三論略章

THE MEANING OF THE TWO TRUTHS

The Master of Mount She said: “The Two Truths are precisely the supreme teaching that reveals the Middle Way, the ultimate doctrine for reaching the furthest extent of verbal instruction.” The principle is expounded through existence and nonexistence, yet existence and nonexistence do not contradict that principle. Although the principle itself transcends both, it is through these two that the principle is realized. Therefore, the Buddha opened the gateway of the ultimate and the conventional and taught the Dharma of the Two Truths to guide sentient beings.

Thus, the sutra states: “Good man! Because the Buddha accords with sentient beings, he teaches the Dharma of the Two Truths. Teaching ‘existence’ in accordance with ordinary beings is called the Conventional Truth; teaching ‘emptiness’ in accordance with the noble ones is called the Ultimate Truth.”

Question: Since the principle is not two, how can teaching it as two enable one to realize the principle?

Answer: If one hears the teaching of two and clings to them as two, one cannot realize the principle. For example, if one hears of existence and clings to existence, or hears of emptiness and clings to emptiness, one goes astray and cannot realize the principle. If one hears of the two but does not cling to them as two, then through the two one understands nonduality. For example, upon hearing of existence, one does not cling to existence and thus, through existence, awakens to nonexistence; upon hearing of emptiness, one does not cling to emptiness and thus, through emptiness, awakens to non-emptiness. In this way, one realizes the principle.

Question: If one hears the two and clings to them as two, one loses the truth; if one hears the two and awakens to nonduality, one gains it. Since gain and loss both arise from the same teaching, why does each person receive it differently?

Answer: This teaching is truly not two, but in practice there is gain and loss; therefore, they are said to differ. Thus, the sutra states: “If one drinks amrita, one attains long life, but if one does not know how to drink it properly, one will die prematurely.”

Question: Is existence the Conventional Truth and emptiness the Ultimate Truth, with this as the only determination, or are there other explanations?

Answer: The teaching lineage of Sheling briefly speaks of three kinds of Two Truths.

1. Simple Two Truths: Existence and emptiness constitute the Conventional Truth; emptiness and existence constitute the Ultimate Truth.

2. Compound Two Truths: Emptiness-existence and existence-emptiness constitute the Conventional Truth; neither emptiness nor existence is called the Ultimate Truth.

3. Doubly Compound Two Truths: Emptiness and existence are duality; neither emptiness nor existence is nonduality. Duality and nonduality constitute the Conventional Truth; neither duality nor nonduality is the Ultimate Truth.

Question: If existence alone is designated the Conventional Truth and emptiness the Ultimate Truth, can emptiness also be called the Conventional Truth and existence the Ultimate Truth?

Answer: Their meanings are likewise equivalent, but their applications differ. For example, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra calls existence the Conventional Truth and emptiness the Ultimate Truth. The Nirvana Sutra, however, calls emptiness the Conventional Truth and existence the Ultimate Truth.

Why? Because the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra chiefly refutes the affliction of clinging to existence, it takes existence as the worldly truth, extols “ultimate emptiness,” and regards it as the Ultimate Truth. In the Nirvana Sutra, however, because it refutes the affliction of clinging to emptiness, emptiness is taken as the Conventional Truth, while the wondrous existence of nirvana is extolled; thus, existence is the Ultimate Truth.

Therefore, the sutra states: “‘Emptiness’ refers to the twenty-five realms of existence; ‘non-emptiness’ is precisely great nirvana.”

Question: It was previously said: Existence is taught to ordinary beings, and emptiness is taught to the noble ones. Can it also be said that existence is taught to the noble ones and emptiness to ordinary beings?

Answer: It may also be stated in this way. In its explanation of the Chapter on Rebirth, the Treatise of Exegesis states: “Noble ones know that all existence is provisional existence.”

Question: The Buddha possesses skillful means. Why did he not directly teach neither existence nor nonexistence, but instead cause sentient beings to awaken to neither existence nor nonexistence through existence and nonexistence?

Answer: One must rely upon a finger to see the moon; without the finger, one cannot see the moon. One must rely upon existence and nonexistence to awaken to neither existence nor nonexistence. Without relying upon existence and nonexistence, one cannot awaken to neither existence nor nonexistence. Therefore, the teaching of existence and nonexistence reveals the principle of neither existence nor nonexistence, while the principle of neither existence nor nonexistence accords with the teaching of existence and nonexistence.

Thus, the Avatamsaka Sutra states: “Regarding all existent and nonexistent dharmas, one fully realizes neither existence nor nonexistence.” This is indeed the evidence. The Treatise on Mysterious Penetration states: “The Ultimate Truth takes original nonexistence as its name, while the Conventional Truth is designated provisional existence. Provisional existence reveals nonexistence, yet is called existence in order to eliminate the view of annihilation; it is not real existence.

Original emptiness reveals non-nonexistence, yet is called nonexistence in order to eliminate the view of permanence; it is not real nonexistence. Thus, existence is spoken of, yet it is not entirely existent; nonexistence is spoken of, yet it is not entirely nonexistent. The words have never been identical, but what they reveal has never been different.”

Question: Does one awaken to neither existence nor nonexistence by refuting existence and nonexistence, or by not refuting them?

Answer: Both meanings are included. If one perversely clings to existence and nonexistence as having fixed natures, this is equivalent to refuting existence in order to know nonexistence and refuting nonexistence in order to know non-nonexistence. If one relies upon the meaning of dependent origination and provisional designation, one knows that dependently originated existence is not existence and dependently originated nonexistence is not nonexistence; therefore, nothing is refuted or eliminated.

Question: In this explanation of the Two Truths, apart from the correctness and errors of the doctrines discussed above, are there any other differences?

Answer: Present-day teachings contain a great many explanations, but only two doctrines will be briefly presented: the Two Truths of Nonempty Provisional Designation and the Two Truths of Empty Provisional Designation.

First, to speak of nonemptiness: Because dharmas arise through conditions and originally possess no intrinsic nature, they are called empty. Because this is the emptiness of the absence of intrinsic nature, it alone is called the Ultimate Truth. Dharmas provisionally exist through the combination of conditions and cannot be said to be empty; therefore, this is called the worldly truth.

Second, clearly knowing that all dharmas arise through conditions is itself the worldly truth; because the entirety of those conditions is unobtainable, it is called the Ultimate Truth.” Thus, an ancient doctrine states: “The meaning of nonemptiness resembles a chestnut whose kernel has been eaten by a rat, leaving only the shell; later scholars considered the other doctrine to resemble using one’s hand to hold a gourd beneath the water.

Both doctrines are incorrect. The sutra states: ‘Form is precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely form.’ Why, then, do you say that the provisional is not empty? The sutra also states: ‘Without destroying provisional designation, the true aspect is taught.’ Why, then, do you say that the entire substance of form is empty nonexistence, and therefore form exists?”

Question: Does the present teaching also contain this meaning?

Answer: In accordance with conditions and as a skillful means, it also contains this meaning. In the first instance, dharmas provisionally formed through the combination of conditions are discussed as the Conventional Truth, while their lack of intrinsic nature is the Ultimate Truth. In the second instance, although they lack intrinsic nature, the various conditions exist; this is still the Conventional Truth. Because one realizes that all conditions are not truly existent, this is called the Ultimate Truth. These two meanings should be present, though they have only been provisionally summarized. Thus, existence and nonexistence are likened to a gourd floating upon the surface of the water.

Question: Why are they called the Conventional Truth and the Truth of the Ultimate Meaning?

Answer: Previously, only a single explanation was given, but the present discussion does not follow it, because there are many meanings. In brief, there are three kinds: first, explanation based on the names; second, discussion from the horizontal perspective; and third, explanation from the vertical perspective.

Explanation based on the names: The worldly truth consists of distinctions and differences, whereas the Ultimate Meaning has no second designation.

Question: Are the worldly truth and the conventional truth, and the Truth of the Ultimate Meaning and the Ultimate Truth, identical or different?

Answer: They are both identical and different. Regarding their difference, Dharma Master Yunying said: “‘Worldly’ refers to time, while ‘conventional’ refers to space.” The sutra states: “Ordinary beings, life after life and kalpa after kalpa, come and go within the five destinies.” A Confucian text states: “Thirty years constitute a generation.” Therefore, “worldly” is determined as referring to time. “Conventional” refers to space, as the Vinaya states: “Countries and customs are not the same.” Therefore, “conventional” is determined as referring to space.

The Ultimate Truth and the Truth of the Ultimate Meaning differ. That is, “ultimate” is contrasted with “provisional” and is named directly according to its essence. “First” is contrasted with “second” and is named by way of praise.

Speaking of their commonality, whether it is the worldly truth or the conventional truth, it is still the truth of existence; whether it is the ultimate or the true, it is the truth of nonexistence. This is an explanation of the meaning based on the terminology.

Horizontal explanation: The true takes the conventional as its meaning, and the conventional takes the true as its meaning; emptiness takes form as its meaning, and form takes emptiness as its meaning. Therefore, the sutra states: “In order to enable sentient beings to awaken to the truth of the ultimate meaning, the worldly truth is taught. In order to enable sentient beings to understand the worldly truth clearly, the truth of the ultimate meaning is taught.” This is the evidence.

Vertical explanation: The true takes the non-true as its meaning, and the conventional takes the non-conventional as its meaning. The sutra states: “Regarding the existence and nonexistence of all dharmas, clearly understand that they are neither existent nor nonexistent.” This is the evidence.

Question: What is the meaning of “truth”?

Answer: “Truth” means that which is true and real.

Question: The ultimate truth may be considered true and real, but the conventional truth is false and provisional; how can it be called real?

