Ji’s View of the Pure Land in “Commentary of Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra”

Abstract

The Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 說無垢稱經疏 [Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra] by Ji 基 (632–682) is a systematic exposition of the concept of the Buddha-land. It not only comprehensively constructs the theoretical framework of the “Eight Gates and Fourfold Realm” but also addresses two key questions within the framework of “as the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land 隨其心淨則佛土淨”—namely, what constitutes a Bodhisattva’s Pure Land and why Śāriputra perceived impurities in the Buddha-land. In this process, Ji extensively incorporates ideas from Yogācāra texts such as the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 [Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi] and the Fodijing lun 佛地經論 [Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra]. He further advances the discourse by constructing the Pure Land from the perspectives of both the Buddha and sentient beings. In doing so, he presents a distinctly Yogācāra interpretation. Additionally, through his explanation of the causality of the Pure Land, he outlines a progression: cultivation of wisdom → purification of consciousness → purification of the land. Ji thereby embarks on a different interpretive path from Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344–413), Sengzhao 僧肇 (384–414), and others, highlighting his distinctive contribution and the unique significance of his Pure Land thought within the Yogācāra tradition and the Shuo Wugoucheng jing 說無垢稱經 [Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra] exegetical lineage.

1. Introduction

During the Sui-Tang Dynasties, the interpretative relationship between the Buddha’s body and the Buddha-land became a significant topic in Buddhist intellectual history. Scholarship on this issue has predominantly focused on the discourses of Pure Land patriarchs such as Daochuo 道綽 (562–645) and Shandao 善導 (613–681) or the relevant discourses of figures like Huiyuan 慧遠 (334–416), Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), and Jizang 吉藏 (549–623).1 In comparison, Ji’s Pure Land thought has received comparatively less scholarly attention. Moreover, within the limited studies on Ji’s Pure Land thought, two notable issues can be identified: first, at the textual level, some research relies on contested texts like the Emituojing shu 阿彌陀經疏 [Commentary on Amitābha Sūtra] and the Emituojing tongzan shu 阿彌陀經通讚疏 [General Exegesis on Amitābha Sūtra]2; second, at the methodological level, although scholars Hayashi Kana and Li Yulan are the most representative in this regard, overall, there are relatively few comprehensive and systematic theoretical presentations of Ji’s Pure Land thought.3

The study of Ji’s Pure Land perspective in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 說無垢稱經疏 [Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra] can effectively address these two issues for three reasons.

First, the commentary is textually uncontested. According to the colophon at the end of the work, on December 27th, 672 CE, Ji was urged by the eminent monks of Pingdeng Temple 平等寺 in Taiyuan 太原 Bingzhou 并州 to lecture on the older translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra. Consequently, he drafted an initial version of the commentary based on his lectures. In July of 675 CE, Ji revisited the older sutra in another lecture, reviewed the draft, and further revised it, producing the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu as we know it today.4 Thus, this work can be definitively attributed to Ji and may be regarded as the crystallization of his mature thought due to its late completion.

Second, in addressing the issue of the Pure Land in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing 說無垢稱經 [Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra], Ji presents a comprehensive and systematic interpretation framed by the “Eight Gates and Fourfold Realm”. This may be considered one of the most important texts reflecting Ji’s Buddha-land thought.

Third, the content regarding the Buddha-land in the commentary corresponds closely to that in the Dasheng Fayuan Yilingzhang 大乘法苑義林章 [The Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrines]. It can be confirmed that the chapter on the Buddha-land 佛土章 in the compendium borrows extensively from the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu, while the Dasheng Fayuan Yilingzhang is not only a summary of Yogācāra doctrines but also functions as Ji’s synopsis of Buddhist theory. As Hayashi Kana has demonstrated, the textual composition of the extant compendium is relatively complex, and its current form may not fully reflect Ji’s original writings, with some content likely added later. At the time of Ji’s death, the chapter on the Buddha-land might not yet have been incorporated into the compendium, yet its content clearly is derived from the commentary (Hayashi 2011, pp. 74–87); thereby, the chapter on the Buddha-land indeed reflects Ji’s systematic thinking on the theory of the Buddha-land, but it remains unclear when and how the content from other commentaries was integrated into this work.

Therefore, it is necessary to analyze Ji’s conception of the Buddha-land as articulated in the commentary. On the one hand, we explore how, within the framework of the Shuo Wugoucheng jing’s teaching that “as the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land 隨其心淨則佛土淨 [yādṛśī bodhisatvasya cittapariśuddhis tādṛśī buddhakṣetrapariśuddhiḥ saṃbhavati]” (Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature 2006, pp. 11–12), Ji responds to the issues of the Pure Land and the diverse interpretations presented in the sūtra. On the other hand, we examine how, within the framework of Yogācāra thought, he harmonizes the content of various canonical texts to develop a systematic theoretical construction of the Buddha-land.

2. Pure Mind, Pure Land: The Proposition and Expression of the Pure Land in Scripture

The concept of the “Pure Land” is a significant theme in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, with the dictum “as the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land” becoming a key formulation in its articulation of Pure Land philosophy. Chen Yangjiong argues that this Pure Land is distinct from other Pure Lands that involve rebirth in a blissful land after death (Chen 2008, pp. 40–41). The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra contains extensive discussions of the concept of the “Pure Land”, with the most concentrated and representative section being found in the Buddha-land chapter 佛國品 [Buddhakṣetrapariśuddhinidānaparivartaḥ]. In Xuanzang’s 玄奘 (600/602–664) translation, this chapter is entitled “Introductory Chapter 序品”, corresponding to the Sanskrit title Buddhakṣetrapariśuddhinidānaparivartaḥ, literally meaning The Chapter on the Origins of the Buddha’s Pure Land 佛土清淨緣起品. This chapter describes the following story. The Buddha was preaching to eight thousand monks and thirty-two thousand Bodhisattvas in the Āmrapāli-ārāma 菴羅樹園. A young boy named Baoji 寶積 from the Licchavi clan 離車族, accompanied by five hundred other boys, offered jeweled canopies to the Buddha and listened to his teachings. The Buddha, by his divine power, caused all the treasure canopies to merge into one, covering the entire three thousand great-thousand worlds. Baoji then recited a verse in praise and then asked the Bhagavān 世尊, “What is the pure Buddha-land of a Bodhisattva?” The Buddha expounded the Dharma for him. After this, Śāriputra 舍利弗 remained doubtful, and then the Jaṭī Brahmā 螺髻梵王, together with the Buddha, resolved his doubts. From the narrative structure of this episode, it becomes evident that this chapter is organized around two core questions: first, Baoji asks, “What is the pure Buddha-land of a Bodhisattva?”, to which the Buddha responds; second, Śāriputra asks, “Why is there impurity in the Buddha-land?”, to which the Buddha and the Jaṭī Brahmā provide clarification.5

