Abstract： Zhu Daosheng’s Li-Ti theory is based on the doctrine of emptiness and dependent origination， with more focus on the point that all dharmas arise in dependence upon other dharmas. His thought that all phenomena are interconnected， process-based， and integrated as a whole is consistent with the worldview of contemporary ecological philosophy. His exposition of the view that every being is equal insofar as “all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature，” helps establish the idea of respect for life. The holistic contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination through praj?āpāramitā as expressed in Daosheng’s thought of the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” has the edifying implication of exhorting us to form the view of ecological holism today. Furthermore， his exposition of the doctrine that “when the mind is pure， the land is also pure” highlights the decisive significance of purifying people’s mind for the construction of the pure land. And it also affirms that the pure land is co-created by Buddhas， Bodhisattvas， and sentient beings， helping us realize that it is necessary to overcome our greed and transform our way of thinking when creating an ideal ecological environment. Daosheng’s Buddhist ecological thought was a product of the early sinicization of Buddhism， but played a key role in guiding the subsequent development of Chinese Buddhist ecological thought.
　　Keywords： （Zhu） Daosheng， ecological thought， emptiness and dependent origination， philosophy of Buddha-nature， attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenmentHolistic Ecological View in the Li-Ti Theory[Refer to page 12 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]
　　The Li-Ti theory is a crucial part of Daosheng’s 道生 （355–434， also known as Zhu Daosheng 竺道生） Buddhist thought， and embodies ideas related to his theories of dependent origination and of the objective world. Daosheng’s Li-Ti （principle-substance） is different from the substantialist notion of existence， in that it represents a way of perceiving the nature and modes of phenomenal existence on the level of the philosophy of existence. On the basis of the theory of dependent origination and emptiness as it was developed by the Mādhyamaka tradition’s interpretation of praj?āpāramitā （the perfection of wisdom） literature， the Li-Ti theory focuses on the following two viewpoints： （1） the “suchness” （tathatā） of the modes of phenomenal existence in which they coalesce according to causes and conditions and are impermanent and ever-changing， and （2） the li 理 of emptiness and dependent origination that governs myriads of things， which implies a type of non-dualistic view of the subject and object where the internal and the external are mysteriously fused， and reality and wisdom are perfectly interfused. This notion that all phenomenal existents are interconnected， process-based， and integrated as a whole as expounded in Daosheng’s Li-Ti theory is of multifaceted significance for our attempt to construct an ecological holistic worldview today. 　　First， Daosheng’s Li-Ti theory is founded on the philosophy of emptiness and dependent origination in the Mādhyamaka tradition. While in Chang’an， Daosheng studied the Madhyamaka school of philosophy from Kumārajīva’s translations of the Pa?cavi??atisāhasrikā Praj?āpāramitā [大品般若经] and the Asiasāhasrikā Praj?āpāramitā [小品般若經]， and was thus tremendously influenced by the Mādhyamaka tradition. His theories about nirvā?a， Buddha-nature， and the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” are also established on Mādhyamaka thought. In the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra [注维摩诘经]， Daosheng writes， The dharma-nature （dharmatā） is the original nature of dharmas. Any existent arising from conditions is a provisional existent. A provisional existent is not an existent with a self-essence. To exist but not to have self-essence—this is the original nature [of dharmas]. The dharma-nature and dharmas are of the same li but are denoted with different designations， and hence they could be considered the same. Since the dharma-nature and dharmas are of the same original nature， they could be denoted by the same designation. All dharmas may manifest in different forms， but because of the dharma-nature within， oneness unites all phenomena. That all phenomena is united by oneness is why the dharma and dharma-nature are the same.
