Shandao’s Construction and Innovation of the Pure Land Doctrinal System: A Study Centred on the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra

Abstract

As a pivotal patriarch of the Pure Land school, Shandao 善導 (613–681) played a decisive role in shaping Pure Land Buddhism and the broader history of Chinese Buddhism. A direct disciple of Daochuo 道綽 (563–645), he championed the dual framework of Dingshan 定善 and Sanshan 散善 practices together with Nianfo 念佛 (Skt. buddhānusmṛti), especially Chiming nianfo 持名念佛 (vocal recitation of Amitābha’s name). Existing scholarship has already demonstrated that Shandao was not a master concerned exclusively with vocal recitation but also a systematic exegete of Guanfo 觀佛, visualisation, and samādhi. This article therefore does not present that recognition as its own innovation. Instead, it reconstructs the internal architecture by which Shandao’s Guanjing si tie shu 觀經四帖疏 (Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra in Four Fascicles) integrates contemplative practice with three doctrinal commitments: the efficacy of ‘birth through ten recitations’ against the Yogācāra charge of Bieshi yi 別時意 (Skt. kālāntarābhiprāya, the identification of Amitābha’s land as a reward land, and the thesis that ordinary beings (Skt. pṛthagjana) may enter that land. Drawing also on the Guannian Amituo fo xianghai sanmei gongde famen 觀念阿彌陀佛相海三昧功德法門 (Method of Contemplating Amitābha Buddha’s Ocean-like Marks in Samādhi and Its Meritorious Virtues) and the Wangsheng lizan 往生禮讚 (Liturgy of Praise for Birth in the Pure Land), the article argues that Shandao’s originality lies less in any single doctrine than in the way these doctrines mutually support one another as a coherent programme of exegesis, practice, and Pure Land soteriology.

1. Introduction

As a pivotal patriarch who bridged earlier and later developments within the Pure Land school, Shandao played a decisive role1 in advancing both Pure Land Buddhism and the broader course of Chinese Buddhist history. Having studied under Daochuo (Y. Chen 2000, pp. 174–78), the dingshan (meditative good: visualisation and concentration practices undertaken in meditative absorption) and sanshan (non-meditative good: ethical and merit-making practices not dependent on meditative absorption) practices he championed, together with the vocal recitation of Amitābha Buddha’s name, became normative standards of cultivation followed by Pure Land monks in later generations. His celebrated Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra in Four Fascicles is particularly renowned because it did more than annotate the scripture or classify its passages: it formulated responses to doctrinal controversies that had circulated since the Northern and Southern Dynasties. For this reason, the present article is not framed as another general exposition of Shandao’s Pure Land thought, nor as a rediscovery of his interest in buddha-contemplation. It asks a narrower and more analytical question: how did the Commentary organise contemplative practice, scriptural hermeneutics, the ontology of Amitābha’s land, and the status of ordinary beings into one doctrinal structure? The answer, I argue, is where the constructive originality of Shandao’s Commentary is most clearly visible.

Prior Scholarship, Research Gap, and the Aims of the Present Study

A critical review of the field makes one point unmistakable: the claim that Shandao emphasised guanfo (contemplation or visualisation of the Buddha), visualisation, and samādhi is not new. Pas’s monograph on Shandao’s Commentary (Pas 1995) already showed that the dingshan/sanshan gates form the architectural core of the work and that contemplation occupies a central, not auxiliary, place in his soteriology. Tanaka’s study of the early Contemplation Sūtra commentarial tradition (Tanaka 1990) placed Shandao in a continuous exegetical lineage with Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523–592), Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), and Jizang 吉藏 (549–624). Stevenson’s studies of Chinese Buddhist samādhi and Pure Land worship (Stevenson 1986, 1995), Sharf’s analysis of Chan/Pure Land relations (Sharf 2002), Jones’s synthetic accounts of Chinese Pure Land practice (Jones 2019, 2021), and Inagaki’s annotated English translations of Shandao’s Method of Contemplating Amitābha Buddha’s Ocean-like Marks (Inagaki 1999, 2000, 2001) likewise make clear that Shandao’s Pure Land was never reducible to vocal nianfo alone. This article therefore explicitly takes the contemplative dimension of Shandao’s thought as established scholarship rather than presenting it as a discovery.

Chinese-language and Japanese scholarship have provided an equally important foundation. Mochizuki’s history of Chinese Pure Land doctrine (Mochizuki 2004), Chen Yangjong’s general history of the Chinese Pure Land school (Y. Chen 2000), Liu Changdong’s study of Amitābha devotion from the Jin through Tang periods (Liu 2000), and Shengkai’s work on Jin-Tang Amitābha Pure Land thought and belief (Shengkai 2009) all situate Shandao within the long formation of Chinese Pure Land doctrine, practice, and devotional culture. Their value lies in the broad historical map they provide; their limitation for the present problem is that, by design, they tend to treat Shandao’s contemplation, nianfo, repentance, rebirth theory, and doctrinal classification as serial themes within a larger history rather than as mutually dependent parts of a single exegetical argument in the Commentary.

Specialist studies have illuminated several of those parts in depth. Shibata’s work on Shandao’s critique of earlier masters and his multi-volume study of Shandao’s teaching (Shibata 2000, 2006, 2014, 2021) remain indispensable for understanding how the Commentary positions itself against Huiyuan, Zhiyi, Jizang, and other predecessors. Chen Zongyuan’s study of Shandao’s Buddha-body doctrine (Z. Chen 2015) has shown how his interpretation of the contemplated Buddha differs from consciousness-only dharma-body and inherent buddha-nature readings. More recent studies have further sharpened the context: Blum (2026) has traced how Nirvāṇa-sūtra themes and the category of ordinary beings entered early Contemplation Sūtra exegesis, while Deng (2026) has shown how Huai’gan developed an inclusive Pure Land vision from Shandao’s inheritance. These works supply the necessary building blocks for the present article, but most of them examine one doctrinal dossier at a time: contemplation, criticism of earlier commentators, Buddha-body theory, ordinary beings, or later reception.

A further intervention is crucial for the present argument. Ducor’s review of Pas’s Visions of Sukhāvatī accepts the importance of Pas’s use of Chinese sources but argues that Pas misses Shandao’s intention when he isolates the Contemplation Sūtra from the Larger Sūtra and underestimates Shandao’s rewording of Amitābha’s vow in terms of pronouncing the Name (Ducor 1999). This critique shifts the issue from a simple opposition between contemplation and recitation to Shandao’s hermeneutic reconfiguration of nian 念 as embodied vocal nianfo 念佛. The present article therefore incorporates this point into the discussion of ‘birth through ten recitations’ below, while still maintaining that Shandao’s originality is best understood as the coordination of vocal nianfo, contemplative taxonomy, scriptural proof, reward-land ontology, and the inclusion of ordinary beings.

The gap addressed here is therefore not the absence of studies on Shandao, nor the absence of studies on buddha-contemplation. It is the absence of a sustained reconstruction of how the four commitments most decisive in the Commentary mutually support one another: (i) the dingshan/sanshan taxonomy of practice; (ii) the rebuttal of the Yogācāra charge that ‘birth through ten recitations’ is merely bieshi yi (‘different-time intention,’ a hermeneutical category in which a scriptural promise is understood as fulfilled at another time); (iii) the identification of Amitābha’s land as a baotu 報土 (reward land or recompense land) rather than a transformation land; and (iv) the claim that the upper- and middle-grade rebirths in the Contemplation Sūtra refer to Mahāyāna ordinary beings rather than only to bodhisattvas or sages. Reconstructing this network allows the article to move beyond description and to identify the specific logic by which Shandao converted inherited exegetical materials into a distinctively inclusive Pure Land soteriology.

Three specific contributions follow. First, the article shows that Shandao’s defence of ‘birth through ten recitations’ is a hermeneutic strategy, not merely a doctrinal assertion: he privileges the direct warrant of the Contemplation Sūtra and the testimony of ‘all the buddhas’ over a treatise-based Yogācāra reading. Second, it clarifies that his identification of the upper- and middle-grade beings as ordinary beings is not a loose universalist slogan, but a shift in classificatory criterion from level of attainment to modality of practice. Third, it reads the three minds, five gates of mindfulness, and four modes of practice in Shandao’s later liturgical writings as the practical completion of the doctrinal architecture built in the Commentary. The remainder of the article proceeds on this basis: Section 2 reconstructs the dingshan/sanshan division as the structural starting point; Section 3 shows how it interlocks with rebirth, reward-land, and ordinary-beings doctrine; Section 4 traces its practical extension in Shandao’s later works; and Section 5 defines the resulting contribution to the intellectual history of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism.

2. Shandao’s Distinction Between Dingshan and Sanshan Practice

Building on the scholarship reviewed above, this section does not treat Shandao’s emphasis on visualisation as a new finding. It reconstructs, instead, how his division of dingshan and sanshan practice functions within the Commentary as the first tier of a larger exegetical architecture. The distinction does not merely taxonomise the sixteen contemplations; it provides the practical ground on which his rebirth theory, reward-land doctrine, and thesis of ordinary beings’ eligibility will subsequently rest. In response to the interpretive judgements of earlier masters,2 Shandao advances his own position. From the very outset of his exegesis of the Contemplation Sūtra’s title, he declared:3

As for the essential gate, it is precisely the two gates of dingshan and sanshan practice in this Contemplation Sūtra. ‘dingshan’ means stilling discursive thought so as to concentrate the mind; ‘sanshan’ means abandoning evil so as to cultivate good. One directs these two kinds of practice toward the aspiration for birth.

其要門者，即此《觀經》定、散二門是也。定即息慮以凝心，散即廢惡以修善，回斯二行求願往生也。

Here Shandao explicitly articulated the framework of dingshan and sanshan practice within the Contemplation Sūtra. Although Jingying Huiyuan had previously mentioned these two categories,4 Shandao’s definitions of them differed fundamentally. In his usage, “Ding” denotes what is fixed, essential, and indispensable—the practices that must be undertaken for birth in the Pure Land. “San” refers to auxiliary conditions—practices that may be performed partially or not at all, and whose cultivation alone cannot guarantee birth. By defining “Ding” as “stilling discursive thought so as to concentrate the mind”—that is, ceasing discriminative thinking and focusing the mind single-pointedly on a single object—Shandao described a state entirely consistent with the classical accounts of meditative absorption (dhyāna)5. (Gethin 1998, pp. 174–84) His concluding statement directs the practitioner to dedicate the merit of both dingshan and sanshan practice toward the vow for birth in the Pure Land. He further explained:6

Question: What is meant by ‘dingshan’? What is meant by ‘sanshan’? Answer: From the sun contemplation down through the thirteenth contemplation, these are called dingshan. The three meritorious acts and the nine grades are called sanshan.

問曰：云何名定善？云何名散善？答曰：從日觀下至十三觀已來名為定善，三福九品名為散善。

What Shandao designated as the ‘dingshan gate’ thus comprises the first thirteen of the sixteen contemplations. Pas points out that this interpretive schema of Shandao forms the core framework of his entire commentary (Pas 1995, p. 180), thereby revealing that he by no means discarded contemplative visualisation practices centred on mental imagery.Drawing on the eighth contemplation as an illustration, he wrote:7

As for the ‘provisional direct reward’, this refers to the eighth contemplation—the image contemplation. Avalokiteśvara, Mahāsthāmaprāpta, and the rest are likewise included. Because sentient beings’ obstructions are heavy and their defilements run deep, the Buddha feared that if they were to attempt direct visualization of the true form, it could by no means manifest. He therefore had them provisionally establish a true image upon which to fix the mind in contemplation, so as to certify a state identical to that of the Buddha. Hence the term ‘provisional direct reward’. Through this provisional direct, discursive thoughts are gradually stilled and the mind’s eye opens. One coarsely perceives the various kinds of adornment of the pure twofold reward in that land, thereby dispelling confusion. Because obstructions are thus removed, one comes to see the true and real marks of that realm.

