, there is little reason to doubt Huaigan’s authorship of the
Qunyi lun. Meng Xian’s preface authenticates Huaigan’s role in its creation.
Unfortunately, as noted in Chapter 3, there are few details about Meng Xian.
Regardless, the text of the Qunyi lun was likely in its final version by the early eighth
century. If the texts attributed to Zhiyi and Kuiji were actually authentic, they would
predate the Qunyi lun. None of these texts references either of the other apologetic
texts, thwarting any attempt to identify their chronology using textual references.
Although the Qunyi lun is not referenced in any of the other apologetic works
resolving doubts about the Pure Land, it is mentioned in later Pure Land apologetic
texts. The first mention of the text appears in Feixi’s Nianfo sanmei baowang.24 The text
was written shortly after Huaigan’s death, and indicates that the Qunyi lun was
completed and was in circulation by the early to mid-eighth century. After this period,
there is a lull in references in extant Chinese texts until the tenth century. However, the
Qunyi lun was still circulating, evinced by its transmission to Japan by the middle of the
eighth century.25 The text became influential in Japan, and was heavily cited by Tendai
masters,26 which will be discussed further in the Chapter 6.
24 T 1967, vol. 47, 141a21

25Allan A. Andrews The Teachings Essential for Rebirth: A Study of Genshin’s Ōjoyōshū (Tokyo: Sophia
University Press, 1973): 130.
26 Ibid., 138.
142
Along with its popularity in Japan, references to the Qunyi lun resurge in China
during the mid-tenth century. It is clear that Yongming Yanshou 永明延壽 (904-976),
usually identified as a Chan monk as well as a proponent of Pure Land practice, relied
on the Qunyi lun in his Guanxin xuanshu 觀心玄樞 (Profound Pivot of the Contemplation
of the Mind).27 Shortly after that, Zunshi 尊式 (964-1032), an important Tiantai monk,
mentions the Qunyi lun once in his Wangsheng jingtu jueyi xingyuan ermen 往生淨土決
疑行願二門 (Two Teachings for Resolving Doubts and Establishing the Practice and
Vow to be Reborn in the Pure Land).28 Moreover, Zunshi uses the Qunyi lun as the
foundation for a short text entitled Nianfo famen 念佛法門 (Method for Nianfo; included
in T 1969, vol. 47).29 Lastly, Yangjie 楊傑 (c.1020-c. 1090) quotes the Qunyi lun three
times in his Nianfo jing 念佛經 (The Nianfo Scripture; T 1966, vol. 47).30 Thus, the Qunyi
lun was popular soon after its completion, and remained so in both China and Japan for
at least five centuries afterward.
Manuscripts
The breadth and quality of Huaigan’s answers in the Qunyi lun ensured its enduring
popularity. This is apparent when looking at the extant manuscripts of the Qunyi lun.
27For more, see Yi-hsun Huang, Integrating Chinese Buddhism: A Study of Yongming Yanshou’s
Guanxin Xuanshu (Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing, 2005). There is only one surviving manuscript of the
text, and a complete version has yet to be published.
28 T 1968, vol. 47 145a25. For partial translation, see Daniel B. Stevenson, “Pure Land Worship in China,”
in Buddhism in Practice, Donald Lopez, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007): 271-292; 283-
289.
29The text is included in the Lebang wenlei 樂邦問類 (Collection of Literature on the Happy Country) by
Zongxiao 宗曉 (1151-1214). For a full translation of the text, see Stevenson, “Pure Land Worship in
China,” 281-283.
30 T 1966, vol. 47, 127c01-02; 129c05-06; and 130b16-17.
143
There are eight available manuscripts, though some are only fragmentary.
Chronologically, they are:
1. The Dunhuang manuscript, Stein Collection number 2663. The manuscript has
not been dated, but likely precedes any of the other manuscripts given the
sealing of the Library Cave in first half of the eleventh century.
2. Nanatsudera Issaikyō manuscript, dated from 1175-1180. This is only a partial

manuscript; only two of the seven juan 卷 are extant.
3. Kenchō manuscript, dated to the second year of the Kenchō era in 1250. This
manuscript is the oldest dated and fully extant copy of the Qunyi lun, and the one
utilized in this study.
4. Gentoku manuscript, dated to the second year of Gentoku, or 1330.
5. Sōyoryōteki manuscript, dated to 1608-1616.
6. Kan-ei manuscript, dated to the third year of Kan-ei, or 1626.
7. Manji manuscript, date not listed, but likely ca. 1659.
8. Hōei manuscript, dated to the second year of Hoei in 1705. This is also called the
Gizan manuscript.31
There are also a few later recensions of the text, but they are all based on either the
Gizan or Kenchō era manuscripts.32 Interestingly, although the Nanatsudera manuscript
is incomplete, the two available juan includes new material not found in any of the other
recensions. There are twenty-five new questions added to the text that do not appear
elsewhere. Although the style is noticeably different, many of the questions easily fit into
the overall contents of the Qunyi lun.33 Murakami Shinzui suggests that these questions
were added at a later date after the compilation of the original Nanatsudera
31Shinzui Murakami, “Nanatsudere sozō Shakujōdo gungīron no tsuite,” in the Indogaku bukkyōgaku
kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 40.2 (1991), 597-601.
32 Ibid., 597.
33 Ibid. Murakami has recorded a list of the twenty-five questions on 599-601.
144
manuscript.34 Whether or not Murakami’s position is correct, this occurrence is a
reminder that often these kinds of texts remained living documents, able to be edited or
expanded long after their intended completion. Although it is clear that from relatively
early on that the Qunyi lun consisted of seven fascicles, that did not necessarily prevent
later monks from adding to the text, if they felt it useful or necessary.35
Textual References
As mentioned above, Huaigan draws from a wide variety of texts throughout the
Qunyi lun. Huaigan usually references the title of the work before an excerpt, which
provides an interesting opportunity to review his sources. Many of the texts he relies on
most often are not surprising. The Guan jing is the text that is cited or quoted most often
in the Qunyi lun. The Guan jing is a foundational text for Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,
and like his master, Huaigan was intimately familiar with it. Quotations or allusions to
the Guan jing dwarf references to any other text. The scripture is featured in the Qunyi
lun over a hundred times, whereas the second most mentioned text, the Larger
Sukhāvatī Sutra, is cited or mentioned twenty-eight times. Therefore, it is seems that,
for Huaigan, the Guan jing is the single most important text for Pure Land practitioners.
It is notable that Huaigan never directly mentions or quotes Shandao’s commentary, or
any other commentary on the Guan jing.36 Moving to the Larger sutra, the second most
34 Ibid. 601.
35Huaigan’s biography in the RSZ is the first chronological mention that the Qunyi lun is seven fascicles
(RSZ T 2070, vol. 51, 106).
36 There were at least three commentaries on the Guan jing available to Huaigan during his lifetime:
Huiyuan’s (532-592), T 1750, vol. 37; Jizang’s (549-623) T 1752, vol. 37; and Shandao’s T 1753. vol. 37.
In addition, there are also two extant commentaries whose authors are unknown. Given Huaigan’s
predisposition toward the text, further research needs to be conducted to eliminate the possibility that he
authored either of the extant texts.
145
cited text, Huaigan regularly uses a specific translation, titled Foshuo wuliangshou jing
佛說無量壽經 (T 360, vol. 12), that dates to 421.37 However, another translation of the
Larger sutra, the Qingjing pingdengjue jing 清淨平等覺經 (T 361, vol. 12), is quoted
twice in the same fascicle.38 It is unclear why Huaigan breaks from his preferred
translation on these occasions.
The third and fourth most cited texts enjoyed immense popularlity throughout
classical Chinese Buddhism, and are still popular today as well. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa
is third on the list, mentioned a total of twenty-five times, while the Lotus Sutra is fourth
and is mentioned nineteen times. The Vimalakīrti is quoted quite often, demonstrating
its broad appeal and popularity within the medieval Buddhist milieu. Huaigan draws
from the first and last chapters of the sutra, in which the Buddha explains the nature of
buddha-lands, and seeing Akṣobyha Buddha’s pure land. Huaigan consistently uses
Kumarajiva’s translation of the text, even though other translations, including
Xuanzang’s, were available to him.39 The Lotus Sutra is used in a number of ways. In
many instances Huaigan’s imaginary opponent quotes it for support of his postion, but
Huaigan uses it occasionally as well.
In addition, Huaigan mentions or quotes the Chengzan jingtu 稱讚淨土 (T 367,
vol. 12) seventeen times and the Huayan Sutra (T 279, vol. 10) fourteen times. These
37The translation is attributed to Saṃghavarman, though actually translated by Buddhabhadra and

Baoyun. See Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 7.
38T 1960, vol. 47, 40a20; 42b21. The translation dates to ca. 258, and is traditionally attributed to
Lokakṣema, though it may have been translated by Boyan or Dharmarakṣa.
39These references will be discussed more below. For more, see Kansai Kaneko, “Gungiron to
Yuimakyō,” in Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究)
48.1 (1999): 183-189.
146
are interesting selections that may hint at Huaigan’s goal for the Qunyi lun, and perhaps
even who he was specifically targeting as an audience. The Chengzan jingtu is
Xuanzang’s translation of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyuha Sutra, done in 650. Unlike the
Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Huaigan prefers Xuanzang’s translation of the Smaller sutra over
Kumarajiva’s translation, though he does draw from both translations. Kumarajiva’s
translation, the Foshuo Amituo jing 佛說阿彌陀經 (T 366, vol. 12), is referenced thirteen
times, just four less than Xuanzang’s translation. When the textual references to both
translations are combined, the Smaller sutra overtakes the Larger as the second-most
mentioned text.
Huaigan’s use of Chengzan jingtu demonstrates the relative efficiency with which
new texts were circulated in Chang’an, and eventually, throughout East Asia. The
Chengzan jingtu had been released less than fifty years before Huaigan wrote the
Qunyi lun. If one subscribes to the theory that Huaigan was a pupil of Xuanzang, then it
is easy to see why he would prefer the Chengzan jingtu to the Amituo jing; however, it
does not explain his consistent usage of Kumarajiva’s translation of the Vimalakīrti,
while Xuanzang’s translation of the text—also completed in 650—does not appear even
once.
Huaigan’s frequent use of the Huayan Sutra is also notable. Whalen Lai has
noted that, beginning with the Tang era, the Huayan Sutra was chanted by groups of
people seeking merit, though it may have begun earlier.40 This practice might hold some
appeal to aspirants of the Pure Land. However, Huaigan uses the philosophy from the
40Whalen Lai, “Legends of Births and the Pure Land Tradition in China,” in The Pure Land Tradition:
History and Development, James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, eds. (Berkeley:
Regents of the University of California Press, 1996): 173-232; 196.
147
Huayan Sutra—often paraphrasing rather than quoting—to legitimize Pure Land
concepts through the use of various Buddhist doctrines. Fazang 法藏 (643-712), who is
often recognized as the de facto founder of the Huayan school, was a contemporary of
Huaigan. Intriguingly, Fazang studied under Xuanzang for a short time, until the former
disagreed with the latter’s views on the buddha-nature.41 Perhaps due to the growing
popularity of Huayan doctrine, Huaigan chose to reference the Huayan Sutra in the
Qunyi lun in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of Pure Land belief.
As indicated throughout this section, the Qunyi lun is a complex text. Its length
and comprehensiveness is unparalleled when compared to similar Pure Land apologetic
texts. Moreover, it is among the first of its kind, and likely the only text authored by a
figure situated within the Pure Land tradition. It is clear that Pure Land beliefs and
practice were popular enough that Chinese Buddhist schools felt compelled to respond,
either through skepticism or appropriation. This was often conducted through the
creation of texts attributed to their founding figures (e.g., Zhiyi and Kuiji). The Qunyi lun
was a significant part of the general popularity of Pure Land in East Asia, and was a key
source for later commentaries both within and outside of the Pure Land tradition.
In preparation for the textual analysis in the following section, the most common
references from the Qunyi lun have been identified. While it is no surprise that Huaigan
relied on Pure Land texts and other seminal Buddhist texts, these references
demonstrate Huaigan’s knowledge of the tradition as a whole, and his willingness to
blend disparate doctrines to produce a greater understanding of Pure Land belief.
148
Major Themes in the Qunyi lun
This section features a survey of the main themes discussed in the text. The major
discussion topics that Huaigan features throughout the text are discussed in the order in
which they appear in the Qunyi lun. I presume that Huaigan ordered the text in such a
way as to begin with the most important foundational issues, though that is not always
clear. However, we cannot be certain exactly when the content Qunyi lun was finally
standardized, given Meng Xian’s involvement with the text. At any rate, the arrangement
of the text is mostly logical, as it begins with the nature of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī,
before discussing which beings are eligible for rebirth in the Pure Land. Huaigan then
comments on popular teachings of his day, which he considers heretical; an
examination of these sections are reserved for Chapter 5. The Qunyi lun ends with a
discussion aimed at straightening out the varied confusions over Pure Land practice.
The Bodies of the Buddha and Their Corresponding Lands
As noted above, the very first question in the text is, “How many bodies does the
Buddha possess, and how many types of Pure Land are there?”42 The placement of this
question at the very beginning of the discussion indicates that Huaigan understands the
doctrine of the trikāya (Ch. sanshen 三身) as being fundamental to Pure Land belief. He
provides a highly detailed answer, in which he discusses each buddha-body and the
accompanying land individually.
Before delving into the particulars, Huaigan provides a simple answer to the
question:
Buddhas have three bodies, and there are three kinds of lands. Those
three bodies are: First, the dharmakāya (Ch. faxing shen 法性身), second
42 T 1960, vol. 47, 30c23.
149
the saṁbhogakāya (Ch. shouyong shen 受用身), third, the nirmāṇakāya
(Ch. bianhua shen 變化身). There are three kinds of land: First, the
dharma-land, second the saYṁbhoga-land, and third, the nirmāṇa-land.
The dharmakāya resides in the dharma-land, the saṁbhogakāya resides
in the saṁbhoga-land, and the nirmāṇakāya resides in the nirmāṇa-land.43
The simple answer offered by Huaigan reflects the standard understanding in Pure
Land Buddhism as well as in much of East Asian Buddhism in general. The trikāya
theory gradually developed and matured into the system which Huaigan describes in
the above excerpt. It was constantly worked and expanded. Before the final version,
there was a division created between the physical form of the Buddha (rūpakāya) and
the true form of the Tathāgata (dharmakāya).44 However, this simple distinction blurred
the lines regarding which body was still active in the world, and which represented the
true nature of awakening. Therefore, the three-body scheme developed to provide more
clarity.
Whereas much of the early two-body development originated in the Perfection of
Wisdom sutras and Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamika school, much of the three-body system
was developed in the Yogācāra system.45 The saṁbhogakāya, or the enjoyment body,
split the previous divide of the dharmakāya and the rūpakāya, and clarified the fuzzy
boundaries that complicated the two-body system. Moreover, it provided the theoretical
foundation for Amitābha and the Pure Land. Because the saṁbhogakāya was also
technically a rūpakāya, though its function and substance were dissimilar from it, the
43 Ibid., 30c24-27.
44This dichotomy appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (8,000 Verse Perfection of
Wisdom). For more on this and the basic development of the trikāya, see Paul Williams, Mahāyāna
Buddhism, 169-184.
45See the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, and Asaṅga’s commentary on it, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She
dacheng lun 攝大乘論; T 1593, vol. 31).
150
rūpakāya was renamed the nirmāṇakāya, or transformation body. Although now a
common understanding of the bodies of the Buddha, the system continued its
development in China, and will be discussed below.
As is evident in the excerpt above, another important development that
accompanied the three-body system was the idea that each body was associated with
the corresponding realms (kṣetra). Huaigan clearly identifies the importance of this
development for Pure Land belief. He chooses not to speak on the nature of the bodies
alone, instead going straight to a discussion in which the bodies are paired with their
corresponding realms. Although Huaigan does not make it clear in the text, he might be
engaging in a dialogue with his predecessors (and teacher), who have answered this
question slightly differently.46 Huaigan borrows from popular interpretations prevalent in
his time, and in doing so, produces a unique understanding of the trikāya and the
buddha-kṣetras.
Huaigan discusses each body and its corresponding land individually, beginning
with the dharmakāya. The land of the dharmakāya is the dharmadhātu (Ch. fajie 法界),
or the underlying reality of all existence. The dharmadhātu is an expression of the
dharmakāya and vice versa, because they are inextricable.47 Any discussion of the two
as distinct from one another is merely skillful means (upāya; fangbian 方便). Huaigan
borrows from the Mādhyamika notion that the dharmadhātu and the dharmakāya
represent the ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā; kong 空) of all buddha-kṣetras. Huaigan
46 A detailed analysis of the different answers in comparison with Huaigan’s answer will follow in Chapter
5.
47 T 1960, vol. 47, 31a07.
151
quotes from the Diamond Sutra and the Vimalakīrti Sutra to support his explanation of
the dharmadhātu.48 Therefore supreme enlightenment is at once a body and a realm;
however, these are merely conventional understandings for the unenlightened mind.
Out of the three bodies and the associated lands, Huaigan discusses the
saṁbhogakāya the most and the nirmāṇakāya the least. It is logical that he only briefly
discusses the realm of the nirmāṇakāya, because he believes it is only applicable to
Hīnayāna Buddhists and ordinary people (pṛthagjanas; fanfu 凡夫) who do not truly seek
rebirth in the Pure Land.49 In other words, this is not Huaigan’s intended audience so he
feels there is no reason to go into great detail about this land given that his readers are
already intimately familiar with it. The unmatched compassion of a Buddha desires to
save all beings; therefore, the Buddha is transformed into a “crude” appearance that
reflects the substantial nature of the realm of the nirmāṇakāya, or transformation land,
as well. However, this appearance is merely skillful means, meant to benefit the less
perceptive minds that have not yet progressed to a more advanced level of knowledge
and spiritual perfection. It is within the nirmāṇakāya realm that they will understand the
need to convert to Mahāyāna Buddhism.
Huaigan discusses the saṁbhogakāya in great detail because he is most
interested in the nature of Amitābha and his Pure Land. He claims that there are two
kinds of saṁbhogakāyas: the first is the personal-enjoyment body (zi shouyongshen 自
受用身) and the second is the enjoyment body for others (ta shouyoungshen 他受用身).
48Ibid., 31a03-06. Huaigan also uses a sutra in which Majusri discusses the trikāya (Dasheng
wenshushili puta zanfo fashen li 大聖文殊師利菩薩讚佛法身禮), T 1195, vol. 20.
49T 1960, vol. 47, 31a19; “ordinary people” should be taken to mean those without the knowledge of the
Buddha’s teachings (i.e., Non-Buddhists).
152
Each of the bodies appear in their corresponding lands. The Qunyi lun is the first Pure
Land text that asserts this division of the saṁbhogakāya. However, it is not the first
Chinese Buddhist text to make this distinction. Interestingly, it appears that Huaigan
borrowed this conception from either the Fodi jing lun 佛地經論 (T 1530, vol. 26) or the
Cheng weishi lun, both of which were translated by Xuanzang, and both of which he
references in the text.50 Some passages from the former (translated in 649) reappear in
the latter, which is a compilation of excerpts from several different texts that were
selected and translated by Xuanzang in 659.51 His successor, Kuiji, attributed many of
the excerpts to Dharmapāla (530-561), an Indian Yogācāra scholar, though that
assertion is considered problematic.52 Regardless, the Cheng weishi lun served as a
cornerstone for the Faxiang school, which was based on Xuanzang’s understanding of
Yogācāra and was systematized by Kuiji.
The realm of the personal saṁbhogakāya is the result of the vast store of pure
merit cultivated by the Buddha in the course of his pursuit of the Bodhisattva Path.
Although the five skandhas unite to produce rebirth in the Pure Land, they are
completely purified, as are the senses.53 The ultimate wisdom of the Dharma is
abundant throughout the land. The realm is a benefit of being a Buddha, yet it is also a
benefit for aspirants. Only the Buddha has the ability to perceive it in its absolute pure
form. These last two facts seem to suggest that the land of the personal enjoyment
50 T 1530, vol.26 325c08ff., and T 1585, vol. 31, 57a2-58c12, respectively.

51 Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, 569-570.
52 Ibid.
53 T 1960, vol. 47, 31a12-13.
153
body may not be entirely distinct from the land of the enjoyment body for others.
Essentially, the land of the personal enjoyment body allows the Buddha to have one
foot in the dharmadhātu and one in the enjoyment land. The saṃbhoga land for others
is for those who are only at the initial stages of the Bodhisattva Path. In this land, the
illusion of duality begins to dissolve, as it has in the dharmadhātu and the personal
saṁbhoga realm. Yet, the Buddha remains here teaching and aiding the early stage
Bodhisattvas in their journey.
Before moving to the next question, Huaigan again draws from the Vimalakīrti
Sutra and the Cheng weishi lun in order to demonstrate that the nature of the enjoyment
lands is dependent upon the mind of the believer. He paraphrases the Cheng weishi
lun, stating, “In all cases, all things are not apart from the mind.”54 This statement clearly
endorses an ontology in line with cittamātra thought. Moreover, Huaigan references this
belief several times throughout the first fascicle of the text, and the same ideas are also
repeated in the second fascicle.55 Because of this inclination toward Faxiang doctrine,
some East Asian scholars have recently suggested that Huaigan was educated in the
Faxiang school before later converting to Pure Land belief, which will be debated in the
Chapter 6.56
54 Ibid., 31a26.
55For example: T 1960, vol. 47, 31a26; 31b11; 32b02; 32b04; 34c11-12 in the first fascicle. The second
fascicle contains fewer references: T 1960, vol. 47, 37c20; 37c24-25.
56See Ming-wood Liu, The Pure Land Thought of Huaigan 懷感的淨土思想 (Taipei: Taiwan Commercial
Press, 2003); Hojon, “Huai-kan’s View on the Pure Land”; Takafumi Chiba, “Kaikan ni okeru Zendō,”
Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究) 43.2 (1996):
739-741.
154
The Nature of Sukhāvatī
The preceding section only discusses the very first question presented in the
Qunyi lun, which features Huaigan’s interpretation of the trikāya doctrine and the
corresponding lands. While answering this question, at no point does he address the
nature of Amitābha or Sukhāvatī. It is not until the second question that Huaigan
discusses Sukhāvatī specifically, and he continues to do so for the remainder of the first
fascicle. This section will examine Huaigan’s interpretation of the nature of the
Sukhāvatī, Amitābha’s Western Pure Land.
The second question in the text draws from Huaigan’s previously explained
interpretation of the trikāya doctrine and its corresponding lands, and applies it
specifically to Sukhāvatī. It asks, “As to Sukhāvatī, within it there are three kinds of
lands. How are these [lands] included [in Sukhāvatī]?”57 Huaigan explains that there are
three interpretations to this question. First, Sukhāvatī can be understood as an
enjoyment land for others. Within this land are many beings near enlightenment, and no
one is suffering any hardship, as only happiness exists.58 Second, some understand
Sukhāvatī as a transformation land. Huaigan points to the Guan jing, which says that all
living things—even ordinary people (fanfu)—can be reborn in the Pure Land.59
Therefore, Sukhāvatī must also be a transformation land. The third interpretation
suggests that they are one and the same place. Reaching back to the cittamātra view,
57 T 1960, vol. 47, 31a29-01.

58 Ibid., 31b04.
59 Huaigan paraphrases the Guan jing in this statement. T 1960, vol. 47, 31b09.
155
Huaigan explains that, “[Sukhāvatī ] only appears different to each person according to
their own mind.”60 Ultimately, the land is the same.
This is an interesting discussion, and very typical of Huaigan in that he provides
multiple interpretations to a problem or a perceived misunderstanding. Very rarely does
he explicitly state his preference among the various interpretations, though it is
sometimes possible to read between the lines. Huaigan rarely inserts his opinion
because he is demonstrating how Pure Land belief can fit within various popular
doctrines of his day. Constantly asserting his personal beliefs would interfere with that
goal and make it too polemical. Rather, it is evident that Huaigan is seeking to respond
to the many critiques from monastics who were suspicious of Pure Land belief. Instead
of arguing for the supremacy of his own individual beliefs, Huaigan integrates these
opposing ideologies into Pure Land orthodoxy or vice versa. In other words, he
demonstrates that Pure Land beliefs and practices are not sectarian, and are therefore
available and beneficial for all kinds of Buddhists.
The debate about the nature of the Pure Land continues with the next question,
in which the interlocutor requests clarification on Huaigan’s previous claim about the
nature of Sukhāvatī. The imaginary opponent is unsure how the Pure Land can be a
public enjoyment land if ordinary people are reborn there, or how it functions as a
transformation land when there are advanced bodhisattvas reborn in Sukhāvatī as
well.61 In Huaigan’s response, he seems to prioritize an understanding of Sukhāvatī as
an enjoyment land for others:
60 T 1960, vol. 47, 31b11.

