The Conceptual Context and Living Practice of Chan-Pure Land Integration in the Tang Dynasty

Abstract

Chan-Pure Land integration (chanjing ronghe 禪淨融合) constituted a defining feature of the Tang-Song transition in the sphere of Buddhist religious practice. Building upon the Chan emphasis on sudden enlightenment and the Pure Land practice of Buddha-recitation developed during the early and middle Tang period, this integration took “one mind” and principle (li 理) and phenomena (shi 事) as the foundation of the theory of mind-nature. It also identified “samādhi” as the shared goal of religious cultivation and regarded “complementary and joint forms of practice” (hubu gongxiu 互補共修) as a necessary mode of religious life. While previous scholars have often emphasized either the doctrinal synthesis (Chan-Pure Land Synthesis) or the combination of living practices (dual cultivation of Chan-Pure Land), this study argues that Chan-Pure Land Integration must be understood as a dynamic, bidirectional interaction operating across three concurrent dimensions: doctrine, cultivation, and living religious practice.

1. Introduction

Since its transmission from India to China, Buddhism underwent a long process of transformation marked by conceptual reinterpretation, institutional adaptation, and the formation of distinctive modes of religious practice. Among these developments, Chan and Pure Land Buddhism emerged as two of the most influential traditions within Chinese Buddhism, each articulating different orientations toward religious cultivation. While both traditions derived from the cultivation traditions of Indian Buddhism, their subsequent development in China gave rise to markedly different orientations and styles. Chan School emphasizes liberation through self-power (zili jietuo 自力解脫), the illumination of the mind and the realization of one’s nature (mingxin jianxing 明心見性), and to enter the gate (of Chan), one must sweep away all conceptual constructs (rumen saodang yiqie 入門掃蕩一切)—“if one encounters the Buddha, one kills the Buddha (fengfo shafo 逢佛殺佛); if one encounters the patriarchs, one kills the patriarchs (fengzu shazu 逢祖殺祖).” Even the very word “Buddha” itself finds no place to be established. Chan practitioners take doubt as a gateway, encapsulated in the dictum that “without doubt, there is no awakening.” Pure Land Buddhism, by contrast, relies on salvation through other-power, taking profound faith as its prerequisite. This tradition firmly believes in the real and efficacious existence (shiyou buxu 實有不虛) of Amitābha Buddha and the Western Pure Land. Driven by the vow to achieve rebirth (wangsheng 往生), practitioners maintain a single-minded focus on the Buddha’s name (yinian chanti 一念禪提) through unceasing recitation (nianfo 念佛1). At the moment of death, one is received by the Buddha and reborn in the Western Pure Land.

Previous scholarship has widely recognized Chan-Pure Land integration as a defining feature of Chinese Buddhist cultivation traditions from the Song dynasty onward (Sharf 2002; Yü 1981). Existing studies have approached this phenomenon from different positions. Some used the term “Chan-Pure Land Synthesis” (chanjing heyi 禪淨合一), as an emphasis on conceptual traditions. Some prefer to regard such phenomenon as “dual cultivation of Chan and Pure Land” (chanjing shuangxiu 禪淨雙修), which emphasized the paths of living practice (Hengqing 1991; Yü 1981). Others analyze the historical process in terms of convergence and divergence, arguing that genuine integration only occurred after the Five Dynasties period (Chen 2000, p. 423). At the same time, an important line of interpretation maintains that this process was largely driven by Chan Buddhism itself. As Gu Weikang has argued, the internal basis of the trend toward Chan-Pure Land integration lies primarily within Chan Buddhism itself. In the course of adapting to historical circumstances and adjusting its own orientation, Chan Buddhism “selected” Pure Land Buddhism (Gu 1997, p. 197).

However, these studies leave two issues insufficiently examined. First, the relationship between doctrinal integration and lived religious practice remains analytically separated rather than treated as a holistic system. Second, the assumption of a unidirectional convergence fails to account for the mutual transformation of both traditions in the course of their interaction.

The study of Chan–Pure Land integration demands a more holistic approach. It should focus not only on conceptual innovations arising from the Sinicization of Buddhism, but also investigate the modes of Buddhist lived religious practice from the Tang and Song dynasties onward. The possibility of reconciling and integrating Chan and Pure Land Buddhism can be attributed, on the one hand, to a traditional Chinese disposition toward tolerance, and on the other hand, to an internal tendency within Buddhism toward the harmonization of divergent views. For Chinese culture, even such fundamentally different systems of thought as Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism could be brought into communication through integrative approaches (Yang 1961, p. 25); all the more, the reconciliation of opposing doctrines and practices within Buddhism itself presents no inherent difficulty (Hengqing 1991, p. 234). Consequently, the study of Chan-Pure Land integration requires not only a careful examination of the respective internal conceptual traditions of Chan and Pure Land Buddhism and an analysis of the lived practices of Chan masters and Pure Land practitioners, but also sustained attention to the cultural-historical and religious-historical contexts underlying this phenomenon of integration.

This article argues that Chan-Pure Land integration should be understood as a religious phenomenon of the Tang-Song Buddhist transition. By employing methods from history of ideas and the history of social life, it examines in an integrated manner its conceptual content and lived world. Through an analysis of its understanding of mind-nature, its modes of cultivation, and its patterns of religious life, the study highlights the paradigmatic significance of this integration for the Sinicization of Buddhism and for Chinese Buddhism in the domain of religious cultivation.

2. The Doctrinal Foundations of Mind-Nature in the Integration of Chan and Pure Land

During the Sui-Tang period, the central concern of Buddhist scholarship was the problem of mind-nature (xinxing 心性). The Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan traditions all developed doctrines of mind-nature that emphasized both the subjective mind (zhutixin 主體心) and the cosmic mind (yuzhouxin 宇宙心) (Fang 2002, pp. 46–47). The subject mind is the mind of all sentient beings, the cosmic mind is the mind of the Buddha, and the theory of mind-nature explores the relationship between the mind of all sentient beings and the mind of the Buddha. Drawing on Fang (2002)’s discussion on the theory of mind-nature in the Sui-Tang period, this article traces these two dimensions and examines the interpretive shifts in the theory of mind-nature within Chan School and Pure Land School from the Sui-Tang and Five Dynasties through the early Song, it becomes possible to illuminate the doctrinal foundations of mind-nature in the integration of Chan and Pure Land.

The rationale for adopting Fang (2002)’s framework lies in the shared doctrinal reliance of both Chan and Pure Land traditions on the statement “this mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha.” This statement serves as a critical nexus for exploring the relationship between the sentient mind and the Buddha-mind. While Chan School emphasizes liberation through self-power and exhibits an inward tendency toward the subjective mind, Pure Land Buddhism relies on salvation through other-power and displays an outward inclination toward the cosmic mind. The focus of Chan-Pure Land integration lies in reconciling the tension between these inward and outward dimensions.

Before proceeding to a detailed analysis, it is necessary to define the fundamental connotation of “Theory of mind-nature” within the context of Tang Dynasty Buddhism. Theory of mind-nature refers to the theoretical construction regarding the relationship between the Mind and Buddha-nature, which represents a core issue developed by Chinese Buddhism through the absorption of Indian Tathāgatagarbha thought, as well as Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra theories. In this section, this paper first explores the doctrinal background of Mind-nature theory in Tang Dynasty Pure Land Buddhism. Subsequently, it argues that the innovative contribution of the Chinese Pure Land tradition lies in its introduction of concepts such as “ultimate reality” (shixiang 實相), the Dharmadhātu (fajie 法界), “one mind” (yixin 一心). This paper argues that “Buddha-recitation grounded in ultimate reality” (shixiang nianfo 實相念佛) in the Pure Land school and the “contemplation of innate purity of the mind” in Chan School are manifestations of Chan-Pure Land Integration at the level of Mind-nature theory, since in these two theories of mind-nature, the subject mind and the cosmic mind are unified. This indicates that the Chan-Pure Land synthesis constitutes a “bidirectional interaction” within the discourse of Mind-nature.

First, the concept of the “Mind-only Pure Land” (weixin jingtu 唯心淨土) within Pure Land scriptures provided a canonical foundation for the theory of mind-nature. The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (bozhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經) emphasizes the cultivation of the “Pratyutpanna Samādhi” (bozhou sanmei 般舟三昧) through single-minded and exclusive recitation of the Buddha. Upon the attainment of this samadhi, the Buddha appears standing before the practitioner, who must then proceed to practice the “Mind-only contemplation” (weixin guan 唯心觀). As stated in the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra:

One should reflect as follows: From where does the Buddha come? To where do I go? Upon reflection, one realizes that the Buddha comes from nowhere, and that I go nowhere. One further reflects that the realm of desire, the realm of form, and the formless realm—these three realms are nothing but constructions of the mind. What I contemplate, I then see: the mind makes the Buddha; the mind itself sees. The mind is the Buddha-mind, and the Buddha-mind is my own body. When the mind sees the Buddha, the mind does not know itself, nor does it see itself. When the mind gives rise to conceptualization, it is delusion; when the mind is without conceptualization, that is nirvāṇa. This dharma has nothing in which delight can be taken; even if one contemplates it, it is merely emptiness, there is nothing whatsoever. When a bodhisattva abides in samādhi, what is seen is just so. At that time, the Buddha spoke in verse, saying: “The mind does not know itself; though there is mind, it does not see itself. When the mind gives rise to conceptions, there is delusion; the absence of mind is nirvāṇa. This dharma has no solidity; it always abides in thought. Those who understand and see emptiness are free from all conceptions.”