2.1. What Is a Bodhisattva’s Pure Buddha-Land?

Regarding Baoji’s question, the translations by Zhiqian 支謙 (active in the third century) and Kumārajīva are largely consistent, emphasizing the “practice 行” associated with the Bodhisattva’s Pure Land, focusing on the aspect of cultivation. Xuanzang’s translation, however, states, “May the Tathāgata 如來, out of compassion, expound the characteristics of a pure Buddha-land and how a Bodhisattva cultivates purity in a Buddha-land 惟願如來哀愍，為說淨佛土相，云何菩薩修淨佛土”, thereby deliberately distinguishing between the two aspects of “characteristics 相” and “cultivation 修”. On the basis of this distinction, Ji criticized Kumārajīva’s older translation in his commentary for “not addressing the characteristics of the land”, thereby neglecting the aspect of “characteristics”. However, Kumārajīva had in fact considered this issue and provided an explanation. He explicitly stated that the Sanskrit original mentions “the characteristics of purity”, further clarifying that “the characteristics of purity are the causes and conditions for a Pure Land 淨相即淨土因緣”, meaning the causal factors leading to the attainment. In other words, Kumārajīva believed that, although Baoji asked about the characteristics of a Pure Land, these characteristics themselves constitute its cause. Sengzhao 僧肇 (384–414) further argued that the causes of a Pure Land are none other than the practices of a Pure Land, because it is through these practices that the Pure Land is achieved. Therefore, although the extant Sanskrit text “katamā bodhisatvānāṃ buddhakṣetrapariśuddhir iti” (Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature 2006, p. 8) merely asks what constitutes a Pure Land, within this question lies both the characteristics and the practices of a Pure Land. While Ji criticized the older translation for prioritizing practice over characteristics, it would be more precise to say that Kumārajīva regarded “characteristics” and “practice” as inseparable—the characteristics of a Pure Land are its practices, and the practices are its causes, and, through these causes and practices, one attains its resultant virtues.

In response to Baoji’s question, the Bhagavān provided a twofold answer: first, that the land of sentient beings 眾生土 constitutes the Buddha-land and the reason for this; second, the practice of purifying the land.

First, let us look at the first part. In the scripture, the Buddha-land is closely related to sentient beings: the land of sentient beings is the Buddha-land, and the Buddha-land arises for their benefit. The text further illustrates this with the analogy of building a house in empty space 虚空造室: the Buddha-land is like empty space—it cannot be constructed or adorned but arises solely for the sake of sentient beings. In this way, the content of the scripture essentially places the land of sentient beings and the Buddha-land within a certain causal chain: the kind of Buddha-land that a Bodhisattva attains depends on sentient beings.

Next, let us turn to the second part. The scripture describes Pure Land practices with two types of phrasing: first, “ … is the Bodhisattva’s Pure Land; when the Bodhisattva attains Buddhahood, … will be reborn in that land… 是菩薩淨土，菩薩成佛時，……來生其國”; and second, “as the Bodhisattva…, so… 菩薩隨其……，則……”. Regarding the former, the Bhagavān expounds the meaning of the Buddha-land, listing various practices as the Bodhisattva’s Buddha-land, attracting different beings to be reborn in the corresponding Buddha-land. These practices include eighteen items (seventeen in the translations of Zhiqian and Kumārajīva), such as sincerity of intent 直心 [āśayakṣetra], profound intent 深心 [adhyāśayakṣetra], the arousal of the supreme bodhicitta 菩提心 [udāra-bodhicittotpāda], the six perfections 六度 [ṣaḍpāramitā], the four immeasurables 四無量 [catvāry apramāṇāni], and the four means of attraction 四攝事 [catvāri saṃgrahavastūni]. Regarding the latter, the Sanskrit text uses the phrasing “yāvantaḥ… tāvantaḥ” and “yādṛśī… tādṛśī…” to express the sequence of Pure Land practices. Although the Sanskrit text and various Chinese translations differ slightly in their content and order, they all ultimately converge on same principle, articulated most clearly in Kumārajīva’s translation: “as the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land”.

2.2. Why Did Śāriputra Perceive the Buddha-Land as Impure?

After the Bhagavān explained the characteristics and practices of the Pure Land, Śāriputra harbored doubts in his heart: if a pure mind leads to such a pure Buddha-land for a Bodhisattva, would this not imply that, when the Bhagavān Śakyamuni was cultivating the Bodhisattva path, his mind was impure, thereby resulting in the manifestation of an impure Buddha-land? In response to Śāriputra’s question, both the Bhagavān and the Jaṭī Brahmā provided answers.

The Bhagavān’s responses can be summarized as follows. (1) Some beings fail to perceive the majestic merits of the Tathāgata’s Buddha-land due to their own ignorance, not due to any deficiency in the Tathāgata. The Tathāgata’s Buddha-land is pure, but beings cannot apprehend this. (2) The Bhagavān pressed his toe to the ground and enabled Śāriputra and others to see the majestic merits of the Buddha-land by his divine power. (3) In order to mature inferior beings, the Tathāgata manifests a Buddha-land that appears tainted by numerous defilements. (4) Similarly, beings born in the same Buddha-land, with their pure minds, can perceive the majestic merits of all Buddha-lands. The Jaṭī Brahmā’ s response adds: (5) Bodhisattvas who regard all beings with equanimity and rely on the Buddha’s pure wisdom perceive this Buddha-land as pure.

Among these five responses, (1) and (4) align with the aforementioned scriptural passages and maintain internal consistency: beings born in the same Buddha-land can perceive the virtuous adornments with a pure mind, while those lacking wisdom cannot. Meanwhile, (2) attributes this to the Tathāgata’s supernatural powers 神通, (3) explains it as a manifestation to guide inferior beings 度下劣, and (5) clarifies that Bodhisattvas endowed with pure Buddha-wisdom perceive the Pure Land as inherently pure. Although (3) and (5) appear to differ from (1) and (4) on the surface, they form a coherent and complete explanation together. The Buddha employs supernatural powers to reveal the Pure Land, which is the true nature of the Bhagavān’s land, thereby dispelling Śāriputra’s doubts. Meanwhile, the Bhagavān displays impure Lands for the pedagogical purpose of instructing inferior beings. Ultimately, the perception of purity or impurity in the Buddha-land is determined by the beings themselves: those with pure minds will perceive the adorned Pure Land, while those lacking wisdom will perceive defilement.

In summary, the “Introductory Chapter” addresses the question of what constitutes a pure Buddha-land by emphasizing that the lands of sentient beings themselves are the pure Buddha-land of Bodhisattvas. It situates the lands of sentient beings and the Buddha-land within a causal framework, explaining how the former serve as causes of the latter by delineating the characteristics and progressive stages of various practices. On this basis, it concludes with the proposition that “a pure mind leads to a pure Buddha-land”. Although the scripture employs seemingly different explanatory approaches to account for the appearance of an impure Buddha-land during the Bodhisattvas’ practice, its underlying logic remains consistent.

3. The Eight Aspects and Four Lands: Ji’s Yogācāra Interpretation of the Pure Land

In his Commentary, Ji offers a systematic exposition of his Pure Land thoughts. Scholars such as Hayashi Kana and Li Yulan have all discussed this (Y. Li 2024, pp. 157–64; Hayashi 2011). However, if we return to the context of Ji’s commentaries, we can discover that Ji faced a twofold challenge: on the one hand, he needed to address the issues of Pure Land causation and the existence of an impure Buddha-land within the framework of Shuo Wugoucheng jing’s text and the principle that “as the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land”; on the other hand, he had to harmonize the contents of various canonical texts and construct a systematic theory of Buddha-land within the framework of Yogācāra thought. To this end, he employed Yogācāra doctrines to explain the meaning of the Buddha-land through the Eight Gates and Fourfold Realm, thereby addressing these issues. Therefore, in the following two sections, we will analyze how Ji, based on the Yogācāra doctrine, elucidates the meaning of the Buddha-land through the Eight Gates and Fourfold Realm and, on this basis, respond to the two issues mentioned above.

