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