Can Ordinary Beings Attain Rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land? Huai’gan and the Formation of an Inclusive Pure Land Vision in Early Tang China

Abstract

Since the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the question of whether ordinary beings (fanfu 凡夫) could attain rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land became a central concern in Chinese Buddhism. In the Chen and Sui periods, exegetes of the She lun 攝論 and some Di lun 地論 masters generally denied this possibility. By the seventh century, however, Master Huai’gan 懷感, building on the teachings of Shandao 善導, systematically addressed these doubts in his Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land (Shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論). He refuted the Yogācāra (Weishi zong 唯識宗) claim that only bodhisattvas can be reborn there, insisting that all beings, though differing in spiritual capacities, are able to attain rebirth in Pure Land. Against the Three Stages teaching (Sanjie jiao 三階教), which regarded beings of the degenerate age as wholly evil and unfit for Pure Land practice. Huai’gan stressed the role of bodhicitta and argued that Buddha recitation eradicates karmic obstacles, enabling even perpetrators of the Ten Evils or slanderers of the Dharma to be reborn. Reconciling discrepancies between the Sūtra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sūtra on the issue of the five grave offenses, he highlighted the criterion of ten invocations as sufficient for rebirth. Huai’gan effectively universalized the Pure Land path by reconciling the Yogācāra-based theory of the Transformtion Land with the orthodox Pure Land view of the Reward Land (baotu 報土) as a literal reality generated by Amitābha Buddha’s Vow-power. In doing so, Huai’gan shifted pre-Tang restrictive views toward a more inclusive Pure Land vision, paving the way for the open orientation of early Tang Pure Land thought.

1. Introduction

With the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism in the first century CE, the idea of “pure lands” (buddhakṣetra, from buddha and kṣetra, meaning “field” or “regio”) began to take shape. The Sanskrit term literally denotes a “Buddha land” or “Buddha field” (Fujita 1970, pp. 507–11). The notion of Amitābha’s Pure Land, defined in primary canonical sources such as the larger sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra (The Sūtra of Infinite Life, Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經, CBETA, T12, no. 360) as a realm of supreme bliss (sukhā) fashioned by the Bodhisattva Dharmākara’s primal vows, had already circulated in India.1 However, its transmission to China initiated a transformative new stage of development. From the Eastern Jin onward, the translation of seminal texts such as the Amitābha-sūtra (Amituo Jing 阿彌陀經, CBETA, T12, no. 366), the Sūtra of Infinite Life, and the Sūtra on the Visualization of the Buddha of Infinite Life (The Contemplation Sūtra, Guan Wuliangshou Jing 觀無量壽經 1924–1932, CBETA, T12, no. 365) brought Pure Land teachings to prominence, gradually attracting both monastic and lay adherents. As familiarity with these scriptures deepened, however, questions regarding the doctrinal foundations of rebirth in the Pure Land also came to the fore. From the late Chen through the early Tang, diverse Buddhist schools held divergent understandings regarding whether Amitābha’s Pure Land was accessible to ordinary beings (fanfu 凡夫) or reserved exclusively for advanced practitioners. The second section of this article will explore these perspectives in detail, drawing upon relevant historical sources.

There has been a considerable amount of research on the Pure Land tradition during the Jin–Tang period, such as Liu Changdong (C. Liu 2000) and Sheng Kai’s (Shengkai 2009) work. In addition, comprehensive histories of the Pure Land school, such as Mochizuki Shinkō (Mochizuki 1974) and Chen Yangjiong’s (Chen 2008) work, also provide overviews of this period. Their concrete perspectives will be further addressed and discussed in the subsequent parts of this paper. However, few studies have taken this particular issue as their central concern. Moreover, the question of when the decisive turning point occurred in the debate over whether ordinary beings can be reborn in the Pure Land remains obscure. Earlier scholars have paid much attention to the teachings of the third and fourth patriarchs of the Pure Land school, Shandao 善導 and Fazhao 法照, regarding the rebirth of ordinary beings in the Pure Land, but research on Huai’gan has remained relatively scarce.2 Huai’gan was a prominent disciple of Shandao and a pivotal figure in the early Tang dynasty Pure Land movement. He is the best-known pure land master for his magnum opus, the Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land, in which he utilized scholastic logic and Yogacara philosophy to defend the Pure Land doctrine against contemporary criticisms.

Existing studies on Huai’gan present two differing perspectives. One view, represented by Cunde (2016, p. 166), holds that Huai’gan’s model of rebirth—when compared with Shandao’s—suffers from a lack of thoroughgoing systematicity. This theoretical fragmentation effectively elevated the intellectual and spiritual threshold for rebirth, rendering the Pure Land path more demanding for the average practitioner. The other view, represented by Murakami (1995, pp. 59–63), Liao Minghuo (Liao 2009, pp. 32–35), Marchman, Kendall R. (Marchman 2015, pp. 155–57, 222–24) contends that despite certain nuanced differences, Huai’gan fundamentally inherited Shandao’s doctrine regarding the capacity of ordinary beings to attain rebirth in the reward Land. In other words, the threshold for attaining rebirth in the Reward Land was lowered for ordinary practitioners. It remains an open question whether one of these interpretations aligns more closely with the historical and doctrinal reality of Huai’gan’s theory of Pure Land rebirth, or if alternative possibilities might exist. Against this background, this paper examines how Huai’gan, from his own standpoint, systematically addressed the question of whether ordinary beings could attain rebirth in the Pure Land, and what role he played in the transformation of Pure Land rebirth soteriology during the Jin–Tang transition.

2. Denying Ordinary Beings’ Rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land During the Chen–Sui Period

Exegetes of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Shelun masters 攝論師) maintained that Amitābha is a saṃbhogakāya Buddha and that his realm is therefore a reward land (baotu 報土). Drawing on the doctrine of “provisional intent” (bieshi yiqu 別時意趣), they argued that the Contemplation Sūtra’s promise of rebirth through “ten recollections” was merely an expedient device, not a literal possibility for ordinary beings (Mochizuki 1974, p. 108; Shengkai 2023, pp. 717–19). The Commentary on the Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra (Wuliangshou Guanjing Yiji 無量壽觀經義記) records the view that making vows for rebirth provides only a necessary condition, but is insufficient on its own for ordinary practitioners to attain rebirth (CBETA, T85, no. 2760, p. 249b7-12). Similarly, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (Dacheng qixin lun 大乘起信論), a treatise traditionally attributed to Aśvaghoṣa and translated by Paramārtha but widely recognized by modern scholars as a sixth-century Chinese composition, presents the teaching that “through single-minded recollection of the Buddha one may be reborn in other Buddha lands”. This practice is framed as a skillful expedient meant to safeguard the faith of beginners, rather than a literal soteriological guarantee (Aśvaghoṣa 2010, p. 188). Huai’gan remarked that “for more than a hundred years since the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, eminent masters, having studied this treatise, have refrained from cultivating the Pure Land of the West” (Huai’gan 2019 p. 180). This observation testifies to the wide circulation of the “provisional intent” reading during the Sui and early Tang, a view that significantly undermined practitioners’ confidence in the Pure Land path and led many to abandon its practice.