作是念：佛從何所來？我為到何所？自念：佛無所從來，我亦無所至。自念：欲處、色處、無色處，是三處意所作耳。我所念即見，心作佛，心自見，心是佛心，佛心是我身。心見佛，心不自知心，心不自見心。心有想為癡，心無想是涅槃。是法無可樂者，設使念為空耳，無所有也。菩薩在三昧中立者，所見如是，佛爾時說偈言：心者不自知，有心不見心；心起想則癡，無心是涅槃。是法無堅固，常立在於念，以解見空者，一切無想願。

(T 12, 899b-c)

Through the cultivation of the Pratyutpanna Samādhi to see the Buddha, the epistemological structure of this practice is articulated as “the mind makes the Buddha” (xinzuofo 心作佛) and “the mind sees the Buddha” (xinjianfo 心見佛). The awakening of the subjective mind itself constitutes Buddhahood, and it is the subjective mind that perceives the Buddha. In this way, the unity of mind and Buddha is realized, reaching the state described as “the mind is the Buddha-mind (foxin 佛心), and the Buddha-mind is my own body.” This achievement, which transcends subjectivity, is precisely what is meant by “seeing the Buddha.” In the expression “the mind is the Buddha-mind,” the “mind” refers to the subjective mind, while the “Buddha-mind” signifies the cosmic mind. Accordingly, “seeing the Buddha” denotes the unification of subject and cosmos; the integration of the subjective mind and the cosmic mind constitutes the realization of “seeing the Buddha.”

Furthermore, the most influential Pure Land theory of mind-nature in the Sui-Tang Buddhist world is rooted in the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life (guanwuliangshou jing 觀無量壽經). This scripture sets forth sixteen contemplations on Amitābha Buddha, and in the eighth contemplation, “Contemplation of the Buddha,” it states:

All Buddha-Tathāgatas, as the body of the Dharmadhātu (fajie 法界), pervading and entering the mental images of all sentient beings. Therefore, when you contemplate the Buddha with your mind, this very mind is precisely endowed with the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind makes the Buddha, and this mind is the Buddha. The ocean of the Buddhas’ perfect and universal knowledge arises from mental contemplation.

諸佛如來是法界身，遍入一切眾生心想中。是故汝等心想佛時，是心即是三十二相、八十隨形好。是心作佛，是心是佛，諸佛正遍知海從心想生。

(T 12, 343a)

The statement in the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life “All Buddha-Tathāgatas, as the body of the Dharmadhātu, pervading and entering the mental images of all sentient beings” precisely expresses the tathāgatagarbha notion of the “omnipresence of the Dharmakāya” (fashen bianman 法身遍滿). At the same time, when the mind engages in contemplative visualization (guanxiang 觀想), this very mind manifests the Buddha’s thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes, indicating that within the mental activity of sentient beings there exists the inherent possibility and latent potential for actualizing the Buddha’s sublime features. Moreover, the statement “this mind makes the Buddha, and this mind is the Buddha” clarifies that the Buddha-nature originally inherent in sentient beings is disclosed through contemplative practice. It is through this mind that Buddhahood is realized. Accordingly, the theory of mind-nature articulated in the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life already constitutes a genuine doctrine of the tathāgatagarbha (rulaizang 如來藏) (Shengkai 2009, p. 31).

“This mind is the Buddha” elucidates the intrinsic suchness of the subjective mind, whereas “is the Buddha” points to the cosmic mind as awakening and truth. “This mind makes the Buddha” elucidates the potentiality and actuality of the subjective mind, whereas “making the Buddha” signifies that the subjective mind, through awakening to truth, realizes its unity with the cosmic mind. In intellectual history, “this mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha” is equivalent in meaning to the notions of Dharmakāya, Buddha-nature, and tathāgatagarbha; in terms of philosophical interpretation, it aligns with the trajectory of intrinsic suchness, possibility, and actuality, thereby constituting the theoretical foundation of the theory of mind-nature underlying Chan–Pure Land integration.

Secondly, the interpretations of “this mind makes the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha” in the Chinese Buddhist world gradually incorporated conceptual frameworks such as “ultimate reality” (shixiang 實相), “Dharmadhātu”, “one mind” (yixin 一心), and principle and phenomena, thereby further establishing the theory of mind-nature that undergirds Chan–Pure Land integration. Tanluan 曇鸞 (476–542), in his Commentary on the Treatise on Rebirth (wangshenglun zhu 往生論注), offers the following explanation:

The term “body” refers to the composite (of various factors), while the term “realm” refers to the differentiation of phenomena. For example, the eye-realm arises from five conditions—the sense organ, form, emptiness, brightness, and attention. It is called the “eye-realm”. This eye engages only its own conditions and not those of others, precisely because of the differentiation of phenomena; the same applies to the realms of the ear, nose, and so forth. By saying “All Buddha-Tathāgatas, as the body of the Dharmadhātu”, the Dharmadhātu refers to the mental dharmas of sentient beings. Because the mind is capable of generating all mundane and supramundane dharmas, the mind is therefore named the Dharmadhātu. The Dharmadhātu is able to generate the adorned bodies of the Tathāgatas, just as form and other conditions generate visual consciousness. Thus, the Buddha’s body is called the body of the Dharmadhātu. Because this body does not engage external conditions, it therefore enters into the mental images of all sentient beings. When sentient beings contemplate the Buddha, this very mind is precisely the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor characteristics: that is, when sentient beings contemplate the Buddha, the Buddha’s adorned body manifests within their minds. It is like images appear because of the clean water; water and image are neither identical nor different. Hence it is said that the Buddha’s adorned body is precisely the image produced by mental contemplation. “This mind makes the Buddha” means that the mind is capable of making the Buddha. “This mind is the Buddha” means that there is no Buddha outside the mind. It is like fire emerging from wood, so fire cannot be separated from wood. Because it cannot be separated from wood, it is able to burn the wood. When the wood is burned by fire, the wood itself becomes fire. “The ocean of the Buddhas’ perfect and universal knowledge arises from mental contemplation”. “perfect and universal knowledge” means truly knowing in accordance with the Dharmadhātu. Because the Dharmadhātu is without characteristics, the Buddhas are non-knowing. Precisely because of this non-knowing, there is nothing that remains unknown. This knowing without knowing is perfect and universal knowledge. Its depth and breadth are immeasurable, and therefore it is likened to an ocean.

身名集成，界名事別。如眼界緣根、色、空、明、作意五因緣生，名為眼界。是眼但自行己緣，不行他緣，以事別故；耳鼻等界亦如是。言諸佛如來是法界身者，法界是眾生心法也。以心能生世間出世間一切諸法故，名心為法界。法界能生諸如來相好身，亦如色等能生眼識，是故佛身名法界身。是身不行他緣，是故入一切眾生心想中。心想佛時，是心即是三十二相八十隨形好者，當眾生心想佛時，佛身相好顯現眾生心中也。譬如水清則色像現，水之與像不一不異，故言佛相好身即是心想也。是心作佛者，言心能作佛也。是心是佛者，心外無佛也。譬如火從木出，火不得離木也。以不離木故，則能燒木。木為火燒，木即為火也。諸佛正遍知海從心想生者，正遍知者，真正如法界而知也。法界無相故諸佛無知也，以無知故無不知也，無知而知者是正遍知也。是知深廣不可測量，故譬海也。

(T 40, 832a-b)

Tanluan interprets both the Buddha-Tathāgatas and the minds of sentient beings (zhongsheng xin 眾生心) through the concept of the Dharmadhātu. As the mind of sentient beings, the Dharmadhātu functions as the metaphysical ground of all mundane and supramundane dharmas. The Dharmadhātu is identical with the Dharmakāya (fashen 法身). The pure Dharmakāya serves as the metaphysical ground of the adorned Sambhogakāya (baoshen 報身) and therefore it possesses the connotation of being “generative” (nengsheng 能生). At the same time, the Dharmadhātu also constitutes the metaphysical ground of sensory consciousness, such as eye-consciousness, among sentient beings. In sum, by positing the Dharmadhātu as the metaphysical ground, Tanluan establishes a connection between the adorned bodies of the Buddhas and the mental contemplation of sentient beings. The mind of sentient beings is like water, and the adorned body of the Buddha is like an image reflected in water, and the two are neither identical nor different. Hence, the Buddha’s adorned body is precisely the image produced by mental contemplation.

