Five Thousand Withdraw

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

Expounded by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai

From "at that time the World-Honored One told Śāriputra, since you have now three times earnestly requested it, how could I fail to speak" onward is the extensive clarification of opening the three to reveal the one, spanning in all seven and a half chapters. The text falls into three: first, the dharma-teaching for persons of superior faculties; second, the parable-teaching for persons of middling faculties; third, the teaching of past-life causal conditions for persons of inferior faculties — also called the teaching through principle, phenomena, and practice, following the precedent of the Da Pin [the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra], which likewise teaches in three for the three kinds of faculties, and so on. Here, ten points of analysis are used to sort this out: first, the general and the specific; second, whether there are real śrāvakas or none at all; third, whether the delusion is thick or thin; fourth, whether the faculties are transformed or not transformed; fifth, whether the faculties attain realization or fail to; sixth, whether there is comprehension in response or none; seventh, whether a prediction is received or not; eighth, whether the depth of realization is shallow or deep; ninth, whether the benefit gained is provisional or real; tenth, whether it awaits its proper time or does not.

First, clarifying the general and the specific: the first round, taken specifically, is named the dharma-teaching, but taken generally it comprises all three — "like the udumbara flower, which blooms but once in its season" is the parable-teaching; "if I should encounter sentient beings, I teach them all, without exception, the buddha path" is the causal-condition teaching. The middle round, taken specifically, is named the parable-teaching, but taken generally it, too, comprises all three: "I did not speak of this before, since it was all for the sake of converting bodhisattvas" — and, further, combining the parable with the distinguishing, within the one buddha vehicle, of the teaching of three — this is the dharma-teaching; "at the abodes of twenty thousand koṭis of buddhas he constantly taught and transformed you" is the causal-condition teaching. If one holds that this passage belongs to the dharma-teaching, one may instead take the passage where the elder, on hearing this, is startled and enters the burning house so as to rescue his son, as the causal-condition teaching. The last round, taken specifically, is named the teaching of past-life causal conditions, but taken generally it, too, comprises all three: "when the time for nirvāṇa arrived, and the assembly was also purified, he caused them to enter the Buddha's wisdom" is the dharma-teaching; "there was a single guide" is the parable-teaching. As for why it is made into three rounds at all: it follows the majority and follows what is primary, and sets aside the minority and what is secondary, wishing that the names should not become confused, each round being fixed according to a single governing sense.

Question: If the three rounds are for the three kinds of faculties, and yet each single round, taken generally, comprises all three teachings, then should not a single teaching accommodate all three kinds of faculties?

Answer: The dharma-teaching does not accommodate only the very highest of the superior faculties — it also reaches the middling and the inferior; but since what is primary is taken and what is secondary is set aside, it is said to accommodate persons of superior faculties. The same holds for the remaining two rounds.

Second, clarifying whether there are real śrāvakas or none: Guangzhai holds definitely that there are śrāvakas who really practice [the small vehicle], for if he said there were none real, then what would the provisional be responding to? Kaishan, another contemporary lecture-master, explains that there are no śrāvakas who really practice, citing the Śrīmālā [Sūtra]'s "in their initial undertakings, the three vehicles are not ignorant of the Dharma" — since even ordinary worldlings already know the one vehicle, how could there still be adherents of the two vehicles clinging to the fruits of the small [vehicle]? The sūtra's clarification that there are [real śrāvakas] is itself the provisional. Both these schools cling one-sidedly, straying from the sūtra and losing its meaning. If one holds definitely that there are [real śrāvakas], then how could the sūtra say that there are no śrāvaka disciples, and that he only converted bodhisattvas? If one holds definitely that there are none, then who is it that enters the phantom city? Nor would there then be any three vehicles to be reconciled into one, and what would the provisional be drawing in? If one says that there really are such beings drawn in by the provisional, then there ought equally to be a real Tripiṭaka buddha, who is in turn drawn in by a provisional Tripiṭaka buddha; but if there really is no such buddha, and there is only a provisional buddha, then why would one refuse to allow that there is only a provisional śrāvaka, and no real śrāvaka? This comparison does not hold: it is only where there really is one who has cut off the delusions within the threefold world that this is called "real," and it is the provisional that responds to him. Where is there a buddha who has cut off the delusions within the threefold world, such that there is a provisional buddha responding to this buddha?

Here it is made clear that "existing" and "not existing" cannot be clung to one-sidedly: viewed from the elder's real wisdom, there is no such thing as a servant hired to do menial work; but from the standpoint of the impoverished son's own capacity, he himself calls himself just such a servant. The Fahua Lun [Vasubandhu's treatise on the Lotus Sūtra] speaks of four kinds of śrāvakas: first, those of decisive resolve; second, those of overweening pride; third, those who have retreated from the great [vehicle]; fourth, those manifested through response. The first two, not yet ripened, are not given a prediction; the latter two are given one. According to the present sūtra there ought to be five: first, one who has long practiced the small [vehicle] and whose path has, in this present life, come to ripeness, and who, on hearing the small teaching, attains its fruit — this corresponds, in the treatise, to the śrāvaka of decisive resolve; second, one who was originally a bodhisattva cultivating the path over accumulated eons, but who, midway, grew weary of birth-and-death, retreated from the great and took up the small — the Da Pin calls this a "differing wholesome root"; the Buddha, for the time being, brings his small path to completion by teaching him the small teaching, and, in accordance with that teaching, cuts off the fetters and takes its fruit — since his retreat from the great is not long past and his practice of the small is recent, he ought reasonably to awaken with ease — this corresponds, in the treatise, to the śrāvaka who has retreated from bodhi; third, on account of these two, the buddhas and bodhisattvas, secretly [being what they are] within while outwardly manifesting [as śrāvakas], accomplish the drawing-in of beings so as to bring them into the great path — this corresponds, in the treatise, to the śrāvaka manifested through response; fourth, one who, seeing that the two kinds, the provisional and the real, are both able to bring one out of birth-and-death, delights in nirvāṇa and cultivates precepts, concentration, and wisdom, and who, having some slight contemplative wisdom but not yet having entered the semblance stage, attains something slight and calls this the realization of the fruit — this is called "not yet attained yet calling it attained, not yet realized yet calling it realized" — this corresponds, in the treatise, precisely to the śrāvaka of overweening pride;

fifth, the śrāvaka of the great vehicle, who causes everyone to hear the sound of the buddha path — [this fifth kind] does have the character of a śrāvaka if reckoned from the two kinds, the decisively resolved and the one who has retreated from bodhi, but if reckoned from the principle of the great vehicle, there is in truth no extinction into ashes at all, but only an eternal dwelling in the phantom city, ultimately to return to the place of treasure. Given that this is how the real stands, then there is no provisional at all, and hence no [provisional] śrāvaka. As for the one of overweening pride, since he has not yet entered the [true] stage, he is not real; and since he is not one manifested through response, he is not provisional either. If one grasps this point, then "existing" and "not existing" become perfectly clear — why exert oneself in bitter dispute over it? Moreover, taking up specifically the question of the great-vehicle śrāvaka, one may again discuss whether it exists or not: if, as the provisional, he manifests as one responsively transformed, outwardly showing the small trace while inwardly concealing his great virtue, then one says there is no great-vehicle śrāvaka; but if, from his own practice, the trace is given rise to and the origin is revealed, then one says there is a great-vehicle śrāvaka. The true intent of the present opening of the three to reveal the one is precisely to cause the śrāvaka of decisive resolve and the one who has retreated from the great to become a great-vehicle śrāvaka: once his own practice is established, he is then able himself to convert and respond to [other] śrāvakas. If one grasps this point, then one penetrates to the meaning of "existing" and "not existing."

Third, clarifying whether the delusion is thick or thin: Master Yao says, "After the three kinds of faculties have attained the fruit, they wander in the contemplation of non-arising. The principle of non-arising is one; yet when they emerge from this contemplation and take the three teachings as their object, these differ. Taking up the three teachings, which must differ, they become confused about the single principle of non-arising — thinking, since the teachings are indeed three, how could the principle possibly be one? And, conversely, taking up the one principle, they become confused about the three teachings — thinking, since the principle is indeed one, how could the teachings possibly be three? Hesitating between principle and teaching, wavering between gain and loss — where the principle confuses the teaching, this has the sense of a gain; where the teaching confuses the principle, this has the sense of a loss. Those of superior faculties, in whom the principle confuses the teaching more strongly, on first hearing the dharma-teaching, find it accords with their disposition and awaken at once; those of inferior faculties, in whom the teaching confuses the principle more strongly, on hearing the dharma-teaching that there are not three [vehicles], find this runs contrary to their settled view, and so only after hearing all three [teachings] do they come to understand; those of middling faculties stand between these two pillars — they do not awaken at the dharma-teaching, but come to understanding readily at the parable-teaching."

Now, it must be said that this explanation of the three kinds of faculties need not necessarily be so. Between what principle and what teaching do these three kinds of persons hesitate? If they waver between the principle and teaching of the small vehicle, then their doubt and confusion are not yet exhausted, and they are not even persons who have cut off the fetters at the first fruit; if they waver between the principle and teaching of the great vehicle, the great vehicle is utterly and permanently distinct [from the small] — how could it ever be so mixed up with the small vehicle that one could speak of "hesitating" between them? If it is a matter of the small confusing the great, or the great confusing the small, then, prior to this point, the expedient means had not yet been refuted — how, then, could there suddenly be, in their coming and going through contemplation, any prior hesitation at all? And if there were already such prior hesitation, then doubt would already have arisen and attachment already been stirred, and this would not be something beginning only today — but if the attachment were already stirred and the doubt already arisen beforehand, then on hearing the opening of the three to reveal the one they ought to comprehend it at once — how, then, could there still, all of a sudden, be alarm and doubt?

