仁王護國般若波羅蜜經疏神寶記

Preface

It is easy to understand a sutra, but difficult to record it; to fail in this is to deceive the Buddha. It is easy to make a record, but difficult to understand the sutra; to fail in this is to deceive the Patriarchs. With regard to the Way of the Buddha and the Patriarchs, I dare not treat it lightly; I merely relate it in accordance with conditions.

First, this annotated sutra was transmitted from Japan by sea. The rise and decline of the Buddhadharma had to pass through so many dangers and hardships. Later, in his preface, Cảnh Vu Triều of the Yuan dynasty recorded this clearly. Now, in an age when the king and his officers take religion as the foundation of governance, this sutra may truly be regarded as a national treasure. Yet because no one had made a record of it, the canonical teaching remained deficient. One day, in the Chiêu Khánh era, while the lecturer was practicing meditation, someone brought the sutra and presented it to him at the Vulture Peak assembly. Thereupon, a visitor urged me, saying:

– I hope that a complete written record of this sutra may be made so that its teaching can be promoted.

Though filled with immeasurable gratitude, I could not but comply, and I hastened to bring it eastward. On a day of leisure with my guest, beside the incense burner, I opened the three fascicles in accordance with these instructions. Suddenly, glancing back, I beheld the divine treasure:

– How difficult it is! This is not something I would dare claim to understand!

In the Ức Hựu era, the fortunes of the age declined, learning fell into neglect, and many people lost heart. Under such circumstances, who could possibly attain to it?

The spirit then exhorted me:

– This too is a work that will cause the Way and its teaching to flourish and become manifest. To see what is righteous and fail to do it, while instead doing evil—is that courage?

I respectfully assented and devoted myself to the task with steadfast diligence, never daring to consider myself skillful.

Because the circumstances were related in this way, the work was called the Record of the Divine Treasure, in the hope that a person of broad learning might collate and correct it, so that one day this sutra might be disseminated far and wide.

On the Ullambana Day of the Canh Dần year, during the Chiêu Định era

Śākya Thiện Nguyệt (^)

Fascicle One

This sutra has two titles: the Divine King of the Dragon Treasure, or the Divine Treasure of the Wheel-Turning King Arising in the World, as indicated by the instruction.

The renowned translators of the Tiantai school regarded transmission of the school’s Dharma as primary and interpretation of sutras as secondary; nevertheless, they also sought to realize the essential teaching of mind and develop meditative concentration. In explaining the meaning of any sutra, one must first open two approaches: 1) an extensive discussion of its principal meaning, and 2) an interpretation that follows the original text.

To understand the sutra’s intent, one must examine its title through the five aspects of substance, function, tenet, teaching, and characteristic. In discussing a Dharma, it must have a name, and the name must have a substance. The substance of the Dharma is real and is also its sovereign principle or seal—that is, it makes a deep imprint.

Such a seal should be accepted with faith; to deny it is merely a heterodox path. The tenet reveals what is essential in the substance. Since cause and effect are taken as the tenet, substance is the essential part of the tenet.

To understand the substance is to perceive its function. Completing the fourth meaning, that of the teaching, there are distinctions between the Lesser and Great Vehicles, partial and complete, sudden and gradual, provisional and real; these are called characteristics. This point is extensively explained in The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra.

This sutra in particular takes both person and Dharma as possessing five meanings. It takes person and Dharma as its title. Some say that the Dharma and the person who hears the Dharma together constitute the subject.

According to the sutras cited below, sometimes all three—person, Dharma, and analogy—are set forth, ranging from the simple to the complex and encompassing them all. Ultimate reality is the substance. The Mahayana sutras ordinarily take the single seal of ultimate reality as their substance and the three virtues as their function.

This sutra is entitled Prajnaparamita because it contains three meanings: 1) Ultimate-reality prajna is the intrinsic virtue, the substance of the Dharma-body. The substance necessarily returns to the one, yet it is not separate from the Tenet, which is its Function; within this are the meanings of separation and combination, and so forth. The cause and effect of one’s own practice constitute the tenet.

Since it is the tenet, cause and effect necessarily arise in dependence upon practice; this itself is precisely the tenet. For the substance to be complete, contemplative illumination is required. This is one’s own practice, beginning with the cause and culminating in the effect; it is not apart from prajna-wisdom.

The two wisdoms, provisional and real, are the function, yet their function is fundamentally liberation. 2) Literary prajna takes illuminating function as its meaning, and the advancing and apprehending activities of the two wisdoms as its function. The Mahayana takes the stage of clarified butter as its characteristic; it is the Dharma that interpenetrates all the Prajnaparamita collections. Leaving behind the clarified butter of the Two Vehicles constitutes the characteristic, benefit, and function here, which must be of one flavor.

The title of a sutra contains both common and particular elements; altogether, the present title comprises twelve characters. “Chapter One: Introduction” contains all three, both common and particular, as stated in the sutra text. The two words “Spoken by the Buddha” are common, while all the remaining words are particular; this should be understood.

The word “Buddha” is itself a subject requiring explanation, as when it is said that the Buddha is the person who expounds the sutra. The Buddha possesses the ten epithets, also called the ten virtues, and a Buddha is an awakened one. Awakening has three meanings: self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice.

Although these meanings differ, the Buddha is still one who is awakened. It may also be said that one who fully possesses the three kinds of awakening is a Buddha. Possessing the eight forms of eloquence, he expounds everything without obstruction through the eight tones, as is commonly known.

The Treatise on the Awakening of Faith calls this the perfect voice: whenever the Buddha speaks, beings of every kind are able to understand.

Next, the words “Benevolent King” refer either to the person who hears the Dharma or to the Dharma being spoken. First, the four words “Benevolent King Protecting the Nation” summarize the principal meaning with which the sutra begins. From ancient times to the present, “benevolent king” has commonly meant an emperor.

On this basis, it is now explained that one who bestows kindness and broadly extends virtue is benevolent, while one who governs the country and brings it peace is a king. This highlights the virtuous function of a king. The Way of sovereign rule cannot be fully set forth upon detailed examination.

Broadly speaking, there are four modes of explanation: 1) causes and conditions: all the affairs conducted between the people of the nation and the king are called causes and conditions. Protecting the nation has two aspects: the king protects it himself, and the people protect it—the protector and that which is protected.

The protection of the nation bears three meanings: a) The king is the one who undertakes its protection, and the nation is that which the king protects; therefore, the king’s Way is used to govern the nation. b) Wisdom is the principal means of governing the nation, and the king is protected by prajna-wisdom; thus both the king and the nation remain secure. c) The king presides over the teaching, which is propagated far and wide through him; hence it is said, “A person can propagate the Way.” Although these three meanings are ordinarily given, the principal point is actually to reveal prajna-wisdom as the essential means of protecting the nation; the other two points merely assist in the explanation.

