A Study on the Nianfo 念佛 Practice in the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna

Abstract

The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna 大乘起信論 has generated over 300 commentaries, yet research on its practice section, particularly nianfo practice 念佛修行, remains remarkably limited. This study examines interpretive differences in the nianfo practice section across major commentaries: Wŏnhyo’s Kisillon so 起信論疏, Fazang’s 法藏 Dasheng qixinlun yiji 大乘起信論義記, the Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論, Tankuang’s 曇曠 Dasheng qixin lun guangshi 大乘起信論廣釋, and Zixuan’s 子璿 Qixin lun shu bixueji 起信論疏筆削記. Two key discrepancies emerge: the scope of scriptural citations and interpretations of “those who achieve rebirth.” Analysis reveals that while Fazang was influenced by Wŏnhyo, he developed independent interpretations. Later commentaries demonstrate selective reception rather than uncritical acceptance of predecessors. Post-Bixueji commentaries divide into two groups: the Qixinlun jieyao 起信論捷要, Dasheng qixinlun shulue 大乘起信論疏略, Qixinlun zhijie 起信論直解, and Qixinlun shuji huiyue 起信論疏記會閱 form one group, while the Qixinlun zuanzhu 起信論纂註 and Qixinlun xushu 起信論續疏 constitute another. This investigation illuminates doctrinal relationships among commentaries and confirms that later commentators built upon earlier works while contributing original insights.

1. Introduction

The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna (Dasheng qixinlun 大乘起信論, hereafter AFM) stands as one of the most influential texts in East Asian Buddhism. This treatise has been the subject of extensive scholarly investigation across vast geographical regions from approximately the sixth century when it is believed to have been composed to the present day.1 This sustained scholarly engagement has resulted in the composition of more than 300 commentaries on the AFM, including what is considered the earliest extant commentary, the Dasheng qixinlun shu 大乘起信論疏 housed in the Kyōu Shooku 杏雨書屋 collection.2

This trend has continued into the modern and contemporary periods, leading to numerous commentaries and research papers. However, an analysis of existing scholarship reveals that research has predominantly focused on the Positing the Meaning Section (liyi fen 立義分) and the Explanatory Section (jieshi fen 解釋分) of AFM. Yet, as the title “Awakening of Faith in Mahayana” 大乘起信論 itself indicates, the Practice and the Attitude of Faith Section (xiuxing xinxin fen 修行信心分), which deals with practices for generating faith, constitutes another crucial dimension of the text. Nevertheless, research on the AFM that explicitly features “practice” in its title or dedicates a specific chapter or section to the topic accounts for a mere 2% of the total body of scholarship.3 Furthermore, within this small subset, there is a striking paucity of studies that provide an in-depth, independent investigation of all the nianfo practice as presented in the Practice and the Attitude of Faith Section. Virtually no studies have conducted in-depth, independent examinations of nianfo practice (nianfo xiuxing 念佛修行). Furthermore, nianfo practice occupies only a small portion of the text-approximately 7.5% of the Practice and the Attitude of Faith Section and merely 1.4% of the entire treatise.4 This limited textual coverage requires broader understanding through diverse interpretations by various commentators, no comparative studies examining different commentaries on the AFM have been undertaken.

Accordingly, this study aims to analyze the interpretations of nianfo practice in the AFM by examining five commentaries: Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617–86) Commentary on the AFM (Kisillon so 起信論疏) [hereafter Wŏnhyoso], Fazang’s 法藏 (643–712) Doctrinal Record on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun yiji 大乘起信論義記) [hereafter Fazangshu5], the Commentary on the Treatise on Mahāyāna (Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論) [hereafter Shilun]6, Tankuang’s 曇曠 (700–88) Extensive Explanation of the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun guangshi 大乘起信論廣釋) [hereafter Guangshi]7, and Zixuan’s 子璿 (965–1038) Record of Editorial Revisions to the Commentary on the AFM (Qixinlun shu bixueji 起信論疏筆削記) [hereafter Bixueji].

The reasons for limiting the scope of this study are as follows. First, as mentioned above, there are more than 300 commentaries on the AFM, making it difficult to examine all of them. Second, regarding commentaries prior to Fazangshu, the Kyōu Shooku Collection manuscript of the Commentary on the AFM and Tanyan’s 曇延 (516–88) Doctrinal Commentary on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun yishu 大乘起信論義疏), written in the sixth century, do not contain extant sections corresponding to the scope of this study (T32no1666: 583a12–21). Furthermore, Huiyuan’s 慧遠 (523–92) Doctrinal Commentary on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun yihsu 大乘起信論義疏) [hereafter Huiyuanshu] only presents the textual organization for the relevant section without detailed explanation. Additionally, Wŏnhyo’s other commentary on the AFM, the Separate Records on the AFM (Kisinon pyŏgi 起信論別記), is excluded because the corresponding section does not survive. Third, among commentaries after the Fazangshu, Zongmi’s 宗密 (780–841) Commentary on the AFM (Qixinlun shu 起信論疏) contains the relevant section, but comparison with the Fazangshu reveals that it merely divides the text of the AFM according to the outline classification established by Fazang and adds sentences from the Fazangshu without presenting Zongmi’s own distinctive arguments. Moreover, Tankuang composed the Brief Commentary on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun yueshu 大乘起信論略述) as an abridgement of the Guangshi, but comparison show that it does not reveal distinctive characteristics of its own, and thus it is excluded. Fourth, most commentaries from the eleventh century onward develop their interpretations based on understandings from the Fazangshu and the Bixueji, so they will be mentioned separately only, when necessary, rather than addressing each commentary’s interpretation in its entirety.

There are two noteworthy findings from the examination of AFM commentaries. First, the commentaries differ in how they define the scope of the “sūtra” cited in the AFM as scriptural authority of nianfo practice. This discrepancy stems from the original author’s failure to explicitly identify the cited passages. Second, there are significant variations in the interpretations that follow these citations. Not only do the commentaries differ in their understanding of “those who are reborn in the Pure Land,” but textual variations are also evident in the citations form the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Lengqie jing 楞伽經) found in most AFM commentaries following the Wŏnhyoso.

