Pure Land Scriptures

1. THE CORE SUTRAS

It is important to know both the core sutras of the Pure Land school and its
lineage masters, for the masters founded the school on the teachings in the sutras.
The core sutras refer to the scriptures in which the teachings and practices of a
Dharma school are grounded.
The Pure Land school, whose ultimate aim is rebirth in Amitabha Buddhas
Western Land of Bliss, has three core sutras:
1. Infinite Life Sutra, as Spoken by the Buddha. It is also known as Infinite Life Sutra,
Life Sutra, Sutra of Two Fascicles and Longer Sutra.
2. Contemplation of Infinite Life Sutra, as Spoken by the Buddha, also known as
Contemplation Sutra.
3. Amitabha Sutra, as Spoken by the Buddha. It is also known as Amitabha Sutra and
Shorter Sutra.
We use Master Sanghavarmans translation of the Infinite Life Sutra and Master
Kumarajivas rendition of the Amitabha Sutra. Many Buddhist sutras contain references
to the Western Land of Bliss, but only these three have been designated core sutras of
the Pure Land school. The reason is twofold:
1. The three texts focus solely on the splendors of the Land of Bliss and how to gain
rebirth there. They do not mix in other matters.
2. They all have as their guiding principle the Fundamental Vow of Amitabha
Buddha and the single-minded recitation of his name.
The three sutras all have their special characteristics, strengths and emphases.
The Infinite Life Sutra discusses Amitabha Buddhas 48 Great Vows at length and
expounds the basic point that rebirth is achieved through the recitation of Amitabhas
name. It is the cornerstone of all Pure Land teachings.
The Contemplation Sutra speaks of the meditative and non-meditative virtues, as
well as the three meritorious practices and the nine levels of rebirth in the Land of Bliss.
Drawing people of all capabilities and karmic inclinations to recite Amitabhas name, it
provides the broadest induction into the Pure Land school.

Direct in its approach and omitting expedient means, the Amitabha Sutra talks
exclusively about recitation of Amitabhas name, describing the support voiced by the
Buddhas in all ten directions. It constitutes the summation of Pure Land practice.
It can be said that the Longer Sutra is the source, the Contemplation Sutra the
extension and the Amitabha Sutra the conclusion.

2. COMMENTARIES FROM OUR LINEAGE (PATH OF THE GREAT VOW)

It is also necessary to be familiar with the commentaries and explications of our
lineage, so as to teach and practice according to tradition and to maintain the purity of
the heritage.
After Shakyamuni Buddha delivered the Three Pure Land Sutras, the first to
teach Pure Land practice independently was Indias Bodhisattva Nagarjuna (c. 150-250),
acclaimed as the first patriarch of all eight schools of Chinese Buddhism. Nagarjuna,
who received a prophecy of Buddhahood from the Buddha, wrote the Chapter on the
Easy Path. There he classified the Buddhas teachings into the Easy Path and the
Difficult Way. He said that to practice name-recitation according to Amitabhas 18th
Vow was like crossing the water on a ship; it was easy, relaxing and reassuring.
Nagarjuna also composed The Twelve Rites, praising the virtues of Amitabha Buddha.
Then came the Master of Ten Thousand Commentaries, Bodhisattva
Vasubandhu (c. 320-400) of India. Summarizing the principles of the Three Pure Land
Sutras, he wrote the Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land. It explained that rebirth could
be achieved through single-minded aspiration and a mere five recitations of Amitabhas
name. Perfect enlightenment would quickly follow.
Next was Master Tanluan (476-542) of the Northern Wei Dynasty, who was
known as the divine Luan. Following the Dharma tradition of Nagarjuna and
Vasubandhu, he composed the Commentary on the Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land.
He brought to light the hidden meaning of the Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land,
explicating the Difficult and Easy paths as self-power and other-power respectively,
with the latter stemming from the Fundamental Vow of Amitabha Buddha. He also
wrote the Gatha in Praise of Amitabha Buddha, which extolled the merits of Amitabhas
Pure Land.