61 Ibid., 31b13-14.
156
Those on the preliminary stages of the Bodhisattva Path, the śrāvakas
(Ch. shengwen 聲聞), and the ordinary people have not yet discovered
the universal Buddha-nature. They have not yet severed themselves from
the two erroneous attachments of the reality of the ego and the dharmas.
The knowledge within their minds is crude and inferior; thus, the
transformation land cannot be the same as the enjoyment land subtly
perceived by the more advanced bodhisattvas. Therefore, [those less
advanced] should rely on Amitābha’s extraordinary original vows as a
powerful catalyst… Just the same as the more advanced bodhisattvas,
those who perceive the transformation land are able to rely upon the
power of the original vows, and will obtain the vision of the subtle and pure
adornments. Therefore, this is understood as rebirth in a public enjoyment
land.62
Regardless of the distinction, Huaigan argues that rebirth in Sukhāvatī should ultimately
be understood as rebirth in a public enjoyment land. He goes on to assert that the
distinction is a result of human “eyes of flesh” (rouyan 肉眼), which can only perceive
the desire realm, and not the form realm.63 It is only upon the ability to separate from the
desire realm, through relying on the power of Amitābha’s vows, that one reborn in the
lower grades is able to perceive the enjoyment land for others. Thus, whereas some
might declare this to constitute a conflict within the scriptures, Huaigan accounts for
these seeming disparities by underscoring the skillful means of the Buddha and the
different levels of spiritual progress of those reborn in the Pure Land.
The Purity and the Location of the Pure Land
Another important discussion about the nature of Sukhāvatī follows later in the
text. Huaigan’s opponent asks, “Sukhāvatī permits the rebirth of ordinary people who do
not yet know [the Dharma]. For this reason, is there or is there not āsrava (youlou 有漏)
62 Ibid., 31b15-21.
63 Ibid., 31b25.
157
in the land?”64 Āsrava, or distress, is used interchangeably with kleśa (fannao 煩惱), or
delusion, throughout the Qunyi lun. In other words, the questioner is asking how
Sukhāvatī can be considered a Pure Land when impure and flawed beings are reborn
there? Huaigan responds, again pointing to the spiritual attainments of the reborn to
explain the contradiction:
The one who transforms the land is the Tathāgata. As the mind of the
Buddha is undefiled, so is his land. The minds of ordinary people have not
yet obtained the freedom from delusion. Accordingly, [although] the
superior land of the Tathāgata is without delusion, their minds perceive it
as a land with delusion. This is the land in which they are reborn. If united
to the nature of the Tathāgata, they certainly obtain rebirth in the undefiled
land. But, when united to the nature of those whose minds transform the
land of the saṁbhogakāya, it is as if they are reborn in a land with
delusion. Although this land appears to have delusion, it is reliant upon the
Tathāgata’s land free of delusion, which it resembles. Therefore, no evil or
anxiety exists there.65
At a basic level, the nature of Sukhāvatī never changes, and it is always completely
pure. Those who say otherwise are simply deluded by their own perception. However,
despite this limitation, the land is still ultimately perfect for them, thanks to the power of
Amitābha’s vows.
Huaigan later clarifies this claim in order to combat his opponent’s insistence that
some part of Sukhāvatī must be impure, given that Vairocana Buddha’s Lotus World
has unclean lands.66 He again indicates that there are multiples ways to understand
purity and impurity in the Pure Land. The first is as he described above, namely
Sukhāvatī is only pure and unaffiliated with unclean lands. Because impurity and purity
64 Ibid., 32a27-28.
65 Ibid., 32a29-32b06.
66 Ibid., 34b10.
158
are incompatible, any impurity is dissolved upon entering the purity of Sukhāvatī.67
Huaigan indicates that this is the teaching that Mahāyāna scriptures make clear, but
that the śravakas (Hīnayāna) are not able to understand.68 Therefore, they cannot
understand that there are pure and impure lands in the same location; it is only the
deluded mind that perceives otherwise.
Huaigan makes it clear that he prefers the understanding explained in the
Mahāyāna scriptures. Drawing from the Vimalakīrti, Huaigan explains that all the
Buddha would need to do is touch his finger to the earth, and everyone would see that
the purity of his land is abundant.69 Huaigan continually points to the deluded mind as
the only reason for one perceiving impurity within the Pure Land. The mind is powerful
enough to imagine that Mt. Sumeru could be contained within a mustard seed, or that a
vast ocean could exist within a single pore.70 Therefore, it is certainly powerful enough,
through its own delusion, to perceive a Pure Land as if it were impure.
In relation to the idea of delusion in the Pure Land, another question is presented
regarding whether or not Sukhāvatī belongs within the three realms (tridhātu; Ch. sanjie
三界). Seemingly, the presence of delusion would indicate that the Pure Land is within
the three realms, but Huaigan explains that is not the case. The three realms account
for the most of the Buddhist universe, and they consist of the desire realm (kāmadhātu;
67 Ibid., 34b15-16.
68 Ibid., 34b21.
69 Ibid., 34c14-15.
70 Ibid., 35a13.
159
Ch. yujie 慾界), the form realm (rūpadhātu; Ch. sejie 色界), and the formless realm
(arūpadhātu; Ch. wusejie 無色界).
Huaigan borrows an explanation that accounts for the delusion that is inherent
within some beings reborn in the Pure Land, and thus, the Pure Land itself. Relying on
the Da zhidu lun to clarify his position, he writes:
The Pure Land is not of the three realms. There is no desire, therefore it is
not of the desire realms. The land exists, and therefore it is not of the form
realms. The land has form, so therefore it is not of the formless realms.71
Despite this demonstrably clear statement, Huaigan feels it necessary to modify it while
still maintaining the premise that Sukhāvatī is not part of the three realms. He explains
that though some beings reborn in the Pure Land still suffer from delusion, they do not
spread it and taint the land itself. He makes an interesting analogy to explain why the
delusion does not spread to the land: “[It would be as if] meditating on the sun’s disc
injured the eye; therefore, it is not the three realms.”72 In other words, although
phenomena may appear a certain way to the mind, that subjective appearance does not
affect the actual object.
The next question is about how karma operates in the Pure Land, “Karma must
be a part of this realm. It is karma that causes the reward [i.e., rebirth]. Therefore,
[Sukhāvatī ] must be within the three realms since one’s karmic fruit is taken into
account.”73 Huaigan explains that the karma of the desire and form realms does not
71T 1960, vol. 47, 33a09-a11. As normal, Huaigan is paraphrasing here (T 1509, vol.25, 340a18-19).
Additionally, Daochuo used a similarly worded excerpt in his discussions on Sukhāvatī, which will be
discussed in Chapter 5.
72 Ibid., 33b01-02.
73 Ibid., 33c08.
160
follow one upon rebirth in the Pure Land; that karma can only affect a body reborn
within the three realms. However, they do obtain the “karma of the Pure Land.”74 In fact,
karma from those realms alone would not be enough to be reborn in Amitābha’s Pure
Land. Instead, it is the power of Amitābha’s vows that facilitates one’s rebirth in
Sukhāvatī.75 Throughout the Qunyi lun Huaigan makes it clear that Amitābha’s vows are
the vehicle through which one achieves rebirth in Sukhāvatī.
The lack of the five gati (wuqu 五趣), or destinations of rebirth, in the Pure Land
also demonstrates that Sukhāvatī is not within the three realms. Huaigan argues that
rebirth in Sukhāvatī does not match any of the five gati (god, human, animal, ghost, or
hell-dweller), so it should not be considered to be located within saṃsāra. The lotus
birth in Sukhāvatī, which is a transformative birth (huasheng 化生), cannot be
considered to belong to one of the five gati. All born within the three realms experience
the four modes of rebirth (sisheng 四生) to a specific destination (gati). Because this is
not applicable to rebirth in the Pure Land, it must not belong to the three realms.76
The conversation continues with Huaigan’s imagined opponent again questioning
the purity of Sukhāvatī, given that tainted, ordinary beings are reborn there. Huaigan
introduces a classification of different kinds of purity, in order to aid his explanation:
74 Ibid., 33c15. It is frustrating that Huaigan does not discuss exactly what he means by the statement,
“but acquire the label of the karma of the Pure Land (但得名為淨土之業).” He is continually demonstrating
in his explanation that the karma from other realms is in no way applicable in Sukhāvatī. Thus, even if the
karma did carry over into the Pure Land, it would be unable to perceive its new conditions (33c19).
However, the Pure Land karma must be somehow related to the karma of the other realms, because it is
a major factor in determining how long one must wait before getting birthed in the Pure Land. Huaigan
begins this discussion in the second fascicle while explaning antarābhava (40c23 ff), which will be
discussed further below.
75 Ibid., 33c20.
76 Ibid., 33a17 ff.
161
There are many kinds of purity: truly real purity (zhenshi jing 真實淨),
semblance purity (xiangsi jing 相似淨), supreme purity (jiujing jing 究竟淨),
and non-supreme purity (feijiujing jing 非究竟淨). Those with truly real
purity do not have delusion that taints their good mind. Those with
semblance purity do have delusion in their good mind. Those with
supreme purity are all revered Buddhas. Those with non-supreme purity
have not completed the Ten Stages [of bodhisattva development], and
have already returned as ordinary beings (fanfu). [Moreover] there are
pure bodies with unclean appearances (tijing xianghui 體淨相穢), unclean
bodies with pure appearances (tihui xiangjing 體穢相淨), pure bodies and
appearances (tixiang jujing 體相俱淨), and unclean bodies and
appearances (tixiang juhui 體相俱穢). Those who have pure bodies with
dirty appearances are Buddhas with minds free from delusion and pure of
illusion. Therefore, they also see the land pure of illusion. Likewise, those
with pure bodies and unclean appearances see the land as impure.77
Once again, Huaigan explains that each of these groups of beings sees the Pure Land
according to their spiritual and mental capacity to perceive purity. As their minds
experience “mental changes” (shibian 識變) that make them purer, the appearance of
the Pure Land begins to transform as well.78 Huaigan must see this as a gradual
process because he lists ten types of minds found within the beings in the Pure Land.79
Huaigan frequently points to a plurality of lands, minds, appearances, classes, etc. to
demonstrate, essentially, that the Pure Land, through the tremendous power of
Amitābha’s vows, welcomes all beings. Put simply, “There is not one method.”80 That is
the simplest and truest quote from the Qunyi lun. It was clearly of great importance to
Huaigan that he demonstrated the flexibility and complexity of this deceptively simple
77 Ibid., 33c28-34a05.
78 Ibid., 34a10.
79 Ibid., 34a21-24.
80 Ibid., 34a21.
162
idea. Moreover, despite the many methods, they do not interfere with each other.81 In
this section, the multiplicity with which one can understand Amitābha’s Pure Land is
apparent, but the analysis of the Qunyi lun is far from complete.
Before moving to the next section, it is necessary to consider one more topic. It is
now obvious that, though Huaigan has discussed the nature of Sukhāvatī and the
trikāya theory, there has been little discussion about Amitābha himself. In actuality,
Amitābha’s vows are discussed more than Amitābha. It is puzzling why there are no
direct questions that explore the nature of Amitābha’s existence. Perhaps it was
because Huaigan himself was uncertain, or more likely that he thought the answer was
too obvious—Amitābha is a saṁbhogakāya Buddha. Indeed, that was the conclusion of
the Pure Land masters before him.82 However, Huaigan introduced a two-fold division of
the saṁbhogakāya that was not present in the writings of earlier masters. The emphasis
on the power of Amitābha’s vows, and the insistence that people rely on them would
indicate that Huaigan conceives Amitābha as an enjoyment body for the sake of others
(ta shouyong shen). After all, Amitābha’s entire goal is to use his vows to help deliver
others into his realm. It is just as likely that Huaigan chooses not to discuss specifics
regarding the nature of Amitābha’s body and existence because he believes that
Amitābha, like all Buddhas, has been, will be, or is all the three bodies.83 Therefore, the
question of his specific body in the Pure Land is not one of great importance.
Furthermore, the power of the Buddha is infinite and ineffable, so to assign a single
81 Ibid., 34b05.
82 Daochuo and Shandao both wrote that Amitābha was a saṁbhogakāya.
83 Liu, The Pure Land Thought of Huaigan, 35.
163
identity or body to him would not be relevant. Huaigan frequently asserts that the
Buddha is whomever he needs to be to help someone in that moment.84 He may appear
in different forms to different individuals, but ultimately, the Buddha has the same
essence, no matter the form.
The Inhabitants of Sukhāvatī
The debate regarding the purity of the Pure Land in relation to the impurity of
some deluded inhabitants pivots the conversation from discussing the nature of Pure
Land to the people who are reborn there. This is a much simpler issue for Huaigan,
because he frequently asserts that Sukhāvatī is available to all who truly believe in the
power of Amitābha’s vows. However, that does not mean that there is one universal
method to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land. Huaigan strongly advocates different
practices in different circumstances, depending on the capacity and goal of the
practitioner. For Huaigan, Amitābha’s forty-eight vows are the foundation for the Pure
Land, and for Pure Land belief in general; therefore, to limit their applicability—by
restricting certain groups of people from rebirth in Sukhāvatī—would also weaken their
efficacy while perhaps harming the appeal of Pure Land practice among the laity.
Throughout the Qunyi lun, Huaigan’s opponent references other texts which claim that
one must reach a certain stage before assuring rebirth in the Pure Land, but Huaigan,
without exception, always points back to the power of the vows to potentially deliver
anyone who has the right faith.85
84 For example, see T 1960, vol. 47, 31c18-20.

85For example, see T 1960, vol. 47, 38c02-27 in which the opponent relies on Asaṅga’s
Yogācāryabhūmi-śāstra that claims one must reach the third stage of the bodhisattva path in order to be
reborn in the Pure Land. Huaigan asserts outright that one must not rely on the Yogācāryabhūmi-śāstra
alone, since other scriptures indicate otherwise (38c20 ff). This is a fundamental text for Faxiang, so it is
notable that Huaigan refutes its claims in this answer. He points to another important Yogācāra text, the
164
Although rebirth is available to anyone who has faith in Amitābha and the power
of his vows, it does not mean that they will be reborn in Sukhāvatī in their current form,
including their gender. The Sukhāvatī sutras indicate that there are no women in the
Pure Land, and this claim was somewhat controversial even in medieval China.
Numerous Chinese Pure Land masters discussed the issue, and the debate continues
today, in Japan as well as the Western academy.86 As the interpretations of the
Sukhāvatī sutras migrated from India and Central Asia into East Asia, it appears that
misogynistic attitudes toward women in the Pure Land decreased. However, although
the notion that there are no women in the Pure Land clearly bothered some Chinese
masters, including Huaigan, they were not willing to disagree with the scripture
outright.87 In Amitābha’s thirty-fifth vow he states,
May I not gain possession of perfect awakening if, once I have attained
Buddhahood, any women in the measureless, inconceivable world
systems of all the Buddhas in the ten regions of the universe, hears my
name in this life and single-mindedly, with joy, with confidence and
gladness resolves to attain awakening, and despises her female body,
and still, when her present life comes to an end, she is again reborn as a
woman.88
In other words, women will be reborn in the Pure Land, but only after being transformed
into during rebirth. Although this misogynistic view was mitigated in China, it was never
Avataṃsaka-sūtra, which claims the initial resolve to seek enlightenment in the Pure Land through the
vows of Amitābha as all that is necessary for rebirth (38c25).
86For the most recent discussion on this popular topic, see Yue Xiao, “『大阿弥陀経』の本願文における
「女人」と「淫之心」: 本願文の成立を中心に” [Women in the Pure Land: On the Formation of the
Second and the Eleventh Vows in the Da amituo jing], in Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究
61.2 (2013): 990-987.
87Hōnen was the first to break with the scriptures and claim that women, in their gendered form, may be
reborn in Sukhāvatī. This is discussed more in Kasahara Kazuo’s Nyonin ōjō shisō no keifu (Tokyo:
Yoshiakawa Kōbunkan, 1975).
88 Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 170.
165
fully abolished. Instead, the Chinese would often describe how everyone, not just
women, should despise their currently flawed forms, and aspire for a purified rebirth in
Sukhāvatī. Nevertheless, the exclusion still applied to women specifically, who had no
access to the Pure Land in their gendered bodies.
Huaigan addresses the topic of women in the Pure Land in only two questions.
The first question is the most direct, while the second question is less relevant.89 The
first question ponders why it is that if the Pure Land does not have the three evil
rebirths, and if it even has birds that sing the dharma, why would it not have women?90
Clearly, this is an odd pairing, but perhaps it is constructed to illustrate the seeming
absurdity that there are no women in Sukhāvatī. This interpretation seems likely
because Huaigan seems unhappy with the scriptures in his response. Referencing the
Jingtu lun written by Jiacai (c. 620-680), who studied under Daochuo, Huaigan notes
that, indeed, women are not reborn in the Pure Land, but then states, “This is difficult to
say [why].”91
Huaigan, as he often does, provides another interpretation, according to which
there are women in the Pure Land. Given the weakness of the arguments, it is evident
that Huaigan was uncertatin how to handle this situation. To demonstrate this he notes
that Guanyin, an attendant bodhisattva to Amitābha in Sukhāvatī, transforms into a
woman. Since this is true, how can it be that there are no women in the Pure Land?
89 The second question appears in T 1960, vol. 47, 63c01-07. Essentially, the question ponders how
various bodhisattvas have mothers if there are no women in the Pure Land. Huaigan points back to the
first answer (discussed above), while incorporating it into different perspectives about the trikāya.
90 T 1960, vol. 47, 58c17-18.
91 Ibid., 58c19-22.
166
Moreover, scripture indicates that Amitābha has a father and mother.92 Thus, he notes
that there are two understandings: an “inferior” one in which women do appear, and a
“superior” one in which there are no women.93 Because of the necessity of upāya in
explaining the first, “inferior” understanding, these two interpretations do not contradict
each other, at least in his opinion. It is clear that, like Shandao, Huaigan was not
comfortable with the idea that women were so inferior that they had no place in
Sukhāvatī. Moreover, he never states that women are at a disadvantage and need to
execute extra or special practices as a result. Unlike the particularly depraved beings
who must conduct special practices in order to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land,
Huaigan never recommends any special practices exclusively for women.
Throughout the Qunyi lun, Huaigan provides some clues for what life is like in the
Pure Land. He reminds his audience many times that Sukhāvatī is not Nirvana, which is
the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice. Implied with this assertion is that just as beings
are reborn into a lotus womb in the Pure Land, they may pass on from the Pure Land as
well. However, this passing on is not a reference to death, but ultimate enlightenment.
Death in Sukhāvatī is moot, because no one dies. As discussed in Chapter 1, Amitāyus
is used interchangeably with Amitābha, and the former translates as “infinite life.” This
characterization is also an important part of the vows in the Larger Sutra. The thirteenth
of Dharmākara’s forty-eight vows states:
92 Ibid., 58c28. Huaigan points to the Guyinsheng wang jing 鼓音聲王經 (T 370, vol. 12) as proof for this
claim. The text does indeed mention Amitābha’s father and mother: T 370, vol. 12, 352b24-25.
93 T 1960, vol. 47, 58c28-29.
167
Buddhahood, my life span has a limit, even a limit of hundreds of
thousands of millions of trillions of cosmic ages.94
Therefore, we know that, since Dharmākara achieved Buddhahood and became
Amitābha, his lifespan must be without end. However, Dharmākara is not satisfied with
his own immortality, because he vows the same for his followers, as stated in his
fifteenth vow:
Buddhahood, the life span of any human or god in my land has a limit—
except for those who by virtue of the vows they have taken in past times
have developed the power to shorten their life span.95
A life without limit means that one reborn in Sukhāvatī does not have to die, unless one
choose to have a shorter life. As evinced above, Amitābha even makes a provision for
that desire. However, death, if possible, in Sukhāvatī is not discussed by Huaigan, or in
any Pure Land text. Certainly one living a pleasurable life in the Pure Land would not
choose to die when so close to full Buddhahood. Upon reaching that goal, however,
death can be (and has been) viewed as expedient means for an enlightened being
whose true form is the eternal dharmakāya, and therefore can not really die.
Throughout the text, Huaigan equivocates about the immortality of the beings in
Sukhāvatī. At no point does he ever doubt that having a very long lifespan is a benefit of
being reborn in the Pure Land. In fact, he states this repeatedly. However, he does go
back and forth on the terms he uses to describe this life. Most of the time he chooses to
emphasize that the lifespan is very long (shouming changyuang 壽命長遠), but only
94 Trans. from Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 167.

95 Ibid.
168
rarely does he actually state that it is eternal, or that one is immortal (wuliangshou 無量
壽), which he mainly reserves when discussing Amitābha.96 After all, for Huaigan, this
was not the ultimate goal for one who aspires to be reborn in Sukhāvatī—just an added
bonus. Huaigan often only emphasizes the eternality of lifespan in the Pure Land when
he is comparing it with Tuṣita, Maitreya’s heavenly abode. In these comparisons, he
often notes that the lifespan is “limitless innumerable kalpas” (wuliangshou asengqijie 無
量阿僧祇劫).97 Thus, when discussing the merits of Sukhāvatī, Huaigan seemingly
downplays the additional rewards, yet, he makes certain to emphasize them in
comparison to other paradisiacal alternatives, presumably in order to highlight the
superiority of the Pure Land.
Another important feature of existence in the Pure Land is that rebirth there
guarantees that one will never regress (butui) to a lower birth, or have a decreased
understanding of the dharma. Huaigan extensively discusses this reward for rebirth in
Sukhāvatī. Huaigan explains that there are four types of avaivartika, or non-regression:
non-regression of faith (butui xin 不退信), non-regression from the position that is
attained (butui wei 不退位), non-regression from the realization that is acquired (butui
zheng 不退證), and non-regression of proper practice (butui xing 不退行).98
96It is not uncommon for Huaigan’s opponent to discuss immortal life as a benefit, but, in his responses,
Huaigan prefers to call it a “greatly protracted lifespan.” For example of this, see the question at T 1960,
vol. 47, 43a03, and Huaigan’s response at 43a10.
97 T 1960, vol. 47, 53a15.
98 Ibid., 55b19-20 ff.
169
Interestingly, this is in accordance with the four types of non-regressing advocated by
the Faxiang school.
The centrality of faith in Amitābha’s vows is clear in Huaigan’s teachings. The
vows are the vehicle that transports devotees to Sukhāvatī and faith in the vows is the
key that starts the vehicle. However, it is intriguing that Huaigan substitutes non-
regression of faith for non-regression of (right) thought (butui nian 不退念), given the
significance of nianfo in his own philosophy. He also substitutes non-regression of proof
acquired for non-regression of place (butui chu 不退處). The need for realization recalls
the biographies of Huaigan in which he obtains proof of Amitābha and the efficacy of
nianfo after he experiences samādhi and has a vision of Amitābha. Huaigan certainly
views Sukhāvatī as a place of non-regression because Amitābha’s vows guarantee
enlightenment and long life, so perhaps he thought it unnecessary to include it, in
addition to preferring the four non-regression scheme of the Faxiang school.
As discussed above, karma accrued in saṃsāra does not exist in Sukhāvatī.
Since the Pure Land is not part of the three realms, the karma of those realms does not
transfer into the Pure Land. However, that does not mean it does not have any
influence, as will be illustrated below. Thus, there is still some influence that carries over
from past lives. Included in this is the experience of bitterness or suffering (ku 苦), for
those with impure and deluded minds (youlou), which was also mentioned above.
However, it is this sense of bitterness that allows those in the Pure Land to truly
comprehend their accomplishment and sense of place. Huaigan spends a good portion
of the sixth fascicle discussing the presence of bitterness in the Pure Land. Once more,
he provides options based on the differing perceptions of those reborn in Sukhāvatī. He
170
uses the Nirvana sutras and the Vimalakīrti as evidence that the Buddhas are without
any kind of bitterness. However, those with deluded minds still experience the three
kinds of suffering and the eight distresses, though this does not last as the body and
mind are transformed over time.99
Moreover, even though suffering and distress exists in their minds, they are not
afflicted with the totality of those distresses; only the bitterness associated with
codependent action (xingku 行苦) and the five skandhas (wuyun 五蘊) linger in the Pure
Land for those with deluded minds.100 Nevertheless, the extreme happiness that
permeates Sukhāvatī ensures that Pure Land inhabitants remain positive on their path
toward Nirvana. The notion of non-regression is also important because, although
reaching enlightenment is done quickly in relation to other methods, Huaigan still
emphasizes that it will happen gradually. This is also the approach he advises for this
world. According to him, “The evil ways gradually diminish, while the righteous ways
gradually become more abundant. One is thereupon able to enter the holy path with a
body that is eternally extinguished.”101
The Process of Rebirth in Sukhāvatī
Huaigan spends a great deal of time explicating the process of rebirth in the Pure
Land. It is clear that there were many questions and criticisms directed toward Pure
Land explanations of this process. Huaigan addresses these critiques, and
99Ibid., 64c15-64c21; 65a06 ff. The three kinds of suffering are kuku 苦苦, the painfulness of pain; huaiku
壞苦, suffering from decay and loss; and xingku 行苦, suffering of conditionality. The eight distresses
include birth, aging, illness, death, removal, hatred, unmet goals, and the five skandhas.
100 Ibid., 65a07 for xingku; 65a03 for wuyun.
101 Ibid., 73a14-15.
171
demonstrates that the process of rebirth begins at the time of death and continues until
the time of birth from the lotus womb. Clearly, the importance and difficulty of the
transition was not to be taken for granted. Moreover, there must have been—and, to
some degree, remains—a lot of misconceptions about the process of rebirth. As
evinced in the Qunyi lun, the transition is subjective and personal. Although the
transition to the Pure Land is trying, Huaigan never questions the efficacy of the process
and the grandiosity of the final reward.
Amitābha and the Dying
The process of rebirth begins as life in this world ends. As the Larger Sutra
indicates, Amitābha vowed to greet the dying faithful and escort them to Sukhāvatī. This
belief became a hallmark of Pure Land belief and practice. As this vow was popularized
in China, it became important to document the phenomenon of Amitābha greeting the
dying. Therefore, monks would interview the dying and ask about their experiences up
until their final breath. Shandao was a main advocate and participant of this practice
and it is likely that Huaigan was as well. Daniel Stevenson has recently demonstrated
the importance of these accounts, collected in “rebirth compendia,” which helped
popularize Pure Land belief and practice.102 Judging by its inclusion in the text, it
appears that as the popularity of the nation about Amitābha’s greeting of the dead
increased, it became a target for non-Pure Land monks.
Huaigan answers these critics by again pointing to different ways of
understanding the occurrence of Amitābha greeting the dying. First, he again relies on
Daniel B. Stevenson, “Death-Bed Testimonials of the Pure Land Faithful,” in Buddhism in Practice,
102
Donald S. Lopez (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995): 592-602; and Stevenson, “Ties that Bind,”
155 ff.
172
mind-only ideology. Huaigan explains the “true reality” of this phenomenon in the
second fascicle:
In reality, there are no Buddhas from that Western Region who come to
[the dying] to offer their hands and receive them. In addition, there are no
Buddhas to draw out those reborn in the Pure Land. However, there is the
compassion of the Tathāgata. The merit of the original vow has the power
to blot out the sins of every disciple and advance them to a higher stage.
Now, everything that is reborn establishes a link through [the practice of]
nianfo, and cultivates blessing through the sixteen contemplations. All the
meritorious power [of the vows] is used for this cause. It is one’s own mind
that magically manifests Amitābha Buddha greeting and accompanying
them to the next life. It is said that the Buddha comes forth [upon death],
but this is not genuinely coming forth. However, the meritorious
ālayavijñāna alters rebirth, and it is the reason that [believers] see the
nirmāṇakāya coming to welcome them [upon death]. Therefore, it is said
that they do come forth, but, in reality, do not. This is the power and merit
of Amitābha Buddha’s great compassionate vows. 103
Like his explanation about the presence of impurity in the Pure Land, Huaigan
again points to the power of the mind to describe this process of Amitābha coming to
greet the dying. In the same way that the mind transforms Sukhāvatī from pure to
impure, it also interprets the phenomenon of Amitābha’s visitation at death. Huaigan
points specifically to the positive karmic seeds within the ālayavijñāna as an explanation
of this process. Moreover, the version of Amitābha that appears to the dying is a
nirmāṇakāya, or transformation body (huafo 化佛). This claim is interesting, especially in
relation to Huaigan’s earlier discussion of the trikāya theory. Although he never explicitly
discusses the nature of Amitābha, it is most likely that Huaigan views him as an
enjoyment body for others, which would correspond to his conception of Sukhāvatī.
However, a more nuanced interpretation of that discussion leads to the interpretation
that, because each Buddha has all three bodies, Amitābha cannot be confined to one
103 T 1960, vol. 47, 37c16-22.
173
type of body. Indeed, as indicated above, dying devotees experience a vision of a
transformed incarnation of Amitābha, demonstrating that he does not occupy any single
form. However, the context of the discussion, specifically crediting the ālayavijñāna as
the catalyst for the experience, makes Amitābha’s presence ambiguous at best.
Following this discussion, Huaigan again equivocates and balances his
theoretical explanation regarding Amitābha’s deathbed visitation with a more practical
one. There are two reasons for Huaigan to include the more traditional interpretation:
first, he is clearly concerned with possibility of undermining the power of Amitābha’s
vows. If, ultimately, the dying was fully responsible for manifesting the image of
Amitābha, it would seem to diminish Amitābha’s nineteenth vow:
Buddhahood, any among the throng of living beings in the ten regions of
the universe resolves to seek awakening, cultivates all the virtues, and
single-mindedly aspires to be reborn in my land, and if, when they
approached the moment of death, I did not appear before them,
surrounded by a great assembly.104
The vow is ambiguous enough to allow for Huaigan’s ālayavijñāna explanation of the
event. Dharmākara never explicitly states that he would travel to the dying devotees’
realm to greet them upon death; instead, he and his entourage just appear to help usher
the dying back to the Pure Land. Therefore, it is unclear whether his appearance is
actually Amitābha or simply a projection from the mind of the dying devotee. As is the
case throughout the text, Huaigan cleverly seizes upon ambiguity as an opportunity to
offer multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, he is wary of removing agency from
104 Trans. in Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 168.
174
Amitābha and, most importantly, questioning the power and efficacy of his vows. If one
vow is doubted or proven false, then the remainder are in danger as well.
Therefore, the second reason for Huaigan’s equivocation is that he is always
careful not to exclude the traditional, simpler interpretations—explanations welcomed by
lay and monastic believers—in favor of more complex ones. The heavier philosophical
interpretations were likely not necessary to those who were already engaged in Pure
Land practice. They believed in the incredible power of Amitābha and his vows, and any
threat to that power could severely cripple Pure Land belief. Huaigan is mindful to not
denigrate one interpretation in favor of another. He goes so far as to include a lengthy
discussion in which seeing Amitābha upon dying is compared with seeing spirits,
ghosts, and demons. Those who receive a vision of Amitābha have cultivated the pure
karma of the Western Region along with the appropriate purification rites.105 Those who
perceive spirits, ghosts, and demons are still afflicted with the three poisons, and are
entangled in delusion because of the sinister karma they have accumulated.106 Although
this comparison is couched in the language of the Buddhist cosmology, in the end it
breaks down into a simple dualism, in which Huaigan urges his readers to seek the
good over the evil.
This divide between the simple and complex interpretations about the reality of
Amitābha coming to escort the dying to the Pure Land speaks to the larger ontological
issue of whether the Pure Land is actually real, or if it is merely an expedient device.
Similar to how Pure Land belief and practice straddles these two ontologies, Huaigan
105 T 1960, vol. 47, 51b11

106 Ibid. 52b29 ff.
175
provides interpretations to satisfy both sides. Once these options are presented,
Huaigan expertly connects the opposing interpretations, to demonstrate that they really
are not separate or contradictory at all. He accomplishes this throughout the Qunyi lun,
and his discussion of the Amitābha’s appearance upon death serves as a great
example.
Huaigan again draws from Faxiang philosophy to bridge the two interpretations:
either Amitābha’s appearance is real or is a product of the ālayavijñāna. Huaigan points
to the process that is associated with the realization of Buddhahood, in which the
ālayavijñāna is replaced with the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (dayuan jingzhi 大圓鏡智)
as the bridge that connects the divide.107 The Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom allows the
mind to reflect phenomena totally impartially, without the construction of “self.”
Therefore, as the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom of Amitābha observes his devotees
dying, his mirror wisdom reflects back the projection of the ālayavijñāna of the dying,
and in doing so, actually creates a form (se 色) that manifests for the devotee.108
Huaigan explains that this form is a nirmāṇakāya Buddha (huafo 化佛), or an incarnate
Buddha. Therefore, because the incarnate Buddha is operating causally, it can be
considered to be real.109 This explanation links his two earlier interpretations of this
process. This is a common and effective tactic that is deployed throughout the Qunyi
107Ibid., 37c26-38a03. Huaigan abbreviates the term, using just jingszhi 鏡智 (mirror wisdom), but does
use the full name slightly later in the text (38c09). For more on the process of Great Mirror Wisdom, see
Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, 508-517.
108 Ibid., 37c28-29
109Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, 512. Lusthaus quotes from the Cheng Weishi lun (T 1585, vol.
31, 47c) to illustrate the reality of rūpa.
176
lun, which not only dispels critiques of common Pure Land belief, but also illustrates
how the more philosophical traditions support it. Furthermore, it provides a hermeneutic
to help understand the natures of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī.
Between Death and Rebirth
There were other complications related to the process of rebirth in the Pure Land.
Shortly before Huaigan’s life, the concept of an intermediate state (antarābhava; Ch.
zhongyou 中有 or zhongyin 中陰) became an issue.110 Simply stated, as Buddhism
matured, it was popularly asserted that an intermediate stage existed between death
and rebirth. Although this belief was controversial early on, it gradually gained
acceptance.111 Vasubandhu produced the most influential argument in favor of
antarābhava in his Abhidharmakośa, which became the normative model for East Asian
Buddhism.112 The presence of an intermediate state, especially given that it lasts up to
forty-nine days, would seem to contradict the ability for immediate rebirth in Sukhāvatī.
Huaigan’s imagined opponent recognizes this problem, and Huaigan spends a
significant portion of the second fascicle discussing the intermediate state in relation to
the notion of rebirth in the Pure Land.
Throughout the text Huaigan uses zhongyou and zhongyin interchangeably. In
response to the query regarding intermediate states before rebirth in the Pure Land,
110Bryan J. Cuevas, “Predecessors and Prototypes: Towards a Conceptual History of the Buddhist
Antarābhava.” Numen 43.3 (1996): 263-302, 286.
Ibid., 282. Cuevas asserts that the belief in antarābhava is likely a result of similar Upanshadic and
111
Vedic developments around the time.

