Stop, Stop — No Need to Speak

Commentary on the Words of the Sūtra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma, Fascicle Three, Upper Part

Expounded by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai

From "At that time Maitreya, wishing to resolve his own doubt" down through the verses is the prologue of the posing of the question. This text falls into two parts: the prose section and the verse section. In the prose section, the sūtra's compiler narrates the arising of Maitreya's own doubt and of the assembly's doubt, and the question itself. The question covers this world and other worlds, just as the text shows — so why is there a verse section as well? Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: "First, according to local custom: in India there is the practice of scattering loose flowers and of stringing flowers into garlands, corresponding to prose and to the trailing inscriptions of verse used here. Second, according to differing inclinations: some delight in loose prose, others delight in versified lines. Third, according to differing capacities for understanding: some gain understanding through the prose, others gain understanding through the verse. Fourth, according to sharpness or dullness of faculty: the sharp awaken on a single hearing, while the dull awaken only once the matter is stated a second time." It also signifies the Buddha's earnest and repeated teaching, and it exists so that those who gathered before and after the prose account might still hear the matter — for these reasons there are verses. The verses run to sixty-two lines, and the text divides into two: the first fifty-four lines versify the foregoing question, and the last eight lines request an answer. Within the question itself there are two parts: the first four lines question this world, and the last fifty lines question other worlds. The prose section, in questioning this world, poses the six signs as a whole; the verse section additionally mentions the fragrant wind and the purified ground, but omits the preaching of the Dharma and the entering of samādhi. Looking only at the wording, one might call this an uneven surplus and deficiency, but examined for its meaning, this is not so. The preaching of the Dharma belongs to the nature of wisdom, and the entering of samādhi belongs to the heavenly mind; and it is by means of this heavenly mind and this nature of wisdom that the Buddha is able to shake the earth and emit light — citing the branch-tip thereby makes the root itself known, so this is an omission that is not truly an omission. Others, not seeing this point, say that because Maitreya does not ask about these two matters, they are therefore not to be counted among the signs. I now turn this argument back on them: if Maitreya had not asked about them, on what basis would Mañjuśrī answer concerning them? And besides, where exactly does the question itself point?

The answer now is: it points to the prose section's general question. And if one wishes to identify still more specifically where the particular question lies, it is simply in the two words "guiding teacher." For it is precisely by preaching the Dharma and entering samādhi that one is able to guide others — and since the Buddha is here called "guiding teacher," this is itself a question about the preaching of the Dharma and the entering of samādhi. Hence this is not truly an omission.

Others say: "The wind is fragrant on account of the sandalwood grove, and the earth, in addition, is adorned and purified — these two matters are an added surplus." I now say that this is not truly a surplus. The wind, though ordinarily without fragrance, here becomes fragrant, and it is precisely this extraordinary quality that makes it a sign; for the heavenly flowers are utterly sublime — how could they possess color and yet lack fragrance? This signifies the cause carrying through to the effect: just as the flowers give rise to a fragrant wind, and once the flowers have gathered upon the ground the ground itself becomes adorned and purified, so too, if the cause proceeds toward the effect, the effect is thereby adorned and purified. The Golden Light Sūtra says: "The gathering together of merit adorns the Buddha's body." Hence these two matters — the fragrant wind and the purified ground — serve to bring the significance of the four flowers to completion; this is not truly a surplus.

From "the light between the brows" onward, the next fifty lines versify the question about the six signs of other worlds. The old commentators say: "The verses do not ask about the three vehicles and the fourfold assembly, and do not ask about the Buddha's parinirvāṇa. Since the present teaching does away with the three vehicles, why would it suddenly ask about the three? And since the sūtra is just about to expound the Buddha's lifespan, why would it ask about his entry into extinction? Since this would not fit the sense of the text, these matters are not asked about." Alas — this fails to properly work through the text, and instead forces the sūtra to conform to a preconceived feeling. I now show that the verses do in fact ask fully about the six signs of other worlds. The text divides into six: first, three lines ask about the sentient beings of the six destinies; second, four lines ask about seeing that buddha and his preaching of the Dharma; third, three lines ask about the fourfold assembly of that other world; next, one and a half lines conclude what precedes and open what follows; next, thirty-one and a half lines ask about the bodhisattva practices cultivated in that other world; and next, seven lines ask about the making of offerings to the relics, which is itself the question concerning the Buddha's parinirvāṇa.

The first three lines question the six destinies. Examining these verses confirms that the earlier text on the light illuminating the east signifies, as a whole, the illuminating of other worlds; these verses versify the general question given above. The sentient beings of the six destinies are the persons who proceed toward their destinies; birth-and-death is the place toward which they proceed; the causes and conditions of good and evil karma are the cause of their proceeding; and beauty or ugliness is the effect of their proceeding.

From "and also beholding the buddhas" onward, the second unit of four lines questions the seeing of that buddha-land — directly, the seeing of that buddha preaching the Dharma. This more fully clarifies the character of that preaching: preaching the sudden teaching to match beings of great capacity, where "the sagely lord, the lion" corresponds, in our own world, to the manifestation of the form of Vairocana.

"Expounding sūtra-teachings sublime and foremost" corresponds, in our own world, to the light first illuminating the high mountains and to the expounding of the Avataṃsaka teaching. "Teaching the bodhisattvas" corresponds, in our own world, to the seven assemblies at their various places, in which there are no śrāvakas present. "Illuminating the Buddha-dharma and awakening sentient beings" corresponds, in our own world, to beings first beholding the Buddha's body and entering the Tathāgata's wisdom.

From "if a person meets with suffering" onward, the third unit of three lines questions the fourfold assembly of that other world — that is, following the sudden teaching, it next clarifies the Tripiṭaka teaching. "If a person meets with suffering" opens the śrāvaka vehicle; these verses fully set out the Four Noble Truths, as is plain in the text itself (and so on). If a person, meeting with suffering, commits evil karma, his suffering is never exhausted — this describes beings at the very bottom. If a person, meeting with suffering, performs good karma, his suffering is likewise not exhausted, though he thereby wearies of the lower state and reaches upward toward the higher, as when Nanda kept the precepts for the sake of desire, and the like. If a person, meeting with suffering, seeks liberation within the teachings of outsiders, he only increases wrong views and lengthens his faults, and his suffering, too, is not exhausted. But if a person, meeting with suffering, wearies of its origin in accumulation, and further wearies of the resultant existence he depends upon, and is thereby moved to have the Buddha preach nirvāṇa to him, this person is able to exhaust the very bounds of all suffering. That other world likewise opens this vehicle.

From "if a person possesses merit" onward is one line opening the middle vehicle: if one's offerings to the buddhas are few, one meets with suffering and vexation; if one's offerings to the buddhas are many, though one meets with suffering, one nonetheless has merit — hence it is said that the śrāvaka plants merit over three lifetimes, while the pratyekabuddha plants merit over a hundred kalpas, and, set against the śrāvaka, it is therefore said that the pratyekabuddha "possesses merit." "Aspiring to seek the supreme Dharma" means that whereas the śrāvaka wearies of suffering and thereby cultivates practice, the pratyekabuddha seeks the path and thereby cultivates practice, deeply seeking the sublime principle of dependent origination — this is that other world's opening of the middle vehicle. From "if there are sons of the Buddha" onward is the opening of the great vehicle of the six perfections: because true compassion is able to carry on the Buddha's lineage, they are called "sons of the Buddha"; because they cultivate the six perfections, it speaks of their "various practices"; because they aspire and seek, it speaks of "unsurpassed wisdom"; and because, within the six perfections, the six obscurations are absent — as when a medicine contains no trace of the illness it cures — it speaks of the "pure path," though this is not yet the ultimate purity.

Furthermore: for the śrāvaka the truth of suffering is the gate of contemplation; for the pratyekabuddha the truth of accumulation is the gate; and for the bodhisattva of the six perfections the truth of the path is the gate — hence it speaks of the "pure path."

From "Mañjuśrī, as I dwell" onward, the fourth unit of one and a half lines concludes what precedes and opens what follows. "What I have seen and heard is thus" concludes what precedes; "and things of this kind, many in number" opens what follows.

From "I see, in that other land" onward, the fifth unit, of thirty-one and a half lines, questions the various practices cultivated by the bodhisattvas of that other world. This divides into three: first, one line asks in general; next, fifteen lines ask in sequence; and next, fifteen and a half lines ask without regard to sequence, following whatever is seen. The first, the general question, needs no further explanation.

From "there are some who practice giving" onward, the second unit, of fifteen lines, questions in sequence, and within it there are six topics: first, six lines question giving (dāna); second, two lines question moral precepts (śīla); third, one line questions patience (kṣānti); fourth, one line questions vigor (vīrya); fifth, two lines question meditative concentration (dhyāna); and sixth, three lines question wisdom (prajñā). As for the question on giving, it carries three senses: the first four lines question the giving of wealth, one line questions the giving of one's own body, and one line questions the giving of one's own life. Treasures, servants, and the like are things that both the humble and the noble alike are able to give; teams of horses and jeweled carriages are given by those of noble and heroic bearing; wife and children and the like are one's "outer body," while one's own flesh and the like are one's "inner body"; and giving up one's head or eyes is itself the giving up of one's life. That the giving of the Dharma is not mentioned here is because this is reserved for the Prajñāpāramitā perfection discussed later. Furthermore, when body, life, and wealth are taken together with the final limit of birth-and-death and understood as attaining the indestructible and ever-abiding, this is itself the giving of the Dharma, and so it is not separately discussed here.

From "Mañjuśrī, I see kings" onward, the second topic, of two lines, questions moral precepts. Discussing the upholding of precepts in terms of the bhikṣu: for a householder, giving is easy and upholding precepts is difficult, while for one gone forth from home, giving is difficult and upholding precepts is easy — hence precepts are clarified here in terms of the bhikṣu, and this passage cites the Sūtra of the Five Kings (and so on). From "or one sees a bodhisattva" onward, the third topic, of one line, questions patience. Patience is of three kinds:

amid secluded forests and deep valleys, enduring evil persons and fierce beasts without anger, is the patience of endurance with sentient beings; disciplining oneself and holding fast to one's resolve is the patience of ascetic practice; and seeking the buddha-path is the patience of ultimate meaning. Furthermore, "and becomes a bhikṣu" corresponds to the patience of ascetic practice, "dwelling alone in quiet solitude" corresponds to the patience of endurance with sentient beings, and "delighting to recite the sūtra-texts" corresponds to the patience of ultimate meaning. From "and further sees a bodhisattva, bold and" onward, the fourth topic, of one line, questions vigor: deep mountains are fearsome places, not fit to be dwelt in by the cowardly and timid, yet one bold in advancing is able to remain secure there, as if nothing at all were beside him, contemplating and cultivating true reality, thought after thought without ceasing, advancing in the seeking of the buddha-path. From "and further sees one who has left" onward, the fifth topic, of two lines, questions meditative concentration — the first line questions the cultivation of the root dhyānas, and the second questions the cultivation of the supreme, world-transcending dhyānas; in the general course, both may include a cultivation grounded in the root dhyānas.

As for "freedom from desire": if freedom from desire yields the five supernormal powers, this is the concentration of the shared teaching. Furthermore, the root dhyānas are themselves rooted in freedom from desire; the eight liberations likewise cultivate freedom from desire through such practices as the contemplation of impurity; the distinct teaching adds to this a freedom from the desires of the two vehicles; and the middle way further frees one from attachment to the dharma-love that accompanies compliance with the path (and so on). As for "deeply cultivating meditative concentration": when the first dhyāna first arises, at its lowest grade, this concentration is not yet deep, and it deepens progressively up through its ninth grade; and likewise the eight liberations, the nine successive concentrations, the eight forms of mastery, and the ten totalities all deepen progressively one upon another. This concentration, once fully mastered and freely transformable, is able to give rise to the various supernormal powers. Ordinary worldlings possess only five such powers, while the two vehicles possess all six; bodhisattvas of the distinct teaching, deferring to the Buddha's exclusive share of the undefiled power, are also said to possess only five, while in the perfect teaching all six powers are possessed from beginning to end.

From "settled in dhyāna, reciting ten thousand verses" onward, the second unit, of one line, clarifies the supreme dhyāna — this is the dhyāna of the distinct and perfect teachings, in which stillness and diffusion do not obstruct one another; without rising from cessation-concentration, one manifests all manner of dignified deportment, like the asura's lute, which resonates of itself without being plucked — with no conditioned object and no discriminating thought, yet responsive whenever there is an appeal, and thus able, while settled in dhyāna, to praise the Buddha. From "and further sees one deep in wisdom" onward, the sixth topic, of three lines, questions prajñā, which divides into two: the first line concerns cultivation for oneself — "deep in wisdom" means that his understanding fathoms the very root of principle, and "firm in resolve" means that his vow is vast and expansive; these are the two kinds of adornment, wisdom and merit, by which one is able both to question and to uphold the Dharma. From "and further sees sons of the Buddha, in concentration and" onward, the next two lines concern the transforming of others: those not yet arrived at the fourth dhyāna have more wisdom, while those in the formless concentrations have more concentration, as with the four dhyānas and the rest; and again, those cultivating the eight liberations have more wisdom, while those cultivating the nine successive concentrations have more concentration, as with the ten totalities and the rest; and again, the two vehicles have more concentration while bodhisattvas have more wisdom, while in a buddha the two are equal.

Furthermore, the contemplation of emptiness has more concentration, the contemplation of the provisional has more wisdom, and the contemplation of the middle has the two equal. "Immeasurable analogies" refers to all manner of skillful means: within the various teachings, immeasurable similes and comparisons are cited to help reveal the meaning of ultimate truth. "Defeating the armies of Māra": the contemplation of emptiness defeats the four Māras; the contemplation of the provisional defeats, in sequence, the eight Māras; and the contemplation of the middle perfectly defeats the eight Māras, the ten Māras, and all Māras whatsoever. "Beating the drum": from the very abode of the first arising of the bodhi-mind one already attains true awakening and becomes a buddha in a hundred buddha-worlds, perfectly beating the Dharma-drum of the wheel of Brahmā. From "and further sees bodhisattvas silent and at rest in meditation" onward, the third unit, of fifteen and a half lines, questions without regard to sequence, following whatever is seen.

Question: Since the six perfections given above already comprehensively gather in the ten thousand practices, what need is there to question further? Is this not excessively elaborate and disorderly?

Answer: The sequential questioning given above follows a single, gradual course; the non-sequential questioning does not follow any single fixed course. Since the text itself speaks of "various forms and appearances," how could this be merely two courses, that one should call it excessive? These two rounds of the six perfections, sequential and non-sequential, are meant to parallel that other world's opening of the Tripiṭaka teaching and its subsequent preaching of the twelve divisions of scripture of the Vaipulya period, in which the forms and appearances of the six perfections are distinguished — fully as in our own world, no different.

Within the miscellaneous questioning, the text carries seven distinct topics: first, two lines question dhyāna, and this in turn has two parts — the first line questions entering the dhyāna of equanimity, which pertains to cultivation for oneself; and next, from "and further sees a bodhisattva emitting light" onward, the second line questions entering the dhyāna of compassion, wherein the first part is cultivation for oneself and the second, compassion, is for the transforming of others. A bodhisattva's entering samādhi and emitting light bring about all manner of benefits, fully set out in the Avataṃsaka and the Sūtra of Contemplation of Thought (and so on). Next, from "and further sees a son of the Buddha who has never" onward, the second topic, of one line, questions vigor — this is the dharma-gate of buddha-recollection as taught in the Pratyutpanna-samādhi Sūtra.

Next, from "and further sees one who is complete in the precepts" onward, the third topic, of one line, questions moral precepts: "his dignified deportment lacking nothing" is precisely the first, the precept of lacking nothing, while "pure as a jeweled pearl" is the tenth, the precept of ultimate completion; the ones in between may be understood accordingly, and the ten precepts are as set out in the Fahua Xuanyi. Next, from "and further sees a son of the Buddha abiding in patience" onward, the fourth topic, of one and a half lines, questions patience — namely, the two patiences with sentient beings and with the nature of dharmas.

Next, from "and further sees a bodhisattva free of frivolous play" onward, the fifth unit, of two lines, questions dhyāna once more: "free of frivolous laughter" is the casting off of the hindrance of restlessness and remorse; being free of "foolish companions" is the removal of the hindrance of anger; "drawing near to the wise" removes the hindrance of doubt; "single-mindedly casting off confusion" is the casting off of the hindrance of greed; and "gathering one's thoughts in mountain forests" removes the hindrance of drowsiness. Next, from "or one sees a bodhisattva" down through "food and drink," the sixth topic, of five lines, questions giving, and divides into two: the first four lines clarify the giving of the four requisites, and, from "such as this" onward, the second, of one line, brings the matter to a close.

Next, from "or there are bodhisattvas who expound" onward, the seventh topic, of three lines, questions prajñā: the first line is expounding prajñā though it cannot be expounded; the second line is contemplating prajñā though it cannot be contemplated; and the third line is that the path of language is cut off and the workings of the mind are extinguished — that is, expounding what cannot be expounded and contemplating what cannot be contemplated, in discoursing on prajñā. One may take these three renderings of prajñā as completing what was seen above, that other world's preaching of the six perfections within the Vaipulya period; or one may take them, alternatively, as referring to that other world's preaching, after the Vaipulya period, of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā teaching, extensively discoursing on prajñā — quiescent and without duality, pure and unattached — this world and that other world being the same in this respect. Or again, one may say that expounding the quiescent dharma is the intent of the Vaipulya period, while contemplating the nature of all dharmas as like empty space is the intent of prajñā, in which one proceeds through the dharmas one by one in contemplation, the characteristics of the dharmas being without duality — this meaning in fact accords with the Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. If one takes this as referring to that other land's seeing of the Lotus Sūtra, then it is the one line, "using this sublime wisdom to seek the unsurpassed path" — yet this only shows persons cultivating sublime wisdom, without showing the very seat of sublime wisdom that is the Lotus Sūtra itself; were the seat itself to be seen, one would know at once that this world is like that one, and what further doubt would remain? It is precisely because only the persons, and not the seat, are seen, that the whole assembly is moved to doubt and question. Or again, one may say that these three renderings of prajñā are the same as the prajñā taught in our own world, and that, not yet knowing what would be preached next, doubt and questioning therefore arose — these two interpretations may each be adopted according to the reader. The prose text above, being compressed, sets out only six such topics, while the verses, being more expansive, make the meaning shine forth clearly (and so on).