Advance or retreat, this account has no foundation, and so it is not adopted. It is now made clear that the sharpness or dullness of faculties is, in every case, discussed in terms of great-vehicle capacity, while the thickness or thinness of delusion is spoken of in terms of the delusion of the distinct teaching — this then makes four propositions: first, light delusion and sharp faculties; second, heavy delusion and sharp faculties; third, light delusion and dull faculties; fourth, heavy delusion and dull faculties. If the delusion of the distinct teaching is light and the great-vehicle faculty is sharp, one awakens at the very first hearing; if the delusion is heavy but the faculty sharp, one comes to understand only at the second hearing; if the delusion is light but the faculties dull, one is only resolved at the third hearing; as for the fourth proposition, even after three hearings one is unable to attain awakening, and this serves only to form a karmic connection within the assembly. It may also be that the first two propositions, both being of sharp faculties, together constitute the superior faculties, and the middle two propositions constitute the middling and inferior faculties, and so on.

Moreover, in terms of the three layers of ignorance in the initial stage, which cover over the middle way of the first abode: at the initial dharma-teaching, persons of superior faculties exhaust all three layers of ignorance at once, open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, enter the stage of bodhisattva, and receive the prediction of bodhi; those of middling faculties cut off two of the three layers; those of inferior faculties cut off one layer. Then, at the time of the parable-teaching, those of middling faculties exhaust the third layer, open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, enter the stage of bodhisattva, and receive the prediction; those of inferior faculties advance and cut off a second layer. Then, on hearing the causal-condition teaching, those of inferior faculties exhaust all three layers, open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and enter the stage of bodhisattva. This is comparable to how, in the small vehicle, so long as the sixteen mind-moments are not yet complete one cannot be called one who has attained the first fruit, and it is only when the sixteen mind-moments are complete that one is called a srota-āpanna.

Fourth, clarifying whether the faculties are transformed or not transformed: the old explanation says, "Those of superior faculties awaken at once on first hearing the dharma-teaching, while those of middling faculties are transformed to become the same as the superior, and those of inferior faculties advance to become the same as the middling; then, at the time of the parable-teaching, those of middling faculties, having already become superior, are then able to awaken, and those of inferior faculties become superior; then, at the time of the causal-condition teaching, those of inferior faculties, having already become the same as the superior, thereupon attain awakening." But if this is so, and the inferior are transformed into the superior, then by the time of the causal-condition teaching all would be superior, and, being equally sharp, how could any still be called dull and made to wait for the causal-condition teaching? If, once transformed into the superior, one awakens together with the superior — but if one has not yet awakened and still bears the name "dull" — then there is no meaning at all to "transformation of faculties." Take, for instance, Śāriputra, who awakened at a single hearing, and Maudgalyāyana, who required a second hearing, and yet both alike attained the first fruit: if both were equally sharp there would be no difference of superior and inferior between them, but if they are still called, respectively, sharp and dull, then the meaning of "transformation of faculties" does not hold up. Now, the minds of sentient beings are unsettled: meeting adverse conditions, the sharp is turned into the dull; meeting favorable conditions, the dull is turned into the sharp. Having encountered buddhas and heard the Dharma in former lives, some have had their inferior and middling faculties transformed into superior ones, and awaken, all alike, at the dharma-teaching; some have had their inferior transformed into middling, and come to understanding on hearing the parable-teaching; those of the inferior who are not transformed only come to full understanding after all three rounds. Transformation of faculties, understood in this way, differs from the old explanation. It is comparable to three blows of an axe cutting wood: the sharp axe fells it in one stroke, the middling in two, and the dull in three — the names "sharp" and "dull" are not thereby lost, even though the place where the wood is severed is the same.

Question: Once the three kinds of faculties enter the stage of the first abode, is there still sharpness or dullness among them?

Answer: Once the essence of true cultivation is manifested, there is no longer any difference of higher or lower.

Question: If so, then above the first abode, when conditioned cultivation is again given rise to, is there superiority or inferiority?

Answer: Among persons of this same stage there is no longer any superiority or inferiority — once the essence of true cultivation is fused, how could there be any difference?

Fifth, clarifying whether there is realization or no realization: the sūtra frequently makes clear that bodhisattvas are of superior faculties, pratyekabuddhas of middling faculties, and śrāvakas of inferior faculties — but does this mean that bodhisattvas, as a whole, ought to attain realization at the dharma-teaching, pratyekabuddhas, as a whole, come to understanding at the parable-teaching, and śrāvakas, as a whole, attain realization at the causal-condition teaching? In fact, the sūtra, in a single general pass, distinguishes the three kinds of faculties, but when it comes to the actual meaning of realization and understanding, this need not hold so strictly. In the present sūtra one sees only śrāvakas attaining understanding, and does not see pratyekabuddhas mentioned, because the pratyekabuddha, being of middling faculties, having encountered the Buddha's appearance in the world, is included among the ranks of śrāvakas, and, attaining realization according to his faculties, is not separately singled out as "pratyekabuddha." Hence Śāriputra's verse of request says that "those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas" are among "the bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs" — from this passage one knows that pratyekabuddhas are included and gathered within the fourfold assembly. Also, the Dharma-Teacher Chapter says, "bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, and upāsikās, those who seek to be śrāvakas, those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas" — how could there be no pratyekabuddhas attaining understanding? The old explanation says, "Bodhisattvas are of superior faculties, though not necessarily all sharp — they are classed as superior because they are the majority — and their attached mind is easily transformed; tracing their original aspiration, they seek buddhahood, but, clinging [to the small], once they have passed three hundred yojanas, they then seek the nearby fruit — this doubt is easily awakened from. The three kinds of faculties among bodhisattvas alike come to understanding at the dharma-teaching: the superior perhaps at the abbreviated teaching, the middling perhaps at the beginning of the extended teaching, and the inferior on a par with Śāriputra." It is now made clear that the term "bodhisattva" applies broadly — anyone at all who has given rise to the great resolve is a bodhisattva; why must they all, as a whole, be of sharp faculties?

And even Śāriputra himself was still a lesser figure among them — how, then, could they all, as a whole, have already attained realization before the first round even began? If it were so, then in the transmission section of the Life Span Chapter, what would be the point of the various bodhisattvas attaining, stage by stage, the acceptance of non-arising, or giving rise to the resolve for bodhi? The old explanation says, "The realization within the Life Span Chapter is, in every case, the dharma-body advancing the path and diminishing further birth." It is now said that this is not so: there are six hundred and eighty myriad koṭis of nayutas of Ganges-sands' worth of people who attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas — these people are only now, for the first time, attaining this acceptance, and one should know that, prior to the Life Span Chapter, they were not yet the dharma-body. Hence it is known that a bodhisattva's attainment of realization cannot be confined to the beginning of the first round alone.

Question: If a bodhisattva's attainment of realization extends throughout, from beginning to end, then the attainment of realization by the two vehicles ought likewise to extend to the end.

Answer: Once the three rounds have finished fixing the natural bond of father and son, all are then called bodhisattvas — even supposing realization comes later, it is alike called a bodhisattva's realization.

Sixth, clarifying whether there is comprehension in response or none: if the three vehicles alike attain realization, why is it that one sees only śrāvakas offering their comprehension in response, and finds none in the other two? It is now made clear: one who lives where no buddha has appeared in the world is called a solitary-awakened pratyekabuddha; one who hears the Buddha teach the twelve links of dependent origination is called a pratyekabuddha in the fuller sense — since these latter are already included among the ranks of śrāvakas when they attain realization and comprehension, they are, in every case, not separately singled out, and the general purport may be seen from this. Śāriputra, Kāśyapa, and the others are all, in nature, of the capacity of the middle vehicle, and so the śrāvakas' comprehension in response also includes that of the pratyekabuddhas, and there is no need to single them out separately. Moreover, among the fourfold assembly there are some who have given rise to the pratyekabuddha resolve, and the realization such people attain is not uniform — the Chapter on Belief and Understanding says, "he secretly sent two men to pursue and seize him and bring him back," which is precisely this meaning. As for why bodhisattvas offer no comprehension in response: the śrāvaka teaching had not made clear the attainment of buddhahood, and the present sūtra opens up their path of returning to the great, so that, fearing their own understanding might be mistaken, they set it forth before the Buddha in response — bodhisattvas are not in this position, and hence offer no comprehension in response. There are, moreover, three further senses to this: first, a bodhisattva's original intent is to seek buddhahood, and though he may have some divergent attachment, this attachment is light, and he ultimately turns to take up buddhahood — he has no anxiety about failing to attain it; hearing the teaching of the three rounds now only sets his contemplative wisdom in order, and so he need not offer any comprehension in response. Second, a bodhisattva's realization of the great is attested everywhere throughout the text, whereas the two vehicles' becoming buddhas begins only with the present teaching — the text, following what is essential, was transmitted accordingly, and so the bodhisattvas' comprehension in response was abbreviated; the Indic text perhaps had it, but the Chinese, abbreviating, simply did not write it down. Third, the bodhisattvas' stage and practice are profound and far surpassing, and the various newly arisen minor bodhisattvas dare not offer their own comprehension in response; only once the Life Span Chapter has been preached does Maitreya offer a comprehensive comprehension on behalf of all, beginning from the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and concluding with those who have but one more birth remaining — this then constitutes a complete comprehension in response, and what more could be sought, and so on?