Through the notions of the Dharmadhātu and ultimate reality as pure and without characteristics, Tanluan explains the Pure Land; through the non-characteristic nature of the Dharmadhātu, he explains Buddha-wisdom as prajñā that knows through non-knowing yet leaves nothing unknown. It is precisely this interpretation of the non-characteristic nature of the Dharmadhātu and of Buddha-recitation in terms of ultimate reality that marks the true beginning of Chan-Pure Land integration. The claim that “the Dharma-realm is the mental dharma of sentient beings” elucidates that the cosmic mind is identical to the subjective mind, and the adorned forms of the Buddhas are the pure images of the cosmos, manifesting within the subjective minds of sentient beings.

Masters such as Jingying Huiyuan, Zhiyi, Jizang, and Shandao each developed rich and distinctive interpretations of the phrase “this mind makes the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha” in their respective commentaries on the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life. Their commentaries are summarized in the following table:

Commentary in Sui-Tang Period	Content	Source
Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 The commentary on the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life (guanwuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏)	First, distinguishing (the phrase) in terms of the beginning and the end of Buddha-contemplation: the initial stage of learning is termed “making”, while the ultimate realization is termed “being”. Second, distinguishing in terms of the present and the future: the Dharmakāya of all Buddhas is of the same essence as one's own self. In the present, when one contemplates the Buddha, that which manifests within the mind is the very essence of the Dharmakāya, which is termed “the mind is the Buddha”. Regarding one’s own future fruition, it is through contemplation that one is born in that (Pure Land), which is termed “the mind creates the Buddha”. 一，就佛觀始終分別，始學名作，終成即是。二，現當分別，諸佛法身與己同體，現觀佛時，心中現者即是諸佛法身之體，名心是佛；望己當果，由觀生彼，名心作佛。	(T 37, 180a)
Zhiyi 智顗 The commentary on the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life (guanwuliangshou jing shu 觀無量壽經疏)	The body of the Dharmadhātu refers to the dharma-nature body of the recompense Buddha. When the minds of sentient beings are purified, the dharmakāya freely manifests. Therefore, it is said that the Buddha “enters the minds of sentient beings.” Moreover, the body of the Dharmadhātu is precisely the Buddha-body which pervades all without exception, taking the dharmadhātu as its ontological ground. What is meant by “entering the minds of all sentient beings” is that, upon attaining the samādhi of contemplating the Buddha, one’s understanding becomes congruent and responsive. Hence, it is said that the Buddha enters the mind’s contemplation. “This mind makes the Buddha” means that the Buddha is not originally existent as a fixed entity; rather, through the purification of mind, the Buddha becomes manifest. It is also through this samādhi that the mind ultimately accomplishes the act of becoming a Buddha. “This mind is the Buddha” is stated because, upon hearing that the Buddha becomes manifest through the purification of mind, one might mistakenly assume a distinction between mind and Buddha; therefore it is declared that they are identical. There is no Buddha apart from the mind, nor is there any cause for Buddhahood external to the mind. 法界身者，報佛法性身也。眾生心淨，法身自在，故言入眾生心想中……又法界身是佛身，無所不遍，法界為體。入一切眾生心想中者，得此觀佛三昧，解入相應，故言入心想中也。是心作佛者，佛本是無，心淨故有，亦因此三昧，心終成作佛也。是心是佛者，向聞佛本是無，心淨故有，便謂條然有異，故言即是，心外無佛，亦無佛之因也。	(T 37,192b)
Jizang 吉藏 The commentary on the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life (guanwuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏)	The Tathāgata is the body of the Dharmadhātu, which is the dharmakāya. All is dharmadhātu, all is dharmakāya. The thirty-two marks are the nirmāṇakāya, and “mind is Buddha” represents the dharmakāya, and “mind creates Buddha” reveals the causal relationship of the two bodies. Only mind is Buddha, only Buddha is mind. If this mind is perfected, the dharmakāya is thereby perfected; once the dharmakāya is perfected, the nirmāṇakāya is also perfected. Hence the mind is the thirty-two marks, which is precisely Buddha. 如來是法界身，即是法身，一切皆是法界，一切皆是法身……三十二相即是應身，是心是佛即是法身，是心作佛即明二身因也……只心即是佛，只佛即是心，此心若成，法身則成；法身既成，應身即成，故心是三十二相，是即是佛也。	(T 37, 243c-244a)
Shandao 善導 The commentary on the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life (guanwuliangshou jing shu 觀無量壽經疏)	By “Dharmadhātu” is meant the object of transformation, namely the realm of sentient beings. By “body” is meant the body of transformation, namely the body of the Buddhas. That the Buddhas enter the minds of sentient beings is due to the fact that sentient beings give rise to the aspiration to see the Buddhas. The Buddhas, by means of unobstructed wisdom, immediately know this and are thus able to manifest within those minds. As for “this mind makes the Buddha,” it refers to the practitioner’s reliance on personal faith, whereby, through taking the Buddha’s marks as the object, the vision is accomplished. As for “this mind is the Buddha,” it means that because the mind can contemplate the Buddha, the Buddha appears in accordance with that contemplation, which is called the “mind-Buddha,” apart from which there is no other Buddha outside this very mind. 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……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。	(T 37, 267a-b)

The masters of the Sui-Tang period likewise interpreted the “dharma-nature body” (faxing shen 法性身) on the basis of the Dharmakāya, and through contemplative visualization brought it to realization. This process signifies the disclosure of the Dharmakāya and Buddha-nature that has always already been present within one’s own mind. The most fundamental point of divergence, as pointed out by Tsuboi Shunei, lies in the fact that “the various masters understood this passage as a ‘contemplation of innate purity of the mind’ (zixing qingjing xin guan 自性清淨心觀), whereas Shandao 善導 explained it as a ‘contemplation of the other-power that is different from that of ordinary people (fanfu zhi tali guan 凡夫之他力觀).” (Tsuboi 1937, p. 374) Shandao explicitly rejected the interpretations of other various masters. In the Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra (guanjing shu 觀經疏), in the section on “Meaning of Meditative Virtues (dingshan yi 定善義),” he states:

Some practitioners interpret this meaning as a contemplation of the Dharmakāya according to Consciousness-only doctrine, or as a contemplation of the innate purity of Buddha-nature. Such interpretations are profoundly mistaken and bear not the slightest resemblance to the intended meaning. Since the sutra said that the thirty-two marks are “established through imagination and conceptualization” (xiangxiang jiali 想像假立), how could the true suchness of the body of the Dharmadhātu possess marks that may be taken as objects, or a body that may be grasped? The Dharmakāya is formless and utterly transcends visual perception, and there is nothing comparable to it, and thus emptiness is employed as a metaphor for the substance of the dharma body. Moreover, the contemplative gate taught here merely points to directions and establishes forms (zhifang lixiang 指方立相), stabilizing the mind in order to take an object, yet altogether fail to elucidate the principle of formlessness and freedom from conceptual thought. The Tathāgata foresaw that deluded and defiled ordinary beings of the latter age would be unable even to obtain realization by abiding in forms and stabilizing the mind—how much less could they seek realization apart from forms? This would be like someone without any skill attempting to build a dwelling in empty space.

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舍也。

(T 37, 267b)

Huiyuan 慧遠, Zhiyi 智顗, and Jizang 吉藏 all grounded their interpretations in the unity of the subjective mind and the cosmic mind. In contrast, Shandao emphasized that “sentient beings give rise to the thought and aspiration to see the Buddhas,” thereby Shandao unmistakably underscored the volitional function of the subjective mind. “Thought (nian 念)” signifies both the dynamic motivation and the cognitive activity of the subjective mind, through which the manifestation of the Buddhas becomes a constructed act of concrete cognition, that is, “the practitioner’s reliance on personal faith, whereby, through taking the Buddha’s marks as the object, the vision is accomplished,” which means seeing the Buddha through the cultivation of samādhi.

“Buddha-recitation grounded in ultimate reality” and the contemplation of innate purity of the mind constitute the theory of mind-nature underlying the Chan-Pure Land Integration. Shandao emphasized “indicating directions and establishing forms,” and vigorously promoted the teachings of buddha-recitation and rebirth of ordinary beings in the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life. However, the interpretive history of the sutral phrases “this mind makes the Buddha” and “this mind is the Buddha” is itself the intellectual history of Chan-Pure Land integration, which likewise unfolds within the doctrinal trajectory of Chan Buddhism.

The Records of the Masters and Disciples of the Laṅkāvatāra (lengqie shizi ji 楞伽師資記) records Daoxin 道信’s Five Gates of Chan practice (wumen chanfa 五門禪法) and cites the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life as scriptural proof:

The Sutra of Immeasurable Life states: “The Dharmakāya of the Buddhas enters into the mental images of all sentient beings, and this mind makes the Buddha, thus one should know that the Buddha is precisely the mind, and that apart from the mind there is no other Buddha.” In brief, there are five aspects: first, realizing the Essence (ti 體) of the mind, whose nature is intrinsically pure and identical to that of the Buddha; second, realizing the Function (yong 用) of the mind, which generates the Dharma-treasures, remaining eternally quiescent even while acting, such that the myriad delusions are realized as Suchness; third, maintaining constant awakening, wherein the awakened mind remains prior [to thought] and the perceived dharmas are formless; fourth, constantly contemplating the emptiness and tranquility of the body, which allows the interior and exterior become transparent and unified, merging the body into the dharmadhātu without obstruction; fifth, guarding the One without wavering, a state of steadfastness in both motion and stillness that enables practitioners to perceive their Buddha-nature and swiftly enter the gate of Samādhi.