　　Here it is claimed that phenomena arising in dependence upon conditions are “provisional existents” （jiayou 假有， also called jiaming 假名 [provisional designation]）. Because they are provisional existents and are not existents with self-essence （xingyou 性有） they lack an intrinsic nature （svabhāva） and are not substantial existents. What is expounded here is the Madhyamaka tradition’s typical take on the doctrine of emptiness and dependent origination. In the latter part of the commentary， Daosheng also makes claims such as “the dharma-nature and dharmas are of the same li but are denoted with different designations” and “All dharmas may manifest in different forms， but because of the dharma-nature within， oneness unites all phenomena，” which represent his li ti thought and furthermore are theoretical developments of the Madhyamaka theory of emptiness and dependent origination.
　　Second， Daosheng regards “suchness” as the truthful perception of the essential characteristic （xingxiang 性相） of dharmas. “Suchness” is one of the three doctrines of the Madhyamaka school. The Madhyamaka master Kumārajīva writes， for example，If one truly realizes the essential characteristic of dharmas， then this realization cannot be refuted by any other theoretical discourse. This is called “suchness.” The suchness is the essential characteristic of dharmas， and is not a creation by the mind. . . . With regard to this characteristic of utter extinction there is nothing to be affirmed or denied. In this way， the essential characteristic of all dharmas as they are is naturally thus [i.e.， naturally extinct]. 　　“Suchness” here means that there is neither what needs to be further affirmed nor what needs to be further denied， and thus is the perception of the phenomena in the way they originally are. Daosheng also asserts， The five skandhas [of a person] combine with one another， and neither being identical nor non-identical [with the person]， they lack a definitive form. In this way， the sages perceive the characteristics and the nature [of dharmas] as they are， so their wisdom surpasses that of sentient beings. This is known as the paramārtha-satya （ultimate truth）.
　　This illustrates the modes of phenomenal existence in which they coalesce according to causes and conditions and are impermanent and ever-changing. In comparison to the Indian Madhyamaka school which directs their criticism against the doctrine of intrinsic nature （svabhāva） proposed by the Sarvāstivāda school， Daosheng argues that phenomena should be perceived as they are according to their characteristics and nature， apparently impacted by the positive attitudes toward human life in Chinese cultural traditions. This attitude shows his tendency of affirming the current state and modes of phenomenal existence.
　　Third， Daosheng further regards the li as “oneness” that encompasses all dharmas. Assertions such as “the dharma-nature and dharmas are of the same li but are denoted with different designations” and “to perceive the characteristics and nature [of dharmas] as they are” place emphasis on approaching phenomenal existence， as well as the li of emptiness and dependent origination， as a coherent whole. In addition， he writes as follows： “All dharmas may manifest in different forms， but because of the dharma-nature within， oneness unites all phenomena. That all phenomena is united by oneness is why dharma and dharma-nature are the same.” By this statement， he means that although phenomena may exhibit different natures and characteristics， they are identical in that they are empty and dependently originated， and thus that we are able to understand the modes of existence and the characteristics of any phenomenon on the basis of the li of emptiness and dependent origination.
　　Forth， Daosheng’s theory of the objective world， according to which the internal and the external are mysteriously fused， and reality and wisdom are perfectly interfused， implies a holistic view of the human being and the realm of phenomena. His view of “realizing li to attain the dharma-nature” represents the state in which the practitioner does not depart from the phenomenal realm， lives in the phenomenal realm， and has found unity with the causes and conditions of the phenomenal realm. He further claims that “the dharma （in the word dharmakāya， or fashen 法身） means that there is nothing [of the dharmakāya] that is not in accordance with the dharma [i.e.， the truth]， and that which is completely in accordance with the dharma is the ultimate reality without any definable characteristic.” This also refers to the li of emptiness and dependent origination. 　　Those who realize the dharma will eliminate ignorance forever and even remove its vague traces. They then achieve sublimity outside the three phenomenal realms [of desire， form， and formless]， and become transcendent in accordance to the li in the state of formlessness. Since they have nullified the form， they are also capable of nullifying the formlessness. And since for them the three phenomenal realms [of desire， form， and formless] are together extinguished， they are capable of nullifying all realms. For those who have nullified even the formlessness， whenever there is stimulus there will be [proper] response.