Seventh, clarifying whether a prediction is received or not: if all alike offer comprehension in response, why is it that śrāvakas receive a prediction, while pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas are not seen to receive one? This too has three senses. First: formerly it was taught that the two vehicles, having entered the correct stage, were unable to give rise to the resolve — how, then, could they receive a prediction? Now that they have awakened to the great, they delight in this special resolution, and so predictions of eon and land are given to them. Bodhisattvas, having given rise to the resolve to seek buddhahood, have their practice already fulfilled and self-complete, and so they do not delight in urgently seeking buddhahood, nor is it urgent to bestow such a prediction upon them; moreover, in the earlier teachings bodhisattvas were given predictions everywhere throughout — this too is a constant teaching, transmitted and translated according to what was essential, as before, and so on. Second: bodhisattvas also do have distinct predictions — are not Devadatta and the Nāga Girl given predictions? And the Dharma-Teacher Chapter says, "those who seek to be śrāvakas, those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas, those who seek the buddha path — all such kinds as these, once they have heard the Lotus Sūtra in the Buddha's presence, I give every one of them a prediction that they shall attain complete awakening" — is this not, then, a universal prediction for all? Third: the two vehicles have, until now, never yet received the prediction of the eight aspects, and so a prediction of their eon and land is given them; bodhisattvas have already, previously, received their prediction, and so this is not made clear a second time. A shallow, immediate prediction is already obtained at the first abode, and this is not what bodhisattvas delight in — what bodhisattvas delight in is precisely the distant prediction of the perfect, ultimate, sublime enlightenment. Hence, in the Life Span Chapter, from the initial giving rise of the resolve down to the attainment with but one birth remaining, the sublime cause is thereby fulfilled and the ultimate fruit suddenly made perfect — this is precisely the bestowal of the prediction of the dharma-body — how could this be called "no prediction"?

Question: If those of the small vehicle awaken to the great, they ought to receive, in like manner, the prediction of the dharma-body — how, then, do they receive the prediction of the eight aspects?

Answer: The eight aspects are the response-body prediction; and once one receives the response-body prediction, one knows there must be an underlying source — this is so that beings may know of it and, hearing it, together form a bond for the future, and so the response-body prediction is given. Moreover, if these two vehicles should hear the Life Span Chapter, they would likewise, alike diminishing further birth, receive the prediction of the dharma-body.

Eighth, clarifying whether the depth of realization is shallow or deep: in a single general pass, they all alike break through ignorance and realize the first abode, but on close examination there must be, in fact, a difference of brightness and dimness. On first hearing the dharma-teaching one already enters the Buddha's wisdom — hearing the parable-teaching further, how could this not brighten it yet again? And on hearing the causal-condition teaching, the principle naturally advances further still; hearing the Life Span Chapter further, it becomes yet more excellent and profound — just as one who listens to the Dharma, hearing it again, surpasses what came before, so the single and the compound, the thick and the thin, may be understood by comparison to this.

Ninth, clarifying that the benefit gained by the provisional and by the real is not the same: one view holds that only the real practitioner gains benefit, while the provisional practitioner exists purely to draw others in as an echoing presence, and his own benefit is not discussed. It is now made clear that this is not so: by the time one reaches the Life Span Chapter, both the provisional and the real alike gain benefit — as the path advances ever higher and further birth is ever more diminished, drawing near the ultimate limit of the perfect, with but a single birth remaining — is this not the benefit of the provisional practitioner as well? Hence, at the outset, the provisional practitioners serve as an echoing presence, ripening the real practitioners together with them, and afterward, when the ultimate fruit is preached, their own path is likewise made bright. The text says, "the benefit of his breathing in and out extends even to other lands" — the benefit of his breath resting in another is itself his own benefit as well; the real practitioner's gaining of benefit comes about through the provisional's drawing-in, and the merit of transforming others returns to oneself, so the provisional too gains benefit. Hence, with a single voice he expounds the Dharma, and sentient beings, each according to their kind, attain understanding accordingly — why must one wait for the Life Span Chapter, and so on? Moreover, one's own wish to attain this true and pure great Dharma is itself a benefit to oneself.

Tenth, clarifying whether it awaits its proper time or does not: those who, prior to this, had not awakened, and must necessarily wait for the Lotus Sūtra to awaken, are called those who await their time; those who had already come to understanding in the teachings prior to the Lotus Sūtra are called those who do not await their time. Why is this so? The Buddha has both an overt and a covert manner of teaching. If one argues from the overt teaching, then, prior to the Lotus Sūtra, the two vehicles had not yet awakened to the great path, and it was necessary that the five flavors ripen them gradually before they could be brought together in the Lotus — hence it says, "because the time for preaching it had not yet arrived, but now is precisely its time, and I shall decisively preach the great vehicle." This is precisely awaiting one's time. If one argues from the covert teaching, then it is not necessarily the case that one must wait for all five flavors to be complete before being brought together in the Lotus — there were, prior to this, those who covertly entered the great vehicle, and hence they are called those who do not await their time; this is the great distinction between awaiting and not awaiting one's time. Applied to the three rounds, this too is a matter of awaiting or not awaiting one's time; applied to the two gates of trace and origin, this too is a matter of awaiting or not awaiting one's time — that there should be earlier and later awakenings and entries is precisely this meaning.

Question: If there is a kind of capacity not included in either the covert or the overt time, ought this to mean that its time has been lost, and it will never be able to awaken?

Answer: Other sūtras may hold this to be a lost time, but the present sūtra does not. Though such a person does not awaken during either the covert or overt time, and though he gives rise to the notion of final extinction, he nonetheless comes to hear this sūtra in another land — hence there is no lost time at all; it is simply that he awaits the time proper to that other land.

Question: When the five thousand rise and depart, is this not a lost time?

Answer: These people are to gain benefit, after the Tathāgata's parinirvāṇa, through those who propagate the sūtra.

Question: In the first round, Śāriputra requests on behalf of the fourfold assembly and the three kinds of faculties, while in the parable round he requests on behalf of the middling and inferior — how, then, can it be said that the Buddha preaches each of the three rounds for each of the three kinds of faculties respectively?

Answer: This phrasing is not quite apt. The request is a request made on behalf of all, and the preaching, too, is preaching for the sake of all — it is simply that those of superior faculties, being sharp of wisdom, attain realization on hearing the first teaching; those of middling faculties, occupying the middle, attain realization on hearing the parable; and those of inferior faculties, occupying the lowest place, attain realization only on hearing all three. You ought to follow the meaning — why cling so to the wording, and so on?

Question: "Past-life causal conditions" is a matter belonging to the past — is the parable, then, a matter belonging to the future, or to the present?

Answer: The sūtra has no explicit text on this, but reasoning from its meaning it ought to be so: drawing the three back into the one, when the three look toward the one, the one belongs to the future; citing an event to serve as a parable, the parable belongs to the present. Measuring what comes later against what comes before, it ought to be as the question supposes.

Question: The old explanation holds that the five turbidities obstruct the great vehicle, sorted into four propositions as discussed above; there are those who say that the view of extinction and ignorance together combine to form the obstruction, pointing to the Fahua Lun's statement, "those without afflictions have a defiled pride, and do not know that the one vehicle's dharma-body abides permanently," as evidence for this. But if an ordinary worldling neither clings to nirvāṇa nor has heard the Dharma, then ignorance alone forms the obstruction — if so, is it that ignorance is broken only after hearing the Dharma over the course of the three rounds, or is it broken before ever having heard the Dharma? If it is broken after hearing the Dharma, then ignorance is not truly the obstruction; but if one is able to break ignorance without ever having heard the Dharma, then it would seem, in every respect, that there is no obstruction at all. What is the meaning of this?

Answer: This is a thesis established by others, and it shall now be reconciled for their sake. It is comparable to the lamp arising and the darkness vanishing — one cannot fix a definite order of before and after between them; yet even though there is no such order, the darkness is nonetheless, without question, the obstruction, and so on.

Question: The Śrīmālā [Sūtra] says, "in their initial undertakings, the three vehicles are not ignorant of the Dharma, and know of themselves that they shall awaken." The Upāsaka Precepts Sūtra, fascicle fourteen, says, "those of the two vehicles know of themselves that they will attain bodhi, and for the present take up the fruit of the small vehicle." And fascicle thirteen says, "knowing it is easy, practicing it is hard — though one knows the one vehicle, one nonetheless takes up the fruit of the arhat." Both these sūtras speak of "knowing" — why, then, does the present sūtra say that, even after the three kinds of faculties have heard the teaching, they still, of themselves, do not know, doubting at first and awakening only afterward? What is the meaning of this?

Answer: This sūtra, too, speaks of knowing. The text says, "if one has truly attained arhatship and does not believe this Dharma, there is no such possibility — except after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, when no buddha is present before one; such a person, though he gives rise to the notion of final extinction, will, upon encountering another buddha, then attain resolution." There are, in all, three senses here: first, making clear knowing; next, making clear not-knowing; and finally, reconciling them by returning to knowing — it is not that they never know at all. Moreover, Śāriputra himself says, "now, in the Buddha's presence, we have all fallen into doubt and confusion — I now do not know to what this meaning tends." And at the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū, the śrāvakas, too, largely gave rise to doubt and confusion — those who saw the Buddha and heard the Dharma still doubted and did not know, how much more so those who neither saw nor heard, that they should suddenly come to know? If one clings to these two passages as mutually contradicting each other, this only increases contention, to no benefit to the path. Those who debate this ought properly only to debate other matters — whether śrāvakas who have become sages can know or cannot know is purely the Buddha's own domain, not something for you to be so familiar with. Let it now be reconciled, tentatively, as follows.

