Chapter 3. The Convergence of Chan and Pure Land: The Survivors' Form¶

Essay 10 set Chan and Pure Land side by side: two solutions once criteria had ceased to be publicly testable. One placed verification between master and disciple; the other moved it to the deathbed. The preceding two chapters described the background. Huichang eliminated those that depended on much, and Neo-Confucianism took intellectual leadership. These two were the last left standing. For nearly a thousand years thereafter, the greatest internal development in Chinese Buddhism was their steady approach and eventual merger. This chapter examines how the merger occurred, what sustained it, and what it accommodated.

Textbooks all locate the beginning of the documentary history in Yongming Yanshou, a master of the Fayan school in Five Dynasties Wuyue. His Collection of Myriad Good Deeds Returning Together argued that none of the manifold practices should be discarded and that all returned to the Pure Land; Chan practitioners need not oppose Buddha recollection.¹ Most widely circulated, however, was the verse of the Four Discriminations: “With Chan and Pure Land, one is like a tiger with horns.” Its four pronouncements ranked the four combinations of Chan and Pure Land, with Buddha recollection securely undefeated. But the document must undergo the archival test used in Essay 10, Chapter 3. The Four Discriminations does not appear in Yanshou's surviving works. It first appears in citations in Yuan Pure Land writings, more than three hundred years after his death.² The rule that records grow more detailed as they grow later proves itself again after Bodhidharma. Read this alongside Essay 10, Chapter 4, and the flavor deepens: Yanshou himself was retrospectively admitted to the hall of fame when Zhipan added him to the Pure Land patriarchal lineage. And the hall of fame did more than admit members: it wrote documents for those it admitted. The Four Discriminations may not be Yanshou's work. But the Pure Land line needed a merger declaration personally signed by a venerable Chan master, and three hundred years later the archive contained one. Such is the record: the verse appears late and is unrecorded in his works. This volume's conjecture is that the motive for attribution was precisely the demand for a founding document after convergence had already occurred. The merger came first, the declaration afterward, and the declaration was backdated.

Texts may be falsely attributed; a practice timetable cannot. The reality of the merger lay in daily practice, not recorded sayings. Morning and evening liturgies in Ming and Qing monasteries took settled form. Morning service opened with the Śūraṅgama mantra; evening service centered on the Amitābha Sūtra and Buddha-name recitation. Whether Chan or doctrinal school, monks across the country recited the same service. The ancestor of the liturgies transmitted today came from the late-Ming Yunqi circle's editing.³ The spell that opened morning service adds another flavor. Essay 9, Chapter 2 recorded the problem of the Śūraṅgama's origins. A scripture of doubtful provenance became the first sound heard every day in monasteries nationwide. Chan halls held seven-day retreats; besides Chan weeks there were Buddha-recitation weeks. In monastic halls where critical phrases were investigated, “Who is recollecting the Buddha?” became a common critical phrase. This last point deserves a closer look. Turning the Buddha's name into a critical phrase connected two systems of criteria. Chan regarded it as incorporation: Buddha recollection became a tool for arousing doubt. Pure Land also regarded it as incorporation: inquiry became a deepening of Buddha recollection. Each side counted a victory for itself, and this time both sides were right, because the believers were the same people and the practice was the same service. Among the leading figures, the same convergence took place. Yunqi Zhuhong, a venerable Chan master, commented on the Amitābha Sūtra, interpreting holding fast to the name as Buddha recollection through inquiry into its nature. Single-mindedness at the level of principle was the Chan school's illumination of mind. Ouyi Zhixu wrote the Essential Explanation and was invited into the patriarchal lineage after death by Yinguang's list. None of the four great late-Ming masters was exclusively Chan; none rejected Pure Land.⁴ Sectarian boundaries survived only as genealogical names on transmission documents. Each house still kept its lineage of transmission; daily practice had long since become one.