Here, however, “Benevolent King” is explained according to the written teaching. “Benevolence” also means forbearance and further implies breadth, expressing the virtue that a king extends far and wide. Unswerved by joy or anger, he must preserve loyalty and integrity, thereby clearly demonstrating that the king possesses a compassionate and benevolent heart.

2) Explanation according to the teachings. Within the same school, the teachings are further divided into four: the Tripitaka, Common, Distinct, and Perfect Teachings, by which the general purport is explained. Thus, each school has its own manner of exposition, yet it must surely rely upon these four meanings when discussing the shallowness and profundity of the teachings. The teachings must have a point to which they return; this is indispensable for understanding them. If one relies upon the sutras, both ancient and recent, to explain them, there is also the meaning of extensive doctrinal classification. This classification has four aspects, each of which is further divided into two points: relying upon the tenets of the teaching and following the text in explanation.

1) The Tripitaka Teaching: If one sees that dharmas have arising, then the Tripitaka Teaching concerns arising and cessation. The emptiness of dharmas is not an emptiness of inherent existence, but is reached by analyzing and extinguishing them until emptiness is attained. Arising is existence; cessation is emptiness.

Within emptiness, all particles of dust are included; this is the realm, and therefore it does not shift or change. According to the textual explanation, when the king enjoys peace and happiness, only then is the realm harmonious. The most proper designation of those of the Two Vehicles is “king,” because the cause is verified from the fruit, while within the cause the fruit is already present.

With regard to the realm, one should understand the king accordingly, and the remaining three analogies are likewise.

2) The Common Teaching explains that form itself is emptiness. This differs from the analytical content of the Tripitaka Teaching; therefore, since arising and cessation are entirely deceptive, the afflictions of the three realms are immediately ended. This is spoken with reference to the fruit. If, however, it is also considered from the cause, where they are gradually severed, then this is in the realm beyond, according to the textual explanation.

3) The Distinct Teaching clearly explains the sequential order of the three truths. Its explanation of emptiness does not differ from that of the Common Teaching. Forms are immeasurably numerous, and thus comparison is provisionally employed.

Although forms are numerous, they do not obstruct the mind. If considered according to the Tripitaka Teaching, they are immediately ended here; yet to say that dharmas are boundless at the point of the single mind seems to obstruct comprehension of the tenet. This is now explained through two commonly accepted meanings: first, relying upon the mind that is capable of creating, nothing can obstruct the mind’s all-pervasive interpenetration; but if one relies solely upon the created dharmas as EMPTY, neither emptiness nor form can be apprehended.

Second, it is explained according to the fruit rather than the cause, as when it is said that upon entering the path of effortless functioning at the Eighth Bhumi, one manifests ten kinds of bodies; in this way, there is likewise no obstruction to the path. The subsequent explanation concerns the First Bhumi and above. Thus, when it is said, “Without moving or turning, yet moving and turning,” this explains the ten bhumis, as in the Avatamsaka Sutra, where bodhisattvas, in accordance with their power and their respective share within the ten bhumis, attain mastery and unobstructed freedom as appropriate.

Since the six characters cited might be misunderstood, it is necessary to formulate ten characters, as in the contemplation below.

The Perfect Teaching explains that all dharmas fundamentally arise from the nature of principle and therefore have neither arising nor cessation. With this perfect view, one beholds both phenomena and principle as fully present within a single thought. Although there is neither arising nor cessation, arising and cessation remain manifest; although their arising and cessation are manifest and pass away, conventionally their names remain unchanged.

Fundamental non-arising and non-cessation are understood according to the true nature; when the true is revealed, the conventional is also quite fully present. To conceal the true and obscure the conventional while speaking of forgetting means that forgetting what comes first obstructs the illumination that follows, or that illuminating what comes first obstructs what follows. When illumination is lost, can one still return to the Middle Way?

All three are called the nature, vast as the Dharma-nature; all three are unmoving and therefore majestic as empty space. According to the ultimate true principle, from the First Abode onward, one who firmly safeguards the realm may become a king.

The following explains the phrase “Tripitaka.” Generally, the two words “attainment” and “non-attainment” are discussed according to the causes and fruits of the four schools. Those of the Tripitaka Teaching who have attained the four fruits[1] have ended delusion and therefore are honored as benevolent kings. As for others, although they bear the title of king, if they lack benevolence, they cannot yet be called benevolent kings.

The Common Teaching discusses this in terms of the fruit, and such persons may also generally be called kings. The other three schools use the designation “minor king”; hence, they are called the second and third minor kings. In each school, the corresponding principle pertains to stages whose superiority and inferiority differ.

Moreover, each school has its own aspect of doctrinal classification. Viewed broadly, the two words “benevolent king” already imply differences of superiority and inferiority. Therefore, it is said that one who is not benevolent is nevertheless a king; thus, superiority and inferiority are clearly distinguished.

Yet among worldly people, there are indeed benevolent persons who are not kings, while there has never been a person lacking benevolence who was a king, apart from Jie and Zhou, who lacked benevolence yet became kings.

Third, the explanation according to the two terms “origin” and “trace” is divided into two parts for discussion. According to the Lotus Sutra, these are the Gate of Origin and the Gate of Trace. Even the Gate of Trace has not yet been heard, much less the Gate of Origin!

Apart from this, “trace” is merely borrowed to express the essence and function of origin and trace. According to this meaning, there are two perspectives: 1) according to the Perfect Teaching; 2) according to the relative profundity and shallowness of meaning. The practice of the Perfect Teaching is the origin; the fruit of the Distinct Teaching is the trace.

Although the fruit of the Common Teaching reaches the stage of Buddhahood, because delusion still remains, it is nevertheless a trace. Those of the Two Vehicles in the three schools share the same lesser fruit, yet because of delusion it becomes a trace. A trace is an imprint; hence, to turn in accordance with delusive characteristics is a meaning belonging to the Common Teaching.

Or, if discussed according to the Common Teaching, the meaning of origin and trace differs in each school. Furthermore, origin and trace may be discussed through the four alternatives according to higher and lower levels.

Fourth, the explanation of contemplation of the mind. Although the foregoing three modes of explanation are complete, delusive contemplation pertains to phenomena; only the perfect contemplation practiced by oneself can realize principle. Therefore, it is said: “It is like a poor man who carries a precious treasure within his clothing day and night without knowing it”; hence, one must contemplate the mind.

This passage contains four aspects: contemplation of arising and cessation, non-arising, the immeasurable, and the unconditioned, based upon the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths. Contemplation of form, emptiness, objects, and so forth differs according to each school. Therefore, it is said: “Contemplating the arising and cessation of dharmas, one sees form as existing,” in comparison with the other three schools.

Because arising, cessation, and form are transformed by the mind, the mind attains mastery.

To contemplate form as emptiness is the contemplation of the Common Teaching. Not only does the mind attain mastery, but because of emptiness, form also attains mastery; therefore, it is said, “Emptiness and form are mastered.” To contemplate emptiness as form in sequential order is the contemplation of the Distinct Teaching. The Yingluo Sutra says that these are two contemplations employed as skillful means for entering the Middle Way.