言假正報者，即第八像觀是也。觀音、勢至等亦如是，此由眾生障重染惑處深，佛恐乍想真容無由顯現，故使假立真像以住心想，同彼佛以證境，故言假正報。此由前假正，漸以息於亂想、心眼得開，粗見彼方清淨二報種種莊嚴以除昏惑，由除障故得見彼真實之境相也。

In discussing the relationship between mind and Buddha in the eighth contemplation, Shandao did not—as earlier masters had done—approach the matter through the lens of the dharmadhātu or tathāgatagarbha. Instead, he analysed it from the standpoint of the zhengbao 正報 (the personal or body aspect of karmic recompense), distinguishing two levels, true and provisional, in the image contemplated by the practitioner (Z. Chen 2015). Because sentient beings are weighed down by heavy karmic obstructions and incessant afflictions, they cannot perceive the direct-reward Buddha manifested by the undefiled buddha-mind. The sūtra therefore adopts the pedagogical strategy of “fixing the mind in contemplation” by having them “provisionally establish the true.” The expression “fixing the mind in contemplation” refers to the passage in the Contemplation Sūtra that states: “All buddhas, the tathāgatas, are dharmadhātu bodies who pervade and enter the mental contemplation of all sentient beings.”8 Shandao held that through visualisation of the provisional direct reward, one can gradually enter a state of meditative concentration, extinguishing deluded thoughts and thereby coarsely perceiving the splendours of that pure land, eradicating the mental poisons of greed, hatred, and ignorance, and ultimately beholding the true realm. Mochizuki points out that Shandao’s argument concerning the rebirth of ordinary beings in the Reward Land is pioneering in the doctrinal history of Pure Land teaching (Mochizuki 2004, pp. 94–95). Regarding the previously noted distinction between dingshan and sanshan practice, Shandao posed a question to himself about the precise difference and answered as follows:9

Answer: As for ‘from what text?’—the sūtra says ‘teach me contemplation, teach me right reception (samāpatti)’—this is that text. As for the distinction, there are two meanings: first, siwei 思惟 (preparatory contemplation); second, zhengshou 正受 (Skt. samāpatti, meditative absorption). ‘Contemplation’ refers to the preparatory method prior to the formal visualization—thinking upon and contemplating the general and particular characteristics of the twofold reward, both dependent and direct, in that land. Thus, in the text on the earth contemplation, it says, ‘A contemplation such as this is called a coarse perception of the Land of Utmost Bliss’—this corresponds to ‘teach me contemplation’ above. ‘Right reception’ means that the thinking mind is entirely stilled, discursive awareness altogether ceases, and one accords with samādhi—this is called right reception. Thus, in the text on the earth contemplation, it says, ‘If one attains samādhi, one sees the ground of that land with perfect clarity’—this corresponds to ‘teach me right reception’ above. Although dingshan and sanshan differ in these two senses, together they answer the question posed above.

答曰：出何文者，經言‘教我思惟教我正受’，即是其文。言差別者，即有二義：一謂思惟，二謂正受。言思惟者，即是觀前方便，思想彼國依正二報總別相也。即地觀文中說言‘如此想者名為粗見極樂國土’，即合上‘教我思惟’一句。言正受者，想心都息緣慮並亡，三昧相應名為正受。即地觀文中說言‘若得三昧見彼國地瞭瞭分明’，即合上‘教我正受’一句。定散雖有二義不同，總答上問竟。

To demonstrate that the dingshan/sanshan framework was not his own invention, Shandao once again grounded his explanation in the sūtra itself. He disaggregated “contemplation” (siwei) and “right reception” (zhengshou) as two distinct aspects illuminating the difference between dingshan and sanshan practice. He proposed that “contemplation” constitutes the preparatory fangbian 方便 (Skt. upāya, skillful means) undertaken before the formal visualisation proper, the specific content of which is to think upon the general and particular marks of the twofold reward—both dependent and direct—of that pure land. Citing the earth contemplation, he further explained that this kind of contemplation amounts to a “coarse perception” of Sukhāvatī. Shandao then elucidated “right reception,” defining it as the state in which the thinking mind and discursive awareness are simultaneously extinguished, whereupon one accords with samādhi—this he termed “right reception” (zhengshou). This accords with his earlier explication of the dingshan gate. He then adduced a passage from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra to corroborate his position:10

Moreover, my interpretation differs from that of the earlier masters. Those masters took the single phrase ‘contemplation’ and applied it to the three meritorious acts and nine grades as sanshan, while taking ‘right reception’ as a general heading subsuming all sixteen contemplations as dingshan. Such an interpretation, I submit, is mistaken. Why? As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: ‘Contemplation and right reception are simply alternative names for samādhi.’ This accords with the passage on the earth contemplation here. Given this textual evidence, how could be subsumed under sanshan? Furthermore, when Vaidehī made her request above, she said only ‘teach me to contemplate the place of pure karma.’ She then further requested, ‘teach me contemplation and right reception.’ Although there were two requests, both pertain exclusively to dingshan. As for sanshan, the text contains no request for it at all; it was opened by the Buddha of his own accord. The passage below in the sanshan section that reads ‘and also for all ordinary beings of the future’ and what follows—that is the relevant text.

又向來解者，與諸師不同。諸師將思惟一句，用合三福九品，以為散善；正受一句，用通合十六觀，以為定善。如斯解者將謂不然。何者？如《華嚴經》說：‘思惟正受者，但是三昧之異名’，與此地觀文同。以斯文證，豈得通於散善。又向來韋提上請但言‘教我觀於清淨業處’，次下又請言‘教我思惟正受’，雖有二請，唯是定善。又散善之文，都無請處，但是佛自開。次下散善緣中說云‘亦令未來世一切凡夫’已下，即是其文。

Here Shandao cited the Avataṃsaka Sūtra to establish that “contemplation” and “right reception” are alternative designations for samādhi, arguing that the practice of earlier masters in separating the three meritorious acts and the sixteen contemplations into distinct categories of dingshan and sanshan practice was erroneous.11 He simultaneously pointed out that the contemplative visualisation prescribed in the Contemplation Sūtra belongs to the dingshan gate, which more fully reveals the benefits of its content:12

Proper visualization is the dingshan gate, further displaying the benefits of the nine stages.

正觀即是定門，更顯九章之益。

Shandao further stated:13

‘Teach me contemplation’ refers to the preparatory method prior to meditative concentration—thinking upon and recollecting the four kinds of adornment of the twofold reward, both dependent and direct, in that land. ‘Teach me right reception’ means that through the preceding contemplative thought, gradually grows subtle; perceptual awareness altogether ceases, and only the concentrated mind merges with the object that appeared before—this is called right reception.

言教我思惟者，即是定前方便。思想憶念彼國依、正二報、四種莊嚴也。言教我正受者，此明因前思想漸漸微細覺想俱亡，唯有定心與前境合，名為正受。

Here, elaborating on “right reception,” he described how discursive thought is extinguished and the mind unites with the visualised object. Williams has argued that the visualisation of the Buddha occupies a central position within the Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition (Williams 2009, pp. 209–12). Shandao continued:14

Third, this clarifies that Vaidehī and sentient beings of the future who have the requisite conditions, when they fix their minds in contemplative recollection and the dingshan state accords with the object, will naturally and constantly see the Buddha.

三、明韋提等及未來有緣眾生注心觀念，定境相應，行人自然常見。

Shandao’s commentary reveals his persistent emphasis on how meditative right reception assists the practitioner in breaking through afflictions. He pointed out that when Vaidehī and future beings with the appropriate karmic connections focus their minds in contemplation and the meditative state manifests, they will naturally accord with it. After Vaidehī requested to behold the buddha-lands and chose the land of Amitābha, she further requested instruction in the practice of meditative right reception:15

From where the Buddha tells Vaidehī, down to ‘contemplate the western direction’—this is the general admonition and exhortation. This clarifies that Vaidehī previously requested to see the land of Amitābha and further requested the practice of right reception.

從佛告韋提下，至想於西方已來，正明總告總勸。此明韋提前請彌陀佛國，又請正受之行。

Shandao indicated that from the moment Vaidehī first sought birth in a place of pure karma, the Buddha guided her to the pure abode and instructed her in the practice of contemplative right reception. Shandao then expounded on the practice of right reception itself:16

The words ‘you should single-mindedly concentrate’ and what follows clarify that sentient beings are scattered and restless—their consciousness is more agile than an ape, and the mind ranges over the six sense-objects without a moment’s pause. Because conditions are manifold, contact with objects gives rise to covetous and deluded thoughts. How, then, can one settle the mind in samādhi? Unless one relinquishes external conditions, entrusts oneself to stillness, maintains continuous mindfulness, and directs one’s attention straight toward the West—excluding the other nine realms. Therefore, with one body, one mind, one dedication of merit, one place, one object, one continuity, one refuge, and one right mindfulness, this is called ‘accomplishment of contemplation’ and ‘attainment of right reception’. In this life and in the life to come, liberation follows the mind.

言應當專心已下，此明眾生散動，識劇猿猴，心遍六塵，無由暫息。但以境緣非一，觸目起貪亂想，安心三昧何容可得？自非捨緣托靜，相續注心，直指西方簡餘九域。是以一身、一心、一回向、一處、一境界、一相續、一歸依、一正念，是名想成就，得正受。此世後生，隨心解脫也。

Shandao explained that the reason one must abide in the present moment of thought and action is that sentient beings, buffeted by the six sense-objects, possess a consciousness as restless as an ape’s—perpetually shifting, with deluded thoughts ceaselessly in flux, rendering the mind unable to settle in samādhi. External stimuli and the six sense-faculties constantly generate all manner of deluded ideation. This contemplative method therefore enables the mind to remain unbroken and continuously focused on a single point—be it one body, one mind, one place, one object, and so forth. If one can practise in this manner, one can achieve contemplative success in any of these modes and attain samādhi right reception. The concluding phrase is particularly noteworthy: accomplishment in contemplation enables “liberation following the mind.” Regarding the Chan implications of Shandao’s expression “liberation following the mind,” it should also be noted that early Chan masters (such as Daoxin and Shenxiu) did not reject the recitation of the Buddha’s name, but rather interpreted it in terms of ‘to recite the Buddha is precisely to recollect the mind’ (Sharf 2002). From Shandao’s standpoint, this expression refers to the capacity of one who has attained samādhi to be reborn, in accordance with one’s own conditions and aspirations, in any of the buddha-lands across the ten directions—not exclusively in the Western Pure Land. Such a mode of expression carries distinct resonances with the Chan tradition17. From a Chan perspective, phrases such as “freedom following the mind” (suixin zizai 隨心自在) and “spontaneous functioning following the mind” (suixin renyun 隨心任運) are commonly employed to describe the mental state and mode of engagement with the world of a practitioner who has awakened to the true nature of mind—one whose mind is no longer constrained but operates freely in liberation. Shandao’s use of “liberation following the mind” to interpret the practice of buddha-contemplation in the Contemplation Sūtra is quite distinctive. He continued:18

Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, whether performing obeisance, reciting, or recollecting and contemplating—if one constantly maintains this understanding, before long one will attain mental concentration and see the joyous splendours of that pure land.

若行住坐臥，禮念憶想，常作此解。不久之間，即得定心，見彼淨土之事快樂莊嚴.

So long as one recollects and contemplates the excellent marks of the Buddha throughout the four postures19 of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, one will swiftly attain meditative absorption and perceive the pure adornments of that land. The notion that walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all nothing other than meditative absorption is an extremely common theme in the discourse of the Chan tradition (Bai 2017). Shandao indicated that to achieve meditative concentration, one must engage in mental contemplation at every moment. He then proceeded to elaborate further on how walking, standing, sitting, and lying down all constitute meditative absorption:20

Whether day or night, whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down—body, speech, and mind are constantly united with concentration. If only one relinquishes the myriad concerns and becomes like one who has lost awareness, like a deaf and blind simpleton, then this concentration will certainly be easily attained. If one does not practise in this way, the three kinds of karma follow conditions and shift; contemplative thought drifts with the waves. Even if one lived a thousand years, the Dharma-eye would never open. When the mind attains concentration, one may first see a bright sign appear, or first behold jewelled ground and other marvellous and inconceivable things. There are two kinds of seeing: first, seeing through contemplative thought—because awareness still persists, although one perceives the pure realm, it is not yet fully clear. Second, when both inner and outer awareness are extinguished, one enters right-reception samādhi. The pure realm seen at this point is not a product of contemplative thought and cannot be compared with the first kind.