Answer: One explanation says: “The conventional truth is truly false and provisional.” But if it is here regarded as true and real, how can it be called false? Here, two meanings may be set forth: first, reality relative to beings; second, the truth of the teaching. The truth of the teaching means that the Buddha taught existence and nonexistence in order to reveal the Way and in accordance with beings’ capacities; therefore, it is called true. Reality relative to beings means that existence is real for ordinary beings, while “emptiness” is real for the noble ones; therefore, it is called real.

Question: Does the doctrine of the Two Truths taught here differ in any way from those other teachings?

Answer: Those teachings say that the two truths comprise two principles and two objects. Here, the Two Truths are gates of teaching. Therefore, the treatise states: “The Buddhas always rely upon the two truths when teaching the Dharma to sentient beings.” The Large Prajnaparamita Sutra states: “Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths when teaching the Dharma to sentient beings.” Sentient beings rely upon the teaching of the Two Truths to give rise to wisdom, but the teaching of the Two Truths then changes its designation and becomes the object of cognition.

Question: One teaching says: “The worldly truth admits of verbal expression, while the truth of the ultimate meaning admits of no verbal expression. One cannot use the verbal expressions of the worldly truth to designate the ultimate truth, for in reality the ultimate truth has no verbal expression.” What is taught here?

Answer: There are four cases: both are spoken, neither is spoken, one is spoken and one is not spoken, and each is both spoken and not spoken.

Both are spoken: With regard to the worldly truth, arising and cessation are spoken of; the teaching of arising and cessation is itself the worldly truth. With regard to the ultimate meaning, non-arising and non-cessation are spoken of; that teaching of non-arising and non-cessation is itself the truth of the ultimate meaning.

Neither is spoken: Although the Two Truths are spoken of, in reality there is nothing that is spoken; therefore, they are said to be both unspoken.

Each is both spoken and not spoken: Although the worldly truth is spoken, in reality it is spoken without there being anything spoken. Although the ultimate truth is not spoken, through not speaking it is nevertheless well able to speak; therefore, each is said to be both spoken and not spoken.

Question: What is the essence of the Two Truths?

Answer: There are two explanations. First, the two truths each possess a distinct essence; this is the teaching employed by Longguang. That is, since the natures of existence and nonexistence differ, how could they have the same essence?

Second, the Two Truths have only one essence. Within this explanation, there are again two interpretations: first, the two truths both take existence as their essence, because emptiness is obtained through analyzing existence; thus, they take existence as their essence. Second, the two truths both take true reality as their essence, because “emptiness” is the foundation of all dharmas.

Here, however, it is taught that the two truths take the Middle Way as their essence, because the Two Truths are taught in order to reveal nonduality, and nonduality is precisely the Middle Way.

Question: How do the Two Truths mutually imply and contain one another?

Answer: For the sake of noble ones and ordinary beings, the Buddha taught the Two Truths. Existence is the conventional truth and therefore admits of names and words; emptiness is the ultimate truth and therefore the path of language is cut off. Hearing this, sentient beings then suppose that emptiness and existence are definitively different. For this reason, the Buddha taught that emptiness itself is existence and existence itself is emptiness.

Question: Do the Two Truths encompass all dharmas?

Answer: According to the teaching of Kaishan, the Two Truths encompass all dharmas. According to the teaching of Zhuangyan, however, the eternally abiding fruit of Buddhahood and empty space lie outside the Two Truths; therefore, the Two Truths do not encompass all dharmas. Here it is taught that the sutras contain both meanings, which should then be refuted.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TWO WISDOMS AND THE DOCTRINE OF PRAJNA

I. The Two Wisdoms

The Two Wisdoms are expedient wisdom and true wisdom.

“Expedient” means skillful, while “true” refers precisely to the ultimate truth. These are the wondrous functions of prajna and the skillful means by which sentient beings are benefited; they are like a pair of mandarin ducks that are never apart. Ordinary beings cling to existence and thus lose the empty and unobstructed character of that illumination; those of lesser wisdom sink into the dharma of emptiness and thus do not understand its skillful function.

Therefore, the bodhisattva’s skillful means fully possess the Two Wisdoms. Using these Two Wisdoms, the Tathagata observes beings’ capacities and conditions and thereby knows both the illness and the medicine. To teach the Dharma of the Two Truths is to administer medicine according to the illness.

Through the Two Wisdoms and the Two Truths, realization accords with what is attained; moreover, because the Two Truths are taught, exposition accords with what is taught. What accords with the teaching is necessarily attained; this attainment is the practice of what I have taught. To teach in accordance with attainment is to teach what I have attained.

Therefore, the Two Wisdoms are that which teaches, while the Two Truths are that which is taught, and so forth. First, one must understand the two kinds of Two Truths: those involving attainment and those free from attainment. Only afterward can one understand the arising of the Two Wisdoms.

The Two Truths involving attainment, discussed in the first section of the first chapter, cannot give rise to the Two Wisdoms. Only the Two Truths free from attainment, discussed in the final section of the first chapter, can give rise to the Two Wisdoms.

The sutra states: “In order that sentient beings may clearly understand the ultimate meaning, the worldly truth is taught; in order that sentient beings may understand the worldly truth, the truth of the ultimate meaning is taught.” The conventional is the true conventional, and the conventional reveals the non-conventional. The true is the conventional true, and the ultimate truth reveals the non-true. Once it is understood that this true and conventional reveal what is neither true nor conventional, the Two Wisdoms immediately arise. The teaching of the true and the conventional then changes its designation and becomes the object of cognition. The teaching gives rise to the knowing subject and its wisdom, which illuminate the knowable object.

It is now taught that, through the gate of teaching, one understands how the teaching becomes the object of cognition. Apart from the object there is no wisdom, and apart from wisdom there is likewise no object. Thus, how could the dependently arisen object and wisdom differ as earlier and later or as simultaneous?

Therefore, the dependently arisen object and wisdom are neither object nor wisdom, neither the knowing subject nor the known object. Hence, the treatise states: “Dharmas arise through causes and conditions; their characteristics are always intrinsically quiescent.” The object can give rise to wisdom—this is arising through causes and conditions. Wisdom can illuminate the object—this is illumination through causes and conditions.

There is illumination through causes and conditions, yet nothing is illuminated; there is arising through causes and conditions, yet nothing arises. Therefore, this arising and illumination are precisely non-arising and non-illumination, and this object and wisdom are precisely neither object nor wisdom. Though there is no object, one speaks of an object, taking wisdom itself as the object; though there is no wisdom, one speaks of wisdom, taking the object itself as wisdom.

How, then, could this be the same as that teaching which holds the nature of the object to be wisdom?

The two kinds of wisdom should be clearly distinguished. In the first period, the Buddha initially taught the doctrine of characteristics, wherein the wisdom that illuminates the principles of the sixteen truths is called true wisdom, while the wisdom that illuminates phenomenal dharmas belonging to form and mind is called expedient wisdom. In the second period, the Buddha taught the doctrine of non-characteristics, namely the Prajnaparamita sutras.

Therein, the wisdom that illuminates the “emptiness of dharmas” is true wisdom, while the wisdom that illuminates existent dharmas is expedient wisdom. In the third period, the Buddha taught the doctrine of censure and praise, namely the Vimalakirti Sutra and other sutras, censuring the sravakas and praising the Mahayana. Therein, the wisdom that illuminates the principle of the two truths is true wisdom, while the wisdom that outwardly manifests activity is expedient wisdom.

In the fourth period, the Buddha taught the doctrine of uniting the three and returning them to the one, namely the Lotus Sutra. Therein, the wisdom that illuminates the Three Vehicles is expedient wisdom, while the wisdom that illuminates the One Vehicle is true wisdom. In the fifth period, the Buddha taught the doctrine of eternal abiding, deeming the wisdom that illuminates impermanence to be expedient wisdom and the wisdom that illuminates eternal abiding to be true wisdom.

Yet this teaching of the five periods does not appear in the sutra texts, and therefore it is not adopted here.

The Nirvana Sutra presents the five flavors as arising successively, and this is taken as proof of that position. Here, however, it is held not to be so. The sutra records: “From the cow comes milk; from milk, curds are produced; from curds, fresh butter is made; from fresh butter, clarified butter is produced; and from clarified butter comes ghee.” In the passage applying the Dharma to the analogy, the sutra records: “From the Buddha flowed forth the twelve divisions of scripture, and so forth, until from the Vaipulya scriptures flowed forth the Great Nirvana.” If so, since milk coming from the cow is accepted as meaningful, is the flowing forth of the twelve divisions of scripture from the Buddha likewise to be understood in that sense?

Moreover, the claim that the Prajnaparamita belongs to the second period and is not yet the teaching of the Complete Word[1] is incorrect. If it is not yet the Complete Word, then it is also not yet Mahayana. If it is already Mahayana, it must be the Complete Word.

Again, it may be challenged: “If it is claimed that the Vimalakirti Sutra censures the Lesser Vehicle and praises the Great Vehicle, that too is incorrect. That sutra reproves ten sravakas and censures four bodhisattvas. It repudiates both the Great and Lesser Vehicles; how could it criticize only one?

Moreover, if the Vimalakirti Sutra’s comparison of the sravakas to rotten seeds is considered censure, the Prajnaparamita Sutra also says that the sravakas are like foolish dogs; is this not likewise censure? If the Lotus Sutra is said to unite the three and return them to the one, sutras such as the Prajnaparamita also contain the meaning of ‘uniting the tenets.’ Thus, gathering everything together into the single Mahayana—how could this not be unification?

If it is said that the Prajnaparamita belongs to the second period and the Lotus Sutra to the fourth period, this is incorrect.

In its explanation of the Chapter on Certainty, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom records: “Subhuti had already heard in the Lotus Sutra that the Buddha bestowed predictions upon the sravakas that they would attain Buddhahood. Afterward, he again heard this sutra say that bodhisattvas may still regress. Therefore, he now asks the Buddha whether they are certain or not certain.” According to this meaning, would the Lotus Sutra then precede the Prajnaparamita? Therefore, the teachings cannot be divided in any fixed manner. If one considers the expedient means employed according to conditions, there is certainly a profound purport, and there could also be immeasurable periods; why should there be only five?