3.1. The Names 名 and Meanings 義 of the Eight Gates

The Eight Gates refer to the following eight aspects: (1) revealing differences顯差別, (2) revealing nature 出體性, (3) manifesting the causes and practices 顯因行, (4) revealing the retribution 彰果相, (5) explaining quantities 釋分量, (6) explaining locations 解處所, (7) distinguishing shared and unshared共不共, and (8) distinguishing various gates 諸門辨. This is Ji’s systematic explanation of the Buddha’s realm.

The first aspect, “revealing differences”, refers to discussing the diversity of the Buddha-land. Ji attempted to synthesize the various presentations of different Buddha-bodies and Buddha-lands discussed in the Yogācāra sutras and treatises. On the one hand, he highlighted the Yogācāra theoretical basis for his own interpretation; On the other hand, he argued that, although his ideas about the Buddha-body and Buddha-land differed in appearance from those described in the Yogācāra sutras and treatises, they were essentially identical in nature, sharing the same core essence. In Ji’s view, differences in body and realm could ultimately be broadly categorized into three or four types. As Ji stated, “Although there are various teachings and different expressions, as mentioned above, the differences in bodies and lands are no more than three or four.” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1028c2-3). The distinction lies in whether the enjoyment body and land were divided into two levels—self and other.

The second aspect, “revealing nature”, entails an analysis of the essential nature of the Buddha-land and thus of its relation to the Buddha-body. Based on the Cheng weishi lun and the Fodijing lun 佛地經論 [Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra], Ji constructed the conceptual framework of the Fourfold Realm, namely the land of dharmata, the land of self-enjoyment, the land of other-enjoyment, and the land of transformation (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1028c04-1029a21).

The following aspects are “manifesting the causes and practices” and “revealing the retribution”—that is, the causes and effects of Pure Land practice. This part of the text is closely related to the sutra text of the Shuo Wugoucheng jing and is an important response to the sutra’s discussion of the causes of Pure Land practice. It is also a systematic exposition of Ji’s thought on the causality of Pure Land practice. The next section will discuss this in detail.

The fifth aspect, “explaining quantities”, refers to the description of the size, quantity, and superiority or inferiority of the Buddha-land. In Ji’s view, the land of dharma-nature 法性土 is the Buddha-land upon which the Svābhāvikakāya 自性身 (dharma-body 法身) depends. In principle, it is not encompassed by the categories of form or mind, making it impossible to describe its size or shape; however, from the perspective of phenomena, it can be said to be boundless and immeasurable, akin to empty space. The land of self-enjoyment 自受用土 is the Buddha-land upon which the self-enjoyment body 自受用身, meaning the Buddha-body that enjoys the bliss of the Dharma, depends. Following the Shidijing 十地經 [Daśabhūmika Sūtra], Ji divides this land into two parts: the land of Bodhisattvas of the tenth stage and the land of realized Bodhisattvas after attaining perfect enlightenment. While the former is numerous but finite, the latter is boundless and all-pervading after the attainment of Buddhahood. The land of enjoyment by others 他受用土 is the Buddha-land of the other-enjoyment body 他受用身, which manifests in response to others, while the land of transformation 變化土 is the Buddha-land of the transformation body 變化身. These two lands are indeterminate in size, superiority, or quantity and can undergo changes. The distinction between them is that the land of enjoyment by others manifests according to the needs of Bodhisattvas on the stages, while the land of transformation appears according to the needs of sentient beings before the stages.6

The explanation of the location of the Buddha-land is consistent with the “explaining quantities” aspect. Ji believed that the region of the dharma-nature can also be divided into two aspects: principle 理 and phenomenon 事. The region of the dharma-nature is true suchness in a true nature principle 真如理 and therefore cannot be described in words, but, in terms of phenomena, it is boundless and pervades all places. The land of self-enjoyment follows the region of the dharma-nature in being boundless and infinite. The land of enjoyment by others and the land of transformation are uncertain, but Ji introduces the concepts of “bao” 報 and “hua” 化 to distinguish between them. The land of enjoyment by others, as seen by those in the ten grounds, is the reward realm; the land of transformation, as seen by those before reaching the grounds, is the transformation realm (see Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1030c16-17).

The distinction between “shared and unshared” actually involves the relationship between the Buddha-land and sentient beings. It addresses how different Buddha-lands correspond to sentient beings and how single or multiple sentient beings correspond to different Buddha-lands. Ji inherited the content of the Cheng weishi lun, asserting that the land of dharma-nature is realized by the Tathagata and is undifferentiated in essence. Regarding the land of self-enjoyment, although different Buddhas manifest their own boundless Buddha-lands, these lands do not obstruct one another. The critical point lies in the land of other-enjoyment and the land of transformation. Both are manifested by the Tathagata to teach sentient beings, and the beings being taught may be either shared or unshared. If the beings to be taught are shared, then, at the same time and in the same place, each Buddha correspondingly manifests a land. These lands are similar in form, do not obstruct one another, intermingle with one another, and act as a predominant condition. This is described from the perspective of the Buddhas or the Buddha-lands. From the perspective of sentient beings, it means that the shared beings being taught manifest Buddha-lands within their own respective consciousnesses. Each sentient being may perceive multiple similar and non-obstructing Buddha-lands, but, within each land, only one Buddha-body manifests supernatural powers to preach the Dharma and teach them. If the beings being taught are unshared, then only one Buddha manifests a Buddha-land to preach the Dharma to them. Which Buddha manifests the land depends on the sentient beings’ innate disposition since beginningless time. This also avoids the problem of multiple Buddhas dwelling in the world for prolonged periods.7

The Ten Aspects of the Buddha-Land are further explained through ten categories: the “Lord of the Land” (tuzhu 土主), the Auxiliary Bodhisattvas (fuyi 輔翼), the Followers (juanshu 眷屬), the Support (renchi 任持), the Activities (shiye 事業), the Benefits Bestowed by the Buddha-Land (sheyi 攝益), the Fearlessness (wuwei 無畏), the Paths to Enlightenment (youlu 遊路), the Vehicles of the Buddha-Land (suocheng 所乘), and the Entrance to the Buddha-Land (rumen 入門). Most of these categories are derived from the descriptions in the Fodi jing 佛地經 [Buddhabhūmisūtra] and the Fodijing lun. Among these, the “Lord of the Land” refers to the master of the Buddha-land; “Auxiliary Bodhisattvas” denotes the Bodhisattvas and beings who occupy a supportive role in the Buddha-land; “Followers” refers to the intimate and obedient followers of the Buddha in the Land, often indicating the Eight Classes of Protectors; “Support” addresses how the Lord, auxiliary Bodhisattvas, and Followers of the Buddha-land persist—namely, the question of what sustains them; “Activities” are the self-benefiting or altruistic deeds performed by the Buddha in the Land; the “Benefits Bestowed by the Buddha-land” signify the inner advantages received by the beings in the Buddha-land. Specifically, it refers to whether they are free from defilements 離煩惱 (the noetic hindrances) and manifest defilements (to be manifest); “Fearlessness” refers to whether beings in the Buddha-land are externally free from demons and free from fear; “Paths to Enlightenment” refers to the path by which beings enter the corresponding Buddha-land, which is the causal practice, specifically corresponding to the wisdom of non-discrimination and the wisdom gained afterward, and these two wisdoms correspond to the great practice of mindfulness and the great practice of wisdom; “Vehicles of the Buddha-Land” refers to the means by which beings enter the Buddha-land relying on corresponding causal practices (such as great mindfulness practice 大念行 and great wisdom practice 大慧行, namely śamatha and vipaśyanā, etc.); the “Entrance to the Buddha-Land” refers to the corresponding liberation gate through which beings enter the respective Pure Land to attain liberation by relying on certain śamatha and vipaśyanā practices and following a specific path, such as the three liberation gates of emptiness, devoid of marks, and desirelessness (see Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1031a08-1032c14).