《無量壽經》雲：諸佛法身入一切眾生心想，是心作佛，當知佛即是心，心外更無別佛也。略而言之，凡有五種：一者、知心體，體性清淨，體與佛同。二者、知心用，用生法寶，起作恒寂，萬惑皆如。三者、常覺不停，覺心在前，覺法無相。四者、常觀身空寂，內外通同，入身於法界之中，未曾有礙。五者、守一不移，動靜常住，能令學者明見佛性，早入定門。

(T 85, 1288a)

The core of Daoxin’s Five Gates lies in the essence and function of the pure mind, maintaining awakened awareness of both substance and function, and contemplating the body as empty and quiescent to merge the body into the dharmadhātu. By citing “this mind makes the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha,” Daoxin elucidates the essence and function of the pure mind, thereby realizing the unity of the subjective mind and the cosmic mind.

Tang-dynasty Chan masters also cited “this mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha” to articulate Chan awakening. For example, the Chan master Dazhu Huihai 大珠慧海 of Yuezhou 越州 stated: “When asked, ‘How does one become a Buddha?’ the master replied: ‘This mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha.’” (T 51, 443c-444a).

The Jingde Record of the Transmission of the Lamp (Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄) also records a dialogue between Chan master Hongbian 弘辯of Dajianfu Monastery 大薦福寺in the capital and Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang dynasty:

The emperor asked: “What about people today who recite the Buddha’s name?” Hongbian replied: “The Tathāgata appears in the world as teacher of gods and humans, expounding the Dharma according to capacities. For those of superior capacity, he opens the supreme vehicle and enables sudden awakening to ultimate truth; those of middling and lesser capacities cannot immediately comprehend it. Therefore, for the sake of Vaidehī, the Buddha expediently established the sixteen contemplation gates, enabling practitioners to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land through recitation of the Buddha’s name. Thus the sutra states: ‘This mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha. Outside the mind there is no Buddha, and outside the Buddha there is no mind.’” The emperor further asked: “What of those who uphold sutras, recite the Buddha’s name, or chant mantras for asking the Buddha?” Hongbian replied: “All the various forms of praise opened by the Tathāgata are directed toward the supreme single vehicle. Just as all rivers and streams flow toward the ocean, so too do all differentiated practices return to the ocean of omniscient wisdom.”

帝曰：如今有人念佛如何？對曰：如來出世為天人師善知識，隨根器而說法。為上根者，開最上乘頓悟至理，中下者未能頓曉。是以佛為韋提希，權開十六觀門，令念佛生於極樂。故經雲：是心是佛，是心作佛。心外無佛，佛外無心。帝曰：有人持經念佛持咒求佛如何？對曰：如來種種開贊，皆為最上一乘；如百川眾流，莫不朝宗於海；如是差別諸數，皆歸薩婆若海。

(T 51, p. 269b)

By citing “this mind is the Buddha; this mind makes the Buddha,” Hongbian interprets the Chan-Pure Land integration within pedagogical expedients, identifying “the ocean of omniscient wisdom” as the ultimate destination of practices such as Buddha-recitation, thereby elucidating the Chan-Pure Land integration.

The most important scriptural foundation for Chan-Pure Land integration is the sutral phrases in the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life: “this mind makes the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha.” From Tanluan onward, various Buddhist masters interpreted these phrases through concepts such as the Dharmadhātu, the sentient mind (zhongsheng xin 眾生心), Buddha-nature, and the Dharmakāya, thereby elucidating the intrinsic relationship between the mind of sentient beings and the Buddha-mind. Such interpretations revealed a structure of mind-nature in which the subjective mind and the cosmic mind are mutually integrated, forming the theoretical foundation upon which the integration of Chan and Pure Land becomes possible.

3. The Foundations of the Theory of Cultivation in Chan–Pure Land Integration

Chan Buddhism places primary emphasis on the cultivation of meditative absorption (chan 禪, dhyāna), whereas the Pure Land tradition centers on Buddha-recitation. The common ground between chan practice and Buddha-recitation lies in dhyāna. For example, the samādhi of Buddha-recitation (nianfo sanmei 念佛三昧) in Pure Land Buddhism and Chan meditation through Buddha-recitation (nianfo chan 念佛禪) in Chan Buddhism, both exemplify the integration of Chan and Pure Land in the perspective of the Theory of Cultivation2 (xiudao lun 修道論).

Buddha-recitation in Mahāyāna Buddhism can be classified into four types: recitation of the Buddha’s name (chengming 稱名), contemplation of the Buddha’s form (guanxiang 觀相), Buddha-recitation as mind-only (weixin 唯心), and Buddha-recitation grounded in ultimate reality (shixiang 實相). After its transmission into China, the predominant tendency was toward the diffused-mind (sanxin 散心) practice of reciting the Buddha’s name (Yinshun 1992, pp. 858–67). The doctrinal reflections generated by Buddha-recitation as mind-only and Buddha-recitation grounded in ultimate reality, however, are consistent with the theory of mind-nature underlying the integration of Chan and Pure Land.

At the same time, from the perspective of the samādhi of Buddha-recitation, the recitation of the Buddha’s name itself also constitutes a kind of “contemplation of the Buddha’s form.” As stated in fascicle twelve of the Dasabhumika-vibhāsā (shizhu piposha lun 十住毗婆沙論), “by taking the Buddha’s name as the object of contemplation, such a person enhances the cultivation of meditative practices and thereby becomes capable of contemplating form. At that time, one attains form within meditative cultivation, namely, experiencing extraordinary bodily joy (from dhyāna). One should know that this is the attainment of the “Pratyutpanna Samādhi”. Once the samādhi is accomplished, one is able to see the Buddhas.” (T 26, 86b) In the Dasabhumika-vibhāsā, the samādhi of Buddha-recitation not only encompasses contemplation of the Buddha’s Rūpakāya (seshen 色身), Dharmakāya, and ultimate reality, but also emphasizes, in terms of the Theory of Cultivation, that newly initiated bodhisattvas should begin with the recitation of the Buddha’s name as an skillful means. Through this practice, they gradually become capable of taking form as the object of contemplation (yuanxiang 緣相), thereby attaining the Pratyutpanna Samādhi.

An examination of the Theory of Cultivation underlying name-recitation and form-contemplation recitation reveals the practical mechanism of Chan-Pure Land integration. Practices centered on recitation of Amitābha Buddha’s name and contemplation of his form functioned not only as distinctive modes of Pure Land cultivation, but also as skillful means within Chan practice. In particular, the One-Practice Samādhi (yixing sanmei 一行三昧), a form of deep meditative concentration induced through Buddha-recitation, was likewise incorporated into Chan cultivation. As stated in fascicle two of the Saptaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā (wenshushili suoshuo mohe bore boluomi jing 文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經):

If one wishes to enter the One-Practice Samādhi, one should dwell in a quiet place, abandon all distracted thoughts, refrain from grasping at forms, and focus the mind on a single Buddha, exclusively reciting his name. Facing the direction of that Buddha, one should sit upright. If one is able to maintain uninterrupted thought upon a single Buddha from moment to moment, then within that very thought one can see the Buddhas of the past, future, and present.

欲入一行三昧，應處空閒，舍諸亂意，不取相貌，系心一佛，專稱名字。隨佛方所，端身正向。能於一佛念念相續，即是念中能見過去未來現在諸佛。

(T 8, p. 731b)

Through the continuous recitation of the Buddha’s name, the practitioner enters a state of samādhi characterized by uninterrupted recitation of the Buddha, awakening to the realization that all appearances are only manifestations of mind. This subsequently became a skillful means for pacifying the mind within the Chan tradition.

Daoxin integrated the One-Practice Samādhi from the Saptaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā into the Laṅkāvatāra Chan (lengqie chan 楞伽禪) tradition, thereby establishing a Chan approach articulated as “the mind that recites the Buddha (nianfo xin 念佛心) is the Buddha” and “the purified mind (jingxin 淨心) is the Buddha.”(Yinshun 2010, p. 67) As recorded in the Records of the Masters and Disciples of the Laṅkāvatāra, quoting Daoxin’s Essential Expedient Methods for Entering the Path and Pacifying the Mind (rudao anxin yao fangbian 入道安心要方便):

When one recites the Buddha with mind following upon mind in continuity, there suddenly arises clarity and quiescence, with no further object of thought. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā said: “That which is without any thought is called Buddha-recitation.” What is meant by “without any thought”? It is precisely the mind that recites the Buddha. Apart from the mind there is no Buddha, and apart from the Buddha there is no mind. To recite the Buddha is to recite the mind; to seek the mind is to seek the Buddha. Why so? Consciousness has no form, and the Buddha is formless, thus the Buddha has no fixed appearance. If one understands this principle, this is called pacifying the mind. Constantly reciting the Buddha, without the arising of grasping conditions, one becomes serenely formless, equal and non-dual. Upon entering this state, even the mind of reciting the Buddha fades, and there is no further need for pursuit or verification. Observing this very mind, one realizes that it is the true Dharmakāya of the Tathāgata, also called the True Dharma, also called Buddha-nature, also called the True Nature and Reality of all dharmas, and also called the Pure Land.