　　Daosheng thus believes that if one becomes transcendent in accordance to the li in the state of formlessness， he or she will act properly in response to any situations， conditions， and phenomena. This demonstrates Daosheng’s holistic view that human beings are able to respond to and interact with any phenomena.
　　Daosheng’s Li-Ti theory is rich with implications for the ecological holism， which is as follows： （1） The theory of emptiness and dependent origination—Daosheng’s core philosophy—is a critical reflection of substantialist ontology. Moreover， His understanding that phenomena coalesce according to causes and conditions and are thus impermanent and ever-changing is consistent with the criticisms against substantialism in contemporary ecological thought and with the emphasis on the significance of relationship and process in ecological philosophy. （2） In Daosheng’s theory of the objective world， although it’s main theoretical interest is about the epistemological relationship between the subject and the object， the idea that the human being and any phenomenal object can respond to and interact with one another （whenever there is stimulus there will be [proper] response） in effect expresses the organic oneness between human beings and phenomenal existents. Such thought is also a continuation of the idea expressed in “Appended Judgments I” [系辭上] of the Yijing， the idea that “although it is still and does not move， when stimulated it responds without impediment.” In comparison to contemporary Western ecological philosophy， Daosheng’s thought captures the continuous， intimate， and organic oneness between human existence and nature more fully， which inspires us to rethink the relationship between our existence and nature today. （3） Daosheng’s Li-Ti theory implies a holistic way of thinking， according to which we can penetrate the essential characteristic of myriad dharmas insofar as they are all encompassed by the li. This theory coherently integrates the profound Buddhist realization of causality and impermanence into the cognitive penetration of phenomena， and thus forms a holistic perception of phenomenal existence. Such epistemological way of penetrating phenomena existence through holism is inspiring to our construction of holistic ecological worldview today. His notion that “all phenomena is united by oneness” is a prototype of Huayan School’s thought of the relationship between li and things， according to which “one is identical with everything， and everything is identical with one.” （4） Daosheng also maintains that phenomenal existence should be perceived as they are according to their characteristics and nature and that we should not affirm what is not there or deny what is there. This illustrates his objective and respectful attitude toward the nature of phenomena， as well as toward their conditional and impermanent mode of existence. Such objective and respectful attitude is a scientific attitude that is worth advocating in any era. Today， with the development of ecological science， it is even more necessary for us to have such understanding of phenomena from the perspective that phenomenal existents are interconnected， process-based， and integrated as a whole. 　　Equality of All Beings： Even the Icchantika Has Buddha-Nature [14]
　　Before the Mahāparinirvā?a Sūtra [大般涅槃经] was translated completely in China， Daosheng was the only one to propose that even the icchantika （one without desire for Buddha enlightenment） had Buddha-nature. This is one of the most widely known episode in Chinese Buddhist history. His initiative advocacy of all sentient beings having Buddha-nature had a far-reaching influence in Chinese Buddhism， and even until today， this point of view is capable of enriching the discourse on animal protection with its philosophical implications， and as a result， it is full of ecological significance.
　　Daosheng advocates that “all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature.” In the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra [法华经疏]， he claims，
　　All sentient beings are the Buddha， and have attained nirvā?a. If they all are thoroughly the Buddha and [have attained] nirvā?a， what is the distinction？ The only difference is whether they are covered or concealed by [adventitious] defilements. Thus， when the [Prabhūtaratna] stupa buried beneath earth’s surface is dug out， there arrives the moment when the concealed pagoda is obvious and will never be hidden underneath.
　　This affirms that all sentient beings originally are buddhas， and that they are all in the state of nirvā?a. Just due to the adventitious defilements such as greed， hatred， ignorance， arrogance， and doubt that are covering Buddha-nature， it remains unseen. Under certain conditions， however， the Buddha-nature of sentient beings will manifest.
