The recent publication of Luis Gomez's translation of the Sanskrit and selected Chinese versions of the Longer and Shorter Sukhavati -- vyuha -- sutras (The Land of Bliss, Honolulu & Kyoto，1996) represents a significant advance in our understanding of the textual basis of the Pure Land tradition of Buddhism，and especially of its pluralistic or multivocal nature. Gomez's work throws into high relief the changes, which these two seminal texts have undergone in the course of their history，and draws attention to the many problems of interpretation to which such changes inevitably contribute. One of these problems is the question of female rebirth in Sukhavati，the issue being，of course，not whether women can be reborn in the Pure Land，but whether they are reborn there as women. Although it is widely held nowadays that the inhabitants of Amitabha's realm are neither male nor female，such a position appears to conflict with the content of the Longer Sukhavati-vyuha-sutra. Is this conflict apparent or real? To provide an answer，this paper sets itself the task of clarifying the standpoint of this text，both with respect to the famous vow made by Dharmakara concerning female rebirth and with regard to other passages in the work which may have a bearing on this issue. A close study of all surviving Chinese translations, setting them alongside the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions and according them equal status as testimony to the tradition，produces conclusions that may be surprising or unpalatable to some. There is, as one says, bad news and good news for those who believe that gender distinctions will cease to operate in Sukhavati and seek to support this belief with reference to scriptural authority. The bad news is that the earlier strata of the textual tradition are completely unequivocal in their assertion that women will be reborn in Sukhavati as men，and that all inhabitants of the Pure Land will thus be male. Furthermore，even the later strata provide evidence that Amitabha's realm is what we might call a man's world. The good news is that on this question，as on several others, we can see the scriptural tradition itself under-going change，as those who fashioned it developed their ideas and modified their standpoints. It is not monolithic and unchanging，but a constantly shifting point of reference and source of inspiration. Therefore those who seek to refashion the image of Sukhavati in the twentieth century can rightly see themselves as heirs to an ancient tradition of re-interpretation，which was itself not bound entirely by the canons of the past.