112Bryan J. Cuevas, “Intermediate States,” in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Robert E. Buswell, ed.
(Farmington Hills: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004): 377-380.
177
Huaigan again provides multiple interpretations. The simplest explanation asserts that
intermediate states do not exist for those reborn in the Pure Land. Upon their death,
they immediately enter a lotus flower as if it were a womb, and it is within that womb
that the birth of the skandhas occurs to produce the reborn being.113 The second
explanation does not rule out the intermediate stages before rebirth. Just as the three
realms are different from each other, so is the Pure Land different from the three
realms. Despite their differences, they still share similarities. For instance, the Dharma
permeates all realms. Huaigan points to the origination of the skandhas as another
shared phenomenon. Remember, he argues that some impurity remains in the newly
reborn beings so that they may conceive of their reward. Traditionally, it is within these
intermediate stages that the skandhas are rejoined together. Given these points,
Huaigan arrives at the conclusion that it is just as correct to assert that there are
intermediate stages before rebirth in the Pure Land.114
Huaigan’s imagined opponent smartly responds to Huaigan’s claims by noting
the apparent redundancy of the lotus womb of the Pure Land and the intermediate
stage between death and rebirth. Huaigan responds to this criticism with a thorough
discussion noting the differences between the two. The sole function of the lotus womb
is as the “vehicle of the future rebirth.”115 In contrast, during the intermediate period, one
can end up in a high or low rebirth, either in the Pure Land or any of the other possible
places of rebirth. In other words, the period between death and rebirth is a major factor
113 T 1960, vol. 47, 40c24-25.

114 Ibid., T 1960, vol. 47. 41a04.
115 Ibid., 41a09.
178
in deciding whether one is reborn in Sukhāvatī from within a lotus or another kind of
womb in a different realm. Moreover, these differences in the method of birth prove the
reality of the intermediate period, according to Huaigan.116
The discussion about the intermediate stage is thorough. Huaigan states
repeatedly that these stages do exist for those reborn in the Pure Land. He also fields
rather strange but practical questions about the intermediate stages. For instance, his
opponent questions whether or not unsettled beings in the intermediate stages are
clothed. Despite the absence of scriptural authority on the issue, Huaigan speculates
that the beings are indeed clothed.117 Clothes are the result of inherent shame, he
argues, and since beings arrive from the form realm into the intermediate stages, this
habit continues. However, the Pure Land is beyond the three realms. Nevertheless,
Huaigan asserts that even those in the intermediate stages bound for the Pure Land are
clothed,118 which again suggests that some traces of affliction (kleśa) follow the newly
reborn all the way into the Sukhāvatī. Interestingly, Huaigan does not allude to
Amitābha’s thirty-eighth vow which indicates that special garments are provided for
those reborn in his land.119 The Larger Sutra, however, states explicitly:
[Those reborn] will obtain [the clothes] in that land, which they will obtain
exactly as they want them and when they think of them, which will clothe
their bodies miraculously, and which will be praised by the Buddha as
conforming to the norms of his teachings.120
116 Ibid., 41a18-20.

117 Ibid., 41a25-b01.
118 Ibid., 41b01.
119 Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 170.
120 Ibid.
179
Thus, it would appear that whatever clothes are worn during the intermediate period are
shed before birth in the Pure Land.
Sustenance during antarābhava must have been another common concern
during Huaigan’s time. Shortly after the clothing discussion, the opponent turns to
another necessity—food. Huaigan easily dismisses these questions, and in doing so
reveals more of his conception of the intermediate stages. He writes:
In the antarābhava of the desire realm, the causes that produce birth are
not yet complete, so there is a lot of time in that stage before receiving a
body. One must eat while waiting for a birth in a certain gati. In the
antarābhava of the Pure Land, one obtains rebirth in the moment it takes
to snap your fingers; the time there is not long. One does not hunger for
food.121
Thus, although one does require clothes in the intermediate stages, food is not
necessary. The length of time one spends between death and rebirth in the Pure Land
is so brief that food and drink are absent. This reality is distinct from those reborn in
other gatis, or existences. Bodies take longer to form for those other rebirths, and
therefore meals are necessary.122
The Nine Grades of Rebirth and the Lotus Birth
It has already been noted that Huaigan distinguished antarābhava from gestation
in the lotus womb. Although Huaigan references the lotus birth regularly throughout the
Qunyi lun, he does not discuss it in much detail until the last fascicle. Instead, he often
uses the imagery of the lotus as a motivational tool for practitioners, or as a designation
121 T 1960, vol. 47, 41b11-13.

122 Ibid., 41b12.
180
for those bound for Sukhāvatī.123 The lotus birth is one of the most captivating concepts
within the Pure Land mythos. Judging from the questions that will be discussed shortly,
it is clear that there were a lot of concerns about having to wait too long to be reborn. It
appears likely that teachers of Pure Land belief and practice used the idea of the lotus
rebirth as an expedient device to encourage the laity to practice and be moral. When
discussing the lotus birth, Huaigan often uses hua 花 (flower), hua 華 (flower), and lian
蓮 (lotus) synonymously from one sentence to the next. The interchangeability is not
unique to Huaigan, but a characteristic of many Chinese Buddhist scriptures. The lotus
birth is discussed in conjunction with the nine grades of rebirth in the Pure Land, which
are described in the Guan jing.124 Huaigan’s exposition on both of these concepts is
discussed later in this section, beginning with the nine grades which outlined the
scheme for rebirth in the lotus womb.
The Guan jing introduces the nine grades of rebirth as objects of meditation in
the final three of the sixteen visualizations used to experience the Pure Land. There are
three large divisions of those reborn in the Pure Land: high, middle, and low. Each of
the three divisions has three further subdivisions also labeled high, middle, and low,
thus resulting in the nine grades of rebirth. The Guan jing is the only sutra that mentions
the nine grades, and yet the subject became a central theme in many Pure Land
commentaries.125 These commentaries obsess over the proper ranking of the nine
123For instance, see T 1960, vol. 47, 51a17, in which Huaigan is describing the power of nianfo by
writing, “The lotus blossom has already begun to open…”
124 T 365, vol. 12, 344c9-346a26.
181
grades, basically postulating which groups of individuals belong to which grades, often
producing slight but potentially significant differences.
Given the scholarly uncertainty surrounding the origins of the Guan jing, there
are different ideas regarding the creation of the nine grades of rebirth. Julian Pas
asserts that it is one of the foremost examples of later editorial addition, as the text
migrated into China.126 Other scholars insist that textual evidence supports that the
Guan jing is entirely of Chinese origin.127 However, there is enough evidence on each
side to make both theories plausible.128 Whether or not the nine grades of rebirth was a
later addition to the text, there is definitely a focus on the nine rankings in medieval
China. Pas traces the Chinese history of jiu pin 九品—translated as nine grades or
ranks—and its historical roots to the Wei dynasty (220-264 CE). The Wei leaders
devised a system which designated the candidates into nine classes based on their
personal abilities. Pas notes the similarity of the two ranking systems—both based on
the qualities of the candidates—and suggests that this governmental system was
adopted by the Buddhists.129 This argument also lends itself to the theory that at least
some portions of the Guan jing were composed in China.
Huaigan sparingly references the nine grades of rebirth early on in the Qunyi lun,
and does not discuss them at length until the final two fascicles. He covers the jiu pin, or
nine grades, in four consecutive questions in the sixth fascicle, and tangentially

128 Fujita, Genshi jōdo shisō, 125-132.
182
discusses them again in the final question of fascicle.130 He returns to the topic in the
last fascicle with three consecutive questions regarding the relationship of the nine
grades of rebirth and the lotus birth in the Pure Land.
Whereas many of the Guan jing commentaries before and after Huaigan insisted
on providing their own unique ranking of the Nine Grades of Rebirth, Huaigan merely
relays the different ranking systems, concentrating on the opposing systems of Jingying
Huiyuan 凈影慧遠 (523-592) and Shandao. When discussing their ranking systems,
Huaigan uses the character jia 家—here most likely referring to a general division—
demonstrating that he recognized at least an informal divide between the two systems,
but it is also possible that he assigns the rankings to two separate schools.131 Huaigan
never mentions Jingying Huiyuan or Shandao by name when discussing their rankings
of the Nine Grades of Rebirth; he instead refers to them generally as shi 師, or
masters.132
Despite being a student of Shandao, Huaigan never appears to favor his
master’s ranking system over Huiyuan’s. He lists the two systems chronologically,
Huiyuan first and Shandao second. Generally, Huaigan labels the basic ranking of low,
middle, and high rebirth and their corresponding ranks as the “course” (cu 麤) division of
the nine grades, and the more detailed rankings of highest of the high, lowest of the low,
middle of the middle, etc., as the “detailed” (xi 細) divisions.133 While he states that there
130 T 1960, vol. 47, 67b01-68c05; 69c17-28

131 Ibid., 67b03.
132 Ibid. 67b15 ff.
133 Ibid. 67b02-03.
183
are only two rankings of the course divisions, there are many different teachings
regarding the detailed divisions.
Huaigan lucidly summarizes the two main rankings of the course division.
Despite discussing the two different ranking systems, Huaigan carefully chooses his
language in order to keep them from appearing contradictory. When discussing
Huiyuan’s system, Huaigan emphasizes the achievements of those reborn in a given
class; it is the achievement of non-regression (butui) that affixes a person within a
particular level. Generally, Huiyuan’s course ranking suggests that avivartins, those who
have reached a stage where they are assured of non-regression, occupy the upper
three rebirths; those who have regressed to Hīnayāna doctrine occupy the middle
rebirths; and people who are only concerned with death and rebirth and therefore
commit many sins populate the lower three rebirths.134 To contrast the two systems,
Huaigan makes a subtle shift in language when he discusses Shandao’s system. It is
not the state of non-regression, but the vow to cultivate mindfulness and action that
determines one’s rank. Therefore, those who cultivate the great bodhi mind (da puti xin
大菩提心) are reborn in the higher stages; those who cultivate the lesser Hīnayāna mind
belong to the middle stages; and those who fail to choose either vehicle or cultivate
correct actions, and instead do evil, are assigned to the lower grades. Huaigan’s
summary of these rankings is rather simplistic, which makes the two appear very
similar, and in many respects they are. In both, the higher stages belong to the true
Mahāyāna practitioners, the middle to the Hīnayāna, and the lower to those who do not
134 Ibid. 67b05-09
184
fit either of the above criteria. Kenneth Tanaka studied the two ranking systems, and
sees a similar structure of the “course” divisions.135
It is within the “detailed” divisions of the nine stages that differences become
more apparent. However, as mentioned above, Huaigan notes that there are many
differences of opinion regarding these subdivisions. He lists several of these
suggestions for the subdivisions, but unfortunately, never references who suggested
them. Huaigan uses the phrase “One master says…” ten times in his discussion of the
fine divisions: six different masters are referenced while discussing the subdivisions of
the high stages, and four masters are paraphrased in discussions about the
subdivisions of the middle stages.
Evidently there was not much significant disagreement about the subdivisions
with the lower stages because Huaigan only discusses them briefly noting no
disagreements.136 It is likely that four of the ten references to the masters allude to
Huiyuan and Shandao, one each from the high and middle subdivisions. At this point it
is unclear who he references in the other six mentions, though it is probable that Zhiyi
and Jiacai are referenced as well. Huaigan also paraphrases a number of texts
including the Huayan jing and the Renwang banruo to demonstrate that even the
scriptures disagree about the exact subdivisions.137 Huaigan’s discussion of the coarse
and detailed divisions of the nine grades confirms the scholarly assertion that the
135 Tanaka, 82-83.

136 There is more discussion of the lower stages slightly later in the text, but because the discussion is
more oriented toward nianfo practice, we will return to this later. Whereas the higher and middle stages
focuses on positive attainments to differentiate the rankings of rebirth, the lower rebirths are determined
by how much evil and sin one accrued in their previous lives.
137 T 1960, vol. 47, 67b28-c04.
185
subject was one of the most debated issues both inside and outside the Pure Land
community. Although Huaigan does not add his own unique ranking system, his
discussion is valuable because it indicates that Shandao’s and Huiyuan’s coarse
divisions were the most commonly used, and that most of the debate centered on the
detailed divisions of the rebirths.
Huaigan discusses lotus rebirth in the Pure Land through the framework of the
nine rankings of rebirth, and the dialogue that deals with this topic is one of the most
interesting parts of the text. The first question asks how there is only one kind of lotus
womb despite many different kinds of rebirths. Furthermore, do Amitābha and his holy
entourage accompany all beings (even the bad ones) who die and are destined for the
Pure Land and greet them upon the opening of the lotus?138 Huaigan offers three
explanations for this that all come down to differing perspectives. Essentially, each
explanation posits hindrances (zhangzhong 障重) that may prevent or alter the way that
some perceive the Buddha.
Playing upon the etymology of the name of Amitābha, Huaigan states that, “those
overcome with hindrances do not feel or see the Buddha, but see him as an undivided
light.”139 This idea of the bright light is an end-of-life trope that occurs throughout
multiple cultures, and it is notable to see Huaigan taking advantage of it here while tying
it into Pure Land mythology. It is very likely that he was intimately familiar with the
process of death and rebirth, given that Shandao emphasized recording the process of
death for the faithful. These “rebirth compendia” would quote the words of the dying
138 Ibid. 71b22ff.

139 Ibid. 71b26.
186
regarding what they saw and felt, and recount auspicious symbols or events that
occurred throughout the process of death and rebirth in the Western Land.140
Another interesting question asks if the allotted time one has to spend in the lotus
womb correlates with time in the present realm or if time in the Pure Land operates
differently.141 Huaigan responds that the lotus womb operates according to the time in
the Pure Land.142 He points to the existence of days and nights in other realms even if
the length of those periods is different. Therefore, people in this realm should not fixate
on the time necessary for the lotus to bloom, because we do not yet understand how
time works there. When discussing the highest of the middle ranking of rebirth, Huaigan
explains:
The scripture states that after a night [the lotus] promptly opens.
Therefore, we know those in the lotus spend one night there before it
opens, according to that region’s day and night. At night, then, the lotus is
closed, and in the daylight it opens. Thus, half a kalpa becomes a daytime
that it takes for the flower to open. The nighttime is half a kalpa when the
flower is closed but slowly begins to open. It is obvious that for the middle
of the highest rebirth, the time spent in the lotus is different. The duration
of the lotus blossoming is the time expressed in the scriptures.143
Huaigan continues to give further examples demonstrating how the conception of time
and space of in Pure Land is different than that of the current realm. The inclusion of
this dialogue indicates that there was some anxiety expressed about the incredibly long
waits—effectively inconceivable amounts of time—that some were facing upon their
140For more see Daniel Stevenson, “Pure Land Buddhist Worship and Meditation in China,” and “Death-
Bed Testimonials of the Pure Land Faithful,” both in Buddhism in Practice, ed. Donald Lopez. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007. 271-292 and 447-458, respectively.
141 Ibid. 71c04-06.
142 Instead of using “time,” Huaigan talks about using the suns and moons to count the kalpas.
143 T 1960, vol. 47, 71c25-29.
187
rebirth in the Pure Land. It then follows that people who hoped for rebirth in the Pure
Land were realistic, if not pessimistic, about which of the nine grades of rebirth they
would be facing. Huaigan ends this discussion with one last question where he states
that, eventually, even the lotus of those reborn in the lowest of the low rebirth will open.
Guanyin and Mahāstāmaprapta preach to the lowborn during their time spent in the
lotus to help them recognize and overcome their hindrances. Their speech mitigates the
Pure Land karma of those in the lowest of the nine grades.144 The tone of this
discussion points to some of the worry and fear that surrounded the notion of a lotus
birth. It was clearly a tool used to encourage the Pure Land faithful to do good and try
hard to be reborn into a high rebirth.
The Practice of Nianfo
Like his master Shandao, Huaigan advocated a number of different practices for
rebirth in Sukhāvatī, not just vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha. A reason why
both Pure Land masters advocated multiple practices is simply because those same
practices are advocated in the Pure Land sutras. Due to the multiplicity of practices
available to Pure Land devotees, it was particularly important that people chose the
appropriate course of practice to match their personal aspirations for rebirth in the Pure
Land. This seems to be a particular point of emphasis for Huaigan, as will be illustrated
later in this section. Unmistakably, the notion or practice of nianfo is a central theme in
the Qunyi lun. The idea appears 244 times throughout the text. Interestingly, Huaigan
only mentions it twice in the first fascicle, but discusses it more often as the text
progresses, ending with a remarkable ninety-one mentions of nianfo in the final fascicle.
144 Ibid. 72a20
188
However, he often qualifies nianfo, making it clear that his readers should understand
the diversity of meanings that are inherent within the concept. Huaigan made it very
clear that nianfo is the most effective practice for rebirth in the Pure Land, though, like
Shandao, he is referencing the entirety of the practices linked with it, not merely vocal
recitation.
Huaigan strongly believed that Sukhāvatī was accessible to all. When questioned
about this, Huaigan used logical argumentation to bolster his point. As discussed above,
Amitābha’s vows are the centerpiece for many of Huaigan’s explanations; they are the
vehicle through which beings receive rebirth. Additionally, Huaigan often utilized them
logically to defend his positions. For example, if Amitābha vowed that all can receive
rebirth in the Pure Land, then he must mean all people; otherwise, Amitābha would
have never become a Buddha and the Pure Land would not exist. The sutras state the
existence of Amitābha and his Pure Land, and they are true; therefore, what Amitābha
vowed to accomplish must be true.145 As will be discussed below, even when Amitābha
explicitly states exclusive provisions in his vows, Huaigan simply turns to another text in
order to again make the goal of the Pure Land inclusive to all.
However, just because Huaigan asserts that all beings can be reborn in the Pure
Land does not mean that the path to that outcome is identical for everyone. Rebirth in
the Pure Land is entirely dependent upon satisfying the necessary conditions to secure
rebirth. If a practitioner vowed to be reborn in the Pure Land, but was determined
unsuccessful because of various postmortem phenomena observed around the corpse,
145
Although never noting it explicitly, this construction is an example of conditioned arising, and
demonstrates that Huaigan conceives of the Pure Land as a conditioned existence.
189
it would become clear that some must go to extra lengths to gain rebirth in the Pure
Land. This scenario was likely a familiar one to Huaigan, given his emphasis on making
sure that believers undertake the correct practice that will be in tune with their lifestyle
and intention. Huaigan advocates nianfo practice in general, and there are many
interpretations of the loaded term. If it were simply a faith-based repetition—as
popularized in the later Japanese Pure Land tradition—one simple invocation of
Amitābha’s name would be sufficient for all. This idea is not at all representative of
Huaigan’s conception of nianfo practice. In a discussion regarding rebirth in the
devalokas, he writes:
[Beings there] indulge in the five desires and do not cultivate goodness.
The [benefits of] their nianfo practice are exhausted, causing them to fall
into the three lower realms of rebirth. Like an arrow shot aimlessly, its
force is eventually exhausted and it falls down. Those who do not believe
in the vehicle of the original vows fall into one of the evil rebirths.146
Huaigan is noting that nianfo practice without the right intent may still produce enough
merit to be reborn into one of the higher realms. However, this is but a temporary
solution to the real problem, and, eventually, the benefits of nianfo practice will wear out
and leave the practitioner in the same situation as before. Thus, nianfo practice must be
taken seriously and performed correctly. Moreover, the blessings accrued via nianfo
practice can only reach so far. His simile of the arrow is a striking revelation about
nianfo practice. It is not the ultimate salvific spell that the later tradition makes it out to
be. Nianfo is a practice that must be applied in certain ways, and according to specific
situations.
146 Ibid., 51a15-16
190
Huaigan seeks to make it clear to his readers exactly what needed to be done in
order for them to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Many of the questions deal in
hypotheticals that end with Huaigan advising specific nianfo practices for the particular
situation given. In answering these questions regarding the multiplicity and necessity of
nianfo, Huaigan acknowledges the tension that exists within the three Pure Land sutras,
which all have subtle differences in their approach to the practice that leads to rebirth.
For instance, the Smaller Sutra only advocates vowing for rebirth in the Pure Land, and
does not mention invoking the name of Amitābha even once. Rather, the name of
Amitābha is to be heard and stored in the mind. In contrast, the Larger Sutra has one
short but critical passage which seems to recommend calling out the name of Amitābha.
More importantly, the passage is taken from Amitābha’s vows, the most significant part
of the text and the tradition at large. In Dharmākara’s twentieth vow featured in the
Larger Sutra, he states:
If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten
directions who, having heard my name, concentrate their thoughts on my
land, plant roots of virtue, and sincerely transfer their merits towards my
land with a desire to be born there should not eventually fulfill their
aspiration, may I not attain perfect enlightenment.147
It is clear that hearing and concentration are key to being reborn in the Pure Land.
There would be no disparity between the two texts except for the Eighteenth Vow which
states:
If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten
directions who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to
be born in my land, and think of me even ten times should not be born
there, may I not attain perfect enlightenment. Excluded, however, are
147
Hisao Inagaki, trans. in collaboration with Harold Stewart, The Three Pure Land Sutras (Berkeley:
Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research) Revised Second Addition [Digital Edition]. 14.
191
those who commit the five grave offenses and abuse the Right Dharma.148
Now there is notable evolution, or at least a shift in emphasis, from merely hearing the
name to thinking of it “even,” or better yet, “at much as” ten times in order to assure
rebirth in the Pure Land. This vow has been mistranslated often, changing the “think of”
to “calling out” the name of Amitābha.149 The mistranslation—along with the subsequent
popularity of ideas linked to it—is likely the result of a biased reading of the sutra in
order to legitimize the centrality of vocal nianfo, as formulated in the later Japanese
Pure Land tradition.
The Guan jing, the final of the three Pure Land sutras, is the first text which calls
for the vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha. It has already been noted how
essential the Guan jing was for both Shandao and Huaigan. Nowhere is the influence of
the Guan jing clearer than in Huaigan’s discussion of nianfo. The text introduces vocal
nianfo as a “last chance” practice, available to even people who have committed the
most grievous offenses. The text notes three types of people, each increasingly evil and
headed toward a lower rebirth destination, who can only reach the Pure Land through
vocal praise of Amitābha. However, the Guan jing stipulates that this practice is only
efficacious after the evildoer has found a compassionate teacher willing to teach him the
significance and meaning of Amitābha’s vows.150 Following the Guan jing, Huaigan
148 Ibid.
149Even an earlier edition of the Hisao Inagaki translation used above states, “…desire to be born in my
land, and call my name, even ten times…” (1994 translation; 241-249). For more, see Pas 1995, 262-263.
150 T 365, vol. 12 345c12-346a20.
192
views vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha as merely one of a multitude of practices
designed to deliver believers to the Pure Land.
Furthermore, invoking the name of a powerful Buddha or Bodhisattva was not at
all unique to Pure Land practice. Although the Guan jing is the first Pure Land text to
recommend vocal invocation, it is not the first Buddhist text to do so. For example, the
twenty-fifth chapter of the Lotus Sutra, critically important to Mahāyāna Buddhism in
general, advises its readers to call out to Guanyin for help:
The Buddha said to the Bodhisattva Inexhaustible Intent: “Good man,

suppose there are immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,
millions of living beings who are undergoing various trials and suffering. If
they hear of this bodhisattva Perceiver of the World’s Sounds and single-
mindedly call his name, then at once he will perceive the sound of their
voices and they will all gain deliverance from their trials.”151
Similar to the model of the Lotus Sutra, there are plenty of texts that advocate for calling
out the name of a prescribed buddha or bodhisattva. This practice of reaching out to
enlightened beings for help likely has its roots in the early relic worship of Gautama
Buddha. In addition to the circumambulation of reliquary monuments, it is logical that
chanting would eventually develop as a part of the ritual veneration. Even minor
enlightened beings who never had significant worship cults star in texts recommending
their services for those in need. For instance, the Guan xukongcang pusa jing 觀虛空藏
菩薩經 (Visualization of Ākāśagarbha Bodhisattva Scripture; T 409, vol. 13)
recommends many of the same practices directed toward Ākāśagarbha in the hopes of
being saved from peril or being reborn in his realm. Julian Pas notes several other
similar examples before writing:
151 Watson, Burton, trans. The Lotus Sutra. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993): 298-299.
193
These examples show that “calling the name” of Buddhas and/or
Bodhisattvas was a common practice in the circles of Buddhists who
otherwise emphasized both meditation (kuan 觀 method) and cultivation of
good works. The interpolator of the Kuan-ching must have been familiar
with this tradition and in imitation of the other kuan sutras must have filled
what he considered to be a “gap” (or shortcoming) in the Kuan-ching.152
It is also possible, then, to infer that Huaigan was quite familiar with the similarities in
these “rival” texts, given that all his biographies relay his vast knowledge of canonical
literature. It is also important to remember that he spends a significant portion of the
Qunyi lun arguing against dedication to Maitreya in favor of Amitābha worship.153 Thus,
it is clear that what is today commonly called nianfo or nembutsu, meaning repetition of
the name in this instance, was by no means a unique practice of those who aspired to
rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. In fact, one could argue that were it not for the
additional development beyond vocal recitation, Amitābha worship may have dwindled
in popularity in China and Japan, like many similar devotional movements.
Nevertheless, vocalization is an important part of Huaigan’s system, both for simple
nianfo and the more complex nianfo samādhi, though it needs to be properly
contextualized before it can be truly understood.
Unlike the later Japanese tradition, whose views are echoed in much of modern
scholarship, Huaigan differentiates between the various types of nianfo. He also uses
different names for them to qualify specific practices instead of simply relying on nianfo
in general. One of the most frequently used and important terms for this discussion is
chengfo 稱佛, which means to call out the name of the Buddha. Occasionally, Huaigan

