Bibliography
Fukuyama, Toshio. Heian Temples: Byodo-in and Chuson-ji,tr.
Ronald K. Jones. New York: Weatherhill, 1976.
Mochizuki, Shinko. Chugoku Jodo kyorishi(History of the Chi-
nese Pure Land doctrinal teaching). Kyoto: Hozokan, 1942.
Nakamura Koji. “Saihojodohen no kenkyu” (Studies in trans-
formation tableaux of the Western Pure Land), parts 1–29.
Nihon bijutsu kogeino. 491 (August 1979): 84–90, through
no. 519 (December 1981): 31–35.
Nakamura Koji. “Wagakuni no jodo hensoto Tonko” (The
transformation tableaux of pure land in Japan and Dun-
huang). In Chugoku sekkutsu TonkoBakkokutsu(Chinese
grottos: Mogao cave shrines at Dunhuang), Vol. 3. Tokyo:
Heibonsha, 1982.
Okazaki, Joji. Pure Land Buddhist Painting,tr. Elizabeth ten
Grotenhuis. Tokyo, New York, and San Francisco: Kodan-
sha International and Shibundo, 1977.
Tsukamoto, Zenryu. “Jodohenshi gaisetsu” (A historical survey
of the transformation tableaux of pure lands). Bukkyogei-
jutsu(Ars Buddhica) 26 (1955): 27–41.
Tsukamoto, Zenryu. Jodoshu shi, bijutsuhen(History of the
Pure Land sect: art history volume), Vol. 7 of Tsukamoto
Zenryuchosaku shu.Tokyo: Daito, 1975.
Wang, Eugene. “Transformation in ‘Heterotopia’: The
Longhuta and Its Relief Sculptures.” Orientations29, no. 6
(1998): 32–40.
Wang, Eugene. “Watching the Steps: Peripatetic Vision in Me-
dieval China.” In Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance:
Seeing as the Others See,ed. Robert Nelson. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2000.
Wang, Eugene. Shape of the Visual: Imaginary Topography in
Medieval Chinese Buddhist Art.Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press, 2004.
Wu Hung. “Reborn in Paradise: A Case Study of Dunhuang
Sutra Painting and Its Religious, Ritual and Artistic Con-
text.” Orientations23, no. 5 (1992): 52–60.
Wu Hung, and Ning Qiang. “Paradise Images in Early Chinese
Art.” In The Flowering of a Foreign Faith: New Studies in Chi-
nese Buddhist Art,ed. Janet Baker. New Delhi: Marg, 1998.
EUGENEY. WANGPURE LAND BUDDHISM
Pure Land Buddhism signifies a wide array of prac-
tices and traditions within MAHAYANABuddhism di-
rected to the Buddha AMITABHA(Amitayus) and his
realm, Sukhavat(Land of Bliss), which came to be
referred to in Chinese as the Pure Land(jingtu; Japan-
ese, jodo). Mahayana recognized the existence of in-
numerable BUDDHASand even BODHISATTVAS who
presided over their own buddha-fields (buddhakse-
tra), realms that they had purified or were in the
process of purifying. Early on, some of these buddhas
and their pure lands were singled out as the objects of
particular scriptural and liturgical distinction. For ex-
ample, the Asksobhyavyuha-sutrasuggests that AKSO-
BHYAand his buddha-field Abhirati in the eastern
quadrant of the universe achieved a significant cultic
status in Mahayana’s early period. It was, however,
Amitabha and his buddha-field in the west that ulti-
mately came to attract the overwhelming preponder-
ance of attention, particularly in East Asia, and to a
modified extent in the VAJRAYANABuddhism of the
Tibetan cultural area. It is to this tradition, focused
on Amitabha and his paradise Sukhavat, that the term
Pure Land Buddhismconventionally applies.Pure Land and Mahayana Buddhism
The Buddha Amitabha and his Land of Bliss were al-
ready amply attested to in early Mahayana scriptures.
The story of Amitabha as found in the Longer
SUKHAVATIVYUHA-SUTRA rehearsed elements that
were fundamental to the Mahayana vision: the bod-
hisattva vocation with its initial set of vows and sub-
sequent accumulation of merit through austerities,
the attainment of supreme enlightenment, and the
creation of a land through stored merit for the salva-
tion of all SENTIENT BEINGS. Consequently, the prac-
tices affiliated with the Pure Land tradition were
reflective of Mahayana values and were inextricably
embedded within a complex of cultivational and litur-
gical regimens that prevailed throughout the Ma-
hayana tradition.
Mahayana contains a soteriological paradox that
historically led to wide disparities with regard to Pure
Land practice, as well as to contrasting views on the
nature and function of that practice. On the one hand,
Amitabha’s Pure Land itself was the result of cultiva-
tion of the bodhisattva PATH, thus serving as an ex-
ample that encouraged emulation in all of those
seeking the Pure Land. They too were expected to as-
siduously follow that path, rigorously engaging in the
requisite spiritual disciplines and austerities, all the
while attending to the welfare of all sentient beings. On
the other hand, the Pure Land as a place of refuge and
liberation was a creation of Amitabha’s beneficent
vows to save all sentient beings and as such became a
goal for those seeking liberation not through their own
effort but through faith in Amitabha’s salvific power.
Strengthening this latter view was the belief that grewPURELANDBUDDHISM