Question: How are they distinguished here?

Answer: Here too, the distinction is not fixed. The first explanation says: The illumination of existence is expedient wisdom, while the illumination of emptiness is true wisdom. The second explanation says: The illumination of both emptiness and existence is expedient wisdom, while the illumination of the Dharma that is neither empty nor existent is true wisdom.

According to that doctrine, the wisdom that illuminates the ultimate cannot illuminate the conventional, while the wisdom that illuminates the conventional cannot illuminate the ultimate. Because the wisdom illuminating the ultimate cannot illuminate the conventional, wisdom lacks expedient means and is therefore bound. Because the wisdom illuminating the conventional cannot illuminate the ultimate, expedient means lacks wisdom.

Here it is held that when true wisdom is taken as expedient means, expedient means is itself true. If true expedient means were solely true, although this expedient means illuminates the conventional, how could it not illuminate the ultimate? When expedient means is taken as true, this truth is itself expedient means.

Since the true already illuminates the ultimate universally, how could it not illuminate the conventional? Thus, the two kinds of wisdom are unobstructed. Nevertheless, because one aspect is emphasized in each case, it is said that expedient wisdom illuminates the conventional and true wisdom illuminates the ultimate.

Question: What is the difference between expedient means and provisionality, or between the provisional and the true?

Answer: Generally speaking, these terms are like saying “eye” and “visual organ”—both refer to the eye. Specifically speaking, the meaning of expedient means is broad, whereas that of the provisional is narrow. In India it is called upaya-kausalya, which in China is translated as “skillful means.” When the Buddha appears in the world, everything He does is skillful means.

The meaning of provisional wisdom is narrower. Since “provisional” means temporary, it refers to something extracted from among expedient means and employed temporarily. For example, grasping the three-thousandfold great-thousand world-system in one hand or manifesting bodily entry into a brothel—these are all provisional means.

Because the meaning of expedient means is broad, it pertains to the Prajnaparamita and other sutras. Because the meaning of the provisional is narrow, it pertains to the Vimalakirti and other sutras.

Question: Earlier it was explained that the Three Vehicles are expedient means and the One Vehicle is true. How does that differ from the explanation here?

Answer: That expresses only one aspect of the meaning. There are two cases: first, both are true; second, both are provisional. That both are true means that in the past the Three Vehicles were taught provisionally but were then regarded as true; now the One Vehicle is taught provisionally but is presently regarded as true.

The Three Vehicles taught in the past stand in relation to the One Vehicle taught now, and thus the Three Vehicles are provisional. The One Vehicle taught now stands in relation to the Three Vehicles taught in the past, and thus the present teaching is provisional. Generally speaking, the two kinds of prajna and the two kinds of jnana resemble a single thing, yet they are not identical.

Prajna is discerning understanding; its meaning is still inferior and belongs to the causal stage. Jnana is decisive knowledge; its meaning is lofty and profound and thus belongs to the stage of fruition. Therefore, the Large Prajnaparamita Sutra records: “The bodhisattva possesses path-wisdom and wisdom of the aspects of the path; the Buddha possesses omniscience of all aspects.”

Prajna is said to illuminate emptiness, while jnana is said to illuminate existence. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra records: “Knowing the gateway of all general characteristics arises from the activity of prajna; knowing the gateway of the various particular characteristics arises from the activity of jnana.” Knowledge in relation to general characteristics is called path-wisdom, while knowledge in relation to particular characteristics is called wisdom of the aspects of the path.

Omniscience and omniscience of all aspects may be understood by comparison with these. Dharma Master Yao of Bingshan explained wisdom of the aspects of the path and the other kinds of wisdom in this manner, and Dharma Master Peng of Pengcheng explained them likewise. Here it is held that they should not be fixed in this way.

For when bodhisattvas arouse the aspiration, they know all general and particular characteristics and thus fully possess both kinds of prajna. If wisdom of the aspects of the path has higher and lower degrees, could the Buddha’s omniscience and omniscience of all aspects also have higher and lower degrees? Earlier it was said that the Three Vehicles are expedient means and that the One Vehicle is also expedient means.

On what basis is this known? The Srimala Sutra records: “The One Vehicle is the great expedient means,” which proves this point.

II. THE MEANING OF PRAJNAPARAMITA

Question: What is Prajnaparamita?

Answer: According to the Expository Treatise, there are eight interpretations. Six explanations will now be presented in brief:

The first explanation says that Prajnaparamita is solely genuine uncontaminated wisdom.

Question: To which stage does this genuine uncontaminated wisdom belong?

Answer: According to the Mahayana, genuine uncontaminated wisdom is attained from the First Bhumi onward, while the thirty minds are called only “resemblant.” According to the Lesser Vehicle, genuine uncontaminated wisdom is present from patience with regard to suffering onward; everything prior to that is contaminated.

The second explanation says that Prajnaparamita is solely contaminated wisdom, because a bodhisattva eliminates the afflictions and thereby attains Prajnaparamita; hence it is known to be contaminated.

The third view holds that both contaminated and uncontaminated wisdom are prajna. This is because, from the time bodhisattvas first arouse the aspiration until they sit at the place of enlightenment, all is prajna; therefore, this wisdom pervades everything.

The fourth view holds that prajna is neither contaminated nor uncontaminated, neither conditioned nor unconditioned; it cannot be expressed and is far removed from all conceptual proliferation. When Bodhisattva Nagarjuna appeared in the world, he evaluated these explanations in two ways: First, some hold that all four preceding views are reasonable, that they all issued from the Buddha’s golden mouth, and that he taught many approaches in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings. Second, some hold that only the final view is correct, because prajna is beyond the path of language, free from all conceptual proliferation, and grounded in “non-attainment”; this is true prajna.

Question: Of these six explanations, which one is employed here?

Answer: As skillful means adapted to conditions, they all possess these meanings; but if one clings to them, none is prajna. Prajna is translated into Chinese as wisdom and thus can be translated. Yet the true mark is exalted, whereas wisdom is commonplace; therefore, ordinary wisdom cannot be used to fathom prajna, and hence the term prajna is left untranslated.

The Great Treatise states: “There are two kinds of prajna: First, conditioned prajna, which, because it arises and ceases, is impermanent. Second, unconditioned prajna, which neither arises nor ceases and is therefore eternal.”

As for the prajna of the true mark, its Way transcends the four propositions, and its principle extinguishes the hundred negations. The Great Treatise states: “In the practice of prajnaparamita without inversion, contemplations based on thoughts and perceptions are eliminated, and verbal expressions concerning dharmas also cease.” Skillful-means prajna has arising and cessation, wisdom and ignorance. Prajna is without knowing, yet there is no practice it does not know; prajna’s absence of knowing is the ignorance of skillful means. Prajna knows everything without exception; this is the wisdom of skillful means. Literary prajna refers to the Buddha’s teaching of prajna, the written words he taught, and the various short sutra scrolls.

Because the prajna of the true mark is neither ignorance nor wisdom, it is called the essence. Because skillful-means prajna possesses both ignorance and wisdom, it is the function. The prajna of the true mark is named directly from its essence and named in relation to its object; thus, it fully possesses these meanings. Because there is originally a true object and true wisdom, it is called the true mark. It is also said that the very essence of prajna is itself the true mark.

Prajna has never been either cause or effect, but generally speaking, it should be called the cause. The Treatise of Explanation states: “Prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles but belongs only to bodhisattvas”; therefore, as wisdom, it is the cause. If regarded as the effect, it is instead called sarvajna. Sarvajna is translated as omniscience and is also the effect. Consider, for example, prajna among the three virtues of nirvana. Since nirvana is the virtue of the effect, how could prajna not also be the effect?

Question: The Nirvana Sutra states: “Prajna pertains to all sentient beings, vipasyana pertains to all noble ones, and jnana pertains to all Buddhas and bodhisattvas.” What does this mean?

Answer: Here, distinctions of shallow and profound are established within that which is itself neither shallow nor profound. Prajna is translated as wisdom, and its meaning is very narrow. Vipasyana is translated as knowledge, and its meaning is somewhat more excellent because it pertains to all noble ones.

Jnana is translated as vision, and this meaning is supreme because it refers only to Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Prajnaparamita was translated by Dharma Master Dao’an as “the crossing without limit,” while the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom translates it as “reaching the other shore.” Generally, however, there are two explanations: In speaking of prajna, one crosses from this shore of marks to the other shore of marklessness.

In speaking of nirvana, one crosses from this shore of birth and death to the other shore of nirvana. Here it is held that such explanations do not yet bring the meaning of “crossing” to completion. Only when this shore and the other shore truly do not oppose each other is the meaning of “crossing” brought to completion.

THE TRUE AND RESPONSIVE BODIES AND NIRVANA

I. THE MEANING OF THE TRUE BODY AND THE RESPONSIVE BODY

The sutra states: “The Buddha’s true Dharma-body is like empty space; it manifests forms according to beings, like the moon’s reflection in water.” The treatise states: “The Buddha has two kinds of bodies: First, the body born of his parents. Second, the body born of Dharma-nature.” There are two kinds of bodies because, as Sengzhao said: Without the origin, there would be nothing by which one could know how the traces are manifested; without the traces, there would be nothing by which one could know how the origin is revealed.

What earlier teachings described as permanently abiding is here called the Dharma-body, while what earlier teachings described as impermanent is here called the responsive body. It may also be said that the earlier teaching concerns the Dharma-body and the present teaching concerns the responsive body. Past and present explanations of the five periods differ from one another.