153 Further discussion of this debate appears in Chapter 5.
194
also uses shengcheng fo 聲稱佛 (proclaim the Buddha), which strengthens the practice
of calling out to the Buddha. Combined, the terms appear twenty-eight times in the
Qunyi lun, most frequently in the last two fascicles, demonstrating that Huaigan saw the
need to differentiate vocal recitation from other types of nianfo practice.
However, once more it is necessary to remember that chengfo is a practice for
specific times and specific groups. The people that needed to perform vocal recitation
the most were those of the lowest spiritual capacity. If they did not have the ability for
meditation, visualization, or contemplation, then vocal practice was their best resort.
With chengfo, Huaigan especially advocates it as a deathbed practice. Any type of
nianfo practice is important during this critical time. For those who committed the five
evils, it was required that they call out the name of the Buddha ten times.154 In contrast,
the more righteous could work toward nianfo samādhi and use guan 觀 (visualization or
contemplation) nianfo, in which they obtain a vision of Amitābha and his two
bodhisattvas.155 Throughout the Qunyi lun, Huaigan highlights that meditative nianfo is
superior to vocal nianfo. It is evident that, while both are effective for securing rebirth, all
people should strive toward superior practice in order to acquire a better rebirth in
Sukhāvatī.
It is notable that Huaigan never provides detailed instructions on how to practice
nianfo. This could be because Huaigan believes it is covered sufficiently in the Guan
jing and its many commentaries. However, this omission seems to be intentional. The
people reading his texts likely knew how to practice nianfo, and Huaigan was relaying to
154 This is mentioned throughout the text. For example, T 1960, vol. 47, 73a26-27.
155 Ibid., 75c13-16.
195
them the necessity for his readers to teach the common people, and the correct
prescriptions for doing so. Moreover, the most important qualification for nianfo practice
is sincerity utmost mind (zhixin 至心), which Huaigan constantly reminds his readers.156
This may suggest that as long as one practiced with good intentions and sincerity,
perhaps the exact specifications of nianfo practice did not matter. Regardless, there is
no question regarding the centrality of nianfo practice for Huaigan in the Qunyi lun. As
we will see in Chapter 5, Shandao argues that nianfo and the vows are directly
connected, in that they share a mutual bond. It is through the worship of Amitābha
(through nianfo) that he becomes a Buddha, and it is that same worship which delivers
aspirants to the Pure Land. They imply each other. Huaigan clearly agreed with his
master, stating, “As it is said, nianfo is the vow.”157
Concluding Remarks
This chapter presents a critical analysis of the textual structure and doctrinal
contents of the Qunyi lun. A textual overview covered its format, genre, and extant
manuscripts. Additionally, a contextualization of the Pure Land apologetic literature
revealed that the Qunyi lun is among the first texts of its kind. Huaigan uses a wide
variety of Buddhist texts, and an examination of the references in the text demonstrated
his reliance on the Guan jing above all other texts. Unsurprisingly, the two
Sukhāvatīvyuha Sutras are also cited often. However, Huaigan also uses sources that
can be deemed to be outside the Pure Land movement. His utilization of texts like the
156 Ibid., 71b06. Huaigan uses the term zhixin twenty-four times throughout the text.
157 T 1960, vol. 47, 39b25.
196
Cheng weishi lun either revealed his ideological inclinations or exhibited his cunning
skills for speaking to his audience.
The majority of the chapter discussed the major doctrinal and soteriological
themes that appear in the Qunyi lun. It is evident that there was a lot of debate
regarding Amitābha’s nature, but Huaigan asserted that he is a saṁbhogakāya and that
Sukhāvatī is a saṁbhoga-land, both of which were becoming the accepted
understandings during his time. However, Huaigan was the first Pure Land master to
divide the enjoyment body and realm into personal and public spheres. For both
Amitābha and Sukhāvatī, Huaigan seems to suggest that they should be understood as
enjoyment forms for others. Ultimately, however, these designations, especially as
applied to the body, are essentially meaningless because all forms are available to
Amitābha.
Many questioned the purity of Sukhāvatī due to Huaigan’s claim that it is
available to everyone. Huaigan incorporated Faxiang theory to explain that while there
is impurity still within some beings in the Pure Land, it it is truly pure from the
perspective of Amitābha. Those who perceive impurity in the land is nothing more than
the result of their minds. The text also attempts to settle the debate about the
intermediate stages between death and rebirth the Pure Land, and Huaigan concedes
that they do exist, though they are brief. Furthermore, they operate differently than the
lotus womb through which beings are reborn in the Pure Land. The number of questions
Huaigan answers about the process from death to rebirth indicates that it consumed
Pure Land practitioners.
197
Finally, nianfo, the fundamental practice for Pure Land practice was examined in
the Qunyi lun. Like his master, Huaigan equated nianfo with Amitābha’s vows. Through
their pairing, individuals are able to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. Although this chapter has
highlighted the major themes in the Qunyi lun, it has not discussed all of them. Huaigan
was not alone in his defense of Pure Land belief and practice. Therefore, in Chapter 5,
certain themes that have not yet been discussed will be presented in comparison to
other figures, or as a contribution to larger issues that were circulating in China during
the writing of the Qunyi lun.
198
CHAPTER 5
HUAIGAN’S TEACHINGS IN COMPARISON
The Qunyi lun is an impressive accomplishment because Huaigan covers so
much material throughout the text. In Chapter 4, Huaigan’s ideas about the trikāya
theory, nianfo, and the process of attaining rebirth in the Pure Land were all discussed.
In this chapter, Huaigan’s ideas are contextualized in two different ways. First,
Huaigan’s Pure Land thought are compared with previous Pure Land masters.
Shandao, Huaigan’s teacher, is prominently featured in this section, but other figures
such as Daochuo, Tanluan, and Jingying Huiyuan are also covered in detail. This is an
important task because Huaigan’s contribution to the Pure Land movement in medieval
China is made clearer. The central question that will guide this discussion is, “What, if
anything, is novel to Huaigan’s understanding of Pure Land Budddhism?” The findings
to this discussion will aid the analysis of Huaigan’s legacy in Chapter 6.
Next, the Qunyi lun often criticizes rival movements that Huaigan finds
unsatisfactory, and the second section will examine three of these targets—the Shelun
攝論, the Three Stages School (Sanjie jiao), and the rival Maitreya cult—in order to see
why Huaigan considerd them important enough to include in the text. The Shelun was
heavily influenced by the translations of Paramārtha (499-569), a preeminent Indian
monk. The school was among the early attempts at introducing Yogācāra into China,
and held Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha (known in China as the Shelun) over all other
texts.1 The Three Stages School was eventually deemed heretical by Empress Wu
Zetian in 694 and 699, who was the ruling power during the composition of the Qunyi
1 “China, Early Schools” in The Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Damien Keown and Charles S. Prebish, eds.
(London: Routledge, 2013), 226.
199
lun.2 However, the school was over a century old at that point and clearly enough of a
threat that Huaigan and other important figures like Kuiji spoke out against its teachings.
Maitreya worship was very popular during the Northern Wei period (386-535), as
Kenneth Ch’en has demonstrated, before gradually declining in China during the
following centuries. Nevertheless, Huaigan compares Maitreya worship to Amitābha
worship and finds the former lacking in relation to the benefits of the latter. Although
Maitreya worship was declining in favor of Amitābha worship during Huaigan’s life, he
still felt it was a subject worth significant discussion. This is likely due to the popularity of
the Faxiang school, thanks in large part to the charismatic leadership of Xuanzang and
Kuiji. Both Faxiang leaders advocated for Maitreya worship, and it is likely that its
popularity matched that of the Faxiang. The school reached its peak during Huaigan’s
lifetime, so it seems he felt compelled to discuss the budding rivalry. The popularity of
Maitreya worship extended into the imperial court, which may have influenced
Huaigan’s diplomatic approach to the discussion. However, before moving to these
political circumstances, we will begin with an analysis of Huaigan’s influences that were
internal to the Pure Land movement.
Huaigan and the Pure Land Masters
Huaigan did not create the Qunyi lun in a vacuum. Although he produced it,
much of what it contains is the result of development begun by former Pure Land
masters centuries earlier. As demonstrated earlier, Huaigan was never keen on simply
stating his favored opinion on any matter. Instead, he frequently provides multiple
interpretations in response to a query. Again, this is another example that monks who
200
favored Pure Land belief and practice did not view themselves as belonging to an
exclusive tradition. They advocated inclusive practices that could be utilized in hopes of
acquiring rebirth in Sukhāvatī. In a discussion about Daochuo and Shandao, David W.
Chappell writes,
It should be emphasized, therefore, that Chinese Pure Land thinkers

never went to the extreme of the Japanese Pure Land movements which
actively rejected other practices as detracting from reliance on Amitābha.
In China nien-fo (nembutsu) was decisive for salvation but not exclusive,
and Pure Land thinkers always assumed that it would be supplemented by
other forms of meditation and purifying practices.3
Chappell is absolutely correct in stating that there were no exclusives for these early
Chinese Pure Land figures; however, that does not mean they did not feel strongly
about certain ideas and practices. Although each relied heavily on earlier figures and
texts, they all emphasized or altered the message in some unique way. This section will
briefly recount main themes featured in the writings of major Pure Land predecessors of
Huaigan, and then compare their ideas with Huaigan’s to see how much he relied on
their early materials as well as how much he altered them.
Tanluan
Some of Tanluan’s biographical details were discussed in Chapter 2. To summarize
briefly, he was one of the first major contributors to Pure Land thought largely because
he blended his own Taoist beliefs (specifically that of gaining immortality) with
knowledge gleaned from his study of Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna. Like Huaigan and
Shandao, the Guan jing was also a seminal text for Tanluan. The following compares
Tanluan and Huaigan using Roger Corless’ analyzation of Tanluan’s works.
3 Chappell "Pure Land Movement, 145.
201
There is significant overlap between the Tanluan and Huaigan. In their writings,
both authors spend a significant amount of time describing the Pure Land and
Amitābha. Despite Huaigan’s reliance on his predecessors, Tanluan is never explicitly
named in the text. Furthermore, there are significant areas of difference; both where
they directly disagree, and where Huaigan omits any discussion of important ideas
featured in Tanluan’s writings. The two seem to mostly agree upon the central idea of
nianfo. They both speak of the practice nianfo as an inner mindfulness of the Buddha
and use the term cheng 稱 to directly refer to an oral recitation of the name. Tanluan
uses the phrase cheng minghao 稱名號, which only appears in full just once in the
Qunyi lun.4 However, most of the time Huaigan simply shortens the distinction to cheng
ming, or even chengfo, which was discussed in Chapter 4. Clearly, both Huaigan and
Tanluan felt an express need to differentiate between nianfo and the vocal invocation of
the Buddha’s name.
Both Huaigan and Tanluan repeatedly discuss the meaning and efficacy of ten
recollections (shi nian 十念). Whereas both men emphasize the importance of
developing a focused mind and true intent during recollection, Tanluan goes so far as to
state that perfect immersion in recollection accounts for the shi nian.5 In other words,
one true moment of recollection is sufficient for rebirth. Unlike Tanluan, Huaigan often
equivocates whether one must actually fulfill ten recollections. He often prefaces shi
nian with juzu 具足, or “complete.” In addition, his references to shi nian often appear in
4T 1960, vol. 47, 36b09. The usage is a passing reference to the Guan jing in a larger question asking
what exactly obtains rebirth in the Pure Land.
5 Corless, “T’an-luan,” 126.
202
his discussions of how evil people are permitted rebirth in the Pure Land. In the
following passage, it is clear that Huaigan sides with the Guan jing that ten recollections
are absolutely necessary for some people to be reborn in Sukhāvatī:
And although they [practice] nianfo, they do not begin toward a mind of
supreme perfect enlightenment. They seek rebirth in the Pure Land with
zeal and shame. The vows indicate that they will pass through the three
evil destinies and not receive sambodhi because they do not [practice]
with utmost mind, but are dependent upon their parents’ destinies.
Therefore, their evil is not extinguished and they acquire temporary
rebirths in heaven, but will still sink into the evil rebirths and slander the
dharma with evil. In accordance with the Guan jing, they are suitable for
the lowest class of the lowest rebirth. They must complete ten
recollections for their sins to be eliminated. Those without the utmost mind
repeat only one recollection; therefore, their evil is not extinguished.6
It is evident that Huaigan sees the need for completing ten recollections, at least in the
case of evil people.
On the other hand, six times in the text Huaigan writes yi nian shi nian 一念十念,
literally, one recollection [is] ten recollections. This could indicate that Huaigan is
implying that whether one recollection or ten, there is no significant difference. Huaigan
finally answers this query in the fifth fascicle. The questioner seeks to know why people
should exhaust themselves in seven-day nianfo practice if one or ten recollections
grants rebirth in Sukhāvatī.7 Huaigan explains that expedient means accounts for the
differences, and that the recommendations are not hollow, as the question implied.8 He
gives different scenarios—a repentance on the deathbed, longer lives, shorter lives—to
demonstrate that all these seemingly different explanations of how much to practice
6 T 1960, vol. 47, 51a22-27. Emphasis mine.

7 Ibid., 57c25-58a01.
8 Ibid., 58a03.
203
have their own corresponding situation. Moreover, the nine grades and the opening of
the lotus womb are factors in how often one should practice. He states, “Also there are
three differences in the cultivation of the three ranks: those in the highest speak [nianfo]
until they are exhausted, those in the middle speak it for a day, and those in the lowest
speak it for a moment.”9 It is evident that, for Huaigan, how often and how long one
practiced nianfo was very significant, even if it only decided the rank of rebirth in the
Pure Land. Furthermore, the Qunyi lun indicates that this topic was a major source of
discussion for the developing Pure Land movement. For instance, early in the second
fascicle Huaigan lists fifteen schools of thought about the exact results of the ten
recollections.10
Another point of difference between Huaigan and Tanluan is their understanding
regarding how beings overcome ignorance to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land. Tanluan
focuses on the name of Amitābha as both signifier and signified. Corless explains this
concept, termed ming jifa 名即法, as a “word thing”:
A “word thing” is what it signifies such that its proper enunciation effects
what it signifies. The names of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, mantras, and
Taoist spells are “word things”: their power is demonstrated by the
observation that Taoist spells are known to be effective simply by their
recitation. The name of Amitābha is a “spell” that works extrasamsarically
to bring relase from all suffering, whereas a spell can only liberate from
particular suffering.11
Although Huaigan would certainly agree that the name of Amitābha has power, he likely
would disagree with this assertion in favor of emphasizing not the name of Amitābha as
9 Ibid., 58a18.
10 Ibid. 43c17-44a08.
11 Corless, “T’an-luan,” 127. Emphasis in original.
204
the source of power, or even Amitābha himself, but the vows. It is hard to disagree with
Corless’ assessment that chanting the name of Amitābha is essentially a spell, but the
name alone has no power. The vehicle of the vows, through the intention of both
Dharmākara and his believers, is what supplies the practice with its power. Chapter 4
demonstrated the emphasis Huaigan placed on the vows. Even when one is practicing
nianfo in accordance with the vow, it is the intent, practice, and vows at work, not just
the name as a magical spell. The vows are the key cog that makes the machine of
rebirth in the Pure Land work.
Tanluan is often credited with popularizing the distinction between the easy path
(yixing dao 易行道) and the difficult path (nanxing dao 難行道), a division he borrowed
from the Daśabhūmikavibhā ṣāśtra.12 This dichotomy became popular, and in turn,
helped popularize Pure Land practice, but the easy path distinction made Pure Land
practice a target for critics. Apologists must have gradually realized that the designation
was problematic because it began to fade in favor of the self-power and other-power
dichotomy. Huaigan never mentions Tanluan’s “easy path,” though once he states that
“nianfo is very easy to cultivate and practice.”13 In contrast, that kind of sentiment is the
exception in the Qunyi lun. Huaigan only admits that nianfo is easy because he’s
responding to a question about how and why the dying are advised to practice nianfo.
Huaigan typically emphasizes the difficulty of Pure Land practice due to the sincerity
12 T 1521, vol. 26. The text is often attributed to Nāgārjuna, though it is likely a pseudopigraphical
attribution.
13 T 1960, vol. 47, 69a13
205
and faithfulness that are required for nianfo to be effective.14 Huaigan’s constant
depiction of Pure Land practice as difficult is surely a reaction to these critics who
seized the narrative of “easy path” as a criticism of Pure Land practitioners.
The last point of comparison for Tanluan and Huaigan is their understanding of
the five gates (wumen 五門) approach, which was a central topic in many Pure Land
commentaries.15 Tanluan adopted this scheme from Vasubandhu and promoted it as a
path to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Very early in his commentary on Vasubandhu’s
treatise, Tanluan lists the five gates as worship (libai 禮拜), praise (zantan 讚歎), making
the vow (zuoyuan 作願), investigation (guancha 觀察), and transference of merit
(huixiang 迴向).16 Huaigan lists the same five gates; however, he orders them as
worship, nianfo, investigation, making the vow, and transference of merit.
The Pure Land sutras discuss the Five Gates. First is the karma of the
body in the worship gate. Second is the karma of the mouth in the nianfo
gate. Third is the karma of thought in the observation gate. Fourth, the
gate in which vows are made. Fifth, the gate in which merit is
transferred.17
There are a few minor but important differences to note. Huaigan switches the third and
fourth gate in his system. One could argue that this is perhaps a simple mistake, but
Huaigan appears to do this intentionally. Due to the switch in Huaigan’s system, the first
three gates produce karma of the body, mouth, and thought, respectively. Instead of
14For example, see 41c12-13 in which Huaigan says even those with proper faith who doubt nianfo will
not obtain rebirth in the Pure Land.
15Although Tanluan prefers wu nianmen in his text, he does occasionally abbreviate it to wumen.
Huaigan discusses the five gates just once and refers to it as wumen.
16 T 1819, vol. 40, 835a21
17 T 1960, vol. 47, 39c06-07
206
breaking up the physical gates, Huaigan lists them together to order proper action first.
Proper actions leads to a proper resolve or vows, which are the basis for rebirth in the
Pure Land. “Actions and vows support each other in acquiring rebirth in the Pure Land,”
he writes.18
The second notable difference between the two rankings is that Tanluan lists
praise (zantan) as his second gate, while Huaigan uses nianfo. Huiagan uses Tanluan’s
word for praise (zantan) just three times in the Qunyi lun, and none of those discuss
zantan as being synonymous with nianfo. Thus, we must question why Huaigan made
this choice in the text. The first clue is the connection with kouye 口業, or verbal karma
(from the mouth). This is the only mention of it in the Qunyi lun, but it comes straight
from Tanluan’s Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註 (T 1819, vol. 40). Like Huaigan, Tanluan
also links the second gate to karma of the mouth in the text.19 However, Tanluan never
links zantan with nianfo in the Wangsheng lunzhu. In fact, Tanluan uses the term nianfo
sparingly throughout the text, though he does advise calling out the name of
Amitābha.20 He goes on to suggest that kouye links believers to release, allowing them
entrance into the Pure Land where they acquire peace.21 The fact that Tanluan does not
conflate calling out the name of the Buddha with nianfo makes it all the more interesting
that Huaigan does precisely that. Given Huaigan’s care in demonstrating the multiplicity
inherent within nianfo practice, why would he link it here with kouye, which presumably
18 Ibid., 39b27
19 T 1819, vol. 40, 835b11-12, and 843a14.
20 Ibid., 835b14-15. Nianfo appears in the Wangsheng lunzhu just four times.
21 Ibid., 839c07-08.
207
only comes through the spoken recitation of the name of Amitābha? Never clarifying
what he means by kouye, Huaigan unfortunately never answers this question.
Daochuo
Like Tanluan, Daochuo is another Pure Land master who influenced Huigan.
Daochuo’s only extant work is the Anle ji 安樂集 (T 1958, vol. 47), and although the title
indicates the text is a compilation of various works, Daochuo did insert his own
message in the text. David Chappell notes that Daochuo used around 150 quotations in
the two volume text in support of his goal, which is to urge his readers to seek rebirth in
the Pure Land.22 Daochuo is an important figure to the Pure Land movement for a
number of reasons. Firstly, he is the link between Tanluan, the first systemizer of the
tradition, and Shandao, the major figure of the Chinese Pure Land tradition. However,
the degree to which this is actually true can be questioned largely because Tanluan and
Daochuo never met, as the former died two decades before the birth of the latter. Still,
those who insist on their connection point out that Daochuo is traditionally believed to
have dedicated himself to Pure Land belief upon reading a memorial tablet about
Tanluan.23 Furthermore, the Anle ji heavily relies upon Tanluan’s Wangsheng lunzhu;
many times Daochuo quotes the text, often without attribution.24 On the other side, there
is the quasi-mythical meeting in which Shandao sought out Daochuo to learn more
about Pure Land teachings. Thus, there is a possible connection between the three—

23 Pas, Visions, 63.
24 Katherine Velasco, “The Transformation of the Pure Land in the Development of Lay Buddhist Practice
in China,” in Shin Buddhism: Historical, Textual, and Interpretive Studies, (Berkeley: Institute of Buddhist
Studies, 2007), 236.
208
even if the connection is stretched greatly—which led Shinran to label them the first
three Chinese patriarchs of Pure Land Buddhism. Daochuo is also an important figure
to the Pure Land movement because of his popularization of nianfo and Pure Land
belief, specifically among the laity. Some of the key ideas from Daochuo’s Anle ji will be
discussed here to see how prevalent they are in the Qunyi lun.
In comparing the Anle ji with the Qunyi lun, the most apparent difference
between the two texts is their style. Although both texts feature the standard question-
and-answer format that was popular among Buddhist exegetes, the Anle ji has a less
traditional, haphazard style. Whereas Huaigan is constantly referring to canonical
sources, Daochuo does not hesitate to reference popular and folk writings. Daochuo is
more interested in selling the mythology of the Pure Land—often by borrowing from
traditional Chinese cosomology—rather than with explanations of the exact
specifications required to acquire rebirth there.25 For instance, Daochuo never
discusses rebirth in the lotus womb or the time one must spend there if too much evil
was committed in her past life.26 Although few non-aristocratic laypeople would have
had the ability to read his text it is clear (through his prioritizing of the appeal of
Sukhāvatī over the theories and methods behind it) that Daochuo was more oriented
toward the laity as many of his biographies recount. However, due to his single-minded
goal of exhorting his readers to seek the Pure Land, the Anle ji is more impassioned
than the Qunyi lun. On the other hand, the text is not always coherent. David Chappell
describes it thusly: “The text itself is chaotic, imbalanced, imprecise, piling metaphors,
25 Ibid., 237.
26 Ibid., 244.
209
quotations and theories on top of each other in a single minded attempt to persuade.” 27
Despite his writing style, Daochuo clearly had a profound influence on Huaigan and the
Pure Land movement in general.
Daochuo is often credited with the popularizing of the the “nianfo wangsheng
doctrine”:
(1) The miraculous power of one practice (nianfo), (2) directed toward one
Buddha (Amitābha), (3) to achieve rebirth in one place (the Western Pure
Land), (4) so that in one more rebirth Buddhahood can be attained (since
conditions in Amitābha’s Pure Land are so ideal that enlightenment is
guaranteed).28
This formula, as with many of the remainder of Daochuo’s teachings, essentially comes
from Tanluan. Yet, Daochuo was the one who actually went out and took this teaching
to the masses.
Moreover, laypeople witnessed how much Daochuo actually believed his
teachings. Unlike Tanluan and Huaigan, Daochuo fanatically advised reciting the name
of Amitābha as much as possible. While the former pairing clearly recognized the power
of chengfo, both saw it as a last resort practice for those who planned to sneak into the
lowest of the low rank in the Pure Land. In contrast, records indicate that Daochuo
recited the name of Amitābha around 70,000 times in a single day and popularized the
use of bean-counting and rosaries to keep track of one’s recitations.29 Although vocal
recitation has a significant role in the Qunyi lun, Huaigan never goes to the lengths of
Daochuo to recommend vocal practice. Inevitably, when urging people to call out the

28 Ibid., 154. Emphasis original.
29Jiacai describes Daochuo’s enthusiasm for using beans to count nianfo recitations in his Jingtu lun (T
1963, vol. 47). For more on Daochuo in the text, see T 1963, vol. 47, 98b.
210
name of Amitābha, Huaigan is referencing particular situations or kinds of people,
because the texts explicitly call for certain minimum requirements (e.g., ten
recollections) in order to secure rebirth.
Daochuo is also remembered for his belief that he was living during the final days
of the Dharma, or mofa, the final of the three periods of the dharma following the first
period of correct Dharma (zhengfa 正法) and the middle age of semblance Dharma
(xiangfa 像法). Daochuo lived during a turbulent time due to war, famine, and religious
persecution, which clearly influenced the highly pessimistic view espoused throughout
the Anleji.30 For Daochuo, the deterioration of the Dharma during this period meant that
the previous ways of achieving enlightenment were no longer available. Therefore, the
only measure left was relying on the other-power of Amitābha, specifically through
nianfo. Shinran, also living during a tumultuous period, later identified with mofa and
popularized it in Japan. As a result, many current introductions to Pure Land Buddhism
inevitably declare mofa as a major part of the tradition, but this was not the case for the
Chinese Pure Land movement as a whole.
Despite his ties to Daochuo, Shandao was not a proponent of mofa, and it
appears he passed this down to his disciple as well. Huaigan discusses the three
periods just once in the Qunyi lun. As usual, Huaigan provides contrasting viewpoints
about the current period. The first interpretation echoes Daochuo’s pessimistic view of
the world:
In this period of knives, soldiers, and disaster, people are increasingly

evil…killing and injuring each other. Angry glares, poison, and heat are
abundant. People reach old age in the tenth year, and the body is the
30 Chappell, “Pure Land Movement,” 147-148.
211
length of two forearms in this period. Moreover, [people] are unable to
cultivate the remaining profound disciplines such as meditation, wisdom,
and learning. They can only recollect the Buddha (nianfo). This disgusting
sahā realm suffering from the three calamities and the five periods of
chaos, a place of bitterness and hate. Therefore the Buddha knowing the
heavy bitterness of all living things in this period allows rebirth [in
Sukhāvatī] to abandon the world. Therefore, using his great mercy he
remains true to the scriptures.31
Given the tumult during his lifetime, it becomes very plain why Daochou conceived that
he lived during this period. The three calamities include war, pestilence, and famine, at
least two of which (war and famine) Daochuo experienced.
However, the Tang dynasty was well established during the lives of Shandao and
Huaigan, and their outlooks were considerably brighter.32 Therefore, Huaigan follows
with an alternative interpretation that we can only assume is his own. In this positive
outlook:
The hearts of the people are disgusted with evil, and all emanate a
compassionate heart. They do not kill or injure each other, but sympathize
as if they were fathers and sons. Life gradually lengthens up to a hundred
years. Sixteen arhats with the three insights and six supernatural powers
provide liberation. The righteous are well-versed in in the scriptures and
the twelve divisions of the Mahāyāna canon. They are entrusted to the
Buddha who maintains the true dharma, and for the benefit of all living
things has not undergone the final nirvana.33
Huaigan continues this description of an incredible world in which the Dharma is flowing
and abundant. He retells the common Buddhist trope regarding the death and funeral of
a Tathāgata, specifically referencing Śākyamuni.34 Huaigan cleverly compares the
31 T 1960, vol. 47, 48c08-c14.