In general, the theoretical basis for Ji’s Pure Land teachings primarily draws from Yogācāra scriptures such as the Cheng weishi lun, the Fodi jing, and the Fodijing lun, among which considerable content is directly borrowed from these texts. Although Ji’s discourse on the Pure Land is divided into eight parts (the Eight Gates), it tends to be introductory and lacks systematicity. By synthesizing these contents, the author finds that, from the perspective of the relationship between the Buddha, the Buddha-land, and sentient beings, Ji constructed the following framework. The Buddha is the ruler of the Buddha-land. Based on corresponding wisdom and consciousness, the Buddha manifests the Buddha-land in accordance with sentient beings. These Buddha-lands vary in size and location and in the auxiliary Bodhisattvas and the Followers according to the differences between them. They are sustained by different substances, and these Buddha-lands differ from one another in terms of shared and unique characteristics depending on the sentient beings that they accommodate. Sentient beings manifest through their own consciousness [ālaya-vijñāna (alaiyeshi阿賴耶識)] and perceive a single Buddha-body within a single Buddha-land, where the Buddha teaches them, benefits them, and saves them. Multiple Buddha-lands do not interfere with one another. In this framework, whether explaining the wisdom and consciousness [ālaya-vijñāna] underlying the origins of the Pure Land teachings, the relationship between Buddhas and sentient beings where sentient beings manifest through their own consciousness [ālaya-vijñāna] to hear the Buddha’s teachings within a single Buddha-land, or the textual evidence cited by Ji, all these elements are imbued with the imprints of the consciousness-only doctrine.

3.2. The Four Kinds of Realm and Their Properties

As mentioned earlier, Ji primarily based his theory of the Fourfold Realm on the Cheng weishi lun and the Fodijing lun, but he did not simply adopt them verbatim. Instead, he incorporated his own perspectives into the foundational ideas of the Yogācāra scriptures to complete his theoretical framework. Although the eight categories of Buddha-land are all interpretations of the region of the dharma-nature, regarding the land of self-enjoyment, the land of enjoyment by others, and the land of transformation, the most essential concept is “revealing nature”. Below, we will use “revealing nature” as an example to reveal the structure of Ji’s four kinds of realm theory and explain how he further developed it based on the Yogācāra scriptures.

Ji’s four bodies correspond to the four kinds of realm, as described in the Cheng weishi lun:

The Svābhāvikakāya or Dharmakāya (Tathatā, pure Dharmadhātu) has the Dharmatā as its Land or World. Although there is no difference in essential nature between the Body and the Land on which it depends for support, nevertheless, the Body is related to the Buddha while the Land is related to the Dharmatā, since one can establish the distinction between the substance, i.e., the svabhāva which is the Dharmatā, and its manifestation, i.e., the lakṣaṇa which is the Buddha. Neither this Body nor this Land is Rūpa. Their dimensions cannot be said to be large or small; rather, considering their nature, their dimensions are infinite, like space, extending everywhere. The Svasambhogakāya “returns and supports itself on its own Land.” … By the power of great benevolence and compassion, by virtue of the maturity of the pure causes which produce a pure or tainted Buddha-land, causes which the Bodhisattva has formerly cultivated for the good of others, in conformity with the needs of those sentient beings who have not yet obtained a Bhūmi, the Wisdom of Perfect Achievement creates a Buddha-land, either pure or tainted, either small or great, subject to change and modification from time to time. The Nirmāṇakāya of the Buddha rests on this Land and resides there. Its dimensions, like those of the Land, are not determined.

(Cheng weishi lun 2025, T no. 1585, 31: 10.58b26-58b29)

又，自性身，依法性土。雖此身土，體無差別，而屬佛法相性異故。此佛身土，俱非色攝，雖不可說形量小大，然隨事相，其量無邊。譬如虛空，遍一切處。自受用身，還依自土。……若變化身，依變化土，謂成事智大慈悲力，由昔所修利他無漏淨穢佛土因緣成熟，隨未登地有情所宜化為佛土，或淨或穢，或小或大，前後改轉。佛變化身依之而住，能依身量亦無定限。

The quoted passage was incorporated into the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu under the sections “revealing nature” and “explaining quantities” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1028c4-1029a18, 1030a29-1030b27). On the basis of absorbing this content, Ji also added substantial content, which we will explain below.

In essential nature, Ji, following the perspective of the Cheng weishi lun, argued that the Svābhāvika-kāya 自性身 and the Svābhāvika-kṣetra 自性土 are indistinguishable in essence, differing only in their characteristics and nature, with neither marks of materiality. Building on this, Ji added his own interpretations: (1) “The Svābhāvika-kāya and kṣetra are identical to the true nature principle 自性身土即真如理”; (2) “Taking the characteristic of meaning as the body and the aspect of essence as the land; taking the characteristic of awakening as the body and the aspect of dharma-nature as the land 以義相為身，以體性為土；以覺相為身，以法性為土”; (3) “This Buddha’s body and land… are neither mind nor mental associates 此佛身土……非心心所”.8

Among these, (1) attributes the Svābhāvikakāya and kṣetra to the true nature principle. Although the Cheng weishi lun does not explicitly state this, it can be inferred from relevant passages, such as the following: “The term ‘essence’ means that the essence of the Tathāgata’s first body of his own essence is eternal and unchanging, and thus is called the essence 自性身體常不變，故名自性，力無畏等諸功德法所依止故，亦名法身”. Another passage states, “Moreover, the Dharma body is characterized by suchness as the ultimate conversion. It is the support for the equality of all buddha qualities… 又法身者，究竟轉移，真如為相，一切佛法平等所依……” (Fodijing lun 2025, T no. 1530, 26: 7.325c2, 325c12). This also extends the Cheng weishi lun’s approach of “using the five dharmas to encompass the three body 以五法性攝三身”, where the five dharmas refer to the purified dharma-realm and the four wisdoms (although, in practice, only three are used). The Svābhāvikakāya corresponds to the purified dharma-realm, which is tathatā.

(2) Ji divides the body and land into two pairs, meaningful characteristics and essential nature and marks of enlightenment and dharma-nature, which reflects the expression in the Cheng weishi lun that “the Body is related to the Buddha while the Land is related to the Dharmata 佛法相、性異故”. Attributing meaning and awakening to the Buddha’s body may be because the Svābhāvikakāya is the equal basis of all Buddha-dharmas. Furthermore, corresponding to meaning 義 and awakening 覺, substance 體 is the basis of meaning, and dharma 法 is the basis of awakening. Hence, essential nature and dharma-nature are identified with the Buddha-land.

(3) Building upon the original notion of the dharma-body being free from form, Ji further describes the Buddha’s body and land. He adopts another statement from the Cheng weishi lun: “The svabhāvakāya, although possessing infinite qualities, real Rūpas and real Cittas, is asaṃskṛta (unconditioned non-active dharma); one cannot therefore say that it is Rūpa or Citta 自性法身，雖有真實無邊功德而無為故，不可說為色、心等物” (Cheng weishi lun 2025, T no. 1585, 31: 10.58a21-22). He argues that it is neither form among the five categories of dharmas nor mind or mental factors among them. Although the Buddha’s body possesses immeasurable virtue and serves as the equal basis of all dharmas, it inherently lacks activity and is not a dharma of form or mind.