To contemplate form and emptiness as nondual is the contemplation of the Perfect Teaching. Because realization may be perfect and sudden, form and emptiness are but a single principle. Through one-sided contemplation, one sees that they are nondual yet two; if contemplation relinquishes everything, then although they are two, they are nondual.

Simultaneously illuminating and relinquishing both through the single mind, embodying the Middle Way, is therefore not the true aspect.

The single mind contemplates the three dharmas, and the three dharmas are the single mind, without before or after. This is also called the single mind within the three dharmas, and therefore it does not follow the vertical. To contemplate the three dharmas as the single mind means that it does not fall into the horizontal. Being neither vertical nor horizontal, it is like the celestial eye, seeing through to infinity without obstruction.

I now, for the sake of the sage sovereign, explain this according to the Dharma of contemplating the mind. The meritorious work of the sovereign above is accomplished through transformation by the Way; hence, he fully possesses the virtues of a benevolent king. Relying upon the power of right contemplation, the king protects the realm and performs every wholesome deed. His origin and trace are profound and vast, difficult to conceive. This too is the Dharma of contemplating the mind, as correlated with the explanations of the three schools above.

After discussing the protection of the nation, since the king was clearly explained above and will be explained more fully in the latter part, we shall not go into detail here. We now explain the title beginning with Prajnaparamita. In full, it is Prajnaparamita: a scripture employed to safeguard the Dharma, skillfully using wisdom to enable the ruler of the nation—the king—to govern the country in peace and thereby allow the teaching to spread.

The original expression is retained without translation, as the scriptures clearly state that there are five kinds of terms that should not be translated out of respect, and prajna is one of them. That it cannot be translated means that its principle is infinitely profound. Comparing this with the ancient treatises, their discussion of the original term first presents two meanings: first, that its excellent sense may be translated for use; and second, that it cannot be translated because its profundity and vastness are to be honored and followed.

Thus, the name embraces many meanings, and its import likewise encompasses many meanings. To translate prajna simply as “wisdom” is exceedingly superficial and cannot fully convey its intent.

We shall now briefly discuss the two theories: first indicating their errors, and then reconciling them, for each theory has become a matter of dispute. Generally speaking, prajna is of two kinds: a) according to the various classes of teachings, it may be complete or partial, perfect or provisional, and real; whether its meaning can or cannot be translated, both theories may be harmonized, although even this does not yet encompass its entire principal import; b) in summary, attachment is refuted, as illustrated by the statement that a flame cannot be grasped, cited in the treatise.

Because prajna is right wisdom, it cannot be grasped through one-sided views. To grasp it is to burn one’s hand and harm oneself. Yet although it cannot be held through attachment, it may be apprehended, and because it is apprehended, it is seen.

It is only a matter of whether or not there is grasping; when thought is free from error, what is there that pertains to conceptual reflection? When one thinks upon what ought to be thought, one accords with reality. “Wisdom” encompasses the two meanings of conjunction and separation, yet this still indicates only one side; therefore, the Satyasiddhi Treatise must combine them in its explanation.

Vimalakirti employs freedom from verbal expression: precisely this is knowledge insofar as it discriminates nature. Wisdom means not clinging to words. To speak of discrimination indicates that knowledge is existent; because it is unattached, wisdom is emptiness.

What must be left behind is both separation from emptiness and separation from existence; they are united in the Middle Way, as the treatise combines them in its explanation. Real wisdom is knowledge; within this, where should true prajna abide?

Next, points of similarity and difference are presented on the basis of the various collections of scriptures. The Buddha taught the Prajnaparamita scriptures over twenty-nine years, including the Humane Kings Scripture, as has been fully stated in the five collections of Prajnaparamita. We now mention eight collections, whose sources are not the same, just as this scripture differs in whether its sections are expanded or combined.

Some hold that the Deva Kings Prajnaparamita is identical with the Humane Kings Prajnaparamita. This should not be maintained; to maintain it is to become obstructed. It does not accord with what has been said concerning the humane kings, and furthermore there are passages containing questions addressed to the Buddha, so this position is incorrect.

Although passages in the Great Prajnaparamita Scripture resemble it, they are properly two distinct collections.

Question: In ordinary usage, the expression “humane king” is explained differently. Why is it said here that they are alike, and in what respect?

– Answer: According to the Great Prajnaparamita Scripture, “humane” refers to a human being, just as books say that the humane person is a person endowed with humanity. Combining the two meanings gives a person possessing the virtue of humanity, so the intent is the same. Yet the Book of Laozi states, “The sage is not humane.” Put simply, because a humane king practices the virtue of humanity and acts without seeking recompense, he cannot thereby be called inhumane. In truth, humanity and inhumanity are both determined according to whether one possesses virtue or lacks virtue. Here, “humane king” means a king who cultivates the virtue of humanity. If he acts contrary to the Way, he has not even fulfilled his humanity; how much less could he possess the virtue of humanity?

It is further asked: What is meant by calling someone “humane”?

– Answer: “Humane” is not easily explained. It may perhaps be discussed by analyzing the written character into its individual components. Thus it is said that the character for “humanity” consists of the character for “person” together with the character for “two.” The character for “person,” together with the two strokes of the character for “two,” forms the Three Powers—heaven, earth, and humanity. It is also said that one who thoroughly comprehends all three is a king; this therefore contains the meaning of humanity. But if one of meager learning attains high distinction in the examinations, how could this case be explained?

It is further asked: Did the ancients use an incorrect standard translation of this scripture because no catalogue was available?