Accordingly, this study first focuses on these conflicting interpretations regarding the scope of the cited sūtra. By drawing on the textual organization (kewen 科文) of the commentaries, the internal context of the AFM, and the identification of the original sūtra sources, I aim to clearly delineate the boundaries of the citations within the text. Subsequently, I will conduct a comparative analysis of the commentators’ interpretations and the specific versions of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passages they employ. Through this, I intend to highlight the similarities and differences in the commentator’s perspectives and, by extension, clarify their ideological relationships.

By examining these commentaries, this study offers a deeper understanding of the concise sections of the AFM and provides an opportunity to identify the historical and philosophical lineages among the texts. Furthermore, it will serve as a foundation for future research investigating the mutual influences between the AFM’s interpretation of nianfo practice and later literature in the Pure Land and Chan traditions.

2. The “Sūtra” 修多羅 Cited in the AFM

2.1. Textual Organization 科文 in the Commentaries and Scriptural Boundaries

Each commentary on the AFM approaches the text from a different perspective, and several differences are evident even in the section on nianfo practice.

[AFM] As the sūtra says: “If a person whole-heartedly contemplates Amitābha Buddha of the Western Pure Land, dedicating the good roots that has cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that world, one immediately achieves rebirth and, always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress. If one contemplates that Buddha’s Dharma-body of Suchness, constantly practices it diligently, one will finally achieve rebirth and abide among being who are determined to attain enlightenment.

如修多羅說 若人專念 西方極樂世界 阿彌陀佛 所修善根 迴向願求生彼世界 即得往生 常見佛故 終無有退。若觀彼佛真如法身 常勤修習畢竟得生 住正定故。

(T32no1666, 583a17–21)

One such difference concerns the scope of the “sūtra” (xiuduoluo 脩多羅) cited in the AFM. The Huiyuan’s 慧遠 (523–92) Doctrinal Commentary on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun yishu 大乘起信論義疏) [hereafter Huiyuanshu] divides the content of AFM into sectional divisions but simply labels the relevant passage as “citing sūtra as proof” (yin jing zheng cheng 引經證成) without further subdivision.8 However, later commentaries- the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu-distinguish between the “sūtra” and its interpretation, though it is noteworthy that they define the scope of the “sūtra” differently from each other.

This difference stems from their contrasting interpretations of the passage “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress” (chang jian fogu zhong wu you tui 常見佛故終無有退). The Wŏnhyoso treats this as “separately presenting the sūtra teaching” [bie chu xiuduoluo shuo 別出脩多羅說], while the Fazangshu classifies it as “interpreting the sūtra passages” [shi jingwen 釋經文].” To determine the boundaries of the “sūtra,” this study will first examine the textual organization the textual organization of the commentaries on the AFM.”

An analysis of

Table 1. Textual Organization of Commentaries on the AFM.

	Huiyuanshu 慧遠疏	Wŏnhyoso 元曉疏		Fazangshu 法藏疏			Shilun 釋論	Guangshi 廣釋			Bixueji 筆削記
復次眾生 Furthermore, when sentient beings	明其佛力攝護令生 explaining the Buddha’s power selects and guards [sentient beings] to enable their rebirth	明初學者畏退墮 explaining the beginner’s fear of retrogression		明可退之人 explaining those capable of retrogression	標行劣 noting the inferiority of one’s conduct		顯示趣向假人門 the section of manifesting the direction for the beginner	舉可退之人 presenting the classes of practitioners subject to retrogression			勸生等 the passage [beginning with] ‘encouragement to rebirth,’ etc.	防 退 preventing retrogression
初學是法 [they] first study this Dharma							歸依所學教法門 the section of taking refuge in the taught dharma
欲求正信其心怯弱 and seek to attain right faith, their minds may be frail and weak							厭惡處所退信門 the section of revulsion for the realm where faith regresses
以住於此娑婆世界自畏不能常值諸佛親承供養懼謂信心難可成就 Because they dwell in this world that must be endured, they fear they cannot always meet the Buddhas or personally serve and make offerings to them, and dreading that their faith will be difficult to achieve					舉處釋成 presenting the state and elucidating its completion
意欲退者 They may feel inclined to retreat
當知如來 One should know the Tathagata		示不退轉之方便 showing the skillful means for non-retrogression	明佛有勝方便 explaining the Buddha’s superior skillful means	明防退之法 explaining the methods to prevent retrogression	通舉聖意 comprehensively presenting the sacred intent	標聖善巧 Indicating the sacred skillful means	如來方便殊勝門 the section of the Tathagata’s superior skillful means	防退之法 methods for preventing retrogression	正其法 establishing the Dharma	勸專念諸佛攝護 encouraging whole-hearted concentration on the Buddhas for his selection and protection		勝方便 superior skillful means
有勝方便攝護信心 [The Tathagata] has superior skillful means to select and guard their faith													後報 等 the passage of consequence in subsequent lives, etc.	聖意 the sacred intent
謂以專意念佛因緣 Namely, through the causes and conditions of whole-hearted nianfo practice,						釋顯巧相 interpreting the manifestation of skillful aspects				顯專念所得之益 manifesting the benefits gained from whole-hearted concentration
隨願得生他方佛土 one achieves rebirth in Buddha-lands of other quarters according to one’s vows							承力得勝妙處門 the section of relying on [Buddha’s] power to attain the sublime realm
常見於佛永離惡道 always seeing the Buddha and eternally departing from evil destinies.							得善處定不退門 the section of attaining the noble realm and settling in non-retrogression
① 如修多羅說若人專念西方極樂世界阿彌陀佛所修善根迴向願求生彼世界即得往生 As the sūtra says: “If a person whole-heartedly contemplates Amitābha Buddha of the Western Pure Land, dedicating the good roots that has cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that world, one immediately achieves rebirth,	引經證成 citing sūtra as proof		別出脩多羅說 separately presenting the sūtra teaching		別引經證 citing sūtra for detailed evidence	引經 citing sūtra	引經證自所說門 the section that cites sūtra to prove what one has explained		別引經證 citing sūtra for detailed evidence	顯得往生 manifesting the achievement of rebirth		往生等 the passage [opening with] rebirth, etc.	引經 citing sūtra
② 常見佛故終無有退 and always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.						釋經文 interpreting the sūtra passages
③ 若觀彼佛真如法身 If one contemplates that Buddha’s Dharma-body of Suchness,			釋經所說意趣 interpreting the intention expounded in the sūtra							顯住正念 manifesting abiding in right mindfulness		觀解等 the passage [opening with] contemplate and unravel, etc.
常勤修習畢竟得生 constantly practices it diligently, one will finally achieve rebirth
住正定故 and abide among being who are determined to attain enlightenment.