32Empress Wu Zetian would later usurp the the throne during the later stage of Huaigan’s life, but this
was a positive development for Chinese Buddhism.
33 T 1960, vol. 47, c16-20
34 Ibid., 48c24-27
212
death of the Buddha to the death of Dharmākara, Amitābha’s previous incarnation. In
the same way that both are gone, the ramifications of both their lives are still observed,
and in the same way that Amitābha has a limitless lifespan, so too the correct Dharma
period of Śākyamuni is unsurpassed.35 Furthermore, just as Maitreya will one day
become the Buddha of this world, the power of Amitābha’s vow will still be available in
the future as it is now.
Despite these areas of difference, it is clear that Huaigan was familiar with the
Anle ji, and that Daochuo’s work influenced him greatly. For instance, Huaigan’s
assertion that the Pure Land exists outside of the three realms was discussed earlier.
Throughout his discussion on the topic, Huaigan repeats many of the same points as
Daochuo in the Anle ji, and references the Da zhidu lun during the discussion.
Moreover, instead of quoting the Dazhidu lun directly, Huaigan simply lifts his defining
statement from the Anle ji word for word.36 As mentioned above, Daochuo did much of
the same for the Anle ji—often borrowing from Tanluan—and it was not at all an
uncommon practice. The greatest indicator that demonstrates Daochuo’s influence on
Huaigan is that he mentions Daochuo directly in the Qunyi lun. In the fifth fascile,
Huaigan makes explicit reference to the Anle ji, and “Dharma Master” Chuo in a
discussion regarding the ability to save one’s family. However, it is unclear exactly what
part of the text Huaigan is alluding to, as he proceeds with a metaphor about a dutiful
35 Ibid., 49a03-a04
36Although the details are the same in all three quotes, the Anle ji and Qunyi lun choose to use fei 非 to
emphatically state that the Pure Land is not the desire, form, or formless realm. In contrast, the Da zhidu
lun states that the Pure Land “cannot be called” a desire, form, or formless realm. The Qunyi lun
quotation is T 1960, vol. 47, 33a09-11, the Anle ji is T 1958, vol. 47, 7b03-04, and the Da zhidu lun is T
1509 vol. 25, 340a18-19.
213
child using a ship to save its drowning family.37 Although there is some discussion in the
Anle ji about children helping their parents, this metaphor appears to be entirely
Huaigan’s creation. Nevertheless, this direct mention of Daochuo proves that Huaigan
was aware of him, as one would assume given that Shandao apparently sought out
Daochou as a teacher.
There is one other shared goal for Daochuo and Huaigan to discuss here. It is
quite clear that both were on a mission to save the common person (fanfu). Tanluan
also made it clear that common people can be reborn in the Pure Land, even if only in
the lowest of the low grade.38 This compassionate outlook for the non-monastic
Buddhist is a thread that links all these works together. Tanluan, Daochuo, Huaigan,
and other Pure Land thinkers knew that most common people did not have the same
time and access available to them that the monastics enjoyed. They made sure, both in
their scholarly writings and their teachings to the public that these people were included
in the discussion.They were passionate about teaching and defending Pure Land belief
and practice because they genuinely felt that it was the best—and in Daochuo’s case,
only—opportunity for anyone to reach enlightenment quickly. It is intriguing to see how
this message of targeting the common person grows with each subsequent text.
Tanluan discusses the fanfu eleven times in his two fascicle Wangsheng lunzhu. In the
Anle ji, Daochuo discusses the plight of the fanfu nineteen times. He urges them to seek
rebirth in the Pure Land specifically through vocal recitation of Amitābha’s name.
Subsequently, Huaigan mentions fanfu ninety-two times in the Qunyi lun, which is five
37 T 1960, vol. 47, 61c26-62a01.

38 T 1819, vol. 40, 833c27.
214
fascicles longer than both the Wangsheng lunzhu and Anle ji. Still, on average Huaigan
discusses the common person over thirteen times per fascicle, a significant increase
over both Tanluan and Daochuo. As noted in Chapter 4, Huaigan often reminds his
reader that a Pure Land rebirth is available to everyone, even though he is not as
emphatic as Daochuo about the ease with which it is possible. Recently, Jimmy Yu has
questioned whether any of the major figures in the Chinese Pure Land movement
actually tailored practices toward the laity.39 This possibility was mentioned in Chapter 2
during the discussion about Shandao, but is worthwhile to mention again. Despite the
fact that many of the rituals prescribed in the Qunyi lun, such as the week-long
recollection, would not have been a possibility for many of the non-monastic adherents,
it is still quite clear that a focus on this group was present in these texts, even if the
recommendations were not always practical for the non-monastic community.40
Jingying Huiyuan and Jiacai
Before moving on to a comparison between Huaigan and Shandao, two other
Pure Land figures will be considered, Jingying Huiyuan and Jiacai. Neither has the
same status as Tanluan, Shandao, or Daochuo, though some of that can be attributed
to the idea that both monks are not among the “orthodox” figures of the early Pure Land
movement. Nevertheless, both warrant mentioning, because it is clear that Huaigan was
cognizant of their work. Both men were instrumental in the nascent Chinese Pure Land
movement because of the ideas they expounded and the texts they left behind.
39 Yu, “Pure Land Devotion in East Asia.”

40Huaigan discusses the week-long meditation a few times in the text. See T 1960, vol. 47, 60a13 in
which he states that those who complete seven days and seven nights of single-minded focus
recollecting Amitābha will acquire a vision of him.
215
Jingying Huiyuan was a contemporary of Tanluan’s, and like the latter, Huiyuan
was not exclusively tied to Pure Land Buddhism. He is traditionally associated with the
Dilun or Shelun schools, though Kenneth Tanaka has questioned the basis for either
claim.41 He was a remarkable monk, evinced by his defense of Buddhism during a
debate with Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou (543-578), who was trying to abolish
Buddhism.42 He penned over a dozen works, ten of which are still extant. The works are
mainly commentaries on important scriptures, including a two-fascicle commentary on
the Guan jing (T 1745, vol. 37), which is the earliest extant commentary on the text and
most relevant to this discussion.
As indicated in Chapter 4, Huaigan, like many other Pure Land exegetes, could
not avoid the discussion of the nine grades of rebirth. Huaigan includes Jingying
Huiyuan’s categorization in his discussion of the nine grades, though he never mentions
his name.43 In addition, Huaigan does not favor any on the interpretations he mentions;
instead he merely lists the various opinions, stating that they all come from different
masters. In his study of Jingying Huiyuan, Tanaka demonstrated that the commentary
influenced Shandao, and here we see that Shandao’s student was influenced as well.
In addition to the nine grades, Huiyuan also speculated on the nature of the three
bodies of the Buddha and the category of Buddha-field to which Sukhāvatī belongs. In a
chapter entitled “Chapter on the Concept of the Pure Land,” from his work Mahāyāna
Encyclopedia (T 1851, vol. 44), Huiyuan introduced a system of conceiving the Pure

42 Ibid., 24-28.
43 T 1960, vol. 47, 67b03-09 and 67b15-18.
216
Land in conjunction with the trikāya theory, which was an advancement from Tanluan’s
outmoded two-land system.44 Huiyuan’s system became the standard scheme, and was
clearly the foundation for Huaigan’s depiction of the trikāya theory and the nature of
Sukhāvatī as well. Moreover, like Huaigan, it is believed that Huiyuan borrowed this
system from Yogācarā Buddhism.45 Huaigan would later refine Huiyuan’s system,
dividing the saṁbhogakāya (and, in turn, Sukhāvatī) into a personal and public
enjoyment body/land. It was discussed previously that Huaigan coopted this division
from a Faxiang text translated by Xuanzang. The claim that Huigan was a Faxiang
Buddhist before converting to Pure Land will be discussed later in Chapter 6, but it is
sufficient to know that this incorporation of Faxiang ideology here by Huaigan is one of
the major claims for that argument. Yet, Jingying Huiyuan provides a wonderful example
that Yogācarā thought was integrated into Pure Land ideology at least a century before
Huaigan. The fact that Huaigan continued to refine this idea using the current
ideological zeitgeist should not lead to automatically assuming an idea for which there is
no hard evidence.
Like Shandao, Huaigan disagrees with Jingying Huiyuan about the nature of
Sukhāvatī. Whereas the latter understands it as a transformed land (huatu 化土),
Shandao and Huaigan viewed that land as only for the nirmāṇakāya. Instead, since
Amitābha is a saṁbhogakāya, Sukhāvatī is a reward land in their systems. Despite this
difference, Huaigan and Huiyuan agree that, ultimately, the conception of the Pure Land
entirely depends on the individual. If the mind is inferior, the individual will experience
44 Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 103-104.

45 Ibid.
217
Sukhāvatī as a transformation land; if it is a more advanced mind, the land appears
greater as an enjoyment land.46 Despite not naming Jingying Huiyuan in the Qunyi lun
directly, it is clear that Huaigan respected him greatly. In addition to borrowing many of
the models that were developed by Huiyuan, Huaigan improved upon them using new
ideas that were popular during his time.
Jiacai is another important but under-researched figure. Not much is known
about him, but he did produce a three-fascicle text entitled the Jingtu lun 凈土論 (T 1963
vol. 47). Jiacai was a contemporary of Shandao, and he considered himself a disciple of
Daochuo. Early on in his text, he explains that one of the goals of the text is to clarify
Daochuo’s Anle ji. It was mentioned earlier that Daochuo’s text is not exactly lucid. Even
Jiacai, a self-proclaimed fan of Daochuo writes, “the ideas of [the Anle ji] are very
diverse and the chapters and sections are muddled.”47 Jiacai felt compelled to clarify the
text because of this difficulty. The Jingtu lun, however, is not merely a commentary on
the Anle ji, as Jiacai includes many of his own ideas. The text is remembered because it
is perhaps the earliest extant example of the wangsheng zhuan genre, which recount
successful rebirths in Sukhāvatī. As noted earlier, Huaigan might have recorded his
first-hand accounts in a no longer extant text possibly titled Wangsheng zhuan.
Furthermore, the accounts of Huaigan’s biography which indicate that Amitābha came
to escort him to the Pure Land are examples of this genre. It is clear that the recording
of these deathbed events was very popular among both monastic and lay communities.
46 This idea was discussed in Chapter 4, but an example of this sentiment is T 1960, vol. 46, 31b. For
Jingying Huiyuan’s conception of this, see Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Buddhism, 104.
47Translation from David W. Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (562-645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism.”
Ph.D. Dissertation (Yale University, 1976), 111.
218
Jiacai states the reason behind his choice to include wangsheng zhuan in the Jingtu
lun:
The people’s understanding being limited [and unable to comprehend the

sutras and sastras], nothing is more effective in enticing them to the faith
than citing actual cases of recent births in the Pure Land.48
It is rare to see this level of candor in Pure Land texts. On one hand, these Pure Land
masters are reaching out to readers and trying to direct them to the best possible path
for their situation. On the other, when reading a quote like the one above, one cannot
help but wonder how much self-aggrandizing is involved with this kind of thinking. When
Huaigan mentions the necessity for a “good friend” to help the dying achieve rebirth on
the deathbed, is it possible that he (and his colleagues) is that friend?49
Like all the figures mentioned thus far, there is a clear link between Huaigan’s
Qunyi lun and Jiacai. The two texts discuss many of the same topics, and the Qunyi lun
makes direct reference to the Jingtu lun. Kaneko Kansai, noting that the Jingtu lun
clarifies many of Daochuo’s ideas from the Anle ji, has written an article comparing the
Jingtu lun and the Qunyi lun.50 There are many areas of overlap between the texts, and
in several important discussions, Huaigan does include Jiacai, though most often just to
include the diversity of opinions on the subject matter. For example, Chapter 4 noted
that Huaigan referenced Jiacai’s Jingtu lun in his discussion regarding women in the
Pure Land.
48 Translation from Whalen Lai, “Legends of Births,” 175.

49This line of speculative thinking could even go further were there to be some evidence that monks
received some kind of benefit—financial or otherwise—for their time and efforts in guiding the highly
important deathbed rituals.
50 Kaneko Kansai, “Kasai no Jōdoron to Gungiron ni tsuite,” Indogakku Bukkyo 47.2, 1999, 553-558.
219
Before moving on to the larger discussions where Jiacai’s thought appears in the
Qunyi lun, there is one minor point of interest. As mentioned earlier, Huaigan was the
first Pure Land apologist to borrow the saṁbhogakāya division of personal enjoyment
body (zi shouyong shen) and public enjoyment body (ta shouyong shen) and apply
them to describe the nature of the Sukhāvatī. Again, this derived from Huaigan’s
knowledge of Xuanzang’s translated Faxiang texts, which were highly popular during his
time. The progression from Tanluan’s dual enjoyment body and land system to Jingying
Huiyuan’s three-body and land system was extended to and completed in Huaigan’s
system. However, it appears that Jiacai developed a similar system before the Qunyi
lun. In a discourse on the Pure Land Jiacai explains that there are two ways to conceive
of the “reward body Pure Land.”51 The first is what he terms the real reward land (shi
baotu 實報土), which seems to have been standard designation that appeared in many
texts before and after the Jingtu lun. The second type of reward land is unique to the
text, perhaps because it is a not very cleverly worded. Jiacai calls the second type the
service use land (shi yongtu 事用土). The idea for Huaigan’s system is present in
Jiacai’s Jingtu lun, but Huaigan sensibly reworded it to match the self/other (zi/ta)
dichotomy that was already established in Pure Land thought. Given Huaigan’s use of
the Jingtu lun throughout his text, it is possible that the inspiration for extending the
Faxiang division of the saṁbhogakāya to the nature of the Pure Land actually came
from Jiacai.
51 T 1963, vol. 47, 84a25ff.
220
As will be discussed in a section below, Jiacai also played a significant role in a
lot of the larger debates in which Huaigan and other Pure Land figures participated.
Despite the scarcity of information about his life, Jiacai was clearly an important voice in
the developing Pure Land movement, much like Huaigan. These points, combined with
the fact that Jiacai left behind just one extant text, create an interesting connection
between the two figures. The connection is apparent through Huaigan’s references to
Jiacai’s opinions multiple times in the Qunyi lun. Furthermore, both warrant future
research, which will inevitably progress similarly—given their shared discourse—while
inevitably solely relying on their respective extant works, due to the lack of other
information on both monks.
Shandao and Huaigan – Master and Student
Now that the influence of earlier Pure Land masters on Huaigan and the Qunyi
lun has been demonstrated, it is appropriate to take a longer look at exactly what
Huaigan learned from his teacher. As noted earlier, the length and intimacy of their
relationship is uncertain. Huaigan is often considered to be Shandao’s foremost
disciple, but that assertion is likely entirely due to the fact that the Qunyi lun is the only
extant text from any of Shandao’s disciples. After all, there is definitive evidence that
among Shandao’s other disciples one was in charge of his funeral and another is buried
next to him. In contrast, beyond Huaigan seeking Shandao to learn about nianfo
practice, there really are no other connections that link the two. On the other hand, just
because the other disciples may have been closer to Shandao does not imply that any
of them should be considered the foremost disciple. This section will compare the works
of the master and the student, and challenge common assertions about their shared
legacy.
221
The first such assertion will guide the remainder of this analysis. Throughout
many works, both historic and contemporary, it is not unusual to see the claim that the
Pure Land thought of Huaigan and Shandao did not agree. This assertion has evolved
into a narrative that inevitably points to Huaigan’s use of Faxiang doctrine as its source.
The origins of this claim are difficult to locate, but likely originates with Hōnen’s
prioritization of Shandao over Huaigan. In the last chapter of his Senchakushū, Hōnen
states his opinion:
Though Huaigan is a monk who has attaned samādhi, I prefer Shandao to

Huaigan, as Shandao is a master, and Huaigan is a disciple. Moreover,
there is a great difference in thought between them. Therefore I do not
prefer Huaigan.52
Despite Huaigan’s popularity in Japan up until the time Hōnen (which will be
demonstrated in Chapter 6), after this proclamation, references to the Qunyi lun decline
in Japan. Thus, throughout the remainder of this comparison with master and student,
previously discussed themes from the Qunyi lun will be highlighted to see how well they
align with Shandao’s thought.
The Nature of Amitābha and His Pure Land
It is evident that there was much contention regarding the nature of Amitābha and his
Pure Land, Sukhāvatī. This was an important debate, because those on the other side
were labeling Amitābha as a nirmāṇakāya, meaning that Amitābha may not be around
forever, since like Gautama Buddha, nirmāṇakāya bodies die, at least conventionally.
Shandao did not shy away from this debate, but followed the lead of Daochuo in fighting
against the view that Amitābha should be understood as a nirmāṇakāya. Shandao is
52 Hōnen. Hōnen's Senchakushū, 149. This specific translation comes from Hojun, “Huai-kan’s View,” 58.
222
direct with his answer that both Amitābha and his Pure Land are saṃbhoga.53 However,
unlike Huaigan, Shandao never asserts that there is a two-fold saṃbhoga. On the other
hand, as noted in Chapter 4, the first answer that Huigan provides explicitly states the
basic three-body scheme with its corresponding lands.54 It is only later upon going into
greater detail that Huaigan mentions the dual reward-body. Although this is clearly a
distinction that Huaigan himself is positing and not one that he is restating from another
Pure Land exegete, it is apparent that this is a secondary division for Huaigan in
comparison to the one he introduces first. Otherwise, why would Huaigan begin the text
by expounding the traditional trikāya theory?
This point may seem trivial, but it is far from it. This is one of the marks of “great
difference” that Hōnen and later Pure Land scholars used to demonstrate that
Huaigan’s thought is inferior to that of his master. Huaigan’s introduction of the dual
saṃbhoga body and land is merely an expansion on Shandao’s traditional
understanding. Furthermore, I highlighted in Chapter 4 that Huaigan states, “[Sukhāvatī]
only appears different to each person according to their own mind.”55 The substance of
the Pure Land and the body of Amitābha are indeed ultimately saṃbhoga. Thus, the
question then becomes why Huiagan felt the need to include the dual enjoyment body if,
ultimately, the distinction is empty. I suggest that there are two reasons for Huaigan’s
decision. First, much like the Pure Land masters before him, Huaigan incorporated the
popular new ideologies of his time in order to keep Pure Land thought vibrant and

54 T 1960, vol. 47, 30c24-27.
55 Ibid., 31b11.
223
guarded from outside critics. Second, although Shandao never used Huaigan’s dual
enjoyment body, he did assert a similar idea. In his commentary on the Guan jing,
Shandao frequently refers to a dual reward for occupants of the Pure Land.56 Borrowing
from another commentary on the Guan jing from a Sanlun Master, Jizang 吉藏 (549-
623), Shandao lables the two rewards as dependent and correct.The correct reward of
the Pure Land belongs to Amitābha and the attendant bodhisattvas, which includes their
personal rewards like their lotus thrones.57 The dependent rewards are lower types of
reward that are available to the other inhabitants. Furthermore, these rewards work to
improve the perception of Sukhāvatī’s inhabitants:
[With their help] the mental confusion can be gradually stopped, the eyes
of the mind are opened and the meditator perceives vaguely at first the
pure adronments of Sukhāvatī, so that the disorderly passions are
eliminated. Once the obstacles are removed, one is then able to perceive
the features of that realm in their true reality.58
Underlying this statement is the presumption that beings in the Pure Land perceive it
differently based on their own minds. Thus, this is not unlike Huaigan’s conception of
the Pure Land. It is obviously stated differently, but the results are one and the same.
Huaigan, building on the thought of Shandao, draws from emerging trends outside of
Pure Land thought to clarify and update the idea. Thus, while it is true that Huaigan and
Shandao structured their systems differently, we see that the result is similar in the end.
Therefore, it is incorrect to see this area as a point of “great difference” between the
master and his disciple.
56For instance, see T 1753, vol. 37, 247a05 and 247b29, though there are many references to it
throughout the text.
58 T 1753, vol. 37, 246c. Translation from Pas, Visions, 160.
224
Pure Land Practice
Shandao and Huaigan shared a similar approach to practice. Clearly, the heart of
Pure Land practice for both is nianfo. However, both consider nianfo practice much
more than simple vocal recitation of Amitābha’s name, though it certainly is part of the
practice. Meditation, visualization, hearing, and chanting were all parts of nianfo practice
that could ultimately lead to nianfo samādhi, in which one attains a vision of Amitābha
and his Pure Land. Although Shandao is often praised as the popularizer of vocal
recitation, which became synonymous with nianfo in the later Japanese Pure Land
tradition, as noted above, perhaps Daochuo should receive that claim. It is indisputable
that both Huaigan and Shandao were on the same page regarding nianfo practice.
However, there may be points that disconnect in other areas.
For instance, Shandao often uses the terms sanshan 散善 (non-concentrated
goodness) and dingshan 定善 (concentrated goodness) as the two methods for
acquiring rebirth in the Pure Land. Sanshan can be understood as ethical conduct, while
dingshan is concentrated or meditative action. Julian Pas notes that Jingying Huiyuan
used a variation of these terms, but Shandao was the first to put them in the context for
achieving rebirth.59 Although these are central ideas throughout Shandao’s writings, and
especially his commentary on the Guan jing, Huaigan never references them.60
However, even though Huaigan does not use Shandao’s terminology, he does discuss
many of the ideas inherent within the terms. Part of the ethical requirements in the
Pas, Visions, 223. To see Jingying Huiyuan’s use of dingshan and sanshan in his commentary on the
59
Guan jing, see Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 147.

60There is only one exception; Huaigan does mention sanshan in the second fascicle (T 1960, vol. 47,
39b02), but only within a larger list of acceptable Pure Land practices. He does not go into any detail.
225
sanshan method are the three felicitous actions, or sanfu 三福, which Huaigan
references frequently throughout the Qunyi lun. The first time they are mentioned early
in the text he writes, “Cultivate the three felicitous actions and the sixteen meditations.
Use these good roots for rebirth in the Pure Land.”61 It is uncertain why Huaigan chose
not to adopt Shandao’s terms despite often referencing the core ideas they represent.
Neverthless, like Shandao, Huaigan believed that ethical conduct was an important
component for acquiring rebirth in the Pure Land, though ultimately secondary to nianfo
practice. The importance of ethical conduct is often emphasized when both authors are
urging their readers toward the highest levels of rebirth in the Pure Land. When looking
beyond the surface, once again it is still quite difficult to find a “great difference”
between master and student.
In addition, there are other famous ideas associated with Shandao that do not
appear in the Qunyi lun. Most notable, perhaps, is that neither Shandao’s list of the five
correct practices (wu zhengxing 五正行), nor the three kinds of mind are referenced.
Shandao enumerates the correct practices in the last fascicle of his commentary on the
Guan jing.62 He lists them in order as studying and chanting the three Pure Land sutras,
contemplation and visualization on the adornments of the Pure Land, worship of the
Buddha, calling out the name of the Buddha, and praising and giving offerings. Although
Shandao recognizes the Five Gates of Vasubandhu and Tanluan in an earlier text, he
nevertheless appears to reformulate them here.63 As noted above, Huaigan’s listing of
61 T 1960, vol. 47, 32b12.

62 T 1753, vol. 37, 272b02-06.
226
the Five Gates did not quite match the earlier scheme either. Shandao introduces three
new practices: study and chanting (dusong 讀誦), calling out the name of the Buddha
(koucheng 口稱), and praise and offering (zantan gongyang 讚歎供養).64 Huaigan does
not include the first or third in his version of the five gates, but mentions them all
repeatedly throughout the Qunyi lun. He also mentions the correct practices one time in
the fifth fascicle, noting that they are difficult to cultivate.65 However, Huaigan does not
simply ignore these prescribed practices from his master, for they appear throughout
the text. For example, in the last fascicle, he states, “All are urged to study and chant
[the scriptures]; as it is said, cultivate [right] practice. Cultivate [these] practices in order
to acquire the highest degree of samādhi.”66 While the two other practices unique to
Shandao’s system are never mentioned specifically, the ideas are still present. Chapter
4 demonstrated that oral recitation is akin to Shandao’s koucheng. In addition, both
zantan and gongyang appear frequently in the text, they are just never listed together.
It was mentioned above that Huaigan chose to insert nianfo as the second gate,
replacing praise (zantan) in the earlier iteration of the Five Gates. Again, given that
Hauigan was passionate about demonstrating the complexity and variety of nianfo
practice, it is surprising that he chose to represent the oral karma of the mouth with
nianfo. Obviously, out of the many practices contained in nianfo, only vocal recitation
satisfies that description. This query may be explained, perhaps, as Huaigan’s effort to
integrate his master’s zhengxing into his conception of the Five Gates. On the other
64 Vasubandhu and Tanluan include praise (zantan) but exclude offering (gongyang).
65 T 1960, vol. 47, 59b27.
66 Ibid., 74c06-07.
227
hand, why would Huaigan simply not list koucheng or chengfo instead of nianfo if he
was trying to include Shandao’s thought? Huaigan may have been uncertain about the
proposition of including only calling out the name of the Buddha, and hoped that his
detailed explanation of nianfo practice in the remainder of the text would impress upon
his readers the necessity for the entirety of the practice, not just vocal recitation alone.
Shandao’s three kinds of mind is another notable omission in the Qunyi lun. It
should be abundantly clear that the role of the mind is seminal to Huaigan’s thought, but
he never discusses the three kinds of mind directly, and only mentions them individually
in passing. In place of the three kinds of mind, Huaigan emphasizes the bodhi mind
(puti xin 菩提心), referencing it over twenty-five times throughout the text. Almost every
time it appears, the character fa 發 precedes it, indicating the importance of developing
or vowing to acquire the mind of enlightenment. In one of the more interesting passages
in the fourth fascicle, Huaigan accentuates the importance of the bodhi mind in avoiding
ghosts, demons and devils a dying person may encounter if spiritually unprepared.
Those who make all kinds of evil karma through body, speech, and
thought destroy and spoil their correct vision [of Amitābha Buddha], and
interact with ghosts and spirits. Those who have the evil three poisons
inside will perceive spirts, ghosts, and devils outside. Although they have
the three evil poisons, they are able for their loved ones to know and
understand goodness. In accordance with all the holy teachings, develop
the bodhi mind and cultivate all the good things. [Work toward] correct
belief and vision, and one will not have [to worry about] spirits, ghosts, and
devils. Indulge [in knowing] that the devils will not acquire expedience, and
that all Buddhas protect [you] because they are superior to karma. The
personal bodhi mind is the correct cause.67
Whereas Shandao emphasizes the three kinds of mind in order to help his readers
acquire the highest rebirth in Sukhāvatī, Huaigan is more concerned with people getting
67 Ibid., 52c16-22.
228
to that point first. Before they can reach the higher status of the three kinds of mind, one
must first resolve to develop the bodhi mind.
There are many more points of similarity between Huaigan and his master, some
of which will be discussed below in conjunction with other Pure Land masters. Any claim
that there is “great difference” between them fails to account for the even greater
similarity. Moreover, the audience and goal of the Qunyi lun must be included in the
discussion as well. These perceived differences are often easily explained away once
one extracts the traditional sectarian interpretations of the Huaigan and Shandao. There
is no doubt that Huaigan did try to expand upon his master’s thoughts, but there is
always a precedent or specific reason for doing so. On many of the biggest issues
Huaigan and Shandao are in lockstep, likely because they knew they had to be to
protect the burgeoning movement against critics and opposing ideologies, a few of
which we turn to now.
Defending Pure Land Belief and Practice
In the previous two sections, Huaigan was compared with previous Pure Land
masters on various topics. However, more often than not, they were all on the same
side defending their beliefs against what Huaigan and others labeled as heterodox
teachings. The nascent Pure Land movement was often targeted by monks outside the
tradition who were critical of the so-called easy path, and also concerned about its
popularity and support among the lay community. Complicating the matter were other
movements that espoused similar but troubling ideologies. Thus, these early Chinese
Pure Land masters had to be ready to defend their beliefs and practices not only
against other monastics, but against the possibility of misunderstandings, or even
imperial proscription. This section will highlight three of these battles that Huaigan and
229
his predecessors fought, each of which was successful. The first defense is against the
Shelun school’s interpretation of when one is actually reborn in the Pure Land. The
second features the Pure Land campaign to denounce and differentiate itself from the
Three Stages sect. The rivalry between worshipping Amitābha or Maitreya is the last
common battle discussed in this section.
Against the Shelun
Huaigan and other Pure Land exegetes, including Daochuo and Shandao,
argued against the claim that Pure Land practice, like the ten recollections, could not
guarantee rebirth in Sukhāvatī. This claim suggested that instead of attaining immediate
rebirth in the Pure Land upon death, one should practice knowing rebirth would occur at
a later time (bieshi yi 別時意). This critique derived from the Shelun school, which was
an early Yogacara school that was eventually replaced by the Faxiang school. It is likely
that the Shelun was diminishing during Huaigan’s life, yet it was still significant enough
to warrant inclusion in the Qunyi lun. Huaigan was determined to refute the damaging
claim that Pure Land practice does not ensure rebirth in Sukhāvatī.
Huaigan begins the debate by explaining the Shelun position. The claim
originates in Asaṇga’s Mahāyānasaṃparigraha śāstra (She daicheng lun 攝大乘論),
indicating that only the vow is important for rebirth, and that Pure Land practices are
intended for another time. Using this interpretation, the Shelun masters viewed Pure
Land practice as meaningless, especially for the common person (fanfu), as they could
not truly understand the meaning of Amitābha’s vows. Huaigan, however, views this as
a completely misunderstanding of the text. He states that nianfo practice must
230
accompany the vow, and if it does, rebirth in the Pure Land will be immediate.68 Again,
Huaigan clarifies what he means by nianfo practice here. It must be expressed with
sincerity, spoken aloud, and acted out physically with the hands clasped together as if in
prayer. Kaneko Kansai notes that this threefold action within nianfo practice matches
Shandao’s recommendations for practice in his commentary on the Guan jing.69
Huaigan explains that the “later period” is the period that follows after the vows; in other
words, Dharmākara made vows for a later period when he would become Amitābha
Buddha. Thus, any reading that nianfo practice causes rebirth at a later period is only a
misunderstanding.
Apparently, the Shelun interpretation was particularly difficult to correct given that
Daochuo, Shandao, Huaigan, and others all felt compelled to combat the issue.
Shandao clearly saw merit in the idea of bieshi yi, and argued that it did apply, but only
in the case of achieving Buddhahood, not rebirth in the Pure Land.70 Shandao seems to
find a compromise with this idea that, for practitioners, Buddhahood would indeed come
at a later time. However, their practice would ensure them immediate rebirth in the Pure
Land, where they could then work toward that later period goal of enlightenment. This is
somewhat a surprising development given that Shandao once stated that if practitioners
listened to the advice of the Shelun masters, “Even one of 1,000 of them would not be
reborn in the Pure Land.”71 Nevertheless, Shandao perceived nianfo practice as
68 T 1960, vol. 47, 39a05-11.