"The initial undertaking of the three vehicles" — "initial undertaking" admits of two senses. If "initial undertaking" refers to the distant past, then, having once heard the great teaching, one is indeed not ignorant of the Dharma; but if it is taken in the sense of the intervening forgetting, where, in this present life, one has studied the small and only now begins the cultivation of mindfulness, then, as an "initial undertaking" in this sense, one does not know. Such is the meaning of it. If one grasps this point: where "initial undertaking" refers to the provisional, one does indeed know; where "initial undertaking" refers to the real, one does not know. There are those who say, "the sharp are able to know, the dull are unable to know" — this would then require four propositions: whether provisional or real, whether sharp or dull, none are able to know; whether provisional or real, whether sharp or dull, all alike are able to know; whether provisional or real, whether sharp or dull, on hearing they know, without hearing they do not know; whether provisional or real, whether sharp or dull, all alike are shown to be neither knowing nor not-knowing. This judgment is not adopted here; rather, it is held only that the provisional practitioner, within his own mind, has long known this quite clearly, while the real practitioner, not yet having entered the great, therefore does not know — the meaning is self-evident from this, and so on.

Question: The pratyekabuddha arises in an age without a buddha — how, then, can there be pratyekabuddhas present at the three rounds?

Answer: The Shi Lun [the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, attributed to Nāgārjuna] says, "as for pratyekabuddha and solitary-awakened one: the solitary-awakened one arises in an age without a buddha, while the pratyekabuddha-proper vows to be born in an age with a buddha." The Huayan [Sūtra, the Avataṃsaka] says, "when a bodhisattva descends from Tuṣita and emits light to illumine such a one, if he awakens he casts off his body at once; if he does not awaken, he is transferred elsewhere." The Da Jing [the Nirvāṇa Sūtra] speaks of the comet. The Zhong Lun [the Middle Treatise] says, "the pratyekabuddha who arises after the buddha-dharma has already vanished from the world is the solitary-awakened one. As for one who vows to be born in an age with a buddha: he has previously attained the first fruit, and if, before his fourteen remaining births are complete, he encounters a buddha, he becomes an arhat; if he does not encounter a buddha, he becomes a solitary-awakened one; but if he does encounter a buddha, he neither casts off his lifespan nor is transferred elsewhere, since it was precisely his vow to see a buddha that brought him this far. The same holds, by analogy, for the second and third fruits." There are, moreover, community-dwelling pratyekabuddhas, who, in an age without a buddha, teach and transform others as master and disciples. There ought to be two kinds of these: after the Buddha has departed the world, when there are no written teachings and sentient beings' faculties have grown dull, the pratyekabuddha does not preach the Dharma — this is not the community-dwelling type, for the community-dwelling type is one who is able to preach the Dharma. There are, further, transformation-manifested pratyekabuddhas, who, wherever it is fitting that they be seen, manifest in the form of a pratyekabuddha. That there should be pratyekabuddhas present in the assembly at the three rounds may thus be understood.

The first round's dharma-teaching: the text falls into five parts. First, from "since you have earnestly requested three times, how could I fail to speak" down to the end of this fascicle, is precisely the dharma-teaching itself; second, from the beginning of the second fascicle down through the verse section, is Śāriputra's comprehension in response; third, from "now I, before gods and humans" down to "protected and held in mind by the buddhas," is the Buddha's confirmation; fourth, from "you, in a future age" down to "you should rightly rejoice for yourself," is the bestowal of the prediction; fifth, from "the fourfold assembly" down to "all dedicated to the buddha path," is the fourfold assembly's rejoicing.

The initial part has both prose and verse. The prose falls into three: first, granting permission; second, receiving the charge; third, the actual preaching. The text of granting permission falls into three: first, permission in accordance with the request; second, permission with an admonition; third, permission that sorts out the assembly. "You have now three times requested it" is permission in accordance; "now listen closely" is permission with an admonition — "listen closely" is the wisdom born of hearing, "reflect on it well" is the wisdom born of reflection, and "bear it in mind" is the wisdom born of cultivation. The Da Jing makes clear four wholesome dharmas that serve as the cause of great nirvāṇa, the first being a good spiritual friend — this is the Tathāgata — and the rest may be readily understood. "When he had spoken these words" is the permission that sorts out the assembly — since the five thousand were present in the assembly, the Tathāgata had three times refused to speak, and now, on the point of granting permission and preaching, he uses his awesome spiritual power to send them away, and hence this is called "sorting out the assembly." The five turbidities, obstructing them heavily, are called grave transgressions; clinging to the small so as to obscure the great is called a deep-seated root; not having attained yet claiming to have attained is called overweening pride — not yet having attained the third fruit, not yet having realized the stage beyond further training. "Having faults such as these" refers to the three faults of obstruction, attachment, and pride.

"And yet did not restrain them" means: since, on hearing the brief opening of the three to reveal the one above, the words were terse and the meaning still concealed, no slander had yet arisen, and this was sufficient to serve as the causal condition for the binding of the jewel into their robes — for them to depart was therefore beneficial; but were they to hear the extended opening of the three to reveal the one, this would run contrary to their disposition and give rise to slander, and for them to remain would therefore be harmful — and it is for this reason that he did not restrain them. "This assembly no longer has any twigs or leaves" means: twigs and leaves, being slight and insubstantial, are unfit for use as a vessel — these people, clinging to the expedient means within the expedient means, are not vessels for the great; the Da Pin says, "clinging to twigs and leaves while abandoning the root is what makes a person unwise" — this is precisely this meaning. "Their withdrawal, too, is a fine thing" means: since they had, by their own small attainment, obscured themselves, and had, moreover, hindered the great light of others, their withdrawal now brings with it no fault of slandering the Dharma, and, further, no transgression of obstructing others — hence it is said to be a fine thing. So long as the twigs and leaves above had not yet departed, the Tathāgata refused three times; once he saw that they earnestly and truly wished to hear it, Śāriputra requested a fourth time — master and disciple, discerning the occasion, were not merely being obstinate.

Question: Given the Buddha's great compassion, why did he not use his spiritual power to make them remain present without hearing, as with the deaf and mute in the Huayan, and why did he not intensify it into something like the poisoned drum, as with the bodhisattvas Priyaṅkara and Vimatisamudghātin?

Answer: Each has its own reason. At the concluding assembly of the Huayan, the gradual teaching was only just beginning to be opened, and the small attachment had not yet been broken, and so those unfit to hear remained present in the assembly yet were set apart from it by a barrier. Here, however, "the buddhas, only after a long span of the Dharma, must at last speak the truth" — the true intent is to extinguish the transformation-city and break through the hermit's hut, and it is fitting that the unfit be sorted out and sent away. If both departing and remaining alike gave rise to slander, then it would be fitting to force the preaching, as Priyaṅkara did; here, however, their departure is beneficial — how, then, could they suddenly be made to remain? Their remaining would be harmful — how, then, could they suddenly not be sent away? Priyaṅkara, out of compassion in the narrower sense of loving-kindness, forced the preaching; the Tathāgata, out of compassion in the sense of pity for suffering, sent them away.

Question: If the five thousand, while present in the assembly, gained no benefit at all, what benefit is there in their departing?

Answer: These are not persons matched to this present occasion, but simply people forming a karmic connection, as already explained above. Formerly, at the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū, there were likewise immeasurable sentient beings who gave rise to doubt and confusion in their minds, and who, life after life, were born together with their teacher, and who have now, every one, attained liberation — these people are just the same. At the preaching of the Da Jing, a hundred and fifty thousand koṭis of people did not give rise to a mind of faith in this sūtra, and yet these people, too, will in the future come to attain faith — by this precedent, the benefit for the five thousand is not far off. In the Golden Light Sūtra, where it speaks of the two kinds of people then present in Jambudvīpa, this too is an instance of the same principle.

"Now listen well" is the concluding of the granting of permission; the receiving of the charge is as the text has it.

From "such a sublime Dharma" onward is the actual extended preaching; the text falls into two: first, making clear the section on the four buddhas, extending the provisional-and-real of the buddhas discussed above; second, making clear the section on Śākyamuni, extending the provisional-and-real of Śākyamuni discussed above. The passage above accommodated but little, and so its text was terse; it spoke of "the buddhas" in general, and so its treatment of persons was abbreviated; it only opened the three to reveal the one, and so its meaning was abbreviated. Here, by contrast, there are many chapters and passages, and so the text is extensive; it makes clear five buddhas, and so its treatment of persons is extensive; it makes clear six topics, and so its meaning is extensive. The six are: first, praising the Dharma as rare; second, declaring that there is no falsehood in the teaching; third, opening the expedient means; fourth, showing forth the real; fifth, citing the five turbidities to explain the provisional; sixth, sorting out the false to establish firmly the real. Praising the Dharma causes reverence to arise; declaring there is no falsehood or error stops slander of it; opening the expedient means keeps one from clinging to the small; showing forth the real causes one to awaken to the great; citing the five turbidities shows that the three must necessarily be bestowed; sorting out the false requires that the real necessarily be established. Within the five chapters treating the several buddhas, each ought properly to be furnished with all six of these meanings, yet, in the earlier and later passages, they appear by turns and are not all fully present in every instance — this is simply because the Tathāgata's skillful preaching allows for abbreviation without any actual deficiency, and reaches its point without needless verbosity in the text. And, further, there is likewise no fixed sequence among the six meanings, and so on.