念佛心心相續，忽然澄寂，更無所緣念。《大品經》雲：無所念者，是名念佛。何等名無所念？即念佛心，名無所念。離心無別有佛，離佛無別有心；念佛即是念心，求心即是求佛。所以者何？識無形，佛無形，佛無相貌。若也知此道理，即是安心。常憶念佛，攀緣不起，則泯然無相，平等不二。入此位中，憶佛心謝，更不須征，即看此等心，即是如來真實法性之身，亦名正法，亦名佛性，亦名諸法實性實際，亦名淨土。

(T 85, p. 1287a)

Daoxin’s skillful means of “pacifying the mind” (anxin 安心) begins with the practice of reciting the Buddha. Through continuous recitation, the practitioner enters a meditative state characterized by moment-to-moment continuity, in which the mind becomes simplified and concentrated. Subsequently, the dualistic opposition between the subject of “thought” (nian 念) and the object of “Buddha” is dissolved. When both subside into a state of equal clarity and quiescence, there remains no further object of thought, and the practitioner realizes the state described as “serenely formless, equal and non-dual.” In this realization, the mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is the mind, culminating in the experiential insight of “the mind itself is the Buddha” (ji xin ji fo 即心即佛).

The “One-Practice Samādhi” thus became the hallmark of the East Mountain Teaching (dongshan famen 東山法門). Shenxiu 神秀, who was highly esteemed by Empress Wu Zetian 武則天, was once asked by the empress, “Upon which scriptural authority do you rely?” Shenxiu replied, “I rely upon the One-Practice Samādhi from the Saptaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā.” Empress Wu praised him, saying, “If one speaks of the Way of cultivation, nothing surpasses he East Mountain Teaching.” (T 85, p. 1290b) The approach of “recitation without discursive thought” (nian er wu nian 念而無念) as a skillful means of pacifying the mind and entering the path became a shared method of meditative cultivation in Chan Buddhism. Within the lineage of Zhishen 智詵of Zizhou 資州 under the Fifth Patriarch Teaching, the Chan master Wuxiang 無相advocated the practice known as “vocalized recitation of the Buddha’s name” (yinsheng nianfo 引聲念佛):

One first instructs the practitioner in vocalized Buddha-recitation: recite the Buddha’s name aloud in a single continuous breath. When the sound ceases, all recitation comes to rest. He further states: “No recollection, no (discursive) thought, and no delusion—no recollection is precept, no (discursive) thought is concentration, and no delusion is wisdom. These three statements together constitute the gate of total retention.” He also says: “When thought does not arise, it is like the surface of a mirror that can reflect all images; when thought arises, it is like the back of a mirror, incapable of reflection.” He further says: “One must clearly know arising and clearly know ceasing (of thoughts). When this awareness is uninterrupted, that itself is seeing the Buddha.”

先教引聲念佛，盡一氣念，絕聲停念，訖。雲：無憶、無念、莫妄，無憶是戒，無念是定，莫妄是慧，此三句語即是總持門。又雲：念不起猶如鏡面能照萬像，念起猶如鏡背即不能照見。又雲：須分明知起知滅，此不間斷，即是見佛。

(T 51, p. 185a)

The Theory of Cultivation underlying “vocalized recitation of the Buddha’s name” remains consistent with the principle of “recitation without discursive thought”, and the method of reciting the Buddha’s is “recite the Buddha’s name aloud in a single continuous breath; when the sound ceases, all recitation comes to rest.” When the vocal sound of Buddha-recitation ceases, no further mental recitation is generated, and one ultimately enters a state of non-thought.

Master Wuxiang’s interpretation highlights two points. First, non-thought is not merely concentration; rather, it is capable of comprehensively encompassing the threefold training (sanxue 三學) of precepts (jie 戒), concentration (ding 定), and wisdom (hui 慧). Second, through uninterrupted contemplative awareness of the arising and ceasing of thoughts, one is able to “illuminate the mind” and directly realize Buddha-nature; therefore, this process is described as “seeing the Buddha.”

Whether it be “Buddha-recitation as a means of purifying the mind” and “vocalized recitation of the Buddha’s name”,both practices verify the state of non-thought and the formless ontological ground. They followed an identical trajectory: first stabilizing the mind through Buddha-recitation centered on form and object, and then transcending both thought and form. In this respect, the two are fundamentally identical.3

In the extant documents, the clearest and most systematic discussions of “vocalized recitation of the Buddha’s name” are found within the Nanshan Buddha-Recitation lineage (nanshan nianfo zong 南山念佛宗). This lineage was established by figures such as Xuanshi宣什who is an offshoot disciple of Hongren 弘忍, together with Master Wei未和尚 of Guozhou 果州, Yunyu 蘊玉of Langzhou 閬州, and the nun Yicheng 一乘of Xiangru County 相如縣. The hallmark of their Chan practice is “preserving the Buddha (cunfo 存佛) through the transmission of incense (chuanxiang 傳香).”

The so-called “transmission of incense”refers to a ritual performed during assemblies for the transmission of the Dharma, in which incense serves as a token of lineage succession. The master hands the incense to the disciple, who then returns it to the master. This exchange is repeated three times, after which the transmission is considered complete.

As for the meaning of “preserving the Buddha,” Zongmi 宗密records in fascicle three of the Subcommentary to the Great commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (yuanjuejing dashu shiyichao 圓覺經大疏釋義鈔):

“Preserving the Buddha” means that, at the time of formal transmission of the Dharma, the master first expounds the doctrinal principles of the teaching and the intent of practice, and then instructs the practitioner to recite the Buddha-name, focusing on a single character. At the beginning, the recitation is vocalized; subsequently, the sound gradually diminishes, from audible recitation, to faint sound, and finally to complete silence. The Buddha is then guided into intentional thought, though such mental conception remains relatively coarse. It is further guided into the mind itself, where the practitioner continuously sustains the awareness that the Buddha abides constantly within the mind. Eventually, even this awareness ceases, reaching non-conceptuality, wherein realization of the Way is attained.

言存佛者，正授法時，先說法門道理、修行意趣，然後令一字念佛。初引聲，由念後漸漸沒聲、微聲，乃至無聲。送佛至意，意念猶粗；又送至心，念念存想有佛恒在心中，乃至無想，盍得道。

(X 9, p. 535a)

During the transmission of the teaching, doctrinal principles are first explained, after which the practitioner engages in Buddha-recitation that gradually descends from audible sound to silence. In this process, the sound of recitation is transformed into mental contemplation and then internalized within the mind itself. Through sustained practice, this contemplation is progressively refined until it reaches non-conceptuality, whereby awakening is realized.

At the same time, Shenhui 神會 also offered an interpretation of “One-Practice Samādhi”:

If one wishes to attain comprehension of the profoundly deep Dharmadhātu, one should directly enter One-Practice Samādhi. To enter this samādhi, one must first recite and uphold the Diamond Sūtra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) and cultivate Prajñāpāramitā. Thus the Diamond Sūtra states: “If there are good men or good women who give rise to the Bodhicitta and receive, uphold, read, recite, or expound as little as a four-line verse from this sūtra for others, their merit surpasses that of others.” How should one expound for others? By not grasping at marks. What does it mean not to grasp at marks? It means suchness. What is meant by suchness? It is non-conceptuality. What is non-conceptuality? It is not thinking in terms of being or non-being, not thinking of good or evil, not thinking of finitude or infinitude, not thinking of the limited or the unlimited, not thinking of bodhi, nor taking bodhi as an object of thought; not thinking of nirvāṇa, nor taking nirvāṇa as an object of thought. This is called non-conceptuality. Such non-conceptuality is precisely Prajñāpāramitā, and Prajñāpāramitā is One-Practice Samādhi.

若欲得了達甚深法界者，直入一行三昧。若入此三昧者，先須誦持《金剛般若波羅蜜經》，修學般若波羅蜜。故《金剛般若波羅蜜經》雲：若有善男子善女人發菩提心者，於此經中，乃至四句偈等，受持讀誦，為人演說，其福勝彼。雲何為人演說？不取於相？不取於相者，所謂如如。雲何所謂如如？無念。雲何無念？所謂不念有無，不念善惡，不念有邊際無邊際，不念有限量〔無限量〕，不念菩提，不以菩提為念，不念涅槃，不以涅槃為念，是為無念。是〔無念〕者，即是般若波羅蜜。般若波羅蜜者，即是一行三昧。

(Yang 1996, p. 73)

Shenhui replaced the practice of Buddha-recitation with the recitation and upholding of the Diamond Sūtra, thereby emphasizing both the merit of this sūtra and its sacred authority as a skillful means of pacifying the mind. Furthermore, by interpreting “non-grasping of marks” through the notions of suchness (ruru 如如) and non-conceptuality, Shenhui articulated One-Practice Samādhi in terms of Prajñāpāramitā, wherein the unity of wisdom and suchness signifies the integration of the subjective mind with the cosmic mind, culminating in the realization of One-Practice Samādhi.