69Kaneko Kansai, “Nembutsu betsuji isetsu: Gungiron no sosetsu o chūshin ni,” in Indogakku
Bukkyōgaku kenkyū, vol. 50.2: 653-658.
70 Ibid.
71Nichiren Shonin, Kyotsu Hori (trans), and Jay Sakashita (ed): Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine 1
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), 29.
231
satisfying both the making of a vow and the practice. In speaking or hearing the first
word, namo 南無, one’s mind immediately makes a vow to Amitābha that is
supplemented with the second part of the phrase, amituo, which completes both the
vow and the practice.72 This was true of practices whether reciting nianfo one day or
one week.
The idea of bieshi yi eventually abated along with the Shelun. Julian Pas
suggests that as more exegetes argued for the conception of Sukhāvatī as a land of the
enjoyment body, instead of the land of the transformation body, that the “different time”
rhetoric became less important.73 The efforts of Shandao, Huaigan, and other Pure
Land masters successfully defended their belief against what they felt was a
misunderstanding. Although the next battle was not fought over a misinterpretation, the
stakes were even higher.
Against the Three Stages Sect
The Three Stages sect or Sanjie jiao began under the guidance of Xinxing. The
sect’s popularity reached its peak in the seventh century, shortly after the death of
Xinxing, and eventually faded out after repeated attacks in which it was labeled
heretical. Like Daochuo, Xinxing strongly believed that he was living during the period of
the decline of the dharma (mofa), and, as a result, that people suffered from low
spiritual capacity. Due to this situation, people could only rely on “universal teachings”
72 Kaneko Kansai, “Nembutsu,” 656.

73 Pas, Visions, 154-157.
232
(pufa) to discover their Buddha-nature.74 Many mistook the group for a kind of Pure
Land Buddhism, largely based on their belief in mofa and their practices, which included
chanting and meditation, and their association with the bodhisattva worship directed to
Kṣitigarbha (Dizang 地藏).75 The sect eventually claimed that Xinxing was a Buddha.
Consequently, Pure Land teachers wanted to differentiate their movement from the
Three Stages, and Huaigan was among the figures leading that effort.
In the third fascicle, Huaigan does not hesitate to completely denounce the Three
Stages sect. He begins by explaining the teachings of Xinxing, eventually calling them
erroneous.76 Xinxing believed in “three stages” of humanity, and that people during his
time were prone to evil. Therefore, his universal teaching sought to be fully inclusive of
all other Buddhist teachings to help humanity overcome this depraved era. Huaigan
attacks the Three Stages because of their heretical teaching that the Pure Land would
not allow all kinds of people to be reborn there. Huaigan finds no scriptural basis for
Xinxing’s claims, even though the multiple vows in the Larger and Smaller
Sukhāvatīvyuha Sutras often specifically mention the exclusion of those who commit the
five transgressions and slander the true Dharma .77 Furthermore, he asserts that the
Sanjie jiao teachers have a “deluded righteousness” that prevents them from fully
knowing and communicating the scriptures, which in turn wastes Amitābha’s efforts.78
74 For more, see Jaime Hubbard, “Sanjie Jiao (Three Stages School),” in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol.
2. Ed. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003): 744-745.
75
Zhiru Ng, The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. (Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 2007): 56.
76 T 1960, vol. 47, 44b13.
77 Ibid., 49b10-27.
78 Ibid., 49b 26-27.
233
Huaigan is uncharacteristically forceful in his attack of the Three Stages largely
because it is clear the sect attacked the Pure Land movement first. In many of his
critiques against the sect, Huaigan is actually defending Pure Land beliefs, texts, and
practices, against claims we can only assume the Three Stages made previously. For
instance, Huaigan responds to a question which implies that nianfo samādhi and the
sixteen contemplations are worthless during this time of mofa.79 Huaigan points to the
Guan jing as proof that these practices are still valuable, and that practice of the sixteen
contemplations leads to nianfo samādhi.80 Toward the end of his response, he is clearly
frustrated, labeling the heretical teaching as reckless before pondering to himself
exactly why they feel the need to exaggerate their claims.81
Other monks were also involved in the debate against the Sanjie jiao, but only
one is especially notable here, the Faxiang monk Kuiji. This is an unlikely partnership,
as will be made clear below. Nevertheless, both Huaigan and Kuiji seized upon the
sect’s questionable choice to worship Kṣitigarbha when they felt Amitābha is clearly
superior. Kuiji points out that Kṣitigarbha’s mission is to save beings from the three evil
rebirths, but if one just looks to Amitābha, he is assured to never face those rebirths
again.82 Huaigan supplements this point by adding, “Suppose one spends many kalpas
recollecting Dizang Bodhisattva, [that would] not be as good as a single sound with
utmost mind recollecting Amitābha Buddha.”83
79 Ibid., 46c24-47a04.
80 Ibid., 47a07ff.
81 Ibid., 47b02-04.
82 Ng, Dizang, 57.
83 T 1960, vol. 47, 69b27-28.
234
One of the most severe attacks is Huaigan’s claim that the Three Stages sect
venerates Xinxing as if he were a Buddha. It is perhaps this belief more than any other
that is the cause for the repeated proscription of the Sanjie jiao. Huaigan mocks this
claim by asking if it were true, why would Xinxing not save the low-ranking people?84
Huaigan continues, “Through his unequalled rank and expedient perfection of
sambodhi, would Dharma Master Xinxing not surpass the Buddha?”85 As we can see in
this exchange, there was a feud between the Pure Land movement and the Three
Stages sect.
Eventually, Empress Wu Zetian suppressed the Three Stages teachings, labeling
some of their practices and teachings as heretical.86 Her decision likely occurred during
the writing of the Qunyi lun. Therefore, it is possible that Huaigan’s arguments against
the Three Stages Sect were a motivating factor in their suppression. Given that Huaigan
was a respected student of a beloved teacher known to the empress, it is indeed an
intriguing possibility. However, it is far more likely that this uncharacteristically strong
stance against the Three Stages was driven by Huaigan’s desire to accord with the
political forces of his time.
Against Maitreya Worship
Devotion to Maitreya rivaled Amitābha cults until well into the Tang dynasty. This
rivalry is reflected in many Pure Land texts, especially the apologetic literature, and the
Qunyi lun is no exception. Huaigan followed Daochuo and Jiacai, both of whom
84 Ibid., 46a20ff.
85 Ibid., 46a23.
86Jamie Hubbard, Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese Heresy.
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001), 34.
235
professed the superiority of Sukhāvatī over Maitreya’s Tuṣita. Maitreya had his own
supporters who argued the opposite, many from the Faxiang and Tiantai schools. As
noted in Chapter 3, Kuiji is traditionally attributed with an apologetic text in support of
the Maitreya cult.87 While the split between these two sides was often filled with
polemics, Huaigan was more reserved in this discussion than Daochuo and Jiacai.
However, Huaigan clearly was influenced by their early works that defended
Sukhāvatī against attacks from the Maitreya cult. In the Anle ji, Daochuo provides four
reasons why rebirth in Sukhāvatī is better than rebirth in Tuṣita.
1. Whereas the occupants of Sukhāvatī are all in one accord because they accept
the teachings of Amitābha and know they will never recede, residents of Tuṣita
will eventually be reborn because it is within the three realms.
2. The lifespan of those in Tuṣita is 4,000 years, but life in Sukhāvatī is endless and
there is never need to be reborn.
3. The water, birds, and trees in Tuṣita heaven satisfy the physical desires but not
the spiritual cultivation of its residents, while these same things in the Pure Land
demonstrate true non-arising.
4. The music in Tuṣita is inferior to the music in Sukhāvatī, which leads to happier
residents there.88
This served as an early rudimentary list, but, not long after, Jiacai expanded it. In the
third fascicle of his Jingtu lun, Jiacai provides ten reasons why Amitābha’s Pure Land is
better than Maitreya’s Tuṣita. First, there are no women in Sukhāvatī, only men.
Second, occupants in Tuṣita still suffer from desire because it is within the three realms,
unlike those in the Pure Land. Third, residents of Sukhāvatī will never regress, while
those in Tuṣita will regress. Fourth, lifespan of those within Tuṣita is finite. Fifth, the
mind of those in Sukhāvatī is righteous, while in Tuṣita the mind can be afflicted with
87 T 1772, vol. 38. Guan mileshang shang doushuaitian jingzan 觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊.

88 This is a summary of Daochouo’s points. T 1958, vol. 47, 9b25-9c13.
236
evil. Sixth, like the mind, sensations in Tuṣita can also be bad, whereas they are always
pleasurable in Sukhāvatī. Seventh, the senses produce the six guṇas in Tuṣita, but not
in Sukhāvatī. Eighth, in Sukhāvatī beings are reborn through the lotus, while in Tuṣita
they come from mothers and fathers. Ninth, only Maitreya teaches in Tuṣita, while
water, birds, trees, and all kinds of things teach in the Pure Land. Tenth, those in Tuṣita
acquire karmic fruit unlike those in Sukhāvatī.89 It is clear that Jiacai used Daochuo’s
earlier list and expanded it to demonstrate the superiority of Sukhāvatī.
However, not everyone agreed that Tuṣita was inferior. Kuiji responded to the
above lists, demonstrating the flaws of Sukhāvatī.90 Kuiji countered by echoing one of
Jiacai’s points—the Pure Land is not as easy to get into as Tuṣita. Furthermore, as
Jiacai noted, it is not available to all kinds of people, like women for example. In
contrast, Tuṣita is open to everyone, and it is easier to reach because it remains in the
sahā realm. He also challenged the idea that all who enter Sukhāvatī would never
regress.91 Thus, the back-and-forth of this debate was well-established by the time of
Huaigan.
At first, it appears that the Qunyi lun will simply respond to Kuiji’s critique with yet
another argument proclaiming the superiority of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī, but Huaigan
eventually diverges from these expectations. First, however, he provides a list of twelve
points in order to make the superiority clear. Huaigan certainly relies heavily on Jiacai’s
list, though he does add a few points of his own. The first new point focuses on the
89 T 1963, vol. 47, 100b04-19.

90 T 1772, vol. 38, 277ff.
91 Ibid., 277c15-26.
237
enlightened beings that inhabit each realm. He makes note that, as a Buddha, Amitābha
is fully enlightened, unlike Maitreya, who remains as a bodhisattva.92 Another interesting
inclusion is the form of the bodies. Beings in Sukhāvatī are marked with the thirty-two
signs of a Buddha-body, whereas Tuṣita has categories of both beauty and ugliness.93
Moreover, because they have these bodies, they also have the five supernatural powers
of a Buddha, allowing them to access all the Pure Lands, while beings in Tuṣita are
confined to their specific realm.94 His tenth point is the final notable difference from
Jiacai’s earlier list, and it is the complete absence of sadness and strife in the Pure
Land.95 Then, at the end of the list Huaigan surprises the reader:
Both of these places are locations for future rebirth, and both are praised
in the Buddhist scriptures. Therefore, people who vow to rely on these
teachings should cultivate the right action in order to acquire rebirth. All
are blessed. Like those who vow to seek Tuṣita should never harm the
disciples of the Western Pure Land, likewise those disciples must not
slander those with the karma [destined] for Tuṣita. Each [person] should
follow their nature and desires to cultivate learning.96
It is clear that Huaigan is hesitant to proclaim unequivocally that one is better than the
other, because he sees the harm and division it causes. He goes on to ask how one can
expect to reborn in a superior place with this behavior, and notes that one is more likely
to end up in the three lower rebirths. Therefore, learned scholars should encourage
positive goals such as rebirth in Tuṣita or Sukhāvatī, not seek to attack the other side.
92 T 1960, vol. 47, 53a02-03.

93 Ibid., 53a29-b03.
94 Ibid., 53b04-06.
95 Ibid., 53b17.
96 Ibid., 53b22-25.
238
To extend his point, Huaigan then lists fifteen ways in which Tuṣita and the Pure
Land are similar.97 These points of similarity include the ten virtues, repentance,
worshiping, reading and chanting the scriptures, welcoming to the land, and non-
regression, to name a few. Huaigan expounds upon each of the fifteen points, often
referencing the Mileshang sheng jing zongyao (T 1773, vol. 38) and the Guan jing as
evidence for each point. Additionally, Huaigan lists eight differences between the two
locations.98 Some of these include the power of Dharmākara’s vows, the light of
Amitābha, protection against raids and thieves, and the complete elimination of evil.
Despite the differences between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, Huaigan illustrates that they are
more similar than they are different. Again, Huaigan emphasizes the validity of both
paths, and that likewise, they both command respect.
Unlike the debates against the Shelun and the Three Stages, Huaigan did not
see the necessity in attacking Maitreya worship. It is quite obvious that he viewed
rebirth in Tuṣita as a legitimate goal, if not quite as beneficial or desireable as rebirth in
Sukhāvatī. Truthfully, this is the usual modus operandi for Huaigan. He presents various
interpretations and weighs them against one another. More often than not, he finds that
there are multiple valid explanations for any one idea. Only when faced with a direct
threat, like those mentioned above, does Huaigan attack the opposing side. Normally,
one is left to guess which interpretation he prefers, and there is likely a reason Huaigan
keeps his readers guessing. One further suggestion for his diplomatic response will
follow in Chapter 6.
97 Ibid., 53c11-c15ff.
98 Ibid., 54a29-54c05.
239
Concluding Remarks
This chapter has demonstrated Huaigan’s contributions in comparison with other
Pure Land masters. In doing so, we have discovered even more about Huaigan and the
Qunyi lun. For example, points of comparison were discussed for each of the early Pure
Land masters: Tanluan, Daochuo, Jiacai, and Jingying Huiyuan. As a result, we have
also tracked the maturation of the early Pure Land movement in China as it developed
and gained popularity under the guidance of masters like Shandao and Huaigan.
The frequently espoused claim that the master and disciple relationship between
Shandao and Huaigan suffered from “great differences” was also examined. The origin
of this claim was linked back to Hōnen, who used it as a reason to overlook Huaigan’s
work in favor of Shandao’s. The ramifications of this decision will follow. Nevertheless,
the usual points of dissension were exposed as misinterpretations of Huaigan’s intent in
the Qunyi lun. The teachings of the master and disciple were in line far more than they
were apart.
Lastly, Huaigan’s role in the great debates of his day was examined. Although he
most often allowed multiple interpretations to stand on their own merits, he was not
always so diplomatic in his approach. Huaigan viewed the heterodox teachings of the
Sanjie jiao and the Shelun as dangers to the future of Pure Land belief and practice.
Therefore, he did not hesitate to undermine their doctrines through the use of textual
analysis as well as the earlier arguments of previous Pure Land masters. Moreover, he
was unafraid to name specific masters, unabashedly calling out their teachings as
heresy. Huaigan was normally not so dogmatic, however. If the scriptures validated a
claim, he was happy to let it stand beside his own, as he demonstrated in the rivalry
with the Maitreya cult. Undoubtedly, Huaigan placed scriptural authority over all else,
240
though it does appear that he was politically attuned to some of the important issues
during his era. Throughout the Qunyi lun he demonstrates a vast knowledge of the
scriptures, which one could suggest is Huaigan’s foremost talent. But is his scriptural
expertise his only remarkable skill, and therefore the best way to remember him?
Chapter 6 analyzes Huaigan’s legacy and debates whether he should be considered
among the great Chinese Pure Land masters.
241
CHAPTER 6
HUAIGAN’S HISTORICAL STANDING AND HIS IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PURE LAND TRADITION
The previous research has examined Huaigan’s life, his only extant text, and his
thought in comparison to his predecessors. The current chapter begins with a brief look
at the significance of Huaigan and his Qunyi lun after his death. This examination
moves beyond China into Korea and Japan, both countries which imported Huaigan’s
only extant text. Huaigan’s status in these countries will aid in understanding his legacy
as a master of the early Pure Land movement in China, and the degree to which the
utilization of the Qunyi lun influenced and strengthened it.
In addition, this chapter incorporates previous findings in order to address many
of the larger questions mentioned in the Introduction. What was Huaigan’s motivation
for writing the Qunyi lun, and his goal for it? Not only do these answers disclose a lot
about Huaigan and the text, but they also illumine the larger Chinese Buddhist milieu
during his lifetime, which is a central aim of this project. What do the contents of the
Qunyi lun reveal about the time and culture in which it was constructed? This question
acknowledges that the text is a result of the context within which it was produced;
therefore, its contents do not deal solely in the particulars of Pure Land belief, but to the
whole of early Tang dynasty Buddhism as well.
Essentially, this section contemplates how Huaigan should be understood. Two
crucial questions are featured in this section. The first asks, “Was Huaigan really a
Faxiang Buddhist?” As noted several times, contemporary scholars continually suggest
242
this influence as a fundamental characteristic of both Huaigan and the Qunyi lun.1 As
noted in Chapter 3, some have even claimed that he was a student of Xuanzang.
Instead of simply accepting the suggestion that Huaigan was a Faxiang Buddhist at
some point in his life, it will be questioned. It is unmistakably true that Huaigan uses
Faxiang vocabulary and concepts throughout the Qunyi lun, but could there be another
way to explain it other than Huaigan’s doctrinal influences?
The second question also involves representations of Huaigan in modern
scholarship, and it is more provocative: “Should Huaigan be remembered as a student
of Shandao?” This question is not seeking to answer whether or not Huaigan actually
was a student of Shandao; rather, is their relationship the best way to define Huaigan,
which is currently the preferred method. If these traditional models of representation are
deemed insufficient, alternative models for understanding and considering Huaigan will
be suggested. It is my hope that these new models will lead to a better discourse, not
only regarding Huaigan and the Qunyi lun, but Pure Land Buddhism in general.
Huaigan Beyond China
Chapter 3 noted that Huaigan was respected enough to be featured in a handful
of collections that recounted the biographies of eminent monks. Additionally, he was
posthumously credited as a contributor to translation projects, such as the Ren wang
jing. Thus, Huaigan and the Qunyi lun remained relevant to Chinese Buddhists long
after his death. However, what was the reception for the Qunyi lun beyond China? It is
evident that the text and its author are not widely known amongst Buddhist scholars in
1Jōji Atone, Mark L. Blum, Ming-wood Liu, and Hojun Nishi have all suggested that Huaigan was either a
disciple of the Faxiang school, or that his teachings were heavily influenced by it.
243
the modern West, but, given their lack of research, this is not surprising. This section
considers the status of the Qunyi lun in Korea and Japan, two cultures heavily
influenced by Chinese Buddhism.
Unlike Japan, Korea never established an independent Pure Land school.
Following the Chinese model, Pure Land was supplemental to specific sectarian
practice and doctrine, and largely universal to Korean Buddhism. Many Korean monks
traveled to China for their education before returning to Korea to teach. However, one of
the most famous Korean monks, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617-686), stayed in Korea and spread
his teachings to the rest of East Asia. Wŏnhyo was interested in a wide range of
Buddhist philosophies, including Yogācāra and Pure Land.2 Wŏnhyo wrote the Yusim
allakto 遊心安樂道 (Path to Paradise for the Serene Mind, T 1965, vol. 47), which
shares a striking similarity with the Qunyi lun.
The Yusim allakto criticizes the opposing positions of Jiacai and Kuiji regarding
the superiority of Sukhāvatī versus Tuṣita. Like Huaigan, Wŏnhyo finds this a misguided
debate because rebirth in both destinations is beneficial.3 In contrast, Wŏnhyo does not
imply that one is better than the other, while Huaigan did view Sukhāvatī as the superior
location for rebirth. Wŏnhyo died at least a decade before Huaigan, so there is a
possibility that Huaigan was familiar with the Yusim allakto, though it is never directly
2 For more, see Robert E. Buswell, Jr., “The Biographies of Korean Monk Wŏnhyo (617-686): A Study in
Buddhist Hagiography,” in Biography as Genre in Korean Literature, ed. Peter H. Lee (Berkeley: Center
for Korean Studies, 1989),
3Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla,” in Assimilation of Buddhism in
Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, ed. Lewis R. Lancaster and C.S. Yu
(Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press), 165.
244
referenced in the Qunyi lun. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the
Maitreya/Amitābha rivalry continued into Korea.
Japan was an avid importer of medieval Chinese culture. Subsequently,
Japanese development of Buddhism introduced important new sects, doctrines, and
practices. Pure Land Buddhism was among the biggest benefactors of the transmission
from China to Japan. Pure Land belief and practice evolved from a movement in China
into developed, independent sects in Japan, which remain very influential in Japan
today. Much of the later development of Pure Land thought took place in Japan
because, unlike China, Pure Land Buddhists identified themselves as an independent
sect. Therefore, they needed standardization instead of an unorganized, loose set of
beliefs and practices. Pure Land practice in China was viewed as inclusive to many
doctrines and traditions, as the Ming dynasty Linji Chan monk Hanshan Deqing 憨山德
清 (1546-1623) and others demonstrated. It is important to note that the transmission of
Pure Land to Japan does not represent a terminus for Pure Land belief in China.
Despite never forming an independent Chinese Pure Land school, important Pure Land
thought and practice continued in China.4
Japanese monks and aristocrats were the main importers of Chinese Buddhism
into Japan. Monks would often leave Japan to study under Chinese masters for some
period of time before returning to their homeland to propagate the Dharma. In fact, as
mentioned earlier, the Tendai monk Ennin, the well-travelled Japanese monk who
traveled throughout China, mentioned Huaigan in his diary. Ennin learned and wrote
4For more, see, Charles B. Jones, “Foundations of Ethics and Practice in Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,”
Journal of Buddhist Ethics 10 (2003): 1-20.
245
about Huaigan over a century after his death. In addition, Eichō, an eleventh century
Japanese monk, also mentioned Huaigan’s writings. However, the Qunyi lun was
already well-known to Japanese monks by the time of Eichō.
Given the popularity of Pure Land belief and practice in China, many of the
Japanese monks brought the popular texts and practices back with them when they
returned home. Allan Andrews has argued that Chinese Pure Land was imported to
Japan in three phases.5 In the first phase, the majority of Pure Land texts—including the
notable commentarial literature like the Qunyi lun—were imported to Japan by 753.6 If
this is accepted, it would indicate that the text was finished—likely including Meng
Xian’s preface—and exported to Japan some fifty years after Huaigan’s death. The
Qunyi lun enjoyed some popularity in Japan during the Nara (710-794) and Heian (794-
1185) periods. Pure Land exegetical texts were among the most ubiquitous texts during
the Nara period, especially those of Daochuo, Shandao, and Huaigan.7 Because there
were no Japanese Pure Land schools at the time, the early Tendai school produced
much of the literature centered on Pure Land belief and practice. The Qunyi lun was
one of the texts they turned to most frequently in their commentarial literature. 8
Andrews identifies this creation of Tendai commentarial literature focused on Pure Land
belief and practice as the second phase.
5 Andrews, Teachings Essential for Rebirth, 130-142.

6 Ibid., 130.
7Shigematsu Akihisa, “An Overview of Early Japanese Pure Land,” translated by Michael Solomon, The
Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K.
Payne (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1996), 279.
8 Ibid., 138.
246
The third phase begins with the creation of Genshin’s 源信 (942-1017) Ōjōyōshū
往生要集, or The Essentials of Pure Land Rebirth, which sought to enumerate many of
the methods and doctrines discussed in the Chinese commentarial literature. Genshin
was a Tendai monk who was later coopted into the Jōdo Shinshū tradition. The Qunyi
lun is cited thirty-three times; the eighth most-cited text in the Ōjōyōshū.9 Genshin’s text
is a critical work in Japanese Buddhism, because it influenced Hōnen and Shinran, and
their creation of the first independent Pure Land sects. Shiran eventually named
Genshin as a Pure Land patriarch. Thus, it is important to note how Genshin references
Huaigan’s Qunyi lun in the Ōjōyōshū.
The majority of the references to the Qunyi lun appear in the tenth chapter of the
Ōjōyōshū, in which it is cited twenty-two times.10 It is interesting to note fanfu, or
ordinary beings, and the bodies of Amitābha are the focus of the chapter. As mentioned
in Chapter 5, both of these topics are major discussion points for Huaigan throughout
the Qunyi lun. Genshin’s utilization of the Qunyi lun demonstrates that the Japanese
continued to discuss many of the same issues about Pure Land belief and practice that
Huaigan dealt with some three centuries earlier in China. Essentially, Huaigan’s text is
an authoritative resource for Genshin. The two are not always in agreement; however,
the popularity of the text in Japan increased the notoriety of both Huaigan and the Qunyi
lun.
9 Andrews, Teaching Essentials for Rebirth, 142.