Followers of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (Dilun masters 地論師) took an even stricter stance, holding that only bodhisattva could be reborn in Amitābha’s realm. Some early Dilun exegetes, prior to the influence of Tanluan, classified Amitābha’s land as a reward land open solely to advanced bodhisattvas, such as those who had attained the bhūmis or realized the “forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas” (wusheng faren 無生法忍; anupattidharmakṣānti). In their view, ordinary beings, weighed down by karmic obstructions, first had to eradicate fundamental delusions and reach a defined stage of practice before becoming eligible for rebirth in the Pure Land. By contrast, other influential figures such as Huiyuan 慧遠 of Jingying Monastery (Jingying si 淨影寺) (523–592) and Zhiyi 智顗 of the Tiantai school (538–597) offered a more inclusive interpretation. They regarded Amitābha’s land not as an exclusive reward land but as a “phenomenally pure yet coarse land” (shi jing cu guotu 事淨麤國土) or a responsive manifestation land (yingtu 應土), established through skillful means to inspire and guide ordinary beings. In this way, Amitābha’s Pure Land was recast as an accessible realm deliberately designed to accommodate the spiritual capacities of the many rather than the few (Mochizuki 1974, pp. 66–79).

The Three Stages (Sanjie 三階) movement, which gained wide influence during the Sui dynasty, was among the strongest critics of Pure Land devotion.3 The Secret Records of the Three Stages Dharma (Sanjie Fofa Miji 三階佛法密記), a core doctrinal text of the Three Stages Sect attributed to Xinxing 信行, states: “The minds of the people remain perpetually estranged from and abandon the truth, and their extreme evils continue to grow, thus their depravity is identical. Furthermore, their slandering of the True Dharma and disparagement of the Sages constitute the direct causes for inhabiting this evil world and defiled land. These people fail to believe that within their mundane state, their perception of ‘Particular Sages’ acts as a barrier to the ‘Particular Pure Land.’” (如是等眾生) 心常遠離棄捨真實極惡增長等是惡同、又由誹謗正法毀訾賢聖是惡世界穢土正因、不信凡中有別聖障別淨土 (CBETA, B26, no. 147, p. 316a11-14). A text attributed, perhaps pseudonymously, to Kuiji 窺基 (Mochizuki 1974, p. 135), Essential Instructions for the Western Land: A General Resolution of Doubts (Xifang yaojue shiyi tonggui 西方要決釋疑通規), summarizes five major objections raised by Sanjie adherents against faith in Amitābha’s Pure Land:

First Doubt: In the Sahā’s turbid realm, it is natural to dwell here; if one feels a special aversion and seeks to abandon it, that is perverse anger. In the Western Pure Land, sages are able to dwell there; if one disregards one’s own inferior capacity and vows to be born there, that is perverse greed. The reason for all this is ignorance—that is, the obstructive delusion of perverse folly. These three poisons accumulate within the mind-field; even if one recites the Buddha’s name, and attracts spirits or demons, how could one attain rebirth in the Pure Land? Second Doubt: Karma is like a scale; good and evil must be repaid. Since one is already subject to rebirth, and has committed multiple evils, how could one not experience their fruit and yet go straight to the West? If one desires rebirth, would this not be an obstacle? Third Doubt: According to current practice, the general path is the standard. To separately recite Amitābha alone constitutes a distorted view, turning into an obstacle on the path, and one cannot escape samsara. Fourth Doubt: Yet if one only repents here in this realm, the sins may indeed be expiated; if one desires the West while disliking this realm, does this not create resentments? Fifth Doubt: At the present time, far removed from the age of the saints, ordinary beings of inferior [spiritual] faculties are appropriate for practicing repentance under Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva. In the present, when the opportunity arises, it is proper to exclusively recite and also honor the Three Jewels. The Pure Land of Amitābha is practiced by advanced practitioners; those of second-stage spiritual faculties may obtain the aspiration for birth. At present, being in a degenerate, evil age, with base desires and low spiritual capacities, how could one casually practice the methods of advanced practitioners? 第一疑曰：娑婆濁界，理合常居，特生厭捨，即邪瞋矣；西方淨土，聖者堪遊，不揆下凡，發願生彼，即邪貪也。所以然者，皆為無明，即邪癡障也。此之三毒，內積心田，設令念佛，感神鬼魔，如何得往淨土受生？…第二疑曰：業道如秤，善惡必酬。感生已來，造惡非一，如何不受，直往西方？設欲往生，豈不為障？…第三疑曰：准今修行，學普為宗，別念彌陀，乃成曲見，翻為障道，不免輪迴…第四疑曰：但於此方懺謝，罪盡可除；厭此欣西，豈亡怨結？…第五疑曰：方今之際，去聖時遙，下品凡愚，正合禮懺地藏菩薩，當今有緣，理可專稱，並念三寶。彌陀淨土，上行人修；第二階根，能得生念。今既時當濁惡，性欲卑微，那得輒行上人之法？

(CBETA, T47, no. 1964, p. 108a11-c18)

The Sanjie movement’s critique of Pure Land practice was predicated on a fundamental tension between the perceived integrity of karmic retribution and the aspiration for rebirth. Drawing from extant fragments of the Sanjie fofa (三階佛法), their opposition can be synthesized as a systematic deconstruction of what they deemed “escapist” spiritual orientation. First, they contended that rejecting the Sahā world out of aversion for a distant “Western pure land” did not constitute a path to liberation; rather, it manifested as a form of greed and delusion that risked inviting demonic interference. This underpinned their second, more categorical claim: that the promise of rebirth for sinful beings subverted the law of karmic causality, suggesting a fallacious bypass to the ripening of evil deeds. Third, employing their distinctive “Three Stages” typology, Sanjie exegetes argued that while Amitābha-recitation might be efficacious for the superior faculties of the “second stage”, it was an inappropriate “partial Dharma” (bie fa 別法) for the deluded beings of the “third stage”—the contemporary Tang era. Instead, they advocated for the “universal Dharma” (pu fa 普法), specifically through repentance rituals centered on Kṣitigarbha (Dizang pusa 地藏菩薩), insisting that karmic obstructions must be extinguished within the defiled world rather than bypassed (C. Liu 2000, pp. 298, 336; Zhang 2013, pp. 228–35). Ultimately, this Sanjie position functioned as a rigorous karmic literalism, compelling Pure Land apologists to formulate a more sophisticated psychological defense regarding how an afflicted mind could ontologically resonate with a pristine Reward Land.