From "Mañjuśrī, there are further bodhisattvas" onward, the sixth topic, of seven lines, clarifies the raising of stūpas over the relics after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa. This precisely versifies what was seen above: that other world's buddha appearing amid the five turbidities, and, proceeding from the single dharma of no characteristics, opening both the gradual and the sudden teachings, so that there are two dharmas — gradual and sudden — and the various forms and kinds of the threefold path, differing from one another, just as was seen above. Now, seeing that other world's buddha enter parinirvāṇa, his sons, cherishing his virtue, raise mounded stūpas for him — this itself signifies the immeasurable altogether returning into the one, and the one issuing forth as the immeasurable. The earlier signs have already signified the immeasurable returning into the one, and this is precisely the entering of nirvāṇa — how, then, could one fear that the raising of stūpas as a buddha-work might in any way obstruct the coming teaching on the Buddha's lifespan? How grievous, how grievous, that anyone should think so! In terms of the text, this divides into six: first, one line generally indicates the Buddha's parinirvāṇa and the raising of stūpas; next, from "and further sees sons of the Buddha erecting" onward, the second, of one line, clarifies the number of the stūpas; next, from "the jeweled stūpas, lofty and sublime" onward, the third, of one line, clarifies the dimensions of the stūpas; next, from "each and every stūpa" onward, the fourth, of one line, clarifies the appearance of the stūpas; next, from "the gods, dragons, and spirits" onward, the fifth, of one line, clarifies the offerings made to them; and next, from "Mañjuśrī" onward, the sixth, of two lines, concludes the passage. "Stūpa" here is translated "square mound" — a square mound corresponds, in our own land, to a burial mound or grave, and the Mahābhiṣeka Sūtra renders it as "mound." The "shrine-hall" corresponds, in our own land, to a spirit-hall; lofty terraces and steep stairways, catching the dew and touching the clouds, are meant at length to signify that the pure realm turns the heart toward the noble ones above. "The king of trees" is the Pārijāta tree; its primary function is to make offering to the relics, and it secondarily adorns the buddha-land (and so on).

From "the Buddha emits" onward, the second unit, of eight lines, is the request for an answer, and divides into two: the first three lines raise the matter of doubt and set forth the request, and the last five lines resolve the concealed objections.

The first three lines divide into three: the first line raises the matter seen in this world — since the white tuft is the basis of all the signs, it is cited first, and, because it involves all the other matters as well, the text says "various kinds of things." Next, from "the buddhas" onward, the second line raises the matter seen in other worlds — since the buddhas are the basis there, this single mention comprehensively gathers in the remaining five signs. From "we" onward, the third line requests an answer.

The second part, resolving the concealed objections, itself divides into two: the first four lines directly resolve the concealed objections, and the last one line concludes the request. As for these "concealed objections": in his inmost mind Mañjuśrī constructs objections and is unwilling to answer at once, and his intent in this has three aspects: first, that these signs are so rare and extraordinary that no hasty, casual judgment about them should be made; second, that the wise ones in the assembly are as vast as the sea, and out of humility he defers to those of higher standing; and third, that by holding back and hesitating he causes the assembly's yearning and admiration to grow all the greater — and it is for these reasons that he uses concealed objections to quietly decline. Maitreya, speaking openly and clearly, resolves these objections, and his own intent likewise has three aspects: first, that the sign is great and the doubt is great, and that if it is not resolved, an anxious rhinoceros-like unease will remain lodged in the heart, obstructing the hearing of the true teaching to come; second, that the assembly, vast as the sea, has its many capacities resting upon you, the Worthy One; and third, that the whole assembly gazes up at you, and hence one may know that their earnest sincerity is deep and weighty — and for this reason he speaks openly to resolve the objections, requesting that an answer be given without delay.

As for the first concealed objection: it arises from the direct request itself, which says, "O son of the Buddha, Mañjuśrī, we beg you to resolve the assembly's doubts." Mañjuśrī, on this basis, raises his first concealed objection: "You say the assembly has doubts, yet the assembly has never actually doubted; if they had a doubt, they themselves would ask it — and since the assembly has not doubted, what is it that I am to resolve?" Maitreya then resolves this with his first verse, saying, "The fourfold assembly, joyful and reverent, gazes up at both you and me" — that is, "at me" because he wishes Maitreya himself to be the one questioning, and "at you" because they wish for Mañjuśrī himself to be the one answering. Mañjuśrī, on this basis, raises a second objection: "The assembly all alike has this doubt, yet it is not easily answered — we should wait for the Buddha to rise from samādhi, and only then resolve the doubt." Maitreya then resolves this with his second verse: if the doubt remains unresolved, the anxious, rhinoceros-like unease in their hearts will not be put at ease, and the matter should therefore be answered without delay; moreover, who can know when the Tathāgata will rise from his samādhi? — hence it says, "O son of the Buddha, answer at once, and resolve our doubt, bringing us joy." Mañjuśrī, on this basis, raises a third objection: "I dwell together with you, Worthy One, both still at the stage of learners; to fathom the Buddha's intent requires careful, joint deliberation, and it would not accord with reason for me alone to be made to answer." Maitreya then resolves this with his third verse: "I too, in my own humble mind, ponder and hesitate between the two pillars — is he about to preach the sublime Dharma, or is he about to bestow a prediction?" — hence it says, "The Buddha, seated on the platform of enlightenment, holds the sublime Dharma he has attained; is he now about to expound it, or is he about to bestow a prediction?" Mañjuśrī, on this basis, raises a fourth objection: "If it is as you say, then this is already itself a resolving of the doubt — what further need is there to trouble me to answer?" Maitreya then resolves this with his fourth verse: "How could a matter of such magnitude be judged merely by my own hesitant mind?" — hence it says, "He displays the buddha-lands in every direction; this is no small matter." With this, Mañjuśrī's concealed objections are exhausted, and his humility, too, comes to rest; the final verse then concludes the request for an answer. These four concealed objections were received by Guangzhai from his own teacher, and that teacher in turn received them from Master Zhao of the region north of the Yangtze; since this is an ingenious insight of former worthies, beyond what the text itself states, I make use of it here.

From "At that time Mañjuśrī said to Maitreya" down through the verses is called the prologue of the answer to the question, comprising both prose and verse. The prose text divides into four: first, from "said to Maitreya" onward, is called the answer by conjecture; second, from "Good sons, in the past I" onward, is called the brief answer from things formerly seen; third, from "Good sons, just as in the past" onward, is called the extended answer from things formerly seen; and fourth, from "now, seeing these signs no different from before" onward, is called the answer of clear judgment. Now, when what is below seeks to fathom what is above, one can only grope after images and reckon by conjecture, comparing the past with the present, and cannot arrive at a sudden, outright decision — hence Mañjuśrī begins from a faint impression, then cites what he saw in brief; and since what he saw in brief is not yet complete, he further cites what he saw at length, using the many instances to corroborate the one, and only then does he render his judgment. The answer by conjecture answers the question about this world above; the brief answer from things formerly seen answers the question about other worlds above; the extended answer from things formerly seen answers both the questions about this world and about other worlds together; and the answer of clear judgment renders judgment on both this world and other worlds together.

The answer by conjecture divides into two: first, the heading of the section, and next, the conjecture proper. "Weigh" means to reflect, and "reckon" means to estimate: he reflects that the present is like the past, and reckons that the past is like the present. Yet how could Mañjuśrī, himself an ancient buddha, truly not know? His trace merely displays the act of reflecting. Guangzhai takes the first and last phrases as a direct statement of the Dharma, signifying cause and effect in their broad and abbreviated forms, and the three phrases in between as a statement by simile: "about to preach the great Dharma" is the abbreviated opening of the three to reveal the one, the abbreviated opening of the near to reveal the distant; and "expounding the meaning of the great Dharma" is the extended opening of the three to reveal the one, the extended opening of the near to reveal the distant.

"The great rain of Dharma" is a simile for receiving the prediction of buddhahood: formerly, cause and effect were fixedly grasped, and one was held not to be able to become a buddha — this is the sense of being parched and withered; now, all alike become buddhas — this is the sense of being moistened by the rain. "Blowing the conch" is the changing of the names of the three vehicles; "sounding the drum to array the troops" is a simile for the destroying of ignorance. I now clarify this teaching, though I do not adopt this particular explanation. Why is this? Because the trace gate and the origin gate each arise from a different occasion: the occasion of the trace gate has already arisen, and hence Maitreya's doubt arises and Mañjuśrī resolves it; but the occasion of the origin gate has not yet arisen — so what would Maitreya have to doubt, and what would Mañjuśrī have to resolve? If what is given here were already a resolving of the doubt over opening the near to reveal the distant, then, later, when the earth splits open and the bodhisattvas spring forth, why would Maitreya doubt yet again? A further doubt at that point would make both this doubt and this resolution empty gestures — if the later resolution turns out to be groundless, then the earlier resolution, too, is mistaken; this presents a very great difficulty, and so I do not adopt this explanation.

I now clarify that Maitreya's question only concerns, within the trace gate, the signs of this world and the other worlds; and Mañjuśrī's conjectural answer answers a matter within the trace gate, and has nothing to do with the matter within the origin gate that belongs to the later chapter on the Buddha's lifespan. "About to preach the great Dharma" answers the sign of preaching the Dharma; "raining the great rain of Dharma" answers the sign of the rain of flowers; "blowing the great conch of Dharma" answers the sign of the great assembly's joy of heart; "sounding the great drum of Dharma" answers the sign of the earth's quaking; and "expounding the great meaning of Dharma" answers the sign of the emitting of light.

"About to preach the great Dharma": reflecting that, in the past, the buddhas, after preaching the sūtra of immeasurable meanings, opened the provisional to reveal the real, gathering the immeasurable back into the one, he reckons that the present buddha, having likewise already preached the Dharma, must also open the provisional to reveal the real, gathering the immeasurable to return it to the one — and this "one" is precisely the great Dharma. "Raining the great rain of Dharma": reflecting that, in the past, after the buddhas rained down the four kinds of heavenly flowers, beings universally entered the causes of the perfect teaching — abiding, practice, dedication, and the ten grounds — he reckons that, after the present buddha rains down flowers, beings will all likewise become the causes of buddhahood — abiding, practice, dedication, and the grounds — hence it says "raining the great rain of Dharma." "Blowing the great conch of Dharma": reflecting that, in the past, the fourfold assembly, seeing the signs, rejoiced and gained what they had never had before, their hindrances removed and their capacities stirred, and thereupon changed their persons, their teaching, their practice, and their principle, he reckons that the present assembly's joy, too, should likewise remove their hindrances, stir their capacities, and change their persons, teaching, practice, and principle — and since the change wrought is so profound, it says "blowing the great conch of Dharma." "Sounding the great drum of Dharma": reflecting that, in the past, after the earth quaked, there followed six successive routings of the bandit of ignorance, he reckons that, after the present buddha's earth-quaking, there should likewise be six successive routings of the confusion of ignorance, the vocal teaching being utterly sublime — hence it says "sounding the great drum of Dharma." "Expounding the great meaning of Dharma": reflecting that, in the past, after the buddhas emitted the light from the white tuft, they preached the Lotus Sūtra, this world and that world sharing the same path, he reckons that, after the present buddha emits his light, he will broadly clarify that the paths of the five kinds of buddhas are the same — and since this is precisely the buddha-path, it says "expounding the great meaning of Dharma." These five phrases are, in every case, a matter of reflecting on the past to judge the present, reckoning the present after the pattern of the past; and matching the text to its meaning, only the single sign of entering samādhi is missing — yet the raining of flowers, the quaking of the earth, the emitting of light, and the rest, all come about precisely because of the entering of samādhi, so its sense is already comprehended within them, and no doubt need be raised over this. It is on account of this one item's omission that this is called "the brief answer."

I now offer a further, separate explanation: the first phrase is general, and the last four phrases are particular. The general term is "the great Dharma" itself; the particular terms are "raining," "blowing," "sounding," and "expounding," corresponding to opening, showing, awakening, and entering — just as the heavens themselves are neither small nor great, neither red nor white, and yet rain down flowers that are red and white.

Just as ultimate truth itself is neither opening, showing, awakening, nor entering, yet when this principle is seen, opening, showing, awakening, and entering are thereby realized — like a seed that, upon receiving rain, sprouts and opens: now, hearing the great rain of Dharma, moistening the seed of the dharma-nature and breaking through the husk of ignorance, is the opening of the knowledge and vision of the Buddha at the ten abidings; like hearing the conch blown and thereby knowing that the name is to be changed — what one has now, compared with before, is that having already attained the ten abidings, one now, from the ten abidings, hears the Dharma and is further changed to enter the ten practices — this is the showing of the knowledge and vision of the Buddha; like hearing the drum sounded and thereby knowing that the troops are being roused — what one has now, compared with before, is that already being at the ten practices, one now, from the ten practices, hears the Dharma and is roused to enter the ten dedications — this is the awakening to the knowledge and vision of the Buddha. The word "expound," meaning to spread horizontally in breadth and to extend vertically in depth, is precisely the expounding of the meaning: what one has now, compared with before, is that already being at the ten dedications, one now, from the ten dedications, enters the ten grounds, entering the knowledge and vision of the Buddha, exhausting the source and reaching every limit, complete in both depth and breadth. Reflecting that, in the past, after the six signs, opening, showing, awakening, and entering followed, he reckons that, after the present signs, the same should likewise follow. With this, the horizontal and vertical explanations of the answer by conjecture are complete.

From "in the past I" onward, the second answer, citing what was briefly formerly seen, is such that, having first used his own wisdom to reflect and conjecture, Mañjuśrī now uses what he briefly formerly saw, somewhat more clearly than before, citing this to answer the question about other worlds. The five signs of this world do not extend to other worlds; only the single sign of the emitted light universally illuminates the east, and the brief answer from things formerly seen answers specifically concerning the emitted light — hence one knows this is the answer to the question about other worlds. Seeing the present as like the past, and the past as simply like the present, he wishes to cause sentient beings all to hear and know — that is, the two wisdoms of hearing and of reflection, and likewise the two practices of faith and of Dharma, gathering the immeasurable back into the one, changing the teachings and principles of the three vehicles, the six successive routings of ignorance, and the rest — the buddhas' paths all being the same in opening, showing, awakening, and entering the Buddha's knowledge and vision — hence it is called "the Dharma that is difficult for the entire world to believe."

From "just as in the past" onward, the third answer, citing what was extensively formerly seen, makes matters clearer still than the brief answer; this broadly answers the questions about both this world and other worlds. Maitreya, by means of the light spreading horizontally to the east, poses his question, while Mañjuśrī cites what he saw vertically, in the past, as his answer — horizontal and vertical together revealing that the buddhas share the same path. The text divides into three: first, he cites the sameness of a single buddha; next, he cites the sameness of twenty thousand buddhas; and last, he cites the sameness of the final buddha in that lineage. Regarding the first, the single buddha, this again divides into three: first, clarifying the time and season; second, indicating his name; and third, the season of his preaching the Dharma, as the text shows. As for "there was a buddha named Candrasūryapradīpa, sharing the same designation," the general epithet may indeed be shared with the present buddha — but how could his particular, personal name likewise be the same?

This should be explained as: the names differ, but the meaning is the same. Why is this? The sun signifies wisdom, and the moon signifies concentration; concentration and wisdom are the virtues of practice for oneself, while the added epithet "lamp" signifies the virtue of transforming others; being capable in benevolence and capable in concentration, wisdom is able to serve both self and other. Moreover, sun, moon, and lamp are the three kinds of wisdom, and the present buddha likewise possesses these three kinds of wisdom; the names differ according to circumstance, but the meaning does not differ — hence it is said their names are the same.

From "expounding the Dharma" onward, the third topic, the sameness of preaching: the ancient buddha preached the sudden teaching first and the gradual teaching after, the same as the present buddha's preaching the sudden teaching first and the gradual teaching after. "Expounding the true Dharma, excellent in its beginning, middle, and end" refers precisely to the sudden teaching. Now, the term "seven excellences" applies broadly to both the greater and lesser vehicles, but examining the text here, these are the seven excellences of the great vehicle. "Excellent in beginning, middle, and end" corresponds to the prologue, the main teaching, and the transmission of the sudden teaching — this is called the excellence of season. "Its meaning profound and far-reaching" is the principle of the definitive meaning of the sudden teaching, whose limits the two vehicles cannot fathom — hence it is called "profound and far-reaching"; this is the excellence of meaning. "Its words skillful and sublime" refers to the eight kinds of sound uttered in the sudden teaching, according with principle and speaking directly, delighting the minds of the bodhisattvas — this is the very text of the sudden teaching, called the excellence of language. "Pure and unmixed," not shared with the two vehicles, is the sudden teaching's excellence of being unique and singular.

"Complete and sufficient" means fully clarifying the complete-letter teaching both within and beyond the three realms — this is the sudden teaching's excellence of perfect completeness. "Pure and unsullied," free of the taints of either extreme, is the sudden teaching's excellence of being gentle and pliant, which the master calls the excellence of conduct. "The mark of pure, Brahma-like conduct" means that this "Brahma" is the sudden teaching's excellence of unconditioned compassion. As for "excellent in beginning, middle, and end," interpreters differ; I follow, for the present, a single approach: in the lesser vehicle, precepts, concentration, and wisdom are taken as the three excellences, while in the great vehicle, the mind at the beginning, the middle, and the end are taken as the three excellences.

The Golden Light Sūtra says: "The Tathāgata of the initial mind is inconceivable; the Tathāgata of the middle mind is adorned in every manner; and the Tathāgata of the final mind is indestructible." This, too, is the sense of the three excellences. Mañjuśrī cites the ancient buddha's seven excellences of the sudden teaching as the same as the present buddha's seven excellences of the sudden preaching, and likewise the same as that other world's initial sudden preaching.

The reason for using this as the answer is to respond to Maitreya's earlier question, based on the light spreading horizontally, about that other world's buddha called "the sagely lord, the lion," expounding sūtra-teachings sublime and foremost; Mañjuśrī cites, vertically, what he saw in the past, offering this as the answer — this is the sameness of the initial buddha's preaching of the sudden teaching. "For those who seek to be śrāvakas, he preached the Dharma corresponding to the Four Noble Truths" is the sameness of the ancient buddha's opening of the gradual teaching, following the sudden teaching. The earlier question asked about a person who, meeting with suffering, is preached nirvāṇa; the citing of the ancient buddha now, likewise opening this gradual teaching, answers this very question. "For those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas, he preached the Dharma corresponding to the twelve links of dependent origination" answers the earlier question about a person who possesses merit and aspires to seek the supreme Dharma. "For the bodhisattvas, he preached the Dharma corresponding to the six pāramitās" answers the earlier question about the sons of the Buddha cultivating their various practices. All of these cite the ancient buddha's opening of the gradual teaching as the same, extensively citing what was formerly seen of that buddha to answer the question about other worlds. "Causing them to attain the unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening and to accomplish the wisdom of all modes" clarifies that, after the ancient buddha opened both the sudden and gradual teachings, he then revealed the real teaching to its very completion — this answers Maitreya's question about seeing that other world's buddha enter parinirvāṇa, and the raising of stūpas after his parinirvāṇa. Insofar as this cites the ancient buddha's preaching of the Dharma up through the six pāramitās, it clarifies that the present buddha has already been the same as the ancient one; from "causing them to attain the unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening" onward, it clarifies that the present buddha is about to be the same as the ancient one as well (and so on).

Next he cites the twenty thousand buddhas, whose names and preaching are all the same. In citing the first, single buddha, he sets out fully both the sameness of the sudden and of the gradual preaching; in the middle, citing the twenty thousand buddhas, he sets out only the sameness of the sudden preaching, hence speaking of "excellent in beginning, middle, and end"; and in citing the last, single buddha, he sets out only the sameness of opening the gradual teaching. The reason for this is simply that each citation supplies what the others omit, and, pointing to what precedes, the rest may be understood. That he does not cite the buddha immediately preceding the twenty thousand is precisely because their names and preaching are all identical, and, considered in terms of the meaning, this simply proves the more convenient course. "Of the clan Bhāradvāja" is translated "swift and quick," also called "sharp of faculty," and also called "full of speech."