Both One-Practice Samādhi and Pratyutpanna Samādhi belong to the category of the samādhi of Buddha-recitation. From the perspective of samādhi meditation and the vision of the Buddha, Chan and Pure Land tradition are fundamentally consistent; their divergence lies in whether Buddha-recitation is regarded as a skillful means or as the ultimate practice. Nevertheless, the contemplative methods of Buddha-recitation samādhi constitute a central cultivation within the Pure Land tradition. In this regard, Shandao’s Meritorious Dharma-Gate of the Samādhi of Contemplating and Reciting Amitābha Buddha (guan nian Amituofo xiang hai sanmei gongde famen 觀念阿彌陀佛相海三昧功德法門) presents two distinct modes of practice: the samādhi of the Buddha-contemplation and the samādhi of Buddha-recitation. The former is primarily established on the basis of the Sūtra on the Ocean-like Samādhi of the Contemplation of the Buddha (guan fo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經) and the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life, while the latter is formulated according to the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra. Shandao explicates the relationship between the samādhi of the Buddha-contemplation and the recitation of the Buddha’s name as follows:

Relying on the preceding sixteen contemplations, one should then stabilize the mind and direct it toward the white curl of hair between the Buddha’s eyebrows. It is essential to firmly gather the mind and keep it properly focused, since any distraction will cause the loss of meditative stability, making samādhi difficult to attain. This should be recognized as the method of Contemplation of the Buddha Samādhi. At all times one should aspire to rebirth in the Pure Land. By relying solely on the thirteen contemplations of the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life to pacify the mind, one will certainly attain it without doubt. Furthermore, practitioners who wish to be reborn in the Pure Land need only observe the precepts, recite the Buddha’s name, and chant the Amitābha Sūtra. Reciting the sūtra fifteen times daily yields ten thousand recitations in two years; thirty times daily yields ten thousand in one year; or alternatively, one may recite the Buddha’s name ten thousand times per day. One should also regularly perform ritual homage and praise of the Pure Land’s adornments. Those who diligently attain thirty thousand, sixty thousand, or even one hundred thousand recitations belong to the highest grade of superior rebirth. All other meritorious deeds should be dedicated toward rebirth. One should understand that the foregoing has already elucidated the method of Contemplation of the Buddha Samādhi.

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。又白行者：欲生淨土，唯須持戒、念佛、誦《彌陀經》，日別十五遍，二年得一萬；日別三十遍，一年一萬；日別念一萬遍佛。亦須依時禮贊淨土莊嚴事，大須精進或得三萬六萬十萬者，皆是上品上生人。自餘功德，盡回往生，應知，已前明觀佛三昧法。

(T47, 23b)

Guided by the principle of “indicating direction and establishing form,” Shandao advocates stabilizing the mind upon the white curl between the Buddha’s eyebrows (meijian baihao 眉間白毫), since contemplation requires the mind to be firmly anchored to a specific object (yuanjing er guan 緣境而觀). At the same time, Shandao underscores the difficulty of attaining samādhi, as “samādhi is difficult to accomplish”, and therefore promotes Buddha-recitation and the recitation of the Amitābha Sūtra as practical means for achieving rebirth in the Pure Land.

Huaigan 懷感, a prominent disciple of Shandao, discussed the significance, importance, practices, states, and benefits of the samādhi of Buddha-recitation in the final volume of Treatise on Resolving Doubts Concerning the Pure Land (shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論)4. In Volume 7, it states:

Question: As explained above, the recitation of Amitābha Buddha, when assessed from various perspectives, manifests exceedingly superior merits, giving rise to deep faith and reverence, such that one dares not disparage it. Yet, are the abundant merits thus attained derived from a mind of non-attainment that contemplate the formless and true Dharmakāya of Amitābha Buddha? Or are they obtained through practicing with a mind of attainment to contemplate the Buddha’s Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya?

Answer: Both yield abundant merits. The Dharmakāya is formless and being the true substance of all virtues. With a mind of non-attainment, one truly contemplatively recites the Buddha’s name, and the resulting merit is inconceivable. However, for those of shallow learning who are not yet capable of formless contemplation, if they employ mind of attainment to contemplate the pure form-body of the Tathāgata with supremely adorned characteristics and immeasurable virtues, and sincerely recite the Buddha’s name, they likewise obtain boundless and superior merit. Consider the three lowest grades of the sentient beings, who have committed evil throughout their lives, if they recite the Buddha’s name at the moment of death, how could they possibly perform formless contemplation? One should thus know that contemplation with form also yields immeasurable merit. Moreover, to eradicate the two obstructions, one must cultivate formless contemplation; yet in planting the causal conditions, one may also practice contemplation with form. The provisional Buddha and the true Buddha differ in terms of phenomena and principle; formless and form-based contemplation differ in their causal cultivation. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction at the level of principle.

問曰：如上所釋。念阿彌陀佛，以種種義校量，顯勝功德甚多，深生信敬，不敢誹謗。然此所得功德甚多，為由無所得心作無相，念阿彌陀佛真實法身，功德多耶？為但以有所得心作有相，念報化等身，功德亦多耶？

釋曰：俱悉多也。法身離相，萬德真體，能以無所得心體，真念佛理，然功德不可思議。如淺學之人，未能作其無相之念，但以有所得心，觀如來清淨色身殊勝相好恒沙萬德，至誠稱念，亦獲無邊殊勝功德。

如下輩三人，生來造惡，垂終稱念彼佛名號，豈能作彼無相念耶？信知有相心念，亦獲無邊勝福也。又欲斷二障，必修無相之念；今植彼因，亦修有相念佛。又真佛權佛，理事不同；無相有相，修因亦別，理無違也。

(T 47, 70b-c)

Huaigan drew a systematic comparison between the samādhi of reciting the Buddha with form (youxiang nianfo sanmei 有相念佛三昧) and the samādhi of reciting the Buddha without form (wuxiang nianfo sanmei 無相念佛三昧). According to his account, practitioners who cultivate the samādhi of reciting the Buddha proceed from the coarse to the subtle, that they first cultivate contemplation of the Buddha’s physical form, thereby attaining the samādhi of reciting the Buddha with form; subsequently, they cultivate contemplation of the dharmakāya, thereby attaining the samādhi of reciting the Buddha without form.

The samādhi of reciting the Buddha without form is grounded in the ontological ground of the Dharmakāya, which is free from all characteristics. All merits are manifested on the basis of the dharmakāya. Through this practice, one realizes a state in which prajñā of non-attainment is unified with the true reality of the Dharmakāya. By contrast, the samādhi of reciting the Buddha with form is based on the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya, through which the Buddha’s blissfully merits and physical marks are manifested, and the practitioner recites the Buddha’s name with a mind with form.

Huaigan emphasizes that the distinction between form-based and formless Buddha-recitation lies in the difference of causal cultivation (xiuyin 修因), and the distinction between the provisional Buddha (quanfo 權佛)and the true Buddha (zhenfo 真佛) lies in the difference between phenomena and principle. Such distinctions correspond to differences in practitioners’ capacities; from the standpoint of pedagogical expedients, differentiation itself is equality, and the resulting merit and experiential realm are equally abundant. In this way, Huaigan articulates a theory of cultivation underlying the integration of Chan and Pure Land. In particular, through his interpretation of One-Practice Samādhi, Chan and Pure Land converge at the level of cultivation. For Chan Buddhism, One-Practice Samādhi becomes functionally equivalent to seated meditation, while for Pure Land Buddhism, it becomes equally synonymous with Buddha-recitation practice (Faure 1997, p. 67).

4. Complementary and Joint Forms of Practice: Chan-Pure Land Integration as a Mode of Religious Life

Based on the foundation of theory of the mind-nature and the theory of cultivation, the phenomenon of Chan-Pure Land integration emerged within the Buddhist “life-world” during the Tang Dynasty. During the mid Tang period, Pure Land masters such as Huaigan, Huiri, and Feixi advocated a Buddhist mode of religious life characterized by the complementary and joint forms of practice within Chan and Pure Land Buddhism. In terms of religious practice, this integration was primarily manifested through the interaction of physical living spaces, and the worship of Amitābha Buddha in the arrangement of Chan Cloister.

After Huaigan, the most important figure to advocate the combined cultivation of Chan (meditation), Jiao (scriptural study), Jie (precepts), and Jing (Pure Land) was Cimin Sanzang Huiri 慈湣三藏慧日.5 In the first fascicle of The Collection on the Convergence of Myriad Good Deeds (Wanshan tonggui ji 萬善同歸集), Yongming Yanshou quotes Cimin as follows:

Cimin Sanzang said: What the sacred teachings call the right meditative concentration is to restrain the mind in a single place, with moment-to-moment continuity of awareness, free from torpor and agitation, and to sustain the mind in equanimity. If one is obstructed by the hindrance of drowsiness and sleep, one should actively rouse oneself through recitation of the Buddha, recitation of sūtras, prostration, circumambulation, preaching the Dharma and guiding sentient beings. Thus, leaving none of the myriad practices undone. All cultivated practices should then be dedicated toward rebirth in the Western Pure Land. If one is able to cultivate meditative concentration in this manner, this is the Buddha’s meditation, as it accords with the sacred teachings, serves as the eye of sentient beings, is certified by all Buddhas, and is in no way different from any of the Buddha-Dharma, all of which ride upon the One Suchness to achieve the Most Perfect Enlightenment.

