This article examines a late-Ming turning point in the history of Chinese controversies concerning belief in Amitābha’s Pure Land. Buddhist scholiasts of this period engaged in traditional Pure Land apologetics, which responded mostly to doubts concerning the proper interpretation of Buddhist scriptures, philosophy and practice. They sought to resolve such doubts by aligning belief in the Western Pure Land with the doctrine of universal, inherent Buddhahood and by situating it within the doctrinal framework of ‘principle’ and ‘phenomena.’ The article examines how this established pattern of Pure Land apologetics was confronted with new forms of doubt that problematized Pure Land belief from broader perspectives. It discusses Yunqi Zhuhong’s apologetic strategies, who addressed an educated audience inclined to question literal belief in the Pure Land while remaining sympathetic to Chan and Neo-Confucian views. It also considers criticisms of Pure Land faith from Jesuit missionaries and Chinese Catholic converts, who employed empirical observation and logical reasoning to refute both literal belief in the Pure Land and its doctrinal reinterpretations. Although these new debates did not result in a fundamental transformation of Chinese Pure Land apologetics, they deserve more attention – especially in light of subsequent Buddhist responses to modernist critiques of religion.
Jakub Zamorski (Thu,) studied this question.