　　Daosheng proposes many arguments to support the viewpoint that even the icchantika had Buddha-nature， while at that time， the opinion that the icchantika did not have Buddha-nature was prevalent among Buddhists. As recorded in the Excerpts from the Biographies of Famous Monks [名僧传抄]，
　　Daosheng asserts， “What is endowed with the original qi 气 （vital force） of yin and yang is the direct cause （zheng yin 正因） of nirvā?a. Since the icchantika is also a living being， why is not it possible that they have Buddha-nature？ . . . Although the icchantikas do not have the root of faith （xingen 信根） so as to be able to perform good deeds， they still possess the Buddha-nature.”
　　On the one hand， Daosheng talks from traditional Chinese philosophy and affirms that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature because they are endowed with the vital force of yin and yang by nature and are the direct cause of nirvā?a. On the other hand， he distinguishes the root of faith （root of good） from Buddha-nature， and argues that the difference between the icchantika and other sentient beings lies in the fact that the icchantikas do not have the root of faith and the root of good， making it hard for them to achieve nirvā?a and Buddhahood. However， he continues， this does not negate the fact that icchantikas also possess Buddha-nature. 　　Daosheng focuses on the notions of li and Buddha-nature as Self （佛性我） to illustrate the point that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. “The li （principe） is such that everything is empty regardless of myself. How could this be something that I can control？ Therefore， this is non-self （无我， skt. anātman）. Non-self means that there is no such Self that transmigrates， but this does not mean there is no Self that is Buddha-nature.” This demonstrates the point that the so-called “non-self” in Buddhism is to eradicate the attachment to the self in samsara， rather than to negate the existence of Buddha-nature as one’s true Self. He continues， “To embody the dharma means to become one with ziran 自然 （nature）. Among all Buddhas， there is none who is not thus [one with nature]. This is why the dharma is Buddha-nature.” Here， the “dharma” refers to the dharma-nature of all dharmas that are empty and dependently originated， and thus to say that “the dharma is Buddha-nature” is equivalent to the claim that the li of emptiness and dependent arising is Buddha-nature. We can see that to Daosheng， Buddha-nature is a reference to the fact that the original nature of sentient beings is such that they are empty and dependently originated. And thus nirvā?a and achievement of Buddhahood are ways of refering to the realization of the emptiness and dependent origination of dharmas and sentient beings. Daosheng’s investigation of emptiness and dependent origination does not one-sidedly emphasize the doctrine of emptiness， but focuses on the integral mode of existence of sentient beings in which they are dependently originated and empty. It is precisely on this basis that he affirms the existence of Buddha-nature as true Self.
　　Daosheng’s concept of universal Buddha-nature has major significance for philosophical arguments for animal protection.
　　First， Daosheng inherits the traditional philosophy of mutual relationship and believes that sentient beings， all endowed with the qi of yin and yang by nature， possess the same vital essence that is the source of life， the implication of which is that nirvā?a is just the restoration of the correct nature （zheng xing 正性） of yin and yang endowed by nature. His argument demonstrates his absorption of traditional Daoist view of life. When it comes to defining the notion of the “correct nature” of life in terms of the relationship between nature and life， the Daoist view itself also has ecological implications. But Daosheng employs this view to further argue that sentient beings are the direct cause of nirvā?a， and this has the implication of establishing the equality of sentient beings and the necessity of respect for life from the perspective of the correct nature endowed by nature. 　　Second， Daosheng mainly explores the connotation of innate Buddha-nature of sentient beings from the angle of emptiness and dependent origination. In terms of the philosophy of existence， Buddha-nature equals to the dependently originated and empty nature of sentient beings. On this level， Daosheng actually emphasizes that in order to realize the innate Buddha-nature of sentient beings， we must eradicate our attachment to the notion of individual self （in samsara）， and realize the true mode of sentient being’s existence in which they are dependently originated and thus empty. His understanding of Buddha-nature that it is the original mode of existence of all phenomena and all sentient beings， in the course of the later developments of Chinese Buddhism， developed into the understanding that the natural state of human beings and the natural state of myriad phenomena are by itself liberation and nirvā?a.