The section on the four buddhas falls into two: first, generally clarifying all buddhas; next, enumerating the three time-periods. The general chapter ought to be furnished with all six meanings, but here has only four: praising the Dharma; there being no falsehood; opening the expedient means; showing forth the real — the two meanings that are lacking are pointed to in the text that follows. Within praising the Dharma, both the dharma and the parable are praised together. "Only then does he speak it" means: since the buddhas alike appear amid the five turbidities, each must necessarily first open the three, just as the present World-Honored One, only after more than forty years, first reveals the real — after so very long an interval, it is therefore said, "only then does he speak it." As for why it is not spoken for so long: it is because people are not yet fit for it, because the time has not yet arrived, and because the five thousand have not yet been sent away. Now that people are already fit, the time has already arrived, and the five thousand have already departed, he decisively preaches the great vehicle, and hence it is said, "only then does he speak it." As for "the udumbara flower": this refers to an auspicious wonder that appears but once in three thousand years, and when it does appear, a golden-wheel king comes forth — this represents that only after the three vehicles have been brought to ripeness is the sublime Dharma then preached, and the prediction of the Dharma-king bestowed. It is also comparable to how, only after passing through the three flavors of curds, fresh cream, and refined cream, is the flavor of ghee then spoken of, and so on. In terms of the contemplation of mind: the contemplation of mind is itself the middle, and this is called the "wonder"; this contemplation penetrates all dharmas through to the mark of reality, and this is called the "auspicious," and so on. "You should all believe" urges faith in the Dharma that is free of falsehood. This principle is utterly profound, its principle differing from what came before; these words are utterly sublime, their wording running counter to what came before; this practice is utterly universal, its practice at odds with what came before; this person is utterly supreme, superior to the inferior status of before — this points back to the coarseness of the four kinds of śrāvakas as hired servants, all of which are now made sublime, and, fearing that beings might give rise to slander over this, faith is therefore urged. To have faith in a person free of falsehood is to have faith in the Dharma that person preaches, which too is free of falsehood. From "expounded it according to what was fitting" onward is the opening of the expedient means; the text falls into three: the opening, the explanation, and the conclusion.

First, making clear that the buddha path, according to the fitness of the three kinds of capacity, preaches the expedient means, hence "according to what was fitting"; yet the Buddha's true intent lies in the real, which no being is able to comprehend, hence "a purport hard to understand." "Why is this?" is the explanation: it raises the present Buddha's provisional ability so as to explain the expedient means of the buddhas in general — since their skillful wisdom is the same, this is borrowed to explain that. As for "I, by countless expedient means" — the buddhas' opening of the provisional is likewise just as I do it. "This Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can comprehend" has two senses: it may serve as the conclusion of the opening of the provisional, or it may directly serve as the showing forth of the real. As the conclusion of the opening of the provisional, this means: the Buddha's intent is hard to know, and only a buddha together with a buddha is able to fathom it fully — those who receive the teaching call it three, while the buddhas know it as one. As the showing forth of the real, this belongs to the text that follows, which falls into five parts: first, setting forth the supreme person and dharma; second, setting forth the intent behind appearing in the world; third, restating it; fourth, the direct explanation; fifth, the concluding summary. Setting forth the person and dharma means: it raises the non-discriminating dharma as something only the Buddha knows — the Buddha, with his non-discriminating wisdom, comprehends and knows the non-discriminating dharma, and this is precisely the showing forth of the real dharma.

From "why is this?" onward is, second, the setting forth of the intent behind appearing in the world, which falls into two: first, the general statement; next, the breakdown by character. The general statement is: the buddhas awaken to the mark of things as they really are, and, riding upon this real path, appear in response within the world, solely so as to cause sentient beings to attain this mark of reality — it is only for this one matter that they appear in the world, and there is, in truth, never any other matter; apart from the true mark of all dharmas, everything else is called a demonic affair. The breakdown by character is as follows: "one" is the one true mark, which is neither five, nor three, nor seven, nor nine, and hence it is called "one." Its nature is vast and broad, encompassing the five, the three, the seven, and the nine, and hence it is called "great." The buddhas' ceremonial manner of appearing in the world is hence called the "affair." That sentient beings possess this capacity to move the Buddha is hence called the "cause," and that the Buddha, riding upon this capacity, responds to it, is hence called the "condition." This is the original intent behind appearing in the world; and as for the present opening of the three, this is simply a device to draw beings in — just as, when a person wishes to take something from another's hand, he must first give something to him — though he speaks of paths of various kinds, in reality it is all for the sake of the one vehicle; this is precisely this meaning. From "Śāriputra, how" onward is, third, the restating: about to make the distinctions, he once more raises the matter again so as to serve as the starting point of the explanation. This great cause, moreover, is something the Buddha himself holds in reverence — as the Shi Lun makes clear, a king-father, wishing to hear his crown prince's name spoken often, has it spoken again and again without ever growing weary of it, and so on.

From "all buddhas, the world-honored ones" onward is, fourth, the direct explanation. First the various existing explanations are set forth. The old explanation says, "the four ones are: the one-in-fruit, the one-in-person, the one-in-teaching, and the one-in-cause. As for the one-in-fruit: the first two phrases are based on the one who preaches, and the last two on the one who receives. In terms of the one who preaches: in a single pass, within the earlier gate of cause, the principle of the fruit is briefly explained, first opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and, finally, within the later gate of fruit, the principle of the fruit is extensively displayed, showing the Buddha's knowledge and vision. In terms of the one who receives: first, within the gate of cause, it is briefly opened, and one first attains awakening and understanding; afterward, within the gate of fruit, one extensively attains deep entry into its purport." This explanation is not adopted here. Why is this? The sūtra's four phrases each say "so as to cause sentient beings" — the sense of the wording is, in every case, primarily about the benefit gained by those who receive the teaching, and has nothing to do with the one who does the transforming; it ought to describe the awakening of the persons transformed — how, then, could the two phrases be divided off and made to describe the opening and showing done by the one who transforms? Moreover, this is precisely the preaching of the Dharma within the gate of cause, at the very time of opening the three to reveal the one — how, then, could two of the phrases be separated out and made to belong to preaching within the gate of fruit? The causes and conditions of the gate of fruit have not yet come together — how, then, could it be spoken of in advance? If it were so, then, at the first arising of the six auspicious signs, before the Buddha had even arisen from his samādhi, this ought to have been the brief preaching, while, before the five thousand had departed, this ought to have been the extended preaching — but since neither of these two points is in fact so, how could the gate of fruit be as this explanation supposes? The buddhas of the nether regions had not yet emerged, and his emanation-bodies had not yet assembled — how, then, could the two phrases of the gate of cause be taken as the gate of fruit?

Next, Guangzhai says, "the first phrase is opening in the sense of removing and opening in the sense of bringing forth: formerly, the expedient means preached the three so as to remove the five turbidities, and this opens and brings forth the principle of the great vehicle's awakened knowledge and vision. Though he first opened and expounded this principle for the sake of beings, he did not state the reason for it; showing it further, in view of this principle, gives rise to the wisdom born of hearing. Though they have heard it, they have not yet awakened to the reason for it, and so, distinguishing it yet more broadly, this opens up the wisdom born of reflection. Once they believe and awaken, grasping the intent, this then causes them to give rise to the resolve to study the Buddha's knowledge and vision, causing them to attain the wisdom born of cultivation and enter the principle of the Buddha's knowledge and vision." This, too, is not adopted here. Why is this? Since you agree with the old chapter-heading that this is the one-in-fruit, all four phrases ought to bear the sense of "fruit" — why, then, use the three kinds of wisdom to explicate the text, so that cause and fruit contradict each other and the earlier and later parts conflict? Moreover, the three kinds of wisdom come in many varieties: this sūtra directly refutes the two vehicles, and so it decisively does not employ the three kinds of wisdom found within the Tripiṭaka teaching; where the bodhisattva's expedient means is the same as that of the two vehicles, this belongs to the shared-teaching sense, and this, too, cannot be used; if one takes the three kinds of wisdom of the distinct teaching, this is a bodhisattva-dharma altogether not the buddha-dharma; if one takes the three kinds of wisdom of the perfect teaching, then the perfect three wisdoms would have to arrive at "opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision," and this cannot explicate the sūtra; if one takes any other set of the three kinds of wisdom, this strays even further from the sūtra; and if one takes the perfect three wisdoms, the sense of "one-in-fruit" itself does not hold up. None of these can be used, and so on.

Next, the Dilun master [a scholar of the Dilun school, based on the Daśabhūmika-śāstra] says, "the fifth Ganges-sands' worth attaining an eighth part of understanding is precisely the stage of the thirty minds [the ten abodes, ten practices, and ten dedications together] serving as 'opening'; from the first ground through the sixth ground, the understanding that exhausts views and thought becomes ever more distinct, and this is 'showing'; from the seventh ground through the eighth ground, contemplating emptiness and existence together without obstruction is 'awakening'; the tenth ground is 'entering,' citing the sūtra's naming of the tenth ground as 'seeing with the eye.'" This, too, is not adopted here. Why is this? This sūtra makes clear the opening of the Buddha's knowledge and vision — the Buddha knows by means of the wisdom of all modes of all things, and the Buddha sees by means of the buddha-eye; only the opening of this wise eye is called the Buddha's knowledge and vision — how, then, could one take the fifth Ganges-sands' worth of beings, who have given rise only to an eighth part of understanding and have not yet even entered the grounds, and call this "opening"? Such an "opening," as this account has it, is not the opening of the buddha-eye, and such "knowing" is not the knowing of the wisdom of all modes of all things — it does not accord with the sūtra, and hence it is not adopted, and so on.