無問日夜，行、住、坐、臥、身、口、意業常與定合。唯萬事俱捨，由如失意聾盲癡人者，此定必即易得。若不如是，三業隨緣轉，定想逐波飛，縱盡千年壽，法眼未曾開。若心得定時，或先有明相現，或可先見寶地等種種分明不思議者。有二種見。一者想見，猶有知覺故，雖見淨境，未多明瞭。二者若內外覺滅，即入正受三昧，所見淨境即非想見，得為比校也。

Shandao explained that through recollective contemplation in the four postures, one’s body, speech, and mind unconsciously merge with meditative concentration—as if one had lost the awareness of the six sense-faculties, with the mind single-pointedly fixed on one object, making absorption more readily attainable. If one fails to concentrate on a single matter and on the excellent marks of the Buddha, one’s own deluded thoughts will cause the three kinds of karma to drift with conditions, the mind’s delusions proliferating while the body ceaselessly creates further karma. When the mind attains concentration, a bright sign first appears, followed by the various supreme visions of Sukhāvatī described in the sūtra. This constitutes the first level of seeing—a “coarse perception.” Although one perceives the pure realm, it remains as yet unclear. The second kind occurs when both the perceiving subject and the perceived object, inner and outer, are extinguished, and one enters right-reception samādhi. The pure realm that then manifests is not produced through mere contemplative thought but is the pure vision that appears once the mind itself has become purified and thoroughly illuminated. Stevenson points out that the pure visions manifested in Buddhist samādhi are essentially different from the phenomena produced in ordinary visualisation. (Stevenson 1995) Beyond these aspects, Shandao also discussed buddha-contemplation from the perspective of the relationship between the dharmadhātu and the realm of sentient beings:21

In order to reveal that all buddhas equally certify the three bodies, that their compassion and wisdom are fully perfected, and that they are without duality, sitting upright in a single seat, casts reflections without limit, directing his intention toward those with the requisite conditions and arriving at the dharmadhātu at the appropriate time. The term ‘dharmadhātu’ carries three meanings: first, it is understood as the dharmadhātu because the mind pervades all; second, because the body pervades all; and third, because there is no obstruction. It is precisely because the mind reaches everywhere that the body likewise follows—the body follows the mind; hence the term ‘dharmadhātu body’. ‘Dharmadhātu’ here refers to the realm to be transformed—namely, the realm of sentient beings. ‘Body’ refers to the body that effects transformation—namely, the body of the buddhas. ‘Entering the mental contemplation of sentient beings’ means that when sentient beings give rise to the thought of wishing to see the buddhas, the Buddha, with unobstructed wisdom, knows this and is able to enter their contemplative mind and manifest therein. Whenever practitioners see the Buddha—whether in contemplative thought, in dreams, or in meditative absorption—the meaning described here is fulfilled.

欲顯諸佛三身同證，悲智果圓，等齊無二。端身一坐，影現無方，意赴有緣，時臨法界。言法界者，有三義：一者心遍故解法界，二者身遍故解法界，三者無障礙故解法界。正由心到故身亦隨到，身隨於心，故言是法界身也。言法界者，是所化之境，即眾生界也。言身者，是能化之身，即諸佛身也。言入眾生心想中者，乃由眾生起念願見諸佛，佛即以無礙智知，即能入彼想心中現。但諸行者，若想念中、若夢定中見佛者，即成斯義也。

Regarding the meaning of “dharmadhātu,” Shandao identified three senses: first, that the mind pervades the dharmadhātu; second, that the body pervades the dharmadhātu; and third, unobstructedness. Among these, the relationship between body and mind is inseparable. The dharmadhātu is also the realm of sentient beings—the two are without distinction—and therefore the dharmadhātu body is the body of sentient beings. When the mind contemplates the Buddha, wherever the mind reaches, the body also reaches. Thus the realm of sentient beings is the buddha-realm, and the body of sentient beings is the body of the buddhas. It is because sentient beings aspire through the mind to recollect the buddhas that the Buddha, with the undefiled mind and unobstructed wisdom, responds to these conditions and enters the minds of sentient beings throughout the dharmadhātu. When contemplating the splendid marks of the Buddha—through visualising the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks—the buddhas pervade the minds of sentient beings, certifying that the mind itself is the Buddha, and that, like all buddhas, both mind and body pervade the dharmadhātu. As noted earlier, Jingying Huiyuan22 and Jizang 23 both treated the dharma-body contemplation as a form of equal wisdom regarding the object-field. Shandao absorbed this perspective, holding that when contemplation proceeds from the dharmadhātu and the realm of sentient beings, one perceives that all sentient beings enter the dharmadhātu24—this constitutes equal wisdom regarding the object-field. Scriptural support for this position can be found as well:25

From within the realm of sentient beings arise differentiated names; when one contemplates the dharmadhātu and the realm of sentient beings, one does not see these differentiated marks. One sees that the realm of sentient beings is exhausted and enters the dharmadhātu; one sees the dharmadhātu as the path of equality, the path of the buddha-dharma, the path in which sentient beings cannot be apprehended, and the path of the equal wisdom of sentient beings.

從眾生界有差別名，觀察法界眾生界時，不見是差別相，見眾生界盡，入法界見法界是平等道、佛法道，是眾生不可得道，眾生平等智道。

Shandao then discussed the meaning of shi xin shi fo 是心是佛 (this mind is the Buddha), largely following the argumentative pattern set out earlier but with one notable difference—he rejected certain views advanced by previous commentators on this sūtra. Shandao maintained that earlier monks’ interpretation of the contemplative method as either weishi fashen guan 唯識法身觀 (contemplation of the consciousness-only dharma-body) or zixing qingjing foxing guan 自性清淨佛性觀 (contemplation of inherently pure buddha-nature) was mistaken, and he argued that both positions were in error:26

From ‘therefore you and others’ down to ‘arises from mental contemplation’—this is the concluding exhortation on benefits. This clarifies that when the mind contemplates the Buddha, one should form only the understanding of the Buddha. From the crown of the head to the feet, the mind contemplates without relinquishing—examining each mark one by one, without a moment’s rest. Whether contemplating the mark on the crown, the white curl between the brows, or the thousand-spoked wheel mark on the soles of the feet—when one performs this contemplation, the image of the Buddha, dignified, with excellent marks complete, manifests with perfect clarity. This occurs because the mind takes up each mark in succession, and as each mark is taken up, each mark manifests. If the mind does not take up, the various marks cannot be seen. It is merely through the mind’s contemplative activity that responds to the mind and appears. Therefore one says, ‘this mind is precisely the thirty-two marks.’ ‘The eighty minor marks’—once the buddha’s major marks have manifested, all the minor marks follow. This is precisely the Tathāgata’s instruction that contemplators should perform a complete visualization. ‘This mind creates the Buddha’means that, relying on one’s own faith-mind, one takes up the marks as if creating. ‘This mind is the Buddha’ means that the mind is able to contemplate the Buddha and the buddha-body manifests in dependence on that contemplation—this is the mind-Buddha. Apart from this mind, there is no other Buddha. ‘All buddhas are possessed of right and universal knowledge’—this clarifies that the buddhas have attained the perfect, unobstructed wisdom by which they constantly and universally know the minds within the dharmadhātu, whether intentionally or not. As long as one engages in contemplation, the Buddha manifests from within your contemplative mind, appearing as if born. Some practitioners take this single gate’s meaning and make of it ‘the contemplation of the consciousness-only dharma-body’ or ‘the contemplation of the inherently pure buddha-nature’—such an understanding is gravely mistaken and bears not the slightest resemblance to the sūtra’s meaning. Since the text speaks of contemplating images and provisionally establishing the thirty-two marks, how could the Zhenru 真如 (Skt. tathatā, thusness) dharma-body—the dharmadhātu—possess marks that can be taken as objects, or a body that can be grasped? The dharma-body is without form and beyond the reach of the eye; there is nothing with which it can be compared. Therefore empty space is taken as a simile for the essence of the dharma-body. Moreover, the contemplative gates discussed here exclusively point toward a specific direction and establish marks, fixing the mind and apprehending an object—they never expound the formless or advocate departure from conceptual thought. The Tathāgata, knowing in advance that ordinary beings in the age of the Declining Dharma, burdened with transgressions and defilements, can scarcely succeed even when establishing marks to fix the mind—how much less could they seek by departing from marks? It would be like a person without magical powers trying to build a house in mid-air.

從是故汝等下，至從心想生已來，正明結勸利益。此明標心想佛，但作佛解。從頂至足心想不捨，一一觀之，無暫休息。或想頂相，或想眉間白毫，乃至足下千輪之相。作此想時，佛像端嚴相好，具足了然而現。乃由心緣，一一相故，即一一相現。心若不緣，眾相不可見。但自心想作，即應心而現。故言是心，即是三十二相也。言八十隨形好者，佛相既現，眾好皆隨也。此正明如來教，諸想者具足觀也。言是心作佛者，依自信心，緣相如作也。言是心是佛者，心能想佛，依想佛身而現，即是心佛也。離此心外，更無異佛者也。言諸佛正遍知者，此明諸佛得圓滿無障礙智，作意不作意，常能遍知法界之心。但能作想，即從汝心想而現，似如生也。或有行者，將此一門之義，作唯識法身之觀，或作自性清淨佛性觀者，其意甚錯，絕無少分相似也。既言想像，假立三十二相者，真如法界，身豈有相而可緣，有身而可取也。然法身無色，絕於眼對，更無類可方，故取虛空以喻法身之體也。又今此觀門等，唯指方立相，住心而取境，總不明無相離念也。如來懸知末代罪濁凡夫，立相住心尚不能得，何況離相而求事者。如似無術通人，居空立捨也。

Shandao first expounded how to contemplate the Buddha, maintaining that the Buddha perceived through such practice is the mind’s own creation, manifesting in response to the mind. Because the Buddha’s major marks appear, all the other excellent marks follow. The buddhas and tathāgatas pervade the minds of sentient beings, demonstrating that when the mind of sentient beings accords with and corresponds to the mind of all buddhas, Shandao rejected the interpretation of buddha-contemplation as either the consciousness-only dharma-body contemplation or the inherently pure buddha-nature contemplation. From the standpoint of the dharmadhātu of thusness, he argued, there are no marks to be apprehended and no body to be grasped. The dharma-body is without form or marks; if one takes buddha-contemplation to mean the dharma-body as a transformation of consciousness, this is incorrect. The so-called “contemplation of the consciousness-only dharma-body”:

Apart from the tathāgatagarbha mind there are no other dharmas; that is to say, the tathāgatagarbha mind, although entangled by afflictions, has no other dharmas apart from itself. Accordingly, since all dharmas are already consciousness-only, the dharma-body of all buddhas and the tathāgatagarbha mind in bondage are one and the same; that is, apart from consciousness-only there is no dharma-body. Therefore one may contemplate the Buddha as identical with one’s own mind-nature (Ciyi 2005, p. 4428).

離開如來藏心，無餘法之意，亦即如來藏心，雖為煩惱所纏縛，然除此無餘法。依之，可謂既已為唯識，則諸佛之法身，與在纏如來藏心同為一體，亦即離唯識無法身，故得以觀佛與自己心性為一體。

The consciousness-only dharma-body contemplation holds that the tathāgatagarbha mind and afflictions are co-extensive, and that apart from consciousness-only there is no dharma-body. The inherently pure buddha-nature contemplation holds that sentient beings originally possess buddha-nature, stainless and undefiled. The Foxing lun 佛性論 (Treatise on Buddha-Nature) states:27

Buddha-nature has two kinds: the first is the nature that abides in its own essence.

佛性有二種，一者住自性性。

As the Qixin lun 起信論 (Treatise on the Awakening of Faith) explains, the inherently pure mind is stirred by the wind of ignorance; if one contemplates all dharmas as flowing from the mind and contemplates the original nature of the mind as stained by defilements, the inherently pure buddha-nature naturally reveals itself. Shandao’s critique was directed at Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi (Shibata 2000) on the grounds that these earlier masters had overestimated the spiritual capacity of sentient beings. He argued that if sentient beings can scarcely succeed even in the relatively elementary practice of “pointing toward a direction and establishing marks,” how much less could they practise through “departing from marks.” Shandao then summarised the benefits of contemplation:28

From ‘the one who sees these things’ down to ‘embracing all sentient beings’—this sets forth the merits that are not lost and the benefits of contemplation that are thereby accomplished. There are five: first, through contemplation one perceives the buddhas of the ten directions; second, because one perceives the buddhas, the result is the accomplishment of Nianfo sanmei 念佛三昧 (buddha-recollection samādhi; Skt. buddhānusmṛti-samādhi); third, by contemplating one buddha, one thereby contemplates the body of all buddhas; fourth, because one sees the buddha’s body, one thereby sees the buddha’s mind; fifth, the buddha’s mind has compassion as its essence, and with this equal great compassion it universally embraces all beings.