From "the last" onward, the third citation, of a single buddha, establishes sameness. The text divides into three: first, clarifying that what was formerly seen is the same as what has now already occurred; second, clarifying that what was formerly seen is the same as what is now, presently, occurring; and third, clarifying that what was formerly seen is the same as what will now, in future, occur. "Formerly" refers to what was experienced long ago, and "already" refers to what has passed into the past — both "formerly" and "already" equally denote things past and equally denote things experienced; here, what is more distant in time is taken as "formerly," and what is somewhat nearer is called "already"; the six signs and the like are taken as "now, presently," and the Buddha's rising from samādhi, still to come, is taken as "now, in future."

First, from "that last buddha had eight sons" — this is the sameness of the formerly-seen with the already-past. The ancient buddha had eight sons, while the present buddha has one son; though the numbers are unequal, both alike issue forth into a land where the afflictions of views and thought are still shared in common, a land where beings dwell together with the buddha's presence, and in each case a son, or sons, is shown, and this having-a-son is the same in both cases; the difference between one and eight responds to different circumstances and each signifies something distinct — the birth of a single son signifies, altogether, the purity of the one path, while the birth of eight sons signifies the eightfold noble path; the numbers differ but the meaning is the same, and here it is precisely this sameness in the meaning of having a son that is being taken. Moreover, the ancient buddha's sons went forth from home and gave rise to the great-vehicle resolve, while the present buddha's son abides in the fruit of the lesser vehicle — how can these be called the same? In the ancient buddha's case, his work of transformation was already complete, and his origin was thereupon made manifest — hence it speaks of his sons giving rise to the great-vehicle resolve; in the present case, the trace has not yet been opened, and Rāhula is still spoken of as an arhat, but by the time we reach the text below where the origin is revealed, he too will be a bodhisattva — and so their meaning is, in the end, the same.

From "At that time the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa preached the great-vehicle sūtra" onward, the second section clarifies the sameness of the formerly-seen with the present. The ancient buddha's own six signs in his own world are, in every respect, the same as the present, in the same sequence as the text shows. As for the ancient buddha's six signs in other worlds, the text simply says, "the same as what is seen now" — from which one knows that the ancient buddha's six signs in other worlds are likewise the same as the present. In the ancient buddha's case, the specific prologue is clarified as having the two of the five parts — the manifestation of the signs, and the arising of doubt — explicitly given as the same, but lacking the remaining three parts — the gathering of the assembly, the posing of the question, and the answering of the question. Yet reasoning by inference shows that these too must have been present: since it speaks of preaching the Dharma, one knows an assembly must have gathered; since it speaks of doubt arising, one knows there must have been a question; and if there was a question, there must have been an answer as well — in each such pair, the one necessarily implies the other, and thus all three of these remaining parts, too, may be taken as the same. Furthermore, if the text had gone on to narrate the ancient answer in full, it would not have needed Mañjuśrī's own further words here — and since the text neither states that answer nor sets out that question, its meaning may still be understood in this way.

From "at that time there was a bodhisattva named Varaprabha" onward, the third section clarifies the sameness of the formerly-seen with the yet-to-come. This text divides into six: first, from "at that time there was a bodhisattva" onward, is the sameness of the person serving as occasion; second, from "at that time the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa rose from his samādhi" onward, is the sameness of the name of the preaching; third, from "sixty small kalpas" onward, is the sameness of the season; fourth, from "having preached this sūtra, in the presence of the Brahmās, Māras, and śramaṇas" onward, is the sameness of the proclaiming of his passing; fifth, from "at that time there was a bodhisattva named Store of Virtue" onward, is the sameness of the bestowing of a prediction; and sixth, from "and thereupon, in the middle of that night" onward, is the sameness of the propagation of the sūtra after his passing. Now, first: in what sense is the person serving as occasion the same?

The ancient buddha, rising from samādhi, preached his sūtra on the occasion of the bodhisattva Varaprabha; the present buddha, rising from samādhi, preaches his sūtra on the occasion of the śrāvaka Śāriputra — how can these be called the same? Master Yao says: "The one who is the 'occasion' is the one entrusted, the one to whom the transmission of the one-vehicle sūtra is committed — not merely a person directly addressed." Why should that ancient buddha's addressee necessarily have been Varaprabha? Just as the present buddha's addressee is Śāriputra, though Śāriputra need not himself be the one who ultimately propagates and transmits the teaching — for entrustment and propagation, none can compare to Varaprabha, just as, in the present case, for entrustment and commission, none can compare to Mañjuśrī. That the present buddha does not praise him does not mean the ancient buddha necessarily praised his own counterpart either — that Mañjuśrī cites the ancient buddha's praise of Varaprabha simply makes clear that he was fit to be so entrusted. Also, in the old interpretation, Bhaiṣajyarāja is taken as the person serving as occasion — this, too, may be so, but citing the past to corroborate the present in this way is a somewhat poor match. Or it is said that it was on the occasion of Mañjuśrī's resolving of the doubt that the Buddha was able to rise from samādhi and preach the sūtra — but this correspondence, too, does not fit well. I now clarify that this is not so: the sūtra text itself says that it was "on the occasion of Varaprabha" that the true preaching occurred, and this yields the interpretation of entrustment and propagation; to take Bhaiṣajyarāja instead as the example is to openly contradict the Buddha's own words — what has this to do with properly explaining the sūtra? The ancient buddha's occasion being Varaprabha and the present buddha's occasion being Śāriputra — this is precisely the sameness of the person serving as occasion.

The ancient buddha's eight sons took Varaprabha as their teacher; the Tathāgata, rising from samādhi, addressed Varaprabha and, moreover, entrusted the teaching to him. The present buddha's son Rāhula likewise takes Śāriputra as his teacher; the Buddha, rising from samādhi, likewise addresses Śāriputra, and, at the close of the trace gate, likewise entrusts the teaching to Śāriputra. The ancient and the present match each other point for point — what could possibly surpass this correspondence, that one should set aside the near-at-hand Śāriputra and reach instead for the far-off Bhaiṣajyarāja?

One might doubt and say: "Varaprabha is a bodhisattva, while Śāriputra is a śrāvaka — how can these be the same?" In the ancient case, the matter was already manifest, and so he is spoken of as a bodhisattva; in the present case, the trace has not yet been opened, and so he is said to be a śrāvaka — but once we come to the point where the trace is opened, Śāriputra, too, is a great bodhisattva; if this is not sameness, what is? And as for the ancient Varaprabha manifesting his trace — why should he not, likewise, have first appeared as a śrāvaka? This is simply Mañjuśrī's own skillful telling, a matter of skillful means concealing and revealing in turn.

From "at that time the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa" onward, the second topic, the sameness of the name of the preaching, is as the text shows. Above, Maitreya saw, in that other world, first the sudden teaching, then, after the sudden teaching, the gradual, and, after the gradual, various practices, and, after the practices, no further scene, and last, the buddha's parinirvāṇa; now Mañjuśrī answers that he formerly saw a buddha's preaching in this same order — first the sudden, then after the sudden the gradual, and then, speaking of various practices, that buddha was seen to preach the Lotus itself. In both cases, after the six signs, the Lotus Sūtra had already been preached, and after the Lotus Sūtra he entered nirvāṇa directly — this clearly and definitely answers the question about the other world.

From "sixty small" onward, the third topic, the sameness of the season, is as the text further below says: "fifty small kalpas seemed no more than half a day" — this is precisely the sameness.

From "Candrasūryapradīpa" onward, the fourth topic, the sameness of the proclaiming of his passing: in the past, immediately upon preaching the Lotus, that buddha proclaimed his entry into extinction — just as with the Buddha Kāśyapa as well (and so on). The present buddha, within the "Stūpa of Treasures" chapter, likewise makes clear that the Tathāgata will, before long, enter nirvāṇa, his work of transformation now complete — the proclaiming of his passing is thus equally matched in both cases.

From "at that time there was a bodhisattva" onward, the fifth topic, the sameness of the bestowing of a prediction: in the past, the prediction was bestowed on the bodhisattva Store of Virtue, while in the present sūtra the prediction is bestowed on the śrāvakas — how can these be called the same? In the ancient case, the matter had already been accomplished, and so it is spoken of as a prediction bestowed on a bodhisattva — yet this is in truth precisely the merging of the three vehicles into the one, in which the śrāvakas themselves receive the prediction. If it had instead been said that, in the past, the prediction was bestowed on śrāvakas, then, once the Buddha rose from samādhi, what further would there be left to discuss? It is simply that Mañjuśrī's skillful narration does not yet disclose the trace. As for saying that the prediction was bestowed on a bodhisattva — this is how all the sūtras tell it, and so those who cling to the surface teaching are not startled by it (and so on).

From "after the Buddha bestowed the prediction" onward, the sixth topic, the sameness of the propagation of the sūtra. The text divides into five: first, the season, namely after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa; second, the naming of the person, namely Varaprabha; third, the length of time, namely eighty small kalpas; fourth, the assembly transformed, namely the eight sons and the eight hundred disciples; and fifth, the concluding linkage of past and present, namely the identification of Varaprabha with Seeker of Fame, and of Store of Virtue with Wondrous Virtue, and the rest. Regarding the assembly transformed, this again divides into two: first, the eight sons, whose practice was accomplished long ago and who have already attained buddhahood; and second, one of the eight hundred, who has only now become one abiding at the stage just prior to buddhahood. The reason for citing these eight sons and eight hundred disciples is that, in their immediate sense, they resolve a doubt, while, more covertly, they open the way toward the later teaching on the Buddha's lifespan. As for resolving the doubt: some might suppose that Maitreya, being at the stage just prior to buddhahood, is of great standing, while Mañjuśrī, not being at that stage, is of lesser standing — so that the lesser should not be the one to answer, and the greater should not be the one to ask; hence the text cites the eight hundred, among whom it would indeed be fitting that a question should arise, and yet Varaprabha, having personally attended upon the ancient buddha long ago and, further, having once served as their teacher, was nonetheless the one who resolved their doubt — and so Mañjuśrī's own resolving of Maitreya's doubt is likewise not mistaken. As for covertly opening the way to the teaching on the lifespan: the youngest of the eight sons was the buddha named Dīpaṃkara — Dīpaṃkara is "Fixed Light," and Varaprabha was Śākyamuni's own teacher nine generations back; the grandson has now become a buddha, while the teacher and ancestor have become the disciple — teacher and disciple are thus not fixed in their roles, and this is meant to covertly reveal the sense that arising is not truly arising, and ceasing is not truly ceasing.

Question: If Maitreya had, in the past, seen those buddhas and already heard the Lotus Sūtra, why would he now doubt and ask his question?

Answer: It is simply that the capacities of the assembly, at this present time, called for the matter to be drawn out and set in motion.

Fourth, from "now, seeing these signs" onward, is called the answer of clear judgment. Since the six signs of the present are now the same as those of the past, the conjecture is settled beyond error, and both the brief and the extended answers from things formerly seen are alike confirmed as settled. "About to preach the great vehicle" settles, as certain, the earlier sign of the preaching of the Dharma; "named the Lotus of the Wondrous Dharma" settles the earlier sign of the rain of flowers; "the teaching-method for bodhisattvas" settles the earlier sign of the assembly's joy; and "that which the buddhas guard and mindfully hold in their thought" settles the earlier sign of the earth's quaking — and the sign of entering samādhi, taken together as a whole, is comprehended within all of these. Some interpreters take this passage as the sameness with the already-past and the sameness with the yet-to-come, but not as the sameness with the present. Examining the text, it says, "now, seeing these signs, no different from before" — this is speaking directly of the present; how, then, could one call the six signs merely "the already-past"? On the basis of this text as referring to the present, I therefore give the explanation of the threefold sameness.

The verses run to forty-five lines. They do not versify the answer by conjecture and the brief answer from things formerly seen given above; within the extended answer from things formerly seen, they versify only the beginning and the end, not the middle portion. First, two lines versify the sameness of season, name, and preaching, and so forth, within the extended answer from things formerly seen. From "before the Buddha had gone forth from the household life" onward, the second unit, of thirty-nine lines, versifies the threefold sameness concerning the last buddha, and after this, four lines versify the answer of clear judgment. Within this second, threefold sameness, there are three parts: first, one line of verse versifies the sameness of the formerly-seen with the already-past; next, the second, of fifteen and a half lines, versifies the sameness of the formerly-seen with the present; and third, next, twenty-two and a half lines versify the sameness of the formerly-seen with the yet-to-come.

From "the Buddha preaches the great" onward, the second part, within the sameness with the present, itself divides into two: first, fourteen lines versify the six signs both here and there; and second, from "at that time the fourfold assembly" onward, one and a half lines versify the fourfold assembly's arising of doubt. The first again divides into two: first, four lines of verse versify the sameness of the six signs of this world, and here it additionally brings in the heavenly drum sounding of itself, signifying that the Dharma is preached without being asked. "Manifesting all manner of rare and marvelous things" is a general versification of all the signs together. From "this light illuminates" onward, the second, the next ten lines, versify the sameness of the six signs of other worlds; the prose section merely says, "as is now seen, so are all the buddha-lands," that text being abbreviated, while this verse is extended. The text divides into five: first, three lines versify the sameness of seeing the sentient beings of the six destinies; next, from "and further seeing the various tathāgatas" onward, the second, one line of two phrases, versifies the sameness of seeing the buddhas; next, from "the World-Honored One, in the midst of" onward, the third, two phrases, versifies the sameness of hearing the buddhas preach the seven excellences of the sudden teaching; next, from "each and every buddha" onward, the fourth, three lines, versifies the seeing of śrāvakas and the rest of the three vehicles, that is, the sameness of the ancient buddha's opening of the gradual teaching; and next, from "and further seeing the various bodhisattvas" onward, the fifth, two lines, versifies the seeing of the bodhisattvas' various causes and conditions, that is, versifying the sameness of the opening of the Vaipulya and Prajñāpāramitā teachings.

The first, three lines, are as the text shows.

The second, one and a half lines, explains: as for "spontaneously accomplishing the buddha-path" — on the path of skillful means, one adds effort of mind and cultivates through practice, while on the path of giving rise to the truth, one spontaneously and effortlessly accords with principle; this may be understood in terms of the four teachings (and so on).

Question: If giving rise to the truth is spontaneous, what need is there for the buddhas to preach the Dharma?

Answer: It is like a boat going with the current — if it also meets a favorable wind, or its rowers add their strength, it swiftly arrives at its destination; the wind here is a simile for seeing the buddhas and hearing the Dharma, and the rowing is a simile for cultivating practice. For example, one at the stage of stream-entry, left to unfold spontaneously, takes seven lifetimes to reach arhatship, but if such a one meets a buddha and adds cultivation to this, he may reach the stage beyond further training in as little as one or two lifetimes (and so on). "Spontaneously accomplishing the buddha-path" refers to the reward-body; "lapis lazuli" refers to the original purity of the dharma-body; and "a golden image" refers to the manifestation of form in response to beings.

From "the World-Honored One, amid the great assembly, expounds the profound meaning of the Dharma" onward, the third, half a line: this takes the Dharma and refers it to the person — since the Dharma is itself profound and mysterious, one should know that it must move a great capacity to open the sudden teaching; this versifies the earlier text on the excellence of being "pure and unmixed" among the seven excellences.

From "in each and every buddha-land, the assembly of śrāvakas" onward, the fourth, three lines: this takes the person and refers it to the Dharma — since the persons here are of the two vehicles, one must know that this versifies the opening of the Tripiṭaka teaching, that is, versifying the earlier text on preaching, for the sake of śrāvakas, the Dharma corresponding to the Four Noble Truths, and the rest; and though the pratyekabuddhas are not separately versified, they are included together within this. As for the practice of giving, forbearance, and the rest, they are matched here to four of the perfections only — this one line versifies the earlier great vehicle of the six perfections.

From "and further seeing bodhisattvas deeply entered into the various dhyāna-concentrations" onward, the fifth, two lines, versifies the earlier text on seeing the bodhisattvas' various causes, conditions, faith, and understanding, and their forms and appearances, in that other world; it does not, however, briefly answer the earlier question about the raising of stūpas, since the earlier account did not yet show that other world's manifestation of the Lotus itself. It is only afterward, upon seeing the raising of stūpas, that the present answer brings forth the manifestation of the Lotus — hence the matter of the raising of stūpas and the entering of nirvāṇa is answered later on.

Next, from "at that time the fourfold assembly" onward, the second, one and a half lines, retrospectively versifies the ancient buddha's fourfold assembly's doubt and thought, as the text shows.

From "the one revered by gods and humans" onward, twenty-two and a half lines versify the threefold sameness with the already-past, with the present, and with the yet-to-come. The text divides into six: first, two lines and two phrases versify the sameness of the person serving as occasion; next, from "preaching this Dharma" onward, the second, one phrase, versifies the sameness of the preaching; next, from "filling sixty small kalpas" onward, the third, one line and one phrase, versifies the sameness of the season, in terms of the inconceivable wisdom that lengthens and shortens kalpas — Varaprabha received and upheld the ancient buddha's Dharma in its entirety, just as Śāriputra receives the present Buddha's entrustment; next, from "the Buddha, having preached this Lotus" onward, the fourth, five lines, versifies the sameness of the proclaiming of his passing, which is precisely the answer to the earlier sense of entering extinction in that other world — within this passage there is both the proclaiming of his passing and the entrusting of the assembly, the entrusting being like that in the Sūtra of the Bequeathed Teaching, and there is grieving and weeping as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, and there is comfort and consolation, again as in the Sūtra of the Bequeathed Teaching; those who could be brought to liberation were all thereby brought to liberation, and for those not yet brought to liberation, the causes and conditions for their liberation were established — just as the present Buddha is about to entrust the assembly to Maitreya (and so on).

Next, from "this Store of Virtue" onward, the fifth, one and a half lines, versifies the earlier bestowing of the prediction; next, from "the Buddha, that very night" onward, the sixth, twelve lines, versifies the earlier propagation of the sūtra, which itself divides into five: first, two lines versify the season after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa and the benefit gained by the fourfold assembly; "like firewood exhausted and the fire extinguished" means that, in the lesser vehicle, the Buddha takes the recompense-body as the firewood and wisdom as the fire — wisdom depends upon the recompense-body, and when the body perishes, the wisdom too is gone; while, in the great vehicle, the Buddha takes the capacities of beings as the firewood and his responsive accommodation as the fire — when the capacities of sentient beings are exhausted, the responsive form likewise is extinguished.

"Redoubling their vigor" means that this refers to those liberated by means of the Buddha's very entry into extinction. Next, from "this Varaprabha" onward, the second, two phrases, versifies the earlier person able to propagate the sūtra.

Next, from "eighty small kalpas" onward, the third, two phrases, versifies the earlier duration of the sūtra's propagation; next, from "these eight kings" onward, the fourth, eight lines, versifies the earlier disciples who benefited, and this again divides into two: first, three lines versify the disciples already accomplished; and next, from "this Varaprabha" onward, the second, five lines, versifies the disciple yet to be accomplished. Next, from "when that buddha entered extinction" onward, the fifth, one line, versifies the earlier concluding linkage of past and present.

As for the final four verses, the old commentators say that these conclude the passage, causing beings to admire and look up in reverence; my own explanation is otherwise. Above, in the prose section, there was the answer of clear judgment, and this passage now versifies it, dividing into three: first, from "I saw the lamp" onward, the first, one line, versifies the earlier "about to preach the great-vehicle sūtra"; next, from "the present signs, like the earlier ones" onward, the second, two lines, versifies the earlier "teaching-method for bodhisattvas"; and next, from "all those who seek the three vehicles" onward, the third, one line, versifies the earlier "that which the buddhas guard and mindfully hold in their thought" — this may be understood directly from the text.

