The Pure Land of the One Mind in Wŏnhyo’s Thought
Pure Land teaching, being the practical Buddhism of East Asia, aims to maximize the possibility that all living beings might be reborn in the Pure Land. The Silla monk Wŏnhyo saw that the accomplishment of these kinds of aspirations was the consummation of the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna and said that he sought to firmly construct a view of this kind of pure land on the basis of his thought on the one mind. In this way Wŏnhyo made the “pure land of the one mind” function as the source of the liberation of living beings in the process of resolving such things as the issue of the scope and method of rebirth in the Pure Land and the problem of the existence and true character of the Pure Land. Thus the distinctive feature of Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought lies in the positive explanation of the basis of rebirth of all living beings in the Pure Land on the foundation of the one mind. This position is clearly differentiated from the more or less negative attitude of the Pure Land thinkers Tanluan and Daochuo; in other words, an approach that either emphasizes only the quick attainment of buddhahood after distinguishing between a difficult path and an easy path or putting in place a temporal or timely path of practice that corresponds to the period of the decline of the Buddhadharma. Furthermore, Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning of the Pure Land is set on the basis of the one mind, which means that the two aspects of the mind of great compassion, or the tainted nature of the pure land of true thusness, and the tathāgatagarbha, or the untainted nature of defiled lands, are interfused by means of the one mind. It does not mean a pure land of mind-only, in which a pure land exists only within the mind. Rather, it was Wŏnhyo’s conviction that all pure lands combining one’s own gratification land and the gratification lands of others are actual worlds that exist in a concrete manner, and that all living beings could be reborn in the actually-existing Pure Land of Extreme Bliss due to the buddha’s mind of great compassion and the tathāgatagarbha of ordinary beings. Through him, a pure land based on the one mind became the source of liberation for all living beings.
Sukhāvatī (Extreme Bliss), Pure Lands, Defiled Lands, One Mind, Tathāgatagarba[End Page 37]
Introduction: Pure Land Buddhism as East Asian-style Practical Buddhism
East Asian Buddhism refers to the predominant Buddhism that was practiced regionally in China, Korea, and Japan. From the standpoint of substance, however, East Asian Buddhism refers to Buddhism that was transformed by East Asian culture. In other words, East Asian Buddhism is not simply Buddhism as it existed in the geographical area called “East Asia,” but refers to the Buddhism that was modified as a result of methods of East Asian thought, in particular the indigenous Chinese thought called “Confucianism” and “Daoism,” as well as modes of thought in which the unique sentiments of each area are harmoniously blended. Accordingly, East Asian Buddhism differs from Indian Buddhism in many ways. The most representative forms of this East Asian Buddhism that originated in China and were disseminated through the region are usually said to be Tiantai 天台 (Kor. Ch’ŏnt’ae) and Huayan 華嚴 (Kor. Hwaŏm) for theoretical Buddhism and Chan 禪 (Kor. Sŏn) and Pure Land (Ch. Jingtu, Kor. Chŏngt’o 淨土) for practical Buddhism.
However, if one says that Tiantai and Chan were products of Chinese thought in which it is extremely difficult to find even an attempt at the founding of a religious sect or tradition in India, Huayan and Pure Land can be seen as modes in which a separately-established indigenous Indian sprout was strongly transformed into a Chinese style. In particular, in the case of Pure Land Buddhism, even though distinct lines of connection actually existed between the Indian style and the Chinese form, we can also discover much from the viewpoint of its practical application that was considerably Sinicized. Here, “lines of connection” refers to doctrinal points centered on the thought of the three Pure Land sūtras, while “Sinicized viewpoint” refers to a kind of realism that bears its meaning only when it is actualized according to a specific method within this reality, even some kind of desired ideal.
This kind of realism resolves the difficulties of practice that is hard to maintain, which is required in the process of actualizing the attainment of buddhahood. It is a fast and easy way to enlightenment (ihaengdo 易行道) that answers the needs of the time period called the age of the decline of the dharma (malbŏp 末法). It also appears as an extension of the bounds of liberation through the rebirth of all living beings in the Pure Land, except for those who have [End Page 38] committed the five heinous crimes1 and slandered the true dharma. In this manner, Pure Land teaching, being the practical Buddhism of East Asia, aims to maximize the possibility that all living beings might be reborn in the Pure Land. The Silla monk Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) saw that the accomplishment of these kinds of aspirations was the consummation of the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna and said that he sought to firmly construct a view of this kind of pure land on the basis of his thought on the one mind (ilsim 一心). The purpose of this essay is to clearly reveal how Wŏnhyo made the “pure land of the one mind” (ilsim chŏngt’o 一心淨土) function as the source of the liberation of living beings in the process of resolving such things as the issue of the scope and method of rebirth in the Pure Land and the problem of the existence and true character of the Pure Land.
The Unity of Extreme Bliss and the Pure Land
The Establishment of the Pure Land Teaching in China
“Thought that follows the teachings of the Pure Land sūtras” is called Pure Land thought, and “teachings that explain rebirth in ‘Extreme Bliss’ (kŭngnak 極樂; Skt. sukhāvatī) or the ‘Pure Land’ (chŏngt’o 淨土; Skt. buddhakṣetra) of the Buddha Amitābha (Amit’abul 阿彌陀佛)” are commonly defined as the teaching of the Pure Land. However, in this instance, if we analyze it a little more precisely, we can become aware that although the formation of “Pure Land thought” was effected in India, the establishment of “the Pure Land teaching” was something that first evolved in China. This is because although the so-called “three Pure Land sutras,”2 the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Amituo jing 阿彌陀經), the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經), and the Sūtra on the Visualization of the Buddha Amitāyus (Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽經), extol the “ornamentation of Extreme Bliss” (kŭngnak changŏm 極樂莊嚴; Skt. sukhāvati-vyūha) and teach that people should remember and recollect (ŏngnyŏm 憶念) and “chant the name [of the Buddha Amitābha]” (ch’ingmyŏng 稱名) to be reborn (wangsaeng 往生) in that place, it is certain that the bestowal of “pure nature” (ch’ŏngjŏngsŏng [End Page 39] 淸淨性) on Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī) and the identification of “Extreme Bliss” with the “Pure Land” was brought about by the Chinese monk-scholars Tanluan 曇鸞 (ca. 488–554) and Daochuo 道綽 (562–645).