– Answer: Broadly speaking, whether a catalog was used or not, I fear that this too is merely something heard by report. Moreover, since the scripture had three translators, how could it not have been transmitted through an orthodox lineage? All the more so, it is also recorded in Fei Changfang’s catalog of the Tripitaka, which is sufficient for consultation; therefore, one should believe that it cannot be false. Thereafter, Hai Dung cited evidence showing that the refutation was incorrect, saying that upon the ocean of the sages one commonly relies on the ears and eyes to hear and see; yet regarding what has neither been heard nor seen, one merely conjectures about it—how could one know whether it truly existed? Something only heard in passing, without being accurately verified, is scarcely sufficient to inspire confidence. The main body of the scripture proceeds from two different modes of interpretation, extensive and concise; in succession, three translators appeared, clarifying what was correct and what was erroneous. To argue in this manner may perhaps be somewhat excessive, yet all three fascicles were translated and annotated during the Qin dynasty. Apart from the first two translations, the version translated by Master Kumarajiva is the most perfect: its meaning and principles are profound, while its literary style is polished, and it was therefore highly esteemed at the time. The term paramita is translated as “that which has been successfully brought to completion”; it is also called “reaching the other shore” (liberation). Through the excellence of wisdom, all undertakings are brought to perfect completion—this principle must be understood. Among the six paramitas, the first five pertain to phenomena; only the sixth, prajna, pertains to principle. When phenomena are guided by principle, they can attain perfection; how much more could guidance by principle fail to lead to the ultimate? “Reaching the other shore” is like using a boat or raft to cross the great ocean, where there are distinctions among this shore, the other shore, and midstream. Whether one remains on this shore or in midstream, the crossing is not yet complete; only upon reaching the other shore is joy made perfect. This is precisely the meaning of ultimate attainment. Thus, birth and death are called this shore. Although it is explained here in this way, its general meaning still depends upon causes and conditions. Next, according to the explanations of the various schools, the Tripitaka Teaching takes truly existent birth and death as this shore and the quiescent extinction of nirvana as the other shore. Midstream is the state in which the delusions of views and thought-delusions [2] have not yet been completely eliminated. With respect to the six practices of the six paramitas, all are things that must be cultivated, but they have not yet been brought to completion and the other shore has not yet been reached; therefore, the Noble Eightfold Path must be used as the raft that carries one across. The Shared Teaching’s conception of this shore and the other shore does not differ from that of the Tripitaka Teaching. If the six paramitas are analyzed, they are principle; but according to the other three schools, phenomena and principle are intermingled. According to the Prajnaparamita scriptures, however, phenomena and principle are entirely distinct; moreover, because of ignorance, one still remains in midstream. Ordinary beings, being governed by form and emptiness, remain on this shore within the desire realm. Bodhisattvas rely upon the teaching to reach the other shore, the world of liberation beyond; yet they must use practices and vows as the boat by which to cross. The Perfect and Sudden Teaching wholly encompasses both phenomena and principle: the perfection of phenomena is ultimate within principle—although two, they are not two; the ultimacy of principle is perfection within phenomena—although not two, they are two. Taking birth and death and nirvana as an analogy, one speaks of this shore and the other shore, and this must be understood; yet in truth there is neither birth and death nor any attainment of nirvana. To take all practices as one practice, using all practices as boats and rafts by which to reach completely the shore of great liberation—this is the meaning. Finally, when the other shore is explained through contemplative practice, it is not based upon contemplation of emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle, but takes only the contemplation of form and emptiness as this shore and the other shore. Yet, when discussing their characteristics, phenomena are revealed in order to attain principle, as already explained. The explanation based on the three meanings is as follows. As for “scripture,” translated according to the word, the Sanskrit term is Sutra. Earlier discussions of whether it should or should not be translated summarize the relevant considerations into five meanings, each having three aspects—teaching, practice, and principle—thus forming fifteen implications, including figurative meanings and so forth. In addition, “scripture” also bears the meaning of an eternally abiding Dharma and the meaning of a path extending crosswise. This is one of the six Prajnaparamita scriptures, and because this scripture represents the other collections, it is therefore called a scripture.

The Sutra of Humane Kings teaches concerning the six sense objects, and it is also through the sutra that the work of teaching and transformation is elucidated. A sutra is a record of the teachings spoken by the sages. Through these teachings, we awaken to the Way; in this there are both the general and the particular.

Generally speaking, throughout the Buddha-realms of the ten directions, all six sense objects constitute the substance of teaching and transformation. The Buddhas may use light to perform Buddha-work through the six sense objects. For example, fragrant rice involves three sense objects: its fragrance is the object of smell; when the rice is placed in the mouth and chewed, it is the object of taste; and when the rice is between the lips and tongue and produces fluids and flavors, it is the object of touch.

Or, without speaking at all, one may attain a Dharma samadhi; this is the object of mind. By extension, the rest may be understood. Each sense object fully contains the six faculties, while each faculty also fully contains the six sense objects.

The faculties and objects pervade the Dharma-realm and can all serve as entrances to the Way; how much more, then, can they accord with the substance of teaching and transformation? This even extends to taking the original teaching, the trace teaching, and contemplation of the mind as examples. Suppose the Chan school transmits the essential mind outside the teachings—even to the point of having neither words nor writing—but relies solely upon one Dharma by which the mind is penetrated or not penetrated: this too is the substance of the teaching.

Where, then, and in what Dharma, could there still be a separate transmission? Because we have not yet clearly understood the profundity of this principle, it is difficult to express it with the brush.

In the particular teaching, the principal substance consists of sound and form. There is a difference between the time when the Buddha was in the world and the period after his nirvana; nevertheless, with regard to the sutra, three meanings constitute a single true meaning. These three meanings unite to form a composite substance, thereby completing the Buddha’s teaching.

If the character jing (sutra) is explained as the crosswise thread: in the world, when cloth is woven, there must first be a crosswise thread; likewise, the sutra now strings together the Buddha’s words. Taking written characters as the sutra means that it is constant and enduring; taking the human mind as the intermediate support is the crosswise thread. Even the supramundane Way and the attainment of perfect enlightenment are accomplished through this; therefore, the crosswise thread is used as an analogy for the sutra.

Later, the explanation of the character “xu” in the first, Introductory Chapter also bears a generally similar meaning, which should be understood.

Second, the discussion of substance is divided into two parts: 1) According to the ancient interpretation, written words are taken as the substance. Its meaning is simple and there is nothing to criticize. 2) As for taking signlessness as the substance, although this reaches the principle, it does not yet reach the words. Thus, the discussion remains vague and follows ordinary modes of expression; it speaks this way because it is not closely grounded in the sutra.

Some say that the five kinds of forbearance and the ten bhumis [3] are taken as the substance. In the case of this sutra, this view possesses both literary support and principle and honors the intention of Master Kumarajiva, but it is still not the substance of the sutra. A discussion of substance must necessarily return to the One.

It has never been heard that a small portion of the meaning should be taken as the substance; therefore, this is incorrect.

Here the explanation has the following three meanings:

a) Explaining according to meaning, what is called “substance” is Dharma. Where there are ranks of superior and inferior, there are the proper relationships between ruler and minister and between father and son; if these are impaired, how could they accord with principle? The substance of supramundane Dharma is likewise. Although the ten realms differ, they all equally rely upon the single substance of Dharma-nature. The substance of sentient beings has never been different; its ultimate subtlety is found only in the Buddha. Therefore, the teachings of the Mahayana scriptures reveal the true mark as their substance. If what is discarded is taken as the substance, that is not the principal intent and need not be discussed.

b) Citing evidence: causes and effects are discussed on the basis of the true mark of all dharmas. Only upon awakening to the true mark and clearly understanding cause and effect is it taken as the substance of the sutra. According to the ancient discussion, awakening to the true mark and to cause and effect serves as the point of examination. Yet when discussed in this way, how could one know where the substance lies for the various schools that establish doctrinal tenets? In each school that establishes its own tenets, the meaning of substance has its own point of return, as in the doctrines that have been transmitted, and so forth.

c) Discussing the teachings of the various schools separately, while their meaning is common. Although they must be discussed separately, provisional and real, common and particular, are evaluated according to the meanings of the various collections of sutras. Next, only the principal meaning proper to one collection or another is clarified. Prajnaparamita is fundamentally a Dharma for bodhisattvas, yet it has the meanings of shared and unshared. The shared is the Dharma held in common with the Two Vehicles and belongs to the Shared Teaching; the unshared is the Dharma exclusive to bodhisattvas and belongs solely to the Perfect Teaching.