　　We can see that the Chan Buddhist understanding that the state of the liberation of a practitioner is the spontaneous and natural mode of existence of all phenomena actually derived from the thought of Daosheng. It should be clarified here that Daosheng argued for the universality Buddha-nature to prove that all beings are capable of attaining Buddhahood. And this was in order to plant hope in the hearts of human， and was not， on its own， in order to persuade that we should show respect for all sentient beings. However， we could objectively say that his approach of taking the original mode of existence of all phenomena and all sentient beings as the proof of Buddha-nature within all sentient beings leads us to appreciate the natural， relational， and process-based way of existence with regard to all sentient beings and phenomena. In this way， Daosheng’s thought is thus supportive of animal protection and nature preservation.
　　Ecological View of Practice： Attainment of Buddhahood
　　by Sudden Enlightenment [16]
　　The “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” is also a prominent aspect of Daosheng’s Buddhist thought. It mainly involves his view of practice， which is closely related to his Li-Ti theory， and has exerted great influence on the subsequent development of Chinese Buddhism. In this section， we mainly discuss Daosheng’s view of practice by focusing on the connotation of the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment，” the practice of realizing li to attain dharma-nature and becoming one with li， and the relationship between sudden enlightenment and gradual enlightenment. Based on the above discussion， we will then analyze its ecological significance. 　　A Commentary on the Treatises of Seng Zhao [肇论疏] systematically explains Daosheng’s insight into the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment.”
　　Master Daosheng’s philosophy of great sudden enlightenment claims， “the sudden enlightenment means that the non-separable li must be realized all at once （suddenly） as a whole. The non-duality of enlightenment is consistent with the non-separable li， and hence the wisdom penetrates the li. As such it is called sudden enlightenment. Perceiving true suchness of dharmas can be considered as enlightenment， while knowing from hearing the teachings is adhimok?a （intensified interest）. What is known by adhimok?a is not the true suchness， so whenever the sudden enlightenment happens， the knowing through adhimok?a will become substituted. Li is equivalent to ziran， just as a fruit which falls upon ripening. The sudden enlightenment cannot be cultivated from nowhere but start with gradual enlightenment. We suppress ignorance with adhimok?a and then awaken to the Buddha-nature to eradicate attachment. Once there is sudden enlightenment， there is no more enlightenment， and therefore， the knowing from adhimok?a will manifest into myriad skillful means. . . . If we say Buddha-nature is omnipresent， ubiquitous， and equal in all phenomena， then it could not be perceived by gradual enlightenment. And the same is true for the emptiness. How could the emptiness be perceived gradually？ . . . In Mahāyāna Buddhism， the aha moment occurs within one thought， and this is known as the all wisdom-knowledge （sarvaj?a-j?āna）.”
　　From the angle of knower， Daosheng emphasizes the “non-duality of enlightenment” transcending over the way of thinking based on the dichotomy between subject and object. From the angle of known， he focuses on the inseparable nature of li and ti. And his thought of getting enlightened instantaneously stresses the qualitative leap within a thought. We can see here that the so-called sudden enlightenment is the state of nirvā?a characterized by the fusion of the internal and the external， and the perfect interfusion of reality and wisdom.
　　Daosheng’s thought lays emphasis on the point of realizing li to attain dharma-nature. Through realizing li to attain dharma-nature， the practitioner will achieve nirvā?a and attain liberation. This emphasizes that the nirvā?a and liberation are attained through contemplating the empty and dependently originated nature of the defilements of the phenomenal realm. It can be inferred that Daosheng’s thought of the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” is based on the contemplation and realization of the li of emptiness and dependent origination through praj?ā （wisdom of emptiness）. This is an important component of his view of practice as well. 　　Daosheng also emphasizes the aspect of becoming one with li.
　　When enlightenment is attained， one becomes one with the ultimate truth of ziran. Since the ultimate truth is the true suchness and the oneness without difference， how could there be an enlightenment with veritable changes？ The unmovable ti of ultimate truth is like a great perfect mirror reflecting all dharmas.
　　To embody the dharma means to become one with ziran. Among all Buddhas， there is none who is not thus [one with nature]. This is why the dharma is Buddha-nature.