Furthermore: earlier, Maitreya resolved four concealed objections, so as to ensure that Mañjuśrī would indeed give an answer; here, conversely, it is Mañjuśrī who cuts off four concealed doubts, so that Maitreya need not question any further. As for the first doubt: because Mañjuśrī extensively cites the ancient buddha who formerly preached the Lotus, Maitreya secretly harbors a doubt he wishes to raise: "The buddhas respond to conditions, and their persons and times each differ — though the ancient buddha's sūtra was likewise named the Lotus, why must the present buddha's be exactly the same?" Mañjuśrī immediately cuts off this doubt with his first verse, saying: "I saw the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa, whose original light and signs were just like these; by this I know that the present buddha, too, is about to preach the Lotus Sūtra." This cuts off the question doubting the name. Maitreya, on this basis, doubts further: "There are cases where the name is the same and the meaning is the same, and there are cases where the name is the same but the meaning differs — what, then, does this name here actually signify and evoke?" Mañjuśrī immediately cuts off this doubt with his second verse, saying: "The present signs, like the original signs, are the skillful means of all the buddhas; the present buddha's emitting of light is meant to help bring forth the meaning of true reality." This cuts off the question doubting the essence. Maitreya, on this basis, doubts further: "True reality is without characteristic — what person, then, could comprehend it?" Mañjuśrī immediately cuts off this doubt with his third verse, saying: "All of you should now understand: join your palms and, with a single mind, await it — the Buddha is about to rain down the rain of the Dharma, satisfying fully those who seek the path." This cuts off the question doubting the essential purport. Maitreya, on this basis, doubts further: "When the Buddha rains down the rain of the Dharma, does this benefit only the bodhisattvas, or does it also moisten the two vehicles?" Mañjuśrī immediately cuts off this doubt with his fourth verse, saying: "All those who seek the three vehicles, if they have any doubt or regret, the Buddha will remove and cut it off for them, until none whatsoever remains." This cuts off the question doubting the function. Maitreya, one doubt following swiftly upon another, and Mañjuśrī, again and again, cutting each one off — once the matter is exhausted and the principle fully worked through, the resolution settles at last in the heart; this may truly be called being skilled in questioning and answering, complete with the two adornments of wisdom and merit.

Guangzhai knows only to relate Master Zhao's explanation of the four concealed objections, by which Mañjuśrī was made certain to answer, thereby displaying Maitreya's own excellence — but he fails to see Mañjuśrī's own resolving of four concealed doubts, by which Maitreya was made to ask no further, and so he suppresses an appreciation of Mañjuśrī's own capacity. This interpretation issues from Tiantai himself, and is not handed down from any other commentary. I say this to later worthies: do not suppress what is excellent in others. In the several hundred years since Master Zhao, those who have lectured on the Lotus Sūtra have filled the roads, yet how many have actually seen this point? If this is not itself an excellence, what is?

Explaining the Chapter "Skillful Means"

Explaining this chapter has a brief treatment and a broad treatment. The brief treatment has two parts: first, the brief exegesis itself, and next, a critical sifting of other interpretations. "Fang" means dharma, and "bian" means function. Dharma has the square and the round; function has differentiation and convergence. The three expedient vehicles are the carpenter's square, the "square"; the one real vehicle is the compass, the "round." If wisdom arrives at the square, one skillfully uses the partial dharma to meet and accommodate sentient beings; if wisdom arrives at the compass, one skillfully uses the perfect dharma to meet and accommodate sentient beings. It is like pointing with a single finger to indicate a particular, partial place — this is citing the partial dharma to indicate wisdom, and it is fitting to use "dharma" to explain "fang," and to use "function" to explain "bian." If one instead raises the whole hand to indicate the perfect place, it is fitting to use "secret" to explain "fang," and "sublime" to explain "bian." To cite the partial dharma in explaining "skillful means" accords with sentient beings' own desires, and is not the Buddha's own original intent — as the sūtra says, causing beings to leave behind all their attachments and escape the suffering of the three realms, and it is for this reason that the Tathāgata earnestly and repeatedly praises "skillful means." This meaning may be used to explain other sūtras, but it is not the intent of the present chapter. Furthermore, "skillful means" is a gate: a gate is so called because it is able to lead through, leading through to that to which it leads. Skillful means, expedients, and provisional summaries are all a beckoning and a leading, made into a gate for the sake of the real and true; and it is by the merit of skillful means that the real and true is made manifest — taking its name from its ability to reveal, it is on this basis that "gate" explains "skillful means," as the sūtra says, "opening the gate of skillful means, he shows the mark of the real and true." This meaning, too, may be used to explain other sūtras, but it is not the intent of the present chapter. Furthermore, "fang" is the secret, and "bian" is the sublime: the sublime penetration of the "fang" is itself the true secret — like the priceless pearl sewn inside the garment, and the single pearl atop the king's own crown, without duality, without distinction; or like pointing to the hired laborer and saying that he is in fact the elder's own son, likewise without duality, without distinction — words such as these are themselves the secret, are themselves the sublime, as the sūtra says: "Only I know this mark, and the buddhas of the ten directions are likewise so," and "Stop, stop — there is no need to speak further; my Dharma is sublime and hard to conceive." Hence it is that "secret" explains "fang," and "sublime" explains "bian" — and this is precisely the intent of the present chapter, and hence it is called the chapter of "Skillful Means."

As for the critical sifting: the first interpretation given is "skillful means external to the essence" — the provisional teaching used to transform beings, spoken according to others' understanding. The second interpretation is likewise "skillful means external to the essence," but is the provisional teaching of both practice for oneself and transforming others, spoken according to both one's own and others' understanding. The last interpretation is "skillful means identical with the essence" — that is, the provisional teaching of practice for oneself alone, spoken according to one's own understanding only. In the first interpretation, skillful means is neither that which is able to enter nor that which is entered into; in the second interpretation, skillful means is that which is able to enter, but not that which is entered into; and in the last interpretation, skillful means is that which is entered into, but not that which is able to enter. Hence one should know that, though the name is the same in all three, their meanings differ greatly — and yet people of the world for the most part fail to see this point, and interpret the chapter of "Skillful Means" carelessly (and so on).

Question: How do "skillful means" and "the provisional" relate to one another?

Answer: This may be distinguished in four propositions: there is a case where skillful means breaks the provisional, and the provisional breaks skillful means; a case where skillful means cultivates the provisional, and the provisional cultivates skillful means; and a case where skillful means is identical with the provisional, and the provisional is identical with skillful means. As for skillful means breaking the provisional: the four kinds of skillful means given above are all the secret, sublime skillful means, and this skillful means breaks the provisional spoken according to others' understanding. As for the provisional breaking skillful means: the provisional here is the provisional identical with the essence, breaking the skillful means external to the essence. The case of mutual cultivation, too, may be understood accordingly, and the case of mutual identity, too, may be understood accordingly (and so on). The first three of these propositions may be used to explain other sūtras, but the fourth proposition is the intent of the present chapter — hence the Zhengfahua [an earlier translation of the Lotus Sūtra] names this chapter "Chapter of Skillful Expedients": the provisional and skillful means are without duality, without distinction; bowing the head or raising the hand, all alike accomplish the buddha-path — skillful means and skillful expedients are both, in the end, the real and true.

As for the broad exegesis: I first set out the old interpretation of the provisional and the real across the five periods. In the twelve years before the Vaipulya period, illuminating the matter of impermanence is taken as the provisional, and illuminating the principle of impermanence is taken as the real, referring to the Abhidharma; but I now say that the Śāstra refutes this, holding that impermanence is a therapeutic teaching, and all such teachings belong to the three siddhāntas — how, then, could there be any "real" here? This is not what I make use of here. In the twelve years after, in the Prajñāpāramitā period, illuminating provisional existence is taken as the provisional, and illuminating that provisional existence is itself empty is taken as the real; the Śāstra likewise refutes this meaning: it says that once thoughts and mental images and contemplation are themselves removed, words and dharmas are all extinguished — illuminating that provisional existence is itself empty is still merely a contemplative image. This, too, is not what I make use of here. Next, in the Vimalakīrti and the Sūtra of Contemplation of Thought, inwardly contending against the two objective realms of emptiness and existence is taken as real wisdom, while outwardly transforming, moving, and responsively functioning is taken as provisional wisdom; but I now say that taking inward contemplation and outward function as two separate things does not enter the gate of non-duality — this is not what I make use of here. Next, in the Lotus Sūtra, illuminating the three-and-three vehicles, threefold in themselves, is taken as the provisional, and illuminating the four-into-one is taken as the real; but I now say that if the three provisional vehicles never in any way merge with the real, and the one real vehicle has nothing whatsoever to do with the three provisional ones, this too is not what I make use of here. Next, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, impermanence before the vajra-like concentration is taken as the provisional, and permanence after the vajra-like concentration is taken as the real; but I now say that suchness prior to the path is likewise permanent, and the wisdom that fully matches its objects, subsequent to the path, is likewise provisional. None of these five periods' schemes of the provisional and the real are what I make use of here, nor, indeed, are the two wisdoms of the provisional and the real as expounded by the Four Schools of the Half-word and Full-word teachings.

There are, further, those who explain that skillful means is simply the provisional, while the real is the carefully examined and true; or that skillful means is provisional cleverness, while the real is wisdom itself; or that skillful means is provisional borrowing, as in the borrowing of the three carts outside the gate; or that skillful means is provisional expediency, since it is fitting to preach the three vehicles; or that the provisional is a term of simile, as with a steelyard's weight, which, moved forward, makes the load heavier, and, drawn back, makes it lighter, and which, set in the middle, achieves balance — corresponding to the Buddha's wisdom in its illuminating examination and weighing. Explanations such as these each take hold of only a single approach: "provisional-simply" and "provisional-borrowing" are matters of location; "provisional-expediency" is a matter of dharma-gate; and "provisional-cleverness" and the "steelyard's weight" are matters of capacity for wisdom — none of them comprehends the whole, and their meaning does not attain to a unified sublimity; these cannot be used to explain the present chapter.

There are, further, those who take up the four kinds of twofold wisdom: in the first pair, one is the provisional and the other the real; in the next, the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence — contemplating emptiness without realizing it, so as to be free of the two vehicles, and engaging with existence without being defiled by it, so as to transcend the ordinary worldling; in the next, emptiness and existence held inwardly in stillness are the real, while their outward function is the provisional; and in the last, impermanence before the vajra-like concentration and permanence after it are the provisional and the real. The first pair of wisdoms causes faith to arise; the second pair causes understanding to arise; the third pair causes the transforming of others; and the fourth pair is the resultant fruit. All of these pairs of wisdom, moreover, pass through three turnings: first, existence is taken as the conventional and emptiness as the ultimate; next, emptiness and existence together are taken as the conventional, and neither-emptiness-nor-existence as the ultimate; and next, emptiness and existence are taken as duality, and neither-emptiness-nor-existence as non-duality, with both duality and non-duality together taken as the conventional, and neither-duality-nor-non-duality as the ultimate — and the teaching's own wisdom is likewise so structured. Why is this so? Because it accords with the individual siddhānta: there are persons who, hearing the earlier formulation, do not awaken, but who, hearing the later one, do awaken — and it is for this reason that the two truths are given differently in different cases. Furthermore, since the Tathāgata always preaches the Dharma by relying on the two truths, the two truths accordingly have three approaches. And though the Buddha's teachings are many, they do not go beyond these three approaches. Furthermore, because beings are led gradually: the ordinary worldling reckons mind and form to be real, though this is in fact not real at all, and only the emptiness of the nature of dharmas is truly real; the ordinary worldling therefore casts aside existence and takes hold of emptiness, and so it is said that both emptiness and existence are the conventional, and neither-emptiness-nor-existence is the real. Or, again, one who has cast aside the two extremes may become fixed, in turn, upon the middle way, and so a third approach — being far removed from both extremes and yet not attached even to the middle way — is what is truly real. This scheme is meant for the five vehicles of persons: the first leads the ordinary worldling to give rise to faith and escape existence; the next leads the two vehicles to enter the middle; and the next leads the bodhisattva to cast aside both the middle and the partial together. There are also those who take this in terms of one still training in the middle way, holding that the three kinds of provisional designation are the conventional, and the emptiness of the three provisional designations is the real — but this attains only the first of these senses. The next holds that it is not the three provisional designations, but rather that emptiness and existence together are the conventional, and neither-emptiness-nor-existence is the real (and so on).

Examining these interpretations closely, I find them to be nothing more than leaning upon the five periods to display their own private views, and merely stepping back into the error of a gradual, staircase-like scheme; they may serve to explain other sūtras, but they are not the intent of the present chapter. The sūtra says, "causing all sentient beings alike to attain sight and vision" — how, then, could there be an earlier and a later, an unequal awakening at different times? And again it says, "directly and straightforwardly casting aside skillful means" — how, then, could one make use of a gradual, step-by-step scheme to merge into the perfect and sublime? Moreover, the earlier scheme of leading beings to faith, to understanding, to being transformed, to the resultant fruit, and the rest — what has this to do with the present sūtra's own intent of awakening and entering? Just as Vasubandhu, in listing seventeen names for skillful means, gives as the thirteenth "great and skillful means"; and the Mahāyāna Sūtra on Skillful Means sets out ten kinds of skillful means, the ninth of which is named "skillful cleverness," by which the two vehicles are shifted so as to enter the great vehicle's pāramitā of skillful means — one should therefore understand that the present chapter is precisely the Tathāgata's own skillful means, gathering in the whole of all dharmas, like empty space containing all form, like the sea receiving every stream — how, then, could one possibly use a single branch or a single tributary offered by these various masters to explain the great totality of the dharma-realm?

I now clarify the provisional and the real by first setting out four propositions: that all dharmas are the provisional; that all dharmas are the real; that all dharmas are both the provisional and the real; and that all dharmas are neither the provisional nor the real. As for all dharmas being the provisional: as the text says, "the suchness of the nature, characteristics, essence, power, and root-and-branch of all dharmas," and so forth — the very fact of there being any statement whatsoever at all is itself the provisional. As for all dharmas being the real: as the text says, "the Tathāgata skillfully expounds all dharmas, delighting the minds of the assembly" — the assembly's minds take entering the real as their very delight. And again: "all dharmas, from their very origin, are ever themselves marked by quiescent extinction"; and again: "that which the Tathāgata expounds arrives, in every case, at the stage of the wisdom of all modes"; and again: "all real, not false" — and, further, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's four propositions, in their ultimate sense, cannot be spoken of at all.

As for all dharmas being both the provisional and the real: as the text says, "the real mark of all dharmas" — this doubly clarifies that all dharmas are both provisional and real together, comparable to the contemplation of impurity, which is both real and illusory at once (and so on).

As for "all dharmas are neither provisional nor real": the text says, "neither suchness nor difference," and again, "nor does it proceed among superior, middling, or inferior dharmas, conditioned or unconditioned, real or unreal dharmas — being neither empty nor real, it is the mark of suchness."

If all dharmas are entirely provisional, what would this thesis fail to refute? Though there be a hundred thousand kinds of masters, and each master offer a hundred thousand kinds of teaching, there is none that is not provisional — even what the Tathāgata himself teaches remains provisional, so how much more so what mere human teachers propound? All that has been set forth above belongs entirely to the provisional.

If all dharmas are entirely real, what would this thesis fail to refute? "Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true" — there is but a single ultimate path, so how could there be many ultimate paths? All the masters set forth above are, in being refuted, brought into the real — how could they still hold on to their own nests and lairs?

If all dharmas are both provisional and real, what again would this thesis fail to refute? Since everything has both a provisional and a real aspect, how could one, taking one's own single approach to be sole and correct, deny every other differing interpretation? In each and every dharma there is both the provisional and the real; one cannot insist exclusively on the provisional or exclusively on the real.

If all dharmas are neither provisional nor real, what again would this thesis fail to refute? Why, then, should one still contend and forcibly establish one's own position? Merely to list the bare names is already like this; how much more so when one surveys it from afar, contemplates it in its mysterious depth, and takes in its vast and lofty brilliance — how much more, then, when one comes to discuss its actual purport?

Now, taking up the thesis that dharmas have both a provisional and a real aspect, I open this out further into ten topics, and within these ten topics I offer an eightfold explanation: first, listing the ten names; second, their arising in sequence; third, explaining them; fourth, citing proof texts; fifth, uniting the ten into three kinds of the provisional-and-real; sixth, distinguishing how the three kinds of the provisional-and-real illumine the three kinds of the two truths; seventh, judging the provisional and the real according to the various sūtras; and eighth, judging the provisional and the real in terms of trace and origin.

First, listing the names: fact-and-principle, principle-and-teaching, teaching-and-practice, bondage-and-liberation, cause-and-effect, essence-and-function, gradual-and-sudden, opening-and-uniting, shared-and-distinct, and the siddhāntas — these are the ten names.

Second, their arising in sequence: all dharmas are established from the rootless root. The rootless itself is principle; all dharmas are fact. Because there is principle and fact, there is teaching; because of teaching, there is practice; because of practice, there is bondage and liberation; because of liberation, cause and effect are accomplished; because of effect, essence is manifested and function made able; hence there is the transforming activity of the gradual and the sudden; because the gradual and the sudden are opened, there comes to be opening and uniting; because of opening and uniting, there is the benefit of the shared and the distinct; and because these two kinds of benefit are distinguished, there are the four siddhāntas. This is the sequential order of the ten topics, and so on.

Third, explaining them: principle is suchness (tathatā); suchness is originally pure, and whether or not a buddha appears in the world, it is forever unchanging — hence principle is named the real. Fact is mind, intellect, and consciousness and the like, giving rise to pure and impure karma, shifting and never fixed — hence fact is named the provisional. Without principle there would be no basis on which to establish fact, yet without fact, principle could not be manifested; fact has the merit of manifesting principle, and it is for this reason that the sūtra earnestly praises skillful means.

As for principle-and-teaching: taking the preceding principle and fact together, both are here named principle — just as, for example, the ultimate and the conventional are together called truths. The buddhas embody this principle and thereby achieve sagehood; sagehood is precisely the real and true. Wishing to bestow their own realized dharma upon sentient beings below them, they establish teaching by means of principle, and this teaching is precisely the provisional. Without teaching there would be no way to manifest principle, yet the manifesting of principle depends upon teaching — and it is for this reason that the Tathāgata praises skillful means, and so on.

As for teaching-and-practice: relying on teaching to seek principle gives rise to right practice; practice has differences of shallow and deep advancement, and so practice is named the provisional, while teaching has no such differences of shallow and deep advancement, and so teaching is named the real. Without teaching there would be no way to establish practice, yet without practice there is no way to bring teaching to fruition — the fruition of teaching depends upon practice, and it is for this reason that the Tathāgata praises skillful means, and so on.

As for bondage-and-liberation: when practice runs contrary to principle, this is bondage, and since bondage is false and empty, it is called the provisional; when practice accords with principle, understanding is thereby produced, and since this understanding merges with principle, it is called the real. Without bondage there would be no occasion to seek liberation, yet liberation is attained by means of bondage — just as one crosses the sea by clinging to a corpse, and the corpse itself has the power to bring one to the farther shore. Hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for cause-and-effect: cause has the temporary function of advancing forward, and hence is named the provisional; effect has final, everlasting attainment, and hence is the real. Without effect, cause would have nothing to look toward; without cause, effect could not manifest of itself.

