The T’ien-T’ai school is important, not merely for its doctrines, but as having produced a great monastic establishment and an illustrious line of writers.  In spite of the orders of the Emperor who wished to retain him at Nanking, Chih-I retired to the highlands of Che-Kiang and twelve monasteries still mark various spots where he is said to have resided.  He had some repute as an author, but more as a preacher.  His words were recorded by his disciple Kuan-Ting[820] and in this way have been preserved two expositions of the Lotus and a treatise on his favourite doctrine of Chih-Kuan which together are termed the San-ta-pu, or Three Great Books.  Similar spoken expositions of other sutras are also preserved.  Some smaller treatises on his chief doctrines seem to be works of his own pen.[821] A century later Chan-Jan,[822] who is reckoned the ninth Patriarch of the T’ien-t’ai school, composed commentaries on the Three Great Books as well as some short original works.  During the troubled period of the Five Dynasties, the T’ien-t’ai monasteries suffered severely and the sacred books were almost lost.  But the school had a branch in Korea and a Korean priest called Ti-Kuan[823] re-established it in China.  It continued to contribute literature to the Tripitaka until 1270 but after the tenth century its works, though numerous, lose their distinctive character and are largely concerned with magical formulae and the worship of Amida.

The latter is the special teaching of the Pure Land school, also known as the Lotus school, or the Short Cut.[824] It is indeed a short cut to salvation, striking unceremoniously across all systems, for it teaches that simple faith in Amitabha (Amida) and invocation of his name can take the place of moral and intellectual endeavour.  Its popularity is in proportion to its facility:  its origin is ancient, its influence universal, but perhaps for this very reason its existence as a corporation is somewhat indistinct.  It is also remarkable that though the Chinese Tripitaka contains numerous works dedicated to the honour of Amitabha, yet they are not described as composed by members of the Pure Land school but appear to be due to authors of all schools.[825]

The doctrine, if not the school, was known in China before 186, in which year there died at Lo-yang, a monk of the Yueh-chih called Lokakshi, who translated the longer Sukhavati-vyuha.  So far as I know, there is no reason for doubting these statements.[826] The date is important for the history of doctrine, since it indicates that the sutra existed in Sanskrit some time previously.  Another translation by the Parthian An Shih-Kao, whose activity falls between 148 and 170 A.D. may have been earlier and altogether twelve translations were made before 1000 A.D. of which five are extant.[827] Several of the earlier translators were natives of Central Asia, so it is permissible to suppose that the sutra was esteemed there.  The shorter Sukhavati-vyuha was translated by Kumarajiva (c. 402) and later by Hsuan Chuang.  The Amitayurdhyanasutra was translated by Kalayasas about 424.  These three books[828] are the principal scriptures of the school and copies of the greater Sukhavati may still be found in almost every Chinese monastery, whatever principles it professes.