For example, in the first period it was taught that the Buddha’s lifespan was eighty years, and the body adorned with excellent marks was regarded as the Buddha. In the second period, the Buddha’s lifespan was also held to be eighty years, but wisdom was regarded as the Buddha. In the third period, it was taught that the Buddha’s lifespan was seven hundred asamkhyeya kalpas. In the fourth period, the Buddha’s lifespan was said to be twice that number. The fifth period taught that the Buddha abides eternally. One view holds that in all four periods the Buddha was regarded as the trace-body, and that only in the fifth period was his eternal abiding revealed as the origin. Here, the doctrine of five periods is not established.

The Prajna Sutra states: “Those who wish to obtain an immeasurable lifespan and inexhaustible radiance must study prajna.” How, then, could there have been any period in which it was definitively taught that the Buddha’s lifespan was eighty years, and so forth? The beginning is the trace, and the end is the origin. This means that although he was not born in the royal palace, he manifested the reception of birth; therefore, the trace was taught first and the origin afterward. The Buddha said: “This present body of mine is precisely the Dharma-body—eternal, blissful, the Self, and pure, without change.” This is precisely the teaching of the origin at the end.

To speak of the origin first and the trace afterward is exemplified by the Buddha’s statement: “I attained Buddhahood immeasurable, boundlessly distant kalpas ago; the Dharma-body is not a body sustained by coarse food.” This is to teach the origin first. Later he said: “I shall now enter nirvana, manifesting like a poisonous tree.” This is to teach the trace at the end.

To say that both beginning and end are the origin means that the Buddha skillfully manifested birth in the royal palace and skillfully entered extinction in the Twin Sal Grove; these responsive manifestations of birth and cessation are all traces. That both beginning and end are the origin means that although he manifested birth in the royal palace, he was born without arising, and hence it is said that he was unborn. Although he manifested entry into extinction in the Twin Sal Grove, he never entered extinction; hence it is said that he neither arose nor ceased. Therefore, both beginning and end are said to be the origin.

Birth and cessation are the trace, while non-arising and non-cessation are the origin. Yet birth and cessation exist by virtue of non-arising and non-cessation; thus, without the trace, there would be nothing by which to reveal the origin. Yet because birth and cessation exist, there is non-arising and non-cessation, which is therefore not truly non-arising and non-cessation.

Because birth and cessation exist by virtue of non-arising and non-cessation, they are therefore not truly birth and cessation; hence it is neither birth and cessation nor non-arising and non-cessation. Because birth and cessation exist by virtue of non-arising and non-cessation, they are therefore not truly birth and cessation; hence it is neither birth and cessation nor non-arising and non-cessation. Thus, although origin and trace differ, in the inconceivable they are one alone.

Some say: Vairocana Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha are only one Buddha. Thus, the “Names” chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra states: “He is sometimes called Vairocana and sometimes called Sakyamuni.” From this, it is known that these are one and the same Buddha. The masters of the Dilun school explain: “The Buddha has three bodies: First, the responsive body, which is Sakyamuni Buddha.

Second, the reward body, which is Vairocana Buddha, attained as the recompense for perfectly fulfilling the causal practices of the Ten Grounds. Third, the originally pure intrinsic nature of the true suchness of the alaya is called the Buddha’s Dharma-body.” The explanation given here does not accord with either of these two views. Rather, these two Buddhas possess both a meaning of identity and a meaning of difference.

As for the meaning of identity, the sutra states: “He is sometimes named Vairocana and sometimes called Sakyamuni.”

As for the meaning of difference, the Brahma’s Net Sutra states: “I am now Vairocana, newly seated upon the lotus dais; upon the thousand petals surrounding it, I manifest a thousand Sakyamunis.” Therefore, to cling to identity is to lose the meaning of difference, while conversely, to cling to difference is to lose the meaning of identity.

Question: Why is it lost?

Answer: Vairocana Buddha is the Buddha seated upon the flower platform and is the original; Shakyamuni Buddha, seated upon the thousand petals, is precisely the trace.

It has already been said that both Shakyamuni Buddha and Locana Buddha are traces, and therefore they cannot be called the original and the trace. Now, when they are divided into original and trace, Vairocana Buddha is the original, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the trace.

Question: Are all Buddhas identical, being one Buddha, or is each one a distinct Buddha?

Answer: There are three explanations: First, because their causes differ, the fruits they attain also differ, like two persons bearing the surnames Zhang and Wang, and so forth. Second, although their causes differ, the fruits they attain are identical, like small rivers and the great ocean, and so forth.

Third, they are both identical and different: according to conventional truth, they are different; according to ultimate truth, they are identical. The Avatamsaka Sutra states: “The Tathagatas of the ten directions share one Dharma body, one mind, and one wisdom; their powers and fearlessness are likewise.” Since there is one Dharma body, how could they be said to differ? Since there are Buddhas throughout the ten directions, how could they be said to be identical? Since the ten directions are precisely one, what prevents us from speaking of identity? Since the one is precisely the ten directions, what prevents us from speaking of difference?

Question: Does the Dharma body possess form, or is it formless?

Answer: The Dharma body both possesses form and is formless.

Question: In what way are the designations “Dharma-realm body” and “Dharma-nature body” identical or different?

Answer: Other treatise masters say that the designation “Dharma-nature body” refers to ultimate truth, while “Dharma-realm body” is a designation according to conventional truth.

Here I present Dharma Master Sengruì’s explanation: “The Tathagata’s body has a great many names. It is sometimes called the body born of Dharma-nature, sometimes the Dharma body of true reality, sometimes the Dharma body of responsive manifestation, and sometimes the space-like Dharma body. Speaking in terms of birth, because Dharma-nature serves as its foundation, it is called the body born of Dharma-nature.

Speaking in terms of subtlety, it is signless and unconditioned; this is the Dharma body of true reality. Speaking in terms of greatness, it pervades all things; this is the space-like Dharma body. Speaking in terms of function, it is without sensation and without form, and is therefore called the Dharma body of responsive manifestation.

The terms Dharma-nature and Dharma-realm are now likewise understood. Because its characteristic is vastness, it is called the Dharma body of the Dharma realm. Speaking of its essential nature, because it neither arises nor ceases, it is called the Dharma-nature Dharma body.”

Question: Some say that the response body teaches, whereas the Dharma body does not teach. How is this explained here?

Answer: All four propositions are included.

Question: From where is this derived?

Answer: The Treatise on the Great Prajnaparamita states: “The Buddha’s Dharma body pervades empty space, and all sounds that teach the Dharma likewise fill empty space.” This passage serves as proof.

II. THE MEANING OF NIRVANA

Nirvana is called Mahaparinirvana in Sanskrit. Maha is also called mahe. The Great Treatise explains that “great” has three meanings: great, supreme, and abundant. The meaning “great” is primary, while the other two are secondary. Regarding greatness, the Chapter on the Merit of Names and Words states: “Great means permanent.” The Chapter on the Four Marks states: “It is great because its nature is vast.” On the basis of these two meanings, the former understanding of nirvana is distinguished.

Formerly, it was held that the essence of the wisdom associated with nirvana with remainder was also impermanent. To distinguish it from the former doctrine that nirvana with remainder is impermanent, it is said to be permanent. Vastness is taught to distinguish it from the former understanding of nirvana without remainder. Formerly, it was said that nirvana without remainder did not pervade all things; now it is said that nirvana is vast and therefore pervades all things.

Question: Is it called great in contrast to the small, or is it called great because it transcends all relative distinctions?

Answer: It includes both meanings: First, it is called the Great Vehicle in contrast to the Lesser Vehicle. The Lesser is impermanent and does not pervade all things, whereas the Great is permanent and all-pervading. Second, it is called great because it transcends all relative distinctions: though neither great nor small, it is called great. Just as Great Emptiness[2] is not called great because of Lesser Emptiness[1], nirvana is likewise not called Great Nirvana because of Lesser Nirvana.

From ancient times to the present, there have been three explanations concerning “nirvana”: First, the term “nirvana” cannot be translated. Second, it should be translated. Third, only its meaning can be explained, and therefore it cannot be translated.

First, because this term encompasses many meanings, it cannot be translated. As it is said: “Nirvana is the supreme designation of the Buddha’s path and is also the common name of the eight flavors[3].”

Second, because the term “nirvana” bears many meanings, it cannot be translated, just as the single term saindhava has four actual referents[4]. Third, because the term includes many meanings and its meanings encompass many terms, both term and meaning are complete and perfect; therefore, it cannot be translated.

Now we question this: If the term “nirvana” is used, beings in this country cannot understand it; only those who truly possess the necessary affinity can understand it. Therefore, it should be translated! Nirvana is also called the “exposition of bliss.” In former times it was likewise called the “exposition of bliss.” If it could not be translated formerly, neither can it be translated now. We now say that nirvana is complete with the myriad virtues, but formerly it was also complete with the myriad virtues.

Again, one may ask: If Indian terms are retained without translation, then the terms prajna and even Buddha likewise cannot be translated. Why, then, is the term prajna still retained?

Again, one may ask: If prajna is a complete and perfect term, then this chapter should likewise translate it in full.

The second master said: The term “nirvana” can be translated, and there are seven explanations.

1. Master Sengzhao translated it as “cessation and deliverance.” Kaishan adopted this meaning: the great calamities are forever extinguished, and one transcends the four currents. The four currents are the current of sensual desire, the current of existence, the current of views, and the current of ignorance.

2. Nirvana is also translated as “unconditioned,” referring to the state that is empty, quiescent, and utterly free from all modes of existence. This was Sengzhao’s translation, and the Dharma Master adopted this meaning.

3. Master Tanying translated nirvana as “peace and bliss.”

4. Dharma Master Zhu Daosheng translated it as “cessation.”

5.