This skepticism toward the accessibility of the Amitābha’s Pure Land was not confined to the Sanjie movement; it found a more structurally sophisticated ally in the burgeoning Yogācāra school. The Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 records Xuanzang’s position as follows:

In the Western land, both monastics and laypeople cultivate the practices leading to rebirth in Maitreya’s Pure Land, for it belongs to the Desire Realm and its cultivation is comparatively easy to accomplish. Masters of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna approve of this method. As for Amitābha’s Pure Land, I fear that for ordinary and defiled beings its cultivation is difficult to realize. According to the older scriptures and treatises, bodhisattvas of the tenth stage and above can behold the reward-buddha lands. According to the new treatises, only bodhisattvas from the third stage onward may gain such vision. How could it be possible for ordinary beings of the lowest grade to be reborn there? This represents a ‘provisional intention’, not a definitive teaching. Hence, the Mahāyāna permits rebirth in the Western Land, while the Hīnayāna does not. 西方道俗並作彌勒業，為同欲界其行易成，大小乘師皆許此法。彌陀淨土，恐凡鄙穢，修行難成。如舊經論，十地已上菩薩隨分見報佛淨土，依新論意，三地菩薩始可得見報佛淨土；豈容下品凡夫即得往生？此是別時之意，未可為定。所以西方大乘許、小乘不許。

(CBETA, T53, no. 2122, p. 406a3-9)

In Xuanzang’s view, Amitābha’s Pure Land was not a realm into which ordinary or defiled beings could be reborn through practice. The text contrasts “old” scriptures and treatises (jiu jinglun 舊經論), such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Dazhidu lun 大智度論), with the “new” treatises (xinlun 新論) introduced by Xuanzang’s circle. These new works primarily comprise Yogācāra texts, most notably the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Yuqia shidi lun 瑜伽師地論) and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya (She dacheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋).

According to the “old” view, only Bodhisattvas of the tenth stage and above could partially perceive the Reward-Buddha Land. However, the “new” Yogācāra doctrine, as introduced by Xuanzang, lowered this threshold to the third stage (prabhākarī-bhūmi 發光地), yet strictly maintained that such a land remained inaccessible to the “lowest grade of ordinary beings”. Consequently, Xuanzang and his disciples argued that scriptural claims of ordinary beings attaining Amitābha’s Pure Land were merely provisional teachings, intended as an expedient means rather than a definitive doctrine.

Kuiji further nuanced this position. While acknowledging that Amitābha’s Pure Land is indeed supremely pure, he argued that Amitābha’s compassion is comparatively more limited. By contrast, though Maitreya’s Pure Land still contains defilements, Maitreya’s compassion there is profoundly deep (CBETA, T38, no. 1772, p. 277b24-26). Kuiji writes: “To cultivate pure conduct in a defiled realm is truly to the benefit of the sages; to dwell in a pure domain and merely adorn pure causes is not the great assistance of superior beings. I aspire to serve as a lamp in this dark world, to establish the true path among those of distorted views. Yet since my karmic practices are flawed and incomplete, should I aspire to the West and fail to be reborn there, I fear I would deceive myself. Therefore, in my own practice, I ought to cultivate this [Maitreya] karma. 處穢方而修淨行，寔聖者之利也；居淨域而嚴淨因，非上士之弘濟。願於盲暗世界為作灯明、邪見眾中安立正道；但業行殘缺，願往西方萬一不生，恐成自誤，故當己行應修此業。 (CBETA, T38, no. 1772, p. 278a8-12). For Kuiji, the aspiration for rebirth in Amitābha’s Western Land entailed significant soteriological risks for practitioners with incomplete karmic preparations. He argued that the lofty status of the Western Pure Land—often classified as a Reward Land—could inadvertently foster self-deception or “false attainment” in ordinary beings who lacked the requisite non-retrogressive realization. In contrast, Kuiji advocated for rebirth in Maitreya’s pure land (Mile jingtu 彌勒淨土) as a “safer” (anwen 安穩) alternative. This perceived “safety” was grounded in the fact that the Tusita Heaven (Doushuai tian 兜率天) remains within the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu; yujie 欲界), meaning its attainment does not require the radical transcendence of mundane defilements necessitated by a Buddha’s Reward Land. By aligning the practitioner’s goal with a destination that remains within the familiar cosmic structure of ordinary beings, Kuiji sought to provide a more reliable and verifiable path to spiritual progress, avoiding the “provisional intent” complications associated with the Pure Land.

3. Continuing and Innovating: Huai’gan and the Rebirth of Ordinary Beings in Amitābha’s Pure Land

Beginning with Tanluan 曇鸞 and Daochuo 道綽, the doctrinal seed of the idea that even ordinary beings (fanfu 凡夫) could attain rebirth in the Pure Land gradually began to take shape. Tanluan reconfigured Nāgārjuna (Longshu 龍樹)’s distinction between the “Difficult Path” (nanxing dao 難行道) and the “Easy Path” (yixing dao 易行道) to the state of non-retrogression (avaivartika; butuizhuan 不退轉), strategically applying this framework to the burgeoning theology of Pure Land rebirth. He posited that because Amitābha Buddha’s Vow-power (yuanli 願力) is fundamentally efficacious, rebirth in the Pure Land is a literal soteriological reality. Tanluan argued that through the causal condition of faith (xin 信) and the resolution to be reborn (fayuan 發願), ordinary beings can rely on this Other-power (tali 他力) to achieve rebirth. Prior to Tanluan, the practice of nianfo (念佛) primarily denoted meditative visualization (guanxiang 觀想). However, Tanluan was the first to underscore the pivotal importance of vocal recitation (chengming 稱名) of Amitābha’s name, shifting the focus toward a more accessible verbal invocation (Tang 2015, pp. 661–62).4 Compared to the “Difficult Path”, which necessitates attaining the “Stage of Correct Assurance” (samyaktva-niyāma; zhengdingju 正定聚) through self-effort within this defiled world of the Five Corruptions (kaṣāya-pañcaka; wuzhuo 五濁), the Pure Land path is presented as a uniquely “Easy Path” predicated on divine grace and external assistance (Tanluan 2018, p. 76, 137). Daochuo further advanced this position by formulating the doctrinal division between the “Path of Sages” (shengdao men 聖道門) and the “Pure Land Gate” (jingtu men 淨土門), arguing that in the age of the Decline of the Dharma (mofa 末法), ordinary beings could rely solely upon the Pure Land path, which consists of the practice of invoking Amitābha’s name, in order to attain rebirth in his land (CBETA, T47, no. 1958, p. 13c6-11).

Shandao took this line of reasoning a decisive step further by explicitly advancing the view that ordinary beings could be reborn directly in Amitābha’s reward land. He argued that “The Contemplation Sūtra defines the two types of virtues, meditative and non-meditative, as being directed exclusively toward Queen Vaidehī and all ordinary beings of the post-canonical age. These individuals, according to the text, are those burdened by the five defilements and five sufferings. It testifies that they can indeed be reborn [in the Pure Land] 《觀經》定散二善，唯為韋提及佛滅後五濁、五苦等一切凡夫，證言得生” (CBETA, T37, no. 1753, p. 271c8-10). Shandao reconceptualized the “nine grades” (jiupin 九品) of rebirth not as levels of attainment for sages, but rather as applying to different types of ordinary beings. For him, the three categories of beings reborn in the upper grades were ordinary persons who had encountered the Mahāyāna teachings; the three categories of the middle grades were ordinary persons who had encountered the Hīnayāna teachings; and the three categories of the lower grades were ordinary persons who, despite having committed evil, encountered wholesome conditions at the time of death. He asserts that all ordinary beings, regardless of their moral nature, can attain rebirth in Amitābha’s reward land by practicing name-recitation and relying on the power of the Primal Vow (CBETA, T37, no. 1753, p. 249a29-b8; Mochizuki 1974, pp. 126–28; Shengkai 2009, pp. 49–50).