　　The statement that “one becomes one with the ultimate truth of ziran in enlightenment” indicates that sudden enlightenment is in conformity with original ultimate reality. The claim that “to embody the dharma means to become one with ziran” also refers to the unity with dharma-nature， which further indicates that sudden enlightenment is about becoming one with the ultimate reality of emptiness and dependent origination. The so-called “becoming one，” from one side， is to say that the praj?ā should be consistent with the truth of emptiness and dependent origination. From other side， it means to transcend the attachment to the self （or substantial ego）.
　　Daosheng’s argument is relative to gradual enlightenment. First， sudden enlightenment and gradual enlightenment are fundamentally different. For Daosheng， he believes that the realization obtained by gradual enlightenment （adhimok?a） is not authentic. This is because the gradual enlightenment is to suppress ignorance. Only through sudden enlightenment can a practitioner attain the authentic knowledge of true suchness and thus eliminate defilements and attachment eventually. The gradual enlightenment still remains in the knowing phase based on the duality of subject and object， so the practitioner still regards dharma-nature or emptiness as an object of conceptual understanding while not actualizing the conformity to praj?ā and emptiness. Second， sudden enlightenment is based on gradual cultivation. The claim of “enlightenment cannot be cultivated from nowhere but must start with gradual enlightenment” is to say that sudden enlightenment does not happen in a day， but is nurtured on the basis of gradual enlightenment. In addition， in comparison to gradual enlightenment， sudden enlightenment is a great leap. Statements such as “the moment of sudden enlightenment initiates the all wisdom-knowledge within a thought” and “in Mahāyāna Buddhism， the aha moment occurs within one thought， and this is known as the all wisdom-knowledge” both emphasize the essential difference between sudden enlightenment and gradual enlightenment. 　　In a certain sense， Daosheng’s insight into the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” mainly belongs to epistemology and the theory of practice. Therefore， its ecological significance is embodied mainly in these three aspects： （1） Daosheng emphasizes the intuitive realization of li of emptiness and dependent origination through praj?ā， which is implicit in the transcendence over the dual thinking mode of subject and object， as well as over the thinking mode of substantialism. This corresponds with the criticism to the thinking mode of duality and substantialism in contemporary ecological thought. （2） His investigation in the “attainment of Buddhahood by sudden enlightenment” focuses on the contemplation， intuitive realization， and fusion of the li of emptiness and dependent origination through praj?ā， which is a relational， process-based， and integral intuitive realization， as well as a holistic way of thinking. Therefore， it is of inspiring significance in the formation of a holistic ecological way of thinking today. （3） Daosheng’s theory holds that through “the non-duality of enlightenment conforming to the non-separable li，” then “the aha moment occurs within one thought， and this is known as the all wisdom-knowledge，” and thereafter we will “know all dharmas.” This statement echoes to the thought of “the formless dharma nature can manifest into infinite forms upon conditions and interactions of empathy and response” discussed above， which greatly inspires us to reach the oneness of life of human and nature， to truly understand the organic connection between human and nature， and to consciously coordinate the relationship between human and nature.
　　An Ecological View： When the Mind Is Pure，
　　the Land Is Thus Pure [18]
　　In the chapter Buddha-Field [佛國品] of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra [维摩诘经]， it is declared that “when the mind is pure， the land is pure.” In A Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra， therefore， Daosheng puts forward the idea that “Buddhas do not have Pure lands.” His view of Pure land focuses on the critical reflections on the concept of Pure land， as well as the relative discussions on its essence and actualization.
　　First， in response to the Buddhist trend at that time of regarding the pure land as a real physical world different from the Saha world and pursuing a rebirth in this Pure land， Daosheng criticizes the concept of the pure land as a substantial existence by drawing on the perspective of emptiness and dependent arising， and proposes the understanding that Buddhas have no pure lands. He declares， 　　A land is a place where sentient beings live by boundaries. Wherever there is no defilement on the land， comes the name “pure land.” No defilement is wu 無 （nothingness）， while a place with boundary is you 有 （being）. You is generated from ignorance， while wu is born from enlightenment. Wherever there is enlightenment， there is an end of ignorance.