6. Dharma Master Zong translated it as “liberation.”

7. Emperor Wu of Liang translated it as “non-arising.”

Now we ask again: If the term “nirvana” definitely must be translated, why do the sutras still use the term prajna? In his preface to the Large Prajnaparamita Sutra, Sengruì wrote: “The term ‘nirvana’ cannot be translated,” and so forth.

Again, one may ask: If the term “nirvana” definitely should be translated, why do the sutras sometimes say “quiescent cessation” and sometimes “cessation and deliverance”? How, then, should it be translated?

The third approach is to explain its meaning: Dharma Master Huiyuan rendered nirvana as “reality”; Master Ai said that nirvana is the secret treasury; Master Zong declared that nirvana is freedom from defilement. Here, only explanations of its meaning are discussed, so it remains untranslated and need not be subjected to further questioning.

Question: What, then, should be done?

Answer: First, one should know whether nirvana has a name or is nameless; only afterward should one examine whether it ought to be translated. If one does not yet know whether nirvana has a name or is nameless, how can one discuss whether it should be translated? It is only because the meanings of transcendence are many and not identical: perhaps originally transcending birth and death, distantly transcending nirvana, transcending birth and death.

It is further said that nirvana is the ultimate truth and is therefore said to be beyond all designation. The purity of all dharmas spoken of today is merely a provisional, nominal designation. Thus, when their meaning is discussed, they have no foundation; they all arise in dependence upon “emptiness.” Therefore, the sutra states: “Only when one plants a tree in empty space can it be known as skillful.” Why is this so?

Nirvana is said to be nameless, yet a name is provisionally established for it; this is precisely being nameless yet having a name. It is also provisionally said to be nameless; this is having a name yet being nameless. Because it has a name yet is nameless, it is not beyond designation yet is beyond designation.

Because it is nameless yet has a name, it is beyond designation yet not beyond designation. Since name originally comes from namelessness, how could it be definitively nameless? Since namelessness originally comes from name, how could it be definitively name?

That which is beyond designation originally comes from that which is not beyond designation, so how could it be definitively not beyond designation? That which is not beyond designation originally abides in that which is beyond designation, so how could it be definitively beyond designation? Therefore, it has a name yet is nameless, and is beyond designation yet not beyond designation.

It is neither name nor non-name, neither beyond designation nor not beyond designation; hence it is said to have a name yet be nameless. Since it is nameless, how could it be definitively name? It lacks the function of a name.

Being neither possessed of a name nor without a name, it is nevertheless capable of establishing both name and namelessness. Since name and namelessness are thus, the translatable and the untranslatable are likewise so.

Question: In explaining nirvana here, which meaning is adopted?

Answer: Nirvana encompasses both a general meaning and a particular meaning. Its general meaning is the complete possession of the three points[5] and the four virtues[6]; its particular meaning is unborn liberation.

Question: Since nirvana is general and liberation is particular, may it also be said that unborn liberation is general and nirvana is particular?

Answer: This meaning is also valid. If one speaks of liberation, everything is liberation, and therefore liberation is general. If one speaks of the unborn, everything is unborn, and therefore the unborn is general. Nirvana is particular, because only in relation to samsara is there the fruit of nirvana; hence the fruit of nirvana also belongs to the particular.

Question: What is the difference between the nirvana taught formerly and that taught today?

Answer: The nirvana taught formerly did not possess all three virtues at one and the same time. When body and wisdom were present, liberation without remainder was not necessarily present; when liberation without remainder was present, there were no body and wisdom. The nirvana taught today simultaneously possesses all three virtues. Thus, wherever there is the Dharma-body, there are also prajna and liberation.

Only the three virtues are set forth because these three meanings reach the ultimate. Why? Because there is no responsive capacity to which it does not respond, it is called the Dharma-body; because there is no object that it does not illuminate, it is called prajna; because there is no affliction that it does not completely eliminate, it is called liberation.

The masters of former times said that the Dharma-body is the essence, while prajna and liberation are its functions. Today it is said that, since the virtues of nirvana are perfect, essence and function are unobstructed. Formerly, the single essence was said to be wondrous existence; today, the single essence is said to take the perfectly complete mind as its essence.

Question: What are originally existent nirvana, newly existent nirvana, provisionally purified nirvana, and intrinsically pure nirvana?

Answer: Here, originally existent nirvana and newly existent nirvana are discussed for the most part. Another teaching presents provisionally purified nirvana and intrinsically pure nirvana. However, explanations of the meaning of “originally existent” are not uniform.

Several teachings may be briefly set forth here as follows:

First, Dharma Master Zhizang of Kaishan Monastery held that it originally exists as the permanence of the future, and is therefore called originally existent. A second master explained: All the virtues have existed from the beginning, but because they are concealed by afflictions, they cannot be cultivated. A third said: This impermanence contains the meaning of permanence and is therefore called originally existent. A fourth said: It originally exists, but not as a virtue; in principle, it is permanent, just as the two truths exist naturally.

Newly existent means that the Buddha first cultivated the causes and then attained the fruit, and it is therefore called newly existent. All the explanations above must be examined anew. The present explanation must accord with the term “originally existent.” The Great Sutra states: “The essence of nirvana is originally existent of itself; it has not only come into existence today.” This was the answer to King Virtuous One’s question.

If it did not exist formerly but exists now, it would be impermanent; therefore, it is permanent. When investigated ultimately, however, nirvana has never been either existent or nonexistent, so how could there be an original or a beginning? How is this known?

Such statements were made to refute the view that sentient beings possess a body and bonds, and to refute the view that having no body and no bonds is nirvana. Yet sentient beings then became attached to the emptiness of annihilation. Therefore, it is now said that only the existence of body and wisdom is nirvana.

This is merely the therapeutic siddhanta, not the truth of the ultimate meaning.

An arhat has eliminated the afflictions and will undergo no further rebirth, but the residual fruition of body and wisdom still remains; this is therefore called nirvana with remainder. When the body is no more, wisdom also ceases, and the afflictions have been completely eliminated, this is called nirvana without remainder. While the body remains, the unconditioned is not yet complete; it is therefore called the unconditioned with remainder. When the body is no more and wisdom also ceases, the unconditioned is complete; it is therefore called without remainder.

Question: Does the Mahayana have nirvana with remainder?

Answer: There are two explanations:

1. The Mahayana has only nirvana without remainder; therefore, nirvana with remainder is not taught.

2. Up to and including the stage of a bodhisattva with a vajra-like mind, the afflictions have not yet been completely eliminated, and this is therefore called with remainder. Only attainment of the fruit of Buddhahood is called without remainder.

Question: How does the Mahayana treatise’s explanation of nirvana differ from other teachings?

Answer: Here it is said that, in the purity of all dharmas, there has never been samsara, nor has there ever been nirvana. It is only because sentient beings fall into the deluded inversion of “emptiness” that samsara exists. The Buddhas wish to enable them to escape the samsara of deluded “emptiness.” If the samsara of deluded “emptiness” is eliminated, then the “emptiness” of nirvana is also pure. This differs from other teachings, according to which nirvana remains after the suffering of samsara has been eliminated.

Nirvana with remainder and without remainder are also established on this basis. For the sake of sentient beings, it is said that afflictions and calamities exist. Eliminating these afflictions is called with remainder; however, because body and wisdom still remain, calamities are still said to exist. Only when body and wisdom are completely eliminated is it called without remainder. This means that body and wisdom have never originally existed; how, then, could one now say that they do not exist? It is only in relation to sentient beings’ attachment to existence that nonexistence is taught.

Notes:

[1] Lesser emptiness 小空: The characteristics of the four fruits—stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arhat—are all empty.

[2] Great emptiness 大空: In contrast to the one-sided emptiness of the Hinayana, the empty quiescence of the Mahayana is called Great Emptiness; that is, the nirvana of the Mahayana.

[3] Eight flavors 八味: permanence, quiescent cessation, freedom from aging, freedom from death, purity, open penetration, immovability, and bliss.

[4] Saindhava—one name with four actual referents 先陀婆一名四實。It is a type of salt produced along the banks of a river in India. Later, the term came to refer collectively to four renowned products: salt, li, water, and horses. In the sutra, this word is used as an analogy for the Tathagata’s profound and difficult-to-understand esoteric language.

According to fascicle 9 of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (southern edition), it is like the officials who attend upon a great king. When the great king wishes to wash his face and calls for saindhava, an intelligent official immediately presents water. When the king wishes to eat and calls for saindhava, the intelligent official immediately presents salt. When the king wishes to drink and calls for saindhava, the intelligent official immediately presents li. When the king wishes to go out for an excursion and calls for saindhava, the intelligent official immediately presents a horse. Such an intelligent official is truly worthy of being called one who skillfully understands the great king’s four kinds of esoteric language.

[5] Three points 三點: An analogy for the three virtues of the Dharma-body, prajna, and liberation.

[6] Four virtues 四德: permanence, bliss, self, and purity.

(No Vietnamese translation of this passage has yet been found.)

THE TRUE DHARMA AND THE SEMBLANCE DHARMA

This topic provides a general explanation of the prophecies concerning how long the Buddha-Dharma will remain in the world.

Question: For how many years will the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha remain in the world?

Answer: The True Dharma abides for one thousand years, the Semblance Dharma abides for one thousand years, and the Final Dharma abides for ten thousand years. This teaching is cited from the Jetavana Monastery Inscription.

The Samantapasadika also contains this teaching, but because women were admitted into monastic life, the duration of the True Dharma was reduced by five hundred years. Some also say that five hundred years of the True Dharma were lost, leaving only five hundred years, while the Semblance Dharma lasts one thousand years; therefore, the Maya Sutra mentions only one thousand five hundred years. The Madhyamaka Treatise records the same. Others say that the five hundred years taken from the True Dharma were transferred to the Semblance Dharma, so the Semblance Dharma instead lasts one thousand five hundred years. Still others say that, through observing the Eight Weighty Principles, the True Dharma was restored to one thousand years.