Huai’gan, a direct disciple of Shandao, is a less well-known figure, and his dates of birth and death remain uncertain. Given that Shandao was born in 613 and Huaiyun 懷惲 (640–701)—Huai’gan’s fellow disciple—lived until the turn of the century, the fact that Huai’gan predeceased Huaiyun suggests his own lifespan likely fell between 613 and 701.5 (Liao 2009, p. 6). In his early years, Huai’gan himself did not believe in the Pure Land method of invoking Amitābha’s name. Later, under Shandao’s guidance, he turned wholeheartedly to the practice. At first, he experienced no signs of confirmation and was keenly aware of the gravity of his karmic obstructions. Through earnest repentance and assiduous name-recitation, he eventually entered the samādhi of mindfulness of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti-samādhi; nianfo sanmei 念佛三昧) after three years and attained rebirth in the Pure Land (Zanning 1987, p. 114). In addition to his expertise in Pure Land Buddhism, Huai’gan possessed a profound mastery of Yogācāra thought. Jōji Atone (Atone 1988) and Mark L. Blum (Blum 2002) both assert that Huai’gan was a disciple of Xuanzang. However, as Marchman, Kendall R. (Marchman 2015, p. 113) notes, neither scholar provides empirical support for this claim. Despite the intrigue of such a connection, there remains no concrete evidence to substantiate it. In response to the multifaceted criticisms directed at Pure Land teachings, Huai’gan exerted every effort to defend the Dharma, developing arguments that were highly esteemed by his contemporaries. He organized these points into the Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land; however, he passed away before the project was fully realized. It was subsequently completed by his close associate and fellow disciple, Huaiyun.6 Consequently, the core perspectives of the work remain fundamentally those of Huai’gan, with Huaiyun serving primarily to finalize the compilation that Huai’gan had left unfinished.

Having established an understanding of Huai’gan’s personal experience in practicing the Pure Land path, we are better positioned to comprehend his pivotal perspectives on the rebirth of ordinary beings in the Pure Land. In his Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land, Huai’gan inherited Shandao’s teaching on the rebirth of ordinary beings in Amitābha’s land, while also supplementing, defending, and refining the doctrine. As one scholar has rightly observed, “The precondition for the rebirth of ordinary beings in the Pure Land is that, in theory, Amitābha’s Pure Land must be open to them, and this openness depends upon the primal vow of Amitābha” (F. Liu 2020, p. 198). The power of Amitābha’s vow embraces all sentient beings without exclusion; therefore, whether or not rebirth is realized ultimately depends on whether an ordinary being can bring himself into resonance with this vow-power.

Huai’gan insisted that all ordinary beings—whether of limited faculties or of sharp faculties, whether attached to marks or detached from them, whether engaged in meditative or non-meditative good practices, whether practicing long or short, much or little—are all capable of rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. Rebirth is not restricted to those who practice non-acquisition alone. Nevertheless, distinctions remain: those reborn still fall into the three grades and nine ranks; their lotus-flowers may blossom earlier or later; and their progress in awakening differs (Huai’gan 2019, pp. 142–44). Huai’gan explains this by citing the Contemplation Sūtra’s description of the lowest of the lowest rebirths: “After twelve great kalpas, the lotus finally opens, and Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta, with voices of great compassion, expound to them the true suchness of all dharmas, thereby eradicating their sins.”(ibid., p. 605) From this, Huai’gan concludes that such beings still carry karmic obstructions, which delay the opening of their lotus-flowers. Otherwise, why would the nine grades of practice yield differing times of blossoming? For Huai’gan, then, the rebirth of ordinary beings in Amitābha’s Pure Land does not negate karmic causality. Though karmic obstructions remain embedded in their consciousness, this does not prevent rebirth itself (ibid., pp. 606–7). Rather, it explains the differentiation within the nine ranks of rebirth. Accordingly, ordinary beings who attain rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land must still continue cultivating there, gradually purifying their karmic obstructions within consciousness, until their lotus-flowers open and they behold the Buddha.

Another major issue addressed in this source concerns the nature of Amitābha’s Pure Land and the underlying principle by which ordinary beings may be reborn there. Huai’gan articulated three possible interpretations of the nature of the Pure Land: “First, it is an ‘other-benefit land’ (ta shouyong tu 他受用土), for the Buddha’s body there measures sixty koṭis of nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas.This realm is populated by many one-life-from-buddhahood (i.e., bodhisattvas of the highest stage) who experience manifold joys in the total absence of suffering. Second, some say it is solely a ‘transformation land’ (bianhua tu 變化土). What scriptural authority supports this? The claim that the Buddha’s body measures sixty koṭis of nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas, etc., indeed proves that this is an ‘other-benefit body and land.’ Yet why could not the Buddha’s transformation-body in the Pure Land likewise have such vast dimensions? Since texts such as the Contemplation Sūtra all state that ordinary beings are reborn in this land, it follows that it must be a transformation land. Third, it may encompass both lands simultaneously. For bodhisattvas prior to the ground of enlightenment (diqian 地前), it appears as a transformation land; for bodhisattvas on the grounds (dishang 地上), it appears as an ‘other-benefit land.’ Though it is one and the same place, each perceives it differently according to their own mind. Thus, it encompasses both lands.” 一是他受用土，以佛身高六十萬億那由他恒河沙由旬，其中多有一生補處，無有眾苦，但受諸樂等，故唯是於他受用土。二言唯是變化土。有何聖教？言佛高六十萬億那由他恒河沙由旬等，即證是於他受用身土，何妨淨土變化之身高六十萬億那由他恒河沙由旬？以《觀經》等皆說為凡夫眾生往生淨土，故知是變化土。三通二土，地前見變化土，地上見他受用土。同其一處，各隨自心所見各異，故通二土。(ibid., p. 77)

If Amitābha’s land were an “other-benefit land”, a problem arises: how could unenlightened beings prior to the grounds attain rebirth there? Conversely, if it were solely a transformation land, why would bodhisattva of the higher grounds, who should naturally be reborn in an “other-benefit land,” instead appear in a transformation land? (ibid., p. 78) Marchman, Kendall R. (Marchman 2015, pp. 156–57) argues that Huai’gan prioritizes an understanding of Sukhāvatī as a reward land for others. In my view, however, to resolve the aforementioned contradictions, Huai’gan maintains that Amitābha’s Pure Land encompasses both the “other-benefit land” and the “transformation land” simultaneously. First, Huai’gan posits that Amitābha’s Pure Land is an “other-benefit land” manifested by the Buddha through compassionate transformation from his own “self-benefit land” to instruct bodhisattvas on the grounds. Ordinarily, because ordinary beings have not eradicated the two forms of attachment (to self and dharmas), their consciousness is coarse, and thus the lands projected from their consciousness are inherently coarse and defiled. However, by relying on the superior power of Amitābha’s primal vow, the land that appears from their consciousness is made subtle and undefiled, equivalent to that seen by higher-level bodhisattvas. In this sense, it can be said that ordinary beings are also reborn in an “other-benefit land.”