　　This means that sentient beings’ understanding is self-centered， which leads limited knowledge， and thereafter they form the concept of a land with limited territory. If all beings realize the li of emptiness and dependent origination， and are freed from the attachment and ignorance， their territory will become the pure land. Furthermore， by realizing the li of emptiness and dependent origination， one will know that the pure land does not exist substantially. In this sense， Daosheng asserts that Buddhas have no Pure lands. “As such， the purity of non-defilement implies the non-substantial existence of a land， and hence the pure land only exists in terms of wu. Isn’t the purity of non-substantial existence of the pure land a manifestation of the dharmakāya （truth body）？” This illustrates that the pure land in Buddhism does not exist substantially. It is only a skillful means and manifestation of Buddhas for meeting the aspirations of sentient beings in order to awaken them.
　　Second， Daosheng explains the realization of the pure land as the sentient beings’ transformation from a defiled mind to a purified mind. Daosheng begins with the doctrine of emptiness and dependent origination to refute the substantial existence of pure land， but he does not deny the phenomenal existence （laksana） of pure land. In contrast， he affirms the existence of dependently originated pure land. However， Daosheng does not agree with the common Buddhist understanding that the pure lands are created by buddhas， and believes that the pure land is only a skillful means of buddhas in response to the aspirations of sentient beings. This is to say that the pure land is a result that sentient beings receive teachings of buddahas and bodhisattvas and purified from defiled mind.
　　Upon the entry into this gateway， the Bodhisattvas will know that the Buddha-field is a manifestation of skillful means to awaken sentient beings. The distinction between good and evil is in the defiled mind and world， but does it make any difference to the Buddha-nature？ What is marvelous is the interaction of empathy and response， and what is incredible is the manifestation of the pure land. 　　This is to say that the Buddha-field is manifested by Bodhisattvas to meet the aspirations of sentient beings， so it is fundamentally derived from the dependently originated interaction of empathy and response between Bodhisattvas and sentient beings. Bodhisattvas satisfy the aspirations of sentient beings to manifest the pure land， and the sentient beings receive the merits dedicated by Bodhisattvas to be born into the pure land. The incredible miracle is in this point. He also says，
　　The practice of pure land will lead to the purification of the land， and hence it is not a created world. The creation of pure land relies on various sentient beings.
　　Bodhisattvas speak of the practice of six pāramitās （the perfection of certain virtues）， while sentient beings talk about the retribution. Based on this notion， it is claimed that the sentient beings’ present fruition comes from receiving the teachings from Bodhisattvas in the past. Upon completing the cultivation of the pāramitās， the Bodhisattvas eventually construct the pure land and thus become Buddhas. Upon receiving the teachings from Bodhisattvas， sentient beings are born into the pure land and this is called “rebirth in the pure land.”
　　He thinks that the pure land is not created by Bodhisattvas in advance. It is only after Bodhisattvas give teachings to sentient beings， instruct them to practice six pāramitās， and after sentient beings receive the teachings of Bodhisattvas， that the Bodhisattvas will fulfill the Bodhisattvas vow and accomplish the Bodhisattva Way， and then there will appear the pure land. In this way， it should be known that the pure land is jointly created by the practice of Bodhisattvas and sentient beings.
　　Third， when Daosheng talks about the relevant content in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra， he also asserts that the Saha world will appear either as a land of purity or a land of impurity depending on the different states of mind of sentient beings.