(①, ②, ③ are arbitrarily assigned by the author for explanatory convenience.)

reveals that the Wŏnhyoso divides sections ① and ② as “separately presenting the sūtra teaching” and section ③ and following as “interpreting the intention expounded in the sūtra” [shi jing suo shuo yiqu 釋經所說意趣]. However, the Fazangshu classifies section ① as “citing sūtra” [yin jing 引經] and section ② and following as “interpreting the sūtra passages”.

Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿 followed the Fazangshu’s divisions when translating the AFM into modern Japanese, treating only section ① as scriptural text.9 However, he noted that section ② could also be viewed as scripture, leaving the boundary problem unresolved. A review of various modern commentaries reveals that this problem remains unsolved. Scholars such as Ui Hakuju and Takasaki Jikidō 高崎直道10, Yoshizu Yoshihide 吉津宜英11, Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨12, and Ikeda Rosan 池田魯参13 accept the view of the Fazangshu. Others, including Ōtake Susumu14, Ven. T’anheŏ 呑虛15, Ven. Kaksŏng 覺性16, and Koga Hidehiko 古賀英彦17 follow the perspective of the Wŏnhyoso. Let us then examine how earlier commentators understood this issue.

Looking at Table 1, the Shilun was influenced by both the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu,18 but it demonstrates a distinctive approach to understanding the nianfo practice section. This is because it divides the nianfo practice section of the AFM into seven parts, structuring them in parallel. It classifies section ① and following as “the section that cites sūtra to prove what one has explained” [Yin jing zheng zi suo shuo men 引經證自所說門]. However, unlike other commentaries that provide detailed explanations of this section, the Shilun omits its explanation, stating that there is no need to interpret section ① and following redundantly.19

Next, examining the Guangshi, this text is also linked to the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu.20 However, looking at the textual organization related to sūtra citation, it divides section ① and ② as “manifesting the achievement of rebirth” [xian de wangsheng 顯得往生] and section ③ and following as “manifesting abiding in right mindfulness” [xian zhu zhengnan 顯住正念]. This is identical to the position of the Wŏnhyoso. Yet the Guangshi follows the Fazangshu in most of its sectional classifications and titles, such as calling the passage from “one should know that the Tathāgata” (dangzhi rulai 當知如來) and following “methods for preventing retrogression” (fang tui fangfa 防退方法)21 and the passage from “as the sūtra”(ru xiuduoluo 如修多羅) and following “methods for preventing retrogression” [ fang tui zhi fa 防退之法]. It is noteworthy that while clearly demonstrating the influence of the Fazangshu, the Guangshi offers a different interpretation regarding the boundaries of the cited sūtra. However, even though the Guangshi defines the scope of the cited sūtra identically to the Wŏnhyoso, it differs from Wŏnhyo’s approach of dividing sections based on scripture in that Tankuang categorizes them according to content as “rebirth” and “right mindfulness.”

Finally, the Bixueji distinguishes content by words such as “the passage [beginning with] ‘encouragement to rebirth,’ etc.” (quan sheng deng zhe 勸生等者) without separate textual organization, and explains the material not in the order of the AFM but in a mixed sequence.22 Zixuan clarifies at the beginning of this text that the Bixueji is a commentary on the Fazangshu. This character of the Bixueji is also evident in the nianfo practice section through its method of presenting keywords used in the Fazangshu, such as “those [corresponding to] the ‘three stages’ in the [Fazang]shu” (shu sanwei zhe 疏三位者), “those [passages] recorded in the Buddha’s teachings, etc.” (foji deng 佛記等), and “those [corresponding to] the latter three stages” (hou sanwei zhe 後三位者). However, by distinguishing section ① and ② as “the passage [opening with] rebirth, etc.” (wangsheng deng 往生等) and section ③ and following as “the passage [opening with] contemplate and unravel, etc.” (guanjie deng 觀解等), it can be confirmed that regarding the scope of the cited sūtra, the Bixueji is closer to the Wŏnhyoso than to the Fazangshu.

Examining commentaries after the Bixueji, the Ming dynasty commentator Zhenjie’s 真界 Compiled Commentaries on the AFM (Qixinlun zuanzhu 起信論纂註) [hereafter Zuanzhu] distinguishes between “如脩多羅” (ru xiuduoluo) and “若觀” (ruoguan). The Ming commentaries on AFM—Zhengyuan’s 正遠 Essential Points of the AFM (Qixinlun jieyao 起信論捷要) [hereafter Jieyao], Deqing’s 德淸 (1546–1623) Abbreviated Commentary on the AFM (Dasheng qixinlun shulue 大乘起信論疏略) [hereafter Shulue] and Direct Explanation of the AFM (Qixinlun zhijie 起信論直解) [hereafter Zhijie], and Tongrun’s 通潤 (1565–1624) (Qixinlun xushu 起信論續疏) [hereafter Xushu]—are identical to the Wŏnhyoso. The Qing dynasty work Collected Reading of Commentary Records on the AFM (Qixinlun shuji huiyue 起信論疏記會閱) [hereafter Huiyue] by Xufa 續法 (1641–1728) presents the content of the Fazangshu, but with differences from the original description in the Fazangshu.23

2.2. The Purpose and Identity of the Cited “Sūtra”

Another basis for clarifying the boundaries of the “sūtra” cited in the AFM can be found in the purpose of citing the sūtra and the identity of the cited sūtra. First, examining the purpose of presenting the “sūtra,” the AFM cites sūtra to demonstrate the efficacy of nianfo practice for those who are inclined to regress, showing that they can be reborn in other Buddha-lands of other quarters through nianfo practice. When the AFM’s expositions are compared with the content of the sūtra cited in the AFM, the correspondence is as follows:

[The exposition of the AFM]

Namely, through the causes and conditions of whole-hearted nianfo practice, ② one achieves rebirth in Buddha-lands of other quarters according to one’s vows, always seeing the Buddha and eternally departing from evil destinies.

謂以專意 念佛因緣/隨願得生 他方佛土/常見於佛 永離惡道。

(T32no.1666: 583a15-17)

[The sūtra cited in the AFM]

[A] As the sūtra says: “①If a person whole-heartedly contemplates Amitābha Buddha of the Western Pure Land, dedicating the good roots that has cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that world, one immediately achieves rebirth and, ② always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.”