This perspective inherits the doctrine of “ordinary beings entering the reward land” established by Daochuo and Shandao. Nevertheless, there is a distinction: while Shandao emphasized that the reward land entered by ordinary beings is the “self-benefit reward land” (svasambhoga-kṣetra; zi shouyong baotu 自受用報土), Huai’gan maintained that they are reborn in the “other-benefit reward land” (parasambhoga-kṣetra; ta shouyong baotu 他受用報土) through the power of Amitābha’s vow (ibid., pp. 78, 96–97; Liao 2009, p. 33). Furthermore, deeply influenced by Yogācāra school, Huai’gan developed his own original interpretation regarding the nature of the “Transformation Land” within Pure Land Buddhism (Liao 2009, pp. 28, 31–32). Huai’gan says: “The transformation Body and Land are directed toward Bodhisattvas of the pre-bhūmi stages, practitioners of the Two Vehicles, and ordinary beings. Their essential nature is characterized by the Wisdom of Perfecting Action (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna; cheng suozuo zhi 成所作智), which activates the altruistic merits inherent in the Great Perfect Mirror-Wisdom (ādarśa-jñāna; dayuanjing zhi 大圓鏡智). This process manifests a dimension of coarse forms (cuxiang 粗相) tailored to the receptive spiritual capacities of those beings 變化身、土者，為於地前菩薩及二乘、凡夫，以成所作智擊發鏡智利他功德，隨其所應現一分粗相，為變化身、土體性.”(Huai’gan 2019, p. 76) He also says: “Even if Bodhisattvas prior to the first bhūmi and others perceive a ‘Pure Land’ of coarse forms through the object-aspect (nimitta-bhāga; xiangfen 相分) of their own consciousness, they still cannot see the subtle, exquisitely purified lands 縱令地前菩薩等自識相分見粗相淨土，不見微妙清淨國土.”(ibid., p. 81) The coarse-form Pure Land, manifested by the Amitābha through the Wisdom of Successful Performance for the sake of Bodhisattvas prior to the grounds and for ordinary beings, is in fact also a manifestation of those Bodhisattvas and ordinary beings’ own consciousness. Huai’gan further notes another point that warrants attention: although bodhisattvas of the grounds properly abide in the “other-benefit land,” they may, out of compassion for ordinary beings, manifest their own transformation-bodies in the transformation land (ibid., p. 81).

One might argue that Huai’gan’s perspective disrupts the orthodox logic of the Faxiang 法相 school, which traditionally mandates a strict correlation between a practitioner’s internal seeds and the purity of their perceived environment. From my perspective, this transition illuminates the innovation and intellectual sophistication of Huai’gan’s Pure Land theory. He moves beyond simple dogmatics to offer a nuanced resolution that bridges sectarian divides. He ingeniously synthesized the “pointing to a direction and establishing forms” (zhifang lixiang 指方立相) doctrine of the Reward Land with the Yogācāra theory of “Pure Land as Mind-Only”. This demonstrates his refinement and elevation of the “ordinary beings entering the Reward Land” doctrine during his debates with Yogācāra masters. As maintained in Shandao’s doctrine of ordinary beings’ birth in the Reward Land, the Pure Land created by Amitābha’s Buddha-power in the Western direction truly exists, and ordinary beings can indeed attain rebirth there by riding on the power of Amitābha’s primal vow.7 However, Huai’gan asserted that a crucial relationship exists between an individual’s state of consciousness and their ability to truly resonate with Amitābha’s vow-power. Furthermore, the specific “forms” (xiang 相) perceived by an ordinary being after rebirth in the Pure Land will vary according to the differences in their individual karmic capacity. Further discussion follows in the subsequent sections. Notably, Jones, Charles B (Jones 2019, pp. 49–50) contends that the early Pure Land masters prior to Shandao advocated for the “mind-only Pure Land” (weixin jingtu 唯心淨土), positing that the degree of purity one perceives in the Pure Land is commensurate with one’s own mental clarity. However, I maintain that there is a lack of textual evidence to support this assertion. Within the Pure Land lineage, it was Huai’gan who, influenced by Yogācāra thought, first articulated a perspective with “mind-only” inclinations. More significantly, he ingeniously integrated the “mind-only” and “western-direction” Pure Land doctrines into a self-consistent theoretical framework. This will be discussed in further detail below.

In response to the Faxiang claim that only bodhisattvas from the third ground onward can be reborn in Pure Lands, Huai’gan argued as follows:

But if one speaks in terms of attaining non-discriminative wisdom, eliminating the afflictions of attachment to self and dharmas at the stage of seeing, realizing the dharmadhātu as all-pervading and understanding the hundred dharmas, then bodhisattvas from the first ground upward may be reborn in Pure Lands. Moreover, if one relies on the primal vow and great compassion of Amitābha, which embraces all ordinary foolish beings, then even those of the lowest rank, guilty of the five grave offenses and the ten evils—so long as they give rise to bodhicitta—can all attain rebirth, as the scriptures clearly state. One must not rely solely on the Yogācārabhūm’s statement that only bodhisattvas of the third ground are reborn, and thereby conclude that those of the first and second grounds cannot be reborn. 若以得無分別智，斷人、法二執見道煩惱，證得遍滿法界，悟百法明門，得生諸佛淨土，則初地已上得生淨土。若以本願大悲，引一切凡愚眾生，乃至下品下生、五逆十惡，但發菩提心，悉得往生，具如經說。不可直依《瑜伽論》言三地得生，即謂初、二地菩薩亦不得生淨土。

(Huai’gan 2019, pp. 179–80)

Huai’gan refined this doctrinal framework by distinguishing between two distinct modes of rebirth: that achieved through meditative mastery (as specified in the Yogācārabhūmi) and that attained through non-discriminative wisdom. While the former is restricted to the third ground, the latter extends from the first ground upward. Crucially, Huai’gan argued that the Yogācārabhūmi’s restrictive criteria apply only to meditative practice, thereby failing to account for the inclusive nature of Amitābha’s Pure Land, which is fundamentally constituted by his compassionate vow. By invoking the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan jing 華嚴經), Huai’gan demonstrated that even those at the initial stage of arousing bodhicitta can attain rebirth. Consequently, he challenged a literal reading of the Yogācārabhūmi, positioning the Pure Land as a soteriological space that transcends hierarchies of spiritual attainment to embrace even those of the lowest rank.