There are those who explain: "the first phrase is the principle, and the last three phrases are a brief explanation — that is, the eight sufferings and the five turbidities obstruct the fruit-to-come, and this is 'closing'; the present teaching removes the five turbidities, and, the buddha-fruit's knowledge and vision thereby being manifested, this is called 'opening'; the defiling entanglements are removed and the principle manifested, and this is called 'purity'; and the last three phrases are hearing, reflection, and cultivation." The objection to this is the same as before. There are those who say, "the distinct teaching among the three vehicles is 'opening,' the shared teaching among the three vehicles is 'showing,' the alternating praise and disparagement is 'awakening,' and the Lotus is 'entering.'" There are, further, those who explain, "the shared teaching among the three vehicles is 'opening,' the alternating praise and disparagement is 'showing,' the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings is 'awakening,' and the Lotus is 'entering.'" These two explanations tear the three phrases apart and scatter them among other sūtras, splitting off a single phrase and placing it within the Lotus — such tearing apart and forced contrivance does great harm and does the text a grave injustice! There are those who say, "the thirty minds are 'opening,' the first ground through the sixth ground is 'showing,' the seventh ground through the ninth ground is 'awakening,' and the tenth ground is 'entering.'" This person, mixing the shared teaching together with elements borrowed from the distinct teaching, speaks in this way without having seen anything extraordinary at all in the Lotus — why, then, should it be praised so highly?

There are those who cite the Huayan, the Yingluo [the Sūtra of the Bodhisattva's Necklace of Jewels], the Renwang [the Humane Kings Sūtra], the She Dacheng [the Mahāyānasaṃgraha], and the Shiqidi Lun [the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra] — five ordinary-worldling texts which all speak of fifty-two stages, with forty minds prior to the grounds — and ask, why not use this scheme? This person mistakenly cites the Huayan, for the Huayan does not make clear the ten stages of faith; and even granting that the various treatises make clear the forty minds prior to the grounds, none of these belong to the path of cutting off delusion — for what reason, then, should this explanation be used to explicate the opening of the Buddha's knowledge and vision? All of this is nothing but loose and unfounded talk.

There are those who cite the Shi Lun's statement that the four kinds of wisdom, general and particular, are attained all at once. But this explanation ought not to be used for "open, show, awaken, and enter," since opening, showing, awakening, and entering appear to involve a difference of shallow and deep, whereas the four kinds of wisdom belong to a lofty stage, and "opening" and "showing" span both shallow and deep — this cannot properly serve as a parallel. This person sees only the single moment of the Shi Lun's four kinds of wisdom, and does not see the single moment of "opening" and "showing" here. There are those who say, "neither empty nor existent is 'opening,' able to be empty and able to be existent is 'showing,' emptiness and existence being non-dual is 'awakening,' and fully realizing that emptiness and existence, though non-dual, are yet two, is 'entering.'" This person explains it in terms of the two truths, and this is not even able to draw one out of the two vehicles — how much less could it be the single intent of the Lotus? There are those who say, "penetrating the principle of the three truths is 'opening,' the three truths being clearly distinct is 'showing,' not seeing the three truths as either one or different is 'awakening,' and flowing spontaneously along is 'entering.'" This person explains it in terms of the three truths taken in sequence one after another, and this does not even go beyond the bodhisattva-dharma — how could it be the buddha-dharma?

There are those who explain, "as for the Buddha's knowledge and vision — the wisdom of all things, in its general aspect, is 'knowledge,' while the wisdom of all modes of all things, in its particular aspect, is 'vision.'" This, too, is not so. The Shi Lun makes clear that the wisdom of all things is the wisdom of the śrāvaka, the wisdom of the varieties of the path is the wisdom of the bodhisattva, and the wisdom of all modes of all things is the wisdom of the buddha. This treats the wisdom of all modes of all things as one wisdom distinguished stage by stage, not as three wisdoms present together within a single mind — how, then, could the "knowledge" of the two vehicles and a "vision" distinct from the Buddha's own explicate the perfect Buddha's knowledge and vision?

There are those who explain, "the cessation-wisdom's purity from affliction is called 'knowledge,' and the non-arising-wisdom's ultimate non-arising of the afflictions of cause and fruit is called 'vision.'" This person takes the shared teaching's name for "buddha" and applies it to explicate the ultimate buddha — and this does not correspond at all. As with the various masters above, this loosely takes up phrases from various sūtras without ever seeing the great intent of the Lotus at all.

The Fahua Lun says, "first, the meaning of the unsurpassed: apart from the wisdom of all things there is no further matter, just as the sūtra says, 'opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision, so as to cause sentient beings to attain purity,' he thus appears in the world; second, the meaning of sameness: since the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha are equal to the Buddha in buddha-nature and dharma-body, just as the sūtra says, 'wishing to show sentient beings the Buddha's knowledge and vision,' he thus appears in the world, since the buddha-nature and dharma-body are, in no respect, ever different; third, the meaning of not-knowing: that is, since persons of the two vehicles do not know that the ultimate is the one buddha vehicle alone, just as the sūtra says, 'wishing to cause sentient beings to awaken to the Buddha's knowledge and vision,' he appears in the world; fourth, so as to cause the realization of the stage of non-retrogression, manifesting immeasurable deeds of wisdom, just as the sūtra says, 'wishing to cause sentient beings to enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision.'"

As for the sequence the Lun speaks of: first, opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision is the unsurpassed; next, showing that the three vehicles equally possess the buddha-nature and dharma-body — though the Buddha's wisdom has already been made clear as unsurpassed, it is feared that this might be taken to belong to the Buddha alone, and hence the second point makes clear that the three vehicles equally possess it; though the three vehicles equally possess it, the two vehicles do not awaken to it, and so this shows it to them so that they may know it; though they know it, they have not yet attained non-retrogression, and hence the fourth point causes them to attain non-retrogression. There is, moreover, another pass through these four in terms of the bodhisattva: "opening" is as before; "showing" is that, for bodhisattvas who have doubts, it causes them to know how to practice in accordance with reality; "awakening" is that, for those who have not yet given rise to the resolve for bodhi, it causes them to give rise to the resolve; "entering" is that, for those who have already given rise to the resolve for bodhi, it causes them to enter the Dharma. A third pass, in terms of the ordinary worldling: "opening" is as before; "showing" is that it shows them that they possess the dharma-body and buddha-nature; "awakening" is that it causes non-Buddhist practitioners and sentient beings to awaken; "entering" is that it causes them to enter the great bodhi.

The present master's fourfold explanation does not run contrary to the Lun. The Lun explicates it phrase by phrase, while here a single phrase is given four explanations; the Lun makes clear the realization of the stage of non-retrogression, and here this is explicated in terms of the four stages; the Lun speaks of the Tathāgata's ability to realize the real, and here this is explicated in terms of the four kinds of wisdom; the Lun makes clear the meaning of sameness, and here this is explicated in terms of the contemplation of mind; the Lun makes clear the place of not-knowing the ultimate, and here this is explicated in terms of the four gates, and so on. The present explanation shows forth the real: immeasurable dharmas are all one, just as, in the Xuanyi [the Fahua Xuanyi], the ten sublimities are themselves ten kinds of "one." If one reconciles this with the old explanation, one may, for the present, make it into four ones; if one speaks of the immeasurable one, then a single form, a single fragrance, is nothing other than the middle way — this meaning may be readily understood. If one makes it into ten ones, the text is matched and complete in every particular, and, although not set out in strict sequence, none of the ten meanings is lacking. Why is this?

"By countless expedient means and various causal conditions I expound all dharmas" — this itself is the text of the opening of the provisional. From "this Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can comprehend" is shown the one-in-principle; "only the buddhas are able to know it" is shown the one-in-wisdom; as for "solely by means of the one great matter" — this requires a little distinguishing: "one" is the principle, "great" is the wisdom, and "matter" is the practice — the principle gives rise to wisdom, and wisdom guides the practice, and following this sense is precisely the showing of the one-in-practice. "Knowledge and vision": wisdom knows the principle, and the eye sees the dharma of the truth — the dharma of the truth, being unconditioned, is without distinction, yet, because it is unconditioned, it also has distinctions — and, in terms of this knowledge and vision, discussing "opening, showing, awakening, and entering," taking the brief as a model for the extended, there are forty stages, and this is the showing of the one-in-stage. Taking, further, the text of the concluding four phrases as making clear the "one": "one" is precisely the dharma-body, "great" is precisely prajñā, and "matter" is precisely liberation, and this is the secret treasury — this shows the one-in-the-three-dharmas; "appearing in the world" shows the one-in-response; "only teaching and transforming bodhisattvas" shows the one-in-retinue; "all that he does" shows the one-in-spiritual-powers; "solely by means of the Buddha's knowledge and vision showing and awakening sentient beings" shows the one-in-benefit; "solely by means of the one buddha vehicle he preaches the Dharma for sentient beings" shows the one-in-preaching. The sūtra's text and its meaning correspond exactly, as a tally matches its counterpart. If one reconciles this briefly with the old explanation of the four ones, the numbering is the same but the meaning differs. The old explanation calls it the one-in-fruit; here it is called the one-in-principle, whether reckoned by meaning or by the text itself. By meaning: if there were no one-in-principle, then all affairs would be topsy-turvy and every one of them would be the Māra's own teaching, no longer the Buddha's sūtra at all — hence the one-in-principle is necessary. By the text itself: the text speaks of "the Buddha's knowledge and vision," and here what is taken up is what is known and seen — what is seen is precisely the truth, and what is known is precisely its object, and the object and the truth are precisely the principle of the reality-mark, and hence it is named the one-in-principle. The old explanation calls it the one-in-cause; here it is called the one-in-practice — the word "cause" is narrow and its meaning specific, whereas the term "one-in-practice" broadly gathers in both cause and fruit together, and hence it is called the one-in-practice. The one-in-person and the one-in-teaching are the same as in the old explanation.