Question: Why are there three periods, yet only the Semblance Dharma and the True Dharma are mentioned?

Answer: Only the Semblance Dharma and the True Dharma are mentioned because the Semblance Dharma already encompasses the Final Dharma. The Final Dharma is spoken of when the Semblance Dharma is divided into two periods: the Semblance Dharma and the Final Dharma.

Question: How do we know that the Semblance Dharma is itself the Final Dharma?

Answer: The Twelve-Gate Treatise states: “In the age of the Final Dharma, sentient beings have scant merit and dull faculties.” Thus it identifies the Semblance Dharma with the Final Dharma.

Question: What are the Semblance Dharma and the True Dharma?

Answer: There are very many meanings:

First, the period when the Buddha was still in the world is the True Dharma, and the period after the Buddha’s parinirvana is the Semblance Dharma.

Second, the period before the appearance of divergent schools[1] is the True Dharma, and the period after their appearance is the Semblance Dharma. Thus, only one hundred sixteen years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the period of the Semblance Dharma had already begun.

Third, the period in which many people attain the Way is the True Dharma, while that in which few attain the Way is the Semblance Dharma. Thus, during the first five hundred years, very many people attained the Way; after five hundred years, very few attained the Way, while many failed to attain it.

Fourth, the distinction between the True Dharma and the Semblance Dharma is made according to whether the True Dharma has or has not been undermined. The Chapter on the False and the True in the Great Sutra states: “About seven hundred years after the Tathagata’s parinirvana, Mara Papiyan will come to undermine the Tathagata’s True Dharma.” Thus, the six hundred years before Mara undermined it constitute the period of the True Dharma, while the seven-hundredth year, when Mara undermined it, marks the period of the Semblance Dharma.

Fifth, the distinction between the True Dharma and the Semblance Dharma is made according to the arising of unwholesome teachings. The Sutra Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma states: “After one thousand one hundred years, when unwholesome teachings arise, this is called the period of the Semblance Dharma.” The one thousand years during which unwholesome teachings have not yet arisen are called the period of the True Dharma. Nevertheless, even if unwholesome teachings arise during those one thousand years but have not yet flourished, that time still belongs to the period of the True Dharma; when unwholesome teachings have become prevalent, it belongs to the period of the Semblance Dharma.

Sixth, the two thousand years after the Buddha’s parinirvana all belong to the True Dharma. When ten thousand years have passed and the Buddhadharma begins to decline, that is the Semblance Dharma.

Seventh, bodhisattvas see that the Tathagata’s Dharma does not perish, and they also constantly behold the Buddhas; thus, the twelve thousand years and indeed all periods are the True Dharma. Because those of the Two Vehicles perceive the Buddha’s Dharma as flourishing and declining, they distinguish between the Semblance Dharma and the True Dharma.

Question: Why does the True Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha abide for only one thousand years?

Answer: Because the True Dharma of a past Shakyamuni Buddha abided in the world for only one thousand years, and the present Shakyamuni Buddha was formerly a potter who once made this vow: “When I attain Buddhahood, may I also bear the name Shakyamuni, and may my True Dharma also abide in the world for one thousand years.” For this reason, the True Dharma abides in the world for only one thousand years.

Question: From the time of the Buddha’s parinirvana until now, when this work was composed, how many years have passed?

Answer: One thousand five hundred ninety-six years have passed.

Question: The sutra states, “The True Dharma abides in the world for one thousand years.” Why, then, is it said that the Buddhadharma still exists beyond those one thousand years?

Answer: These statements are not at all contradictory. This is because the Buddhadharma is of two kinds: true attainment and true teaching. True attainment refers to people attaining the Way. True teaching refers to the Buddha’s teaching of the True Dharma. The statement that the Buddhadharma perishes after one thousand years is made with reference to true attainment. During the first one thousand years, many people attain the Way, whereas after one thousand years, few attain the Way; therefore, it is said that the Buddhadharma perishes. The teaching of the True Dharma abides in the world for ten thousand years.

Question: How many causes bring about the destruction and disappearance of the Buddhadharma?

Answer: There are seven causes, as extensively explained in the Visesacintabrahma-pariprccha Sutra.

Question: There are three great kalpas and three small kalpas. In the Lotus Sutra, Shariputra says that the True Dharma will abide in the world for thirty-two small kalpas, and that the Semblance Dharma will likewise abide for thirty-two small kalpas. Why does the sutra speak only of small kalpas and not of great kalpas?

Answer: They must be small kalpas, because during a great kalpa there is no world, so how could the Buddhadharma abide in the world? The thirty-two kalpas spoken of here refer only to small kalpas!

Question: The three great kalpas encompass both pure and defiled lands, whereas the three small kalpas occur only in defiled lands. If so, when Shariputra attains Buddhahood, all will be a pure land; why, then, would small kalpas arise?

Answer: In India, a kalpa is called kalpa; in China, it is translated as “a division of time.” Here, it indicates only a long or short span of time and does not refer to an actual kalpa. It is called a small kalpa merely because the number of years corresponding to the arising of a small kalpa has elapsed; in fact, no small kalpa arises.

Question: What is the duration of a small kalpa?

Answer: The period during which the human lifespan gradually decreases from eighty-four thousand years to ten years is called one small kalpa.

Question: One great kalpa is equal to only eighty small kalpas. Why, then, does the Never Disparaging Chapter state: “The True Dharma of that Buddha abided in the world for kalpas equal in number to the particles of dust throughout the four continents”?

Answer: Great kalpas differ in length. A short great kalpa consists of only eighty small kalpas, while the number of small kalpas in a long great kalpa is not fixed. For example, one kalpa in the Saha world is equal to only one day and one night in the Western Land. Thus there can be millions of asamkhyeyas, as taught in the Avatamsaka Sutra. Reasoning from this, there should be no doubt.

A discussion of the meaning of the Buddha’s entry into nirvana, explaining the Buddhas’ manifestation of parinirvana in the Lotus Sutra.

For six reasons, the Buddha enters nirvana:

1. Because all sentient beings who ought to be liberated have been liberated, he enters nirvana.

2. To cause those of the Two Vehicles to relinquish the nirvana of the Lesser Vehicle and return to the nirvana of the Great Vehicle. Since the Tathagata relinquishes this body and returns to the Dharma-body, those of the Two Vehicles should likewise relinquish this body and seek the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

3. To eliminate sentient beings’ arrogance and contempt. Those of shallow and limited faculties believe only what their eyes see and their ears hear. Thus, they believe that the Tathagata, like themselves, undergoes birth, aging, sickness, and death, and consequently they give rise to a mind that disparages the Tathagata’s body. Therefore, two bodies of the Buddha are set forth here: First, the transformation body, which is relinquished upon entry into nirvana and is thus the same as sentient beings. Second, the Dharma-body, which undergoes neither birth, aging, sickness, nor death and is thus different from sentient beings.

4. To cause sentient beings to give rise to a mind of yearning and reverence. If sentient beings saw that the Buddha always remained and never passed away, they would become weary and complacent. If the Buddha manifests parinirvana, sentient beings will give rise to yearning and reverence.

5.

6. To aid sentient beings who are already diligently cultivating the Way. Wishing to help them swiftly attain the fruit of the Way, the Buddhas manifest parinirvana.

VAJRA SAMADHI

Vajra is a metaphor. Samadhi is translated into Chinese as “the sphere of activity of the straightforward mind,” meaning a concentration that makes the mind upright and direct. If vajra is used as a metaphor for samadhi, it is called Vajra Samadhi; if it is used as a metaphor for the mind, it is called the Vajra Mind; if it is used as a metaphor for prajna, it is called Vajra Prajna; and if it is used as a metaphor for the Dharma body, it is called the Vajra Body. Vajra, however, is a precious substance in the world: its essence is hard and its function is sharp. No other object can damage it—this is the hardness of its essence; it can subdue all other objects—this is called the sharpness of its function.

Furthermore, this precious substance is foremost in the world, and samadhi is likewise. This precious substance is also priceless, and samadhi is likewise priceless. Furthermore, the color of this precious substance is not fixed, and samadhi likewise has no fixed designation. It is sometimes called samadhi and sometimes called prajna; illumination within quiescence is samadhi, while quiescence within illumination is prajna. The wisdom of this samadhi can sever subtle defilements and outflows; hence it is called Vajra Samadhi.

Nevertheless, this substance is borrowed merely as a metaphor, yet in truth it is not an exact metaphor. For vajra is a worldly treasure: obtaining it brings joy and losing it brings sorrow. Samadhi, however, is not like this; it brings neither joy nor sorrow, and once attained, it is never lost. Moreover, worldly vajra will eventually deteriorate, whereas samadhi is not like this and is utterly indestructible.

THE MEANING OF THE EMPTINESS OF BEINGS AND THE EMPTINESS OF DHARMAS

To seek a sentient being within the five skandhas and find none is the Emptiness of Beings; to seek a dharma and find none is called the Emptiness of Dharmas. This is also called Patience regarding Sentient Beings. Because one realizes the emptiness of sentient beings and patiently accepts the characteristic of non-self, it is called Patience regarding Sentient Beings.

Patience regarding Dharmas is likewise. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom states: “Cultivating Patience regarding Sentient Beings gives rise to various merits; cultivating Patience regarding Dharmas gives rise to various forms of wisdom.” According to this meaning, both the Emptiness of Beings and the Emptiness of Dharmas are difficult to practice. Since Patience regarding Beings and Patience regarding Dharmas are distinguished as merit and wisdom, the Emptiness of Beings and the Emptiness of Dharmas should likewise be so distinguished.

Since the Emptiness of Beings and the Emptiness of Dharmas are both called wisdom, Patience regarding Beings and Patience regarding Dharmas should also both be called virtues.