Why merge? The immediate answer lies in the previous two chapters. After Huichang, Buddhism relied chiefly on households and on literati. What the two kinds of believer wanted overlapped strongly: daily recitation, a destination at death, and a little discussion of mind and nature suitable for conversation with scholars. Chan alone asked too much and could offer no promise about the afterlife. Pure Land alone supplied too little for scholar-officials to talk about. Only after merger was the arrangement complete: Chan handled the meaning of this life, Pure Land one's destination after death, and liturgy the daily schedule. Supporting all of this was a domain no one could take away: death. China had no brahmins, while Confucians explicitly declined to deal in the afterlife. Mourning and sacrificial rites belonged to grief and respect; the question of the destination was left undiscussed. Thus rites for the deceased, the Ullambana festival, Water and Land rites, and offerings through the seven sevens meant that every class called on Buddhist monks for its funerals. The early Ming even wrote this division of labor into monastic administration. Under Hongwu, monks throughout the empire were divided into three categories: Chan, teaching, and Yoga. The Yoga ritual monks used officially issued ritual manuals to serve popular ceremonies. Funerary rites thereby became a state-recognized responsibility of the Buddhist clergy alone.⁵ Essay 8 recorded that Indian Buddhism performed no ritual role at any point in the life cycle: at each station of lay life—birth, aging, illness, and death—another religion's priests officiated. Chinese Buddhism put down its deepest roots precisely at the station of death. Income from scripture and repentance services and incense offerings supported teaching seats and Chan halls. Huichang could burn monasteries but not the habit of summoning monks for funerals. Neo-Confucianism could take speculative discourse but not the destination of the dead. Funerary and memorial rites were what Buddhism could truly keep in China.

What the merger accommodated was precisely the problem described in Essay 7, Chapter 3, which everyone could see and no one would touch: the elephant in the room. On returning from India, Huiri had challenged Chan on Pure Land's behalf: everyone says mind itself is Buddha, but who has actually attained liberation? Move the question to China and its structure holds unchanged. Chan's seal of approval stayed between master and disciple; Pure Land rebirth stayed at the deathbed. Public view still offered nowhere to verify liberation on the spot. An early-Qing document from Gushan in Fuzhou states the structure without concealment. The Record of Responses at the Return to Reality of Ācārya Yimai of Gushan (traditionally attributed to Weilin Daopie, Kangxi 21) records the death of Master Mai of that monastery. After he took to his sickbed, the elder visited daily to teach the Dharma. Prajñā spoke of emptiness and stillness, Pure Land of a home to return to. Between them came a candid sentence: “Sentient beings throughout the earth have not realized the unconditioned and all remain subject to influxes. All have a place where they will take birth; only the Western Pure Land is the place to return to.”⁶ None present had realized the unconditioned: at the bedside, this was common knowledge, not polemic. Master Mai's answer was equally candid: “What have I studied all my life? How could there be any reason not to believe?” What he had studied all his life came, at death, to faith, not realization. Every station of the ensuing process was present: he asked the assembly to assist his rebirth at evening service, requested that images of the Three Holy Ones be enshrined before his bed, gazed at them in concentrated recollection, and passed away serenely; on the day of cremation, three people jointly saw the Three Holy Ones appear in the kiln. Read the miraculous responses at half face value as a victory narrative. Every sentence of the procedure is credible, because it was precisely a model written for later people to copy. Essay 10, Chapter 4 called rebirth biographies the accompanying literary genre for verification moved to the deathbed. This record shows the actual process behind the genre, with every step present: instruction, assisted recitation, and eyewitness testimony. It pairs with Huiri's file: in eighth-century India, the question was which practice quickly brought sight of the Buddha, and the answer was Pure Land; a thousand years later, in an early-Qing Chan hall, the entire process of attending the dying still followed Pure Land procedures. Across a thousand years and ten thousand li, the problem kept the same form. Chan had taken seven hundred years to give Huiri a formal answer: verification of liberation had been handed to Pure Land; a way to verify liberation on the spot had never been found. The problem was not solved. It was accommodated.