慈湣三藏雲：聖教所說正禪定者，制心一處，念念相續，離於昏掉，平等持心。若是睡眠覆障，即須策動念佛、誦經、禮拜、行道、講經、說法、教化眾生，萬行無廢，所修行業，回嚮往生西方淨土。若能如是修習禪定者，是佛禪定，與聖教合，是眾生眼目，諸佛印可，一切佛法等無差別，皆乘一如成最正覺。

(T 48, p. 963c)

On the one hand, Cimin vigorously refuted the sectarian biases of certain Chan practitioners. On the other hand, he actively promoted the unity of doctrinal teaching and Chan practice (jiaochan yizhi 教禪一致), as well as the dual cultivation of Chan and Pure Land. In his view, proper meditation consists of focusing the mind upon a single object, maintaining uninterrupted continuity of recitation, and remaining free from mental dullness. When meditative practice is obstructed by torpor, one should counteract it through practices such as recitation of the Buddha, prostration, and circumambulation, and subsequently dedicate all cultivated merits toward rebirth in the Pure Land. Only such cultivation, he argues, qualifies as “Buddha meditation (fo chanding 佛禪定)” which fully accords with the authoritative teachings.

The view that the cultivation of meditative concentration and the recitation of the Buddha’s name are equal and without distinction (deng wu chabie 等無差別) gradually became a shared consensus within mid-Tang Pure Land Buddhism. The Treatise on the Recitation of the Buddha as the Jewel King of Samādhi (nianfo sanmei baowang lun 念佛三昧寶王論), composed by Feixi in the first year of the Tianbao era (742), advocates the doctrine that all virtuous practices converge and that Buddha-recitation may be cultivated across the three periods of time. Feixi accounts for the differences between Chan meditation and Pure Land Buddha-recitation through the framework of the dual cultivation of principle and phenomena:

With regard to the doctrine of non-thought, many people weep at the forked paths: lacking careful and thorough inquiry, they fear losing the way. Here I shall distinguish it through the gates of principle and phenomena. By the gate of principle, it is genuine non-thought. This is explained as follows: being and non-being are precisely this very thought as originally empty. Why so? Because the Buddha arises from thought, and the mind itself is the Buddha. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor a finger touch itself, the Buddha is not the Buddha by itself, and the mind is not the mind by itself. How could one establish a mind outside the Buddha, or a Buddha outside the mind? If the Buddha is not something existent in itself, how could the mind be so? Thus, to recite the Buddha with no-thought, its meaning is already clear. Therefore, while worldly people say that Buddha-recitation involves thought, I say that Buddha-recitation is precisely without thought. What confusion could remain? Moreover, if thought itself is emptiness, how could there be thought? If emptiness were attained by extinguishing thought, how could there be non-thought? Since the very nature of thought is originally empty, how could there be arising and ceasing? Furthermore, the mind of “without any thought” is so because it abides nowhere; yet in the practice of Buddha-recitation, one nevertheless gives rise to the mind. The mind of “without any thought” takes non-abiding as its ground, yet the practice of Buddha-recitation provisionally establishes all dharmas. For the mind of “nothing to be thought,” thought itself is emptiness; for the practice of Buddha-recitation, emptiness itself is thought. That these are not two—this is precisely what clarifies the Middle Way.

無念之說，人多泣岐，不細精研，猶恐迷徑，今以理事門辯之。言理門者，真無念也。釋曰：有之與無，即此念而本無矣！何者？佛從念生，心即是佛，如刀不自割，指不自觸，佛不自佛，心不自心。安得佛外立心，心外立佛？佛既不有，心豈有哉？無心念佛，其義明矣！故世人謂念佛有念也，吾則謂念佛無念也。更何惑焉？又念即是空，焉得有念？非念滅空，焉得無念？念性自空，焉得生滅？又無所念心者，以無所住也，而修念佛者，而生其心也。無所念心者，從無住本也，而修念佛者，立一切法也。無所念心者，念即是空也，而修念佛者，空即是念也。不異之有，此明中道矣！

(T 47, p. 141c)

Feixi emphasizes that, from the standpoint of the gate of principle, Buddha-recitation is precisely “non-thought”, because “the Buddha arises from thought, and the mind itself is the Buddha.”The Buddha, as the universal mind, realizes the unity of the subjective mind and the cosmic mind through “thought.” At the same time, non-thought and thought negate each other without mutual exclusion, forming the state of harmony in which “thought is precisely emptiness” and “emptiness is precisely thought,” which constitutes the realization of the Middle Way (zhongdao 中道).

In the mid-Tang period, Pure Land masters such as Huaigan, Huiri, and Feixi, in response to the rapid rise of Chan Buddhism, taking their discourse in meditative theories of practice such as “the samādhi of Buddha-recitation” as the foundation of theory of cultivation, by explicating the differences and equivalences between Chan and Pure Land through the interpretive framework of principle and phenomena, they sought to disclose a Buddhist mode of religious life characterized by the complementary and joint forms of practice within Chan and Pure Land Buddhism.

The “opportunity” for interaction between the religious lives of Chan and Pure Land lay primarily in everyday religious practice. Such complementary and joint forms of practice not only facilitate an understanding of the conceptual divergences within their respective doctrinal lineages, but also, through their interaction within the life world, substantially enhances the practical and experiential reality of Chan-Pure Land integration.

First, both Chan cloisters and Pure Land halls functioned as distinct “sub-institutions” (bieyuan 別院) within larger monastic complexes. As shared spaces of cultivation and devotion, their coexistence provided a practical way to understand mutually religious life. Duan Chengshi 段成式’s Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang (youyang zazu 酉陽雜俎) records that a Pure Land hall was constructed at Zisheng Monastery 資聖寺 in Changan長安:

Outside the gate of the Pure Land Hall at Zisheng Monastery in Chongsheng Ward, it was said that Wu Daozi 吳道子once painted there drunkenly by candlelight in a single night. Among the figures, the halberd-bearing hands appeared fierce and startling to behold. Inside the hall, Lu Lengqie often studied Wu’s style. Wu in turn transmitted to him certain manual techniques. Lu painted the Zongchi Sanmen Monastery, completing only half before Wu praised him greatly, saying to others: “Lengqie has not grasped the essential method; he relies too heavily on mental exertion—how could he endure long?” When the painting was finished, Lu passed away.

崇聖坊資聖寺淨土院門外，相傳吳生一夕秉燭醉畫，就中戟手，視之惡駭。院門裏盧楞伽常學吳勢，吳亦授以手訣，乃畫總持三門寺，方半，吳大賞之，謂人曰：“楞伽不得心訣，用思太苦，其能久乎！”畫畢而卒。

(Duan 1981, p. 260)

According to Zhang Yanyuan 張彥遠’s Records of Famous Painters through the Ages (lidai minghua ji 歷代名畫記), other monasteries in Changan that housed Pure Land halls during the Tang included Da Jianfu Monastery 大薦福寺, Wenguo Monastery 溫國寺, and Dayun Monastery 大雲寺 (Li 2012, p. 73).

In the mid-Tang period, the Tiantai layman Liang Su 梁肅 (753–793) composed the Record of the Pure Land Hall at Qiyuan Monastery (qiyuan si jingtu yuan zhi 祇園寺淨土院志), which states:

The Pure Land Hall of Qiyuan Vihāra is the place where the monk Changhui cultivated the contemplation of the Buddha samādhi. According to the scriptures, the Sukhāvatī (the Western Realm of Ultimate Bliss) is the land where the Buddha Amitāyus dwells, having proclaimed his original vows and established that realm, facing east in repose to guide sentient beings. Those who contemplate and recite him gain benefit; those who arrive there abide in the stage of non-retrogression. How supreme it is!

Truly, it is the great thoroughfare beyond the world and the vessel for the three vehicles. Fundamentally, the true and the conventional share the same essence, and the sacred and the mundane are continuous. According to the mind’s ascent or descent, perceived realms differ. Thus, the profound (principle) and the tranquil (realm) give form to each other, while the dependent and primary rewards fulfill each other. When separated, they form the hundred realms; when unified, they become a single thought. This is precisely what the Tathāgata has revealed. Though separated into a hundred realms, they are synthesized within a single thought; the Tathāgata has revealed the reality of this. Therefore, following sentient beings’ long-standing habits and observing where they find solace, (the Buddha) responds to their spiritual resonance by manifesting a place of reliance. Is not the Land of Immeasurable Life one of the skillful manifestations he reveals?