According to the Buddha’s teachings and in terms of principle, the substance of the true mark also has two distinct meanings: 1) The true mark of the true mark is precisely the true mark of all dharmas, but the true mark of the Three Vehicles differs from the Buddha’s true mark. 2) The true mark of the Middle Way must be discussed by distinguishing the shared from the unshared. The shared means using the two wisdoms of the provisional and the real to teach and transform others; the unshared means personally practicing these two wisdoms for oneself.

If the illusory marks are taken as the basis for discussing the teaching and transformation of others, then although provisional and real are both present, it is still called provisional. Personal practice has already been analyzed above; consequently, the provisional and the real differ between self and others.

The subsequent explanation varies according to the sutras. Here, on the basis of the four collections, Prajnaparamita constitutes one collection. Although it shares common ground with the other collections, it eliminates half without explicitly discussing it and addresses only the Three Vehicles and the dharmas shared by the Particular Teaching.

With regard to the Two Vehicles, the Mahayana is clothed in the appearance of the Lesser Vehicle; each keeps the other secret and they turn mutually, so the Three Vehicles together cultivate the ten bhumis. If both sides are regarded as correct, the Shared Teaching validates both. If viewed in terms of the provisional and the real, the provisional and the real on both sides are perfect.

The Three Vehicles alone proceed from the supremely perfect substance, and at that point of supreme perfection the true mark is the substance. It is like clarity being classified doctrinally as belonging to the Shared Teaching while being identical with the Perfect Teaching; thus is the substance discussed.

3) The essential tenet clarifies the substance of practice. Practice means cultivation and encompasses cause and effect. Would it not be fitting to take this as the tenet? Within this section, the ancient interpretations are discussed and explained according to the present text. The ancients took the contemplation of non-arising as the tenet. For the most part, Dharma Master Sengzhao used the emptiness of Prajnaparamita as the basis of his discussion. He held that because the substance of Prajnaparamita is non-arising, one should understand that it neither arises nor ceases and employ contemplation to transcend both extremes of existence and nonexistence. Understanding provisional names and the Middle Way constitutes right contemplation, as the sutra attests.

The intent of the sutra is made clear through the text: the substance of non-arising is originally empty and cannot be seen; though knowing, there is no knowing; though seeing, there is no seeing; there is no practice and no reception, and so forth. Examining this now on that basis, this is the meaning of the Shared Teaching. Therefore, Dharma Master Sengzhao and Kumarajiva, the two translators of the sutra, largely relied upon the intent of the Shared Teaching. Although they employed the provisional wisdom of the Shared Teaching, they lost the real wisdom of the Perfect and Sudden Teaching. Temporarily causing the real to be lost, both provisional and real wisdoms become nonexistent.

Next, the Buddha’s personal practice of cause and effect is explained as the essential tenet. Because the Buddha has realized quiescent wisdom, Prajnaparamita is now taken as the essential tenet. As for personal practice, it pertains only to the Buddha; others should understand this.

In discussing the cause and effect of practicing emptiness, the implied meaning is that emptiness is not nonexistence, just as the virtue of emptiness is not empty nothingness. Once awakened, it belongs to wisdom and must accord with its object. To take a single form or a single fragrance as empty is not the Middle Way.

Wisdom and phenomena, even when each is considered separately, are all prajnaparamita. They cannot be attained through the mind, nor can they be obtained through no-mind. Transcending existence and nonexistence accords with the Middle Way, yet this transcendence lies within quiescence.

The substance of existence and nonexistence is manifestly clear, and its function is likewise so; it is only because beings are obscured that they fail to perceive it clearly. Once wisdom is present, there is still no attainment. Signlessness is itself not a mark, while signlessness in itself cannot discriminate signlessness.

To take this as the essential tenet is certainly not mistaken.

Question: Are the tenet and the Substance different or the same?

– Answer: The analogy of a fur coat may be used. In discussing a net, one must refer to its border; when the net is spread out, its meshes extend evenly. Fur is woven into a fur coat; when the collar is lifted, all the fur is affected. This analogy illustrates the Substance. Through the tenet, the tenet is made manifest and its essence is attained. Or one may use the ridgepole of a house as an analogy for EMPTINESS; then emptiness is that which cannot be taken away. Since the tenet is necessarily discussed on the basis of the existent Substance, the similarities and differences are discussed here. They are neither entirely the same nor entirely different; the discussion of separation and union is likewise.

4) Clarifying what has been said in order to discuss the Essence: it is not the Function of the tenet; yet only by not departing far from the function of the tenet can the subtlety of the essence of the tenet be reflected. It is also like gold and a precious ornament, which are originally neither different nor not different. The meaning here differs slightly in some respects.

This point discusses Function. Once the Tenet has clarified the Essence, and the Essence has been revealed, Function is attained. Therefore, what follows draws upon the Tenet to clarify Function; this is also to clarify the efficacy, power, and function of prajnaparamita.

An ancient commentator held that the two forms of protection, internal and external, mentioned above constitute the Function, as the sutra demonstrates. Now, concerning deliverance from the seven calamities, the seven calamities are discussed as follows: 1. Taking what has not been given.

To say that both internal and external protection are discussed allows one to obtain one aspect, either ultimate or conventional. In taking away, the ten bhumis are named collectively, but the conventional is not discussed; this is also merely knowing the One without knowing the Two, and so it cannot be relied upon. That is taking away.

Now, taking the Buddha’s two wisdoms as the Function fully encompasses cause and effect, as well as the dependent and primary recompenses of the Buddha-land. It also compares these with the dependent and primary recompenses of the mundane realm, without protecting false teachings. Thus, the superior is used to encompass the inferior, the primary recompense is presented while the dependent recompense is concealed, and the two aspects of internal and external protection are passed over without being fully discussed—how much more profound, then, must the discussion of the two wisdoms be.

The merit of the ancient translation lies in its profundity, surpassing even the way ordinary beings speak of the provisional and the real while still distinguishing self and other. Clearly illuminating oneself is itself illuminating principle; illuminating others means observing their capacities. Thus, above, it accords with Dharma-nature, and below, it conforms to their capacities; never has it illuminated one without illuminating both.

If discussed according to the teachings, there are three aspects: both together, the provisional, and the real, as the sutra clearly states. Below, sarvajna-wisdom is cited to demonstrate the Function, although there are differences in strength and weakness. The power and function of the two wisdoms in the Separate and Common Teachings are weak and not the same, just as an ordinary person shoots a bow; whereas the power and function of the two wisdoms of the Perfect Middle are strong, like the arrow of a sage who draws the bow, takes aim, and shoots.