　　The living beings who have highs and lows in their minds will become doubtful of the impurity of the land due to the existence of sand and stone. This is because of the extent of purity of their mind. Furthermore， the sentient beings do not rely upon the Buddha wisdom to perceive the world， so what they see is only impurity. If we explore the reason why they see the impurity， it should be considered that there is no difference between the sentient beings living in stones and sands， and the sentient beings living in pure land. Through the angle of Buddha wisdom， there is actually no impure land. 　　He believes that sentient beings do not perceive the truly pure essence of the Saha world from Buddha wisdom， so they can only see the impure world with stone and sand. If observed by Buddha wisdom， it will transform into a pure land. This demonstrates that there is no intrinsic form of the Saha world as being pure or impure， but it depends on the purity or impurity of sentient beings’ mind. The purpose is to cultivate sentient beings to purify their own mind， and thereafter they will be liberated from ignorance and defilement.
　　Daosheng’s explanation of the statement that “when the mind is pure， the land is pure” presented in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra implies the ecological significance in that it is about guiding sentient beings to actualize the pure land by purifying the mind. （1） Daosheng transforms the concept of pure land from the substantial existence to the importance of purified mind， believing that the defilement of land is due to the defilement of mind， that is， derived from our greed and duality of object and subject. The pure land， however， comes from the Buddha wisdom or praj?ā of perceiving the existential being of human and phenomena as being empty and dependently originated， as well as through being liberated from greed and duality of subject and object. Such thought inspires us to reflect upon the root of the crisis of contemporary ecology and the path to its solution. （2） Daosheng also changes the view of rebirth in the pure land at that time， arguing that the pure land is co-created by Bodhisattvas and sentient beings. On the one hand， Bodhisattvas practice six pāramitās to teach sentient beings to purify their minds. On the other hand， sentient beings receive the teachings from Bodhisattvas to actualize the transformation of mind from impurity to purity. Through the purification of mind and the mutual interactions， Bodhisattvas and sentient beings jointly accomplish the attainment of pure land. These ideas make us realize that the construction of an ideal ecological environment needs the purity of our minds， the instruction for sentient beings to eradicate their greed， the change of human-centered concept， and the transformation of the notion that human and environment are separated and opposed to each other. （3） What is explained by Daosheng and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra that the Saha world can be purified into a pure land is helpful for shifting the focus from a one-sided pursuit of the rebirth in the pure land to the construction of a pure land in human realm in the Saha world. 　　Daosheng’s thought is a complete theoretical system， based on the philosophy of Madhyamaka school. By delving deeply into the profound philosophy of Madhyamaka， he fuses into it the humanistic spirit in traditional Chinese culture of recognizing the value of realistic life and human realm， reinterprets the philosophy of Madhyamaka， and thus proposes many creative ideas for the Chinese Buddhist ecology. For example， he lays greater emphasis on the connotation of dependent origination in comparison to emptiness， acknowledges the relational， processed-based， and integral being of phenomena， inherits the Yijing thought of “being still and without movement， but， when stimulated， penetrating forthwith to all phenomena and events，” focuses on the investigation of the mutual interaction between human beings and natural phenomena， interprets the origin of sentient beings from the qi of Heaven and Earth， and explores Buddha-nature and dharma-nature on the basis of the empty and dependently originated mode of existence of sentient beings and phenomena. All of the above serve as a foundation for the subsequent development and formation of Chinese Buddhist ecological thought.
　　Daosheng stresses the phenomenal existential way of being as well as the confirmation of the mutual empathy and interaction between human beings and natural phenomena， and explores dharma-nature from the state of nirvā?a， sharing common purport with Huiyuan’s Buddhist ecological thought and reflecting the inevitable trend of the development of Chinese Buddhist ecological thought. Furthermore， he interprets “when the mind is pure， the land is thus pure” together with the annotation of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra with emphasis on the internal relationship between human mind and their living environment， noting that the Buddha-field is jointly created by Bodhisattvas and sentient beings. In comparison to Master Huiyuan’s 慧远 （334–416） belief in Amitābha Buddha and his pure land， his thought of pure land is more positive. Today， when we reflect on the fundamental cause of the ecological and environmental problems， Daosheng’s thought is of positive and practical significance as we strive to purify people’s minds and disseminate and realize ecological culture and ideas through public education.
　　Translated by Wang Fengshuo and proofread by Sangyop Lee