In response to the Sanjie jiao criticism, which maintained that in the Degenerate Age beings should practice the “universal path” (puxing 普行), Huai’gan countered that the Pure Land path is in fact most suitable for the beings of this era. Against the Sanjie jiao claim that sinful beings cannot attain rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land, Huai’gan replied: “The teaching of the Pure Land is precisely to arouse bodhicitta, to give rise to deep shame and remorse, to repent past offenses, to reform by cultivating goodness for the future, to seek release from the three realms, and to aspire to rebirth in the Pure Land. By relying on the Buddha’s primal vow, sins are eradicated and merit is produced.…In Amitābha’s Pure Land, one attains rebirth in the middle rank of the lowest grade, and becomes irreversible (avaivartika).”(ibid., p. 272) Huai’gan thus declared that although sentient beings may have committed grave evils, so long as they arouse bodhicitta, repent their past misdeeds, and give rise to the aspiration for rebirth, they may rely on the inconceivable power of Amitābha’s vow to attain rebirth in his land. In this way, even ordinary beings, through repentance and name-recitation, may gradually eliminate their karmic offenses and, by virtue of Amitābha’s vow-power, secure rebirth in the Pure Land.8

It should be noted that Huai’gan consistently emphasized the centrality of bodhicitta in this process. The term bodhicitta appears three times in both the Sūtra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sūtra, and six times in Shandao’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, but without any special emphasis on its unique role in rebirth. By contrast, in Huai’gan’s Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land, the term appears thirty times, underscoring his particular stress on its importance. For Huai’gan, the arousal of bodhicitta was the essential prerequisite for rebirth. Thus, he declared: “The arousal of bodhicitta is the foremost of all practices”; (Huai’gan 2019, p. 626) “To arouse bodhicitta and cultivate the bodhisattva path requires one to generate great compassion, to have compassion for and care for all beings, and to widely carry out deliverance, relieving suffering and bestowing peace”; and “Even those of the lowest grade, guilty of the five grave offenses and the ten evils—if only they arouse bodhicitta—they can all attain rebirth.”(ibid., p. 180) For Huai’gan, therefore, the generation of the great compassionate bodhicitta that aspires to lead all beings to Amitābha’s Pure Land was the indispensable condition for ordinary beings’ rebirth. He argues that this internal mental shift synchronizes the individual’s subjective experience with the Pure Land; as such, bodhicitta performs a crucial onto-cosmological resonance (ganying 感應) function by serving as the functional mechanism that renders the practitioner’s mind ‘compatible’ with the frequency of the Pure Land, rather than being merely a moral virtue or a devotional act. Unlike earlier Chinese formulations that might only view rebirth as a result of accumulated merit over time, Huai’gan’s bodhicitta performs a transmutative function: it allows the “extreme evil” being to bypass karmic exclusion not through a technicality, but through a total psychological and spiritual pivot. This represents a doctrinally motivated innovation that prioritizes the transformative power of the mind over the rigid, quantitative accounting of past actions found in contemporary sectarian critiques like those of the Three Stages Sect.

In this respect, his position resonates with Tanluan’s earlier but passing remark: “This unsurpassed bodhicitta is itself the mind that aspires to Buddhahood; the mind that aspires to Buddhahood is the mind to save sentient beings; the mind to save sentient beings is the mind to gather them into the Buddha land. Therefore, those who aspire to rebirth in that Land of Peace and Bliss must arouse unsurpassed bodhicitta. If one does not arouse bodhicitta but merely desires to be reborn there for the sake of enjoying its pleasures, then one cannot attain rebirth.” (Tanluan 2018, p. 174) Both Tanluan and Huai’gan maintain that arousing the unsurpassed bodhicitta is the fundamental prerequisite for rebirth in the Pure Land. A mere emotional attachment or “joyful longing” (xinle 欣樂) for the Pure Land’s comforts is insufficient for attainment; rather, it is the altruistic vow to save all sentient beings that serves as the true catalyst for entry. Huai’gan’s contribution lies in magnifying this requirement—elevating what was a passing remark in the works of earlier patriarchs into a central pillar of his soteriology. By placing bodhicitta at the heart of his theory, Huai’gan transforms the Pure Land from a place of personal refuge into a necessary destination for the fulfillment of the Mahayana compassionate mission.9

4. Huai’gan’s Inclusive Pure Land Vision: Embracing Those Who Commit the Five Grave Offenses and Slander the Dharma

In the Sūtra of Infinite Life, among the forty-eight great vows made by Bodhisattva Dharmakṣema, the eighteenth vow declares: “Should I attain Buddhahood, if sentient beings in the ten directions sincerely believe in and rejoice in me, and desire to be born in my land—even to the extent of ten recitations—yet fail to be reborn, I shall not attain perfect enlightenment. This vow excludes only those who commit the five grave offenses and those who slander the Dharma. 設我得佛，十方眾生至心信樂，欲生我國，乃至十念，若不生者，不取正覺。唯除五逆、誹謗正法.”(CBETA, T12, no. 360, p. 268a26-28) The five grave offenses (wu ni 五逆) refer to the five heinous karmas, namely, killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, killing an arhat, injuring a Buddha, and causing disunity in the Sangha. According to the Sūtra of Infinite Life, all beings except those who commit these five grave offenses or slander the Dharma, if they sincerely believe in Amitābha and rejoice in him, are able to attain rebirth in his Pure Land. In other words, the Sūtra of Infinite Life explicitly excludes those who commit the five offenses or slander the Dharma from rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. Tanluan, while inheriting the view of the Sūtra of Infinite Life, introduces a slight modification: he holds that an individual who commits one of the five grave offenses, but does not slander the Dharma, is still permitted to attain rebirth in the Pure Land; only those who slander the Dharma are excluded (Tanluan 2018, pp. 127–28).

The Contemplation Sūtra states: “Those of the lowest grade, who have committed unwholesome deeds, including the five grave offenses and the ten evil acts, should ordinarily fall into the evil realms, endure many kalpas, and suffer endlessly. Yet at the moment of death, if they encounter a virtuous friend who instructs them in the Dharma and teaches them to recite the Buddha’s name, and if they sincerely maintain the recitation uninterruptedly, fulfilling ten recitations of ‘Namo Amitābha’, then their sins of eighty billion kalpas of saṃsāra are eradicated, and in an instant they are reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, seeing the golden lotus like the sun before them. 下品下生者，或有眾生作不善業，五逆、十惡，具諸不善。如此愚人以惡業故，應墮惡道，經歷多劫，受苦無窮。如此愚人臨命終時，遇善知識，種種安慰，為說妙法，教令念佛…如是至心，令聲不絕，具足十念，稱南無阿彌陀佛。稱佛名故，於念念中除八十億劫生死之罪。…一念頃，即得往生極樂世界。 (CBETA, T12, no. 365, p. 346a12-22) Thus, the Contemplation Sūtra extends the possibility of rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land to all beings, including those who have committed the five grave offenses or the ten evil acts, by emphasizing the power of sincere recitation at the moment of death.