Next, a question is raised as to why this is so, and evidence is presented in explanation. The comparative discussion of advance and retreat is expressed in indeterminate terms. Although in the Common Teaching the two wisdoms are equal, they still pertain to true emptiness, and therefore do not illuminate principle universally.

Although in the Separate Teaching realization of the Path proceeds in stages, only then does one understand the meaning of EMPTINESS or the PERFECT. Therefore, whether illuminating or realizing, one must completely relinquish the one-sided in accordance with the Perfect Function; only then can it be superior. This is like the use of provisional wisdom below.

The two wisdoms are employed equally within a single realm so that the delusions of views and thought do not arise. As explained in the meaning of protecting the nation, although the practice of the ten bhumis is common to the Three Vehicles, what is practiced is solely the single meaning of protecting the nation. On this basis, it is translated as quiescent illumination and is also called protection.

The commentary is very extensive and cannot be fully recounted. Although the subsequent passage discusses protection, it does not refer to protection arising from the fruit; it is still the cause, and so this is clarified further below. Moreover, the Lankavatara Sutra also speaks of vajra-wielding guardians; there, protection is discussed in terms of transformation bodies, as in that sutra.

5) The classification of the teaching presents the general scope broadly, but limiting it to four sections is sufficient to discuss both the general and the particular. Without a classification of the teaching, one could not discuss whether the meaning is profound or shallow, or whether the teaching is partial or complete. The classification of the teaching above has now been clarified.

The summary will be explained below. As for the principal section, naturally this discusses the Prajnaparamita Sutra, one of the important collections of sutras. In terms of partial and complete teachings in relation to the Tripitaka of sacred scriptures, this must be a complete teaching, while its Mahayana Dharma is contained within the three teachings of the Common, Separate, and Perfect.

Maha is translated as great, manifold, or superior, and so forth; yana is also rendered as extensive and great. According to the sequence of the five periods in which the sutras were taught, the Vaipulya sutras must come first, and only then, naturally, does the Prajnaparamita collection follow. Just as cream comes from thickened milk, the Two Vehicles are harmonized by applying further warmth to their emotional attachments.

By the period of the Lotus Sutra, only the revelation of the single flavor remains; this flavor indicates the general characteristic. This sutra, however, separately discusses protecting and preserving the Buddha-Dharma through cultivation of the practices of the ten bhumis, and externally protecting and preserving the territory. Yet, in discussing the supramundane domain, the Buddha’s teaching of the Path is of primary importance.

King Prasenajit asked the Buddha, “What is Mahayana, and with what should it be compared?”

– The Buddha taught: “Since it is called Mahayana, it has already been illuminated as far as its objects; therefore, know that it does not belong to the Tripitaka Teaching.” Although it does not belong to the Tripitaka Teaching, what is refuted and what is comprehensively understood are fully present in the four teachings. Only the Tripitaka Teaching has been discarded, and so it is entirely outside the principal intent. Although the eight lines of verse resolve the doubt raised above, if the principal intent of the entire sutra is solely to elucidate the Mahayana, why does it employ eight lines of verse to discuss impermanence, arising, and cessation? This must therefore be explained. King Puming was obtained by Banzu to be offered in sacrifice to a deity. King Puming followed the words of the seven Buddhas and invited one hundred Dharma teachers to expound the Prajnaparamita Sutra; only after hearing it did he face death. Banzu listened to the sutra while the Dharma masters recited for the king four lines of verse on impermanence. On account of this, the king attained the emptiness of dharmas and the samadhi of equality, although he had been captured and brought for judgment. This passage of the sutra exhorts the king to relinquish his kingdom, for only then could he protect the Path. This is not the principal intent of the sutra, but merely discusses its overall purport through an implied meaning.

Next, relying on the sutra, the explanation is divided into two parts: a) First, it clarifies the general division, concerning which translators of ancient and modern times, according to their respective lands, either made divisions or did not; thus, examples are given here. It should be said that the early translators of sutras from India employed a style that was concise and sometimes incomplete. As explained in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, and in the Venerable Vasubandhu’s explanations of the Prajnaparamita and Nirvana scriptures, in India there were both divisions and no divisions.

In China, the Venerable An Shigao divided texts into three parts, while the Venerable Liu Qiu explained the Lotus Sutra. Thus, here too there may or may not be divisions. (The complete accounts of these two sages and two worthies and their explanations of the scriptures are recorded in the annotations to the Tripitaka.) In discussing the translation and explanation of sutras, what matters most is whether their principles are thoroughly understood; whether divisions are made or not, the meaning remains intact.

How could one initially make no divisions and yet fully elucidate the meaning? But if divisions are not made, how can fragmentation and rupture be avoided? The work fundamentally depends upon one’s intention; hence it is said that human dispositions are like orchids and chrysanthemums.

Only one possessing specialized skill can perform the work well, though errors in the written text are inevitable. b) The main section has three points: 1) When a sage teaches the Dharma, could he possibly speak without a basis and teach a heterodox doctrine? Certainly, there must be a text, listeners, a time and place, and testimony establishing that there is no error. The introductory words clearly set forth the introductory occasion; the main section and the dissemination section are lucid or solemn and leave no room for doubt; the wording, chapters, and sections are distinct.

In this manner, the text conveys its principal meaning. The main doctrinal section must establish the teaching in accordance with beings’ capacities, while the dissemination section benefits future generations; this is therefore a rather important section. 2) Relying upon the chapters of the sutra, the analysis is divided into two items: a) Division according to each chapter, such as taking the Introductory Chapter as the introductory section.

This method divides the text according to its chapters without relying upon the wording. According to division by wording, the passage in the final chapter beginning, “The Buddha told Moonlight...” and continuing through the recitation of the sutra text constitutes the dissemination section. b) Relying on the text to explain the principal meaning, it is again divided into three points: * The introductory section is divided into three items, elucidating three distinct designations, namely three paired categories: general and particular, host and companion, and preceding and subsequent;

these do not arise entirely from the Introductory Chapter. * Explanation of the meaning: the sutra generally sets forth four points, beginning with the six factors that establish confidence at the opening of the sutra.

Each factor has experiential testimony proving it cannot be mistaken and thus confirms it as worthy of faith, because the Tathagata manifested a majestic appearance and taught during the five periods of instruction. Since the introductory occasion has already been employed, the main doctrinal section and this section are explained together as one. * The general introduction is common to all sutras; the particular introduction belongs solely to this sutra.

At the beginning of the scriptures taught by the Buddhas of the three times, six factors establishing confidence are presented. Since they all issued from the Buddha’s golden mouth and are to be respectfully accepted, they are called the introduction spoken by the Tathagata. They may also be regarded as the Venerable Ananda’s trustworthy attestation; thus, the Ananda introduction is the third type.