Indian Buddhist Pure Land thought is in the same box as the formation of Mahāyāna Buddhism, of which bodhisattvas and many buddhas are a distinctive feature. The Buddha Amitābha in particular, among the several buddhas such as the seven buddhas of the past (ch’ilbul 七佛) and the future Buddha Maitreya (Mirŭkpul 彌勒佛), which had been established following the conception of many buddhas, became the object of faith for many practitioners of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The reason for this was because this Buddha Amitābha was regarded as a buddha in which Śākyamuni was manifested in the idealized form of a Mahāyāna bodhisattva. Nāgārjuna (Longshu 龍樹, ca. 50–150) and Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親, ca. 400–480), who constructed the philosophical foundations of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, not only praised the virtue of the Buddha Amitābha but also made known that they revered Amitābha and made vows to be reborn (wŏnsaeng 願生) in Extreme Bliss along with several living beings.
Indian Pure Land thought was formed centered on the Pure Land sūtras that explained rebirth in Extreme Bliss as a result of the Buddha Amitābha. This Pure Land thought was first introduced in China when sūtras related to the Pure Land were translated into Buddhist Chinese from the Later Han 後漢 (ca. 25–220) through the Three Kingdoms 三國 (220–265) periods. As the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra (Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經), Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, Sūtra on the Visualization of the Buddha Amitāyus, Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, and so forth were translated in sequence, gradually the Pure Land teaching, which was Chinese-style Pure Land thought, emerged as an established path. The Chinese Pure Land thought that was established in this manner developed, for the most part, in three stages.
The first stage was the period which unfolded through the faith community of the White Lotus Society (Bailianshe 白蓮社), which Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 (334–416) established on the foundation of the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra (Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經). Here, Huiyan advocated the samādhi of buddha-visualization (kwanbul sammae 觀佛三昧) in which one mentally immerses and absorbs oneself in such things as the features and meritorious [End Page 40] virtues of the Buddha Amitābha. Being a type of recollection of Amitābha by means of meditative visualization (kwannyŏm yŏmbul 觀念念佛) that is the opposite of recollection of Amitābha by means of vocal chanting (kuch’ing yŏmbul 口稱念佛), this can be said to be a transitional stage prior to the full development of the Chinese-style Pure Land teaching.
The second stage was the period centered on the three Pure Land sūtras that was joined together with such monastic practitioners and scholars as Tanluan, Daochuo, and Shandao 善導 (613–681). In the course of this period, Extreme Bliss was identified with the Pure Land, and through the theorizing of the easy path of other-power (taryŏk 他力)—the reliance on the power of another—through recollection of Amitābha by means of vocal chanting, which was set in contrast to the difficult path (nanhaengdo 難行道) of self-power (charyŏk 自力) from the preexisting Buddhist tradition through the cultivation of morality, meditation, and wisdom, this stage can be said to have been the formative period of the authentic Chinese-style Pure Land teaching. This is what scholars commonly refer to when they say Chinese Pure Land Buddhism. We can see that Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning of the Pure Land was a response to the developments of this period.
The third stage refers to the course of the simultaneous practice of Pure Land, Chan (Sŏn 禪), and the precepts (kyeyul 戒律) that was advocated by the Tripiṭaka Cimin Huiri 慈愍慧日 (680–784). In contrast to the second stage in which the methods for attaining rebirth in the Pure Land were reduced to only recitation of Amitābha’s name (yŏmbul), this stage added other practices outside of that method, and the course of “dual cultivation” (ssangsu 雙修) or “the cultivation of that which is difficult to attain” (nansu 雜修) was the aim. Although these tendencies were very influential in the interfusion of the thought of several schools in China in later generations, we can see that the Pure Land teaching itself did not develop to the extent that it did in the second stage.
The Extreme Bliss of the Buddha Amitābha and the Pure Land
In the three Pure Land sūtras—the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, and Sūtra on the Visualization of the Buddha Amitāyus—the [End Page 41] original Sanskrit term that corresponds to “Pure Land” (chŏngt’o) in the Chinese translation cannot be found. Nevertheless, even within the three Pure Land sūtras in Buddhist Chinese translation, the Sinitic term “Pure Land” appears only once in the first roll of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (T 360, 267b; Hirakawa 1985, 4). That being the case, because we cannot identify the expression “Extreme Bliss” that appears frequently in the three Pure Land sūtras with the term “Pure Land,” Extreme Bliss and Pure Land are separate and their meanings must be investigated. Rather, we can find the distinctive feature of the Pure Land teaching in Chinese Buddhism in the intellectual quest to unify Extreme Bliss and the Pure Land.
Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī), from the standpoint of its meaning in Sanskrit, carries the meaning of “blissful” or “possessing bliss” (yagyu 樂有) and “peace and bliss” (allak 安樂). However, the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra says, “The beings in that land suffer no pain but only enjoy pleasure of various kinds. For this reason it is called Extreme Bliss” (T 366, 346c). The Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra explains, “Not even the names of the three realms of suffering are heard there, but only naturally nirvanic sounds of bliss. For this reason, that land is called ‘Extreme Bliss’ [lit. Peace and Bliss]” (T 360, 271b). Here, what we can know, the point that was emphasized from the standpoint of the original language, is that it carries the meaning of a certain measure of “bliss,” there is no suffering, and “there is only bliss” in its actual or concrete textual interpretation. The point is that the “acme or culmination of bliss” was written as Extreme Bliss.
According to the majestic description of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (T 360, 270a), Extreme Bliss is a world system of the greatest peace and bliss that humanity can imagine. However, the reason Extreme Bliss is described in such a splendorous manner is because it seeks to portray effectively the absolute “bliss” welling up from ultimate awakening. That kind of absolute bliss—or Extreme Bliss in this sense—is the condition of “purity” (ch’ŏngjŏng 淸淨; Skt. suddha) in which one is not tainted by the relative defilements of suffering and bliss. If that is the case, that which all the teachings of Buddhism ultimately pursue, the ideal of pure awakening, in order to be acknowledged as an authentic Buddhist teaching that divests itself of the suspicion that even Extreme Bliss is exaggerated rhetoric about bliss, Extreme Bliss and purity [End Page 42] need to be related. Only at those times does Extreme Bliss become a pure buddhaland (kukt’o 國土) or, more precisely, a pure land.
