Standard histories of Chinese Buddhism frequently characterize late medieval Buddhist monasticism as consisting of a syncretic mix of Ch'an and Pure Land. The eventual dominance of these two schools, we are told，was due in part to the Hui-ch'ang persecution of 845 and the ensuing loss of imperial patronage in the latter days of the T'ang. (According to this theory，since Ch'an and Pure Land both privileged praxis over scriptural exegesis, they were better able to weather the loss of state support than were other more scholastically oriented traditions.) By the Northern Sung Pure Land practices and doctrines were being incorporated into Ch'an，and eminent Ch'an masters such as Yung-ming Yen-shou (904-975) sought to provide scriptural support for resulting amalgam. This amalgam，often referred to as "Ch'an-Pure Land syncretism," is characterized by a "Ch'annish" demythologization of Pure Land cosmology (wherein the Pure Land is identified with "original mind" or "intrinsic Buddha nature")，and the incorporation of nien-fo practice into Ch'an meditation. Ch'an-Pure Land syncretism emerged as the dominate form of Buddhist monasticism from the end of the Sung down through the present day.
The notion that Ch'an came to be infused with Pure Land ideas and practices would seem to be supported by the reaction of the Tokugawa period Zen establishment to the umigru Ch'an priests who arrived in Japan following the collapse of the Ming. The Ch'an taught by Yin-yuan Lung-ch'i (1592-1673) and his disciples (later known as Obaku Zen) was notable for its incorporation of nien-fo. As a consequence Obaku Zen was castigated as "impure" by members of the Rinzai establishment.
Be that as it may，the very notion of "Ch'an-Pure Land syncretism" is problematic. For one thing，the rubric of syncretism presupposes the historical existence of two or more distinct traditions that precede the syncretic mixture. Yet it is far clear that Pure Land was ever understood as a distinct lineage，exegetical tradition，or religious institution in China. On the contrary，Pure Land cosmology and practice were ubiquitous features of Chinese Buddhism from its very beginnings. Aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land was common among the clergy throughout Chinese Buddhist history，irrespective of a monk's ordination of the most popular forms of Buddhist practice in China, and was taught by many，if not all，of the early Ch'an patriarchs, including Tao-hsin (580-651)，Hung-jen (601-764)，and Shen-hsiu (605-706). Finally，there is no fundamental divide between the interpretations of the Pure Land given by supposed "Pure Land masters" such as T'an-luan (476-542)，Tao-cho (562-645)，and Shan-tao (613-681)，and the interpretations given by eminent Ch'an masters such as Yen-shou，all of which aver to the doctrine of upaya and the two truths.
This paper is an initial attempt to reappraise the status of the so-called "Pure Land school" in China, and the affiliated notion of Ch'an-Pure Land cosmology，soteriology，and practice were always part-and-parcel of Chinese Buddhism in g