What appears at the beginning of a sutra is called the introduction preceding the sutra spoken by the Buddha; “At that time, at...” and so forth are the six factors establishing confidence in the general introduction. While the Buddha was still in the world, as well as when he was about to enter nirvana, the disciples followed his instruction and spoke in this manner. The introduction following the sutra was inserted during the successive compilations of the scriptures after the Buddha’s passing; these make four types.

Now, relying upon what follows, these are combined in relation to this sutra, and so forth. 3) The repeated exposition of the causal origin of the teaching is again divided into two items: citations from sutras and citations from treatises. In citing treatises, there is the following point: a) The Venerable Ananda requested instruction from the Buddha concerning four matters, and the Buddha answered according to his questions; this constitutes one among the five factors establishing confidence.

1. The Venerable Kasyapa raised questions: During the compilation of the scriptures, the Venerable Kasyapa posed many challenging questions, and the Venerable Ananda answered in the Buddha’s stead, and so forth. The explanation of the four points is again divided into two parts: a) the ordinary explanation of the six matters; b) the corresponding explanation of the meaning of the five factors establishing confidence. 1) “Thus” indicates the Dharma that was heard.

As in the passage below, it indicates the essential nature of the Dharma heard; a single expression properly encompasses the inexhaustible. If it were not thus, it would not be the Dharma. Therefore, “Thus” clearly encompasses the entire sutra.

The explanation of this point has two parts: 1) The four siddhantas are all explained as causes and conditions: using words to convey the Way, not to contend with worldly people, is the first siddhanta. Looking upward, one knows to look upward; bowing down, one accords with worldly convention, and therefore there is no contention: this is the siddhanta of time and place. Faith arises in beings; because faith is the root of goodness, it must arise through a person—this is the siddhanta of faith.

This sutra is thus formed by dividing its general chapters and sections. To refute the one-sided views of non-Buddhists who disregard the Dharma of existence and nonexistence, “Thus” is now employed as the principal means of counteracting heterodox doctrines. The ancients explained the meaning of “Thus” in terms of faithful acceptance; this is the ultimate meaning.

Since faith must accord with principle, it is THUS. 2) Explanation according to the teaching: following the Buddha’s teaching, the meaning of “Thus” is clarified. This means that, when ultimate and conventional truth are discussed, one is Existence and the other Nonexistence. The Venerable Ananda transmitted and recited these words.

As stated, form and emptiness are neither two nor different: this is “Thus,” and this is the general meaning. In the specific discussion, samsara exists, while nirvana is Emptiness. Existence and nonexistence thus alternate with one another; this is the meaning according to the Distinct Teaching.

The Perfect Teaching determines that samsara itself is nirvana; Emptiness, not being the true aspect, is “Thus,” while suchness, unmoving, is “so.” This is the meaning of “Thus” according to the scriptures of the Perfect Teaching. This sutra fully discusses the meanings of “Thus” held by the three schools. The Venerable Ananda transmitted each of them without alteration, also enabling later generations to trust the Buddha’s words and understand them clearly.

From the standpoint of the original teaching, the trace teaching, or contemplative illumination, the sutra here abbreviates the discussion and does not present it fully. The original is not limited to individual parts, while contemplation examines the whole; this is the complete meaning.

“I heard”: “I” is how the Venerable Ananda refers to himself; “heard” denotes the one who heard. To hear, one uses the ears and must possess all the requisite conditions before hearing becomes possible; this is the worldly siddhanta. Indicating the particular through the general is the meaning of conventional truth.

Because he compiled the Dharma treasure, he said, “I am the one who heard.” Because hearing moved him to compassionate tears and brought forth goodness, it is said, “I heard.” This also counteracts three kinds of doubt; unresolved doubt causes people to disbelieve. Because doubt exists, thoughts of doubt must be eliminated. The three kinds of doubt will be explained below.

In ultimate truth there is fundamentally no self, yet in conventional truth one provisionally says “I,” while understanding that nowhere is there anything heard. Therefore, the self grounded in no-self and the hearing grounded in non-hearing constitute the ultimate meaning.

Relying upon the Dharma to explain the word “I,” self has three meanings: attachment to views, arrogance, and conventional self-reference. Compared with ordinary beings, these differ to a greater or lesser extent. The Venerable Ananda was still in training, yet he had eliminated attachment to views and personal arrogance.

Nevertheless, following worldly convention, he had to say “I,” according to the meaning of the Tripitaka teaching. However, the Venerable Ananda, who attended the Buddha as his personal attendant, fundamentally must have been one beyond training; therefore, it was not that he was still in training or that he had not truly attained realization. It was not until the compilation of the scriptures that it was revealed that he had attained the fourth fruit; only then was he capable of undertaking the compilation and bringing it to completion.

In former times, most people did not understand this matter, and therefore it must be explained clearly. A four-line verse in the Dasabhumika-vibhasa says concerning “I” that attachment to any of the four propositions is designated merely as a wrong view. If there were no “I,” who would hear?

This expresses the intent of the Shared Teaching. In the Mahayana sutras, Ananda is called foremost in learning, one who heard much and understood broadly; therefore, he knew self and no-self, and even discerned that, although self and no-self are two, they are nondual—not two—in successive order. This is the intent of the Distinct Teaching.

Though self and no-self are distinguished as two, they are nondual in the perfectly interfused meaning that simultaneously illuminates both.

Serving as an attendant through skillful means expresses the intent of the Perfect Teaching. As clearly explained in the Sutra of the Contemplation of the True Dharma, Ananda has four names: Rejoicing, Joyful Worthy One, Worthy One, and Ocean, corresponding respectively to his preservation of the teachings of the three baskets. The Agama Sutras mention Ananda, the Keeper of the Canon, who transmitted and preserved the bodhisattva practices; nevertheless, he was but one person endowed with all four virtues.

This encompasses the Lesser within the Great and preserves the teachings of the four baskets; such is the meaning according to the teachings. What is contemplation of the mind? Not proceeding from either self or non-self, but employing the threefold contemplation, is the meaning of wondrous contemplation.

Wondrous contemplation establishes the meaning of contemplation of the mind. Next, the explanation of “heard” has two parts: a) A question is posed: Ananda was born on the night the Buddha attained the Way and did not become his attendant until more than twenty years later; therefore, could he not have heard the sutras that the Buddha had previously taught? b) Treatises are cited to explain this according to causes and conditions, or all four siddhantas are presented in the section below.

According to the Sutra on Repaying Kindness, hearing the teachings successively is the worldly siddhanta. Ananda wished to request that the Buddha repeat them; hearing and giving rise to goodness is the siddhanta for the individual. The Sutra of the Womb Treasury states that, when examining the signs of entering the mother’s womb, they accord with manifestations of prior seeing and hearing.