This is why the two contemplations serve as the expedient path: by cutting off delusion and accomplishing the cause, one is able to enter the fruit of liberation in the middle way — for without the two contemplations, how could one ever accord with the middle way? The fruit is accomplished by the cause, and hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for essence-and-function: the preceding expedients serve as cause, and correct contemplation entering and abiding serves as effect; abiding and emerging constitute essence-and-function. Essence is precisely the mark of reality, without any differentiation; function is precisely the establishing of all dharmas in their differing gradations. It is like the great earth giving rise to shoots of every kind: without the earth there would be no way for them to grow, yet without their growing there would be no way for the earth to be revealed. By tracing the stream one arrives at the source, and by inferring from function one comes to know essence — function has the merit of revealing essence, and hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for gradual-and-sudden: cultivating the cause and realizing the effect, arising in function from essence, each involves both the gradual and the sudden. Here I am explaining the arising of function: function exercised gradually is the provisional, function exercised suddenly is the real. Without gradual guidance there would be no way to enter the sudden, and it is from the gradual that the real is attained — hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for opening-and-uniting: opening the gradual out from the sudden, the gradual, of itself, neither unites with itself nor unites with the sudden, and hence it is named the provisional; bringing the gradual to its ultimate conclusion, one returns it to union with the sudden, and hence this is named the real. It is because of the opening that there can be a uniting — the opening carries within it the power of uniting, and takes its name from the opening. Hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for the benefit of the shared and the distinct: the shared teaching gives the benefit of the "half-letter" teaching of impermanence, while the distinct teaching gives the benefit of the "full-letter" teaching of the eternal. But since the path to the benefit of the eternal is long, and beings are prone to grow weary and regress, the Buddha uses the phantom city to receive and guide them, producing in them a sense of security, and only afterward ceases this transformative device and leads them on to the treasure-place. Without the half-letter benefit, one could not come to meet the eternal; the half-letter benefit carries within it the merit of manifesting the full. Hence the sūtra praises skillful means.

As for the four siddhāntas: the first three pertain to the mundane, and hence are the provisional; the siddhānta of ultimate meaning pertains to what transcends the mundane, and hence is the real. Without the mundane, one could not attain what transcends the mundane; it is by means of the three mundane siddhāntas that the siddhānta of ultimate meaning is attained, and it is for this reason that the Tathāgata praises skillful means. Each of these ten topics of the provisional-and-real should now be explained by means of the fourfold thesis above; three of these explanations belong to the intent of other sūtras, while one belongs to the intent of this chapter, and so on.

Fourth, citing proof texts: these ten meanings run through both the Lesser and Greater Vehicle teachings, extending across the whole of all dharmas. Let me cite examples first from the present sūtra: "not seeing the threefold world as it sees the threefold world" — "the threefold world" here is fact, while "not [as it] sees" points to principle; "the dharmas are still and extinguished, beyond all power of words to convey" is principle, and "by the power of skillful means, preaching to the five bhikṣus" is teaching.

"If one hears this sūtra, this is a proof of good practice on the bodhisattva path" is teaching-and-practice. Again, "what you now practice is the bodhisattva path; disciples of the Buddha, once your practice of the path is complete, you shall in a future age become buddhas." Again, "seeking the buddha path through various causes and conditions, only the departure from falsehood is called liberation," and "not yet having attained complete liberation, they practice in full the path of every buddha, and at the site of enlightenment attain the fruit," and so on. "With my buddha eye I behold the sentient beings of the six destinies; when they first see my body and hear what I preach, all forthwith accept it in faith and enter the Tathāgata's wisdom — except for those who have previously cultivated and studied the Lesser Vehicle," and so on. The poor son's initial flight, his intervening period of handling excrement, and his later entrustment with the family wealth; the initial cessation at the phantom city and the later guidance to the treasure-place; the various desires and various natures, characteristics, and remembrances — all this is cited broadly, drawing on the whole scroll of the sūtra as proof. Now, citing this one chapter specifically, though its order does not exactly correspond, the ten proof-texts are found here complete.

"The buddhas' wisdom is profound and immeasurable, and the gate to their wisdom is hard to understand and hard to enter" — every object and every cognition of fact and principle alike are all here named the real, while the setting-forth of explanations and discriminations, and the āgama teaching in words, are all the gate to wisdom; this proves the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of principle-and-teaching. "Hard to understand and hard to enter," such that no śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha is able to know it, is precisely the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of bondage-and-liberation. And why is this so? From "the Buddha has drawn near" down to "his renown is heard everywhere" is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of teaching-and-practice; from "accomplished what is profound" down to "whose purport is hard to understand" is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of essence-and-function; "since I attained buddhahood" — attaining buddhahood is precisely the effect, and an effect must have a cause, and so this is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of cause-and-effect; "through various causes and conditions and parables, so as to bring about the departure from every form of attachment" is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of gradual-and-sudden.

And why is this so? "The Tathāgata's skillful means and knowledge and vision are all already complete" is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of opening-and-uniting. "The buddhas appear in the world on account of the one great cause, wishing to cause sentient beings to open, show, awaken, and enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision" is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of benefit. "To state the essential matter, the Buddha has accomplished all of this" is the accomplishment of the first three siddhāntas, while "stop, stop — there is no need to speak further" is the siddhānta of ultimate meaning — together these form the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of the four siddhāntas. And why is this so? From "the Buddha has accomplished the foremost and rarest" down to "the true mark of the dharmas" is principle, while "what is called the suchness of characteristics of the dharmas" is fact — this is the discussion of the provisional-and-real in terms of fact-and-principle.

This entire passage of prose explains the provisional-and-real of the five buddhas named earlier, and every buddha alike is thus. Now, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa, in explaining the buddhas' profound wisdom, treats it as proof of profundity, and finds profundity to be fivefold: the profundity of meaning, the profundity of the real substance, the profundity of inner realization, the profundity of what is relied upon, and the unsurpassed profundity. The unsurpassed profundity refers to the realization of great awakening; the naming of it as the gate of wisdom refers to the profundity of the meaning of the āgama teaching — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of principle-and-teaching. The Upadeśa explains that the Buddha has drawn near a hundred thousand buddhas as the profundity of cultivated practice, and that his vigorous diligence and universally heard renown are the profundity of increased merit — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of teaching-and-practice.

The Upadeśa explains "accomplishing what is profound and unprecedented" as the profundity of the sublime matter, and "whose purport is hard to understand" and the like as the unsurpassed profundity and the profundity of entry — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of essence-and-function. The Upadeśa explains "since I attained buddhahood" as speaking of the dharma of the Tathāgata's accomplished merit — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of cause-and-effect. The Upadeśa explains "countless skillful means" as the accomplishment of transformative teaching and the accomplishment of preaching the Dharma — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of gradual-and-sudden. The Upadeśa explains "the Tathāgata's skillful knowledge and vision" and, further, "penetrating deeply without limit" and the like, as the Buddha's own accomplishment of an inconceivable state surpassing all other bodhisattvas — this makes clear the category of benefit-to-self. The Upadeśa explains "able to make various discriminations" and "gladdening the minds of the assembly" and the like as the accomplishment of speech — this is the category of benefit-to-others, according in sense with the provisional-and-real of benefit.

The Upadeśa explains "to state the essential matter... stop, there is no need to speak further" and the like as the accomplishment of the class of sentient beings capable of being transformed — this accords in sense with the four siddhāntas' distinguishing of those who can and cannot be transformed. The Upadeśa explains "only a buddha together with a buddha is able to exhaust it" as the accomplishment, through immeasurable merit, of what only the buddhas are able to know — meaning that, since the substance of the Tathāgata's dharma-body is unchanging, it is thereby awakened, able to realize itself in accomplishment, and able to accord with sentient beings in expounding the characteristics of all dharmas — this accords in sense with the provisional-and-real of fact-and-principle. That treatise's explanation of the Buddha's sūtra, and this commentary here, silently concur, sage with sage — one might say that they are in full accord, both with the sūtra itself and with its upadeśa.

Fifth, uniting the ten into three kinds of the provisional-and-real: these ten topics run through all Four Teachings, making forty instances of the provisional-and-real in total. Within the Tripiṭaka teaching, for instance, the ten dharmas one realizes for oneself are named the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation; the ten dharmas one expounds for the benefit of others are named the provisional-and-real of transforming others. The ten of transforming others are together united as the provisional, and the ten of self-cultivation are together united as the real — together these are named the provisional-and-real of self-and-other. The ten dharmas of each of the remaining three teachings are likewise bundled into these three kinds of the provisional-and-real.

Furthermore, within each teaching, the four topics of fact-and-principle, teaching-and-practice, bondage-and-liberation, and cause-and-effect serve as the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation; the two topics of principle-and-teaching and opening-and-uniting serve as the provisional-and-real of transforming others; and the four topics of essence-and-function, gradual-and-sudden, shared-and-distinct, and the siddhāntas serve as the provisional-and-real of self-and-other. Though the names are the same across the teachings, their meanings differ in each case. To conclude this separately: whether the Tripiṭaka, the shared, or the distinct teaching, each, taken on its own terms, belongs entirely to the provisional-and-real of transforming others, since each speaks according to the intent of others; the perfect teaching, whether shared or distinct in aspect, belongs entirely, on its own terms, to the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation, since it speaks according to its own intent. The three teachings of transforming others are all together named the provisional, and self-cultivation alone is named the real.

Next, uniting these into the fourfold thesis: speaking according to the intent of others is precisely all dharmas as the provisional; speaking according to one's own intent is precisely all dharmas as the real; taking both together is precisely all dharmas as both provisional and real; and negating both together is precisely all dharmas as neither provisional nor real.

Next, uniting these into three explanations of the chapter title: as for self-cultivation and one's own intent — this passage speaks of the dharma attained at the site of enlightenment; the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra calls it "what is attained through the cultivation of the path," and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha calls it the wisdom that accords with principle and the wisdom that accords with quantity — all of these are the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation in the perfect teaching, spoken according to one's own intent. Though the Buddha is able, with regard to this inexpressible dharma, to speak of it by skillful means, sentient beings are not able to bear it; were he, from the very outset, to expound this dharma alone in order to draw beings in, they simply would not be able to attain it — hence it is said, "inexpressible, inexpressible."

Setting this matter aside for a moment: when the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation is used together with the provisional-and-real of the distinct teaching to draw in sentient beings, those of great capacity and sharp faculties attain it directly, while those of great capacity but dull faculties attain it only by an indirect approach; those of lesser capacity, whether sharp or dull, attain neither — this is the intent of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

Setting this matter aside again: when the provisional-and-real of the Tripiṭaka teaching alone is used to draw in sentient beings, those of great capacity, whether sharp or dull, attain it secretly but not openly; those of lesser capacity, whether sharp or dull, merely hold fast to their own attainment, and even this drawing-in does not fully succeed — this is the intent of the Tripiṭaka teaching.

Setting this matter aside once more: when the four kinds of the provisional-and-real are used together to draw in sentient beings, those of great capacity, whether sharp or dull, attain it whether directly or indirectly; those of lesser capacity, whether sharp or dull, neither attain it nor even hold fast to their own attainment — this is the intent of the Vaipulya teachings.

Setting this matter aside yet again: when the provisional-and-real of the Tripiṭaka is set aside and the remaining three kinds of the provisional-and-real are used together to draw in sentient beings, those of great capacity, whether sharp or dull, all attain it; those of lesser capacity, whether sharp or dull, neither attain it nor hold fast to their own attainment — this is the intent of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings.

Setting this matter aside one final time: when the three kinds of the provisional-and-real are set aside and the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation in the perfect teaching alone is used to draw in sentient beings, those of great and lesser capacity, sharp or dull alike, all attain it — this is the intent of the Lotus Sūtra. The Tathāgata's wisdom leaves nothing unpenetrated; it clearly discerns, in each season, what is fitting to use and what is not, and hence, in explaining the chapter title, it is said: "skillful" refers to the various methods, and "means" refers to their skillful application; by skillfully applying these methods, sentient beings are drawn in and attain the path — and it is for this reason that the sūtra earnestly praises skillful means.

Furthermore, both the provisional and the real of the Tathāgata's own self-realization are alike inexpressible. Out of compassionate regard for sentient beings, were he to speak of the provisional aspect of his own realization as a gate, this would not suit their circumstances, and sentient beings would be unable to enter through it — hence self-realization, too, is inexpressible. Were he to speak of the provisional-and-real of the distinct teaching as a gate, those of sharp faculties would enter but those of dull faculties would not, which likewise does not suit their circumstances, and so the provisional-and-real of the distinct teaching, too, is inexpressible. Were he to speak of the provisional-and-real of the Tripiṭaka teaching as a gate, those of sharp faculties would enter secretly while those of dull faculties would still not enter, which likewise does not suit their circumstances, and so this too is inexpressible. Were he to speak of the three kinds of the provisional-and-real of transforming others as a gate, those of sharp faculties would enter while those of dull faculties would still not enter, which likewise does not suit their circumstances, and so this too is inexpressible. Were he to speak of the two kinds of the provisional-and-real of transforming others as a gate, those of sharp faculties would enter while those of dull faculties would still not enter — this too is inexpressible, and does not suit their circumstances.

Setting aside these three kinds of the provisional-and-real of transforming others, and speaking only of the provisional aspect of self-cultivation, both those of sharp and of dull faculties are able to enter through it; from beginning to end, skillful means itself serves as the gate — and it is for this reason that the Tathāgata praises skillful means. In explaining the chapter title, it is said that skillful means is the gate that leads into the real — this is precisely that meaning. The preceding explanation made clear that the Tathāgata is able to know skillful means and able to employ skillful means; this present explanation makes clear that the practitioner is able to follow along in accord with skillful means, and so on.

Furthermore, what the Tathāgata realizes for himself through the cultivation of the path is, within every skillful means, precisely the real and true; yet this real and true cannot be spoken. Though he is able to speak of it, sentient beings are not able to grasp it as the real directly. By the power of skillful means: speaking of the one immediacy alongside three non-immediacies, those of sharp faculties are able to grasp the immediacy while those of dull faculties are not; speaking purely of the one non-immediacy, those of sharp faculties grasp it secretly while those of dull faculties do not; speaking of the one immediacy alongside three non-immediacies in another arrangement, those of sharp faculties are able to grasp it while those of dull faculties are not; speaking of the one immediacy alongside two non-immediacies, those of sharp faculties are able to grasp it while those of dull faculties are not; and finally, setting aside the three expedient vehicles as non-immediacy and speaking purely of the immediacy of all things, both those of sharp and of dull faculties alike are able to grasp it, and through skillful means come to behold the real and true.

In the two explanations above, skillful means is used by proceeding through skillful means; in this present explanation, skillful means is itself precisely the real and true — the real and true is precisely the perfect cause, and the perfect cause is precisely the skillful means of self-cultivation. It is this skillful means of self-cultivation that is only now, in this chapter, truly realized and entered. As explained above regarding the chapter title: skillful means is itself precisely the real and true, and the chapter takes its name from this skillful means of self-cultivation — hence it is called the chapter of "Skillful Means."

Sixth, distinguishing what truths are illumined: having already, above, united the ten topics both generally and individually into the threefold provisional-and-real, the meaning becomes easy to see once we now consider it in terms of the illumination of wisdom. If, taken generally, the ten topics manifest the twin wisdom of self-cultivation, then this illumines the two truths as they accord with wisdom; if the ten topics are used generally to respond to conditions, then this illumines the two truths as they accord with sentiment; if the four self-cultivation topics and the remaining two of the threefold grouping are bundled together, then this illumines the two truths as they accord with both sentiment and wisdom. If the truths illumined are considered individually: fact-and-principle, teaching-and-practice, bondage-and-liberation, and cause-and-effect are all matters of self-realization, and hence illumine the two truths as they accord with wisdom; principle-and-teaching and opening-and-uniting, these two, belong to transforming others, and hence illumine the two truths as they accord with sentiment; and essence-and-function, gradual-and-sudden, shared-and-distinct, and the siddhāntas, these four, pertain to both self and other, and hence illumine the two truths as they accord with both sentiment and wisdom. The truths illumined by the remaining three teachings may be understood along the same lines.

Moreover, the thirty kinds of the twin wisdom belonging to the Tripiṭaka teaching are the twin wisdom of transforming others, and all illumine the two truths as they accord with sentiment; the sixty kinds belonging to the shared and distinct teachings are the twin wisdom of self-and-other, and illumine the two truths as they accord with both sentiment and wisdom. The shared teaching may at times, together with the preceding Tripiṭaka teaching, form the two truths as they accord with sentiment; while the thirty kinds of the provisional-and-real of the perfect teaching are the twin wisdom of self-cultivation, illumining the two truths as they accord with wisdom. Furthermore, whether shared or distinct, the three non-perfect teachings are all a matter of responding to conditions, and all belong to the twin wisdom of transforming others, illumining the two truths as they accord with sentiment; the perfect teaching, whether shared or distinct in aspect, is entirely the twin wisdom of self-cultivation, illumining the two truths as they accord with wisdom. If the real aspect of the three non-perfect teachings is bundled together as the provisional, and the provisional aspect of the perfect teaching is bundled together as the real, then this is the twin wisdom of self-and-other illumining the two truths as they accord with both sentiment and wisdom.

Seventh, judging in terms of the various sūtras: as for the Avataṃsaka Sūtra — in terms of teaching, it is purely the "full-letter" teaching; in terms of period, it is purely the milk; in terms of dharma, it is one part self-cultivation and one part transforming others; and as for the persons addressed, it speaks only to bodhisattvas, the two vehicles being as if deaf and mute before it, and even physically-born bodhisattvas are not yet able to give rise to the provisional of self-cultivation or the real that accords with wisdom. According to the text of the present sūtra, the Buddha at that time had never yet spoken of such a matter to anyone.

As for the Tripiṭaka teaching — in terms of teaching, it is purely the "half-letter" teaching; in terms of dharma, it is a single kind of transforming others; in terms of period, it is the curdled milk. According to the present text, this is the son standing outside the gate, wearing coarse and filthy garments, holding the dung-removing tool — that is, the persons of the two vehicles alone.

As for the Vaipulya teachings — in terms of teaching, the half-letter is set against the full-letter; in terms of period, it corresponds to both the curdled milk and the clarified butter; in terms of dharma, there are three kinds of transforming others and one of self-cultivation. According to the present text, this is where mind and mark come to trust and accept one another, and entering and leaving are no longer difficult.

As for the Prajñāpāramitā — in terms of teaching, the half-letter is carried alongside the full-letter; in terms of period, the unripe is joined together with the ripe; in terms of dharma, there are two kinds of transforming others and one of self-cultivation. According to the present text, this is where he is made to know all the matters of income and outlay, of taking and giving.

As for the Lotus Sūtra — in terms of teaching, the half-letter is set aside for the full-letter alone; in terms of period, it is purely the ghee; in terms of dharma, there is only self-cultivation. According to the present text, this is the opening of the provisional to reveal the real: "this is truly my son, truly born of me, and I am truly his father," entrusting him with the family estate and predicting his attainment of buddhahood. What the earlier teachings did not disclose is here disclosed entirely; "directly setting aside skillful means, he preaches only the unsurpassed path" — hence this is the provisional aspect of self-cultivation, and hence it is called the chapter of "Skillful Means." All that remains is either the twin wisdom of self-and-other, or the twin wisdom of transforming others.