Regarding the descriptions of the self-enjoyment land, other-enjoyment land, and transformation land, Ji aligns them with the four wisdoms—Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, Pure Wisdom 清淨智, and unrestricted cognition 成事智—as stated in the Cheng weishi lun. He asserts that the three bodies rely on the three lands, and the three lands arise from the maturation of the hetupratyaya of the three wisdoms, which are either purely self-benefiting or other-benefiting, either pure or mixed with impurities. These lands manifest according to the needs of the Buddha, Bodhisattvas of the ten stages9, and sentient beings who have not yet attained the stages. On this basis, Ji adds his insights into the nature of each Buddha-land, categorizing their substance as “aggregates” and “elements”. Specifically, Ji states the following: “(The self-enjoyment land) is solely characterized by the uncontaminated aggregate of form, with intermittent fragrances10, flavors, and tangible objects as the four elements, and occasionally sound as the fifth element… (The other-enjoyment land) also takes the uncontaminated aggregate of form, the four elements, and the five elements as its nature 自受用土唯以無漏色蘊，香、味、觸相續四塵間斷亦聲五塵為性……他受用土器亦以無漏色蘊四塵五塵而為體性” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1028c4). “(The transformation land) also takes the five aggregates of sentient beings and the four elements of the natural world, among others, as its nature 變化土此土亦以有情五蘊及器四塵等，以為體性” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1029a13).

The above analysis serves as a good example of how Ji constructed the doctrine of the Four Pure Lands based on the Cheng weishi lun. Additionally, Ji extensively cited scriptures to describe the nature of the Buddha-land, which not only provided scriptural evidence for the Four Pure Lands doctrine but also harmonized the different expressions found in various Buddhist texts. We take the descriptions of the self-enjoyment land and the other-enjoyment land as examples.

When discussing the self-enjoyment land, Ji quotes the Dui Fa lun 對法論 [Abhidharma-śāstra] on the Da cheng a pi da mo za ji lun 大乘阿毘達磨雜集論 [Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā], which states, “There is also a pure world not included in the truth of suffering, for it is not produced by the power of karma and afflictions, nor does it arise from the predominance of karma and afflictions. Rather, it is brought forth by the predominance of great vows and pure roots of goodness. This realm of birth is inconceivable, perceived only by the Buddha, not even within the realm of meditation attained by those who have achieved meditative concentration, let alone by those engaged in discursive thought 復有清淨世界非苦諦攝，非業煩惱力所生故，非業煩惱增上所起故。然由大願清淨善根增上所引，此所生處不可思議，唯佛所覺，尚非得靜慮者靜慮境界，況尋思者” (Da cheng a pi da mo za ji lun 2025, T no. 1606, 31: 6.719b22). The Dui fa lun describes two types of worlds: one included in the truth of suffering 苦諦 and the other not included in the truth of suffering, with the latter being the inconceivable pure world mentioned in the quotation. Ji holds that this world is free from suffering, not arising from karma or afflictions, and perceived only by the Buddha, corresponding to the self-enjoyment land.

When discussing the other-enjoyment land, Ji asserts that the Pure Lands relied upon by the other-enjoyment body are all characterized by the five aggregates 五蘊 [pañcaskandha] and four objects of the senses 四塵 [artha] that constitute the Bodhisattvas of the ten stages. He cites Shuo Wugoucheng jing as an example, arguing that the various causes and practices of the Pure Land described in the sutra enable corresponding sentient beings to be reborn in that land when the Bodhisattva attains Buddhahood, precisely reflecting the nature of the Buddha-land as “aggregates” and “elements”. In Ji’s view, these two are also associated with sentient beings 有情 [sattva] and the natural world 器 [bhājana]. Through the transformation of their nature, Ji explains why the various causes and practices constitute the Buddha-land. In short, the sutra indicates that “both sentient beings and their natural world are called the Buddha-land” and sentient beings and the environment are related to the nature of the Buddha-land (aggregates and elements). The other-enjoyment land also differs in being either defiled or undefiled depending on the transformer. Ji states, “As for this Buddha-land, if transformed by the Buddha, it is definitely undefiled; if transformed by Bodhisattvas, it may be either defiled or undefiled; if transformed by the eighth or fifth consciousness, it is only defiled; if transformed by the sixth or seventh consciousness, it may be either defiled or undefiled. The land of sentient beings is universally characterized by the merits of the five aggregates. The land of the natural world possesses the eighteen perfections 此之佛土，佛所變化者，定唯無漏；菩薩變者，通有無漏；第八、五識所變，唯有漏；第六識或第七識及所變，通無漏。其有情土。通以五蘊功德為性。其此器土。具十八圓滿” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1028a2).

In general, Ji’s concept of revealing nature was developed and expanded on the basis of the expressions in the Cheng weishi lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), through the articulation of nature, the harmonization of scriptures, the enumeration of examples, and the distinction between the defiled and the undefiled.

4. Harmonizing the Scripture: Responses to Two Questions in the Text

As a commentary on the Shuo Wugoucheng jing, Ji had to address two questions raised in the scripture: first, what constitutes a Bodhisattva’s pure Buddha-land; second, Śāriputra’s doubt. We will first analyze the second question before addressing the first.

4.1. Response to Śāriputra’s Doubt

Śāriputra’s doubt lies in the fact that, if a pure mind leads to a Pure Land, why does he perceive the same Buddha-land as impure while the Jaṭī Brahmā sees it as pure? The underlying question here is the following: What exactly is the “same Buddha-land”? The explanation in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu appears somewhat ambiguous.

In revealing nature, when discussing the nature of transformation lands, Ji posits that the Pure Land relied upon by the transformation body has as its essence the five aggregates of sentient beings and the four elements of the material world. He cites the Shuo Wugoucheng jing: “Before the Buddha pressed his foot down, the land appeared impure, not clean; after his foot pressed down, it temporarily appeared pure 足未按前，現穢非淨；足按已後，暫令見淨” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1029a11-12). As mentioned earlier, the Shuo Wugoucheng jing offers roughly five reasons for the existence of impure lands, among which the Buddha pressing his foot on the ground emphasizes supernatural power. The underlying logic is that the Buddha manifests supernatural power to transform pure and impure lands for the sake of saving sentient beings. In Ji’s view, the pure and impure lands transformed by the Buddha’s supernatural power are actually the transformation lands inhabited by the transformation body. This explanation uses the concept of transformation lands among the Fourfold Realm in Yogācāra to clarify the cause of impure lands, and this explanation aligns with the original meaning of the sūtra, as transformation lands also emphasize manifestation for the sake of liberating sentient beings. The Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu explicitly states, “According to the needs of sentient beings who have not yet attained the stages (bhūmis), the Buddha transforms the land into a Buddha-land, whether pure or impure 隨未登地有情所宜，化為佛土，或淨或穢” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1029a10). From this perspective, this Buddha-land is a transformation land.

For sentient beings who have not yet attained the stages, this Buddha-land is indeed a transformation land. However, this Buddha-land also includes many Bodhisattvas, such as the Jaṭī Brahmā. In the eyes of the Jaṭī Brahmā, this Buddha-land is pure and thus not a transformation land but a land of communal enjoyment. The Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu identifies the Jaṭī Brahmā as an eighth-stage Bodhisattva who has taken a superior rebirth 增上生.