After him came the highly virtuous and influential Master Daochuo (562-645) of
the Sui-Tang period. Consciously following Master Tanluans footsteps, he composed
the Collection on the Land of Peace and Joy, which expounded the notion of the Sacred
and the Pure Land paths. Harmonizing his teaching with the conditions of the time,
Daochuo encouraged people to seek rebirth in Amitabhas Pure Land.
He was followed by Master Shandao (613-681) of the Tang Dynasty, who was
widely regarded as an incarnation of Amitabha Buddha. A personal disciple of Master
Daochuo, he wrote the Five Works in Nine Fascicles, consisting of the Commentary on
the Contemplation Sutra, Dharma School of Contemplation and Recitation, In Praise of
Dharma Practices, In Praise of the Rite of Rebirth and In Praise of Pratyutpanna (in the
presence of the Buddhas). These writings definitively set out the teachings and
practices of the Pure Land tradition. Pure Land emerged as an independent school, and
recitation of Amitabhas name was thenceforth enshrined as a luminous practice.
The heritage continued with the Japanese master, Honen (1133-1211). Basing his
teachings on the thought of Shandao, he composed the Collection on Choosing BuddhaRecitation According to the Fundamental Vow and founded the Pure Land school of
Japan.
The above lineage masters all centered their treatises and commentaries on the
Fundamental Vow of Amitabha Buddha. They advocated other-power and the Easy Path.
Drawing on a common source, they promoted the same teachings and practices. This is
the lineage of the commentaries; it is also known as the Path of the Great Vow.

3. INCORPORATING THE PATH OF IMPORTANCE

After the heritage of the Great Vow Path, we need to know about the drawing in,
or incorporation, of the Path of Importance. This enables us to recognize the use of
expedient means to embrace people of all capabilities and karmic inclinations.
Thirteen patriarchs, or lineage masters, are generally recognized in the Chinese
Pure Land school. In order, they are Huiyuan (334-416), Shandao (613-681), Chengyuan
(712-802), Fazhao (747-821), Shaokang (736-805), Yanshou (904-975), Shengchang (9591020), Lianchi (1532-1612), Ouyi (1598-1655), Xingce (1627-1682), Shengan (1686-1734),
Chewu (1741-1810) and Yinguang (1861-1941).

Unquestionably, the 13 patriarchs advocated and urged people to seek

rebirth in the Western Land of Bliss. Each made substantial contributions. According to
the Pure Land schools de facto founder, Master Shandao, the school is divided into two
sub-traditions: the Path of Importance and the Path of the Great Vow. To varying
degrees, the thought and teaching of the 13 patriarchs inclined towards one or the
other path.
Those who promoted the Great Vow were Shandao, Fazhao and Shaokang
(Tanluan and Daochuo were of the same persuasion). In modern times, Master Yinguang
clearly inclined towards the Great Vow in his thinking, though he often took account of
the Path of Importance in his teaching.
Between them, the two paths drew in and accommodated a very extensive range
of adherents, turning Pure Land into an independent, preeminent Dharma school.
QUESTION: Master Huiyuan lived some two centuries before Master Shandao,
and while the lineage masters from Yanshou through Chewu came later, none of them
had seen or read Shandaos Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra. How can they be
classified under the Path of Importance, as defined by Shandao?
ANSWER: Classifications can be made according to the characteristics of the
patriarchs thought and the manner of their teaching. Those who promoted seeking
rebirth in the Pure Land by single-mindedly reciting Amitabhas name, relying on his
Fundamental Vow belong to the Path of the Great Vow. Those who advocated
practicing the meditative and non-meditative virtues, and dedicating the resulting
merit towards rebirth are proponents of the Path of Importance. This has nothing to do
with whether they came early or late, or whether they had read Master Shandaos
works.
QUESTION: So whether they came early or late, whether they had seen
Shandaos writings or not, all Pure Land patriarchs are to be categorized according to
either the Path of Importance or the Path of the Great Vow. If such a classification
accords with the facts, can the facts be that coincidental? If it does not, then it is a
human construct. How can that convince people?
ANSWER: The classification is neither coincidental nor a human construct; its
inevitability is a matter of pure logic. For example, if we live in this world, we necessarily
dwell either in its eastern half or its western one. Similarly, when it comes to teaching

