In Late Qing and Early Republican China, several venerables and lay Buddhists advocated “Researching the teachings of Hua-yen and practicing the way of Pure Land”, such as Master Hong Yi, Mr. Yang Ren Shan, and Mr. Xu Wei Ru. Some others promoted “Studying Hua-yen teachings and practicing Vinaya”, “Studying Hua-yen teachings and practicing Zen”, “Studying Hua-yen teachings and practicing Esoteric Buddhism”, and so on. Why support these ideas instead of “Studying Hua-yen teachings and adopting the practice of Samantabhadra”? Is it because the Hua-yen school lack for methods of practice? If not, what is the practice of Hua-yen Buddhism? In terms of the Hua-yen school, what is the relationship between scriptural study and practice? Furthermore, what is the relationship between Hua-yen and Pure Land Buddhism? These questions deserve our reflection and discussion. This paper includes four parts. The first part reviews whether “Researching the teachings of Hua-yen and practicing the way of Pure Land” is sutra-based. Secondly, Hua-yen masters’ methods of practice are examined, followed by further discussion on the scriptural study and practice of Hua-yen Buddhism. The last part focuses on the connections between the practice of Samantabhadra and the practice of Amitābha, especially from the view of the Buddha-chanting method, in hopes of thoroughly understanding the idea of “Researching the teachings of Hua-yen and practicing the way of Pure Land”.