If, however, we analyze “Pure Land” strictly, it contains the dual or duplicated meanings of “[one] causes his buddhaland to be purified” and “a pure (or purified) buddhaland.” If the former carries the character of process by means of the verbal usage of purity, the latter conveys the character of completion by means of the adjectival usage of purity. Because something that is purified can be produced only through the process of purification, we can see that the latter is produced only by means of the former. In fact, the former usage was used first in the early period of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
We can confirm that usage in thought on the “pure buddhaland” (chŏng pulgukt’o 淨佛國土; Skt. buddhakṣetra-pariśuddhi), which was explained in the sūtras of the Prajñā lineage, in particular, in the lineage of the Pañcaviṁśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Dapin bore jing 大品般若經, T 223; Hirakawa 1985, 6). Here, “pure buddhaland” means the bodhisattva cultivates the practices of the six perfections and “purifies his buddhaland” in order to arouse the aspiration to enlightenment (pori sim 菩提心; Skt. bodhicitta) and attain buddhahood. Because he can receive a guarantee of the purification of his buddhaland only if he undergoes practices of purification (ch’ŏngjŏng haeng 淸淨行), the sūtras of the Pure Land lineage draw upon the concept of the pure buddhland of the sūtras of the Prajñā lineage to authenticate the purity of Extreme Bliss (Hirakawa 1985, 8). Therefore, in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, before the Bodhisattva Dharmākara (Pŏpchang, Ch. Fazang 法藏) establishes Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī), he takes the “the practices that cause a buddhaland to be purified” (T 360, 267c) as his model, accomplishes them, and explains it as having practiced the six perfections to accomplish it. This can be seen as the opening of a path that could append purity to Extreme Bliss, which had been achieved as the result of imitating the Prajñā sūtras and conferring purity on his vow to establish the Extreme Bliss of the Bhikṣu Dharmākara. In reality, by faithfully walking this kind of path, it goes one step beyond the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, which explained the purity only of the vows and practices of the Bodhisattva Dharmākara, and what plainly clarifies the purity of Extreme Bliss itself is Vasubandhu’s Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa (Hirakawa 1985, 11). Vasubandhu asserts the importance of visualizing the purity [End Page 43] of the meritorious virtues of Sukhāvatī (Anle guo 安樂國) and the purity of the meritorious virtues of the living beings in Sukhāvatī in the aspect of visualization (guancha men 觀察門) for this issue (T 1524, 232b). This implies that the buddhaland of Sukhāvatī and living beings are all pure; in other words, Extreme Bliss is pure.
However, the shift from the purity of vows and practices to the purity of Extreme Bliss is the process of converting from a verbal usage of purity to an adjectival usage. From the outset, the fixing of purity by means of the latter method and calling Extreme Bliss a pure land was something that happened after Pure Land thought arrived in China. The establishment of the translated term “pure land” in China was due entirely to Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩 羅什, 344–413) (Hirakawa 1985, 11). His Chinese translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra (Weimo jing 維摩經) says “If a bodhisattva seeks to acquire a ‘pure land,’ he must purify his mind” (T 475, 538c). The succeeding passage consolidates this view by saying “The pure land is pure according to the purity of his mind” and, due to this famous expression that asserts a kind of “pure land of the mind-only” (yusim chŏngt’o 唯心淨土), thereafter the term “pure land” spread widely in the Buddhist world.
However, the term “pure land,” which came on the stage in this way, became the basis of diverse doctrines that appeared in the period of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (ca. 317–589). Tanluan composed the Annotated Commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa (Wuliangshou jing yubodishe yuansheng jie zhu 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈註) and systematized the theories of the Pure Land teaching. Tanluan, who faithfully inherited the basic intellectual positions of Vasubandhu, set the purity of Extreme Bliss, which Vasubandhu had asserted, as a reasonable premise. Here, he applied the logic of cause and effect and unified Extreme Bliss and the Pure Land. Following the logic that “because the cause is pure the effect is pure” (T 1819, 841b), because the attitude of resolve (wŏnsim 願心) of the Bodhisattva Dharmākara for seeking to establish Extreme Bliss was pure, even Extreme Bliss, which was achieved as its result, was pure. Accordingly, Extreme Bliss lays out the gist of the argument that Extreme Bliss is precisely a pure land. As Extreme Bliss was identified as a pure land in this manner, we can say that the pure land of Extreme Bliss of the [End Page 44] Buddha Amitābha became situated as a basic concept of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism and this was the entirely the achievement of Tanluan.
However, the reason that Extreme Bliss was identified as a pure land in this manner lies in a kind of de-sensitivity and de-mystification. Through the vows and practices of the Bodhisattva Dharmākara the purity of the uncompounded dharma body (muwi pŏpsin 無爲法身) is caused to be revealed by the Extreme Bliss of the Buddha Amitābha. Because at this time the purity of the dharma body does not differ from the dharma nature (pŏpsŏng 法性) and emptiness (kongsŏng 空性) (Kajiyama 1989, 33 n. 43), Extreme Bliss also becomes something pure by means of the dharma nature and emptiness. With respect to the idea that Extreme Bliss is precisely a pure land of purity, Extreme Bliss becomes a fundamental ground (kŭnbonji 根本地) of all dharmas by means of the dharma nature and emptiness. Because that is so, Extreme Bliss, which is described gloriously in a sensuous manner to the extent that it induces discrimination and attachment to sensation and depraved thoughts, becomes an object of unbounded admiration as the ultimate station of wisdom that transcends the dimension of sensibility due to that place; the pure land of purity becoming precisely the pure land of emptiness. Furthermore, by means of this kind of high admiration, Extreme Bliss became the location where the wisdom of enlightenment was actualized in a concrete manner, and being delivered from some kind of mysterious mythologization, the religiosity of the original disposition of Buddhism can be secured.