10 Ibid., 154.
247
Therefore, how did Huaigan and his text go from being popular and respected
during the Nara and Heian periods to being subsumed within the larger mythos of
Shandao? The process begins with the following dialogue from Hōnen’s Senchakushū:
Question: In each of the Kegon, Tendai, Shingon, Zen, Sanron,

and Hossō [traditions], there were masters who compared essays and
commentaries on the Pure Land teachings. Why do you not rely on those
masters but make use of Shan-tao alone?
Answer: Although all those masters composed essays and
commentaries on the Pure Land, they did not take Pure Land as their
central tenet. Rather they took the Path of Sages as their central tenet.
Therefore I did not rely on those teachers. Shan-tao took the Pure Land as
his central tenet rather than the Path of the Sages, and thus I rely on him
alone.
Question: There are many Pure Land patriarchal teachers such as
Chia-ts’ai of the Hung-fa temple or the Tripiṭaka Master Tz’u-min. Why do
you not rely on masters such as those but make sure of Shan-tao alone?
Answer: Although those masters made Pure Land their central
tenet, they do not attain samādhi. Shan-tao is someone who attained
samādhi and thus attested to the way. Therefore I use him.
Question: If it is a matter of relying on one who has attained
samādhi, then you must all that the dhyāna master Huai-kan also attained
it. Why not use him?
Answer: Shan-tao was the master and Huai-kan the disciple. I rely
on the master, not the disciple. Moreover, there are numerous instances
where [Huai-kan] runs contrary to his master’s teaching, and thus I do not
use him.
Question: If you rely on the master and not the disciple, then the
dhyāna master Tao-ch’o was Shan-tao’s master and he is also a Pure
Land patriarch. Why not use him?
Answer: Although Tao-ch’o was indeed [Shan-tao’s] master, he did
not attain samādhi and thus did not personally know whether he would
attain rebirth or not.11
Thus, it is evident that Hōnen strongly preferred Huaigan’s master, and though
he has trouble defending this claim, he stands by it. Shandao was the only person
qualified to truly discuss the Pure Land, according to Hōnen. Although both Shandao
and Huaigan realized the goal of Pure Land practice, Huaigan’s differences with his
11 Hōnen, Senchakushū, 148-149.
248
master made him unreliable in the eyes of Hōnen. Robert Sharf makes a valid point
regarding Hōnen’s defense of Shandao in this passage, “Hōnen’s particular defense of
his emphasis on the teachings of Shan-tao would have been unnecessary had Shan-
tao’s stature and authority as a Pure Land exegete been a matter of broad consensus at
the time.”12 Although later Pure Land sectarian narrative dictates that these patriarchs
were immediately remarkable and well-known as Pure Land masters, passages like the
one above from the Senchakushū belie that notion.
Notably, despite his reservations regarding the differences between Huaigan and
his master, Hōnen still chose to feature him as one of the five Pure Land patriarchs from
Bodhiruci’s lineage, despite the creation of two other Chinese Pure Land lineages as
well. The earliest lineage began with Lushan Huiyuan, while the second began with
Cimin 慈愍 (680-748).13 Bodhiruci’s lineage includes Tanluan, Daochuo, Shandao,
Huaigan, and Shaokang. The Jōdo Shū still recognizes those five as the Pure Land
patriarchs. However, like Shandao, it is highly questionable and likely incorrect to assert
that these figures viewed themselves as part of a lineage of Pure Land masters.
Whereas some lineages were considering themselves as an independent school, that is
simply not the case in reference to the Chinese Pure Land patriarchs. While Huaigan
clearly recognizes other schools in the Qunyi lun—for instance, he uses zong (school)
12Robert H. Sharf, “On Pure Land Buddhism and Chan/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China,” T’oung
Pao, Second Series, vol. 88 (2002): 300.
13Cimin journeyed to India and returned to China a highly respected monk. His Collection of the
Teachings of Birth in the Pure Land (Ezhu jinglun nianfo famen wangsheng jingtu ji 略諸經論念佛法門往生
淨土集, T 2826, vol. 85) chastised the Chan monks attacking Pure Land belief, and suggested models for
syncretization.
249
when referring to the Three Stages—he never applies it to himself or generally in his
discussion of Pure Land belief.14
Hōnen was aware that he would have to defend his creation of the patriarchate.
He used passages from Kuiji and Jiacai to claim that there was indeed a Pure Land
school.15 Unlike the other Japanese sects that were developing during this time, there
were no notable monks who had studied with Pure Land masters and brought their
teachings back to Japan. This reality was a source of critique from the other established
schools, who viewed that the nascent Japanese Pure Land sect was purely a creation
of Hōnen.16 The Hossō (Faxiang school in Japan) and Tendai schools of the time—both
of which Hōnen studied with in his earlier years—orchestrated this response, and it was
these critiques by monks like Jōkei 貞慶(1155-1213), a notable Hossō monk, that
eventually led to his exile from Kyōto in 1207.17
Hōnen’s rivalry and feud with these more powerful Japanese Buddhist schools
may have played a significant role in his depreciation of Huaigan’s status in comparison
to Shandao. Again, the Qunyi lun was among the more ubiquitous Pure Land texts
during the Nara and Heian periods. The rise of the Tendai and Hossō took place during
these periods, and both schools integrated Pure Land belief and practice into their
teachings, as was the custom in China. Given the popularity of Huaigan’s text at this
time, and his inclination toward philosophical explanations of the Pure Land which
14 For an example of Huaigan using zong, see T 1960, vol. 47, 47c04.
15James L. Ford, Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), 162.
16 Ibid.
17 Joseph M. Kitagawa, Religion in Japanese History, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 113.
250
appealed to both Yogācāra and, specifically, Faxiang principles, it is plausible that the
wide acceptance and popularity of the Qunyi lun among these two schools is the reason
why Hōnen elevates Shandao completely over Huaigan and the other masters. Huaigan
often used complex concepts and doctrines in order to speak directly to the groups that
were critical of Pure Land belief during his life. In stark contrast to Huaigan’s approach,
Shandao asserted that, “If newly aroused bodhisattva-candidates would hear that all the
dharmas are ultimately void in their nature and that even nirvana is a creation, their
minds would be greatly frightened.”18 Shandao’s sentiment is not very comparable to
the technical nature of the Qunyi lun.
Moreover, Kuiji was tremendously popular within the Hossō school, and
posthumously recognized as their first patriarch. The Japanese monk Dōshō 道昭 (629-
700) studied with Kuiji before returning to Japan as the first transmission of the
Faxiang/Hossō school.19 Although Huigan challenged Kuiji’s claim that Maitreya worship
was superior to Amitābha worship, he also saw the value in Maitreya worship. In
addition to Huaigan’s inclusion of Yogācāra and Mādhyamika principles, Hōnen may not
have been pleased with Huaigan’s claim in the Qunyi lun that both Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita
are viable paths. This may have been perceived as another victory for Hōnen’s
antagonists rather than for his community, giving Hōnen yet another reason to promote
Shandao, who refrained from extended discussion on the matter, over all other Chinese
masters.
18 Translation from Chappell, Pure Land Movement, 159.

19 Ford, Jōkei, 37.
251
Yet, if this theory is indeed the reason why Hōnen moved away from Huaigan
and the Qunyi lun, why would he still include him in his patriarchate? There are two
possibilities possible explanations. First, because no Japanese monk studied Pure Land
within the Bodhiruci lineage in China and returned to Japan, Hōnen’s new school lacked
legitimacy and authority. Therefore, despite his misgivings, he was compelled to include
not only Huaigan, but Shaokang as well in order to extend Shandao’s lineage into the
ninth century instead of it possibly dying two centuries earlier. Secondly, given
Huaigan’s reputation due to the popularity of the Qunyi lun in Japan, Hōnen’s
designation of Huaigan as a Pure Land patriarch specifically provided his school
notoriety and respect. Even though Hōnen may have preferred his master, the claiming
of Huaigan as a Pure Land patriarch could have been a strong message to the rival
schools.
Shinran was the most notable of Hōnen’s many disciples. Although Hōnen
ultimately decided to retain Huaigan in his Pure Land patriarchate, Shinran did not. Like
many of the other schools at the time, Shinran was concerned with linking his school all
the way back to India; therefore he inserted Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu as the link to
the Chinese trio of Tanluan, Daochuo, and Shandao, with Genshin and Hōnen as the
Japanese predecessors to his lineage. Obviously, Huaigan and Shaokang are missing
from this version of the Pure Land patriarchate. In his major work, the Kyōgyōshinshō 教
行信証 (T 2646, vol. 83) he only mentions Huaigan twice. In the sixth chapter, he quotes
Huaigan through Genshin regarding the importance of nianfo above all other
252
practices.20 The second mention is a semantic comparison between Daochuo,
Shandao, and Huaigan: “Speaking of all the various practices, Master Tao-ch’o says
‘myriad practices,’ Master Shan-tao says ‘sundry practices,’ and Master Huai-kan says
‘various practices.’ Master Genshin used the same term as Master Huai-kan, and
Master [Hōnen] followed Master Shan-tao.”21 Shinran continues the discussion, solely
focusing on Shandao’s interpretation of practice.
Upon its entry into Japan, it is apparent that the Qunyi lun was an important text.
This is especially notable because it arrived in Japan before the construction of the
Japanese Pure Land schools. Genshin, firmly within the Tendai school, liberally
referenced the Qunyi lun. However, as the Japanese Pure Land schools developed,
they prioritized the teachings of Shandao over those of all other Chinese masters. As a
result, during the Kamakura period, the Qunyi lun was cited far less frequently than in
the Nara and Heian periods. Several theories were suggested for the declining
popularity of Huaigan and his text, mostly involving Hōnen’s preference of Shandao. As
noted in Chapter 5, though there are certainly differences between Huaigan and his
master, it is difficult to qualify them as “great differences,” like Hōnen claimed. Although
this move did not completely wipe out the influence of the Qunyi lun, the text never
reclaimed the popularity it enjoyed during early Japanese Buddhism.22
20Shinran, Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証, T 2646, vol. 83, 627c. Translation by Inagaki Hisao (Numata Center
for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2003), 238.
21 Ibid., 630a. Translation, 254.
22Infrequently, there were commentaries written about or in the apologetic style of the Qunyi lun. One
example is the Gungi ron tanyō ki 群疑論探要記, written by Dōshū 道忠 (d.u.). For more see, Murakami
Shinzui, “On the Relationship Between the Shakujodogungirontan and Gungironkenmon 釈浄土群疑論探
要記』と『群疑論見聞』との関係について,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 38.1
(1989): 131-135.
253
Remembering Huaigan
It is time to consider the conclusions from what has been revealed about both
Huaigan and the Qunyi lun throughout this study. The key question is, “How should we
remember Huaigan?” Did Huaigan consider himself a Pure Land and/or Faxiang
Buddhist? Is it beneficial to remember him as Shandao’s disciple? What do his goals for
the Qunyi lun say about him? These questions have been alluded to throughout this
study and it is time to answer them using what has been gathered. In doing so, we will
conclude this examination of Huaigan and his only extant text.
Huaigan and Faxiang Buddhism
Before beginning this discussion in earnest, it is necessary to point out a flaw in
the very consideration of labeling Huaigan as a Faxiang or Pure Land Buddhist.
Regardless of whether or not Huaigan studied with Xuanzang, was a fellow disciple of
Kuiji, or completely accepted Faxiang ideology, there is virtually no chance that he
would have self-identified as a Faxiang Buddhist because there is no evidence of an
independent self-aware Faxiang school during his lifetime. Woncheuk 圓測 (613-696), a
Korean monk who came to China and studied under Xuanzang, and Kuiji engaged in a
feud over who should be acknowledged as their master’s true successor. While
Woncheuk’s interpretations became the basis of Faxiang in Korea, Kuiji’s version was
exported to Japan and he was posthumously granted the title of the first patriarch of the
school. Thus, during Huaigan’s life, Faxiang thought was still a fresh interpretation of
Yogācāra doctrine, and had not yet truly evolved into the school it would be recognized
as later. In other words, labeling Huaigan as a Faxiang Buddhist would be
anachronistic.
254
However, despite this disclaimer, Faxiang doctrine certainly was circulating
widely during Huaigan’s lifetime. Moreover, it was popular in some part due to the
celebrity of Xuanzang. Therefore, it is still a viable endeavor to consider whether or not
Huaigan accepted Faxiang ideology, especially since it is frequently referenced in the
Qunyi lun. This section will wrestle with the claim that Huaigan accepted Faxiang
thought, and propagated it in the Qunyi lun.
As noted several times, some scholars have written that Huaigan was a disciple
of Xuanzang before finally studying with Shandao. Unfortunately, there is no direct
evidence that proves this assertion. Those who believe it point to Huaigan’s biographies
which indicate he was a great student before becoming dissatisfied with this education
and moving on to learn nianfo practice under Shandao. This is often paired with the
reality that Faxiang thought appears frequently in the Qunyi lun. Basically this claim
connects Huaigan to Xuanzang because Hauigan was knowledgeable about Faxiang,
and Xuanzang was the source of this knowledge in China during that time. While this is
a rational argument, there is no specific evidence that can verify this claim. Therefore, it
is necessary to turn to the Qunyi lun in order to see if there are other clues which might
help this assertion.
Huaigan definitely features Faxiang terminology throughout the Qunyi lun.
However, the first fascicle features the majority of these references, given that Huaigan
uses them to explain his understandings on the nature of the trikāya and Sukhāvatī.
Huaigan utilizes key Faxiang concepts including the eight parijñāna (ba shi 八識),
congition shift (shi bian 識變), seeds (zhongzi 種子), and mind-only (weishi 唯識).
Huaigan uses the eight parijñāna in his explanation of how kleśa exists in the Pure
255
Land. He explains that the seeds remain in the ālayavijñāna, or storehouse
consciousness.23 These seeds determine how one perceives the Pure Land, but do not
taint Amitābha or his Pure Land. In the last fascicle, Huaigan clarifies that, though
nianfo practice does extinguish evil (i.e., the resulting punshiments of evil acts), it does
not extinguish the seeds.24
Huaigan commonly works Yogācāra thought into his explanations, but rarely ever
acknowledges it as Yogācāra or weishi. This is not the case in the sixth fascicle in the
answer to a question referencing the Guan jing. The question asks, “Why does [the
Guan jing] state that the mind is that which can be made into a buddha?”25 In his
response, Huaigan points out that this is a weishi principle.26 Thus, Huaigan recognized
Faxiang principles in this seminal Pure Land text, and did not hesitate to point them out.
In addition to using Faxiang terminology, it is quite clear that Huiagan borrowed
Faxiang principles and texts. The clearest example of this is the trikāya theory, in which
he coopted his designation from either the Fodi jing lun or the Cheng weishi lun, both
seminal Yogācāra texts that were translated by Xuanzang. It was also noted earlier that
he listed the Faxiang version of the four types of avaivartika, or non-regression.27
Moreover, Huaigan utilizes Yogācāra texts and often uses Xuanzang’s tranlsations,
though not exclusively. Lastly, Huaigan called for an end to the antagonism between
worshippers of Maitreya and Amitābha, as he viewed both paths as viable paths, though
23 T 1960, vol. 47, 33a21-33b01

24 Ibid., 72c20ff.
25 Ibid., 66a12.
26 Ibid., 66a13.
27 Ibid., 55b19-20.
256
he favored Amitābha worship. One could argue that his gracious attitude toward
Maitreya worship, largely including Chinese Yogācāra Buddhists, is another indicator
that Huaigan sympathized and perhaps identified with Faxiang Buddhism. Thus, there
are a bevy of different reasons one could argue as to why Huaigan should be
considered as much a Faxiang Buddhist as a Pure Land master.28 On the other hand,
there are some considerations that must be mentioned to contrast this claim.
First, Faxiang doctrine was very popular at the time. Integrating Faxiang thought
into Pure Land belief and practice would only increase the popularity and reputation of
the Pure Land movement in China, especially among monastics who were better
equipped to understand the complicated philosophy. This is also a possible catalyst for
the text’s creation. Additionally, Huaigan’s intended audience merits consideration in
this discussion. If Huaigan’s target audience is monastics and elite laypeople who
respect and identify with the popular Faxiang ideology of their time, it is only logical that
he would use its terminology and concepts in order to appeal to them.
Many modern scholars point to Huaigan’s familiarity with Faxiang ideology to
suggest he was a Faxiang student at some point, but that is a rather big step. As noted
in earlier, both Jingying Huiyuan and Jiacai incorporated new, popular Yogācāra ideas
into their Pure Land systems. Huiyuan’s inclusion of the three-body schema became the
traditional interpretation, while Jiacai’s differently conceived dual enjoyment body idea
may have influenced Huaigan. Thus, Pure Land belief during this time was constantly
drawing upon new ideas and outside sources. In fact, this was vital to its growth and
sustenance in the face of rivals.
28 Again, these are anachronistic labels, but they are nevertheless useful in discussing Huaigan’s thought.
257
Another knock against the argument is the lack of biographical evidence. If it is
true that Huaigan was a student of Xuanzang and early adopter of Faxiang Buddhism,
one would think that information would have been included in his biographies. In a time
in which Huaigan felt compelled to defend Pure Land belief and practice against
attacks, it would have been a great victory to have a former Faxiang student as a
convert to seeing Pure Land practice as most rewarding. Surely his early biographers,
especially those who were promoting Pure Land masters, would have recognized the
value of Huaigan’s conversion.
Despite this analysis, it is still difficult to favor one side or the other. The claim
that Huaigan was a Faxiang student continues because it is rational and compelling.
Huaigan was certainly knowledgeable about Faxiang thought, but perhaps only because
it gained significant popularity during his lifetime. Furthermore, almost all of his
biographies relay that he was a very good student with vast knowledge of the scriptures.
Therefore, the fact that he utilizes Faxiang doctrine throughout the Qunyi lun to make
certain points, while intriguing, is not enough to validate the claim that he was Faxiang
Buddhist or that he studied with Xuanzang.
Huaigan’s Acceptance of Pluralism
As noted throughout the analysis of the Qunyi lun, Huaigan was usually very
reluctant to choose sides in a debate. He frequently listed all the interpretative options
or theories on a subject, and left it to his readers to decide for themselves. Daochuo did
not share this inclination, as he went to great lengths to display the absolute necessity
for Pure Land practice during the mofa era. Even Shandao was unafraid to create
division at times, like when he opposed Jingying Huiyuan’s ranking of the Nine Grades
of Rebirth. On the other hand, Huaigan is content to explain each division, and then list
258
the many interpretations of the subdivisions. Again, the reader is left wondering where
Huaigan stands in all this debate. The question, then, is whether Huaigan had nothing
to say or add in most of these discussions, or if he was refraining from providing his
opinions for a specific reason.
In order to know whether Huaigan purposively kept most of his personal thoughts
hidden from the reader, it is important to recall the times that he did not. Huaigan is
most vocal and passionate in the Qunyi lun when he feels that Pure Land belief and
practice is being threatened. It was previously noted that his critiques are directed at the
Shelun school and the Three Stages sect. Huaigan viewed these groups as threats to
the Pure Land tradition because they were propagating misunderstandings about basic
beliefs, or questioning the efficacy of nianfo practice. Significant portions of the Qunyi
lun are dedicated to dismantling the popularity of these two groups.
Huaigan’s debate between Maitreya and Amitābha worship splits the middle
between his normative diplomatic approach and the attacks against the Shelun and the
Three Stages. Whereas he never rises to the same level of critique in his discussion
regarding the inferiority of Maitreya worship, he clearly recognizes it as secondary to
Amitābha worship. Nevertheless, he ends the debate expounding the benefits and
similarities of each side, and calls for an end to the hostile and pointless argument. As
noted above, this could be seen as a clue revealing Huaigan’s Faxiang inclinations.
However, it is more likely that Huaigan really did see the benefit of worshipping both
Maitreya and Amitābha, and therefore saw no need to attack his rivals harshly on this
matter.
259
However, there is another possible interpretation for Huaigan’s unwillingness to
speak out against Maitreya worship as inferior to Amitābha worship, and it is far more
intriguing. It is important to remember that Huaigan wrote the Qunyi lun near the end of
his life, during the reign of Empress Wu Zetian. Antonino Forte has noted the complex
relationship between the Empress and millenarian Matireya worship.29 Forte’s argument
centers on a special mingtang 明堂 (bright hall) tower that Empress Wu commissioned,
which became imbued with Maitreyan signficance. She briefly claimed the title of
Maitreya, until the tower was destroyed in a fire in 694, which may have hurt the status
of Buddhists in the imperial court.30
Although this may seem like a departure, there are two points of interest. First, it
is completely understandable why Huaigan, writing during the time of Wu Zetian’s reign,
would hesitate to use strong polemics given Empress Wu’s association and
identification with Maitreya. Her reign was mostly a boon to Buddhists, due to her
generous patronage. Thus, perhaps again, we find that there may have been political
motivations that influenced the Qunyi lun.
Secondly, Wu Zetian’s appropriation of the Maitreya cult may have been a quite
literal godsend for the worship of Amitābha. As noted earlier, originally, Maitreya
worship was very popular in China until the seventh and eighth centuries, when
Amitābha worship rose to prominence. It is possible that Wu Zetian’s affiliation with
millenarian Maitreya cults contributed to their gradual decline after her death. In its
29Antonino Forte, Mingtan and Buddhist Utopias in the History of the Astronomical Clock: The Tower,
Statue and Armillary Sphere Constructed by Empress Wu (Paris: École Française D’Extrême-Orient,
1988), especially pages 220-233.
30 Ibid., 230.
260
place, devotion to Amitābha grew steadily. Huaigan lived and wrote during a complex
political climate that must be accounted for in any final interpretation of the Qunyi lun.
On the other hand, if these political considerations are rejected, it becomes clear
that Huaigan was an inclusive pluralist, as long as a side was not threatening his
beliefs. Even when he felt another group or idea was mistaken, he was willing to let
them coexist. Huaigan still felt the need to assert the superiority of the Pure Land in
these cases, but ultimately, he is content to let others wander their own paths as long as
they are heading in the right direction. This attitude is likely not totally unique to
Huaigan, but symbolic of the greater milieu during his lifetime. Monks with different
interpretations often shared spaces, and they had to learn to live with each other while
propagating and defending their own views.
Huaigan’s pluralism is not the only reason for his inclusivity, however. Again, the
audience of the Qunyi lun largely consisted of monastics and educated elites. Huaigan
demonstrated that Pure Land belief and practice easily integrates within other styles of
Buddhism. Listing the many interpretations already present within Pure Land ideology
would likely turn off those who were already drawn to Pure Land because of its
simplicity and accessibility. Instead, Huaigan goes to painstaking detail at times to
demonstrate the true power of Pure Land Buddhism—its adaptability.
This ecumenical approach to explaining Pure Land belief and practice and
welcoming new interpretations—as long as they did not endanger it—is truly the
hallmark of Huaigan and the Qunyi lun. Huaigan rarely ever rejected multiple
interpretations because he realized that it would only divide or turn people away from
Pure Land belief. As a believer and teacher of Pure Land belief and practice, he wanted
261
just the opposite. He saw it necessary to feature many different opinions, and also
include new popular theories (e.g., Faxiang) that were just beginning to combine with
Pure Land belief. Clearly, Huaigan truly believed that Amitābha could save all people,
and he sought to spread and defend that truth. Therefore, he wrote an apologetic text
which would “resolve doubts” that kept readers from knowing that, no matter their
ideology, Sukhāvatī was near.
Concluding Remarks
This concluding chapter first considered the reception of Huaigan and the Qunyi
lun outside of China. Initially, the text enjoyed notoriety in Japan, as it met the needs of
the Japanese monks, specifically the developing Hossō and Tendai schools. Huaigan’s
pluralistic approach to acknowledging multiple interpretations likely contributed to its
popularity. Genshin often quoted the Qunyi lun, signaling that many of the problems of
Huiagan’s day had not yet been resolved in Japan centuries later.
Although the widespread appeal of the Qunyi lun may have helped it gain
an audience during its introduction to Japan, that appeal eventually hurt it popularity. As
the Pure Land schools developed and needed an independent identity, the popularity of
the text declined. Although Hōnen labeled Huaigan as Pure Land patriarch, this may
have been more of an expedient decision than one based on the thought espoused in
the Qunyi lun. Huaigan extended the lineage of Shandao while also providing a
respected name to shield the emerging Pure Land school against the established
schools seeking to exile Hōnen. His disciple, Shinran, followed the legitimizing trend by
creating a link between Japanese Pure Land belief and India. Following the preferences
of his master, Shinran neglected Huaigan and the Qunyi lun, only referencing it very
262
sparingly. Huaigan and the Qunyi lun were placed on the margins, and they remain
researched infrequently. Essentially, Huaigan remains a footnote to his master.
Although that is how Huaigan is largely remembered today, this study has
provided ample reason to challenge that reality. Huaigan was an astute and respected
monk. His belief that all could enter Sukhāvatī reflected his belief that Pure Land
thought could work within various Buddhist schools, and he appears to have been
correct. Many of his biographies remember him as an exegete, but Huaigan was first an
apologist, and maybe even an early defender of Pure Land thought, as Meng Xian
suggested. Not only did he shield Pure Land belief and practice against damaging
claims, but he also wanted more monastics to understand how it fit within their
respective doctrines.
The Qunyi lun also offers some hints about Chinese Buddhism in the early Tang
dynasty. It chronicles the gradual decline on Maitreya worship in favor of Amitābha and
Sukhāvatī. The popularity of Faxiang doctrine is apparent throughout the text. It
challenges the narrative of mofa, and in its place the text illumines how preoccupied
believers were with negotiating the process from death to rebirth in the Pure Land.
Additionally, nianfo was surely more than just vocal recitation, though the vocal practice
continued to build significance after Daochuo. Lastly, the Qunyi lun clearly
demonstrates the vibrancy and complexity of Chinese Buddhism in the early Tang era.
Huaigan drew from multiple recently translated texts and wrestled with popular new
understandings of Chinese Yogācāra. Moreover, he did these things to display the
creativity and adaptability of Pure Land Buddhism, which did not need an independent
school in China, because monks like Huaigan were working to make it universal.
263
APPENDIX
CHARACTER LIST
Amituo jing tongzan 阿彌陀經通贊 Chang’an zhi 長安志
Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 cheng minghao 稱名號
Amituo jingshu 阿彌陀經疏 Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論
Amituo 阿彌陀 cheng 稱
Amoghavajra 不空 chengfo 稱佛
Anding 安定 Chengzan jingtu 稱讚淨土
Anle guo 安樂囯 Chongning ta 崇寧塔
Anle ji 安樂集 Chujin 楚金
ba shi 八識 Ci’en Monastery 慈恩寺
bianhua shen 變化身 Cimin 慈愍
bie 別 cu 麤
bieshi yi 別時意 Da Ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩
butui chu 不退處三藏法師傳
butui nian 不退念 Da Fo ding 大佛頂
butui wei 不退位 Da jing 大經
butui xin 不退信 Da Tang zhenyuan xu kaiyuan shijiao lu
butui xing 不退行大唐貞元續開元釋教錄
butui zheng 不退證 Da zhou ganding zhongjing mulu 大周刊
butui 不退定中竟目錄
buxin 不信
264
Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊 fanfu 凡夫
定眾經目錄 fangbian 方便
Da’anguo Monastery 大安國寺 fannao 煩惱
Daoan 道安 fashi 法師
Daochuo 道綽 Faxiang 法相
Da puti xin 大菩提心 Fazang 法藏
dayuan jingzhi 大圓鏡智 fa 發
Dayunjing 大蕓經 faxing shen 法性身
deng 等 fei 非
Dilun 地論 feijiujing jing 非究竟淨
dingshan 定善 Feixi 飛錫
Dizang 地藏 Fodi jing lun 佛地經論
Dongyu zhuandeng mulu 東域傳燈目錄 Foshuo Amituo jing 佛說阿彌陀經
dusong 讀誦 Foshuo wuliangshou jing 佛說無量壽經
Emperor Daizong 唐代宗 Fozu tongji 佛祖統記
Emperor Gaozong 唐高宗 Genshin 源信
Emperor Taizong 唐太宗 Guan xukongcang pusa jing 觀虛空藏菩
Emperor Wuzong 唐武宗薩經
Empress Wu Zetian 武則天 guan 觀
Ennin 圓仁 guancha 觀察
fajie 法界 Guangming Monastery 光明寺
265
Guannian famen 觀念法門 Jingtu Wangsheng Chuan 淨土往生傳
Guanxin xuanshu 觀心玄樞 jingtu 淨土
Guyinsheng wang jing 鼓音聲王經 Jingtusheng xianlu 淨土聖賢錄
Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清 Jingye 淨業
hua 花 Jingying Huiyuan 凈影慧遠
hua 華 jingzhi 鏡智
huafo 化佛 jiu pin 九品
Huaigan 懷感 jiujing jing 究竟淨
huaiku 壞苦 ju 居
Huaiyun 懷惲 Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧
huasheng 化生 kong 空
huatu 化土 koucheng 口稱
Huiliao 慧了 kouye 口業
huixiang 迴向 Kuiji 窺基
jia 家 kuku 苦苦
jian 見 ku 苦
jiaojing museng 校經目僧 Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証
Jie Zhu 戒珠 Lebang wenlei 樂邦問類
Jile 極樂 Li Xian 李賢
Jingtu lun 凈土論 lian 蓮
Jingtu shiyi lun 淨土十疑論 libai 禮拜
266
longchan dafashi 隆阐大法师 puti xin 菩提心
Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 Qianfu Monastery 千福寺
Meng Xian 孟銑 Qingjing pingdengjue jing 清淨平等覺經
mileshang sheng doushuaitian jing zan qingtan 清談
觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊 Ren wang jing 仁往經
ming jifa 名即法 rouyan 肉眼
Mingquan 明佺 sanfu 三福
Mingsheng 明勝 Sanjie jiao 三階教
mingtang 明堂 sanjie 三界
mofa 末法 Sanlun 三論
namo 南無 sanshan 散善
nanxing dao 難行道 sanshen 三身
nembutsu 念仏 sanzhong xin 三種心
Nianfo jing 念佛經 se 色
Nianfo sanmei baowang lun 念佛三昧寳 sejie 色界
王論 Shandao 善導
nianfo 念佛 shangzuo 上座
nianmen 念門 Shaokang 少康
Ōjōyōshū 往生要集 She dacheng lun 攝大乘論
Pingchang 平昌 Shelun 攝論
pufa 普法 shengcheng fo 聲稱佛
267
shi baotu 實報土 tixiang jujing 體相俱淨
shi bian 識變 tuntian yuanwailang 屯田員外郎
Shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論 Wangsheng ji 王生集
shi nian 十念 Wangsheng jingtu jueyi xingyuan ermen
shi yongtu 事用土往生淨土決疑行願二門
shi 師 Wangsheng jueyi lun 往生決疑論
Shidi jing lun 十地經論 Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註
Shiji Monastery 實際寺 Wangsheng xifang jingtu ruiying shan
zhuan 往生西方净土瑞应刪传
shouming changyuang 壽命長遠
Wangsheng xifang jingtu ruiying zhuan
shouyong shen 受用身
往生西方淨土瑞應傳
sisheng 四生
Wangsheng zhuan 往生傳
Song gaoseng chuan 宋高僧傳
Weishi 唯識
ta shouyoungshen 他受用身
Wende 文德
tali 他力
Wenshen 文諗
Tang liangjing chengfang kao
Woncheuk 圓測
唐兩京城坊考
Wŏnhyo 元曉
Tanluan 曇鸞
Wu fangbian nianfo men 五方便念佛門