[B] As the sūtra says: “① If a person whole-heartedly contemplates Amitābha Buddha of the Western Pure Land, dedicating the good roots that has cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that world, one immediately achieves rebirth.” ② Always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.

① 如修多羅說 若人專念 西方極樂世界 阿彌陀佛/所修善根 迴向願求生彼世界 即得往生/ ②常見佛故 終無有退。

(T32no.1666: 583a17-19)

The distinction between [A] and [B] centers on whether “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never regress” constitutes part of the sūtra passage or not. When considering the purpose of providing scriptural evidence, the AFM describes how, through the karmic connection of nianfo practice, one is reborn in a buddha-land and “always seeing the Buddha and eternally departing from evil destinies.” Following this exposition, the sūtra is cited and the corresponding passage state “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.” Therefore, “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never regress” should be considered part of the sūtra passage.

Second, examining the identity of the cited sūtra, the AFM merely states “as the sūtra says” without specifying which sūtra it is. The Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, the Shilun, and the Guangshi provide no particular description regarding the source of the “sūtra.” However, the Bixueji stated that “The ‘sūtra’ and others in the [AFM] refer to the Amitābha Sūtra (Amituo jing 阿彌陀經), the Sūtra of Immeasurable life (Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經), the Sūtra of Auspicious Aspect (Xixiang Jing 瑞相經), and the Sūtra on the Meditation on Infinite Life (Guan wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽經), among others.”24 The Xushu, when explaining this section, quotes the Sūtra on the Meditation on Infinite Life.25

Modern research on the AFM also proposes various sūtra s,26 and among these, there is a view that identifies this sūtra as the Sūtra of Immeasurable life. In particular, Ōtake Susumu 大竹晋 compared passages from the two texts as shown below and demonstrated the similarity between the sūtra passage cited in the AFM and the Sūtra of Immeasurable life.27 Following Ōtake Susumu’s view that the sūtra cited in the AFM is the Sūtra of Immeasurable life.28

[AFM] 如修多羅說、若人專念 西方極樂世界 阿彌陀佛、① 所修善根、迴向願求生彼世界、② 即得往生、常見佛故、③ 終無有退。

As the sūtra says: “If a person whole-heartedly contemplates Amitābha Buddha of the Western Pure Land, dedicating the good roots that has cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that world, one immediately achieves rebirth and, always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.

[Sūtra of Immeasurable life] 諸有眾生聞其名號信心歡喜，① 乃至一念，至心迴向願生彼國，② 即得往生③ 住不退轉。

(T12no.360:272b11–13)

All sentient beings who, having heard the Name, rejoice with a faithful heart even for a single moment of thought, and sincerely transfer their merit with a desire to be born in that land, shall immediately achieve rebirth and dwell in the stage of non-retrogression.

As we have seen thus far, regarding the different perspectives of Wŏnhyo and Fazang, it is impossible to clearly define the extent of the cited sūtra passage because the AFM does not specify this. However, first, when organizing the textual organization of commentaries on the AFM, we find that the Guangshi, the Bixueji, the Zuanzhu, the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and the Xushu—all influenced by the Fazangshu—task a different position from the Fazangshu and identify sections ① and ② as passages from the “sūtra.” Second, based on the purpose of providing scriptural evidence and the high probability that the cited sūtra is the Wuliangshou jing, “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never regress” should be included in the sūtra passage. In light of these considerations, the findings suggest that the majority of AFM commentaries adhere to the scope of the “sūtra” delineated in Wŏnhyo’s interpretation (① and ②).

3. The Relationship Among Commentaries Based on Interpretations of the “Sūtra”

3.1. Commentary Interpretations of “若觀法身畢竟得生” (Ruoguan Fashen Bijing Desheng)

Another section where differences are found in commentary interpretations is the passage from “若觀” (ruoguan) onward, which interprets the teaching of the “sūtra.” After citing the “sūtra,” the AFM states: “If one contemplates that Buddha’s Dharma-body of Suchness, constantly practices it diligently, one will finally achieve rebirth and abide among being who are determined to attain enlightenment.” (ruoguan bifo zhenrufashen changqin xiuxi bijing desheng zhu zhengding gu 若觀彼佛真如法身 常勤修習畢竟得生, 住正定故, 『大乘起信論』 T32no.1666: 583a20–21).

The Wŏnhyoso abbreviates this AFM passaged “若觀彼佛真如法身 常勤修習畢竟得生” as “若觀法身畢竟得生” and creates a textual organization titled “interpreting the intention expounded in the sūtra”. Notably, among all sections explaining nianfo practice in the AFM, Wŏnhyo provides detailed exposition only for his particular section.

The Fazangshu also presents the AFM passage using the abbreviated form “若觀法身畢竟得生” as provided in the Wŏnhyoso. Regarding nianfo practice in the AFM, Fazang briefly explains “復次以下” (fuci yixia) by referring to “those who are liable to retrogress” (ketuizhi ren 可退之人). However, he provides detailed explanation when he includes “若觀法身畢竟得生” within the textual organization of “interpreting the sūtra passages.”

Comparing these two texts reveals that both the Wŏnhyoso and Fazangshu focus on the section that interprets the cited sūtra within the nianfo practice portion of the AFM. Both commentaries’ use of the abbreviated form “若觀法身畢竟得生” demonstrates the Fazangshu’s dependence on the Wŏnhyoso. However, when examining the content of their interpretations in detail, the two commentaries diverge in their interpretation of “若觀法身畢竟得生” become apparent.

[Wŏnhyoso] “If one contemplates that the Dharma-body one will finally achieve rebirth” (ruo guan fashen bijing de sheng 若觀法身畢竟得生) means to clarify that bodhisattvas of the ten stages of propensity (shijie 十解) and above, by attaining a partial vision of the Dharma-body of Suchness, one certainly achieves ultimate rebirth. … Moreover, because bodhisattvas of the first ground (chudi 初地) and above attain and see the Dharma-body of Suchness of that Buddha, it says ‘finally achieving rebirth.’” … Among these, the meaning of the AFM is to clarify certain rebirth by citing people of the superior grade (shangbei 上輩), not to say that those who have not yet seen the Dharma-body cannot attain rebirth.