When we look at it from this context, the stipulation that Extreme Bliss is a pure land can be said to be a core contrivance of buddhicization that makes the Pure Land teaching into a religion of liberation, and which is not merely a simple incantation. The present problem is how the concept of “pure land” was re-theorized to match the concept that says that it was a religion of salvation, or more precisely the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna, which aspires for the attainment of buddhahood for all living beings. Although the pure land was established as a conceptual contrivance so that even the bodhisattva of Mahāyāna Buddhism might be given concrete expression, firmly accomplishing this on the foundation of the one mind was a subject left for Wŏnhyo. Also, in this way Wŏnhyo made the “pure land of the one mind” function as the source of the liberation of living beings in the process of resolving such things as the [End Page 45] issue of the scope and method of rebirth in the Pure Land and the problem of the existence and true character of the pure land. The distinctive feature of Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought lies in the positive explanation of the basis of rebirth of all living beings in the Pure Land on the foundation of the one mind. This position is clearly differentiated from the more or less negative attitude of the Pure Land thinkers Tanluan and Daochuo; in other words, an approach that either emphasizes only the quick attainment of buddhahood after distinguishing between a difficult path and an easy path or putting in place a temporal or timely path of practice that corresponds to the period of the decline of the Buddhadharma.
The Logic of a Variant Reading of One Mind and the Pure Land
Although Wŏnhyo composed a hundred titles, a mere twenty-seven survive. In the whole body of Wŏnhyo’s literary works, there are ten titles that deal with the doctrinal learning of the Pure Land. There are three titles treating the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra, three titles dealing with the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, and three titles regarding the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra and Wandering the Path to Mental Peace and Bliss (Yu simallak to 遊心安樂道) (Cho 1962, 96; Fuji 2001, 71). Among these, those that have been preserved are Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 無量壽經宗要), in one roll; Commentary on the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疎), in one roll; and Wandering the Path to Mental Peace and Bliss, in one roll. However, Wandering the Path to Mental Peace and Bliss has many parts that are the same as Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra from the standpoint of contents, and presently scholars have raised many doubts regarding whether Wŏnhyo was actually the author of that text.3 Wŏnhyo’s Commentary on the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra is also more or less unfeasible for use as material in a full-scale analysis of Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning on the Pure Land. The description of the Pure Land in the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra is the most visual and flowery among the three Pure Land sūtras, yet Wŏnhyo’s interest is not its description of the Pure Land but the moral nature and true character of [End Page 46] the Pure Land. His Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra is more appropriate as material for this kind of analysis. Wŏnhyo’s Commentary on the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Amit’a kyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏) treats the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Amituo jing 阿彌陀經), which stresses a florid description of the Pure Land, so I will not discuss it here. Accordingly, in this essay I will mostly use Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra as material for the analysis of Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning on pure lands because it elucidates how the true nature of pure lands (chŏngt’o 淨土) can be unified with defiled lands (yet’o 穢土).
Centering Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning on the Pure Land on the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, however, does not reveal that his Pure Land thought is his faith or belief in Maitreya, but rather that it is based on faith in Amitābha. Wŏnhyo emphasized the point that one could be reborn in Extreme Bliss and obtain enlightenment by relying on the power of the compassion (chabiryŏk 慈悲力) of the buddha more than self-power. The Sūtra on Maitreya’s Descent (Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經) and the Sūtra on Maitreya’s Attainment of Buddhahood (Mile chengfo jing 彌勒成佛經) explain the belief in Maitreya’s descent and rebirth in the future that was popular when Wŏnhyo lived. Instead of criticizing that these two sūtras belong to the Hīnayāna canon of the disciples (sŏngmunjang 聲聞藏; Skt. śrāvaka-piṭaka) (Kim 1993, 28), he praised the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra by saying, “This sūtra is a succinct statement of the teachings of the bodhisattva-piṭaka and a true expression of the causes and results of that buddhaland” (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554a). I will now analyze the distinctive features of Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning on the Pure Land, which is founded on his belief in Amitābha.
The Scope and Method of Rebirth in the Pure Land
Wŏnhyo classifies the Pure Land according to four criteria, namely  purity (chŏng 淨) and impurity (pulchŏng 不淨),  form (yusaek 有色) and formlessness (musaek 無色),  universality (kong 共) and non-universality (pulgong 不共), and  taints (yuru 有漏) and the absence of taints (muru 無漏). Through this kind of intricate classification Wŏnhyo advances in the direction of maximizing the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land for all living beings. [End Page 47]
First, Wŏnhyo discusses the scope and method of rebirth in the Pure Land in the “purity and impurity aspect” (chŏng pulchŏngmun 淨不淨門) in Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. For this purpose, he analyzes the view of pure land included in such works as the Sūtra of Humane Kings (Renwang jing 仁王經), the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (She dasheng lun 攝大乘論), Yogācārabhūmi (Yuga lun 瑜伽論), and the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. First, he examines the assertion found in the Sūtra of Humane Kings that says, “Only the one type of person, the buddhas, may dwell in a pure land” (T 245, 828a; Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554b). The position that only one kind of person, the buddhas, may dwell in a pure land means that bodhisattvas and living beings cannot remain in a pure land and in order to abide in a pure land they need to exert themselves in the most extreme practices. Here “exerting themselves in the most extreme practices” refers to completing all the stages of the advanced bodhisattva path: the ten faiths (sipsin 十信), the ten abodes (sipchu 十住), the ten practices (siphaeng 十行), the ten transferences (siphoehyang 十廻向), the ten stages (sipchi 十地), and so forth. The stations that are attained in this way are called “fruition reward lands” (kwabot’o 果報土)4 because they are the result of recompense that was obtained as a karmic cause in the process of practice. However, these kinds of fruition reward lands can be nothing but a very narrow and confined approach to pure lands from the position that they are the results of the process of the most extreme practices. In addition, from the position that that fruition reward is due to one’s own personal exertion, a fruition reward land is also the pure land of self-power. We can see that Wŏnhyo, who greatly magnified the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land, thought it was difficult to adopt this kind of position from the Sūtra of Human Kings.
Second, the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha placed consistency (irhyang 一向) as a distinctive feature of a pure land and describes it in four categories more precisely as consistent purity (irhyang chŏng 一向淨), consistent bliss (irhyang rak 一向樂), consistent lack of deficiency (irhyang musil 一向無失), and consistent self-actualization (irhyang chajae 一向自在) (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554b). Furthermore, regarding a person endowed with these four virtues, “the dwelling-places of bodhisattvas from the eighth stage5 on up may be called pure lands” because he is a bodhisattva above the eighth state (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554b). Thus, only [End Page 48] bodhisattvas above the eighth stage are able to abide in pure lands. This means that bodhisattvas of the seventh stage and lower or living beings possess great hindrances. Here, these “great hindrances” refer to the four delusions of the manas-consciousness (malnasik sahok 末那識四惑), which are delusion regarding oneself (ach’i 我癡), view of a self (agyŏn 我見), pride in oneself (aman 我慢), and love of self (aae 我愛). Because these kind of perverted mental functions of the manas-consciousness remain in a subtle manner, bodhisattvas below the seventh stage and living beings “by availing themselves of the power of their vows are not fully endowed with the four aspects of consistency” (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554b). However, on top of the power of these vows, that one is unable to eliminate the subtle perversions of the manas-consciousness is an excessively low evaluation of the power of the vow of great compassion (taebi wŏllyŏk 大悲願力) of the tathāgata (Chŏng 1998, 110). As one who thoroughly comprehends other-power, which is called the power of the vow of great compassion more than self-power, Wŏnhyo, who sees the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land for living beings as broadening, is unable to accept the limited position of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha.