Explanation: As a general principle, this is so. However, the Emptiness of Beings and the Emptiness of Dharmas are understandings of the mind in one’s own practice, and therefore both are wisdom. Patience regarding Beings and Patience regarding Dharmas, by contrast, concern the relation between oneself and others: Patience regarding Beings is patience toward others, while Patience regarding Dharmas belongs to one’s own practice.

THE MEANING OF NIRVANA

The full Indian transliteration of nirvana is Mahaparinirvana. Maha is translated into Chinese as “Great.” The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom explains that maha fully possesses three meanings: great, supreme, and abundant; but “Great” is its primary meaning. Great has six meanings:

1. Eternity: The Great Sutra states: “To say ‘Great’ means precisely eternal.”

2. Vastness: The Great Sutra states: “It is called ‘Great’ because its nature is vast.”

3. Abundance: The Great Sutra states: “Just as a great city contains many precious jewels, nirvana likewise contains many precious jewels of the wondrous Dharma; therefore it is called Great.”

4. Profundity: Because it is profound and difficult to fathom, it is called profound. The sutra states: “Great means inconceivable; no deva, human, or follower of the Two Vehicles can fathom it.”

5. Loftiness: None of the sages can equal it. The sutra states: “Just as worldly people cannot ascend a great mountain peak, followers of the Two Vehicles and bodhisattvas likewise cannot ascend it; therefore it is called Great.”

6. Transcendence: In the world, one who surpasses all others is called a Great Person; nirvana is likewise called Great because it surpasses all things.

Furthermore, Great comprises greatness of essence and greatness of function. Greatness of essence is the profundity of Dharma-nature; greatness of function is the universal activity of responsive manifestations. Therefore, the sutra states: “Abiding in Great Nirvana, one can establish the meaning of Great.” There are also relative greatness and greatness transcending relativity. Greatness that is relative is merely great; only greatness that transcends relativity is ultimate greatness. It is not merely without smallness, but also without greatness; only that which is neither great nor small can be praised as supremely great. Therefore, the sutra states: “Neither suffering nor pleasure is the great bliss.”

Pari is translated into Chinese as “entry,” and nirvana as “cessation.” Parinirvana means entry into cessation and is also called cessation and deliverance.

Master Sengzhao said: “The great affliction is forever extinguished, and the four currents[2] are crossed over; therefore it is called cessation and deliverance.” If it is translated as “liberation and non-arising,” this merely explains its meaning and is not an exact translation. If it were translated as “liberation and non-arising,” then a thing that does not arise ought to be a non-thing. Furthermore, today it is universally called nirvana, and this designation has become established.

Yet the ancient and present understandings of nirvana differ. The ancient understanding of nirvana was liberation with remainder and did not include liberation without remainder; it therefore lacked the body and wisdom. The present understanding of nirvana fully possesses the three virtues: the virtue of the Dharma body, the virtue of liberation, and the virtue of prajna.

Nirvana has the three virtues of the Dharma body, prajna, and liberation, like the siddham letter Y, or like the three eyes of the God Isvara.

There are also nirvana with remainder and nirvana without remainder. The Lesser Vehicle holds that when the afflictions have been eliminated and the bonds completely extinguished, this is called nirvana with remainder; when the body, wisdom, and karmic consequences have ceased, this is nirvana without remainder. The Mahayana, however, holds that because the causes belonging to the five abiding grounds remain, it is called “with remainder,” while the cessation of conditioned dharmas is called “without remainder.” The Mahayana-samgraha fully presents four meanings: “It is now taught that there are two kinds of afflictions: adventitious and old.

Arising and cessation constitute the adventitious and old afflictions. Both of these have been completely severed and ultimately no longer remain.” It also states: “It is called ‘with remainder’ solely because the contemplation of liberation remains; when understanding and contemplation have been exhausted, it is called ‘without remainder.’”

THE MEANING OF THE TRUE BODY AND THE RESPONSIVE BODY

The sutra states: “The Buddha’s true Dharma body is like empty space; it manifests forms according to beings, like the moon in water.” Empty space is used as a metaphor for the Dharma body because empty space pervades everywhere without obstruction. The moon in water is used as a metaphor for the responsive body: just as the moon in the sky casts its reflection upon bodies of water, the bodies shine forth everywhere, manifesting forms wherever beings respond. Furthermore, the moon cannot be seen in turbid water; it can be seen only when the water is clear. Likewise, when the mind-stream of sentient beings is defiled, they do not see the Buddha’s body; when their minds have been purified, they will see the Tathagata.

There is also the doctrine of the Buddha’s three bodies. The Treatise on the Stages and the Sutra on Resolving Doubts concerning the Semblance Dharma also present the Buddha’s three bodies: the Dharma body, the reward body, and the responsive body. The body that has fundamentally existed from time immemorial is the Buddha’s Dharma body.

The manifestation of the Dharma body in response to causes is the reward body. The body that responsively manifests according to beings’ capacities in order to teach and transform sentient beings is the responsive body. The Sutra of Golden Light presents the Buddha’s three bodies as the Dharma body, the responsive body, and the transformation body.

The Dharma body is as previously explained. The responsive body has three meanings: because it accords with principle, it is called the responsive body; this is also the reward body. Yet all three bodies are called Buddha, and therefore all three are called Awakened.

What does awakening mean? Explained separately, the Dharma body knows principle, the reward body knows practice, and the responsive body knows both principle and practice.

It is further recorded: The three bodies of the Buddha fully know the three dharmas; yet, since they are called Buddhas, how could they possibly not know them? Furthermore, the three bodies—the Dharma body, the reward body, and the response body—are established by combining the responsive bodies and distinguishing the true bodies. Distinguishing the true bodies yields the Dharma body and the reward body.

When the Golden Light Sutra sets forth the three bodies of the Buddha, it combines both the true and the responsive. The true and the responsive are the Buddha’s response body and transformation body. Yet these two bodies, responsive and transformational, do not differ in essence; both take true suchness, the true Dharma, as their essence.

True suchness, inherently existent, is the Buddha’s Dharma body; the body that answers to causes is the Buddha’s reward body; and the body that teaches and transforms sentient beings is the Buddha’s transformation body. Furthermore, all three bodies of the Buddha are eternal: the Dharma body is eternal because it is inherently existent; the Buddha’s reward body cultivates causes to reveal eternity; and the Buddha’s response body is eternal because it continually expounds the Dharma and teaches sentient beings.

There is also a teaching that the Dharma body and reward body are eternal, whereas the response body is impermanent. Regarding the three bodies of the Buddha expounding the Dharma, it is sometimes said that the Buddha’s Dharma body expounds the Dharma while the Buddha’s response body does not; at other times it is said that the Buddha’s response body expounds the Dharma while the Buddha’s reward body does not…

There are also causes for the Buddha’s three bodies. One teaching says that there are only two kinds of causes: the revealing cause and the producing cause. The Buddha’s Dharma body is manifested through the revealing cause, while the Buddha’s reward body and response body are manifested through the producing cause.

Another teaching says: The Buddha’s Dharma body is manifested through the revealing cause, while the reward body possesses both causes: that which directly gives rise to it is the producing cause, and that which assists it from afar is the revealing cause. As the Great Sutra records: “The six paramitas are the producing cause, and Buddha-nature is the revealing cause. The Buddha’s response body has no separate cause; once the Dharma body and reward body have been revealed, they naturally respond to beings.” Another teaching says: The vow of great compassion is the cause of the response body.

This is because the vow of great compassion is the revealing cause of the prajna body, enabling one skillfully to comprehend the Dharma body.

THE MEANING OF THE TWO BIRDS OF PERMANENCE AND IMPERMANENCE

The Great Sutra records:

How does one share in the noble practice?

Like a pair of sala birds,

Kalandaka,[3] the sun and moon,

Venus and Jupiter.

As for the two birds flying together, there are two cases. First, they fly one before the other: first suffering and impermanence are taught, and only afterward are permanence, bliss, and self taught. Second, they fly simultaneously: this presents the Dharma of nirvana as neither permanent nor impermanent, yet also both permanent and impermanent.

It is also said that nirvana can establish the meaning of the Great and fully possesses both skillful means, permanence and impermanence; therefore, it is called “flying together simultaneously.” Nevertheless, the flight of the two birds also carries the meaning of flying at different heights, indicating that permanence and impermanence differ as superior and inferior. I shall now teach you the Dharma of the superior Threefold Cultivation.

The three dharmas of suffering, impermanence, and non-self come first and are lower; permanence, bliss, and self are superior and higher. This is the meaning of the Threefold Cultivation and the Sixfold Cultivation. Formerly, the Dharma of the Threefold Cultivation was taught; combining the present teaching with the former one, it is called the Sixfold Cultivation.

THE MEANING OF HALF-WORD[4] AND FULL-WORD[5]

The sutra records: “How are the meanings of Full-word and Half-word explained so as to establish the meanings of permanence and impermanence? First, impermanence is Half-word, while permanence is Full-word. Why?

Formerly, in order to eradicate the false attachment of non-Buddhist practitioners who held that there are permanence, bliss, self, and purity within samsara, suffering and non-self were taught. Because this eradicated the wrong views of non-Buddhist practitioners and gave rise to the Dharma of the Lesser Vehicle, it was called Half-word. Once the disease of attachment to permanence had been eliminated, the affliction of impermanence arose in turn.

Furthermore, the sutra records: “Not long afterward, they again became ill, and it became necessary to employ permanence and bliss to help them arouse the bodhicitta”; therefore, this is called Full-word.