若觀法身畢竟得生者。欲明十解以上菩薩。得少分見真如法身。是故能得畢竟往生。 … 又復初地已上菩薩。證見彼佛真如法身。以之故言畢竟得生。 … 此中論意約上輩人明畢竟生。非謂未見法身不得往生也。

(『起信論疏』 T44no.1844: 225c9–16)

[Fazangshu] Regarding the statement “contemplating the Dharma-body and finally achieving rebirth” and so forth, those who achieve rebirth roughly consist of three stages (sanwei 三位). First, like when the lotus has not yet bloomed, faith and practice are not yet complete, so [one is] not yet called “non-retrogression.” However, because one dwells where there are no conditions for retrogression, [it is] called “non-retrogression.” Second, after the [ten] stages of faith (shixin 十信) are fulfilled, the lotus blooms and [one] sees the Buddha, enters the ten abodes (shizhu 十住), attaining a partial vision of the Dharma-body, and abiding in the stage of those determined to attain enlightenment (zhengdingwei正定位). Third, when the stages of the three kinds of worthies (sanxianwei 三賢位) are fulfilled and [one] enters the first ground and beyond, [one] realizes the all-pervading Dharma-body and is born in the limitless Buddha-land. … Among this [passage], “finally” and so forth refers to these latter two stages.

言若觀法身畢竟得生等者。但往生之人約有三位。一如蓮華未開時信行未滿。未名不退。但以處無退緣故稱不退。二信位滿足已去。華開見佛。入十住位。得少分見法身。住正定位也。三者三賢位滿。入初地已去。證遍滿法身。生無邊佛土。 … 此中畢竟等。是後二位也。

(『大乘起信論義記』 T44no.1846: 286c15–23)

The above description from the Wŏnhyoso reveals one reason why Wŏnhyo abbreviated the AFM passage “若觀彼佛真如法身 常勤修習畢竟得生” (ruoguan bifo zhenrufashen changqin xiuxi bijing desheng) to “若觀法身畢竟得生” (ruoguan fashen bijing desheng). The Wŏnhyoso’s exposition identifies only two categories-those at the ten stages of propensity, namely the ten abodes and above, and those at the first stage and above-emphasizing that they “finally” achieve rebirth because they no longer retrogress. In other words, Wŏnhyo focuses on “finally achieve rebirth” (bijing desheng 畢竟得生), and it can be inferred that this focus led him to omit “constantly practices it diligently” (changqin xiuxi 常勤修習).

Although the Wŏnhyoso states that only superior grade—those at the ten abodes and above and those at the first ground and above-“finally” achieve rebirth, this does not contradict the AFM’s assertion that beings of indeterminate class (budingju 不正聚) can also achieve rebirth through nianfo practice. This is because the Wŏnhyoso subsequently explains the AFM’s “abide among beings who are determined to attain enlightenment” (zhu zhengding 住正定), stating: “Third, all nine grades of rebirth are called determined enlightenment because they attain non-retrogression through relying on the power of superior conditions.” (sanzhe jiupin wangsheng jie ming zhengding yi shengyuanli de butui gu 三者九品往生皆名正定。依勝緣力得不退故。『起信論疏』 T44no.1844: 225c19–20). This clarifies that beings of indeterminate class also avoid regression and can achieve rebirth while abiding in determined enlightenment. This explanation in the Wŏnhyoso appears to be intended to distinguish between those who “finally” achieve rebirth and those who achieve rebirth through superior karmic connections.

While the Fazangshu uses the same phrase “若觀法身畢竟得生” (ruoguan fashen bijing desheng) as the Wŏnhyoso, it focuses on “achieve rebirth” (desheng 得生) rather than “finally” (bijing 畢竟). The Fazangshu establishes three stages by adding “faith and practice are not yet complete” to the Wŏnhyso’s two categories of practitioners. This addition appears to account for beings of indeterminate class, who are the intended audience for nianfo practice in the AFM. Unlike the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu does not provide a separate explanation of “abide as beings who are determined to attain enlightenment” (zhu zhengding 住正定), possibly because it had already included beings of indeterminate class among “those who achieve rebirth” when explaining “若觀法身畢竟得生.” While the Fazangshu thus demonstrates differentiation from the Wŏnhyoso, its concluding statement that “’finally’ and so forth refers to these latter two stages” clarifies that the second stage of “after the [ten] stages of faith are fulfilled” and the third stage of “when the stages of the three kinds of worthies are fulfilled and [one] enters the first ground and beyond” correspond to “finally.” This reveals that ultimately, the Fazangshu maintains the same position as Wŏnhyo’s understanding.

Another distinctive feature of the Fazangshu is its comparison of those who achieve rebirth to the blooming of lotus flowers. However, the Bixueji connects this lotus metaphor to the significance of lotus flowers in Pure Land thought. Consequently, the Bixueji interprets his section of the Fazangshu as referring to these who have already achieved rebirth and explains “there are no conditions for retrogression” (wutui yuan 無退緣) with the Pure Land as given premise.29 The Fazangshu, however, describes the third category of practitioners being reborn in Buddha-lands only after entering the first ground. This suggests that the lotus metaphor was intended simply to illustrate the question of rebirth through the blooming of lotus flowers.

The Bixueji explains the scriptural citation and commentary sections of the AFM using terms such as “rebirth” (wangsheng 往生), “contemplate and unravel” (guanjie 觀解), and “encouragement to rebirth” (quansheng 勸生). The Bixueji provides detailed explanations of Fazangshu’s three stages (sanwei 三位) of rebirth and correlates them with the nine grades (jiupin 九品) of rebirth.

[Bixueji] The “three stages” cited in the [Fazang]shu now are spoken of based only on the first six grades among the nine grades [excluding the lower three grades]. The first position refers to those people of the middle three grades. The second position refers to those people of the upper-lower grade. The third position refers to the people of the upper-middle and upper-upper grades. Because this distinguishes the meaning of non-retrogression, it is divided in this way. … “these latter two stages” are precisely the people who have completed the ten stages of faith and those of the three kinds of worthies. This is because they contemplate the Dharma-body of Suchness and practice diligently. If they vow to be reborn in that land, they are precisely the people of the upper three types of position among the nine grades.