Whether it is a transformation land or a land of communal enjoyment, this essentially categorizes the Buddha-land into one type. However, the following question arises: Why does the same land appear impure to some while the Jaṭī Brahmā sees it as pure? The Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu incorporates the perspective of the Cheng weishi lun, asserting that beings of different levels perceive different Buddha-lands according to their respective consciousnesses. Those below the stages or adherents of the two vehicles see transformation lands, while Bodhisattvas above the stages see lands of communal enjoyment. The Fodijing lun expresses this more directly: “a great multitude above this earth saw his enjoyment body preaching this Scripture in the Buddha’s Pure Land. Although what they heard was identical, what they saw was different 地前大眾見變化身居此穢土為其說法，地上大眾見受用身居佛淨土為其說法，所聞雖同、所見各別” (Fodijing lun 2025, T no. 1530, 26: 1.292c4).

If we delve deeper, the same sentient being hears teachings from different Buddhas, and the same Buddha teaches different sentient beings. Countless sentient beings and countless Buddhas engage in hearing and teaching the Dharma—what, then, is the relationship between these Buddha-lands? This touches upon the issue of “shared and unshared”. Ji, building upon the Cheng weishi lun, explains that the dharma-nature land is realized by the Tathāgata and is undifferentiated in essence. As for the self-enjoyment land, although each Buddha manifests countless boundless Buddha-lands, these lands do not obstruct one another.11 The key lies in the shared enjoyment land and the transformation land. Both are manifested by the Tathāgata to teach sentient beings, who may be either shared or distinct.12 If the beings to be taught are common, then, simultaneously and in the same place, each Buddha manifests a Buddha-land that is similar in form, non-obstructing yet mutually intermingled, acting as a predominant condition for one another. This is described from the perspective of the Buddhas or Buddha-land. From the perspective of sentient beings, it means that the shared beings being taught each manifest a Buddha-land within their own consciousness. Each sentient being may have many similar, non-obstructing Buddha-lands, but, in each land, only one Buddha-body manifests spiritual powers to teach them.13 If the sentient beings being taught are distinct, then only one Buddha manifests a Buddha-land to teach them.14 Which Buddha manifests it depends on the sentient beings’ innate disposition since beginningless time. This also avoids the issue of multiple Buddhas dwelling in the world for prolonged periods.

4.2. The Response to “What Is a Pure Buddha-Land?”

Regarding the first question, the sutra associates it with sentient beings and outlines a series of practices leading to the Pure Land. In his commentary, Ji provides two approaches in response: first, following the sutra’s explanation of the causes and effects of the Pure Land; second, systematically delineating the theoretical framework of Pure Land causality through eight categories, specifically manifesting the causes and practices and revealing the retribution.

4.2.1. Following the Sutra’s Explanation of Cause and Effect

As mentioned earlier, the extensive content in the sutra concerning the Pure Land revolves around the question, “What constitutes a Bodhisattva’s Pure Buddha-land?” Based on Xuanzang’s translation, Ji critiques earlier translations for only inquiring about the causes of the Pure Land, without addressing its characteristics. He then interprets the text from two perspectives: “characteristics” and “practices”. “Practices” refers to causal actions, emphasizing the aspect of causes, while “characteristics” denotes the manifestations, which can be understood as descriptions of the Pure Land’s resultant features. Of course, the original Sanskrit text does not explicitly distinguish between “characteristics” and “practices”, and Kumārajīva’s perspective suggests the inseparability of the two, without clear differentiation.

There are three noteworthy points in Ji’s interpretation of the characteristics of the Pure Land.

First, Ji provided a detailed classification of the forms of “land”. “Land” is divided into ordinary lands and sacred lands, and only the combination of the two is conventionally termed “land”. Because Bodhisattvas wish to teach and transform people in the world, enabling them to seek transcendence, they transform defiled lands into precious realms (Baofang 寶方). However, this is merely an expedient means 方便 [upāya] employed by Bodhisattvas for the sake of teaching and transforming the world.15

Second, Ji’s commentary emphasizes analysis from the perspective of causality. He divides the reasons for which “the lands of all sentient beings are the purified Buddha-land of Bodhisattvas 諸有情土是為菩薩嚴淨佛土” into five levels. Among these, it is noteworthy that Ji posits that a Bodhisattva should attain maturity (either through the cessation of evil or the attainment of goodness) in accordance with sentient beings’ purification of the Buddha-land and subsequently embrace the corresponding Buddha-land.16

Third, Ji’s commentary bears clear traces of Yogācāra thought, such as using the three natures 三自性 [trisvabhāva] to analyze the analogy of constructing palaces on open ground. This also reflects the causal relationship in achieving Buddha-land. In Ji’s view, “the open ground symbolizes the dependent nature; all sentient beings constructing palaces and adornments symbolize those sentient beings increasing and enriching pure virtues, realizing the perfected nature, and thereby embracing such Buddha-land 其空地者，喻依他性；一切有情造生宮室莊嚴等者，喻彼有情增長饒益生淨功德，證圓成實，即便攝受如是佛土”, and “Apart from Bodhisattvas, all sentient beings cannot achieve the embrace of Buddha-land through their attachment to empty and nonexistent dharmas, which instead highlights the necessity of increasing and enriching pure virtues in sentient beings of the dependent nature to realize the perfected nature 除菩薩外，一切有情於其所執空無之法，攝受佛土，必不得成，反顯必於依他有情增長饒益生淨功德，證圓成實” Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu (2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1024c18). As previously mentioned, the Sanskrit original emphasizes that the Buddha-land, like space, cannot be constructed or adorned but arises solely for the benefit of sentient beings. Xuanzang translates it as follows: “For example, if someone wishes to construct palaces on open ground, they can do so freely without obstruction, but in space, it can never be accomplished. Similarly, Bodhisattvas, for the sake of accomplishing sentient beings, vow to attain Buddha-land. Vowing to attain a Buddha-land is not something that can be accomplished in empty space 譬如有人欲於空地造立宮室，隨意無礙，若於虛空，終不能成。菩薩如是為成就眾生故，願取佛國，願取佛國者，非於空也” Shuo Wugoucheng jing (2025, T no. 476, 14: 1.559a13). In this translation, while it also conveys that Buddha-lands are attained for the sake of sentient beings and not by grasping at emptiness, the analogy seems to contrast constructing palaces on open ground with the impossibility of doing so in space. If we consider the meaning of the Sanskrit original, it actually states that the Buddha-land cannot be constructed or adorned, just as space cannot be constructed or adorned. This is a significant difference, and this discrepancy also exists in the translations by Zhiqian and Kumārajīva. Following the logic of Xuanzang’s translation, Ji correlates open ground with the dependent nature and the construction of palaces with the realization of the perfected nature. Thus, the possibility of constructing palaces on open ground is transformed into realizing the perfected nature based on the dependent nature. The Cheng weishi lun states, “Thus, like magical illusions and so forth, they appear to exist but do not truly exist, deceiving the ignorant; all these are called the ‘dependent nature’. The ignorant perversely cling to them as the self and dharmas, as existing or non-existing, identical or different, both or neither, and so forth. Like flowers in the sky, they are devoid of both intrinsic nature and characteristic marks; all these are called ‘the nature that regards the seeming to be real’. On this dependent nature, the self and dharmas to which they falsely cling are entirely empty. The true nature of consciousness and so forth, which is revealed by this emptiness, is called the ‘ultimate reality’ 如幻事等非有似有，誑惑愚夫，一切皆名依他起性；愚夫於此橫執我法有無、一異、俱不俱等，如空花等性相都無，一切皆名遍計所執；依他起上彼所妄執我法俱空，此空所顯識等真性名圓成實” (Cheng weishi lun 2025, T no. 1585, 31: 8.46c8). This passage originally emphasizes that the three natures are inseparable from mind and mental factors, but it also clarifies that the dependent nature 依他起性 [paratantralakṣaṇam] explains the illusory existence of things as the foundation, the nature that regards the seeming to be real 遍計所執性 [parikalpitalakṣaṇam] is the attachment to self and dharmas on the dependent nature, and the ultimate reality 圓成實性 [pariniṣpannalakṣaṇam] is the understanding that the self and phenomena, which are falsely imputed through conceptual proliferation, are both empty. The Weishi sanshi song 唯識三十頌 [Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā] also states, “The ultimate reality exists in that, constantly separated from its former nature 圓成實於彼，常遠離前性” (Weishi sanshi lunsong 2025, T no. 1586, 31: 1.61a17), where “the former nature” refers to the nature that regards the seeming to be real, and its foundation is the dependent nature. Therefore, Ji’s interpretation of constructing palaces on open ground corresponds to realizing the ultimate reality based on the dependent nature, which aligns with the reasoning in the Weishi sanshi song and the Cheng weishi lun. Moreover, when Ji explains the impossibility of constructing palaces in space, he emphasizes that one cannot embrace the Buddha-land through attachment to empty and nonexistent dharmas. This “attachment to empty and nonexistent dharmas 於其所執空無之法” should correspond to the nature that regards the seeming to be real, as the seeming to be real is the attachment to the illusory and empty dependent nature. From this perspective, Ji demonstrates that the ultimate reality cannot be realized based on the nature that regards the seeming to be real.