If both the present and former teachings were given to cure the illnesses of sentient beings, both may be called Full-word. But when the present and former teachings are contrasted, the former was the Lesser Vehicle and the present is the Great Vehicle; the former was Half-word and the present is Full-word. Yet beginners in the practice do not understand that the Buddha taught this permanence and bliss solely to eradicate the disease of attachment to impermanence, and they regard it as the ultimate teaching. Therefore, it is next taught that both permanence and impermanence must be relinquished and that neither is ultimate; hence both are called Half-word. Only that which is neither permanent nor impermanent and is nondual is called Full-word.

In order to eradicate the disease of attachment to duality, nonduality is called Full-word. In truth, however, this too is not yet complete and is not yet truly Full-word. The earlier teaching that permanence and impermanence are both full pertains to function; the subsequent teaching that it is neither permanent nor impermanent, and neither of the two, is full with respect to essence. Furthermore, if only fullness of essence is taught, it is still not perfect fullness. Only when that which is neither permanent nor impermanent nevertheless fully possesses permanence and impermanence, like the two birds flying together, and fully encompasses both essence and function, is it called Full-word.

THE MEANING OF BUDDHA-NATURE

The ultimate Way is suchness itself, neither deluded nor awakened; the Buddha-Dharma is vast and boundless, neither bound nor liberated. Yet because sentient beings are deluded and cling obstinately, they mistake gold for leaves and sharp blades for lotus flowers; unable to distinguish the color of milk or clearly discern forms, they follow the current into six differing flavors and contend over tiles and stones, regarding them as treasures. Therefore, the Omniscient One of numinous awakening—the Heroic Guide and Tamer—teaches the essential purport of the golden needle; the disease of the eyes is immediately cured, and through the skilled physician’s medicine, the pearl-like eyes regain their brightness.

As for the term Buddha-nature, awakening is called “Buddha,” and immutability is called “nature.” The Buddhas of the ten directions take this as their nature; therefore, it is called Buddha-nature. There are five kinds of Buddha-nature, though they are explained in many different ways. Dharma Master Kaishan[6] said: “There are five kinds of Buddha-nature: the direct cause, the supporting cause, the revealing cause, the fruit, and the fruit of the fruit.

The direct cause is mind: all beings who possess mind will attain Buddhahood; therefore, mind is the direct cause. The supporting cause is the twelve links of dependent origination. The revealing cause is the cause that gives rise to wisdom and thoroughly comprehends bodhi.

The nature of the fruit is bodhi. The fruit of the fruit is great nirvana.”

Master Zhuangyan, however, said: Sentient beings constitute the nature of the direct cause, as the sutra records: “The direct cause is all sentient beings, while the supporting cause is the six paramitas.” The remaining three meanings are the same as those presented by Dharma Master Kaishan. The Shanjia school, however, holds that the Middle Way is Buddha-nature, as the Great Sutra records: “Why has the essential purport been lost? Did the Tathagata not previously teach that the Middle Way is Buddha-nature?”

Another teaching says that emptiness in the ultimate sense is itself Buddha-nature, and that emptiness in the ultimate sense is the Middle Way. Buddha-nature originally does not have many meanings, but because of the capacities of sentient beings, it is divided into two: the nature of the direct cause and the nature of the supporting cause. The nature of the supporting cause is also called the collateral nature.

The nature of the supporting cause is further divided into cause and fruit. Cause is again divided into two: cause and cause of the cause. Fruit is likewise divided into two: fruit and fruit of the fruit.

Within cause there are also object and wisdom: the object is the cause, while wisdom is the cause of the cause. Within fruit, the wisdom of bodhi is the fruit, while nirvana is the fruit of the fruit. Thus five natures are now set forth: cause, cause of the cause, fruit, fruit of the fruit, and the direct nature, which is neither cause nor fruit.

Yet the text of the sutra contains two sets of four propositions:

The first four propositions are: cause and cause of the cause, fruit and fruit of the fruit. All of these belong to the nature of supporting conditions. The twelve links of dependent origination are called the cause, and the wisdom thereby produced is called the cause of the cause; because it arises from the cause, it is called the cause of the cause. Bodhi is the fruit, and nirvana is the fruit of the fruit; because nirvana is the fruit of the meritorious quality of fruition, it is called the fruit of the fruit.

The second four propositions are: cause but not fruit; fruit but not cause; both cause and fruit; and neither cause nor fruit.

Some hold that these four propositions set forth only three natures. We now say that these four propositions fully set forth all five natures—the supporting cause and the direct cause:

– A cause but not a result: the twelve links of dependent origination.

– A result but not a cause: the nature of nirvana, the result of results.

– Both cause and result: this fully includes the two natures of contemplative wisdom and bodhi. These two natures are likewise both results. Yet the nature of wisdom is both cause and result: contemplative wisdom takes the result of results as its object and is the cause of causes of bodhi. Bodhi is the result of contemplative wisdom and the cause of nirvana; therefore, fully possessing these two natures is both cause and result.

– Neither cause nor result is Buddha-nature, namely, the fundamental nature. Yet although the fundamental nature is not the cause of causes, it is provisionally called the nature of the fundamental cause; although it is not the result of results, it is provisionally called the fundamental result. Thus, Buddha-nature here has three meanings, fully encompassed by the first fourfold proposition.

Some also divide Buddha-nature into seven kinds. This assertion is incorrect. Although the nature of the fundamental cause has three names, it is only one dharma. If it is called the fundamental nature, it is not called the fundamental cause or the fundamental result. If it is called the fundamental cause, it is not called the fundamental nature or the fundamental result. Therefore, it is only one dharma, fully encompassed by the preceding fourfold and fivefold propositions.

Question: If the designation “nature of the fundamental cause” is appropriate, is the designation “nature of the conditioning cause” also appropriate?

Explanation: The nature of the fundamental cause is neither cause nor result; therefore, the designation of cause and result may appropriately be applied to it. The nature of the conditioning cause is both cause and result, so what should it be called? Furthermore, with respect to the nature of the fundamental cause, the designation is appropriate, but with respect to the nature of the conditioning cause, it is not; with respect to the nature of the fundamental cause, it is correct, but with respect to the nature of the conditioning cause, it is incorrect.

Yet both are correct and both are appropriate. The sutra states: “The twelve links of dependent origination neither arise nor cease and are neither cause nor result.” Since both are negated, why should the designation not be deemed appropriate?

Explanation: This is only a general analogy. The meaning now set forth is that the twelve links, from the standpoint of nirvana, are neither cause nor result; that is, they are not the causes and results of birth and death. The meaning of the cause of Buddha-nature is likewise such: the nature of the fundamental cause is neither cause nor result; that is, it is not a cause or result of Buddha-nature. Therefore, this analogy does not apply.

There is also a fourfold proposition concerning Buddha-nature: icchantikas do not possess it, while those with wholesome roots do. Icchantikas possess it, while those with wholesome roots do not. Both possess it. Neither possesses it.

The explanations differ.

First, icchantikas do not possess it, while those with wholesome roots do: what those with wholesome roots possess is the nature of contemplative wisdom. Icchantikas do not possess this nature.

Second, icchantikas possess it, while those with wholesome roots do not: what icchantikas possess is the nature of wholesome objects. What those with wholesome roots do not possess is the nature of unwholesome objects.

Third, both possess it: both possess the nature of the fundamental cause, because the fundamental cause is the mind.

Fourth, neither possesses it: neither possesses the nature of the virtues of the result. The Tiantai Shanmen school explains: Buddha-nature is neither wholesome nor unwholesome; wholesomeness and unwholesomeness are merely skillful means.

The meaning of being within the principle and outside the principle is as follows: within the principle, icchantikas possess Buddha-nature; outside the principle, those with wholesome roots do not possess Buddha-nature. Within the principle, those with wholesome roots possess Buddha-nature; outside the principle, icchantikas do not possess Buddha-nature. Both classes of people possessing Buddha-nature is within the principle; neither class possessing Buddha-nature is outside the principle.

Persons are distinguished into five natures: ordinary beings are like milk mixed with blood; stream-enterers and once-returners are like pure milk; non-returners are like thickened milk; arhats are like cream; pratyekabuddhas are like clarified butter; and Buddhas are like the finest ghee. There are also teachings that classify Buddha-nature into seven, six, or five kinds, as extensively explained in the Kasyapa Chapter.

Daozang vows to dedicate the merit from compiling this Concise Chapters on the Three Treatises to his parents of seven generations, his parents in the present life, and all sentient beings of the four modes of birth within the six realms.

The Manji Supplement to the Buddhist Canon states: “This work is suspected to have been excerpted and transcribed by someone in this country. Nevertheless, the passages copied herein are words composed by Great Master Jiaxiang, and it was therefore collected and preserved in this form.”

Notes:

[1] Different schools 異部: schools whose doctrines differ from one another.

[2] Four currents 四流: Four dharmas that cause sentient beings to drift ceaselessly: the current of views, the current of desire, the current of existence, and the current of ignorance. The current of views consists of the delusions of views within the three realms. The current of desire consists of all delusions in the desire realm, except for the delusions of views and the delusions of ignorance. The current of existence consists of all delusions in the two higher realms, except for the delusions of views and the delusions of ignorance. The current of ignorance is the ignorance within the three realms.

[3] Kalindika 迦鄰提 (S: Kācalindikāka; Ch. transcription: Ca-lân-đề-địa): a species of water bird whose feathers are as soft and light as cotton. This bird appears only when a Holy King arises in the world (ĐPB).

[4] Half-letters 半字: vowels (mātṛkā) and consonants (the bodies of letters) remain separate and have not yet formed complete letters; this is an analogy for the nine divisions of the Hinayana scriptures.

[5] Full letters 滿字: vowels (mātṛkā) and consonants (the bodies of letters) combine to form complete Sanskrit letters; this is an analogy for the Vaipulya scriptures of the Mahayana.

[6] Dharma Master Kaishan 開善: refers to Dharma Master Zhizang. During the Liang dynasty, the master was the abbot of Kaishan Monastery on Zhongshan. Thus, he was known by the name of the monastery.