今疏約三位者。但就九品中前六品說。初位即彼中三品人也。第二位即彼上下品人。第三位即彼上中上上品人也。以是料揀不退義故。故此判也。 … 後二位者。即十信滿足及三賢位人。以觀真如法身勤修習故。願生彼國。即是九品中上三品人也。

(『大乘起信論疏筆削記』 T44no.1848: 407b8-c6)

The Bixueji mentions the nine grades of rebirth from the Sūtra on the Meditation on Infinite Life while commenting on Fazangshu’s “those who achieve rebirth roughly consist of three stages.” According to the Bixueji, those who achieve rebirth in the Fazangshu correspond to the middle three grades and upper three grades among the nine grades, based on the criterion of “non-retrogression.” Furthermore, the Bixueji quotes the Amitābha Sūtra to demonstrate that all nine grades are free from retrogression, which corresponds to what the Wŏnhyoso stated about the nine grades of rebirth when explaining “abide as beings who are determined to attain enlightenment.” The Bixueji then defines the “latter two stages” that “finally” achieve rebirth, as mentioned in the Fazangshu, as those who have fulfilled the ten faith stages and those at the stages of the three kinds of worthies (sanxian wei 三賢位). Synthesizing these two descriptions, the Bixueji interprets that those who gave fulfilled the ten faith stages and those at the three worthy stages “finally” achieve rebirth as the upper three grades. The interpretations of Wŏnhyo, Fazang, and Zixuan concerning the AFM passage “若觀彼佛真如法身，常勤修習畢竟得生” as analyzed up to this point, are summarized in

Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Interpretations of “Those Who Achieve Rebirth.”

Person 人		Wŏnhyoso 元曉疏	Fazangshu 法藏疏	Bixueji 筆削記
Rebirh 往生	Finally 畢竟	Bodhisattvas of the First Ground and above 初地已上菩薩	3. Completion of the Stages of the Three Kinds of Worthies are fulfilled and enters the first ground and beyond 三賢位滿-入初地已去	People of the Upper-Middle and Upper-Upper grades 上中上上品人	Nine grades 九品	Non-retrogression 無退
		Bodhisattvas of the Ten Stages of Propensity and above 十解以上菩薩	2. Completion of the Ten Stages of Faith are fulfilled and enters the Ten Abodes 信位滿足已去-入十住位	People of the Upper-Lower grade 上下品人
			1. Incomplete Faith and Practice 信行未滿	People of the Middle three grades 中三品人
				People of the Lower three grades 下三品人

below.

As evidenced by Table 2, the categorization of “those who achieve rebirth” became increasingly granular, and the scope of explanation broadened significantly through the progression from the Wŏnhyoso to the Bixueji.

Among commentaries on the AFM after the Bixueji, those that mention the Fazangshu’s “three stages” include the Jieyao (X45no.763, 400a19–24), the Shulue (X45no.765, 482b12–17), the Zhijie (X45no.766, 515a3–7), and the Huiyue (X45no.768, 726c; 728c). In contrast, the Zuanzhu and the Xushu do not mention this content. Thus, the Fazangshu’s “three stages” serves as evidence for understanding the influence among commentaries on the AFM.

3.2. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra Quoted in the Commentaries and Its Interpretation

In the process of commenting on nianfo practice in the AFM, the Wŏnhyoso is the first among extant AFM commentaries to quote the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. This passage, which is no mentioned in the AFM itself, contains the content that Nāgārjuna will be reborn in the Pure Land because he has attained the ground of joy. Later commentaries on the AFM after the Wŏnhyoso—the Fazangshu, the Guangshi, the Bixueji, and the Xushu—also mention this content from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. The Passages from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passages quoted in the commentaries on the AFM are organized in

Table 3. Comparison of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra Passages.

Title	Sentence
Ru lengqie jing 入楞伽經	In a great country to the south, there is a Great Virtuous Bhiksu named Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna. He shall shatter the views of existence and non-existence, and preach my Dharma to the people—the supreme Dharma of the Great Vehicle. Attaining the ground of joy, he will be reborn in the Paradise. 於南大國中 有大德比丘 名龍樹菩薩 能破有無見 為人說我法 大乘無上法 證得歡喜地 往生安樂國 (T16no.671:569a24–27)
Dasheng ru lengqie jing 大乘入楞伽經	Within the country of south India, there is a Bhiksu of great renown and virtue, whose name is Nāgārjuna. He shall the doctrines of existence and non-existence, and manifest my supreme Great Vehicle Dharma within the world. Attaining the first ground of joy, he will be reborn in the Paradise. 南天竺國中 大名德比丘 厥號為龍樹 能破有無宗 世間中顯我 無上大乘法 得初歡喜地 往生安樂國 (T16no.672:627c19–22)
Wŏnhyoso 元曉疏	This is because the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra praises Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, stating that he attains the ground of joy, thereby being reborn in the Paradise. 如楞伽經歎龍樹菩薩云 證得歡喜地 往生安樂國故 (T44no.1844:225c14–15)
Fazangshu 法藏疏	As recorded in the Buddha’s teachings regarding Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna and others, [they] reside in the first ground and attain birth in the Pure Land. 如佛記龍樹菩薩等。住初地生淨土等也。 (T44no.1846:286c21–22)
Guangshi 廣釋	Based on this meaning, the sūtra states that Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna attains the first ground of joy, thereby being reborn in the Paradise. 經依此義說。龍樹菩薩證初歡喜地往生安樂國。 (T85no.2814:1172c26–27)
Bixueji 筆削記	Regarding the phrase ‘recorded in the Buddha’s teachings’ and so forth: theLaṅkāvatāra Sūtra states that the Bhiksu Nāgārjuna resides in the first ground of joy, shatters the views of existence and non-existence, and is reborn in the Land of Paradise. 佛記等者。楞伽經說。龍樹比丘住初歡喜地。能破有無見。往生安樂國。(T44no.1848:407b28–29)
Xushu 續疏	As the Ru lengqie jing says, Mahāmati, you should know that after the parinirvāṇa of the Sugata, within the country of south India, there is a Bhiksu of great renown and virtue, whose name is Nāgārjuna. He shall the doctrines of existence and non-existence, and manifest my supreme Great Vehicle Dharma within the world. Attaining the first ground of joy, he will be reborn in the Paradise. 如入楞伽經云 大慧汝當知 善逝滅度後 南天竺國中 大名德比丘 厥號為龍樹 能破有無宗 世間中顯我 無上大乘法 得初歡喜地 往生安樂國 (X45no.764:441b6–9)

below.30

The above Table 3 allows for analysis from two perspectives. First is the formal aspect, namely textual similarity. In the sentence describing Nāgārjuna, the Ru lengqie jing 入楞伽經 and the Dasheng ru lengqie jing 大乘入楞伽經 differ in expression between “證得” (zhengde) and “得初” (dechu). Based on this, since the passage quoted in the Wŏnhyoso uses “證得” (dechu), it can be concluded that Wŏnhyo quoted from the Ru lengqie jing.