4.2.2. Manifesting the Causes and Practices, Revealing the Retribution 顯因行，彰果相

Among the eight meanings of the Pure Land, “manifesting the causes and practices” and “revealing the retribution” are Ji’s direct discussions of the Pure Land in terms of cause and effect. In “manifesting the causes”, in addition to classifying the scriptural passages, Ji also provides a comprehensive discussion of the causes of the Pure Land in terms of general and specific aspects. From the general perspective, the causes of the Pure Land are primarily divided into two parts, virtuous roots and great vows, both of which are indispensable: “If one does not cultivate virtuous roots, there is no cause for the Buddha-land; if one does not generate great vows, there is no condition for the Buddha-land. Only when both cause and condition are complete can the fruit be attained 若不修善根，佛土無因；不發大願，佛土無緣。因緣具足，方感果故” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1029b4). From the specific perspective, each Fourfold Realm has its own distinct causes and conditions 因緣 [Skt. hetupratyaya]: “The dharma-nature land takes only the non-discriminative wisdom of the twofold emptiness as its cause and condition, for it is this wisdom alone that realizes the principle of dharma-nature. The self-enjoyment land takes only the subsequently attained wisdom of self-benefit as its cause and condition, for it is this wisdom alone that realizes the five aggregates of phenomena. The other-enjoyment land and the transformation land take only the subsequently attained wisdom of benefiting others as their cause and condition 法性土，唯以二空無分別智為其因緣，證法性理唯此智故；自受用土，唯以自利後所得智為其因緣，證事五蘊唯此智故；他受用土及變化土，唯以利他後所得智為其因緣” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1029b19). These distinct causes and conditions correspond to the different beings to be transformed. Beyond these right causes and conditions 正因緣, Ji also identifies auxiliary causes and conditions, such as practical actions 事行 and vows 願. Whether it is the virtuous roots and great vows as the general aspect or the primary and auxiliary causes and conditions of the specific lands as the specific aspect, the cause leads to the fruit, thereby manifesting the fruit aspect of right causes and conditions.

In the discussion of “revealing the retribution”, Ji cites the Fodi jing and his commentary, as well as the Jingang bore boluomi jing lun 金剛般若波羅蜜經論 [Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitopadeśa], to illustrate that they are closely related to “consciousness 識”. Regarding the Fodi jing, the Pure Land takes the most supremely free and pure consciousness as its retribution. The commentary emphasizes the value and significance of “consciousness”, stating that “the land is not separate from consciousness 非離識外別有其土”, and then elaborates on the Fourfold Realm: “The dharma-nature land is the dharma-nature mind, which is inseparable from the pure consciousness associated with non-discriminative wisdom, for it is the true nature of consciousness. The self-enjoyment land, the other-enjoyment land, and the transformation land are all inseparable from the pure consciousness associated with the Buddha’s subsequently attained wisdom. However, the consciousness differs: the self-enjoyment land is the eighth consciousness, the other-enjoyment land is the seventh consciousness, and the transformation land is the first five consciousnesses, each corresponding to the consciousness associated with the subsequently attained wisdom. Bodhisattvas on the ten stages perceive the dharma-nature land and the other-enjoyment land, while the three vehicles before the stages perceive the transformation land, each according to their capacity, inseparable from the perceiver’s pure or defiled consciousness, whether afflicted or unafflicted 謂法性土即法性心，此不離於無分別智相應淨識，識實性故；自他受用及變化土，皆不離於佛後得智相應淨識。然識有異，自受用土即第八識，他受用土即第七識，其變化土即前五識。隨應是彼後所得智相應識故。十地菩薩見法性土及他受用土，地前三乘見變化土，皆隨所應，不離見者，有漏無漏能觀淨穢” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1030a14-1030a24). Here, Ji clarifies both the correspondence between “land” and “consciousness” and the relationship between “land” and beings at different stages. Similarly, Ji notes that the Jingang bore boluomi jing lun also emphasizes “the consciousness corresponding to the perceiver 隨見者所應之識”, but he also extracts his own internal rationale: “Therefore, through the cause and effect of cultivating wisdom, consciousness becomes pure; once the internal consciousness is pure, it externally induces the purity of sentient beings and the material world 故修智因果便識淨，內識既淨，外感眾生及器世間國土皆淨” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1030a27-28). This implies a path of Pure Land practice that moves through cultivation of wisdom (causal practice) → purification of consciousness (internal) → purification of the land (external manifestation, including the purity of sentient beings and the material world), illustrating the progression from cause to fruit and from internal to external.

Thus, manifesting the causes and practices and revealing the retribution not only carry clear implications for Pure Land causality but are also imbued with Yogācāra nuances. This differs significantly from the interpretive approach found in the older commentaries from the Guanzhong region. In the Zhu Weimojie jing 注維摩詰經 [Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra], when explaining why the various practices of the Pure Land serve as the Buddha-land of Bodhisattvas for sentient beings, Sengzhao directly emphasizes that these practices represent “discussing results within causes 因中說果”, maintaining an inherent logical connection with the scriptural passages: “The purity of a land necessarily arises from sentient beings, and the purity of sentient beings necessarily stems from their collective actions 夫土之淨者，必由眾生，眾生之淨，必因眾行”，”夫行淨則眾生淨，眾生淨則佛土淨，此必然之數，不可差也” (Zhu Weimojie jing 2025, T no. 1775, 38: 1.335b15-335b16). “When actions are pure, sentient beings become pure; when sentient beings are pure, the Buddha-land becomes pure—this is an inevitable principle, admitting no deviation.” So, how should we regard Pure Land practices as “causes”? Kumārajīva holds that the straightforward mind 直心, profound mind 深心, and bodhicitta 菩提心 are the minds of those being transformed—beginning with sincerity, deepening progressively, and then enabling the practitioners to generate the corresponding Buddha-land through specific cultivation. Subsequently, he further elucidates the sequence of Pure Land practices, concluding that “As the mind is pure, so is the Buddha-land”. Kumārajīva states the following:

Once faith is established, one can initiate cultivation of all virtues. Once all virtues are accumulated, the mind progressively deepens in resolve. As the mind deepens, one no longer follows unwholesome deeds; abandoning evil and embracing good is called taming. Once the mind is tamed, one acts upon encountering goodness. Acting upon encountering goodness enables one to practice what is difficult to practice. Practicing what is difficult to practice allows one to act in accordance with the teachings. Acting in accordance with the teachings ensures all virtues are perfected. With all virtues perfected, one can dedicate merits toward Buddhahood. Progressing ever forward in dedication is the power of skillful means. Skillful means comprises three essential aspects: Skillfully cultivating oneself without grasping at signs, not seeking premature attainment, skillfully guiding sentient beings. Possessing these three enables one to bring sentient beings to maturity. Bringing sentient beings to maturity ensures the Three Causes are fully perfected. With the Three Causes perfected, one attains a Pure Land. Once the land is purified, the sentient beings therein become pure. With sentient beings pure, no adulterated teachings are expounded—hence, verbal expression is purified. Accepting the Dharma perfects the Three Purifications below. Perfecting the Three Purifications below enables one to share the virtue of the Transformational Lord—therefore, it is called ‘All is Purified’.