Furthermore: the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, addressing itself to bodhisattvas, expounds one part self-cultivation and one part transforming others, without intending the two vehicles at all, who neither hear nor understand it. The Tripiṭaka teaching, addressing itself to the two vehicles, expounds a single kind of transforming others, without intending bodhisattvas, and hence has no self-cultivation. The Vaipulya teachings address themselves fully to both the lesser and the greater: to the two vehicles they expound two kinds of transforming others, and to bodhisattvas they expound one part self-cultivation and one part transforming others. The Prajñāpāramitā likewise addresses all three: it expounds one part self-cultivation and two parts transforming others, expounding to the two vehicles one part transforming others and to bodhisattvas one part self-cultivation and one part transforming others. The Lotus Sūtra addresses universally those whose capacity has ripened, and expounds only the single self-cultivation, without discussing transforming others any further. The text says, "the bodhisattvas, on hearing this Dharma, have had the net of their doubt entirely removed; the twelve hundred arhats shall likewise all become buddhas." All sentient beings alike enter the skillful means of self-cultivation — hence it is called the chapter of "Skillful Means," and so on.

Eighth, judging in terms of trace and origin: in his original ground, the Tathāgata realized every aspect of the provisional-and-real long ago — this is called self-cultivation; in the intervening ages, his manifested traces likewise offered teachings that carried and combined various vehicles, and, in this present life, his manifested trace at the site of stillness and extinction first, alongside the distinct teaching, expounded transforming others and self-cultivation; then expounded a single teaching of transforming others; then three; then two; then the setting-aside of the three — all these are named the provisional-and-real of transforming others. Bundling the provisional of the origin together names it the real, while bundling the real of the trace together names it the provisional — this is precisely the provisional-and-real of self-and-other. Uniting this yields the fourfold thesis: all is real, all is provisional, all is both provisional and real, all is neither provisional nor real, and so on.

Śāriputra, in his own origin, had already realized every aspect of the provisional-and-real, and this is precisely self-cultivation; in his trace, at the Deer Park he received solely the teaching of transforming others; in the Vaipulya period he received the single vehicle while being rebuked through the three; in the Prajñāpāramitā he was carried alongside the two and turned toward the one; and, arriving at the Lotus, he set aside the three and awakened to the one — all of this is the provisional-and-real of transforming others. Bundling the provisional of his origin together makes it the real, while bundling the real of his trace together makes it the provisional — this is precisely the provisional-and-real of self-and-other, and this too is complete with the fourfold thesis, and so on. If one speaks in terms of the Buddha's trace, this too is the provisional-and-real of transforming others, and this too may be called the chapter of "Skillful Means"; if one speaks in terms of being led into the perfect cause of self-cultivation, this too is the chapter of "Skillful Means"; if one speaks in terms of Śāriputra's trace as provisional, this too is the chapter of "Skillful Means"; and if one speaks in terms of Śāriputra's trace entering the real, this too is the chapter of "Skillful Means." It is for the sake of all these meanings that it is called the chapter of "Skillful Means."

From this chapter onward, down through the nineteen lines of verse in the "Distinctions in Merits" chapter — or, by another reckoning, down to where the text on the four kinds of present faith among the disciples comes to an end after the verse — this is named the section of proper exposition. If this proper exposition is taken as twofold, then from this chapter onward down through the "Prediction for Those in Training and Beyond Training" chapter is the proper exposition of the trace gate. For the present, keeping to what is nearest at hand, I further divide the proper exposition of the trace gate into two: first, from this chapter onward is the brief opening of the three to reveal the one; second, from "he told Śāriputra, you have already earnestly requested it three times" onward is the extended opening of the three to reveal the one.

The brief opening is further divided into two: first, from "at that time the World-Honored One" onward is the brief opening of the three to reveal the one; second, from "at that time the great assembly" onward is the stirring of the old attachment and the arising of doubt. The brief opening of the three to reveal the one has both a prose section and a verse section. The prose falls into two: first, praising the twin wisdoms while still resorting to words; second, praising the twin wisdoms by cutting off words entirely. Were words not resorted to at all, none could come to know it; yet even when it is extolled in words, words are unable to exhaust it — the buddhas' twin wisdoms are as explained above, and so on. The praising while resorting to words falls into two: first, making clear the provisional-and-real of all buddhas; second, making clear the provisional-and-real of Śākyamuni. Since the buddhas' paths are the same, they are praised together; the light illuminating other lands above, Maitreya's question posed horizontally, Mañjuśrī's citing of the ancient precedent, and the great assembly's hearing it vertically, all precisely signify this point — hence the very setting-out and settled rising from samādhi already make clear that the buddhas' paths are the same. The text praising the buddhas falls into three: first, the twofold praise; second, the twofold explanation; third, the twofold conclusion.

Within the twofold praise: first, the narrator's own introduction; next, the actual praise. "At that time" means precisely at that particular time. The Buddha is constantly abiding in samādhi, so why does the text speak of his "rising"? This has something to indicate. In ages past, whenever the buddhas preached this sūtra, they invariably first entered the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings and thereupon entered the Lotus — the present Buddha does likewise, and this shows that, out of compassion, he rises from samādhi in accordance with the mundane siddhānta. Having passed through and verified both the Dharma and its conditions, what he then preaches will certainly be free of error and will increase beings' faith — this shows that, out of compassion, he rises from samādhi in accordance with the siddhānta for individuals. The Buddha is still and yet constantly illuminating, and yet he must still enter samādhi before he preaches the Dharma — how much more, then, should one avoid speaking carelessly with a scattered mind! — this shows that, out of compassion, he rises from samādhi in accordance with the therapeutic siddhānta. Entering samādhi, he takes principle as his object and settles his mind in the mark of reality; emerging from samādhi, he causes others likewise to settle their minds in the mark of reality — this shows that, out of compassion, he rises from samādhi in accordance with the siddhānta of ultimate meaning. It is because these four dharmas are thus settled that the text says he "rose calmly and composedly."

"He told Śāriputra" — Śāriputra being foremost in wisdom among the Lesser Vehicle disciples, the Buddha is about to make use of him to refute lesser wisdom and manifest greater wisdom, through setting-aside, uniting, opening, and covering — ten kinds in all, as explained in the Fahua Xuanyi; this is the narrator's own introductory text. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa says: "The Buddha entered a profound samādhi, his right mindfulness unmoving, contemplating with the wisdom of things as they really are; and he rose from that samādhi to manifest the power of the Tathāgata's mastery, since, once the Tathāgata has entered samādhi, nothing is able to startle or disturb him." The Upadeśa here accords with the present meaning: the siddhānta of ultimate meaning transcends the mundane, and hence nothing is able to startle or disturb it; the four siddhāntas are without obstruction, and hence he attains mastery, and so on.

As for "sitting cross-legged": all the buddhas and disciples throughout the ages, numerous as motes of dust or grains of sand in the Ganges, have without exception practiced this posture. Moreover, even one who, while cross-legged, gives rise to an unwholesome thought still thereby produces reverence in others — how much more, then, should entering a profound state while so seated fail to delight gods and men! Moreover, this is not a mundane posture of ordinary enjoyment, and it is not shared with the non-Buddhist paths, for it is able to defeat the afflictions of Māra's armies, and it is also able to give rise to the three kinds of the path to awakening. In my own view, this too expresses the intent of the four siddhāntas.

Question: Other sūtras speak of "fixing the mind in front" — what does this mean?

Answer: Because the objects of form, perception, birth-and-death, and affliction are turned away from and placed behind, while the object contemplated — still and extinguished nirvāṇa — is placed in front, this should be explained in four ways, and so on.

Question: Why is it "in front of the face"?

Answer: For ordinary people, desire first arises with respect to the face, and this produces pleasurable sensation, which then spreads throughout the whole body; moreover, of the body's nine apertures that discharge impurity, seven are located in the face — hence, in order to counter desire with the contemplation of impurity, the object is fixed upon the face (this is the first reason). Moreover, the six consciousnesses are most active in the face, and the mind's attention tends mostly upward; this signifies that all the worthies and sages still take emptiness as corresponding to emptiness, and hence the object is fixed upon the face (this is the second reason). Moreover, if one contemplates the face, one is thereby able to distinguish the six consciousnesses; for the sake of this distinguishing, the object is fixed upon the face (this is the third reason). Moreover, of the body's six parts, the head and face are foremost, signifying that, among all dharmas, the mark of reality is foremost; because it is the foremost dharma, the object is fixed upon the face (this is the fourth reason).

In the twofold praise of the two wisdoms: real wisdom is praised first, and expedient wisdom next. "Real" refers to the wisdom of the buddhas; since it is not any of the three kinds of the provisional-and-real of transforming others, it is called "the buddhas," and since it manifests the real aspect of self-cultivation, it is called "wisdom" — the substance of this wisdom is precisely the single mind endowed with the three kinds of cognition. "Profound and immeasurable" is the very language of praise itself: the Buddha's real wisdom is said to be "profound" because it penetrates vertically to the very depths of suchness as principle, and it is said to be "immeasurable" because it exhausts horizontally the furthest bounds of the dharma-realm. Immeasurable and profound, deep and lofty, horizontal and vast — it is like a plant whose roots go deep and whose branches accordingly flourish, or a river whose source lies far off and whose current accordingly runs long; if the real wisdom is thus, the expedient wisdom follows the same pattern, and so on.

"The gate to their wisdom" is precisely the praise of expedient wisdom — this is the expedient means that precedes the path of self-cultivation, and since it has the power to advance one forward, it is named a "gate"; entering through the gate, one arrives within the path itself — what lies within the path is called "the real," and what precedes the path is called "the provisional." "Hard to understand and hard to enter" is the language of praising the provisional: understood without deliberation, its great function has no fixed direction, and the seven kinds of expedient means are unable to fathom it; the ten abidings mark the beginning of understanding, and the ten grounds mark entry into it — citing the beginning and the end, the middle stages are difficult to indicate, though their difficulty of realization may thereby be inferred. That the text singles out the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas as those unable to know it is simply because their attachment is heaviest, and so they are singled out for refutation.

The original intent of the dharma-body was, from the outset, to address beings by means of the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation; since in the earliest period there was no capacity fit for it, beings fled from it, and hence the text says they "do not know." In the sudden illumination of the Avataṃsaka, the two vehicles were as if deaf, mute, and blind, and hence the text says they "do not know." In the Vaipulya period, the two vehicles were rebuked and reproached for still clinging to their thatched hermitage, and hence the text says they "do not know." In the Prajñāpāramitā, the two vehicles, relaying the teaching to bodhisattvas with no thought of seeking so much as a single meal for themselves, and hence the text says they "do not know." Now, in this present chapter, their great capacity is opened forth, the light is emitted and the earth quakes, and the buddhas of here and there, present and past, are shown to share the same path — yet because doubt still lingers in their hearts, the text still says they "do not know." Bodhisattvas of sharp faculties are able to know it stage by stage, but those of dull faculties, being on a par with the two vehicles, likewise do not know it.

As for the "gate": Guangzhai takes the expedient means of the two vehicles to be the gate to wisdom spoken of in this sūtra, and this requires both a granting and a denying. If this were so, then they would already have attained the gate — how, then, could the Tathāgata refute this by saying they "do not know"? To not know it is precisely to not have the gate. Granting his point for a moment: this would be the shallowest of abilities, permanently unable to recognize its own object, and so on. I now explain that there exists a gate of expedient wisdom by which one enters the Buddha's wisdom, just as the Yingluo Sūtra says, "the two contemplations serve as the expedient path, by which one enters the middle way, the truth of ultimate meaning" — and likewise, each of the three non-perfect teachings has its own set of four gates serving as the expedient means by which one enters the middle way. Guangzhai's interpretation, within these two contemplations, recognizes only a single contemplation, and among these twelve gates, recognizes only a single gate, and so on.

Moreover, expedient wisdom itself can serve as a gate by which one enters expedient cognition — this is the entry into realization proper to each of the three teachings, through their respective four gates. There is also the Buddha's own wisdom serving as a gate by which one enters the Buddha's wisdom — as explained above, this is called the perfect cause, named the chapter of "Skillful Means"; this is precisely the gate of the contemplative wisdom of self-cultivation, and it is precisely the gate to wisdom praised in the present sūtra, of which the perfect teaching's four gates form but one instance. There is, further, the real itself serving as a gate by which one enters expedient cognition, doubly illuminating the two truths — this too is of the same meaning. An explanation such as this is rich and expansive — how could it compare with Guangzhai's single, narrow reading? If, following the Upadeśa, one takes the āgama teaching as the gate, this too must be opened out to encompass all the teachings, as may be understood by the same standard of contemplation, and so on.

From "and why is this so" onward, Guangzhai calls this "the chapter praising Śākyamuni." Examining the sense of the text, however, I take this to be the twofold explanation of the twin wisdoms of all buddhas. From "the Buddha has drawn near" down to "practiced the path in full" is the explanation of the buddhas' real wisdom: precisely because, outwardly, they encountered many buddhas and received the essentials from them, their real wisdom is profound; and precisely because, inwardly, their practice was pure and full, practicing the path in its entirety, their real wisdom is immeasurable. "Immeasurable" thus explains its horizontal vastness, and "profound" explains its vertical loftiness.

"Vigorous, diligent, their renown heard everywhere" explains the buddhas' expedient wisdom. As for "the gate to their wisdom, hard to understand and hard to enter" — it is precisely through vigorous diligence that they are able to enter this gate so hard to enter, and once they have entered this gate, their beneficent influence spreads without bound, and all beings revere their supreme virtue, and hence their renown is heard everywhere. One may also divide this into separate clauses: "vigorous and diligent" refers to being able to enter the dharma-gate, explaining the profundity of expedient wisdom, while "renown heard everywhere" explains the vastness of expedient wisdom. Though, on inspection, the text on the provisional lacks any explicit words of "profound" and "vast," this meaning nonetheless holds by analogy with real wisdom, and so on.

From "accomplished what is profound" onward is the twofold conclusion of the buddhas' twin wisdoms. Being said to "accomplish" it, because it accords with principle to its very ultimate, and being called "profound," because it reaches the very bottom of the far shore — this concludes the explanation of real wisdom. Being called "according with what is fitting," because it accords appropriately with capacity, and being called "hard to understand," because it is not known by the seven kinds of expedient means — this concludes the explanation of expedient wisdom. When one accords with sentiment, principle is thereby obscured, and hence it is called "hard to understand"; when the meaning is fully drawn out, its intent becomes manifest, and hence it is called "easy to know." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, "sūtras of fully drawn-out meaning are to be judged by their explicit meaning based on the text, while sūtras of meaning not fully drawn out are to be judged in their text based on the meaning" — this is precisely that same principle. There is also an interpretation that takes "accomplished what is profound and unprecedented" as concluding the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation, and "what is preached according to what is fitting, whose purport is hard to understand" as concluding the provisional-and-real of transforming others, and so on.

From "since I attained buddhahood" onward is the praise of Śākyamuni's provisional-and-real. The old commentators say that Śākyamuni's provisional and real are praised each separately: that from "since I attained buddhahood" onward is the praise of the provisional, and "and why is this so" its explanation; that from "the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are vast and great" onward is the praise of the real, and from "immeasurable and unobstructed" onward its explanation; and that from "the Tathāgata is able to make various discriminations" onward is the concluding praise of the real.

The old commentators, distinguishing the reasoning behind this ordering, give three considerations: first, that the joint praise of the twin wisdoms of all buddhas makes clear that the substance of the two wisdoms is the same, while the separate praise of Śākyamuni's twin wisdoms makes clear that the function of the two wisdoms differs; second, that, in making clear the origin from which his trace is manifested, the buddhas are praised for their real wisdom first, while, in making clear the capacity by which the origin is manifested, Śākyamuni is praised for his expedient wisdom first; and third, that the buddhas manifest self-cultivation, which must first attain the real, while Śākyamuni makes clear transforming others, which first uses the provisional to guide the young and ignorant — and that this alternating pattern of manifestation is meant to make clear that their essence is perfectly complete and cannot be one-sidedly fixed upon, since to fix upon either one alone would lose the true purport. I now hold this not to be so: one need only follow the sequence of the text itself, by which the meaning is easily understood, without needing to strain for such elaborate distinctions. Moreover, if you say that the buddhas' paths are the same, why then propose differing interpretations for them? This is like a person who praises filial devotion eloquently and yet strikes and beats his own parents, and so on.

The text concerning Śākyamuni likewise falls into three: first, the twofold praise; next, the twofold explanation; last, the twofold conclusion. "Since I attained buddhahood" praises real wisdom: were real wisdom not perfectly complete, the buddha-path could not be accomplished; and since it says he "attained buddhahood," once this one thing is accomplished, all things are thereby accomplished — this, then, is the praise of real wisdom. From "various causes and conditions" onward is the praise of expedient wisdom: for more than forty years he responded to and gathered in sentient beings by means of the three kinds of the provisional-and-real of transforming others, and hence it is said, "various causes and conditions." As for "parables": in the Lesser Vehicle, the plantain tree and water-foam serve as parables, while in the Greater Vehicle, the phantom city and the mirror-reflection and the like serve as parables. According to the various treatises, the Lesser Vehicle is likened to milk, and the Greater Vehicle is likened to ghee.

As for "expounding it widely": he is able to draw forth immeasurable meanings from a single dharma. As for "countless skillful means": these are precisely the seven kinds of expedient means. As for "guiding sentient beings to depart from every attachment": he preached the scattered practice of the ten wholesome deeds so as to free them from attachment to the three lower destinies; he preached the pure practice of the ten wholesome deeds so as to free them from attachment to the desire realm; he preached the Tripiṭaka teaching so as to free them from attachment to views and thought; he preached the bodhisattva dharma so as to free them from attachment to nirvāṇa; and he preached the buddha-dharma so as to free them from attachment even to the dharma of love that accords with the path.

From "and why is this so" is the twofold explanation of the two wisdoms. The half-phrase "Tathāgata" is precisely the explanation of real wisdom: coming from the very midst of suchness, the mark of reality, and thereby attaining the buddha-path — hence he is named "Tathāgata," and this is precisely the explanation of the accomplishment of real wisdom. "Skillful means" is precisely the explanation of expedient wisdom: it is by means of skillful and adept expedients that he is able to bring about the pāramitā of knowledge and vision through various causes and conditions — this is precisely the joint presentation of the knowledge and vision of both the provisional and the real.

The wisdom that knows all modes is called real knowledge, and the buddha-eye is called real vision; the wisdom that knows the paths of all beings is called expedient knowledge, and the dharma-eye is called expedient vision — since both reach the very limit of fact and principle, both alike are called pāramitās. "All already complete" means that both the provisional and the real are entirely brought to their ultimate conclusion. Were this not intended as a twofold explanation, why would the text suddenly say "all already"? "All already" is precisely what makes the sense of this twofold explanation manifest.

From "the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are vast, great, deep, and far-reaching" is precisely the twofold conclusion of Śākyamuni's two wisdoms. "The Tathāgata's knowledge and vision" is as explained above; "vast and great" clarifies its horizontal breadth, and "deep and far-reaching" clarifies its vertical depth. Though this real wisdom is in itself neither horizontal nor vertical, in resorting to words in order to praise it, one speaks of its illumination as limitless in both the horizontal and the vertical, like a container matched exactly to its contents, or a lid matched exactly to its vessel.