從見此事者下，至攝諸眾生已來，正明功呈不失、觀益得成。即有其五：一、明因觀得見十方諸佛；二、明以見諸佛，故結成念佛三昧；三、明但觀一佛，即觀一切佛身也；四、明由見佛身，故即見佛心也；五、明佛心者慈悲為體，以此平等大慈普攝一切也。

Shandao pointed out that contemplating one buddha and one pure land leads to perceiving the buddhas of the ten directions—this “samādhi of all buddhas appearing before one” is precisely buddha-recollection samādhi. He held that contemplating the body of one buddha is tantamount to perceiving the body of all buddhas, and that seeing the buddha’s body entails seeing the buddha’s mind—thereby circling back once more to the question of the mind–buddha relationship. As for Shandao’s own formulation of single-minded recitation of the name,29 he subsumed it within the category of meditative concentration:30

Furthermore, within these correct practices, there are again two kinds: the first is single-mindedly reciting exclusively the name of Amitābha—whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, without regard to the length of time, recollection after recollection without relinquishing—this is called the zhengding zhi ye 正定之業 (karmically assured practice or rightly settled act), because it accords with the vow of that Buddha.

又就此正中，複有二種：一者一心專念彌陀名號，行住坐臥不問時節久近，念念不捨者，是名正定之業，順彼佛願故。

Here, “correct” denotes zhengxing 正行 (correct or right practice). Shandao maintained that single-minded recitation of the name—practised while walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, recollection after recollection without interruption—constitutes zhengding 正定 (right concentration or right assurance). Considered in context, the phrase “recollection after recollection without relinquishing” may well retain a contemplative-visualisation component. The foregoing discussion demonstrates that Shandao’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra contains a detailed treatment of the relationship between buddha-contemplation and meditative absorption. The content he expounded—whether in terms of its doctrinal substance or its methods of cultivation—exhibits a distinctive character that belies the common perception of Shandao as a figure chiefly concerned with the vocal recitation of the Buddha’s name. Beyond this, Shandao also discussed the efficacy of contemplation in extinguishing karmic transgressions:31

This practice of fixing the mind and beholding the jewelled ground extinguishes the transgressions and hindrances of previous existences. When the karma of vow and practice has been perfected, there can be no doubt that one will be born in the Pure Land at the end of one’s life. Having now contemplated these supreme benefits, one is further encouraged to discern the true from the false.

斯乃注心見於寶地，即滅宿障罪僣。願行之業已圓，命盡無疑不往。今既觀斯勝益，更勸辨知邪正。

Shandao held that through contemplation one can extinguish the karmic transgressions of past lives. By comparing the “five essentials” structure in Huiyuan’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra with the “seven gates” in Shandao’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, Kenneth K. Tanaka points out that although both take “Buddha-contemplation samādhi” as the sūtra’s central purport, they differ in their concrete emphases and structuring of the causal practices; while inheriting Huiyuan’s framework, Shandao at the same time rearticulates and highlights the salvific functions of both “Buddha-contemplation samādhi” and “Buddha-recollection samādhi” (Tanaka 1990, pp. 94–97). Because the Bodhisattva Dharmākara’s vow-practice was already perfected and he had become a buddha and established the Western Land of Utmost Bliss, anyone who truly aspires to birth and engages in contemplative practice will assuredly be reborn after death. He also stated:32

Furthermore, ‘pure’ means that by relying on the contemplative gates described below, single-mindedly recollecting the Buddha and directing one’s contemplative attention toward the West, recollection after recollection karmic transgressions are extinguished—hence ‘pure’.

又言清淨者，依下觀門，專心念佛，注想西方，念念罪除，故清淨也。

Here again he affirmed that through contemplation directed toward the West, recollection after recollection of karmic transgressions can be eradicated, yielding pure karma. The foregoing constitutes Shandao’s doctrinal assessment of buddha-contemplation thought within his commentary.

Shandao’s thought on buddha-contemplation profoundly reveals the internal connections between contemplative-meditative visualisation and the core doctrines and practices of Buddhism. He emphasised that through buddha-contemplation one can achieve the extinguishing of karmic transgressions, thereby opening the gate to purity. In his discussion of the relationship between buddha-contemplation and prajñā, Shandao approached the matter from the angle of the direct reward—that is, the splendid bodily form of the Buddha—arguing that the meditative function achieved through buddha-contemplation can effectively eradicate afflictions and assist sentient beings in reaching a state of single-minded concentration in accord with meditative absorption. He further indicated that to certify this right-reception samādhi, one must abide in the present moment, whereupon one attains “liberation following the mind” and realises the efficacy of perceiving one’s original mind throughout the four postures of daily life. Regarding buddha-contemplation and samādhi, Shandao’s thought revolved around dingshan and sanshan practice, maintaining that the samādhi obtained through cultivation of the sixteen contemplations constitutes the correct practice for birth in the Pure Land. Finally, in the context of buddha-contemplation and the tathāgatagarbha, Shandao introduced the principle that the Buddha may be contemplated in all four postures, bringing body, speech, and mind into unity with meditative concentration. Through his probing inquiry into the relationship between the dharmadhātu and the realm of sentient beings, he once again clarified the relationship between the realm of sentient beings and the buddha-realm, underscoring the inseparability of “the mind itself is the Buddha” and meditative practice.

3. Shandao’s Interpretation of Birth in the Pure Land: “Birth in the Reward Land” and “Assured Birth Through Ten Recitations”

Shandao’s assessment of the doctrine of birth in the Pure Land unfolds along several axes. The first concerns what may be termed the temporal dimension. In this article, “bieshi yi” refers to the technical Shelun 攝論 category of bieshi yi rather than to the looser expression bieshi yi 別時義33 (different-time meaning). In the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and Vasubandhu’s commentary, this category explains scriptural promises whose fulfilment is not immediate but belongs to another time; in Pure Land debate, it was applied to the claim that birth through a vow or through ten recitations would mature only in a later life. Shandao’s target is therefore not a vague semantic ambiguity but this precise Yogācāra/Shelun deferral of the sūtra’s promise. He adopted a position forcefully opposed to the argument advanced in the She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋34 (Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha), subjecting the claim that “birth through ten recitations” represents bieshi yi to vehement criticism and adducing the Amitābha Sūtra as proof:35

The treatise states: ‘As for the person who, merely by making a vow, is born in the Land of Peace and Bliss’—for a long time the commentators in the general discussion have failed to grasp the treatise’s meaning. They erroneously adduce the inferior grade, lowest birth, and the ten vocal recitations of the Buddha’s name, claiming this is analogous: one cannot yet be born immediately. It is like saying that from one gold coin one can eventually obtain a thousand—but only after many days, not in a single day. The ten vocal recitations of the Buddha’s name are likewise, they merely serve as a cause for distant future birth, and therefore one is not yet immediately born. According to this view, the guiding Buddha directly addressed future ordinary beings, wishing them to renounce evil and recite the Buddha’s name, deceptively stating that it leads to birth when in reality birth has not yet been attained—this is called ‘bieshi yi’. But why then does the Amitābha Sūtra say, ‘The Buddha told Śāriputra: If any good man or good woman hears of Amitābha Buddha, they should uphold the name—for one day up to seven days, with single-minded aspiration for birth. When their life is about to end, Amitābha Buddha together with the holy assembly will welcome and escort them to birth.’ And afterward, the buddhas of the ten directions each extended a broad, long tongue, covering the three-thousand great-thousand world and spoke these truthful words, ‘All you sentient beings should accept and believe this sūtra, which all buddhas take under their protection and keep in mind’. What they ‘protect and keep in mind’ is precisely the recitation of the Buddha’s name for one day up to seven days as described in the passage above.

論中說云：如人唯由發願生安樂土者，久來通論之家不會論意，錯引下品下生，十聲稱佛，與此相似，未即得生。如一金錢得成千者，多日乃得，非一日即得成千。十聲稱佛亦複如是，但與遠生作因，是故未即得生。導佛直為當來凡夫，欲令捨惡稱佛，誑言導生，實未得生，名作別時意者。何故《阿彌陀經》云：‘佛告捨利弗：若有善男子、善女人，聞說阿彌陀佛，即應執持名號，一日乃至七日，一心願生。命欲終時，阿彌陀佛與諸聖眾迎接往生。’後十方諸佛皆一一各出廣長舌相，遍覆三千世界如實言說：汝等一切眾生，應信受此經乃一切諸佛所護念經。言護念者，即是上文一日乃至七日稱佛之名也。

Shandao argued that the assertion in the treatise judging “birth through ten recitations” as a “bieshi yi” was a gross error, marshalling as evidence the testimony of the buddhas of the three times who extend their broad, long tongues in attestation. He immediately continued:36

Now there is sacred teaching as proof, yet present-day practitioners of unknown understanding—small-scale treatises and minor compositions they embrace and uphold with special fervour, while the truthful words of all the buddhas they perversely and erroneously take for false speech. How bitter, how extreme! To be capable of uttering such unconscionable words! Be that as it may, I humbly beseech all those who aspire to birth and who possess wisdom: reflect well upon this matter. Better to risk the error in this life of wrongly trusting the Buddha’s words than to take a bodhisattva’s treatise as one’s compass. If one clings to the latter, it is to lose oneself and mislead others.

今有聖教為證明，未查現時行者，不知何解。凡小篇之論著偏加受持，諸佛真誠言，返錯將錯認妄語。苦哉奈劇，能出如此不忍之言。雖然，仰願一切欲往生知識等，善自思量，寧傷今世錯信佛語，不可執菩薩論以為指南。若依此執者，即是自失誤他也。

Shandao delivered a stern rebuke to both the composers of such treatises and those who upheld their claims, asserting that it was unconscionable for ordinary practitioners to distrust the Buddha’s own words and instead place their faith in minor treatises composed by others. To use a bodhisattva’s treatise as one’s guide and cultivate accordingly, he maintained, is an act that harms both oneself and others. He continued:37

This matter cannot be settled by argumentation alone, for those who have accepted it on faith will harbour doubts. It is necessary to adduce sacred teaching to make it clear, so that those who hear it may have their perplexities dispelled.

斯乃不可以言定義，取信之者懷疑。要引聖教來明，欲使聞之者方能遣惑。

Shandao maintained that even if a bodhisattva’s treatise differs from the original intent of the sūtra, one should sooner err on the side of trusting the Buddha’s word than take such a treatise as authoritative. If “accomplishment of ten recitations leads to immediate birth” is judged to be bieshi yi—meaning that “accomplishment of ten recitations” cannot yield “immediate birth”—then it would follow that the Buddha, knowing full well that recitation cannot produce birth, still employed skilful means to guide sentient beings. Shandao regarded this as a grave falsehood. From every conceivable angle of analysis, the reasoning does not hold. Moreover, the Amitābha Sūtra contains the testimony of the buddhas of the six directions, who extend their broad, long tongues to attest to the supreme merit of deathbed recitation. Shandao submitted that even if the Buddha’s words were in error, one should maintain an attitude of unwavering faith. His impassioned rhetoric may appear extreme, but it is consistent with his fundamental soteriological stance.

This debate also reveals a second, and more precise, level of Shandao’s innovation in nianfo theory. The Larger Sūtra formulates Amitābha’s eighteenth vow around ‘even ten thoughts/recitations’ (shinian 十念), a phrase that can be read as mental recollection, aspiration, or recitative practice. Shandao, however, repeatedly clarifies the operative act in vocal terms: the vow is reworded as ‘to pronounce my name’ (cheng wo minghao 稱我名號), and the minimal act is glossed as ‘down to ten sounds’ (xia zhi shi sheng 下至十聲). In other words, Shandao deliberately glosses shinian 十念 as shisheng 十聲 (“ten vocal sounds”), not merely as an interior act of recollection. Ducor rightly identifies this rewording as central to Shandao’s originality and to Hōnen’s later reading of Shandao (Ducor 1999). For the present argument, the point is not to reduce Shandao’s system to vocal recitation alone, but to show that his rebuttal of bieshi yi is simultaneously scriptural, hermeneutic, and practical: the promise of birth is not deferred because the vow has been rearticulated around the Name as a vocal practice that ordinary beings can actually perform, even at the point of death.

