up in some Mahayana circles that the dharma had en-
tered into an age of decline in which the diminished
capacities of adherents were no longer adequate to
meet the rigorous demands of the traditional bod-
hisattva path. Thus, only through easier practices and
through Amitabha’s assistance could people hope to
attain liberation. While the sectarian Pure Land move-
ment that developed in Japan embraced the latter per-
spective, an overall examination of Pure Land tradition
reveals that both of these seemingly contradictory per-
spectives have prevailed alongside each other for most
of the tradition’s history, and therefore both must be
taken into account for a balanced approach to Pure
Land developments. The requirement for an even-
handed historical view in Pure Land also necessitates
avoiding the facile distinction between monastic and
lay practice that associates members of the monastic
community with the rigors of the bodhisattva path and
lay adherents with an easier course. Indeed, the very
argument for easier practice came from members of
the monastic community, while, conversely, we find
laics in history emulating liturgical and meditative
practices that had monastic origins.
Mindful recollection of the Buddha
Pure Land practice was initially predicated on the as-
piration common throughout Mahayana to achieve
proximity to a buddha either through a meditative vi-
sion or through REBIRTHin his Pure Land. This aspi-
ration derived from a latent sense of regret frequently
voiced in Buddhist scriptures with regard to S ́akya-
muni’s departure and subsequent absence from this
world, as well as from the abiding hope that liberation
could be more easily achieved in the presence and un-
der the tutelage of a buddha. This goal of seeking ac-
cess to a buddha was thought to be best achieved
through a practice known as “mindful recollection of
the Buddha” (BUDDHANUSMRTI), a discipline that had
roots in early Buddhism and became a common fea-
ture in Mahayana scriptures. This meditative disci-
pline most simply refers to the practice of calling to
mind and concentrating on the qualities of a buddha,
but in reality it embraces a wide range of contempla-
tive objects and techniques. In the Pure Land tradi-
tion, the practice sometimes entailed concrete
visualization of the Buddha Amitabha, his attendant
bodhisattvas Avalokites ́vara and Mahasthamaprapta,
or the Land of Bliss. Then again, in contrast to these
tangible visualizations, the practice at other times re-
quired a meditation on the formless and empty nature
of the Buddha’s ultimate reality, the dharmakaya.
Meditative concentration was achieved by such diverse
practices as fixing the mind on one or many aspects
of the Buddha Amitabha’s appearance, concentrating
on the name of the Buddha, or vocally intoning that
name through chant or speech. Furthermore, the prac-
titioner could engage in the process through a variety
of postures including sitting, standing, walking, or ly-
ing down.
The practice of buddhanusmrti was accorded a
central cultivational role in sutras that dealt with
Amitabha and his Pure Land. An early Mahayana
scripture, the PRATYUTPANNASAMADHI-SUTRA, called
for an uninterrupted meditation on the Buddha
Amitayus for seven days and nights, promising that
the Buddha would appear before the adherent at the
end of that period. The previously mentioned Longer
Sukhavatlvyuha-sutra,in presenting the conditions for
rebirth, set forth the exclusive recollection of the Bud-
dha of Measureless Life (Amitayus), if even for ten
moments of thought, as a requirement for all levels of
spiritual capacity. Another scripture of non-Indian
provenance, the Guan Wuliangshou jing(Contempla-
tion of the Buddha of Limitless Life Sutra), had as its
main content the explication of thirteen different vi-
sualizations on various attributes of the Buddha and
his Pure Land.Meditative practice in East Asia and Tibet
The Chinese translation of the Sanskrit word bud-
dhanusmrtiwas nianfo(Japanese, nenbutsu), a term
burdened with ambiguity as to the form of practice it
denotes. In many contexts, nianfocommonly signifies
a mental recollection of a Buddha’s attributes. This dis-
cipline was also called nianfo sanmei(the samadhiof
buddhanusmrti), an expression that reinforced a con-
templative emphasis by alluding to the meditative
trance in which the Buddha would appear. In yet other
contexts, the term nianfocame to refer to invoking the
Buddha’s name vocally. Despite this seeming contrast,
it must be kept in mind that the recitation of the name,
whether voiced or silent, chanted or spoken, was orig-
inally but one method of several in the mindful recol-
lection of the Buddha. Steering away from this
contemplative emphasis, the sectarian traditions of
Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, Jodo shu and Jodo
Shinshu, appealed to a distinction made by the Chi-
nese monk Shandao (613–681), assigning recitation of
the name a separate and superior status among the var-
ious practices. This recitation conventionally expressed
as Namo Amituo Fo(Japanese, Namu Amida Butsu), a
formula that was drawn from the Guan WuliangshouPURELANDBUDDHISM