From "immeasurable and unobstructed" onward is precisely the conclusion of expedient wisdom. The provisional aspect of self-cultivation, as an expedient means preceding the path, is considered in terms of the various dharma-gates, and hence it is clear that this is the conclusion of expedient wisdom; real wisdom admits of no such gradation. Guangzhai uses this passage to explain real wisdom — but it is not only Guangzhai who fails to recognize real wisdom; the entire Liang dynasty likewise failed to know that this unobstructed wisdom admits of no gradation, and so on. "Immeasurable" refers to the buddha-stage's four immeasurable minds, and "unobstructed" refers to the buddha-stage's four unobstructed eloquences.

Able, from a single word or a single meaning, to bring forth immeasurable eloquent expositions without exhaustion — compared to this, the bodhisattvas of the shared and distinct teachings are like the dirt beneath a fingernail set against the whole earth. "Powers" refers to the ten powers; "fearlessnesses" refers to the four kinds of fearlessness; "dhyāna" refers to the very reality-mark of all dhyānas; "concentration" refers to the Śūraṅgama-samādhi; "samādhi" refers to the king of samādhis; "penetrating deeply without limit" concludes the explanation of vertical depth, and "accomplishing every unprecedented dharma" concludes the explanation of horizontal breadth.

From "Śāriputra, the Tathāgata is able to make various discriminations" onward, the old commentators take this as concluding the provisional-and-real explained above; I now take it instead as opening what follows, about to cut off speech entirely, once again raising the provisional-and-real as the occasion for the praise that cuts off speech. The text falls into two: first, raising the occasion for the praise that cuts off speech; next, pointing to the object of this cutting-off of speech. "Earnestly" signifies deep sincerity. "The Tathāgata is able skillfully to discriminate and adeptly expound the dharmas" raises the provisional; "his words are gentle and soft, gladdening the hearts of the assembly" raises the real. How can this be known? Above, where the light was seen preaching the sudden teaching in other lands, it says, "his voice, pure and clear, gave forth a gentle and soft sound," and below, where Śāriputra expresses his understanding, he says, "hearing the Buddha's gentle and soft voice, profound, far-reaching, and most subtle" — on the evidence of these two passages, before and after, it is known that this passage raises real wisdom. In the earlier praise, the real came first and the provisional after; why, here, does the provisional come first and the real after? Because, earlier, wishing to resort to words, the exposition proceeded from the real and unfolded outward into the provisional; here, wishing to cut off words entirely, it must instead fold the provisional back and gather it into the real.

From "to state the essential matter" points to the object that is the real, since nothing surpasses the real in essentiality; "the immeasurable, boundless, unprecedented dharmas" points to the object that is the provisional. Moreover, "stating the essential matter" is the initial point of this pointing; "immeasurable and boundless" points to the provisional, and "unprecedented dharmas" points to the real; the passage says that the Buddha has accomplished both of these dharmas fully through the cultivation of the path — how, then, could this possibly be spoken?

Were only a single matter being made clear, the text ought not to say "entirely"; since it points jointly to both the provisional and the real, its intent is thereby made clear.

From "stop" onward is, second, the praise that cuts off speech entirely. Master Yin says, "This is meant, by means of the stopping, to give rise in the assembly to the mind that doubts and requests further teaching." Master Guan says, "The real dharma is hard to know, and so the Buddha first restrains and stops himself, so as to startle the assembly's ordinary expectations." I now explain that this dharma is so profoundly still that the path of words is cut off, and its substance cannot be spoken — hence he stops himself and yet still praises it. Were he, out of compassion, to speak of it regardless, those who heard it would be unable to understand, and this would injure their wholesome roots — and it is for this reason that he stops himself. From "and why is this so" onward is the explanation of the intent behind this stopping and praising. This intent is twofold: first, in terms of the Buddha being the supreme person who has accomplished the supreme dharma through cultivation, this dharma cannot be spoken; and second, in making clear that this profound state is inconceivable, it cannot be spoken.

From "the Buddha has accomplished" onward makes clear that the horizontal fullness of the supreme person's provisional-and-real cannot be spoken; from "only a buddha together with a buddha" onward makes clear that the vertical depth of the supreme person's provisional-and-real cannot be spoken. "Accomplished" set against "not accomplished," and further, "hard to understand" set against "not hard to understand" — this is the horizontal clarification of what is accomplished through the cultivation of the path, and hence it cannot be spoken. As for "only a buddha together with a buddha is able to exhaust it": those at the initial and middling stages attain it only in part, not yet exhausting its source, like the moon on the fourteenth day, whose light and function are not yet complete; only buddha together with buddha reaches its utmost depths, like the moon on the fifteenth day, whose substance is nowhere incomplete and whose light is nowhere unspread — this is the vertical depth of what is accomplished through the cultivation of the path, and hence it cannot be spoken. From "the true mark of the dharmas" onward is precisely the inconceivability of this profound state, and hence it cannot be spoken.

Guangzhai says: "The first single phrase marks out the section on the twin wisdoms, and 'the dharmas' marks out the object of expedient wisdom." Since the three vehicles, taken thrice-over as three separate things, are not a single thing, the text says "the dharmas"; and among these three teachings, the teaching itself is most evident, and a teaching must respond to capacity and thus have a person to whom it is addressed — hence it is known that this threefold-times-three is the provisional. "The mark of reality" is the object of real wisdom; since it is a single principle, not empty, it is called "the mark of reality," and among the fourfold "suchness" terms, it universally cites this single principle, and since this principle is the root, it is therefore the real. Within this passage there are nine phrases, which in turn explain the two sections above. The first five phrases explain the section on the provisional. "Suchness of characteristics" means that the verbal teachings of the three vehicles can be grasped and differentiated; "suchness of nature" means that the natures proper to the teachings of the three vehicles cannot be interchanged; "suchness of substance" means that the eight-toned phrases and passages of the three vehicles' teachings each have their own substance, the bodhisattva teaching taking the six perfections as its substance, and so on; "suchness of power" means the power of the three vehicles' teachings to instruct and guide; "suchness of activity" means that the three vehicles' teachings, once received by their hearers, produce some activity in them — this broadens the object of real wisdom, and for brevity is not cited again as a separate heading.

The object that is the real has four "suchness" terms, broadening this single principle into four: "suchness of cause" means that the object gives rise to true understanding, which serves as the cause, the myriad wholesome deeds looking forward to their fruit; "suchness of condition" means that the object gives rise to real wisdom, which serves as the condition; taking the place toward which the cause looks forward as the fruit, the fruit that arises in requital of the cause is the recompense. The final two phrases jointly conclude both sections: the first phrase concludes the provisional, "root" citing "characteristics" and "branch" citing "activity"; the second phrase concludes the real, "ultimate" concluding "cause" and "equally so" concluding "recompense." The Northern masters say: "The dharmas of the three vehicles all possess characteristics, nature, fruit, recompense, root, and branch."

Master Yao says: "As for suchness of characteristics and suchness of nature: this explains how wisdom's illuminative function shows the three vehicles budding forth differently — the characteristics necessarily becoming, in this way, three distinct natures. The arousal of the resolve is the substance; what the mind is able to bear is the power; the power that produces something is the activity; the activity that invites a fruit is the cause; 'cause' speaks of what already belongs to oneself, while 'condition' speaks of that from which it arises; 'condition' speaks of the external power that finally brings the fruit to completion, hence 'fruit'; requiting the cause is the recompense; characteristics are the root; recompense is the branch; and their ultimate arrival at one and the same outcome is 'ultimate and equally so.' 'Suchness' means that the matter is exactly thus, without discrepancy."

Master Chang, however, explains this solely in terms of what pertains to the Buddha himself: "characteristics" means that each of the ten powers has its own particular mark; "nature" means that, according to root faculties, each being has what it has become habituated to, and this unchanging habituation is called "nature" — this is the object of the power of knowing others' faculties. "Substance" means that, since root faculties differ, desires likewise differ; speaking of the mind's function of attachment, this is named "substance" — this is the object of the power of knowing others' desires. "Power" is another name for concentration: supernormal powers and transformative movement cannot function without concentration, and the stilling of the mind and quieting of disturbance cannot become tranquil without concentration — hence "power" is the object of the power of knowing the dhyānas and concentrations. "Activity" is karma — this is the object of the power of knowing karma. "Cause" means that the path serves as the cause able to reach nirvāṇa — this is the object of the power of knowing the destination reached by every path. "Condition" is the object of the power of knowing former lives. "Fruit" means that, based on a present cause, the fruit it summons lies in the future — this is the object of the divine eye power. "Recompense" means that the present recompense is viewed in light of a past cause — this is based on the object of the power of the exhaustion of outflows, and hence "recompense" here refers to the exhaustion of outflows. "Root" is "characteristics," and "branch" is "recompense"; taken together and viewed as a whole, all of this is the object of the power of knowing what is possible and what is not.

The various explanations set forth above are none of them without their own approach, and yet they do not accord with principle, nor do they fit the text. As for not fitting the text: the sūtra says "the dharmas" — what dharma would this fail to encompass? How could it be limited to the three vehicles alone? As for not according with principle: the sūtra says "the mark of reality" — where is this not present, and yet these interpretations confine it to cause, effect, and substance alone. If the real belongs solely to the Buddha, then the Buddha would have no provisional; if the provisional belongs solely to the three vehicles, then the three vehicles would forever lack the real. If the three vehicles are taken as merely five of the ten suchness terms, then the dharma of the provisional would be insufficient, and there would be no real at all. If the fourfold thesis pertains only to the Buddha, then the Buddha would be entirely without the provisional, and the real, too, would be insufficient. If the meaning does not extend to ordinary beings at all, then the text's phrase "the dharmas" would simply be useless. If the mark of reality is not universal, there would have to be some further dharma existing outside the mark of reality. Because of faults such as these, none of these interpretations should be adopted.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fascicle thirty-one, explains that each and every dharma has nine aspects: first, each has its own substance; second, each has its own function — for example, though the eye and the ear are alike composed of the four great elements, the eye has the function of seeing while the ear has no such function of seeing, just as fire has heat as its function but is unable to moisten; third, each has its own power, as fire has burning as its power and water has moistening as its power; fourth, each has its own cause; fifth, each has its own condition; sixth, each has its own fruit; seventh, each has its own nature; eighth, each has its own limiting bounds; and ninth, each has its own expedient means of opening and penetrating. Dharmottara took these nine categories and correlated them with the ten suchness terms in the Lotus Sūtra: "each has its own function" corresponds to the Lotus Sūtra's "suchness of activity"; "each has its own limiting bounds" corresponds to the Lotus Sūtra's "suchness of characteristics"; "each has its own fruit" corresponds to the Lotus Sūtra's "suchness of fruit" and "suchness of recompense"; and "each has its own expedient means of opening and penetrating" corresponds to the Lotus Sūtra's "suchness of root, branch, and their ultimate equality"; the remaining terms share the same names and may be understood accordingly.

I now explain this object under two headings: the first single phrase briefly marks out the section on the provisional-and-real, as the text has it; the following ten phrases explain in full detail the marks of the provisional-and-real. I will now offer a fourfold explanation: first, in terms of the ten dharma-realms; second, in terms of the buddha-realm; third, in terms of opening and uniting; and fourth, in terms of rank. Since the sūtra says "the dharmas," the explanation in terms of the ten dharma-realms is used; since the sūtra says "the dharma the Buddha has accomplished, foremost and rarest," the explanation in terms of the buddha-realm is used; since the sūtra says "stop, stop, there is no need to speak — my dharma is sublime and hard to conceive," the explanation in terms of opening and uniting is used; and since the sūtra says "only a buddha together with a buddha is able to exhaust it," the explanation in terms of rank is used.

As for the explanation in terms of the ten dharma-realms: these are the six destinies together with the four noble states, forming the ten dharmas. Though dharmas are immeasurable, their number does not exceed ten; and though each realm again branches out into many divisions, none exceeds the ten suchness terms. Take, for instance, the hell-realm: within its own realm it possesses in full the characteristics, nature, root, and branch proper to itself, and it also possesses the characteristics, nature, root, and branch of the animal realm, and on up to possessing the characteristics, nature, root, and branch of the buddha-realm, without any deficiency — hence the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle seven, says, "the hell destiny accomplishes the dharmas of the Paranirmitavaśavartin heaven," which is precisely an instance of this; the remaining nine dharma-realms are likewise so. One should understand that each and every realm possesses within it the other nine realms and their ten suchness terms; when these are illumined from within their own respective positions, the nine realms and their ten suchness terms are all named the provisional; when illumined from within its own position, the buddha-realm's ten suchness terms are named the real. Within the one is contained the immeasurable, and within the immeasurable is contained the one — and it is for this reason that it is called inconceivable.

If illumined from the standpoint of the six destinies and the three lesser noble states, five of the suchness terms are the provisional; if illumined from the standpoint of the buddha-realm, the remaining four suchness terms are the real. Considered individually and distinctly like this, this could then be spoken of and shown plainly — why, then, would there be any need for the praise that stops and cuts off speech? The reason is this: though ordinary beings possess the immeasurable within the one, they are entirely cut off from this principle and confused by sentiment; though the two vehicles possess it, they merely renounce and abandon it, seeking only their own liberation; though bodhisattvas possess it, their illumination does not extend everywhere, and this is called not being fully clear. Only the Tathāgata, whose comprehensive vision is complete in both the horizontal and the vertical, alone understands it clearly for himself — what others are unable to see cannot be proclaimed and shown to them, and this is precisely why the text stops and cuts off speech. This has already been explained above in the Fahua Xuanyi, and is not recorded here in full, and so on.

Second, the explanation in terms of the buddha-realm: the buddha-realm is neither characteristic nor non-characteristic, and yet is named "suchness of characteristics," pointing to the contributory cause of the myriad wholesome deeds — hence the text below says, "adorned all over with every kind of jewel," which is precisely this meaning. The buddha-realm is neither nature nor non-nature, and yet is named "suchness of nature," pointing to the illuminating cause of wisdom — hence the text below speaks of "a great white ox." The buddha-realm is neither substance nor non-substance, and yet is named "suchness of substance," pointing to the proper cause of the mark of reality — hence the text below speaks of "the carriage, tall and broad." The buddha-realm is neither power nor non-power, and yet is named "power," pointing to the mind set upon the path to awakening, the power of the roots of compassion and goodness, and the like — hence the text below says, "and above it a canopy was spread out."

The buddha-realm is neither activity nor non-activity, and yet is named "suchness of activity," pointing to the spontaneous path free of effortful striving — hence the text below says, "swift as the wind." The buddha-realm is neither cause nor non-cause, and yet is named "suchness of cause," pointing to the forty-one ranks — hence the text below says, "riding this jeweled carriage, roaming freely in the four directions." The buddha-realm is neither condition nor non-condition, and yet is named "suchness of condition," pointing to everything that assists the path to awakening — hence the text below says, "and with many attendants in escort." The buddha-realm is neither fruit nor non-fruit, and yet is named "suchness of fruit," pointing to the radiant clarity of sublime awakening, accomplished through the perfect cause — hence the text below says, "proceeding directly to the site of enlightenment." The buddha-realm is neither recompense nor non-recompense, and yet is named "suchness of recompense," pointing to great parinirvāṇa — hence the text below says, "attaining the immeasurable, uncontaminated, and pure fruit of recompense."

The buddha-fruit is neither root nor branch, and yet is spoken of as root and branch: the root is the buddha's characteristics, and the branch is the buddha's recompense — this is the provisional aspect of self-cultivation. The buddha-realm is neither equal nor unequal, and yet is spoken of as "ultimately equal," pointing to the mark of reality — hence the heading of this passage speaks of "the mark of reality." This is the real aspect of self-cultivation. Precisely because it is the real, it is spoken of as root and branch; precisely because it is the provisional, it is spoken of as "equally so" — this is the Tathāgata's own provisional-and-real of self-cultivation, the most unsurpassed of all.

From the unsurpassed characteristics on up to the unsurpassed fruit and recompense, horizontally vast and vertically deep, with nothing beyond it — hence the heading of this passage speaks of "the true mark of the dharmas."

By the same pattern, one should also speak of the dharmas' real nature, real substance, real power, and on up to their real ultimate equality — but only one term is cited briefly here to cover the rest. The Tathāgata's universal illumination, complete in both the horizontal and the vertical, is like beholding a fruit in the palm of one's hand; it is only that ordinary beings are like the utterly blind, the two vehicles are like the one-eyed, and bodhisattvas are like those peering through the dimness of night, unable to see clearly — and hence this cannot be spoken, and the sūtra stops and cuts off speech; its intent lies precisely here.

Third, the explanation in terms of opening and uniting: within the Buddha's own mind, what is contemplated — the ten realms and their ten suchness terms, all as unsurpassed characteristics, and on up to unsurpassed fruit and recompense — is but the single buddha-dharma-realm, like the sea gathering in the ten thousand streams, or a thousand carriages sharing a single wheel-rut — this is precisely the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation. If one instead accords with the intent of others, then there are the nine other dharma-realms with their ten suchness terms of characteristics, nature, and the rest — this is precisely the provisional-and-real of transforming others. Although transforming others still has its real aspect, this is entirely bundled together as the provisional; although self-cultivation still has its provisional aspect, this is entirely bundled together as the real — this is precisely the provisional-and-real of self-cultivation and transforming others.

According with others, this is opened out; according with oneself, this is united together — illumining completely in both the horizontal and the vertical, opening and uniting freely and without obstruction. Though opened into the immeasurable, the immeasurable is nonetheless one; though united into the one, the one is nonetheless immeasurable. Though it is the immeasurable-as-one, it is neither one nor immeasurable; and though it is neither one nor immeasurable, it is nonetheless one and nonetheless immeasurable — only a buddha together with a buddha is able to exhaust this. Ordinary beings slander it and do not believe it; the two vehicles are confused and distressed by it and do not accept it; bodhisattvas find it still dim and unclear, like tree-stumps obscured in dust. It is for this reason that the sūtra stops and cuts off speech, and so on.

Fourth, the explanation in terms of rank: "suchness of characteristics" means that every sentient being possesses the mark of reality, originally possessing it of themselves — this is precisely the marks of the tathāgatagarbha. "Suchness of nature" is precisely the emptiness of ultimate meaning that is the wisdom of the virtue of inherent nature. "Suchness of substance" is precisely the principle of the dharma-nature of the middle way. These are the three virtues, present in every single rank throughout the ten dharma-realms without exception. When these three virtues are cultivated and one enters the ten stages of faith, they are named "suchness of power" and "suchness of activity"; when one enters the forty-one grounds, they are named "suchness of cause" and "suchness of condition"; and when one arrives at the stage of buddhahood, they are named "suchness of fruit" and "suchness of recompense." The first three are named the root, and the last three are named the branch; the beginning and the end are alike these same three virtues, and hence it is said, "ultimately equal."

The three virtues, from their very initial stage, run through both evil and good, both the worthy and the sagely, both the lesser and the greater, both the beginning and the ultimate: though present in evil, they do not sink down with it; though present in good, they do not rise above by it; though present among the worthy, they are not thereby lowered; though present among the sages, they are not thereby elevated; though present in the lesser, they are not thereby narrowed; though present in the greater, they are not thereby broadened; though present at the beginning, they are not thereby new; and though present at the ultimate stage, they are not thereby old. Hence they are inconceivable and cannot be spoken, and the sūtra stops and cuts off speech.