Beyond the temporal dimension, Shandao also offered his own position on the long-debated question of whether Amitābha’s Pure Land is a reward land or a transformation land. From the earlier controversies in the Buddhist community to Shandao’s own era, nearly a century had passed, yet no consensus had been reached, and the debate remained fierce.38 Shandao argued that Amitābha’s Pure Land is a reward land and not a transformation land—a position that shares common ground with Daochuo’s theory of ‘ordinary beings entering the reward land.’”39 In presenting his thesis that Amitābha’s Pure Land ‘is reward, not transformation,” Shandao adduced relevant sūtras and treatises as evidence. In his Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra he wrote:40

As the Dasheng tongxing jing 大乘同性經 (Mahāyānābhisamaya-sūtra) states, ‘The Western Land of Peace and Bliss and Amitābha Buddha are the reward-buddha and reward-land’. Furthermore, the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 (Sūtra of Immeasurable Life/Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha) says: When the Bodhisattva Dharmākara was practising the bodhisattva path under the Buddha Lokeśvararāja, he made forty-eight vows. Each vow states: ‘If, when I attain buddhahood, sentient beings of the ten directions who recite my name and aspire to be born in my land—even with as few as ten recitations—if they are not born, may I not attain perfect awakening.’ Since he has now become a buddha, this is a body that recompenses his causal practice. Moreover, the Contemplation Sūtra states that when the three classes of upper-grade beings approach the end of life, Amitābha together with transformation-buddhas comes to welcome them. Since the reward-body accompanied by transformation-bodies comes together to extend its hands, it is called ‘together with’. By this textual evidence, one knows it is the reward land. As for ‘reward-body’ and ‘response-body’—these are merely different names for the same thing: earlier translators rendered ‘reward’ as ‘response’, and later translators rendered ‘response’ as ‘reward’. ‘Reward’ means that causal practice was not in vain and assuredly calls forth a corresponding fruit; because the fruit corresponds to the cause, it is called “reward.” Furthermore, the meritorious practices cultivated over three great incalculable aeons—which must assuredly lead to bodhi—since the path has now been accomplished, this is the response-body. This is the way past and present buddhas establish and distinguish the three bodies; apart from this, there is no other substance. Even if the manifestations of the eight aspects of a buddha’s life were inexhaustible and the names given to buddhas as numerous as motes of dust, in essence they are all subsumed under the transformation-body. Now, the present Amitābha is a reward-body.

如《大乘同性經》說：西方安樂阿彌陀佛是報佛報土。又《無量壽經》云：法藏比丘在世饒王佛所行菩薩道時，發四十八願。一一願言：若我得佛，十方眾生稱我名號，願生我國，下至十念，若不生者，不取正覺。今既成佛，即是酬因之身也。又《觀經》中，上輩三人臨命終時，皆言阿彌陀佛及與化佛來迎此人。然報身兼化，共來授手，故名為與。以此文證，故知是報。然報、應二身者眼目之異名，前翻報作應，後翻應作報。凡言報者，因行不虛，定招來果，以果應因，故名為報。又三大僧祇所修萬行，必定應得菩提，今既道成，即是應身。斯乃過現諸佛，辨立三身，除斯已外，更無別體。縱使無窮八相，名號塵沙，克體而論，眾歸化攝。今彼彌陀，現是報也。

The Mahāyānābhisamaya-sūtra identifies Amitābha as a reward-body buddha, and the land accomplished through his original vows is naturally a reward-land. The Sūtra of Immeasurable Life demonstrates that since the great vows made by the Bodhisattva Dharmākara during his causal stage have now been fulfilled in his attainment of buddhahood, the body he presently manifests is naturally a “body that recompenses causal practice.” Shandao identified a crucial piece of evidence in the fourteenth of the Contemplation Sūtra’s sixteen contemplations: when describing the deathbed scenario for the three upper grades, Amitābha Buddha together with transformation-buddhas comes to welcome the dying person. From this, Shandao reasoned that only a reward-body accompanied by transformation-bodies could jointly extend their hands—hence, ‘by this textual evidence, one knows it is the reward land.” Among the scriptures Shandao marshalled, the Mahāyānābhisamaya-sūtra had already been cited by Daochuo.41 But Shandao was not content with this alone; from the fundamental Pure Land scriptures, he selected the Sūtra of Immeasurable Life and the Contemplation Sūtra to further buttress his argument. The sole point of difference is that Daochuo’s theory emphasised the attainment of buddhahood within the defiled world, whereas Shandao took the concept of “the body that recompenses causal practice” as his point of departure, arguing that because “the fruit fulfils the cause, it is called reward.” Concerning the statement in the Guanyin shouji jing 觀音授記經 (Sūtra on the Prognostication of Avalokiteśvara) that “Amitābha Buddha will also enter nirvāṇa,” Shandao commented:42

The question of whether he enters nirvāṇa or not pertains exclusively to the domain of the buddhas. It is beyond what the shallow wisdom of the three vehicles can fathom—how much less can petty ordinary beings presume to know.

入不入義者，唯是諸佛境界。尚非三乘淺智所窺，豈況小凡輒能知也。

Shandao held that the question of whether Amitābha enters or does not enter extinction is not a matter requiring further discussion. For Amitābha, the state of entering extinction is no different from that of not entering it. Shandao’s explicit identification of Amitābha’s Pure Land as a reward land carried major implications, primarily for the spiritual attainment and stage of realisation that ordinary beings achieve after birth. He stated in the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra:43

Question: Since you say that the Buddha and the land are both “reward,” and reward-level dharmas are lofty and sublime, such that even minor sages can scarcely ascend to them—how then can defiled and obstructed ordinary beings gain entry?

問曰：彼佛及土既言報者，報法高妙，小聖難階，垢障凡夫云何得入？

Answer: If one considers the defilements and obstructions of sentient beings, it is true that it is genuinely difficult to aspire to such a goal. But it is precisely because they rely on the Buddha’s vow as a powerful supporting condition that the five vehicles all enter equally.

答曰：若論眾生垢障，實難欣趣，正由托佛願，以作強緣，致使五乘齊入。

The “five vehicles” refer to the human, celestial, śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva vehicles. Shandao’s position was that the reward land of Amitābha is indeed extremely difficult to enter. The reason ordinary beings can gain entry is that they rely on the powerful external condition of the Buddha’s vow-power. He maintained that the identification of the Western Land of Utmost Bliss as the ultimate destination for ordinary beings greatly propels the cultivation of practice aimed at birth. On this question, Shandao argued from four complementary perspectives—affirmative and negative, difficult and easy: on the one hand, he stressed that entry into the reward land of the buddhas is by no means easy; on the other, he demonstrated that ordinary beings can indeed enter the reward land, thereby laying the preliminary theoretical foundation for the doctrine that birth leads to the attainment of buddhahood in a single lifetime. Dobbins points out that Shandao’s doctrine of the rebirth of ordinary beings exerted a decisive influence on Japanese Pure Land Buddhism (Dobbins 1989, p. 5). Shandao further rendered judgement on the question of who qualifies for birth. He maintained that the view restricting birth to sages alone was erroneous. Moreover, regarding the statement in the Sūtra of Immeasurable Life that those who commit the five grave offences, the ten evil deeds, or slander the true Dharma are barred from birth in the Pure Land, Shandao advanced his own interpretation:44

Among the forty-eight vows, those who slander the Dharma and those who commit the five grave offences are excluded. However, these two kinds of karmic deed create obstructions of the utmost severity: if sentient beings perpetrate them, they fall directly into the Avīci Hell and cycle through aeons with no prospect of escape. The Tathāgata, fearing that they might commit these two transgressions, spoke as a skilful expedient, saying they ‘cannot attain birth.’ This does not mean he truly refuses to gather them in.

四十八願中除謗法、五逆者，然此之二業其障極重，眾生若造直入阿鼻，曆劫周慞無由可出。但如來恐其造斯二過，方便止言不得往生，亦不是不攝也。

Shandao argued that the sūtra’s statement denying birth was merely a warning to deter sentient beings from committing these two categories of grave transgressions—a skilful expedient, not a genuine exclusion from the Pure Land. Otherwise, how could one account for the principle that even ten recitations at the moment of death suffice for birth? Regarding whether the beings who attain birth are ordinary beings or sages, Shandao opposed the earlier view and refuted the thesis that “the Pure Land of Amitābha was established for sages, inhabited by sages, and that ordinary beings do not fall within the three grades and nine ranks.” He held that ordinary beings, too, can be born in the reward land with their bodies burdened by karmic obstructions. Shandao asked: sages have already escaped the sea of suffering—what need have they of rescue? As his commentary puts it:45

If one considers the defilements and obstructions of sentient beings, it is true that it is genuinely difficult to aspire to such a goal. But it is precisely because they rely on the Buddha’s vow as a powerful supporting condition that the five vehicles all enter equally.

若論眾生垢障，實難欣趣，正由托佛願以作強緣，致使五乘齊入。

This formulation expanded both the range of practitioners and the categories of beings eligible for birth, extending new hope to those who had previously committed grave offences. Regardless of whether one possesses deficient faculties, whether one is a virtuous or wicked ordinary being, or whether one is a woman or a child—all may attain birth in the Pure Land through practice. Shandao contended that earlier monks had erroneously neglected the relevant soteriological function, insisting that the stages of cultivation must necessarily follow a fixed, graduated sequence. On the one hand, this denied each person’s latent potential; on the other, it disregarded the role of “buddha-power (other-power)” within Buddhism. Shandao held that in this age of the Declining Dharma, one should not overemphasise the factor of self-power but should instead rely more extensively on the Buddha’s compassion and trust in the Buddha’s power. He argued that if one accepts Huiyuan’s judgement that the three upper grades belong to Mahāyāna sages, a contradiction arises: such sages and worthies would long since have acquired the ability to fly through the heavens and traverse the earth, manifesting countless transformation-bodies—seasoned cultivators of the highest order. Yet the Contemplation Sūtra states that it was Vaidehī who requested the Buddha on their behalf to seek birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss. Who, then, are the three upper grades? Shandao identified them as Mahāyāna ordinary beings. The Contemplation Sūtra states:46

Three kinds of sentient beings shall attain birth. What are the three? First, those with a compassionate mind who refrain from killing and who are complete in all the precepts; second, those who recite and chant the Mahāyāna vaipulya sūtras; third, those who cultivate the six recollections—recollection of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the devas, among others—and who, with deep faith, make the aspiration for awakening and seek birth in that land. Through the merit accumulated by these practices, single-mindedly reciting the name for one day up to seven days, they attain birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss.

三種眾生當得往生。何等為三？一者慈心不殺，具諸戒行；二者讀誦大乘方等經典;三者修習念佛、念法、念天等六念，以深信願發菩提心生彼國，以此所積功德，至心稱念名號，一日乃至七日，即得往生安樂國土。

Shandao maintained that at the moment of death, Amitābha will come to welcome and escort these three classes of sentient beings. Moreover, this passage indicates that these three classes of beings are devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism—hence they are designated “Mahāyāna ordinary beings.” In Shandao’s view, the differentiation into distinct grades is determined by the specific auspicious signs that manifest at the moment of birth, and the subtle differences among them are based on the differing karma cultivated by these three classes during their lifetimes. Because the power of the mind and the accumulation of merit differ, the auspicious signs experienced and the actual spiritual fruits obtained vary in degree. Shandao’s analytical perspective differed from that of Huiyuan, resulting in divergent assessments of the types of practitioners involved: one proceeded from the angle of praxis (the concrete actions and deeds performed), the other from the angle of principle (the degree of wisdom and the extent of afflictions). It should be acknowledged that earlier Contemplation Sūtra exegetes—Jingying Huiyuan, Jizang, and Zhiyi alike—each departed from one another in their typological reading of the nine grades, so that mere divergence from Huiyuan is not, in itself, the point of interest. What is distinctive in Shandao is rather the specific criterion he substitutes: he reclassifies the upper- and middle-grade beings as Mahāyāna ordinary beings on the basis of the modality of practice rather than the degree of attainment—a shift that makes the entire upper register of the Pure Land soteriology hospitable to non-sages, and that subsequent commentators (notably Huai’gan; cf. Deng 2026) extended into a more inclusive Pure Land vision. Shandao also corrected the earlier masters’ identification of those born in the upper and middle grades as sages, first providing a summary of their respective classifications (see

Table 1. Differences in the classification of practitioners across the three grades.