Third, Wŏnhyo says that Yogācārabhūmi asserts that bodhisattvas that have entered the third stage enter into a pure land (1979a, 554c). This means that the approach to a pure land has become a little more open than the position of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha. However, from the position that bodhisattvas of the third stage are reborn in a pure land by their own power, this kind of position is difficult to see as the easy path of rebirth in the Pure Land by means of other-power.
Fourth, being an analysis of an assertion in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, we can say that this is Wŏnhyo’s personal position. Wŏnhyo describes the Pure Land of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, or in other words, the “Buddhaland of Amitāyus” (Muryangsuguk 無量壽國) by saying, “it broadly contains both the Greater [Mahāyāna] and the Lesser Vehicles [Hīnayāna]; and it draws both ordinary people and sages and [has them] reborn in a superior place where together they may go on to the great Path to enlightenment” (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 554c). The scope of individuals that are born and reside in a pure land is limited to only buddhas in the Sūtra of Humane Kings, is restricted to bodhisattvas above the eights stage in the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, and is [End Page 49] limited to bodhisattvas of the third stage in the Yogācārabhūmi. Now, in the interpretation of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, it has expanded to combine ordinary people and sages. In addition, Wŏnhyo, with respect to the pure lands explained in such works as the Sūtra of Humane Kings, Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, Yogācārabhūmi, and Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, affirms that “The pure lands, which have been explained above in four aspects, have all been produced by the vows and practices of the tathāgatas, and those who are reborn there are not placed there by their own power” (1979a, 555a). When we synthesize Wŏnhyo’s foregoing textual analysis, we can see that through Wŏnhyo the scope of rebirth in the Pure Land becomes expanded to all living beings including adherents of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna and ordinary people and sages, and we can know that the method leading to rebirth in a pure land is not the path of self-power of treading the levels of practice, but it is in the path of other-power relying on the power of the vow of great compassion.
The Problem of the Reality of the Pure Land
A problem in the “aspect of form and formlessness” (yusaek musaengmun 有色 無色門) in Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra is whether there is form or formlessness in a pure land. This is the problem of whether a pure land is a real world system that possesses form or, if not, whether it is a world system that exists only within the mind of humankind. Wŏnhyo analyzes the four works of Buddhist literature that were examined above to solve this problem: the pure land of the Sūtra of Humane Kings prescribes “one’s own gratification land” (chasuyongt’o 自受用土) and the pure land of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, Yogācāra-bhūmi, and Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra prescribe the “gratification lands of others” (t’asuyongt’o 他受用土) (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 555a).
Gratification lands of others are various kinds of buddhalands (kukt’o 國土; Skt. buddha-kṣetra) for expropriating the fruition reward of enlightenment and superlative practices for other living beings and bodhisattvas. Gratification lands of others, in which these various kinds of majestic ornaments were effected, are buddhalands realized by the substance of reality. Therefore, Wŏnhyo asserted that there is no need to talk about existence of form in [End Page 50] the gratification lands of others (1979a, 555a). Extreme Bliss in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra or Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra is a real world system in the West. Therefore, Wŏnhyo also describes the Extreme Bliss of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra in a substantial manner through the fifteen kinds of distinctive features, such as “the staircases and pavilions adorned with gold and silver treasures,” “the lotus ponds of the seven kinds of previous substances,” “the flowers that fall like the rain” (Wŏnhyo 1979b, 564b). This gloriously-ornamented Pure Land of Extreme Bliss exists in a material space as a gratification land of others. It is thus able to provide the motivation for a substantial spiritual accomplishment to living beings who hope to be reborn in the Pure Land in the West.
However, although Wŏnhyo leaves no room for doubt that form exists in gratification lands of others, he sees that the existence or non-existence of form in one’s own gratification land could be an object of criticism. One’s own gratification land is a buddhaland where a buddha receives the joy of the dharma (pŏmnak 法樂) by himself. Because this is a sphere of amusement where [the bodhisattva] experiences the awakening of interior realization (chanaejŭng 自內證) by himself, discrimination between form and formlessness in reality are not a problem in one’s own gratification land. In that case, regardless, Wŏnhyo shows citing several bases that in treating the issue of form or formlessness in one’s own gratification land, one’s own gratification land can also be one of form; and we can see that aspiring to rebirth in the Pure Land is something a little more concretized.
The assertion that one’s own gratification land is formless is based on the following description from the Sūtra on the Original Acts that Serve as Adornments for the Bodhisattva (Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經): “That land of cleanliness and purity is without extremes, names, or marks, and cannot be ascertained by dharmas” (T 1485, 1020a; Wŏnhyo 1979a, 555a).
The buddhaland alluded to here, beyond being a sphere for the interior realization of a tathāgata, has no reason to have the form of all dharmas, and accordingly cannot possess either the dharma of form (saekpŏp 色法) or the mark of form (saengsang 色相). Therefore, one’s own gratification land is necessarily formless. However, the following depiction from the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Huayan jing 華嚴經) suggests the possibility of an interpretation different than [End Page 51] this: “When the tathāgatas achieve right awakening of the Tathāgata and achieve bodhi, they acquire a body that is the equal of all living beings and a body that is the same as all dharmas” (T 278, 626c; Wŏnhyo 1979a, 555b).