Furthermore, as for the three virtues' "ultimate equality": the characteristics and natures, the provisional and real, the opening and uniting, of the ten realms differ from one another in countless ways — yet when contemplated as they truly are with the great wisdom of equality, they are, in the end, all equal. If one is deluded with regard to this object, then there are the characteristics and natures of the six realms, named the conventional truth; if one understands this object, then there are the characteristics and natures of the two vehicles, named the ultimate truth; and if one penetrates to what is neither deluded nor understood, then there are the natures and characteristics of bodhisattvas and the buddha-realm, the truth of ultimate meaning in the middle way. If, with this wisdom, one is made equal to the conventional truth, the conventional truth is thereby no longer delusion; made equal to the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is thereby no longer mere understanding. Neither understanding nor delusion, doubly negating both understanding and delusion, this is simply named equality. If both are illumined together, then the provisional is precisely the real, and the real is precisely the provisional — though two, they are not two, and this too is named "ultimate equality."

Moreover, as for the non-dual object that is the provisional-and-real: the seven kinds of expedient means are unable to bring a non-dual wisdom to bear on this non-dual object; only the buddhas are able to use non-dual wisdom to equal this non-dual object, and hence it is said, "ultimately equal." Moreover, now that the Great Vehicle capacity has been stirred into activity, the text does not separately expound the natures and characteristics of the nine lesser realms, but directly declares that every nature and characteristic alike enters into the nature and characteristics of the buddha-realm; the earlier teachings did not say this, meaning that formerly these realms were not equal to the present buddha-realm, but the present teaching now declares it, so that it is known that the former and the present are equal — hence it is said, "ultimately equal."

First is the explanation in terms of the equality of affliction and understanding; next, in terms of the equality of persons; and last, in terms of the equality of teachings — this discussion is extremely extensive, and the recorder is unable to set it down in complete detail. As for making clear the inconceivable in terms of cutting off both speech and thought, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fascicle seventy-nine, says: "The inconceivable is called the undetermined; it goes beyond every mental factor and mental concomitant, goes beyond every path of verbal expression, cannot be practiced and cannot be reached — hence it is called the inconceivable." As for making clear the inconceivable by means of a simile, the Śāstra, fascicle fourteen, says: "One does not arrive at the path of equality by means of a ruined and decaying form; only by contemplating form as not different from emptiness is one able to become equal to the Great Vehicle. It is like brightness and darkness coming together, and yet you do not see it, supposing brightness and darkness to be different things; if you wish to know this meaning, consider it like moonlight. Moreover, when the sun rises, darkness does not go off toward the ten directions — darkness is constantly present, with nowhere to which it returns; brightness, likewise, comes together with darkness in just this way. Birth-and-death comes together with the path, and the path is precisely birth-and-death; what the Buddha has exhausted is already exhausted, and what he has ferried across is already ferried across — all of this is inconceivable." Examples of this kind are extremely numerous throughout the various sūtras and treatises. As for the inconceivable spoken of in terms of concrete matters, the Āgama sūtras explain four kinds of the inconceivable: sentient beings, the world, dragons, and buddhas. From what place do sentient beings come, and to what place do they go? At what point are they born, and at what point do they die? Does the world have an edge, or is it without edge? Can it be cut off, or can it not be cut off? By whom was it made — gods, dragons, humans, or ghosts? An Āgama sūtra says: "A certain man, beside the pond of Gṛdhrakūṭa in Rājagṛha, was pondering whether the world had an edge or was without edge, when he saw four armies enter into the hole of a lotus fiber; startled, he thought, 'Am I mad? The world holds no such madness as this.' He asked the Buddha, and the Buddha said: 'You are not mad — this was an asura,'

"pursued by the gods, retreating and hiding within the hole of the lotus fiber." This, however, is merely worldly speculation, not the path to nirvāṇa — it brings no benefit of meaning, no benefit of dharma, and no benefit to the holy life, and so on. Does the rain sent by dragons come out from the dragon's mouth, ears, eyes, nose, or tongue? In truth it does not come out from any of these; it comes out only from the dragon's own thought — thinking good or thinking evil, either is able to produce rain, this power being obtained from the dragon's own past deeds. Within the belly of Mount Sumeru there dwells a deity named Mahābala who is likewise able to make rain. There is also a sūtra that sets forth one inconceivable matter for each of the five destinies: in hell, there is both cessation and continuation; among animals, there are those able to fly; among hungry ghosts, there is the ability to transform few into many; among humans, there is the ability to make fire burn firewood; and among the gods, recompense arises spontaneously — all of these are inconceivable matters belonging to the dharma of karmic recompense, and so on. This has explained the inconceivable in terms of causes and conditions and concrete matters — how much more inconceivable, then, must this profound state be!

The verse section has twenty-one lines, dividing into two: the first seventeen-and-a-half lines versify the prose section, and the final three-and-a-half lines briefly open the three to reveal the one, stirring the old attachment and giving rise to doubt. The first of these again divides into two: the first four lines versify the praise while resorting to words, and the remaining thirteen-and-a-half lines versify the praise that cuts off words. Now, the reason the verse and the prose sections are, at different points, either more expansive or more concise than one another is simply to make the meaning easier to display. In the prose section, the two categories of buddhas are each praised separately for their provisional-and-real, signifying that the conditions of their transformative activity differ; in the verse, however, the two are praised together, showing that the principle underlying the twin wisdoms is one and the same.

Within the first part, the praise while resorting to words, there are again two: the first two lines together versify the twin wisdoms of both buddhas, and the following two lines together versify the explanation and conclusion of both buddhas' praise. The first of these again divides into two. The initial single phrase, "Hero of the World," versifies the buddhas' wisdom spoken of above; "immeasurable" versifies "profound and immeasurable" above — this versifies the buddhas' real wisdom. The following three phrases versify the buddhas' expedient wisdom above, and here there are three differences: first, the prose section above cites the person and also marks out the dharma, hence saying "the buddhas' wisdom," whereas the present verse versifies only the person, using the person to extol the dharma, hence saying "Hero of the World"; second, the prose above separates the praise, while the verse here unites the praise — the dharma, being distinct between the two buddhas, requires separation, while the person, being general, allows for union; and third, the prose above says that all of the two vehicles do not know it, while the verse here says that all classes of sentient beings do not know it. From "the Buddha's powers" onward, the following one line versifies the praise of Śākyamuni's twin wisdoms. "Buddha" versifies "since I attained buddhahood," directly versifying real wisdom; "powers, fearlessnesses," and the rest versify the various merits, versifying expedient wisdom; "the remaining dharmas" refers precisely to the provisional aspect of transforming others, serving merely as an auxiliary to real wisdom, and directly versifies "various causes and conditions" above, and so on.

From "originally" onward, the following two lines together versify the explanation and conclusion of both buddhas' praise. "Originally, following countless buddhas, fully practicing every path" versifies the prose above explaining the buddhas' praise, "the Buddha has drawn near a hundred thousand buddhas, practicing the path in full." "A dharma profound and sublime" versifies the concluding praise of the real above, "accomplished what is profound and unprecedented." "Hard to see and hard to comprehend" versifies the concluding praise of the provisional above, "whose purport is hard to understand." "Throughout immeasurable koṭis of eons, having practiced these paths" versifies the explanation above of Śākyamuni's pāramitā of knowledge and vision being already fully complete — the first two of these phrases cite the completeness of the cause, and the following single phrase cites the completeness of the fruit. The single phrase "I have already fully known and seen" versifies the passage above concluding Śākyamuni's twin wisdoms, "the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are vast and great."

There is also, at times, an alternative reading that takes these four verses together as versifying the provisional-and-real of both buddhas above. The text then falls into six parts: first, the single phrase "Hero of the World" generally versifies the twin wisdoms of both buddhas; second, the three phrases "the gods and the people of the world" versify the singling-out of persons; third, the following line beginning "the Buddha's powers" versifies the explanation of the provisional-and-real within the section on Śākyamuni; fourth, the following line beginning "originally" versifies the explanation of the provisional-and-real of the buddhas in general; fifth, the following half-line beginning "throughout immeasurable" versifies the cultivation of the cause above; and sixth, the following two phrases beginning "at the site of enlightenment, having accomplished" versify the attainment of the fruit above.

From "such a great fruit of recompense" onward is, second, thirteen-and-a-half lines that versify the praise which cuts off speech above. The text falls into five parts: the first half-line, "such a great fruit of recompense," versifies the inconceivable object — only the beginning is cited, and what follows and what lies between may be inferred accordingly, the character "meaning" also versifying "ultimately equal" above; "great" and "various" are as explained in the Fahua Xuanyi. From "I and the buddhas of the ten directions" onward is, second, a half-line that retrospectively versifies "to state the essential matter, the Buddha has accomplished all of this" above. From "cannot be shown" onward is, third, a half-line that retrospectively versifies "stop, there is no need to speak" above: the mark of reality has no location, and hence "cannot be shown"; it is beyond the path of words, and hence "the mark of speech is still and extinguished." From "all the remaining classes of sentient beings" onward is, fourth, the versifying of those who do not know it, since the prose above made clear that there is no one who knows it, and hence it stopped and did not speak further.

Within the verse, ten-and-a-half lines set forth those who do not know it; the text falls into eight parts: the first half-verse generally singles out those who are unable to enter, that is, the seven kinds of expedient means; from "except for" onward is, second, two lines singling out those who are able to enter, that is, the perfect teaching's ten stages of faith, hence saying "those whose power of faith is firm." The prose above made clear the knowing of the ultimate buddha-stage, while the verse here makes clear the knowing of the initial stage of faith — the two passages cite each other alternately. From "the buddhas' disciples" onward is, third, one-and-a-half lines singling out the not-knowing of the two vehicles. From "suppose one filled" onward is, fourth, one line citing Śāriputra's not-knowing.

From "suppose one filled" onward is, fifth, one-and-a-half lines citing the great disciples in general. From "pratyekabuddhas" onward is, sixth, two lines citing the pratyekabuddhas. From "those newly resolved" onward is, seventh, two-and-a-half lines citing bodhisattvas who have newly given rise to the resolve as unable to enter. The term "giving rise to the resolve" applies broadly — it may refer to bodhisattvas of the six-perfections practice who, throughout the three incalculable eons, have not yet cut off delusion, and who are hence called those who have "given rise to the resolve"; or it may refer to those included above among gods and humans who have themselves gathered in the six perfections, the term "giving rise to the resolve" being used separately to designate the arising of the resolve within the shared teaching, the distinct teaching, and so forth. From "bodhisattvas of non-retrogression" onward is, eighth, one line singling out that even non-retrogressing bodhisattvas likewise do not know it: the shared teaching's non-retrogression cuts off only the delusions within the threefold world, and hence does not know the distinct principle; and even prior to the ten grounds in the distinct teaching there are those who have realized non-retrogression in rank, in practice, and so forth, who likewise do not know it.

Next, from "again he told Śāriputra: this uncontaminated" onward is, fifth, one-and-a-half lines versifying, above, the hard-to-understand dharma which only the Buddha is able to know, the object that is the mark of reality. "Uncontaminated and inconceivable" versifies, above, the concluding of the essential matter, raising the object at which the provisional and the real come to a stop. The single phrase "a dharma profound and sublime" versifies, above, "the foremost, rarest, and hardest to understand dharma." The following three phrases, "I have now fully attained it," versify, above, "only a buddha together with a buddha is able to exhaust it," making clear that the buddhas' paths are the same, all alike reaching the ultimate — hence it says, "only I know this mark, and the buddhas of the ten directions likewise know it." To explain the inconceivable: it is like the wish-fulfilling jewel, which, though not the breadth of a hair's tip in size, is able to rain down every kind of treasure — the mark of reality, itself unarisen, is able to give rise to prajñā.

These one-and-a-half lines, "uncontaminated and inconceivable," serve as the basis from which the four kinds of explanation given above are generated. From the half-phrase "uncontaminated" as basis, the explanation in terms of the ten dharma-realms is generated: the ten suchness terms of the ten dharma-realms gather in the principle-nature of every ordinary being and sage without any contaminated loss, gather in the three truths without loss, and gather in the wisdom of the provisional-and-real without loss. Taking "inconceivable" as the basis, the explanation in terms of opening-and-uniting is generated: precisely because it is the provisional it is the real, and precisely because it is the real it is the provisional, and hence it is inconceivable. Taking "a dharma profound and sublime" as the basis, the explanation in terms of the buddha-realm is generated — this may be readily understood. Taking "only I know this mark" as the basis, the explanation in terms of rank is generated — this too may be readily understood, and so on.

From "Śāriputra, you should know that the words of the buddhas are not different" onward is the brief opening of the three to reveal the one, stirring the old attachment and giving rise to doubt. Within this opening and revealing there are two: first, making clear that all buddhas reveal the real; and second, making clear that Śākyamuni opens the three vehicles — each of these mutually clarifies one side of the whole. "The words of the buddhas are not different" — this discusses the sameness of all buddhas' transformative path; the following two phrases urge faith, and the last two phrases directly reveal the real. "The World-Honored One, only after a long span of the Dharma, must at last speak the truth" is precisely the revealing of the truth. That the old attachment is stirred and present doubt arises — wondering whether this might not be some demon impersonating the Buddha — comes about precisely on account of hearing these words. Since the Buddha's words, being just as they truly are, urge faith, why would this instead produce doubt? It is precisely to guard against those who, on account of this doubt, might give rise to slander that faith must be urged here.

From "he told the assembly of śrāvakas" onward makes clear Śākyamuni's opening of the three vehicles; the text falls into three parts. The first line directly makes clear the opening of the three, about to make clear the error of the two vehicles, and hence it says, "those who have attained nirvāṇa." There is also an interpretation that takes "I have caused them to be freed from the bondage of suffering and to attain nirvāṇa" as referring instead to the bodhisattva vehicle of the six perfections. How is this known? Practicing the six perfections frees one from bondage to the four lower destinies, though one is not yet able to enter final extinction; only after three incalculable eons and a hundred additional eons does one attain nirvāṇa — the word "attain" here expressing something distant that is only eventually reached. Moreover, the practice of the six perfections first liberates others, hence "I have caused them to be freed from the bondage of suffering," and only afterward takes up the uncontaminated, hence "attain nirvāṇa" — inferring the meaning from this, it is known that this refers to the vehicle of the six perfections.

Moreover, inferring this from the count itself: the following line says, "the Buddha, by the power of skillful means, showed forth the teaching of the three vehicles" — if this does not refer to what has just been discussed, then what could possibly make up the third of the three? It would hardly make sense to count the two vehicles twice over so as to arrive at three. The following half-line then directly refutes the three vehicles as being altogether provisional and false, and the next two phrases set forth the intent behind establishing these three: this intent is simply to draw beings provisionally away from every suffering, not because the three vehicles are themselves the true reality, but only because they serve as a gate of skillful means.

From "at that time the great assembly" onward is the raising of doubt and the making of the request, since, on hearing that the three vehicles are provisional and the one alone is true, the old attachment is stirred and doubt arises.

The text falls into two: first, narrating the doubt; second, directly making the request for resolution. Narrating the doubt again falls into two: first, the narrator's own account; second, the actual arising of the doubt. First the narrator recounts the doubt of the twelve hundred, and next recounts that of the fourfold assembly. Though the passage above refuted all three vehicles alike as being provisional, this narration of the doubt confines itself to the two vehicles alone, because their attachment is heaviest and their doubt deepest, and hence they are singled out. If one reaches the account of the doubt stated below, it says that the great number of those seeking buddhahood, together with the bodhisattvas, amounts to eighty thousand, all of whom likewise have this doubt — hence it is known that all three vehicles alike share this doubt, the two vehicles being singled out here merely for emphasis. From "each conceived this thought" onward is the actual doubt, which again falls into two: first, doubting the Buddha's two wisdoms; second, doubting what they themselves have attained. From "why does he earnestly praise skillful means" is precisely the general doubt regarding the twin wisdoms of the provisional and the real. From "and they said this: the dharma the Buddha has attained is profound" is the doubting of real wisdom; from "what he has spoken has a purport hard to know" onward is the doubting of expedient wisdom.

It is upon hearing "the words of the buddhas are not different; they must at last speak the truth" that this doubt arises from it. Why is this? The Buddha formerly taught that the wisdom realized equally by the three vehicles did not differ, the only difference lying in whether the residual habits of affliction were exhausted or not. Now, suddenly, he praises the Tathāgata's two wisdoms as something beyond their own reach, and it is for this reason that they doubt the Buddha's two wisdoms. From "the Buddha has preached the single meaning of liberation, and we too have attained this dharma" onward, this is their doubting of what they themselves have attained: the noble path of the three vehicles is truly a way out, and by cultivating this principle they too have arrived at nirvāṇa — and yet now, suddenly, it is said that all of this is merely provisional, and they do not know which, then, is the true reality; hence it says, "not knowing to what this meaning tends." This doubt arises from the refutation above, which declared all three vehicles to be provisional and false.

From "at that time Śāriputra" onward is, second, the actual request. The text contains three requests and two refusals before the third; taking the first as an example, there are, in all, three refusals. Master Yao and Master Long say: "The first refusal is because the principle is profound and hard to understand, and the first request is a plea, for the sake of both self and others, for its resolution; the second refusal is to startle their doubt and disbelief, and the second request is because their roots, long planted, must surely bring understanding; the last refusal is because premature disclosure would certainly bring slander and a fall into evil destinies, and the last request is so that those of sharp faculties may gain benefit." Our present master holds, at times, that the Buddha, foreknowing that benefit would be gained over the course of the three rounds of teaching, and that the benefit for those before and those after would not come all at once, therefore restrained the teaching three times, awaiting the third request. The first request falls into two: first, the prose; second, the verse. The prose falls into two: first, stating the doubt; second, stating the request.

The stating of the doubt doubts the two wisdoms; the stating of the request includes both Śāriputra's own request and the assembly's request. Within the verse there are eleven lines, and the text falls into six parts: first, two lines versify the doubting of real wisdom. From "himself declaring what he has attained" onward is, second, three lines versifying the doubting of expedient wisdom. From "the uncontaminated" onward is, third, three lines making clear that the fourfold assembly of the three vehicles has this doubt — the first line makes clear the arhats, and the following two lines make clear the pratyekabuddhas, while the phrase in between, "and those who seek nirvāṇa," makes clear the bodhisattvas of the six perfections. How can this be known? Above it says "those who have attained nirvāṇa," whereas here it says "and" — this "and" indicates that these bodhisattvas seek nirvāṇa for themselves and, in addition, for others as well, and hence, differing from the two vehicles, it is known that these are bodhisattvas.

From "with regard to the" onward is, fourth, one-and-a-half lines making clear Śāriputra's own doubt. From "born from the Buddha's mouth" onward is, fifth, one line making clear the doubt of the buddhas' disciples. From "the gods and dragons" onward is, sixth, two lines generally making clear the shared doubt and request. As for the verse and the prose, their correspondence may generally be inferred; where a passage is not versified, it is simply carried over from the prose, and where the meaning is not urgent, the text need not be laboriously divided and analyzed point by point, and so it is left brief here. From "at that time the Buddha told" onward is the second refusal, once again restating the doubt in order to prompt the request — all of this is as the text itself has it, and so on.