Grade	Earlier Classification
Upper-upper 上上	Bodhisattvas from the fourth to the seventh stage 四地至七地以來菩薩
Upper-middle 上中	Bodhisattvas from the first to the fourth stage 初地至四地以來菩薩
Upper-lower 上下	Beings at the lineage stage up to the first stage 種姓以上至初地以來菩薩
Middle-upper 中上	Noble ones who have attained the third fruit 三果聖人
Middle-middle 中上	Those of the inner rank of ordinariness 內凡
Middle-lower 中下	Ordinary beings of worldly virtue 世善凡夫
Lower-upper 下上	Beginners on the Mahāyāna path 大乘始學凡夫
Lower-middle 中上	Beginners on the Mahāyāna path 大乘始學凡夫
Lower-lower 下下	Beginners on the Mahāyāna path 大乘始學凡夫

):

Beyond this, Shandao summarised the positions of the earlier masters and systematically refuted them one by one:47

As for the claim above that those in the upper grades are bodhisattvas from the first stage up to the seventh stage—as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: ‘Bodhisattvas from the first stage up to the seventh stage have already attained the dharma-nature-born body and the body of transformation-rebirth. Such beings have long since transcended the suffering of fragmentary birth-and-death. In terms of their spiritual attainment, they have already passed through two great incalculable aeons, cultivating both merit and wisdom in tandem; both the self and dharmas are empty. They are inconceivable beings, possessed of supernatural freedom, transforming themselves without limitation. Abiding in the reward land, they constantly hear the reward-buddha preach the Dharma. They compassionately transform the ten directions and fill them in an instant. What further concern could they have, that Vaidehī should need to request the Buddha on their behalf, seeking birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss?’ By this textual evidence, we see that what the masters have stated is surely erroneous. … As for the claim above that the range extends from the lineage stage to the first stage—this, too, is not necessarily so. As the sūtra states: ‘These bodhisattvas are called non-retrogressing. Abiding in the cycle of birth-and-death, they are not defiled by birth-and-death—like geese and ducks on water, whose feathers the water cannot wet. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: ‘The bodhisattvas at this stage, because they have obtained the protection and guardianship of two kinds of true good spiritual friends, do not retrogress. What are these two? First, the buddhas of the ten directions; second, the great bodhisattvas of the ten directions. These spiritual friends constantly support the practitioners through the three kinds of karma, externally augmenting their wholesome dharmas so that there is no retrogression—hence the name ‘non-retrogressing stage.’ These bodhisattvas are also able to manifest the eight aspects of a buddha’s life and teach sentient beings. In terms of their spiritual attainment, they have already passed through one great incalculable aeon, cultivating both merit and wisdom in tandem, and so forth. Given such supreme virtues, what further concern could they have, that Vaidehī should need to request the Buddha on their behalf to seek birth? By this textual evidence, we know that the judgements of the masters are once again erroneous. This concludes the critique of the upper grades.

上言初地至七地已來菩薩者，如《華嚴經》說：初地已上七地已來，即是法性生身、變易生身，斯等曾無分段之苦。論其功用，已經二大阿僧祇劫，雙修福智，人法兩空，並是不可思議，神通自在，轉變無方。身居報土，常聞報佛說法。悲化十方，須臾遍滿，更憂何事，乃藉韋提為其請佛，求生安樂國也？以斯文證，諸師所說，豈非錯也。答：上二竟，上下者，上言從種性至初地已來者，未必然也。如經說：此等菩薩名為不退，身居生死，不為生死所染。如鵝鴨在水，水不能濕。如《大品經》說：此位中菩薩，由得二種真善知識守護，故不退。何者？一是十方諸佛，二是十方諸大菩薩。常以三業外加於諸善法，無有退失，故名不退位也。此等菩薩，亦能八相成道，教化眾生。論其功行，已經一大阿僧祇劫，雙修福智等。既有斯勝德，更憂何事，乃藉韋提請求生也？以斯文證，故知諸師所判還成錯也，此責上輩竟。

Shandao argued that if these were bodhisattvas of the seventh stage and above, they would have long since dwelt in the realm of transformation-rebirth, endowed with supernatural freedom and the ability to traverse the ten directions, abiding in the reward land and constantly hearing the reward-buddha’s preaching—even able to manifest transformation-bodies to universally save beings throughout the ten directions. He further cited Buddhist scriptures to demonstrate that these bodhisattvas are protected by the buddhas and great bodhisattvas of the ten directions and will not retrogress. Why, then, should Vaidehī’s intercession have been necessary to open the path of birth for them? Regarding those of the middle grade, Shandao stated:48

Now, such persons have permanently severed their connection to the three unfortunate destinies and are not reborn in the four evil modes of existence. Although they may presently create unwholesome karma, they will assuredly not incur future retribution. As the Buddha said: ‘These persons who have attained the fourth fruit sit together with me on the bed of liberation.’ Given such spiritual power, what further concern could they have, that Vaidehī should need to request a path for their birth? All buddhas feel great compassion for those who suffer, and their hearts are especially moved by pity for beings who are perpetually submerged in saṃsāra. For this reason, they encourage beings to take refuge in the Pure Land. It is like a person who has fallen into the water—the urgent need is to rescue that one. What need is there to assist those already standing on the bank? By this textual evidence, we know that the judgements of the masters, as before, are equally mistaken.

然此等之人，三塗永絕，四趣不生。現在雖造罪業，必定不招來報。如佛說言：此四果人，與我同坐解脫床。既有斯功力，更複何憂，乃藉韋提請求生路？然諸佛大悲於苦者，心偏湣念常沒眾生，是以勸歸淨土。亦如溺水之人，急須偏救。岸上之者，何用濟為？以斯文證，故知諸師所判，義同前錯也。

Shandao argued that such persons had long since escaped the three unfortunate destinies and the four evil modes of existence; although they might presently create unwholesome karma, they would assuredly incur no future retribution. Citing the Buddha’s words, Shandao contended that those who have reached this stage of attainment “sit together with me on the bed of liberation” and have no need for Vaidehī to request a path of escape and liberation on their behalf. Shandao then proceeded to refute, on the basis of passages from the Contemplation Sūtra, the earlier classifications of the nine grades of beings eligible for birth; due to constraints of space, a detailed discussion is omitted here. To establish that all who are born in Amitābha’s Pure Land are ordinary beings, Shandao marshalled ten items of evidence:49

The Contemplation Sūtra states: ‘The Buddha told Vaidehī: I shall now explain to you at length by means of various similes, and also cause all ordinary beings of the future who wish to cultivate the pure karma to attain birth in the Western Land of Utmost Bliss’—this is the first proof. Second: ‘The Tathāgata now, for all sentient beings of the future who are assailed by the thief of afflictions, expounds the pure karma”—this is the second proof. Third: ‘The Tathāgata now teaches Vaidehī and all sentient beings of the future to contemplate the Western Land of Utmost Bliss’—this is the third proof. Fourth: ‘Vaidehī addressed the Buddha: ‘I now, through the Buddha’s power, see that land. If, after the Buddha’s extinction, all sentient beings—turbid, evil, and beset by the five sufferings—how shall they see that buddha-land?’”—this is the fourth proof. Fifth: in the opening of the sun contemplation, the sūtra states ‘The Buddha told Vaidehī: You and sentient beings should single-mindedly concentrate …’ down to ‘all sentient beings, unless they are blind from birth, all those with eyes see the sun’—this is the fifth proof. Sixth: in the earth contemplation, the sūtra states “The Buddha told Ānanda: ‘You should uphold the Buddha’s words and, for all sentient beings of the future who wish to escape from suffering, expound this method of contemplating the earth’—this is the sixth proof. Seventh: in the lotus-seat contemplation, the sūtra states “Vaidehī addressed the Buddha: ‘I, through the Buddha’s power, have been able to see Amitābha and the two bodhisattvas. How shall sentient beings of the future be able to see them?’—this is the seventh proof. Eighth: in the subsequent answer to her request, the sūtra states: ‘The Buddha told Vaidehī: You and sentient beings who wish to contemplate that Buddha should give rise to the contemplative thought’—this is the eighth proof. Ninth: in the image contemplation, the sūtra states ‘The Buddha told Vaidehī: ‘All buddhas, the tathāgatas, enter the mental contemplation of all sentient beings. Therefore, when you and others contemplate the Buddha in your minds …’—this is the ninth proof. Tenth: throughout the nine grades, each and every passage states “for all sentient beings”—this is the tenth proof.

《觀經》云：佛告韋提：我今為汝廣說眾譬，亦令未來世一切凡夫欲修淨業者，得生西方極樂國土者，是其一證也。二、言：如來今者為未來世一切眾生為煩惱賊之所害者說清淨業者，是其二證也。三、言：如來今者教韋提希及未來世一切眾生觀於西方極樂世界者，是其三證也。四、言：韋提白佛：我今因佛力故見彼國土。若佛滅後，諸眾生等濁惡不善五苦所逼，云何當見彼佛國土者，是其四證也。五、如日觀初云：佛告韋提：汝及眾生專念已下乃至一切眾生自非生盲，有目之徒見日已來者，是其五證也。六、如地觀中說言：佛告阿難：汝持佛語，為未來世一切眾生欲脫苦者，說是觀地法者，是其六證也。七、如華座觀中說言：韋提白佛：我因佛力得見阿彌陀佛及二菩薩，未來眾生云何得見者，是其七證也。八、次下答請中說言：佛告韋提：汝及眾生欲觀彼佛者當起想念者，是其八證也。九、如像觀中說言：佛告韋提：諸佛如來入一切眾生心想中，是故汝等心想佛時者，是其九證也。十、如九品之中一一說言：為諸眾生者，是其十證也。

It is worth noting that all ten items of evidence cited by Shandao are drawn from the Contemplation Sūtra itself, demonstrating that his arguments are not merely personal opinions. From Shandao’s perspective, in order to refute the treatises of the earlier masters, grounding his case in the sūtra’s own text makes it far less vulnerable to criticism. The foregoing constitutes Shandao’s discussion and doctrinal assessment of the various issues pertaining to birth in the Pure Land.

To summarise Shandao’s Pure Land thought with respect to the temporal dimension: he engaged the then-prevalent Yogācāra reading—mediated through Asaṅga’s Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T 1594) and Vasubandhu’s Mahāyāna-saṃgraha-bhāṣya (She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋, T 1597)—according to which “birth through ten recitations” functions as a “bieshi yi”. Rather than claiming a definitive doctrinal refutation—the same objection continued to be debated through the seventh century and beyond (Deng 2026)—what is distinctive in Shandao’s response is the hermeneutic strategy by which he meets it: he grounds his counter-position in the Contemplation Sūtra and the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha themselves, supplemented by the corroborating testimony of “all the buddhas” of the ten directions, thereby reframing the dispute as one between treatise-bound interpretation and direct scriptural warrant. It is this argumentative strategy, more than the substantive conclusion, that was subsequently adopted by later Pure Land authors. On the question of the ontological status of the Pure Land, his position was distinctive: citing the Mahāyānābhisamaya-sūtra, he explicitly identified Amitābha’s Pure Land as a reward land rather than a transformation land. This judgement mutually corroborates his contention that ordinary beings, too, may gain entry to the reward land through other-power, establishing the exceptional foundation for his Pure Land praxis. In the analysis of the differential causes and effects of birth, Shandao concentrated the causal factors for birth upon the dingshan and sanshan practices he had delineated, employing the multiple perspectives of affirmative and negative, difficult and easy, to reveal the vast differences in the benefits obtained by ordinary beings who cultivate these practices and attain birth, thereby underscoring the rigour of karmic causality and the hierarchical character of the benefits accruing from birth. As for the question of who may attain birth, Shandao swept aside the earlier masters’ dismissive attitude toward ordinary beings; citing scriptural evidence, he powerfully refuted the mistaken view that the upper and middle grades described in the Contemplation Sūtra correspond to bodhisattvas who have reached the stages of realisation or sages who have attained the fruits of the path. He established the exceptional status of ordinary sentient beings as fully eligible for birth in the Pure Land through the vow-power of Amitābha, vastly expanding the universality and the embrace of the Pure Land Dharma-gate.