Throughout history, scholars have debated the apparent textual contradiction between the Sūtra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sūtra. Huai’gan’s survey of the fifteen traditional interpretations reveals a complex landscape of early Tang Buddhist hermeneutics, categorized by four primary logical frameworks. The first group focuses on intentionality and repentance, distinguishing between those who repent versus those who do not, or sincere versus insincere practitioners. The second group addresses karmic weight and nature, debating whether the offenses were committed with a “heavy” or “light” mind, whether they constitute “fixed” or “unfixed” karma, and whether the perpetrator is an “ordinary person” (pṛthagjana; fanfu 凡夫) or an icchantika (yichanti 一闡提). A third category classifies practitioners by spiritual rank or sectarian status, including those in the Ten Faiths, the “Heat” and “Peak” stages, or even specific sectarian divisions like the “Second” and “Third” stages. Finally, the remaining views emphasize pedagogical function, such as the “Opening vs. Closing” gates or the distinction between a “preventative” warning for those yet to sin versus a “salvific” promise for those who already have (Huai’gan 2019, p. 250). Huai’gan proposed a new explanation:

The Contemplation Sūtra permits those of the five offenses, stating ‘fulfill ten recitations’ to attain rebirth; the Sūtra of Infinite Life excludes those of the offenses, stating ‘up to ten recitations’ for attaining rebirth. As the sutras employ both ‘up to’ and ‘fulfill ten recitations,’ how could their meaning depend on secondary interpretations? In the cases of the higher and middle ranks of the lowest grade, one recitation or more suffices; the sutras do not require exactly ten. For those of the lowest grade with grave offenses, the Contemplation Sūtra specifies that ten recitations are required. The Sūtra of Infinite Life addresses all three ranks together, stating ‘up to ten recitations’ to attain rebirth. The meaning is: for those who have not committed the offenses, any number of recitations—few or many—suffices; for those who have committed offenses, full ten recitations are necessary; missing even one recitation prevents rebirth. This is the intended exclusion, not a matter of doctrinal interpretation.”《觀經》取逆，經言“具足十念”，以具十念即得往生；《壽經》除逆，經言“乃至十念”，以乃至十念不得往生。經既有“乃至、具足十念”之言，豈得由諸義也？且如下品上生、下品中生，稱佛、念佛，不言“具足十念”，一念已上，悉皆得生，以罪少故，不要滿十；下品下生，為有逆罪，經即說言：“具足十念，得生淨土” 。《壽經》含此三品，總合而言：“乃至十念，得生淨土。“經意說言：若不造逆人，不論念之多少，一聲、十聲俱生淨土；如其造逆，必須滿十，缺一不生，故言除也。此即不造逆者，不限十聲，若少、若多，俱生淨土；造逆之輩，即不得然，滿十即得生，少便不往。此乃由此說除，不關諸義也！古來大德雖釋，今更為茲異說耳。

(ibid., pp. 251–52)

According to Huai’gan, the Contemplation Sūtra includes the five offense-committing and Dharma-slandering beings, stipulating that they must complete ten recitations at the time of death to attain rebirth. The Sūtra of Infinite Life excludes the lowest rank of the five-offense and Dharma-slandering beings, including only those of the middle rank and above. These latter beings, having lighter karmic burdens, may attain rebirth with “up to ten recitations,” meaning one to ten recitations suffice; the full ten are not strictly necessary. For those of the lowest rank who have committed offenses, ten recitations are required due to the severity of their negative karma.10 Thus, Huai’gan’s interpretation is firmly rooted in a rigorous textual analysis rather than a purely doctrinal bias. By meticulously contrasting the specific phrasing of “ten recitations” (shinian 十念) in the Contemplation Sūtra with the “up to ten recitations” (naizhi shinian 乃至十念) in the Sūtra of Infinite Life, he identifies a textual basis for distinguishing the spiritual capacities and karmic requirements of different practitioners. His solution, therefore, emerges from an internal reconciliation of the scriptures’ own linguistic nuances, demonstrating that the apparent contradiction can be resolved through the internal logic of the texts themselves.

Some might question whether requiring only ten recitations for the gravely sinful lowest-grade beings at the time of death makes rebirth in the Pure Land too easy. Could one simply postpone practice until the moment of death? Huai’gan responded: “If one hears the Pure Land teaching today, without internal distress and with suitable external conditions, yet refuses to practice and waits until the end to recite, even if rebirth is possible, the chance is almost nil. Obstacles are many: one might not encounter a virtuous friend; one may be preoccupied with suffering; adverse circumstances or sudden death may prevent recitation; mental confusion or intoxication may obstruct proper focus; dangers such as fire, water, wild animals, war, or accidental falls may intervene. Therefore, one cannot rely on merely one final recitation. One must diligently cultivate the threefold training and practice continuously, day and night, so that rebirth is secure, liberation from defilements is permanent, and one steadily progresses toward bodhi.”(Huai’gan 2019, p. 431) Hence, due to the unpredictable circumstances at the time of death, proper recitation requires prior consistent practice, which also reduces karmic obstacles, enabling rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. Through textual comparison and logical analysis, Huai’gan harmonized the apparent differences between the Sūtra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sūtra, establishing that for non-offenders, any number of recitations suffices, while for those committing offenses or slandering the Dharma, full ten recitations are necessary at the time of death.

Furthermore, Huai’gan addressed questions regarding the presence of women or transformation females (hua-nü 化女) in the Pure Land. He wrote: “One explanation asserts that only transformation birds exist, and no transformation females, because the sutras only mention birds, not females; if females existed, the sutras would have said so. The Treatise on the Pure Land (Sukhāvatī-vyūhopadeśa; Jingtu lun 淨土論) states: ‘Women, and those with defective faculties, and the śrāvaka seeds, do not attain rebirth.’ The objection is: ‘The sutras describe the adornments of the Pure Land; how could they describe everything?’ The Praise of the Pure Land Sūtra (Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra; Chengzan jingtu jing 稱讚淨土經) says: ‘Even if the World-Honored One dwelled for countless kalpas, transforming innumerable tongues to describe the Pure Land’s adornments, it would still be incomplete.’ Can the absence of mentioning mean nonexistence? Another explanation holds that there are transformation females, as in the Sūtra of Avalokiteśvara’s Prediction (Avalokiteśvaravyākaraṇa Sūtra; Guanyin shouji jing 觀音授記經), where Avalokiteśvara transforms countless women, and in the Drum-Sound King Sūtra (Dundubhīsvara-rāja Sūtra; Guyinsheng wang jing 鼓音聲王經), where Amitābha is described as having father and mother—indicating females for transformation at lower capacities. There is no contradiction, for those with lower faculties may encounter women in the Pure Land, while those of higher faculties may not.” (ibid., p. 431)

Huai’gan’s discussion on “transformation females” (hua-nü 化女) addresses a foundational tension between the scriptural exclusion of women and the practical necessity of universal salvation. He first cites the traditional view rooted in Dharmākara Bodhisattva’s 35th Vow, which promises that women who invoke Amida’s name will never again be reborn as females.11 This stance is reinforced by Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Pure Land, which explicitly excludes women and those with defective faculties, a sentiment echoed in Tanluan’s commentary asserting that the Pure Land is devoid of both women and the “eight classes of non-humans” (aṣṭau-parṣadaḥ; babu guishen 八部鬼神).

However, Huai’gan challenges this exclusion by providing a counter-argument based on textual evidence from the Sūtra of Avalokiteśvara’s Prediction and the Drum-Sound King Sūtra, both of which describe the presence of transformation females.12 Rather than dismissing the earlier prohibitive texts, Huai’gan reconciles these opposing views through a doctrinally motivated hierarchy of capacity. In this methodological approach, one can discern a sophisticated application of the Yogācāra principle that “all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness only” (wanfa weishi suoxian 萬法唯識所現). By framing the presence of “transformation females” as an expedient means ( upāya; fangbian 方便), he suggests that the sacred landscape adapts its manifestations to the spiritual maturity of the inhabitant; thus, gendered forms provide a necessary pedagogical scaffolding for those of lower capacity who require familiar imagery to progress, while naturally dissolving for those of higher realization who have transcended the dualistic filters of sexual differentiation.