The womb represents impurity, and entering the womb is the counteractive siddhanta that destroys evil. The Lotus Sutra says that, upon receiving the prediction of buddhahood, he remembered past events and received the Buddha’s confirmation of samadhi [4]. The emptiness of “not hearing” is the siddhanta of the ultimate meaning.

Although the text is extensive, only a single word is selected and concisely explained, so that the meaning is not burdened with prolixity. 2) Explaining the word HEARD according to the Buddha’s teaching. As explained above, “I” in its full sense may mean “I” or “we.” Now, explaining “heard” in relation to “I” also accords with the illustration. Successively explaining the joyful retention in mindfulness with which one listens refers to hearing the Buddha-Dharma of the three baskets.

The following passage explains the three baskets more fully. Each basket is discussed according to the Buddha’s teaching; the reasons are presented completely in the commentary and therefore are not cited here, lest the discussion become cumbersome.

– At one time, the occasion of hearing and the act of retaining accorded with one another. “Hearing” means hearing what ought to be heard, while “retaining” means being able to preserve it. If the two did not occur at the same time, they could not be united. By according with and uniting around the teaching given, this phrase is established. This section is further divided into two parts: a) Explanation according to causes and conditions, as Dharma Master Sengzhao explained it: principles are revealed by adapting to worldly circumstances. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom explains that time may be real or provisional; although time itself does not change, changes are established according to meaning. Therefore, the interpretation depends on two or three distinct words and is not necessarily difficult or easy. Kāla understands time as truly real, because disciples of the inner teaching take their meals at the appointed time, without deviating from the proper hour; this interpretation was employed by Dharmarakṣa. Samaya understands time as provisional and temporary, in order to refute the non-Buddhist attachment to time as either permanent or impermanent. Here, both explanations are followed solely for the sake of clarity; it certainly must not be understood according to non-Buddhist doctrines. The ultimate meaning takes neither time nor the absence of time as the occasion. It is neither provisional nor real, but chiefly reveals the ultimate meaning of the Middle Way. Thus one should know how extensive the meaning of the word “time” is! b) Explaining “At One Time” according to the Buddha’s teaching. The teaching’s comprehension of principle extends throughout the various dharmas. In the Tripitaka and Shared Teachings, wisdom has an ESSENCE that can be analyzed. In relation to the Distinct and Perfect Teachings, it is realization of the stages of the bhumis and abodes. Although there are those of lower, middle, and higher capacities, even the separately distinguished levels—higher and still higher—reach the wondrous interfusion of earlier and later; this is called “One Time.” As explained above in the treatises, all three schools present the meaning fully. We should understand the principal point common to each school as analyzed above. Here, however, only the Distinct and Perfect Teachings discuss interfusion, taking the shared prajna as the starting point and then proceeding to the principal section. From the outset it has been said that there is a principal section; is the principal point raised only to proceed onward and then return to the principal point?

Buddha: The Buddha is the teacher and master of Buddhism, the one who expounds the teaching. Although his teaching encompasses all four teachings, its language is modest. Here, the Buddha is generally explained according to the four meanings of the siddhantas.

Buddha means the Awakened One, one who has thoroughly comprehended all afflictions. “Awakening,” fully stated, has three meanings: self-awakening, by which one clearly understands the afflictions of one’s own body and mind; awakening others, by which one enables others to understand fully karmic retribution and cause and effect; and the perfection of the practice of awakening, which comprises both self-awakening and awakening others.

Because he possesses complete awakening, he has utterly destroyed all bonds and is therefore called Buddha. Whenever beings have the appropriate capacities and evoke a response, there will invariably be differing manifestations; this is the worldly siddhanta. At the beginning of the kalpa, when there were no afflictions, most people could not evoke the appearance of a Buddha.

The people of the eastern continent may be said to enjoy long lives, yet they cannot evoke the appearance of a Buddha. Even when their lifespans reach eighty thousand years, despite their longevity, they cannot evoke the appearance of a Buddha. Most people of the southern continent cultivate causes without yet understanding their results.

They are persons capable of awakening as described above. Although lifespans declined from those at the beginning of the kalpa, only when they reached one hundred years could the appearance of a Buddha be evoked. Therefore, the Buddha appeared in the world during this period.

The following gives the example of the sun not appearing as an analogy for the Buddha. If the sun did not appear, ponds, flowers, and grasses would not grow and flourish; when the sun rises, the myriad things all grow. Thus, grasses and flowers grow and thrive because of the sun; this is the siddhanta for the individual.

Skillfully responding in accordance with and knowing the capacities of the three vehicles, the Buddha appears in the world through causes and conditions, and thus beings evoke the appearance of a Buddha. To say that the afflictions at the summit of existence are severed means that the final grade of the delusions of thought at the ninth stage is completely extinguished, so that one forever escapes the three realms. Therefore, it is said that one forever crosses beyond the stream of birth and death.

Conversely, those who have not yet destroyed their afflictions cannot evoke the appearance of a Buddha. This is the counteractive siddhanta.

The Buddha abides in Dharma-nature, for the essence of Dharma-nature pervades everywhere and has never moved or emerged. If beings with the appropriate capacities evoke a response, then within that which neither moves nor emerges, they perceive movement and emergence; the one they see is the transformation body that responds to beings. Dharma-nature, belonging to the ultimate meaning, originally neither moves nor emerges.

End of Volume One

Notes:

[1] The four fruits: the four noble fruits of the sravakas: a) Srotapanna, “stream-enterer” or “one who has entered the stream”: one who has newly entered the stream of the noble ones; b) Sakridagamin, translated as “once-returner”: one who will return once more to birth and death before attaining ultimate liberation; c) Anagamin, translated as “non-returner”: one who will no longer return to the human realm; d) Arhat, translated as “unborn”: one who has been completely liberated from birth and death.

[2] Delusions of views and delusions of thought: delusions of views are errors in viewpoint or distorted and incorrect attachments to views; delusions of thought are deeply latent confusions within consciousness that are very difficult to eradicate, caused by the four fundamental afflictions of greed, anger, ignorance, and pride. Because these four afflictions are already present when we are born, they are called innate afflictions or innate delusions. “Innate” means arising together with birth: they already lie latent when one first emerges from the mother’s womb and are therefore also called inborn. They bind, control, command, and lead people onward, and are thus also called fetters and agents—that is, they bind or constrain and command or control.

[3] The ten bhumis: the ten stages of realization cultivated by Mahayana bodhisattvas. They are: 1) Joyous, 2) Stainless (free from all defilements), 3) Luminous, 4) Radiant Wisdom, 5) Difficult to Conquer, 6) Manifest, 7) Far-Going, 8) Immovable, 9) Excellent Wisdom, and 10) Dharma Cloud.

[4] Samadhi: also called samāpatti or samādhi, translated into Chinese as calming and contemplation, meditative concentration, great concentration, or liberation. When meditation is cultivated to a high level, the practitioner’s body and mind remain unmoved and are free from all disturbances and deceptions. Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and arhats attain this profound state of concentration.