Marked explicitly, as required, the following is this volume's conjecture: convergence was a division of labor, not a synthesis. Doctrinally, Chan and Pure Land never truly reconciled. Disputes over self-power and other-power, the mind-only Pure Land and the Western Pure Land, never ceased through the Ming and Qing. Volume II has already judged their soteriological tension.⁷ In practice, however, they worked together closely, because the two divided between them two needs in the same monastery: Chan accommodated the elite's self-respect; Pure Land the masses' fear. Those of superior capacity investigated “Who is recollecting the Buddha?”; those of middling and lower capacity held to the name and sought rebirth. One monastery, two systems, each group getting what it needed. This division of labor joined Volume II's two main strands—self-power's self-verification and other-power's guarantee—at the institutional level. By day a monk practiced self-power in the Chan hall; at evening service he dedicated merit to the West. In a single day he traversed the distance of two volumes without sensing a contradiction, because the mentality of doctrinal classification had long taught everyone to distinguish higher from lower, not true from false (Essay 10, Chapter 1).

The shared monastic system means the same ordination lineage, canon, and state certificate system, not one certificate shared by everyone. The daytime room offers inquiry through self-power and the elite’s self-respect; the evening room offers Buddha-name recitation and dedication of merit. Its smaller label lists the Amitābha Sūtra, Buddha-name recitation, and circumambulation; it does not require the latter two to be one simultaneous act. The central junction turns recitation of the Buddha’s name into the critical phrase “Who is reciting the Buddha’s name?”, allowing both sides to record a win.

The three scoreboards follow those of Essay 5, Chapter 3: debate, survival, and population. Doctrinal classification keeps both victory and defeat inside the tradition; one monastic system carried the whole tradition through Huichang; funerary and memorial rites, with their reputation for efficacy, belonged to Buddhism alone. The chapter separately notes that judgments of authenticity were reserved to translation bureaus and catalogues, leaving disputes within the tradition to concern depth. The foundation comprises rites for the dead, Water and Land rites, and scriptural and repentance services. The closing “separate households” means separate religious communities, contrasted with diversity within one system.

Finally, bring Essay 11 to a close. In India, Essay 5, Chapter 3 established three scoreboards: debate, population, and survival. The three boards never belonged to the same party. Buddhism won in debate, the devotional movements won the population, and the schools rooted in households and bloodlines survived; Buddhism as a whole left India. In China, for the first time, all three boards fell to the same tradition. Debate: doctrinal classification kept victory and defeat inside the tradition; losers were demoted, not expelled (Essay 10, Chapter 1). Survival: one monastic system gathered every school under the same ordination lineage, canon, and ordination-certificate system. When Huichang's fire broke out, the self-supporting Chan and Pure Land, rooted among ordinary people, carried the whole tradition through it and then rebuilt (Chapter 1 of this essay). Population: funerary and memorial rites had no competitor, and the reputation for efficacy belonged to Buddhism alone (this chapter). One further point: judgment of authenticity was reserved to translation workshops and scripture catalogs, so domestic disputes could concern depth but could not become disputes over authenticity (the customs of Essay 9, Chapter 2). These four together produced Chinese Buddhism's surviving form: little dependence, low demands, sole charge of funerals, doctrinal classification fixing the order of rank, no inquiry into authenticity, and verification kept out of public view. It could withstand Huichang, the Five Dynasties, or any transfer of dynastic power, because all it needed was someone to farm, someone to die, and someone to recollect the Buddha. India's diversity was that of separate households: once broken apart, each went its own way. China's diversity lay within one system: however bitter the quarrel, evening service was still shared. The price is also in plain view. This form pushed Buddhism's original promise of liberation verifiable here and now, in its entirety, to the deathbed and beyond death. Volume II's judgment remains unchanged, word for word. This volume adds only that precisely this push preserved Buddhism in China. Moving verification away is one way to survive; making it a public institution is another. Buddhism on the plateau placed verification in an office: the person died, the office remained. The next essay turns to the plateau and the consolidation of Tibetan Buddhism.

References¶