Just as true wisdom invariably accompanies compassion, the right awakening (chŏnggak 正覺) of the tathāgatas was always directed toward the liberation of living beings. That being the case, no matter how much the right awakening of the tathāgatas is said to be internal realization, it can do nothing but change into a body equal to the body of all living beings due to compassion directed toward living beings. In this instance, one’s own gratification land of internal realization becomes something possessing form in which a body of form (saeksin 色身) exists. Of course, because right awakening takes the middle path of neither existence nor non-existence as its substance, discrimination itself between whether it is formless or possesses form in that condition is completely meaningless. In addition, that right awakening, if one seeks to discriminate randomly that condition, must be something formless more than possessing form, above the sphere of internal realization. In that case, regardless, we can see the reason Wŏnhyo brings in the argument that one’s own gratification land of internal realization can possess form is so he can emphasize the point that even a pure land as one’s own gratification land is meaningless without compassion directed toward living beings. As we have examined above, by showing that there is no reason to say gratification lands of others possess form, and even one’s own gratification land can possess form, Wŏnhyo opened people’s eyes once again to the position that a pure land is not a pure land of the mind (sim chŏngt’o 心淨土) merely constructed as a shadow of the mind, but a world system that exists in the West and possesses concrete form.
The Taints in a Pure Land and the Absence of Taints in a Defiled Land
In order to stress the power of the vow of great compassion for the liberation of living beings and the expansion of the scope of rebirth in the Pure Land to all living beings, Wŏnhyo emphasized that Extreme Bliss is a world system that actually exists and that not only gratification lands of others but also one’s own gratification land was endowed with the mark of form (saeksang 色相). [End Page 52] However, this kind of realistic view of the Pure Land is a fact that is difficult to accommodate if one intends to see things from the standpoint of Consciousness-only learning (Yusikhak 唯識學), which sees all dharmas as only mutations of consciousness.
This problem is discussed in the “aspect of universality and non-universality” (kong pulgongmun 共不共門) in Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. The problem is if this also means that a “pure land” is precisely a buddhaland of cleanliness and purity, whether this buddhaland is a universal fruition reward (konggwa 共果) or a non-universal fruition reward (pulgonggwa 不共果). In other words, whether a “buddhaland” is someplace where all living beings have commonness or community together or, whether each and every living being is caused to receive it as his own fruition reward. If looked at from the context of Consciousness-only learning, because all dharmas are a world system of shadows that appear in the consciousnesses of all living beings individually, a buddhaland is also invariably a non-universal fruition reward. The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, one of the key scriptures of Consciousness-only learning, says: “I explained that consciousness of sense objects (ālambana) is consciousness only of what has been made manifest” (T 676, 698b; Wŏnhyo 1979a, 556a). Because this logic has been constructed, Wŏnhyo asserts that, “If there is a buddhaland that cannot be distinguished according to one’s consciousness [viz. one cannot recognize it with the mind], the distinctions of which are not cognized accordingly, then it is formed outside of the mind and is contrary to the principle of Consciousness-only” (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 556a). Accordingly, because Consciousness-only is sphere-less (mugyŏng 無境), a buddhaland is also not an actual or substantive object and is a non-universal fruition reward that arises according to each and every consciousness individually.
With respect to this theory of the non-universal fruition reward of the buddhaland, although Wŏnhyo says that a buddhaland can be understood as consciousness, he asserts that consciousness cannot precisely be said to be a buddhaland. In other words, Wŏnhyo does not recognize the subjective pure lands of living beings individually but emphasizes that buddhalands are brought about by means of the universal fruition rewards of living beings. Therefore, he says that although the pure land is not separate from the consciousness, [End Page 53] it is not the same thing as consciousness; the form of the buddhaland is one, and this is because it is brought about together with several consciousnesses (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 556a). Just like this, the theory of the universal fruition reward of the pure land functions in both one’s own gratification land and in the gratification lands of others. Just as many buddhas universally possess (kongyu 共有; viz. “hold in common”) dharma bodies and rely on each other, because several buddhas universally possess one buddhaland, one’s own gratification land, which is a sphere of buddhas, is a universal fruition reward. Gratification lands of others are also universally possessed by buddhas and bodhisattvas together, just as a king and his ministers hold a country in common (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 556a); so gratification lands of others are also universal fruition rewards. The theory of the universal fruition reward of the pure land is that a pure land, which combines one’s own gratification land and the gratification lands of others, is shared by buddhas, bodhisattvas, and living beings. Wŏnhyo stresses this theory because of his belief that a pure land must be open in order to liberate all living beings.
However, if a pure land is something that goes along with living beings, it means that the pure land of clean and pure true thusness (chinyŏ 眞如)6 is together with living beings filled to capacity in the arising and ceasing mind.7 However, being filled to capacity in the arising and ceasing mind means “the existence of defilements that continue to leak out” (yuru 有漏), and the cleanliness and purity of true thusness means “the non-existence of defilements that continue to leak out” (muru 無漏). Accordingly, the issue regarding whether the statement “the pure land exists together with living beings” carries any significance is discussed in “the aspect of taints and the absence of taints” (numurumun 漏無漏門) in Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra. Furthermore, the cleanliness and purity of true thusness and being filled to capacity in the arising and ceasing mind exist together. Because the aspect of the true thusness (chinyŏmun 眞如門) of the true thusness of the mind (sim chinyŏ 心眞如) and the arising and ceasing aspect (saengmyŏlmun 生滅門) of the arising and ceasing of the mind (sim saengmyŏl 心生滅) abide together within the one mind, the discussion in the “aspect of taints and the absence of taints” contains Wŏnhyo’s thought on the one mind. In addition, because he says, “The one mind is a designation for the tathāgatagarbha”8 (Wŏnhyo 1979c, 741a), [End Page 54] the discussion in this approach involves the concept of the tathāgatagarbha.
Therefore, in order to elucidate the meaning of “The pure land exists together with living beings,” Wŏnhyo cites the following passage from the Śrīmālādevisiṃhanāda-sūtra (Shengman jing 勝鬘經), a scripture in the lineage of Tathāgatagarbha thought: “World-honored One, there is a compounded world and an uncompounded world… There is a compounded nirvāṇa and an uncompounded nirvāṇa” (T 353, 221b; Wŏnhyo 1979a, 557a).