The Fazangshu, while referencing the Wŏnhyoso in many parts as previous scholarship has been shown, demonstrates differentiation from the Wŏnhyoso in this section. Instead of naming the sūtra, the Fazangshu uses the expression “as recorded in the Buddha’s teachings” (rufoji 如佛記), and replaces Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s “歡喜地” (huanxi di) and “安樂國” (anleguo) with “初地” (chudi) and “淨土” (jingtu). Through this method, it presents only the content of this sūtra rather than citing the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in a formal quotation format.

The Bixueji provides a detailed explanation of this section using “recorded in the Buddha’s teachings” (foji 佛記), the keyword employed by the Fazangshu. However, the Bixueji explicitly identifies the sūtra name as the “Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra,” which the Fazangshu had omitted, following the same approach as the Wŏnhyoso. It also restores words such as “歡喜” (huanxi) and “安樂國” (anleguo) that had been altered in the Fazangshu. Additionally, it includes the phrase “能破有無見” (nengpo youwujian) from the Ru lengqie jing, which was not mentioned in either the Wŏnhyoso or the Fazangshu. Through this, it is possible to suggest that Zixuan directly consulted the Ru lengqie jing and revised the text accordingly. However, the Bixueji omits certain portions of the Ru lengqie jing text, and this form bears a high degree of similarity to Zongmi’s Great Commentary on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment (Yuanjuejing dashu 圓覺經大疏).31 Based on this fact, it appears more likely that Zixuan consulted other texts that quote the Ru lengqie jing, such as the Great Commentary on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, rather than directly consulting the Ru lengqie jing while modifying the quoted passages to differ from the original.

The Guangshi simply refers to “經” (jing) without specifying the sūtra name like the Fazangshu, but the quoted passage shows high similarity to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra text. However, the use of “證初” (zhengchu) raises several questions. Did Tanguang consult the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra directly? If so, did he use the Ru lengqie jing or the Dasheng ru lengqie jing ? Or did he simply add characters while referencing the Wŏnhyoso? these questions remain unclear. Based on textual similarity, it is closer to the Wŏnhyoso than to the Fazangshu. However, since there would be no particular need to change “Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra” to simply “sūtra” while referencing the Wŏnhyoso, the likelihood of influence from the Wŏnhyoso appears unlikely as well.

Examining commentaries after the Bixueji, the Zuanzhu, the Jieyao, the Shulue, and the Zhijie do not quote the above Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passage. In the case of the Xushu, it identifies the source as “as the Ru lengqie jing says” (ru ru lengqie jing yun 如入楞伽經云), but the quoted passage is identical to the Dasheng ru lengqie jing.

The second aspect is the content-related, concerning the sections where each commentary cites the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. The Wŏnhyoso, in “interpreting the intention expounded in the sūtra”, explains the second category among those who necessarily achieve rebirth—the first ground (chudi 初地) and above—and presents Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as evidence for this. The Fazangshu, in “interpreting the sūtra passages”, describes the third of three stages of rebirth—the first ground and above—while mentioning Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna.32

Unlike the Wŏnhyoso and Fazangshu, the Guangshi quotes the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra not in the section that explicates the cited sūtra, but in the cited sūtra section itself—“manifesting the achievement of rebirth”. The Guangshi presents two types of power for achieving rebirth: self-power (zili 自力) and other-power (tali 他力), and us Nāgārjuna as described in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as an example of “self-power.” The interpretation utilizing self-power and other-power in this section is a distinctive interpretation unique to the Guangshi.

The Xushu quotes the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in its commentary on the AFM passage “one will finally achieve rebirth and abide among beings who are determined to attain enlightenment” (bijing desheng zhu zhengding gu 畢竟得生住正定故) to emphasize the importance of nianfo practice. It then quotes the Ten Doubts about the Pure Land (Jingtu shi yi lun 淨土十疑論), the Madhyamaka-śāstra (Zhonglun 中論), the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra (Weimojing 維摩經), and the Questions about the Pure Land (Jingtu huo wen 淨土或問) to discuss the relationship between emptiness (kong 空) and the Pure Land.

The tendency of quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in commentaries on the AFM examined thus far provides another clue for understanding the influence among the commentaries. While the Fazangshu demonstrates differentiation from the Wŏnhyoso in both the expression of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passages and their positioning, both commentaries share an identical goal. They both seek to clarify rebirth at the “first ground,” namely the ground of joy, through the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. The Bixueji, while commenting on the Fazangshu, attempts to restore the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra quotations to their original form, and in this process appears to have been influenced by other texts rather than the Wŏnhyoso. The Guangshi differs from both the Wŏnhyoso and Fazangshu in the section where it explains by quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and in the form of its quotation. However, since the intention to demonstrate rebirth at the first ground and above through quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is identical, it reveals the originality unique to the Guangshi while being influenced by both texts or one of them. Meanwhile, while these four commentaries are primarily close in form to the Ru lengqie jing, the Xushu, written during the Ming dynasty, quotes the Dasheng ru lengqie jing, revealing a formal difference. Moreover, the purpose of quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in the Xushu differs from them, aiming to clarify the importance of nianfo practice. Furthermore, it can be confirmed that in the subsequent content, it develops into a discussion of the relationship between emptiness and the Pure Land by quoting other sūtra s and treatise together.

4. Conclusions

This study focused primarily on nianfo practice, which appears as the final method among the various practices presented in the Practice and the Attitude of Faith Section of the AFM. The investigation centered on the AFM itself along with its major commentaries: the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, the Shilun, the Guangshi, and the Bixueji. When necessary, additional interpretations from the Huiyuanshu, the Zuanzhu, the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, the Xushu, and the Huiyue were also examined. Through this comprehensive analysis, the study explored interpretive differences found in the nianfo practice section of the AFM and illuminated the doctrinal relationships among the commentaries.