4. Buddha-Contemplation and Rebirth Thought in Shandao’s Other Works

Shandao’s contemplation and rebirth thought finds expression not only in the four fascicles of the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra but also in works that he compiled and composed, the majority of which are liturgical praises and ritual manuals. The literature most directly relevant to contemplative practice is concentrated in the Method of Contemplating Amitābha Buddha’s Ocean-like Marks in Samādhi and Its Meritorious Virtues, compiled by Shandao. This text systematically catalogues the methods of cultivating both buddha-contemplation samādhi and buddha-recollection samādhi found in various sūtras. The first of these methods is the guanfo chanfa 觀佛禪法 (Buddha-contemplation meditation method) based on the Contemplation Sūtra and the Guanfo sanmei hai jing (觀佛三昧海經, Sūtra on Contemplation of the Buddha’s Samādhi Ocean). The text states:50

Contemplate the true golden-hued body of Amitābha Buddha with its circular aureole, illuminating all, dignified and incomparably beautiful. Practitioners should at all times and in all places, day and night, constantly perform this contemplation. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one also performs this contemplation—always directing the mind toward the West and toward the holy assembly and all the various jewelled adornments, as though they were directly before one’s eyes.

觀阿彌陀佛真金色身圓光，徹照端正無比。行者等一切時處晝夜常作此想，行、住、坐、臥亦作此想，每常住意向西及彼聖眾一切雜寶莊嚴等相，如對目前。

The text opens by describing the contemplation of the splendid marks of Amitābha Buddha together with all the holy assembly and the adornments of the Land of Utmost Bliss. Day and night, in all four postures, one directs one’s contemplation toward the West as though beholding the Pure Land with one’s own eyes. The text then proceeds, beginning with the contemplative posture, to guide the practitioner step by step: with the mind’s eye, one contemplates the crown of the Buddha’s head, then the scalp, the hair, the fourteen channels within the brain, the eyebrows, and so on. Cross-referencing with the sūtra reveals that these instructions are drawn from various chapters of the Sūtra on Contemplation of the Buddha’s Samādhi Ocean.51 Shandao then cited the Contemplation Sūtra:52

If one accords with the teaching of the gate, at the moment of death one will be born in the upper grade in the land of Amitābha Buddha. In this manner, one practises the sixteen contemplations above and below in sequence, then fixes the mind on the white curl between the brows. One must take the utmost care to hold the mind straight, permitting no miscellaneous distraction, for otherwise the concentrated mind will be lost and samādhi will be difficult to accomplish. One should know that this is the contemplative method of buddha-contemplation samādhi. At all times, one constantly dedicates the merit toward birth in the Pure Land. Relying on the thirteen contemplations of the Contemplation Sūtra to settle the mind, one will assuredly attain birth without doubt.

若順教門者，臨命終時，上品往生阿彌陀佛國。如是上下依前十六遍觀，然後住心向眉間白毫，極須捉心令正，更不得雜亂，即失定心，三昧難成。應知，是名觀佛三昧觀法，一切時中常回生淨土，但依《觀經》十三觀安心，必得不疑。

This passage states that if one can cultivate according to the method taught in the sūtra, at the moment of death one will attain birth in the upper grade in Amitābha’s Pure Land. When performing the buddha-contemplation, one should at all times dedicate the merit toward birth in the Pure Land, while relying on the thirteen contemplations of the sixteen to settle the mind. Contemplating the Buddha with such a mind, one will assuredly attain birth. In the subsequent section entitled “Five Kinds of Augmenting Conditions Elucidated on the Basis of the Sūtras,” (see

Table 2. The five kinds of augmenting conditions.

Augmenting Condition	Content
The augmenting condition of extinguishing transgressions 滅罪增上緣	As described in the Contemplation Sūtra: (1) the person of the lower-upper grade, having committed the ten evil deeds throughout life, upon being taught at the deathbed to invoke Amitābha once, extinguishes fifty billion aeons of grave transgressions;53 (2) the person of the lower-middle grade, having committed offences against the Buddhist precepts throughout life, upon hearing the description of Amitābha’s physical marks and the adornments of the Pure Land, extinguishes eighty billion aeons of transgressions; (3) the person of the lower-lower grade, having committed the five grave offences throughout life, upon invoking the name ten times, extinguishes eighty billion aeons of transgressions. Additionally, contemplating the jewelled ground, trees, ponds, and pavilions day and night in accordance with the sūtra’s transformational paintings extinguishes eighty billion aeons of transgressions recollection after recollection; contemplating the lotus-seat adornments day and night extinguishes fifty billion aeons of transgressions; contemplating the true-body contemplation, Avalokiteśvara, Mahāsthāmaprāpta, and so forth extinguishes immeasurable billions of aeons of transgressions.54 如《觀經》下品上生人，一生具造十惡重罪，其人得病欲死，遇善知識教稱彌陀佛一聲，即除滅五十億劫生死重罪，即是現生滅罪增上緣；又如下品中生人，一生具造佛法中罪，破齋破戒，食用佛法僧物，不生慚愧，其人得病欲死，地獄眾火一時俱至，遇善知識為說彌陀佛身相功德國土莊嚴，罪人聞已，即除八十億劫生死之罪，地獄即滅，亦是現生滅罪增上緣，又如下品下生人，一生具造五逆極重之罪，經歷地獄受苦無窮，罪人得病欲死，遇善知識教稱彌陀佛名十聲，於聲聲中除滅八十億劫生死重罪，此亦是現生滅罪增上緣。又若有人，依《觀經》等畫造淨土莊嚴變，日夜觀想寶地者，現生念念除滅八十億劫生死之罪；又依經畫變，觀想寶樹、寶池、寶樓莊嚴者，現生除滅無量億阿僧祇劫生死之罪，又依華座莊嚴觀，日夜觀想者，現生念念除滅五十億劫生死之罪，又依《經觀》想像觀真身觀，觀音勢至等觀，現生於念念中除滅無量億劫生死之罪，如上所引，並是現生滅罪增上緣。
The augmenting condition of protective mindfulness 護念增上緣	As stated in the twelfth contemplation: if one at all times and places, day and night, contemplates the twofold reward of Amitābha’s Pure Land—whether one sees the Buddha or not—Amitābha manifests countless transformation-buddhas, and the two bodhisattvas likewise manifest countless transformation-bodies, who constantly come to the practitioner’s abode.55 Whoever constantly recollects Amitābha and the two bodhisattvas—Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta serve as supreme spiritual friends, following like shadows, never forsaking. 即如第十二觀中說云：若有人，一切時處日夜至心觀想彌陀淨土二報莊嚴。若見不見，無量壽佛化作無數化佛，觀音大勢至亦作無數化身，常來至此行人之所，亦是現生護念增上緣；又如《觀經》下文，若有人，至心常念阿彌陀佛及二菩薩，觀音勢至常與行人作勝友知識，隨逐影護，此亦是現生護念增上緣；又如第九真身觀說云：彌陀佛金色身，毫相光明遍照十方眾生，身毛孔光亦遍照眾生，圓光亦遍照眾生，八萬四千相好等光亦遍照眾生；又如前身相等光一一遍照十方世界，但有專念阿彌陀佛眾生，彼佛心光常照是人，攝護不捨，總不論照攝餘雜業行者，此亦是現生護念增上緣。
The augmenting condition of buddha-contemplation samādhi 見佛三昧增上緣	Through recollecting the Buddha with a sincere mind and relying on the three powers of the Buddha’s vow, one is able to see the Buddha and the Pure Land.56 The Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita Samādhi Sūtra (Banzhou sanmei jing) identifies three powers: (1) the power of the great vow; (2) the power of samādhi concentration; (3) the power of fundamental merit—all three supporting contemplation and enabling the vision of the Buddha.57 但使有心願見者，一依夫人至心憶佛，定見無疑，此即是彌陀佛三念願力外加故得令見佛。言三力者：即如《般舟三昧經》說云，一者以大誓願力加念故得見佛，二者以三昧定力加念故得見佛，三者以本功德力加念故得見佛，已下見佛緣中例同此義，故名見佛三昧增上緣。
The augmenting condition of gathering in and effecting birth 攝生增上緣	All buddhas themselves have explained that when practitioners of both Dingshan and Sanshan practice approach the end of life, each and every one is personally received by Amitābha and the holy assembly, who extend lotus platforms and hands to welcome and escort them to birth.58 皆是佛自說,修定、散二行人命終時，一一盡是彌陀世尊自與聖眾華臺授手迎接往生，此亦是攝生增上緣。
The augmenting condition of attesting to birth 証生增上緣	Amitābha’s forty-eight vows gather in all sentient beings for birth in the Pure Land. As the Contemplation Sūtra attests: after the Buddha’s extinction, ordinary beings who rely on the Buddha’s vow-power will assuredly attain birth.59 Throughout the nine grades, the sūtra consistently addresses ordinary beings who encounter a good spiritual friend and are encouraged to generate faith, uphold the precepts, recite the Buddha’s name, chant the sūtras, and perform obeisance and praise, thereby assuredly attaining birth through the power of the Buddha’s vow.60 問曰：今既言彌陀四十八願攝一切眾生得生淨土者，未知攝何等眾生得生，又是何人保證得生也。答曰：即如《觀經》說云，佛告韋提，汝今知不，阿彌陀佛去此不遠，汝當計念諦觀彼國，淨業成者，亦令未來世一切凡夫得生西方極樂國土，今以此經證。但是佛滅後凡夫乘佛願力定得往生。即是證生增上緣。又如《觀經》九品云，一一品中所告眾生者，皆是若佛在世若佛滅後五濁凡夫，遇善知識勸令生信，持戒念佛誦經禮贊，決定往生，以佛願力盡得往生，此亦是證生增上緣。

below) Shandao cited the Contemplation Sūtra to demonstrate that through different types of contemplation, one may obtain five kinds of Zengshang yuan 增上緣 (augmenting or empowering conditions; Skt. adhipati-pratyaya):

Shandao’s contemplative thought in works other than the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra places even greater emphasis on the dimension of visualisation, and certain ideas also display divergences from what appears in the commentary.

As for Shandao’s rebirth thought, it is expressed primarily in his compositions of rebirth praises and ritual manuals. Notably, he linked rebirth to the concept of emptiness (śūnyatā):61

Mind-consciousness is co-temporal with empty space; simultaneously with empty space there is mind-consciousness. If it were not co-temporal with the realm of empty space, all sentient beings would be without cause and yet somehow come into being. If mind-consciousness existed without an original cause, it would be equivalent to wood and stone. If equivalent to wood and stone, there would be no causal karma for the six destinies. If there were no causal karma, who would know and who would perceive the karmic differences of ordinary beings and sages, suffering and bliss? By this reasoning, all sentient beings assuredly possess mind-consciousness. If they possess mind-consciousness, it is co-temporal with the realm of empty space. If co-temporal with the realm of empty space, only a buddha together with a buddha can know the original source. Practitioners should know that their own body-mind is co-temporal with the realm of empty space and that down to the present body and present day they have been unable to sever evil or eliminate craving—all afflictions only seem to multiply. Thus Śākyamuni and all the buddhas jointly encourage beings to single-mindedly recollect Amitābha, contemplate and visualise the Land of Utmost Bliss, and, when this present life is exhausted and life ends, to be born directly in the Land of Peace and Bliss.