By reframing gender as a pedagogical tool rather than an ontological barrier, Huai’gan reimagines the Pure Land not as a static, gender-exclusive realm, but as a dynamic and inclusive soteriological space. This hermeneutical reconciliation effectively mitigates the misogyny latent in earlier traditions. Rather than mandating the “transformation from female to male” (nü-zhuan-nan 女轉男) as a rigid prerequisite for entry,13 Huai’gan validates a diverse spectrum of practitioner experiences. He argues that the Pure Land’s landscape is sufficiently expansive to accommodate the gradual transition from gendered attachment to the ultimate, non-dual reality of Buddhahood.

Finally, Huai’gan emphasized the potential for rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land for all beings of the five paths (wuqu 五趣): gods, asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and beings in hell. He wrote: “All beings of the five paths can cultivate the Pure Land practices and be reborn in Ultimate Bliss. According to the sutras, gods can hear the teachings; the Contemplation Sūtra states: ‘Countless gods, nāgas, and yakṣas heard the Buddha’s discourse and rejoiced greatly.’ The Praise of the Pure Land Sūtra lists: ‘Countless gods, asuras, etc., all came to hear the Dharma.’ Therefore, all who sincerely desire rebirth in the Pure Land can cultivate the Pure Land practices and attain rebirth. The Sūtra on Rebirth as Desired (Suiyuan wangsheng jing 隨願往生經) further confirms that even beings already dead in hell can, through practicing Pure Land deeds, be reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land.” (Huai’gan 2019, p. 187) Thus, Huai’gan extended the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land not only to ordinary humans of all karmic dispositions, but also to all sentient beings of the five paths—devas, asuras, animals, hungry ghosts, and hell-beings—through the cultivation of Pure Land practices.

5. Concluding Remarks: The Universality of Buddha-Nature and the Open Pure Land Vision

This article contends that through a critical inheritance of Shandao’s doctrine regarding the rebirth of ordinary beings in the Pure Land and a rigorous critical revision of Sanjie jiao and traditional Yogācāra theories, Huai’gan effectively universalized the Pure Land path by reconciling the Yogācāra-based theory of the Transformtion Land, which views all phenomena as creations of consciousness, with the orthodox Pure Land view of the Reward Land as a literal reality generated by Amitābha Buddha’s vow-power. This theoretical refinement empowered Huai’gan to elevate the “ordinary beings entering the Reward Land” doctrine, providing a robust defense during his intellectual debates with contemporary Yogācāra masters by arguing that while Amitābha’s vow-power serves as the primary vehicle, a vital resonance must exist between the practitioner’s state of consciousness and the Buddha’s grace. By establishing bodhicitta, the universal resolve to save all beings, as the fundamental requirement, he pivoted the soteriological focus away from a practitioner’s past karmic identity and toward their present spiritual orientation. Guided by this reasoning, Huai’gan resolved the textual tensions between the Sūtra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sūtra regarding the five grave offenses. He demonstrated that for those who have committed offenses or slandered the Dharma, a sequence of ten invocations at the time of death is sufficient to ensure rebirths. These insights allowed him to argue that even those marginalized by restrictive interpretations, including those guilty of the five grave offenses, slanders of the Dharma, or those excluded by gender and lower karmic capacities, could attain ultimate liberation through the transformative and non-discriminatory power of the Primal Vow.

An important question arises: why did the notion that all ordinary beings could attain rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land emerge specifically during the early Tang period? We may first return to a question posed by practitioners in Daochuo’s Collection on the Practice of Bliss (Anle Ji 安樂集): “All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature and have, since distant kalpas, encountered many Buddhas. Why is it that until now they continue to cycle in birth and death and do not escape the burning house? 一切眾生皆有佛性，遠劫以來應值多佛，何因至今仍自輪迴生死，不出火宅？” Daochuo answered: “According to the Mahāyāna scriptures, this is because they have not yet encountered the two superior practices that liberate from birth and death. What are the two? One is the Path of Sages (shengdao 聖道); the other is rebirth in the Pure Land. 依大乘聖教，良由不得二種勝法，以排生死，是以不出火宅。何者為二？一謂聖道；二謂往生淨土。” (CBETA, T47, no. 1958, p. 13c2-6) He further observed: “Since all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, everyone has the mind aspiring to Buddhahood. 一切眾生既有佛性，人人皆有願成佛心.”(CBETA, T47, no. 1958, p. 20c2-3) This indicates that, in Daochuo’s time, most Buddhist monastics were familiar with the idea that all sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature. The question then arises: if all beings have Buddha-nature, why have so many failed to attain liberation and Buddhahood? Daochuo attributed this to the lack of an effective method for realizing Buddhahood, which included both the Path of Sages and the Pure Land Path. By his time, as the world was believed to have entered the Age of Dharma Decline (mofa 末法), the Path of Sages had become extremely difficult to practice, leaving the Pure Land Path as the only feasible route to liberation. It can thus be argued that from the Southern and Northern Dynasties to the early Tang, many Pure Land practitioners had absorbed the doctrine of universal Buddha-nature, leading them to believe that all beings have the aspiration to become Buddha. Coupled with their faith in the efficacy of the Pure Land practice for attaining rebirth, this laid the foundation for gradually opening the gates of the Pure Land to ordinary beings.

Huai’gan explicitly states in his Treatise on Resolving Doubts about the Pure Land: “‘All sentient beings are thus enabled to be reborn.’ By the boundless compassion of the Buddha, equally arising toward all, benefiting all beings, the great vows do not discriminate between friend or foe; hence, all sentient beings without exception are enabled to be reborn. Just as all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, though they may not all achieve Buddhahood immediately; if they did, the realm of sentient beings would be exhausted, yet this is not so.” (Huai’gan 2019, p. 497) This demonstrates that Huai’gan had a clear understanding of the doctrine of universal Buddha-nature. Combined with his unwavering faith in Amitābha’s compassionate vows, he concluded that all sentient beings, including ordinary beings, could attain rebirth in the Pure Land. This further underscores that the idea of universal Buddha-nature since the Southern and Northern Dynasties provided both the theoretical and psychological foundation for Huai’gan’s doctrine of rebirth for ordinary beings.

Within this intellectual current, Huai’gan developed Shandao’s teachings, progressively extending the scope of Pure Land rebirth from elite bodhisattvas to ordinary beings, including those who have committed grave offenses or slandered the Dharma, and ultimately encompassing all sentient beings across the five paths. This doctrinal shift represents a transition from the relatively restrictive Pure Land conceptions of the Chen–Sui period toward a more inclusive soteriology in the early Tang.14 While further social-historical evidence from epigraphical or liturgical sources is required to confirm a direct causal link, one might propose as a tentative hypothesis that this doctrinal expansion reflects a broader transformation in medieval Chinese Buddhism—a move from elite-oriented cultivation toward a practice accessible to the general populace.15 If this hypothesis holds, Huai’gan’s inclusive vision may have functioned as a religious precursor to the more egalitarian social tendencies that began to emerge from the mid-Tang period onward.