Those who contemplate the mind and realize the non-duality of mind and Buddha, that there is neither coming nor going, neither bondage nor liberation. Those who contemplate thus attain the highest grade of rebirth. Those who cultivate faith and understanding, whereby contemplation and recitation gradually become purified, attain the lower grade. Those who merely attach their minds to objects in practice, loathing defilement and cherishing purity, attain yet a lower grade. Whether near or distant, whether true or provisional, all who encounter the Buddha and hear the Dharma ultimately return to the same ground. This is precisely why the Western teaching is regarded as supreme. If some claim that since dharmas are empty and possess no real characteristics, rebirth in that realm cannot be attained, if such were the case, how would that land be any different from this mundane world?

Such views simply fail to comprehend the profundity of the Buddha’s intent. Since the monk Changhui has established this place of practice, fearing that the deluded might not understand its profound purpose, he therefore instructed me to record it.

祇園精舍淨土院者，沙門常輝觀佛三昧之所也。按契經西方極樂界曰：有佛無量壽如來，誕敷本願，爰宅彼土，垂拱東向，以提群生。如想念者，利有攸往；往而至者，住不退地。至矣哉！蓋出世之康衢，三乘之舟楫也。原夫真俗同體，聖凡一貫，隨心升降，見境差別。於是深靜相形，依正相成。離為百界，合成一念，如來發其然也。故因其所習，視其所安，隨所感化，示所依處，無量壽國，蓋所示之一與？有若觀心佛不二者，不來不往，誰縛誰解。如是觀者，生之上也；如是信解，觀念漸純，生之次也；系緣從事，厭染懷淨，又其次也。或近或遠，或真或假，值佛聞法，同歸一地，此西方教所以為至也。或者以為法有相空，不可得生彼界者，與斯土何以異？是不知佛意遠矣。輝既修此道場，懼昧者不知所以然，因命我紀之。

(Dong 1983, p. 5285)

The monk Changhui established a Pure Land hall within Qiyuan Monastery in Kuaiji 會稽 (in the region of present-day Shaoxing 紹興, Zhejiang province), which functioned as a place for the cultivation of the Buddha-contemplation samādhi and Pure Land practices. In the Record of the Pure Land Hall at Qiyuan Monastery, Liang Su explicated the doctrinal foundations, stages of practice, and sacred benefits of the Pure Land teaching, thereby dispelling common misunderstandings of Pure Land belief. Liang Su particularly explores the relationship between reciting the Buddha with form and identical essence of the true and the conventional (zhensu tongti 真俗同體), providing invaluable material for understanding the actual state of Pure Land practice in mid-Tang China.

The significance of Pure Land halls for the study of Chan-Pure Land integration lies not only in their spatial coexistence with Chan cloisters, but more importantly in the tendency toward dual cultivation of Chan and Pure Land manifested by practitioners of Pure Land halls. In other words, the Pure Land halls would be understood not merely as an institutional or spatial arrangement, but as a concrete manifestation of specific modes of religious practice.

A representative example can be found in the “Record of the Reconstruction of the Pure Land Cloister at Longxing Monastery in Yongzhou” (Yongzhou longxingsi xiu jingtuyuan ji 永州龍興寺修淨土院紀) by Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, written during his exile in Yongzhou, which documents the restoration of a deteriorated Pure Land cloister initiated by the Abbot Xun:

At Longxing Monastery in Yongzhou, the former cishi Li Chengzhi, together with the monk Falin, established a Pure Land hall on the eastern side of the monastery, where the worship practice was regularly maintained. More than twenty years have since passed, and the buildings had fallen into disrepair, with the images collapsing. When the Master Xun came to reside there, he began to restore it.

The Master Xun was one who cultivated the Highest Vehicle and comprehended the ultimate meaning. He left no trace of attachment to form or emptiness, but instead penetrated the true essence; he employed provisional designations of “being” and “non-being” in order to enter ultimate reality. In his practice, realms and wisdom were unified, and phenomena and principle were cultivated together. He did not forsake the causes for Pure Land rebirth, even while abiding in the ultimate Dharma. He vowed to repair this cloister so as to guide later practitioners. Faithful patrons commissioned Buddhist images, whose iconographic features were fully realized.

At present, Cishi Feng has constructed a grand gate to mark its status. I have accordingly extended the four eaves, surrounded the structure with corridors, painted images of the two great bodhisattvas, and added canopies and banners to bring the project to completion.

Alas! Those who are able to seek “birth in the unborn” will understand that the raft lies precisely herein. Therefore, the Tiantai Treatise on the Ten Doubts was inscribed on the walls, so that those who behold it may give rise to faith.

永州龍興寺，前刺史李承晊及僧法林，置淨土堂於寺之東偏，常奉斯事。逮今餘二十年，廉隅毀頓，圖像崩墜。會巽上人居其宇下，始復理焉。上人者，修最上乘，解第一義。無體空折色之跡，而造乎真源，通假有借無之名，而入於實相。境與智合，事與理並。放雖往生之因，亦相不舍。誓葺茲宇，以開後學。有信士圖為佛像，法相甚具焉。今刺史馮公作大門以表其位，予遂周延四阿，環以廊廡，繪二大士之像，繪增蓋幢幡，以成就之。嗚呼！有能求無生之生者，知舟筏之存乎是。遂以《天台十疑論》書於牆宇，使觀者起信焉。

(Dong 1983, p. 5868)

Master Xun 巽上人, as depicted by Liu Zongyuan, “who cultivated the Highest Vehicle and comprehended the ultimate meaning…left no trace of attachment to form or emptiness, but instead penetrated the true essence,” clearly identifying him as a monk with a profound Chan Ideological background. Nevertheless, despite his core practice being grounded in Chan doctrines, he remained dedicated to the restoration of the Pure Land Cloister and the promotion of Pure Land practices. The reason lies in the text: “he did not forsake the causes for Pure Land rebirth, even while abiding in the ultimate Dharma.” Here, phenomena and principle are equally emphasized: while pursuing the “birth in the unborn” (the realization of non-arising) central to Chan, he did not discard Pure Land cultivation, regarding it as a “raft” toward enlightenment. Therefore, the Pure Land hall at Longxing Monastery in Yongzhou, as a monastic practice space, functioned as a practical site in which practitioners could realize the ideal of “attaining Chan enlightenment without abandoning Pure Land practice,” thereby exemplifying the concrete manifestation of Chan-Pure Land integration in daily religious practice.

Secondly, Chan masters of the Tang Dynasty manifested an inclination toward Pure Land beliefs through the spatial arrangement of Chan cloisters; meanwhile, historical records of Chan masters practicing Buddha-recitation further underscore the phenomenon of Chan-Pure Land integration during the mid-Tang period. The Inscription for the Chan Cloister at the Dayun Monastery in Haizhou (haizhou dayunsi chanyuan bei 海州大雲寺禪院碑), composed by Li Yong 李邕 (678–747), records the rise and decline of Daxing Monastery 大興寺in Haizhou 海州 (present-day Lianyungang 連雲港, Jiangsu province). During the Xiantian 先天 era (712–713), the Chan master Huizang 惠藏undertook the reconstruction of Dayun Monastery, embodying the practical spirit of “faith as the foundation of the Dharma and awakening as the true principle.” In terms of the arrangement of the halls, Amitābha Buddha occupied the central position, flanked by attendant bodhisattvas, thus manifesting explicit Pure Land devotion (Dong 1983, p. 2677). Moreover, with the growing popularity of Pure Land teachings, the Mirror of Buddha-Recitation (nianfo jing 念佛鏡) records: “During the lifetime of the Great Master Daxing, many disciples of Chan masters, under his instruction, turned their minds toward the practice of Buddha-recitation (T 47, p. 128c).” That Chan practitioners followed Daxing in cultivating Buddha-recitation clearly attests to the phenomenon of Chan-Pure Land integration in the mid-Tang period.

5. Conclusions

In sum, by interpreting the statement from the Sūtra of the Meditation on the Immeasurable Life that “this mind produces the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha”, the Sui-Tang Buddhist world articulated a theory of mind-nature centered on the unity of the subjective mind and the cosmic mind, which became the doctrinal foundation of Chan-Pure Land Integration.

During the Tang dynasty, Chan Buddhism, through the practice and explication of such methods as One-Practice Samādhi and vocalized Buddha-recitation, established a theory of cultivation that made Chan-Pure Land integration practically viable. Huaigan, by interpreting the equality and difference between Chan and Pure Land through the framework of principle and phenomena, was the first to give explicit voice to this integrative vision. Subsequently, figures such as Huiri and Feixi continued to promote complementary and joint forms of practice between Chan and Pure Land. Moreover, the establishment of Pure Land cloisters and Chan cloisters to enshrine the Amitābha statues in temple complexes during the middle and late Tang period provided tangible monastic spaces and expressive forms for the integration of Chan-Pure Land religious life.

It should be noted, however, that the advocacy of dual cultivation through Chan-Pure Land integration in the middle and late Tang period was initially advanced primarily by the Pure Land tradition. It was not until the Five Dynasties and the early Song, through the sustained promotion of figures such as Yongming Yanshou, that Chan practitioners gradually came to accept and actively practice this integrative approach (Liu 2000, p. 437). This shift represents precisely the cultivational dimension of the Tang-Song transition of Chinese Buddhism.