For the present, then, speaking in brief, the four ones are used to interpret the text, beginning with the explanation of the one-in-principle, which again has four senses: first, in terms of the four stages; second, in terms of the four kinds of wisdom; third, in terms of the four gates; fourth, in terms of the contemplation of mind. First, in terms of the four stages: the object that is the truth cannot, in itself, be known or seen — it is only in terms of the eye of wisdom that it can be known and seen; the two lesser kinds of wisdom and the four lesser eyes are unable to know and see it, and it is only the buddha-eye, together with the wisdom of all modes of all things, that is able to know and see it. The sūtra says, "so as to cause sentient beings to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision" — it does not speak simply of the buddha-fruit's own self-knowing and self-seeing; for if one speaks one-sidedly of the buddha-fruit alone, one loses sight of sentient beings, and if one speaks of sentient beings alone, then there is no Buddha's knowledge and vision at all — hence one cannot cling one-sidedly to either. Practitioners of the three lesser teachings, though they are sentient beings, do not yet possess the buddha-eye or buddha-wisdom, and hence are unable to know and see the reality-mark; the four stages of the perfect teaching are likewise sentient beings, yet they have, in part, attained the buddha-eye and buddha-wisdom, and so both the sense of "sentient beings" and the sense of "knowledge and vision" are thereby fulfilled — hence the exposition relies on these four stages to explain the one-in-principle. Just as, among the auspicious signs, the heavens rained down the four kinds of flowers, representing that the ten thousand forms of goodness alike return and enter the four stages, riding upon the flowers of the four stages so as to advance toward buddhahood — it is for this reason that the principle is shown in terms of the stages.

"Opening" is precisely the initial breaking of ignorance at the ten abodes, opening the tathāgatagarbha and seeing the principle of the reality-mark. Why is this? The principle of the nature's virtue is defiled and attached to by the two delusions, the shared and the distinct, and is hard to fully comprehend; the initial mind is able to have perfect faith, perfect acceptance, and perfect suppression of these delusions, but is not yet able to cut them off, and so this is not yet called "opening"; only when, inwardly, contemplative practice is added, and, outwardly, the aid of the rain of the Dharma is relied upon, breaking through the store of shared and distinct delusion and revealing the nature of true cultivation, does the knowledge and vision become radiantly opened and manifest — like the sun rising and the darkness vanishing, so that the eyes may then be put to use — and hence this is called "opening." Since conditioned cultivation breaks through delusion, this is called "attaining purity." The Renwang [Sūtra, the Humane Kings Sūtra] says, "entering the prajñā of principle is called abiding" — abiding in the small white-flower stage of the ten abodes.

"Showing" means: once the obstruction of delusion is removed, the essence of knowledge and vision is manifested; this essence, complete with the myriad virtues, displays the manifold virtues of the dharma-realm clearly and distinctly, and hence this is called "showing" — this is precisely the great white stage of the ten practices. "Awakening" means: once the obstruction is removed and the essence manifested, the practice of the dharma-realm becomes bright, and phenomena and principle are fused together with no longer any duality of direction — as the masters of the She Dacheng [the Mahāyānasaṃgraha school] say, "the wisdom that accords with principle, and the wisdom that accords with measure." Here, principle and measure being non-dual, this is called "awakening" — this is precisely the small red stage of the ten dedications. "Entering" means: once phenomena and principle are fused, one is at ease and unobstructed, flowing at ease and spontaneously, from the letter A to the letter Ca — the first letter of the Siddham syllabary to its last — entering the ocean of sarvajña, the all-knowing wisdom, as the masters of the She Dacheng say, "the wisdom that accords with principle and the wisdom that accords with measure, penetrating freely." The wisdom that accords with measure, in its knowledge and vision, is able to sustain the myriad virtues; the wisdom that accords with principle, in its knowledge and vision, is able to screen off every delusion — this is precisely the great red stage of the ten grounds.

Yet within a single stage of the sublime perfect path, all forty-one stages' merits and virtues are already fully contained — the mere "opening" already includes "showing," "awakening," and "entering" within it, and there is, in truth, no other mind involved; it is only that, in the wisdom that accords with principle in its knowledge and vision, there is no mark of shallow or deep to be distinguished at all — it is only in order to display the wisdom that accords with measure that the four stages are distinguished. The initial resolve and the ultimate consummation are not, in themselves, two different things — yet it is said that, between these two states of mind, the earlier is more difficult — and since it speaks of "difficult" and "easy," one thereby knows that between the initial mind and the ultimate mind there must be some distinction of brightness and dimness, of shallowness and depth — just as the disk of the moon, whether at its beginning or its end, is equally round, and yet there is the distinction of new moon and full moon. The knowledge and vision at all four stages equally illumine the reality-mark, and it is only in speaking of them that the distinction of opening and entering is made, and so on.

Second, in terms of the four kinds of wisdom: here it is intended to correlate the perfect teaching's four kinds of wisdom with the four stages, and this is not the same as the explanation in terms of the shared teaching found in the Prajñā scriptures. First, the wisdom of the path sees the real nature of the path, and, within this real nature, opens the Buddha's knowledge and vision; second, the wisdom of the varieties of the path knows the various marks of understanding and delusion, distinguished path by path, throughout the ten dharma-realms, and each and every one of these shows forth the Buddha's knowledge and vision; third, the wisdom of all things knows that all dharmas share the single mark of quiescent extinction, and this quiescent extinction is precisely the awakening to the Buddha's knowledge and vision; fourth, the wisdom of all modes of all things knows that all dharmas share the single mark of quiescent extinction, while also discerning the marks and appearances of every kind and category of activity, and this is precisely the entering into the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Moreover, the wisdom of the path, according with principle, is called "opening"; the wisdom of the varieties of the path, according with measure, is called "showing"; the wisdom of all things, in which principle and measure are non-dual, is termed "awakening"; and the wisdom of all modes of all things, in which principle and measure are illumined together, is "entering" — this, too, is a distinction of shallow and deep drawn within the real principle, which is, in itself, without any such distinction.

Third, in terms of a horizontal explanation of the four phrases through the perfect teaching's four gates: the gate of emptiness — where one thing is empty, all things are empty — is precisely the opening of the Buddha's knowledge and vision; the gate of existence — where one thing exists, all things exist — is precisely the showing of the Buddha's knowledge and vision; the gate of both emptiness and existence — where all things are both empty and existent — is precisely the awakening to the Buddha's knowledge and vision; the gate of neither emptiness nor existence — where all things are neither empty nor existent — is precisely the entering into the Buddha's knowledge and vision. That which does the penetrating is fourfold, while that which is penetrated is one: opening, showing, awakening, and entering are the gates that do the penetrating, while what is known and what is seen is the principle that is penetrated.

Fourth, in terms of the explanation through the contemplation of mind: to contemplate that the principle of the three truths within the nature of the mind is inconceivable, and for this contemplation to become bright and pure, is called "opening"; though inconceivable, to be able still to distinguish the empty mind, the provisional mind, and the mind of the middle, each vividly distinct and unconfused, is called "showing"; that the empty, the provisional, and the middle mind are, precisely as three, one, and, precisely as one, three, is called "awakening"; that the empty, the provisional, and the middle mind are neither empty, provisional, nor middle, and yet illumine the empty, the provisional, and the middle equally together, is called "entering." This is the distinction of opening, showing, awakening, and entering drawn within the single contemplation of mind that sees the three truths at once.

As for why there are these four kinds of explanation: seeing the principle depends on the stage; the stage is established through wisdom; wisdom arises through the gate; and the gate is penetrated through contemplation. Because there is contemplation, the gate is penetrated; because the gate is penetrated, wisdom is accomplished; because wisdom is accomplished, the stage is established; because the stage is established, the principle is seen; and because the principle is seen, it is called the one-in-principle.