Amitabhas Pure Land, it is not possible to do so outside the two paths. Besides the 13
patriarchs, all prominent advocates of Pure Land can be put into one or the other
category. Tanluan and Daochuo, for instance, promoted the Great Vow, while Cimin
taught the Path of Importance.
QUESTION: Since Master Shandao spoke of the two paths and explained the Path
of Importance (seeking rebirth by dedicating merit from good deeds) according to the
Contemplation Sutra, surely he emphasized both paths? Why do you say Shandao
advocated the Path of the Great Vow exclusively?
ANSWER: The Tiantai school classified the Dharma into four paths: Pitaka,
Common, Distinctive and Round (perfect). But they promoted only the Round teaching.
Likewise, Master Daochuo explained both the Sacred Path and the Pure Land Path, but
advocated Pure Land alone.
Consider also a large tree, whose branches and leaves give shade to everything
around it. The tree itself, however, is rooted in the earth; it is grounded in a specific
space or realm. Similarly, Master Shandao roots himself in the Path of the Great Vow.
Though he explicated the meditative and non-meditative virtues of the Path of
Importance, he was using them to shed light on the workings of the Great Vow. As he
noted in his Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra: The passages in the
[Contemplation] Sutra on meditative and non-meditative virtues are meant only to
highlight the point that rebirth is achieved through recitation of Amitabhas name. The
Commentary also said, Though preceding passages spoke of the merits of the
meditative and non-meditative virtues, the Buddhas underlying wish is that sentient
beings recite Amitabhas name single-mindedly.
QUESTION: Yanshou and other masters achieved the status of Pure Land
patriarchs, but were not included in your lineage. Why is that?
ANSWER: They were designated patriarchs because of their great contributions
to propagation of the Pure Land tradition. As their teaching inclined towards the Path of
Importance, they are not a part of our lineage. In classifications relating to any Dharma
school, there is always a distinction between primary and secondary elements. The
lineage of a school is based solely on the primary factors, not the secondary ones.
Within the Pure Land school, the Path of the Great Vow is the root (primary) and the

Path of Importance are the branches and leaves (secondary). Therefore we make
reference only to the Path of the Great Vow while determining lineage.
QUESTION: The Amitabha Sutra is a core (primary) sutra of the Pure Land school,
especially as it speaks solely of recitation of Amitabha Buddhas name. Masters Lianchi
and Ouyi both wrote commentaries on it. How can they be classified among the
branches and leaves of the Path of Importance?
ANSWER: Though the sutra they explicate is a primary text, their expositions
remain entirely within the Path of Importance. Such works as Master Lianchis
Commentary on the Amitabha Sutra and Master Ouyis Explication of the Amitabha
Sutra were influenced by the classifications of other schools; they do not thoroughly
illuminate the purpose of Amitabha Buddhas Fundamental Vow. Therefore they remain
within the confines of the Path of Importance. As for Master Shandao, not only is his In
Praise of Dharma Practices explicating the Amitabha Sutra a part of the Great Vow
Path, but so is his treatise on the Contemplation Sutra. Though that work speaks of the
meditative and non-meditative virtues, its core focus is on name-recitation according to
Amitabhas Fundamental Vow.
QUESTION: Are the branches and leaves of the Path of Importance of little
significance then?
ANSWER: The teachings of the various patriarchs all have their particular
timeliness and special circumstances. So long as they are in harmony with prevailing
historical conditions, they are significant, even indispensable. If not for the Path of
Importance, we would not have all schools converging with the Pure Land school. But
without the Path of the Great Vow, the situation of Pure Land dominating the other
schools would not exist. The two paths complement and complete each other, working
together to teach sentient beings. As in the case of a tree, the root gives rise to the
branches and leaves, which in turn enhance the root. They constitute a single entity.
QUESTION: Why are masters such as Fazhao, who was both a patriarch and an
advocate of the Great Vow Path, not included in the lineage?
ANSWER: The meaning of lineage is such that those selected for inclusion not
only promoted the Path of the Great Vow exclusively, but also made great contributions
to Great Vow thought, leaving important writings to posterity. Accordingly, there are
only Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu in India, and Tanluan, Daochuo and Shandao in China.

QUESTION: Tanluan and Daochuo taught extensively, made key contributions to

Pure Land thought and are recognized as lineage masters. Why arent they listed among
the 13 patriarchs?
ANSWER: In truth, there are many factors behind historical traditions. Since the
two are lineage masters, their contributions and status surpass those of standard
patriarchs. Their standing does not depend on traditional rankings.