Because “compounded” (yuwi 有爲) are things the come to be based on defilements and delusions, it refers to the world of taints, and because “uncompounded” (muwi 無爲) are things that do not come to be based on defilements and taints, it refers to the nirvāṇa, which is devoid of taints. If that is the case, the statements “the compounded world exists” and “uncompounded nirvāṇa exists” are perfectly reasonable. What is problematic is the meaning of the statements “the uncompounded world exists” and “compounded nirvāṇa exists.” Here, “compounded nirvāṇa exists” means that nirvāṇa can be compounded and possess taints; in other words, it refers to the idea that the buddha in nirvāṇa is always concerned about living beings due to his mind of great compassion (taebisim 大悲心). Furthermore, “the uncompounded world exists” means that the world can be uncompounded and devoid of taints; in other words, it refers to the idea that living beings in the world possess the tathāgatagarbha and in the end they are able to attain uncompounded nirvāṇa. Therefore, we can say that if the “compounded nature (yuwisŏng 有爲性) of nirvāṇa” means the buddha’s mind of great compassion, the “uncompounded nature (muwisŏng 無爲性) of the world” means the tathāgatagarbha of living beings. This twofold meaning functions in the pure land, and Wŏnhyo analyzes it in four aspects as follows: “ All buddha bodies and buddhalands are subject to the taints …  The bodies and lands of ordinary people are all free from taints …  The defiled lands (yet’o 穢土) and pure lands of all ordinary people and sages also both possess taints and non-taints …  The defiled lands and pure lands of all ordinary people and sages neither have taints nor have non-taints” (Wŏnhyo 1979a, 557b).
First, the proposition “All buddha bodies and buddhalands are subject to the taints” refers to the “compounded nature of nirvāṇa” from the standpoint [End Page 55] that the buddha in nirvāṇa is always concerned about living beings; and it refers to the “tainted nature (yurusŏng 有漏性) of a pure land” from the position that the buddha of a pure land is always together with living beings. Also, although the buddha is fundamentally in the condition of the true thusness of the mind that is neither arising nor ceasing (pulsaeng pulmyŏl 不生 不滅), from the standpoint that the buddha has no tainted arising and ceasing mind because he is always concerned with living beings, this proposition implies “seeing the arising and ceasing aspect within the aspect of true thusness.”
Second, the proposition “the bodies and lands of ordinary people are all free from taints” refers to the “uncompounded nature of the world” from the standpoint that since ordinary people and even living beings in the world originally possess the tathāgatagarbha in the end they will be able to reach uncompounded nirvāṇa; and it refers to the “untainted nature (murusŏng 無漏性) of defiled lands” from the position that complete extinction of defilements is possible due to the tathāgatagarbha possessed by ordinary people and even living beings themselves in defiled lands. Also, although ordinary people and living beings repeat the possession of scattered arising and ceasing minds in their present condition, this proposition means “seeing the aspect of true thusness within the arising and ceasing aspect” from the standpoint that untainted true thusness, where defilements have disappeared, is possible because living beings possess the tathāgatagarbha.
Third, the proposition “The defiled lands and pure lands of all ordinary people and sages also both possess taints and non-taints” means that the pure lands of sages have taints because the buddha is always concerned about living beings due to his mind of great compassion (→ the tainted nature of pure lands); and the defiled lands of ordinary people are untainted because the extinction of defilements is possible since living beings are endowed with the tathāgatagarbha (→ the untainted nature of defiled lands). Also, the proposition makes sense by means of the aspect of true thusness based on the arising and ceasing aspect because “possess taints and non-taints” is “the arising of defilements and the ceasing of defilements.”
Fourth, the proposition “The defiled lands and pure lands of all ordinary people and sages neither have taints nor have non-taints” means that although it is called a defiled land of ordinary people it is not tainted only, because the [End Page 56] eradication of defilements is possible since living beings possess the tathāgatagarbha (→ the untainted nature of defiled lands); and since it is called a pure land of sages it is not always untainted only, because the buddha is always concerned with living beings (→ the tainted nature of pure lands). Also, this proposition subsumes the arising and ceasing aspect on the basis of the aspect of true thusness that is neither arising nor ceasing from the standpoint that “neither have taints nor have non-taints” means there is neither the arising of defilements nor the ceasing of defilements.”
Just as we have seen above, Wŏnhyo understood the mind of great compassion as the tainted nature of pure lands by way of the buddha’s concern for living beings; he saw the arising and ceasing aspect even within the aspect of true thusness; he analyzed the tathāgatagarbha, which is originally possessed by living beings, as the untainted nature of defiled lands; and he saw the aspect of true thusness even within arising and ceasing aspect. Because he saw the arising and ceasing aspect within the aspect of true thusness, an untainted pure land becomes tainted; and because he saw aspect of true thusness within the arising and ceasing aspect, a tainted defiled land can become undefiled. Because of this, Wŏnhyo said, “Although pure lands and defiled lands may be different, they do not have separate substances” (1979a, 557a) and “defiled lands and pure lands are originally one mind” (1979a, 553c). If that is the case, the idea that pure lands and defiled lands are originally the one mind, just as the aspect of true thusness and the arising and ceasing aspect are interfused in the one mind, means that the mind of great compassion in a tainted pure land and the tathāgatagarbha in an untainted defiled land are subsumed in the one mind by means of the mind of living beings (chungsaengsim 衆生心). Just like this, the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land for all living beings can be maximized through the combination of the mind of great compassion and the tathāgatagarbha.
Conclusion: The Pure Land of the One Mind as the Source of Liberation for Living Beings
The Chinese monks Tanluan and Daochuo adopted and adapted Indian Pure Land thought which had been formed by means of the three Pure Land sūtras. [End Page 57] They endowed the distinctive features of the Pure Land teaching in East Asia by bestowing a pure nature on Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī), identifying “Extreme Bliss” as a “pure land,” contrasting it to the difficult path of self-power, and theorizing an easy path of other-power. The re-theorizing of this kind of Pure Land teaching as a religion of liberation—in other words, as a doctrinal learning comparable to the concept of the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna, which aims for the attainment of buddhahood for all living beings—was a subject passed down to Wŏnhyo. Through this he set the pure land on the basis of the one mind, and through this he advanced in the direction of maximizing the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land for all living beings.
This direction for Wŏnhyo expanded the scope of rebirth in the Pure Land to all living beings, combining adherents of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, ordinary people and sages. He revealed the method of rebirth in the Pure Land as not the path of self-power undergone through the levels of practice but as a path of other-power in which one relies on the power of the vow of great compassion of the tathāgata. In order to concretize a bit more the living beings’ heartfelt aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land, he also stressed that pure lands were world systems that had material existence by bestowing the mark of form on not only the gratification lands of others but even on one’s own gratification land. He also asserted the theory of the universal fruition reward of buddhalands, in which pure lands that combine one’s own gratification land and the gratification lands of others are together with buddhas, bodhisattvas, and living beings, in order to construct a pure land as an open space for the liberation of all living beings.