Tiance 天冊
wu zhengxing 五正行
tihui xiangjing 體穢相淨
wuliang asengqijie 無量阿僧祇劫

tijing xianghui 體淨相穢
tixiang juhui 體相俱穢
268
Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuansheng Xinxing 信行
jie zhu 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈註 xiu jingye 修淨業
Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 Xuanyi 玄義
wuliangshou 無量壽 Yangjie 楊傑
Wulong Mountain 烏龍山 yi nian shi nian 一念十念
wumen 五門 yijie 義解
wunianmen 五念門 yixing dao 易行道
wuqu 五趣 Yongming Yanshou 永明延壽
wusejie 無色界 Yongtai 永泰
wuyun 五蘊 youlou 有漏
Wuzhen Monastery 悟真寺 Yuanzhao 圓照
xi 細 yujie 慾界
xiang 像 Yunsui 雲邃
xiangfa 像法 Yusim allakto 遊心安樂道
Xiangji Monastery 香積寺 Zanning 贊寧
xiangsi jing 相似淨 zantan gongyang 讚歎供養
Xiao jing 小經 zantan 讚歎
Xifang yaojue shiyi tonggui zhangzhong 障重
西方要決釋疑通規
zhengfa 正法
Ximing Monastery 西明寺

zheng 證
xingku 行苦
zhenshi jing 真實淨
269
Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu
貞元新定釋教目錄
zhixin 至心
Zhiyi 智顗
Zhongnan Mountains 終南山
zhongyin 中陰
zhongyou 中有
zhongzi 種子
Zhanghuai 章懷
zi shouyongshen 自受用身
zili 自力
zong 宗
Zongxiao 宗曉
Zunshi 尊式
zuoyuan 作
270
LIST OF REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
Amituo guyin shengwang tuoluo ni jing 阿彌陀鼓音聲王陀羅尼經. T 370, vol. 12.
Amituo jing shu 阿彌陀經疏. T 1759, vol. 37.
Amituo jing tongzan shu 阿彌陀經通贊疏. T 1758, vol. 37.
Anle ji 安樂集. T 1958, vol. 47.
Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論. T 1585, vol. 31.
Da zhidu lun 大智度論. T 1509, vol. 25.
Dafo ding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyizhu pusa wan xingshouleng yanjing 大佛頂如來密因
修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經. T 945, vol. 19.
Dasheng wenshu shili pusa zanfo fashenti 大聖文殊師利菩薩讚佛法身禮. T 1195, vol.

20.
Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄. T 2153, vol. 55.
Dongyu zhuan deng mulu 東域傳燈目錄. T 2183, vol. 55.
Foshuo guanwuliangshou fo jing 佛說觀無量壽佛經. T 365, vol. 12.
Foshuo wuliangshou jing 佛說無量壽經. T 360, vol. 12.
Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀. T 2035, vol. 49.
Guan mileshang sheng doushuaitian jingzan 觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊. T 1772, vol. 38.
Guan wuliangshou fo jingshu 觀無量壽佛經疏. T 1750, vol. 37.
Guan wuliangshou fo jingshu 觀無量壽佛經疏. T 1753, vol. 37.
Guan wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏. T 1752, vol. 37.
Guan wuliangshou youpotishe yuansheng jizhu 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈註. T 1819, vol.

40.
Guan xukongzang pusa jing 觀虛空藏菩薩經. T 409, vol. 13
271
Guannian amituofo xianghai sanmei gongde famen 觀念阿彌陀佛相海三昧功德法門. T
1959, vol. 47.
Jingtu shengxian lu 淨土聖賢錄. X 1549, vol. 78.
Jingtu shi yi lun 淨土十疑論. T 1961, vol. 47.
Jingtu wangsheng zhuan 淨土往生傳. T 2071, vol. 51.
Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証. T 2646, vol. 83.
Longchan fashi bei 隆禪法師碑. Harvard Fine Arts Library, Special Collections; C-29.
http://vc.lib.harvard.edu/vc/deliver/~rubbings/olvwork303272
Lüe zhu jinglun nianfo famen wangsheng jingtu ji 略諸經論念佛法門往生淨土集, T 2826,

vol. 85.
Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經. T 262, vol. 9.
Nianfo jing 念佛鏡. T 1966, vol. 47.
Nianfo sanme baowang lun 念佛三昧寶王論. T 1967, vol. 47.
Nittō guhō junrei kōki no kenkyū 入唐新求聖教目錄. T 2167, vol. 55.
She dacheng lun 攝大乘論. T 1593, vol. 31.
Shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論. T 1960, vol. 47.
Shidi jing lun 十地經論. T 1522, vol. 26.
Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳. T 2061, vol. 50.
Sui tiantai zhi zhe dashi bie zhuan 隋天台智者大師別傳. T 2050, vol. 50.
Wangsheng jingtu jueyi xingyuan ermen 往生淨土決疑行願二門. T 1968, vol. 47.
Wangsheng xifang jingtu ruiying zhuan 往生西方淨土瑞應傳. T 2070, vol. 51.
Wangsheng zhuan 往生集. T 2072, vol. 51.
Wuliangshou jing youbo tishe 無量壽經優波提舍. T 1524, vol. 26.
Xifang yaojue shi yi tonggui 西方要決釋疑通規. T 1964, vol. 47.
Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄. T 2157, vol. 55.
272
SECONDARY SOURCES
Akihisa, Shigematsu. “An Overview of Early Japanese Pure Land.” In The Pure Land
Tradition: History and Development, edited by James Foard, Michael Solomon,
and Richard K. Payne and translated by Michael Solomon, 267-312. Berkeley:
Regents of the University of California, 1996.
Amstutz, Galen. Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land
Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Andrews, Allan A. The Teachings Essential for Rebirth: A Study of Genshin’s Ojoyoshu.
Tokyo: Sophia University Press, 1973.
Atone, Jōji, and Yōko Hayashi. The Promise of Amida Buddha: Hōnen’s Path to Bliss.
Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2011.
———. Shan-tao: His Life and Thought. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison,

PhD Dissertation, 1988.
Barber, A.W. “The Anti Sukhāvatīvyūha Stance of Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra.” The Pure
Land 16 (1999): 190-202.
Bloom, Alfred ed. The Shin Buddhist Classical Tradition: A Reader in Pure Land
Teaching, 2 vols. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2013.
Blum, Mark. The Origins and Developments of Pure Land Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Buswell, Robert E. Jr., “The Biographies of Korean Monk Wŏnhyo (617-686): A Study in
Buddhist Hagiography.” Biography as Genre in Korean Literature, edited by Peter
H. Lee. Berkeley: Center for Korean Studies, 1989.
Campany, Robert Ford, Signs from the Unseen Realm: Buddhist Miracle Tales from
Early Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2012.
Chan, Alan. “Neo-Daoism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward

N. Zalta. (2013): http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/neo-daoism/
Chan, Wing-tsit. A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1973.
Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

273
Chappell, David. “Chinese Buddhist Interpretations of the Pure Lands.” Buddhist and
Taoist Studies, edited by Michael Saso and David Chappell, 23-55. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1977.
———. "The Formation of the Pure Land Movement in China: Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao.”
In The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, edited by James Foard,
Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 139-172 . Berkeley: Regents of the
University of California Press, 1996.
———. “Tao-ch’o (562-645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism.” Ph.D.

Dissertation. Yale University, 1976.
Chiba, Takafumi. “Kaikan ni okeru Zendō 懐感における善導の念仏思想の相承につい

て.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度
學佛教學研究) 43, no. 2 (1996): 739-741.
Cole, Alan. Fathering Your Father: The Zen of Fabrication in Tang Buddhism. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2009.
Corless, Roger J. "T'an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism." In The
Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, edited by James Foard, Michael
Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 107-138. Berkeley: Regents of the University of
California Press, 1996.
———. "T'an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva." In Buddhist and Taoist
Practice in Medieval Chinese Society: Buddhist and Taoist Studies II, edited by
David W. Chappell, 36-45. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
Cuevas, Bryan J. “Intermediate States.” Encyclopedia of Buddhism, edited by Robert E.

Buswell, 377-380. Farmington Hills: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004.
———. “Predecessors and Prototypes: Towards a Conceptual History of the Buddhist

Antarābhava.” Numen 43, no. 3 (1996): 263-302.
Donner, Neal and Daniel B. Stevenson. The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study
and Annotated Translation of the First Chapter of Chih-i's Mo-ho chih-kuan.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
Ducor, Jérôme. “Shadao and Hōnen. Apropros of Julian F. Pas’s book Visions of
Sukhāvati,” Journal of the Association of Buddhist Studies 22.1 (1999): 251-252.
Dudbridge, Glen. Lost Books of Medieval China. London: The British Library, 2000.
Eliot, Charles. Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch. London: Curzon Press,
1998 Reprint.
Ford, James L. Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan. Oxford: Oxford
274
Forte, Antonino. Mingtan and Buddhist Utopias in the History of the Astronomical Clock:
The Tower, Statue and Armillary Sphere Constructed by Empress Wu. Paris:
École Française D’Extrême-Orient, 1988.
Fujita, Kotatsu. “The Textual Origins of the Kuan-Wu-liang-shou-ching: A Canonical

Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by
Robert Buswell and translated by Tanaka. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii
Press, 1990.
Fujiwara, Ryōsetsu. “Shandao.” Encyclopedia of Religion vol.12, edited by Lindsay

Jones, 8288-8299. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.
———. The Way of Nirvana: The Concept of Nembutsu in Shan-tao’s Pure Land
Buddhism. Tokyo: Kyoiku Shincho Sha, 1974.
Getz, Daniel A. "Popular Religion and Pure Land in Song-Dynasty Tiantai Bodhisattva
Precept Ordination Ceremonies." In Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya:
Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Stanley Weinstein, edited by William M.
Bodiford, 161-184. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005.
———. “T’ien-t’ai Pure Land Societies and the Creation of the Pure Land Patriarchate.”
In Buddhism in the Sung, edited by Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz, 477-
523. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Gómez, Luis O. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light:
Sanskrit and Chinese versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha sutras. Honolulu:
Halkias, Georgios T. Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in

Tibet. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2013.
Hallisey, Charles. “Roads Taken and Not Take in the Study of Theravāda Buddhism.”
Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism Under Colonialism, edited by
Donald S. Lopez, 31-61. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Harrison, Paul. “Buddhānusmṛti in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-

samādhi-sūtra.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 6 (1978): 35-57.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,

1990.
———. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of
Stupas.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tōyō Bunko 22 (1963): 57-
106.
Hiroyuki, Minamoto. “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla.” In Assimilation of

Buddhism in Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, edited
by Lewis R. Lancaster and C.S. Yu, 131-168. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
275
Hōnen. Hōnen’s Senchakushū: Passages on the Selection of the Nembutsu in the
Original Vow (Senchaku hongan nembutsu shū). Translated and Edited by
Senchakushū English Translation Project. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1998.
Huang, Yi-hsun. Integrating Chinese Buddhism: A Study of Yongming Yanshou’s

Guanxin Xuanshu. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing, 2005.
Hubbard, Jaime. “Sanjie Jiao (Three Stages School).” Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol.
2, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 744-745. New York: Macmillan Reference
USA, 2003.
———. Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese
Heresy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001.
Hucker, Charles O. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Beijing: Beijing

Daxue Chubanshe, 2008.
Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist
Translation and Research, 1995, 2003.
Jones, Charles B. “China, Early Schools.” The Encyclopedia of Buddhism, edited by

Damien Keown and Charles S. Prebish, 226. London: Routledge, 2013.
———. “Was Lushan Huiyuan a Pure Land Buddhist? Evidence from His
Correspondence with Kumarajiva About Nianfo Practice.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist
Journal 21 (2008): 179-195.
———. “Foundations of Ethics and Practice in Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,” Journal
of Buddhist Ethics 10 (2003): 1-20.
Kaneko, Kansai. “Gungiron to Yuimakyō『群疑論』と『維摩経』.” Journal of Indian

and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究) 48, no. 1
(1999): 183-189.
———. “Kasai no Jōdoron to Gungiron ni tsuite 迦戈の『浄土論』と『群議論』につい

て.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學
佛教學研究) 47, no. 2 (1999): 553-558.
Karetsky, Patricia Eichenbaum. “The Evolution of the Symbolism of the Paradise of the
Buddha of Infinite Life and Its Western Origins.” Sino-Platonic Papers 76 (1997):
1-28.
Kazuo, Kasahara. Nyonin ōjō shisō no keifu 女人往生思想の系譜. Tokyo: Yoshiakawa

kobunkan, 1983.
276
Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese
Hagiography. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.
King, Richard. Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought.

Washinton D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Kitagawa, Joseph M. Religion in Japanese History. New York: Columbia University

Press, 2013.
Kiyota, Minoru. “Buddhist Devotional Meditation: A Study of the

Sukhāvatīvyūhôpadeśa.” In Mayahana Buddhist Meditation Theory and Practice,
edited by Minoru Kiyota, 249-276. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1978.
Kōtatsu, Fujita. Genshi Jodo Shiso no Kenkyū 原始浄土思想の研究. Tokyo: Iwanami

Shoten, 1970.
———. “Pure Land Buddhism in India.” In The Pure Land Tradition: History and
Development, edited by James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne.
Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1996.
Lai, Whalen. “Legends of Births and the Pure Land Tradition in China.” In The Pure
Land Tradition: History and Development, edited by James Foard, Michael
Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 173-232. Berkeley: Regents of the University of
California Press, 1996.
Lamotte, Etienne. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era.
Translated by Sara Webb-Boi. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1988.
Pruden, Leo. “The Ching-t’u lun Shih-lun.” Eastern Buddhist 6 no. 1 (1973): 126-157.
Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-I (538-597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese
Buddhist Monk. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1962.
Liu, Mingwood. Huaigan de jingtu sixiang 懷感的淨土思想. Taipei: Taiwan Commercial

Press, 2003.
———. “Huaigan de sheng pinghe foshen, fotu sixiang 懷感的生平和佛身,佛土思想.”

Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiu jikan 中國文哲研究集刊 21 (2002): 117-140.
Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra

Buddhism and Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun. London: Routledge, 2002.
———. “Faxiang.” Encyclopedia of Buddhism, edited by Robert E. Buswell, 283-284.

Farmington Hills: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
Machida, Soho. “Life and Light, the Infinite: A Historical and Philological Analysis of the
Amida Cult.” Sino-Platonic Papers 9 (1988): 1-46.
277
Mayeda, Sengaku. Genshibukkyō seiten no seiritsushi kenkyū. Tokyo: Sankibo-
busshorin Publishing Co., 1964.
Miller, Barbara Stoler. The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War. New
York: Bantam Classic, 1986.
Mochizuki, Shinkō. Jōdokyō no kenkyū 淨土敎之研究. Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Sentā, 1977
Reprint.
Murakami, Shinkan. “Early Buddhist Openness and Mahāyāna Buddhism.” Nagoya

Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā Vol.27 (2008): 109-148.
Murakami, Shinzui. “Nanatsudere sozō Shakujōdo gungīron no tsuite 七寺所蔵『釋淨土

群疑論』写本について.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku
bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究) 40, no. 2 (1991): 597-601.
———. “Shaku Jodo gungiron ni tokareru Amidabutsu to bonpu to no koo kankei『釋浄

土群疑論』に説かれる阿弥陀佛と凡夫との呼応関係.” Journal of Indian and
Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究) 44, no.1
(1995): 59-63.
Nattier, Jan. “The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest
Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha.” Pacific World Journal 3, no. 5
(2003): 179-201, 189.
———. “The Names of Amitābha/Amitayus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2).”

The Report of the International Research Institute of Advanced Buddhology 10
(2007): 359-394.
———. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Fremont:
Asian Humanities Press, 1991.
Ng, Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Honolulu:
Nishi, Hojun. “Huai-kan’s View on the Pure Land.” The Pure Land: Journal of Pure Land
Buddhism 3 (1986): 57-66.
Okabe, Kazuo. “The Chinese Catalogs of Buddhist Scriptures.” Komazawa Daigaku

Bukkyōgakubu kenkyū kiyō 駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要 38 (1980): 1-13.
Overmyer, Daniel. Folk Buddhist Religion: Dissenting Sects in Late Traditional China.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Pas, Julian F. Visions of Sukhāvatī: Shan-tao’s Commentary on the Kuan Wu-Liang-

Shou-Fo Ching. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
278
———. “Shan-tao’s Interpretation of the Meditative Vision of Buddha Amitāyus.” History
of Religions 14 (1974): 96-116, 98.
Payne, Richard K. “Seeing Sukhāvatī: Yogācāra and The Origins of Pure Land
Visualization.” The Pure Land: Journal of Pure Land Buddhism 20 (2003): 265-
283.
———. “The Five Contemplative Gates of Vasubandhu’s Rebirth Treatise as a

Ritualized Visualization Practice.” In The Pure Land Tradition: History and
Development, edited by James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne,
233-266. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1996.
Poceski, Mario. The Records of Mazu and the Making of Classical Chan Literature.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. “Monastic Innovator, Iconoclast, and Teacher of Doctrine: The Varied Images of
Chan Master Baizhang,” in Zen Masters, edited by Steven Heine and Dale
Wright, 3-32. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
———. Ordinary Mind as the Way: The Hongzhou School and the Growth of Chan
Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Schopen, Gregory. “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna

Sūtra Literature. Indo-Iranian Journal 19 (1977): 177-210.
Sen, Tansen. “Buddhism and the Maritime Crossings.” In China and Beyond in the
Medieval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-Regional Connections, edited by
Dorothy C. Wong and Gustav Heldt, 39-62. Amherst: Cambria Press, 2014.
———. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations,

600-1400. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.
Sharf, Robert H. “On Pure Land Buddhism and Chan/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval
China.” T’oung Pao Second Series vol. 88 (2002): 282-331.
Shih, Jenkuan. Doctrinal Connection between Panjiao Schemata and Human Capacity
for Enlightenment in Jizang’s and Kuiji’s Thought. Madison: University of
Wisconsin-Madison, PhD Dissertation, 2006.
Shinohara, Koichi. “Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi, the Fourth Patriarch of the Tiantai
Tradition.” In Speaking of Monks, edited by Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara,
97-218. Oakville: Mosaic Press, 1993.
Silk, Jonathan. “The Composition of the Guan Wuliangshoufo jing: Some Buddhist and
Jaina Parallels to Its Narrative Frame.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25: 181-256.
Snellgrove, David. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan

Successors. Boston: Shambhala, 1987.
279
Sponberg, Alan. The Vijñaptimatrata Buddhism of the Chinese monk K’uei-chi (A.D.
632-682). Vancouver: University of British Columbia, PhD Dissertation, 1979.
Stevenson, Daniel B. “Death-Bed Testimonials of the Pure Land Faithful.” In Buddhism

in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, 447-458. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2007.
———. “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ian-t’ai.” In Traditions of Meditation in

Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 45-97. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1986.
———. “Pure Land Buddhist Meditation and Worship in China.” In Buddhism in

Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, 359-379, 377. Princeton: Princeton
———. “Pure Land Worship in China.” In Buddhism in Practice, edited by Donald

Lopez, 271-292. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
———. “The Ties that Bind: Chinese Buddhists Rites for Securing Rebirth in the Pure
Land.” Hōrin: Vergleichende Studien zur japanischen Kultur 15 (2008): 139-202.
Tanaka, Kenneth K. The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine: Ching-ying
Hui-yüan’s Commentary on the Visualization Sutra. Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1990.
Tang, Wei Jen. Recontextualization, Exegesis, and Logic: Kuiji’s (632-682)

Methodological Restructuring of Chinese Buddhism. Boston: Harvard University,
PhD Dissertation, 2011.
ten Grotenhuis, Elizabeth. Japanese Mandalas: Representations of Sacred Geography.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Tetsuei, Satō. Tendai Daishi no kenkyū 天台大師の研究. Kyoto: Hyakken, 1960.
Thurman, Robert. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakīrti: A Mahāyāna Scripture. University

Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976.
Tucci, Giuseppe. The Temples of Western Tibet and Their Artistic Symbolism. New
Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1989.
Velasco, Katherine. “The Transformation of the Pure Land in the Development of Lay
Buddhist Practice in China.” In Shin Buddhism: Historical, Textual, and
Interpretive Studies. Berkeley: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2007.
Wang, Eugene Yuejin. Shaping the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Visual Culture in Medieval
China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005.
280
Watson, Burton, trans. The Lotus Sutra. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993:
298-299.
Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge,

2009.
Wong, Dorothy C. “Four Sichuan Buddhist Steles and the Beginnings of Pure Land
Imagery in China.” Archives of Asian Art 51 (1998/1999): 56-79.
Xiong, Victor Cunrui. Sui-Tang Chang’an: A Study in the Urban History of Medieval
China. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 2000.
Xu, Song and Jianchao Li. Zengding Tangliangjing chengfangkao 增訂唐兩京城坊考.

Xi’an: San qin chu ban she, 2006.
Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “An Examination of the Mural Paintings of Toyok Cave 20 in

Conjunction with the Origin of the Amitayus Visualization Sutra.” Orientations 30
no. 4 (1999): 38-44.
Yamada, Isshi, ed. Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka. London: School of Oriental and African Studies,
1968.
Yu, Jimmy. “Pure Land Devotion in East Asia.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to
East and Inner Asia, edited by Mario Poceski, 201-220. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons, 2014.
Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of
Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959.
281
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Before attending the University of Florida, Kendall R. Marchman graduated from
Mercer University and Vanderbilt University with degrees in music and religion. He
acquired his Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Florida in religion. He researches
Pure Land Buddhism in medieval China and also has an interest in religion and sports.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at
Young Harris College in the North Georgia Mountains.
282

Huaigan 懷感과 당나라 정토종

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huaigan 懷感과 당나라 정토종

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUAIGAN AND THE GROWTH OF PURE LAND BUDDHISM DURING THE TANG

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

and opportunity they have provided. I am very thankful to my dissertation committee,

as the subjects of my dissertation. I am obliged to Dr. Poceski who took me in as a raw

2 PURE LAND BUDDHISM BEFORE HUAIGAN ...................................................... 29

Pure Land Buddism Before China .......................................................................... 30

3 THE LIFE OF HUAIGAN ......................................................................................... 87

Biographical Sources .............................................................................................. 88

4 THE SHI JINGTU QUNYI LUN ............................................................................. 132

Textual Overview .................................................................................................. 132

5 HUAIGAN’S TEACHINGS IN COMPARISON ...................................................... 199

Huaigan and the Pure Land Masters .................................................................... 200

6 HUAIGAN’S HISTORICAL STANDING AND HIS IMPACT ON THE

Huaigan Beyond China ......................................................................................... 243

CHARACTER LIST .............................................................................................. 264

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 271

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 282

Chair: Mario Poceski

contributions to the development of Pure Land Buddhism. Moreover, despite its

detailed study of Huaigan and his text in any Western language.

Various Chinese biographies are critically examined in order to arrive at a better

lun with a historical-critical methodology in order to provide an account of the

development of Pure Land Buddhism. Using this analysis, I challenge traditional

burgeoning Pure Land movement during the Tang Dynasty.

the most popular forms of Buddhism to this day.

Despite its ubiquity throughout the East Asian Buddhist landscape—both

modern Western research available on Pure Land Buddhism in comparison to other

study concentrated on Huaigan, there is significant research on the more famous

Daochuo 道綽 (562-645). Accordingly, the research on these popular figures often

of the larger milieu in China, and the broader tradition overall.

Complicating this issue further is the indelible influence of modern Japanese

contemporary Japanese Pure Land schools often perpetuate traditional sectarian

redundancy and sectarian rhetoric, which is a goal of this project.

The dissertation introduces Huaigan to Western scholars, and demonstrates his

prevented Shandao’s legacy extending to Huaigan. Yet, in reality, the teachings of

Land practice that incorporated meditation, visualization, and repentance rituals. In

depicted in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, an established narrative that states that

is necessary. Additionally, I explain the means and methods of research employed in

the proposed investigation of these topics.

The fundamental question asked in this dissertation is simply, “Who was

Pure Land practices and beliefs during his time.

biographies locate Huaigan as a Dharma-master at Qianfu Monastery 千福寺 in

other historical sources about Qianfu Monastery. A historical contextualization of the

monastery should allow for a more comprehensive portrait of Huaigan. Unfortunately,

Huaigan’s position in Chang’an.

Zanning’s 贊寧 (919-1001) Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Huaigan’s relationship with Shandao is

Land master was active in a number of monasteries in Chang’an.8 Yet, no resources

non-canonical materials to support this research. Thus, in addition to researching more

Huaigan was a disciple of Shandao.

Huaiyun, a fellow disciple of Shandao and colleague of Huaigan, is another

Regardless, Huaiyun’s detailed biography—especially in comparison to Huaigan—

subjects, associated doctrines, and practices. Of the two resources—textual analysis of

of a constructed posthumous narrative. Nonetheless, it is still important to review the

(deep concentration) experience of Amitābha. All biographies declare that Huaigan

to produce the Qunyi lun. Considering the nature of hagiographies, it is tempting to

seemingly fantastic claims in the biographical accounts, they cannot be dismissed

The similarity of the various biographical accounts, in addition to their lack of

scholars have demonstrated in their examinations of monastic hagiographies,

Pure Land Buddhism during the Tang era.

inform the research.

be very helpful in getting a better understanding of Huaigan and the Buddhist

Qunyi lun is also a work of Pure Land apologetics.