(Zhu Weimojie jing 2025, T no. 1775, 38: 1.337a13-337a15)

什曰：信心既立，則能發行眾善；眾善既積，其心轉深；轉深則不隨眾惡，棄惡從善，是名調伏；心既調伏，則遇善斯行；遇善斯行，則難行能行；難行能行，故能如所說行；如所說行，則萬善兼具；萬善兼具，故能回向佛道；向而彌進，是方便力也。方便大要有三：一善於自行而不取相、二不取證、三善化眾生。具此三已，則能成就眾生；成就眾生，則三因具足；三因具足，則得淨土；土既清淨，則眾生純淨；眾生純淨，則不說雜教，故言說清淨。受法則具下三淨，具下三淨，則與化主同德，故曰一切淨也。

Sengzhao also inherited Kumārajīva’s viewpoint, stating, “The Three Minds are the sequential practices for beginners. To propagate the great path, one must first rectify the mind. Once the mind is truly upright, one can then deeply engage in practice. With deep engagement in practice, one can broadly apply it without limit—this is the sequence of the Three Minds 三心是始學之次行。夫欲弘大道，要先直其心，心既真直，然後入行能深，入行既深，則能廣運無涯，此三心之次也” (Zhu Weimojie jing 2025, T no. 1775, 38: 1.335c14). He then provided two analogies to illustrate the progressive nature of the various practices in the Pure Land, such as “Just as planting a seedling with a hair’s breadth can lead to a luxuriant growth spanning a hundred arm spans 譬猶植栽絲發其茂百圍也”, and “The Pure Land is but the reflection of the mind. For the echo to be harmonious, the sound must first be harmonious; for the shadow to be straight, the form must first be upright—this is the fixed principle of karmic retribution 淨土蓋是心之影響耳。夫欲響順，必和其聲，欲影端必正其形，此報應之定數也”.

Additionally, Kumārajīva once distinguished between doing good work and karmically produced virtue 報生善, stating that sentient beings’ rebirth in the Buddha-land is a result of karmically produced virtue. Sengzhao similarly distinguished between doing good work and karmic virtue, asserting that “all practices of sentient beings are karmic virtue 諸眾生所習皆報善也”. This distinction between doing good work and the resultant goodness also reflects the interpretation of the Pure Land through the lens of cause and effect. Kumārajīva’s teaching that practitioners are reborn in the corresponding Buddha-land based on their cultivation evolved into the “theory of cause and effect” in the works of Sengzhao and Daosheng: Sengzhao emphasized the importance of Bodhisattvas, believing that Bodhisattvas transform others to be like themselves, thereby enabling sentient beings to gather and be reborn in the Buddha-land through interconnected karmic retribution; Daosheng, on the other hand, focused on the sentient beings themselves, arguing that, since sentient beings had previously received teachings from Bodhisattvas (the cause), they now have the result of being reborn in the Buddha-land.

In conclusion, the understanding of the old commentaries from the Guanzhong tradition can be summarized as follows: upright mind → firm faith → initiating practice (Pure Land practices) → purification of sentient beings → purification of the Buddha-land. This aligns with the textual framework of the Weimojiejing. The Pure Land causality of the Ji tradition can be summarized as the “internal cause—external response” mechanism, which holds that Bodhisattvas, with the internal cause of aspiring to purify the Buddha-land, can externally inspire sentient beings to be reborn in the corresponding Buddha-land. This follows the sequence cultivation of wisdom (causal practice) → purification of consciousness (internal) → purification of the land (external manifestation, including the purity of sentient beings and the material world). It is worth noting that these two lines of understanding are quite different, primarily in two aspects. The first is the participation of “consciousness”. Ji believes that the key to a pure mind lies in the “purification of consciousness”, which serves as a bridge between causal practice and the purification of the land. He even explicitly states, “therefore, when consciousness is pure, the Buddha-land is pure 故識淨時，佛土便淨” (Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu 2025, T no. 1782, 38: 2.1027a18-19). The purification of consciousness here refers to the purification of the eighth consciousness. The second is the difference in mechanism. The understanding of the old commentaries from the Guanzhong tradition basically follows the textual logic of the Weimojiejing; their rationale is that a “pure mind” naturally leads to a “pure land”, and the relationship between a “pure mind” and a “pure land” is, as Sengzhao described, like that of a form and its shadow. However, Ji’s approach relies on the “internal cause—external response” mechanism. He opposes the view that a “pure mind” automatically results in a pure land. Instead, he argues that only through the continuous internal purification of the eighth consciousness can one externally inspire sentient beings, who jointly cultivate the causal practices of the Pure Land, to be reborn together in the land where the Bodhisattva attains Buddhahood. Only in this way can the Pure Land be established.17

5. Conclusions

The Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu is a significant and systematic exposition of Ji’s thought on the Buddha-land (or Pure Lands), representing his mature philosophical period. His discourse on the Buddha-land was also adopted in the Dasheng Fayuan Yilingzhang, becoming the core text on the subject in this Buddhist theoretical compendium. Building upon the foundational ideas of Yogācāra classics such as the Cheng weishi lun and the Fodijing lun, Ji further advanced his theory through the framework of the Eight Gates and Fourfold Realm. On one hand, he systematically constructed a comprehensive Pure Land thought system; on the other, he addressed two critical questions raised in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing: What constitutes a Bodhisattva’s purified Buddha-land and why did Śāriputra perceive the Buddha-land as impure? Regarding the latter, Ji argued that the Buddha-land of the Bhagavān encompasses both the transformed land and the land of others’ enjoyment. Śrāvakas perceive the transformed land based on their own consciousness, while Bodhisattvas on the stages perceive the land of others’ enjoyment. As for the former, Ji proposed that Bodhisattvas, through the inner cause of resolving to purify the Buddha-land, externally induce sentient beings to be reborn in corresponding lands—thus establishing the theoretical sequence of cultivating wisdom → purification of consciousness → purification of the land.

The study of Ji’s Pure Land thought in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu enriches our understanding in the following ways. First, regarding Ji’s Pure Land thought, the ideas in the Shuo Wugoucheng jing influenced his views, and the commentary serves as a key text for understanding his perspective. Rather than seeking his Pure Land thought in contested texts like the the Emituojing shu and the Emituojing tongzan shu, it is more productive to examine it through works such as the Shuo Wugoucheng jing shu and the Dasheng Fayuan Yilingzhang. Second, in the history of interpreting the Weimojiejing, Ji’s Yogācāra-based Pure Land theory offers distinctive value that diverges from that of previous interpretations. Under the proposition that “a purified mind leads to a purified land”, it also provides a concrete Yogācāra approach.