Nevertheless, Wŏnhyo’s strategy of maximizing the possibility of rebirth in the Pure Land for living beings was clearly theorized doctrinally. After recognizing that even the nirvāṇa of true thusness is compounded and can have taints and that even the world of arising and ceasing is uncompounded and can be untainted, he theorized interfusion by means of the logic of the one mind in the following two aspects: (1) the compounded nature of nirvāṇa and uncompounded nature of the world, and (2) the tainted nature of the pure land and the untainted nature of defiled lands. In other words, Wŏnhyo understood the mind of great compassion as the tainted nature of pure lands by way of the buddha’s concern for living beings; he saw the arising and ceasing aspect even [End Page 58] within the aspect of true thusness; he analyzed the tathāgatagarbha, which is originally possessed by living beings, as the untainted nature of defiled lands; and he saw the aspect of true thusness even within the arising and ceasing aspect. Just as the aspect of true thusness and the arising and ceasing aspect are interfused within the one mind, the possibility for rebirth in the Pure Land by all living beings is amplified by the buddha’s mind of great compassion and the tathāgatagarbha of living beings being harmonized within the one mind by means of the mind of living beings.
Accordingly, Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning of the Pure Land is set on the basis of the one mind, which means that the two aspects of the mind of great compassion, or the tainted nature of the pure land of true thusness, and the tathāgatagarbha, or the untainted nature of defiled lands, are interfused by means of the one mind. It does not mean a pure land of mind-only, in which a pure land exists only within the mind. Because the one mind implies harmonization of the middle path, on the contrary, the mind-only primarily referring to the deluded mind, Wŏnhyo’s pure land of the one mind is not the meaning of the pure land of mind-only. Rather, Wŏnhyo’s conviction was that all pure lands combining one’s own gratification land and the gratification lands of others are actual worlds that exist in a concrete manner, and that all living beings could be reborn in the actually-existing Pure Land of Extreme Bliss due to the buddha’s mind of great compassion and the tathāgatagarbha of ordinary beings. Through him, a pure land based on the one mind became the source of liberation for all living beings.
Kim JongWook 金種旭 is currently Professor of Buddhist Studies in the College of Buddhism at Dongguk University in Seoul, Korea, where he is also the Chief of the Institute for Buddhist Culture and the Director of the Humanities Korea Project. His books include, Pulgyo esŏ ponŭn ch’ŏrhak, ch’ŏrhak esŏ ponŭn Pulgyo 불교에서 보는 철학, 철학에서 보는 불교 (Philosophy seen from Buddhism, Buddhism seen from Philosophy) (Pulgyo sidaesa, 2002), Yongsu wa K’ant’ŭ 용수와 칸트 (Nāgārjuna and Kant) (Unjusa, 2002), Pulgyo saengt’ae ch’ŏrhak 불교생태철학 (Philosophy of Buddhist Ecology) (Tongguk taehakkyo ch’ulp’anbu, 2004), and Haidegŏ wa hyŏngisanghak kŭrigo Pulgyo 하이데거와 형이상학 그 리고 불교 (Heidegger, Metaphysics, and Buddhism) (Ch’ŏrhak kwa hyŏnsilsa, 2013).
2. The selection of the three key sūtras of the Pure Land teaching and the labeling of them as the “three Pure Land sūtras” (Chŏngt’o sambu kyŏng 淨土三部經) was actually due to the Japanese monk Hōnen 法然 (1133–1212). [End Page 59]
3. Han Pogwang introduces the scholarly criticism regarding the authorship of Wandering the Path to Mental Peace and Bliss (1991, 299–328) and understands it as a piece of writing that was formulated in Silla in the middle of the eighth century during the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk 景德 (742–765), after the time of the monk-scholar Ŭijŏk 義寂.
4. Using the term “fruition reward land,” Wŏnhyo applies to a “land” the qualities of “fruition rewards” (kwabo 果報), which are retribution for good or evil deeds, implying that different conditions in this life or any other life are the fruits of seeds sown in one’s previous life or lives. Thus, another translation would be a “retribution land.”
5. The eighth stage (p’alchi 八地) is called the “immoveable stage” (pudongji 不動地) of the ten stages. If a bodhisattva reaches this stage he is assured of attaining buddhahood (see T 278, 542c25–543a9, specifically 542c29).
6. Thusness (yŏyŏ 如如; Skt. tathatā) refers to the original or inherent condition prior to the transformations of life and death. It is the universal, unchanging, original essence of all things in the universe. Thusness is also called true thusness or suchness (chinyŏ 眞如), reality as it is (yŏsil 如實), the dharmadhātu or dharma realm (pŏpkye 法界), the dharma nature (pŏpsŏng 法性), the true limits of reality (silche 實際), the mark of reality (silsang 實相), the Tathāgatagarbha or embryo of Buddhahood (yŏraejang 如來藏), the dharmakāya or dharma body (pŏpsin 法身), the body of the purity of self-nature (chasŏng ch’ŏngjŏngsin 自性淸淨身), the one mind (ilsim 一心), the realm of the inconceivable (pusaŭi kye 不思議界), and so forth.
7. The arising and ceasing mind (saengmyŏlsim 生滅心) is the mind that is subject to such things as fluctuations, change and influences. In essence it is the mind of beings in saṃsāra, the cycle of rebirth and death.
8. Tathāgatagarbha (yŏraejang 如來藏), which literally means “the womb or embryo of Buddhahood,” is an expression referring to the capacity for all living beings to become tathāgatas or buddhas. At this time, in the developing Mahāyāna tradition, the basis for all living beings to become buddhas were manifest through such concepts as seed-nature (chongsŏng 種性; Skt. gotra), the world system or sphere (kye 界; Skt. dhātu), and womb or embryo (t’ae 胎; t’aea 胎兒; Skt. garbha). According to the Śrīmālādevisiṃhanāda-sūtra, saṃsāra (life and death) depends on the tathāgatagarbha and because the tathāgatagarbha exists it explains saṃsāra. With respect to this, the tathāgatagarbha and saṃsāra of living beings means that they are not different from each other (T 353, 222b5–6). [End Page 60]