與空性同時，同時而有心識，若不與空界同時有者，一切眾生即是無因而始出也。心識若無本因有者，即事同木石，若同木石者，則無六道之因業也。因業若無者，凡聖苦樂因果誰覺誰知也。以斯道理推勘者，一切眾生定有心識也。若有心識，即與空際同時有有，若與空際同時有者，即唯佛與佛得知本元也。行者等知自身心，與空際同時有，乃至今身今日，不能斷惡除貪，一切煩惱唯覺增多，又使釋迦諸佛同勸，專念彌陀，想觀極樂，盡此一身，命斷即生安樂國也。

Shandao proposed here that birth and emptiness are co-temporal: from the perspective of mind-consciousness, they arise simultaneously. If the two were not co-temporal, the production of sentient beings would be causeless. If mind-consciousness had no originally existent cause, it would be no different from grass and wood. If it were the same as grass and wood, the karmic distinctions of good and evil, the causal retributions of the six destinies of rebirth, would be illusory. If the distinctions of suffering and bliss between ordinary beings and sages did not exist, awakening would be empty talk. By this reasoning, all sentient beings possess their own mind-consciousness, which is co-temporal with empty space;62 only a buddha can fully comprehend the principle involved. Because ordinary people know only that their body-mind is co-temporal with empty space, they have to this day been unable to eradicate afflictions. Śākyamuni and all the buddhas praise and encourage single-minded recollection of Amitābha and contemplative visualisation of the Land of Utmost Bliss. In a departure from the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, Shandao in these works placed special emphasis on the relationship between the three kinds of karma and rebirth. In the commentary, he had laid greater stress on contemplative visualisation; yet here he stated:63

If one can guard the three kinds of karma in relation to both self and other, making them pure, then this is the correct cause for birth in the buddha-land. Question: Since you say that the purity of the three kinds of karma is the cause of birth in the Pure Land, how should one cultivate in order for the karma to be called ‘pure’? Answer: All unwholesome dharmas—whether of self or other, of body, speech, or mind—are to be completely severed and not enacted; this is called ‘pure.’ Furthermore, whatever wholesome deeds of body, speech, and mind arise in relation to self and other, one should generate the highest level of sympathetic joy—just as one rejoices in the deeds of all the buddhas and bodhisattvas, so too should I rejoice. With these wholesome roots, one dedicates the merit toward birth in the Pure Land—this is called the ‘correct cause.’ Moreover, if one wishes to be born in the Pure Land, one must encourage both oneself and others and widely praise the adornments of the Pure Land’s twofold reward. One must also know the conditions that lead to entry into the Pure Land and the origins and outcome of departure from Sahā—those with wisdom should be aware of this. Another question: What is the meaning of ‘the joy of the pratyutpanna samādhi’? Answer: In Sanskrit it is called pratyutpanna; in Chinese this translates as Changxing dao 常行道 (constant-practice path)—whether for seven days or ninety days, it refers to the uninterrupted practice of the body; the uninterrupted activity of the three kinds of karma is the general designation ‘pratyutpanna.’ Furthermore, ‘samādhi’ is also a foreign term, rendered in Chinese as ‘concentration’ (ding). Because the preceding three kinds of karma are uninterrupted and the mind’s sincerity effects a response, the buddha-realm manifests before one. When the right object-realm manifests, body and mind are inwardly delighted—hence it is called ‘joy.’ It is also called ‘standing concentration in which one sees all the buddhas.’ One should know this.

若自他境上護得三業，能令清淨者，即是生佛國之正因。問曰：既道三業清淨，是生淨土即因者，云何作業得名清淨。答曰：一切不善之法，自他身口意總斷不行，是名清淨，又自他身口意相應善，即起上上隨喜心，如諸佛菩薩所作隨喜，我亦如是隨喜，以此善根回生淨土故，名為正因也。又欲生淨土，必須自勸勸他，廣贊淨土，依正二報莊嚴事，亦須知入淨土之緣起，出娑婆之本末，諸有智者應知。又問曰：般舟三昧樂者是何義也。答曰：梵語名般舟，此翻名常行道，或七日九十日，身行無間總名，三業無間故名般舟也。又言三昧者亦是西國語，此翻名為定，由前三業無間，心至所感，即佛境現前，正境現時，即身心內悅，故名為樂，亦名立定見諸佛也，應知。

In the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, as we have seen, Shandao attached particular importance to the sixteen contemplations, designating them meditative good and treating the remainder as sanshan. Here, however, he identified the purity of the three kinds of karma as the correct cause for birth in the Pure Land. The “three kinds of karma” in this context do not correspond to the Sanfu 三福 (three meritorious acts or blessings) of the Contemplation Sūtra; rather, they refer to the three karmic activities of body, speech, and mind. Shandao explained that all unwholesome activities of body, speech, and mind are to be completely severed, which alone merits the designation “pure karma.” One should generate sympathetic joy toward the wholesome activities of body, speech, and mind of both self and other, dedicating these wholesome roots toward birth in the Pure Land. Additionally, he urged that practitioners and others mutually encourage one another and praise the adornments of the Pure Land’s twofold reward. He further pointed out that the meditative joy of the pratyutpanna samādhi refers to the uninterrupted purity of the three karmic activities of body, speech, and mind. Through this mode of practice, the bodily and mental delight attained may be called “joy,” and one is able to see all the buddhas within the state of concentration.

Furthermore, the Wangsheng lizan ji 往生禮讚偈 (Verses for the Liturgy of Praise for Birth in the Pure Land) also cites the Contemplation Sūtra on multiple occasions, such as:64

As the Contemplation Sūtra states: ‘The Buddha encourages seated contemplation, obeisance, recollection, and the like—all of which should face the western direction, which is most excellent.’ It is like a tree that, having first inclined, will inevitably fall in the direction of its lean. Therefore, even if circumstances prevent one from physically facing the West, merely forming the mental intention of facing the West is also effective.

又如《觀經》云：佛勸坐觀禮念等，皆須面向西方者最勝，如樹先傾倒必隨曲，故必有事礙，不及向西方，但作向西想亦得。

May this disciple and others, at the moment of death, not have the mind inverted, not have the mind confused, not lose mindfulness. May body and mind be free of all suffering, and may body and mind be joyous as if entering meditative absorption. May the holy assembly appear before us and, relying on the Buddha’s original vow, may we attain birth in the upper grade in the land of Amitābha Buddha.65

願弟子等臨命終時，心不顛倒，心不錯亂，心不失念，身心無諸苦痛，身心快樂如入禪定，聖眾現前，乘佛本願，上品往生阿彌陀佛國。

The sixth liturgical section: the Śramaṇa Shandao’s aspiration-for-birth liturgical verses of praise, respectfully composed according to the sixteen contemplations, with twenty prostrations to be performed at the midday hour.66

第六沙門善導願往生禮贊偈，謹依十六觀作，二十拜當日中時禮(懺悔同前後)。

The text also adduces the three minds of the Contemplation Sūtra to discuss their relationship to birth in the Pure Land.67 What additionally deserves mention is that Shandao here combined the three minds with Vasubandhu’s five gates of mindfulness:68

Furthermore, as Vasubandhu’s Treatise on Birth in the Pure Land states: ‘If there are those who aspire to birth in that land, I encourage them to cultivate the five gates of mindfulness. If all five gates are complete, birth will assuredly be attained.’ What are the five? … When the five gates are all complete, birth is assuredly attained. Each gate accords with the three minds described above. Whatever practice-karma one engages in, regardless of its quantity, is all called ‘true and real karma.’ One should know this. Furthermore, I encourage the practice of the four modes of cultivation, to spur on the practice of the three minds and the five gates of mindfulness, and swiftly attain birth. What are the four? First, reverent practice—that is, reverently performing obeisance and prostration to that Buddha and all the holy assembly; hence it is called reverent practice. Continuing until the end of one’s life and vowing never to cease midway: this is lifelong practice. Second, exclusive practice—that is, exclusively reciting the name of that Buddha, exclusively recollecting, exclusively contemplating, exclusively making obeisance, exclusively praising that Buddha and all the holy assembly, admitting no other practice; hence it is called exclusive practice. Continuing until the end of one’s life and vowing never to cease midway, this is lifelong practice. Third, uninterrupted practice—that is, continuously and without break performing reverential obeisance, recitation and praise of the name, recollection and contemplation, dedication and aspiration, thought after thought in succession, never allowing other karma to intervene; hence it is called uninterrupted practice. Moreover, not allowing the afflictions of greed and anger to intervene—whenever transgressions are committed, one repents immediately, never permitting the interruption to span a single thought, span a single period, or span a single day, always maintaining purity, this is also called uninterrupted practice. Continuing until the end of one’s life and vowing never to cease midway: this is lifelong practice. Furthermore, bodhisattvas who have already escaped birth-and-death direct all their wholesome deeds toward the buddha-fruit—this is self-benefit. Teaching and transforming sentient beings to the end of future time—this is benefiting others. However, sentient beings of the present age are all bound by afflictions and have not yet escaped the suffering of the evil destinies and the cycle of birth-and-death. Engaging in practice in accordance with conditions, they should swiftly dedicate all their wholesome roots toward birth in the land of Amitābha Buddha. Having arrived in that land, there is nothing more to fear. As with the four modes of practice described above, everything naturally and spontaneously operates of itself—self-benefit and benefiting others are both fully accomplished. One should know this.

又如天親《淨土論》云：若有願生彼國者，勸修五念門，五門若具定得往生，何者為五……五門既具定得往生，一一門與上三心合，隨起業行，不問多少，皆名真實業也。應知，又勸行四修法，用策三心、五念之行，速得往生。何者為四：一者恭敬修，所謂恭敬禮拜彼佛及彼一切聖眾等，故名恭敬修，畢命為期，誓不中止，即是長時修；二者無餘修，所謂專稱彼佛名，專念、專想、專禮、專贊彼佛及一切聖眾等，不雜餘業，故名無餘修，畢命為期，誓不中止，即是長時修；三者無間修，所謂相續恭敬禮拜，稱名讚歎，憶念觀察，回向發願，心心相續，不以餘業來間，故名無間修，又不以貪嗔煩惱來間，隨犯隨懺，不令隔念隔，時隔日，常使清淨，亦名無間修，畢命為期，誓不中止，即是長時修。又菩薩已免生死，所作善法回求佛果，即是自利，教化眾生盡未來際，即是利他，然今時眾生悉為煩惱系縛，未免惡道生死等苦，隨緣起行，一切善根具速回，願往生阿彌陀佛國，到彼國已，更無所畏，如上四修自然任運，自利利他無不具足，應知。

Shandao here integrated Vasubandhu’s five gates of mindfulness with the three minds—an integration not found in his other works. The five gates of mindfulness had previously been mentioned in Jizang’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, but Jizang, while absorbing Vasubandhu’s thought, had modified it into a four-gate scheme. Beyond the three minds and the five gates, Shandao further proposed the four modes of practice: first, reverent practice; second, exclusive practice; third, uninterrupted practice; and fourth, practice that “naturally and spontaneously operates of itself” (i.e., lifelong practice). Both exclusive practice and uninterrupted practice are to be carried out in conjunction with contemplative visualisation. The foregoing constitutes Shandao’s rebirth thought as articulated in works outside the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra.

5. Conclusions

The preceding analysis has defined Shandao’s doctrinal innovation more narrowly than a general historical survey would. Its contribution does not lie in repeating the now well-established fact that Shandao valued buddha-contemplation, nor in offering a descriptive summary of familiar Pure Land teachings. It lies in showing how the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra in Four Fascicles binds contemplative taxonomy, scriptural hermeneutics, Pure Land ontology, and the soteriological status of ordinary beings into one mutually reinforcing doctrinal structure.

First, the dingshan/sanshan distinction is best understood as the architectural starting point of Shandao’s system. By classifying the first thirteen contemplations as dingshan and the three meritorious acts together with the nine grades as sanshan, Shandao does more than affirm contemplative practice; he establishes the relation between meditative visualisation, moral cultivation, and aspiration for birth. This helps explain why he rejects interpretations that absorb buddha-contemplation into consciousness-only dharma-body contemplation or inherent buddha-nature contemplation, and why he instead stresses ‘pointing toward a direction and establishing marks to fix the mind’ as a method suited to beings in the age of the Declining Dharma.

Second, this practice taxonomy interlocks with Shandao’s theory of rebirth. His rejection of the bieshi yi reading of ‘birth through ten recitations’ is significant not simply because it affirms immediate rebirth, but because it shifts authority from Yogācāra treatise interpretation to the Contemplation Sūtra and the corroborating testimony of all buddhas. His identification of Amitābha’s land as a reward land then supplies the ontological correlate of that hermeneutic move, while his insistence that the upper and middle grades include ordinary beings supplies its anthropological correlate. The three claims together explain how beings without advanced attainment can nevertheless be included within the Buddha’s vow and enter a reward land.

Third, Shandao’s later works operationalise this doctrinal architecture as a concrete programme of practice. The integration of the three minds, five gates of mindfulness, and four modes of practice translates the logic of the Commentary into bodily, verbal, and mental cultivation. In this sense, Shandao’s lasting importance for the intellectual history of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism is not captured by the opposition between recitation and contemplation. It is better located in his systematic coordination of contemplation, vocal practice, scriptural proof, reward-land ontology, and the inclusion of ordinary beings into a coherent path of Pure Land salvation. This includes, at the level of practice terminology, his transformation of shinian 十念 into shisheng 十聲, by which recollective nianfo is made inseparable from the vocal utterance of Amitābha’s Name.