The problematic issues can be classified into two categories. The first concerns the scope of the sūtra cited in the AFM. The Wŏnhyoso and Fazangshu differ in their perspectives on “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never retrogress.” Wŏnhyo views this passage as part of the “cited sūtra,” while Fazang interprets it as belonging to the section that “interprets the cited sūtra.” To examine the differences between these two texts, three distinct approaches were employed. First, an analysis was conducted on the commentaries after the Fazangshu, namely the Guangshi, the Bixueji, the Zuanzhu, the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and the Xuxhu. Second, analysis of the correspondence between the AFM’s exposition and the sūtra content, considering the purpose of providing scriptural evidence, supports this interpretation. Third, I inferred the identity of the cited sūtra based on its strong similarities to the Wu lianshou jing. Taken tighter, these analyses confirm that the passage “Always seeing the Buddha, one will never regress” is primarily recognized as the specific scriptural text being cited.

The second issue involves examining how the commentaries understand the section that interprets the sūtra cited in the AFM. This analysis was conducted from two perspectives. First, the Wŏnhyoso abbreviates the passage from “若觀” (ruoguan) onward to “若觀法身畢竟得生” (ruoguan fashen bijing desheng) and the Fazangshu adopts Wŏnhyo’s formulation. While this demonstrates the influence of the Wŏnhyoso on the Fazangshu, the two commentaries diverge in their specific interpretations. Both texts explain “those who those who finally achieve rebirth,” but the Wŏnhyoso focuses on “finally” while the Fazangshu emphasizes “practitioners.” The Wŏnhyoso defines those who “finally” achieve rebirth as two categories: those at the ten stages of propensity and above, and those at the first ground and above. The Fazangshu adds a third category-those below the ten stages of faith—to Wŏnhyoso’s two categories, presenting a total of three types of practitioners. However, it clarifies that only the latter two stages correspond to “finally,” ultimately revealing the same position as the Wŏnhyoso.

The Bixueji applies the nine grades system to the three stages established by the Fazangshu, assigning the middle three grades, upper-lower grade, upper-middle grade, and upper-upper grade respectively. This demonstrates an expansion in the interpretive scope regarding those who achieve rebirth. Among commentaries after the Bixueji, the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and the Huiyue mention the Fazangshu’s three stages, while the Zuanzhu and the Xushu make no reference to them. Although this tendency is limited to commentaries on the nianfo practice section of the AFM, it provides evidence of Fazangshu’s influence on commentaries on the AFM. Accordingly, later commentaries can be classified into two groups: the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and the Huiyue on one side, and the Zuanzhu and the Xushu on the other.

The following analyzes the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra quotations that appear in the process of commenting on the AFM. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra first appears in the Wŏnhyoso, and this passage continues to be quoted in subsequent commentaries on the AFM. Comparing the form and context in which commentaries cite this sūtra reveals the relationships among the commentaries. From a formal perspective, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passages in the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, the Guangshi, the Bixueji, and the Xushu each differ. While the Bixueji comments on the Fazangshu, it attempts to restore the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra quotations to their original form, and in this process appears to have been influenced by other texts rather than the Wŏnhyoso. Meanwhile, the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, the Guangshi, and the Bixueji show forms closer to the Ru lengqie jing, while the Xushu quotes the Dasheng ru lengqie jing. From a content perspective, the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, the Guangshi, and the Bixueji all share the common purpose of using the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to demonstrate rebirth at the first stage, the ground of joy. In contrast, the Xushu quotes the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra emphasize the importance of nianfo practice.

This analysis of the two primary differences in the interpretation of nianfo practice within the AFM has clarified the relationship between the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu, as well as their respective influences on subsequent commentaries. Specifically, the differences in explanatory methods and content classifications—such as the divergent descriptions of “those who finally achieve rebirth” in the Wŏnhyoso and Fazangshu, the expansion of the three levels of rebirth into nine grades in the Bixueji, and the fact that the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and Huiyue adopted these three levels while the Zuanzhu and the Xushu did not—demonstrate that subsequent commentators did not uncritically accept the views of their predecessors. Rather, the discrepancies observed in the citations of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra featured in the Wŏnhyoso demonstrate that while these commentators built upon the perspectives of their predecessors, they also incorporated their own original interpretations.

Furthermore, this study confirmed that among commentaries after the Bixueji, the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and Huiyue were influenced by both the Fazangshu and the Bixueji, specifically in the nianfo practice section. However, the Jieyao, the Shulue, and the Zhijie, along with the Bixueji, define the scope of the sūtra cited in the AFM differently from the Fazangshu. This suggests that these three texts show stronger influence from the Bixueji, and the apparent influence of the Fazangshu may have been transmitted indirectly through the Bixueji rather than directly. Meanwhile, the Zuanzhu and the Xushu do not reflect Fazangshu’s views on either the scope of the sūtra cited in the AFM or the “three stages.” Based on this analysis, commentaries after the Bixueji can be classified into two main groups: Group1 consists of the Jieyao, the Shulue, the Zhijie, and the Huiyue; these can be further subdivided into a subgroup containing the Jieyao, the Shulue, and the Zhijie, and a separate branch for the Huiyue. Group 2 comprises the Zuanzhu and the Xushu; notably, even within this group, these two texts are distinguished as belonging to separate and independent lineages when further subdivided.

On a related note, passages from the AFM, including the nianfo practice section, are also quoted in Pure Land texts. These quotations appear once in the Paradise Anthology (Anleji 安樂集) of Daochuo 道綽 (562–645), four times in the Explaining the Pure Land—a Treatise on Accumulated Doubts (Shi jingtu qunyilun 釋淨土群疑論) of Huaigan 懷感 (d.u.), ten times in the Treatise on the Pure Land (Jingtulun 淨土論) of Jiacai 迦才 (d.u.), and three times in the Doctrinal Essentials of the Sūtra of Immeasurable Life (Muryangsukyŏng chong’yo 無量壽經宗要) of Wŏnhyo. Examining how the AFM is quoted in Pure Land literature represents an important task for understanding the position and influence of the AFM within Pure Land thought. Therefore, questions regarding how Pure Land texts understand the nianfo practice examined in this study and what influence this had on later developments remain as topics for future research.