From "Śāriputra, it is for this reason that all buddhas, through the one great cause" onward is precisely the concluding summary of the meaning of the one-in-principle. The provisional teachings of former times could, in a certain sense, also be discussed in terms of opening, showing, awakening, and entering, yet they were not the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and hence they were provisional; what is made clear here is the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and hence it is real — and the real is precisely the one-in-principle. From "he told Śāriputra: the Tathāgata teaches and transforms only bodhisattvas" onward makes clear the one-in-person: in terms of the provisional teaching of former times, it was said that he taught and transformed the three vehicles, but, in principle and in reality, he only ever transformed bodhisattvas — just as the impoverished son himself called himself a lowly hired servant, while, as the elder regarded him, he was in reality his own son all along — this is precisely the one-in-person. From "all that he does is always for the sake of the one matter" — Guangzhai calls this the one-in-teaching, but here it is called the one-in-practice. The manifold practices of the three vehicles are called "all"; because they are perfect, they are "all," and this is precisely "the one matter." Where does this practice arrive at, in the end? It tends solely toward the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and this is precisely the meaning of the one-in-practice. It may also be taken as the one-in-teaching: if one speaks in terms of the teaching's master, then "all that he does" takes only teaching and transforming as its business, and here "one-in-teaching" is the more fitting term; if one speaks in terms of the person who practices, then the matter that is done, in its very doing, is precisely practice, and here it is fitting to call this the one-in-practice. Yet each of the four phrases admits of two senses: within the one-in-principle, if one takes the capacity to know and see, then "one-in-stage" is the more fitting term; if the object known and seen, then "one-in-principle" is the more fitting term. Within the phrase for the one-in-person, if one takes teaching and transforming, then "one-in-teaching" is more fitting; if one takes the bodhisattvas who are its object, then "one-in-person" is more fitting. Within the phrase for the one-in-teaching, if one takes the preaching of the Dharma to sentient beings by means of the one buddha vehicle, then "one-in-teaching" is more fitting; if one takes the sense of riding and conveying, then "one-in-practice" is more fitting. All four phrases work this way in common — the explanation simply follows whichever is more fitting in each case.

From "but with the one buddha vehicle" onward — Guangzhai takes this as the one-in-cause, but here it is called the one-in-teaching. The perfect and sudden teaching is named the one buddha vehicle; hence the Assembly and the Six Signs chapter says, "preaching the great vehicle sūtra," which is precisely this sense of "teaching." From the distinct teaching onward, all are called teachings "with remainder" — that is, teachings of incomplete meaning, not the buddhas' one vehicle. Guangzhai says, "the one buddha vehicle means without the two of pratyekabuddha and śrāvaka, and without the three, including the bodhisattva of partial practice." There are, further, those who say, "without bodhisattva and pratyekabuddha is 'without the two'; without śrāvaka is 'without the three.'" If one adopts this explanation, this would simply mean without the various vehicles of the Tripiṭaka teaching, while retaining the shared-teaching vehicle — what has this to do with the one buddha vehicle at all? There are those who say, "without pratyekabuddha is 'without the two'; without śrāvaka is 'without the three'; retaining the bodhisattva great vehicle." If this were so, it would simply be without the two vehicles within the Tripiṭaka teaching, while not being without the bodhisattva within the Tripiṭaka teaching — this retains a teaching with remainder — what has this to do with the buddha vehicle? In what sūtra or treatise is the śrāvaka ever placed as the third? Since there is no such sequence anywhere, this is, in every respect, an unfounded assertion. If one follows your explanation, "without the two" means without pratyekabuddha, and "without the three" means without bodhisattva — then the first, the śrāvaka, ought not to be excluded at all — and if this were so, it would produce utter confusion and disorder. What is meant here by "but with the one buddha vehicle" is the purely preached vehicle of the perfect teaching of the buddha-dharma. "Without any remaining vehicle" means without the distinct teaching's expedient teaching that carries a remainder. "Without the two" means without the pairing of two found within the Prajñā scriptures. "Without the three" means without the trio set in opposition within the Vaipulya scriptures. Given that these twos and threes are, every one, absent, how much more so the three of the Tripiṭaka teaching?

From "Śāriputra, the Dharma of all the buddhas of the ten directions is likewise thus" onward is precisely the fifth part, the general conclusion. The chapters on the buddhas of the three time-periods each make clear the one-in-teaching and the one-in-practice, and afterward generally discuss the one-in-person and the one-in-principle, as may be seen in the text. It would also be acceptable for each chapter to independently work out its own four ones, though this would not be as clear as the general treatment of the text. The Pusa Yingluo Jing [the Sūtra of the Bodhisattva's Necklace of Jewels], fascicle thirteen, makes clear the nine time-periods of buddhas: the past has its own three sub-periods, and the present and future likewise each have three. As for the three sub-periods of the future buddhas: the past-of-the-future is where an ancient buddha, out of compassion, enters the future and takes on various forms to save sentient beings; the present-of-the-future is one who is due to receive a prediction in time to come; the future-of-the-future is a buddha who is, in turn, next in line to receive a prediction. The past may be understood by analogy with this, and so on. As for the present: the present-of-the-present is the present teaching-master; the future-of-the-present is the one next in succession to him; the past-of-the-present is an ancient buddha manifesting a trace in the present.

From the chapter on the buddhas of the past, this section ought properly to be furnished with all six meanings, but only two are set forth here: first, the opening of the expedient means; second, the showing forth of the real. Of the passage's parts, two point to what precedes, and two point to what follows. "By immeasurable, countless expedient means" makes clear the opening of the provisional; "this Dharma is, every bit of it, for the sake of the one buddha vehicle" makes clear the showing forth of the real — following the pattern above, the one buddha vehicle is precisely the one-in-teaching. "Having heard the Dharma from the buddhas" — though this speaks of hearing the Dharma, the Dharma is bestowed upon sentient beings, and this also attains the one-in-person. "Ultimately, all attain the wisdom of all modes of all things" — what this wisdom knows is precisely the one-in-principle, and the capacity that knows it is precisely the one-in-practice. Though not set out in strict sequence, the four ones are here all fully present together.

From the chapter on the future buddhas there are, likewise, the same two senses, pointing to what precedes and to what follows, and, taken together, all six meanings are present, and so on. From the gate of the present buddhas — this is precisely the present teaching-master — the passage first sets forth the intent behind the Buddha's appearance in the world: just as, in the chapter on the buddhas in general, it is solely through the one great cause that he appears in the world, so too is it here — it is solely for the sake of benefiting and bringing peace and happiness to sentient beings that he appears in the world. Next comes the opening of the provisional, and next the showing forth of the real — here, too, all four ones are present.

Second, the detailed exposition of the Śākyamuni section. Among the six meanings, there is no praise of the rarity of the Dharma; first is the opening of the provisional; second, the revealing of the real; third, the citing of the five turbidities to explain the skillful means; fourth, distinguishing the false to press home faith in the single reality; and fifth, the absence of falsehood. "I too am now like this" — "I" refers to Śākyamuni himself: in the present he first taught the three and only afterward the one, no different from the four buddha-sections above, and hence it says, "likewise, again, in this way."

"Knowing that sentient beings have various desires" refers to the desire belonging to the root-nature of the five vehicles. The same capacity is called "root" when spoken of in the past, "desire" when spoken of in the present, and "nature" when spoken of in the future. "That to which the profound mind clings" refers precisely to this root. "Skillful means" refers to the opening, in accordance with what is fitting, of the provisional teaching of the three vehicles. "All of this is done in order to attain the one buddha-vehicle" is precisely the revealing of the real: the buddha-vehicle is the oneness of the teaching, "all" is the oneness of practice, and that which is known by the wisdom of all modes is the oneness of principle.

From "in the ten directions there is not even the two vehicles, how much less the three" onward is, third, the citing of the five turbidities to explain the opening of the provisional. About to cite the five turbidities, the text first marks out its intent: the passage above has already explained how the buddhas open the provisional to reveal the real, but has not yet made clear the concealing of the real in order to bestow the provisional. This Dharma, being pure and unified like empty space, does not even admit of a provisional teaching mixed with two or mixed with three, much less a provisional teaching of the unmixed three or the unmixed five. It is only on account of the five turbidities, whose obstruction is so heavy, that the real cannot be proclaimed, and hence the unmixed five and the unmixed three must be bestowed, as well as the provisional mixed with two and mixed with three — hence it is said, "within the one buddha-vehicle, discriminating, he speaks of three," discriminating and speaking either of the three that is mixed with two or mixed with three, or of the three that is the unmixed five or unmixed three.

As for "the five turbidities," these divide of themselves into four: first, stating their number; second, listing their names; third, their essential nature and characteristics; fourth, explaining and concluding. The stating of the number and the listing of the names are as given in the text. "Thus" makes clear their essential nature and characteristics. The turbidity of the eon has no essence of its own — an eon is a long span of time, an instant is a short span of time — it is only in reference to the other four turbidities that this provisional name is established; the text's phrase "the turbidity of the eon, the time of disorder" expresses precisely this meaning. The turbidity of sentient beings likewise has no essence of its own; it is established as a provisional name upon the basis of wrong views and pride, and upon the fruit of recompense; the text's phrase "sentient beings, heavy with defilement" expresses precisely this meaning. The turbidity of affliction takes the five dull fetters as its essence; the turbidity of views takes the five sharp fetters as its essence; the turbidity of lifespan takes the sustaining continuity of body and mind as its essence, and so on.

As for their "characteristics": the four other turbidities intensify and gather together at this time — hatred intensifies and weapons and warfare arise; greed intensifies and famine arises; delusion intensifies and epidemic disease arises; and because these three calamities arise, afflictions redouble in vigor and views blaze up all the more, bodies and minds grow coarse and degraded, ill repute and foul renown spread, years are cut short and lifespans diminished, and the many turbidities converge together — like water rushing turbid and murky, wind churning up waves, and fish and dragons stirring and roiling everything — with nothing at all to rely upon: it is the age itself that brings this about. It is like the beings of the Ābhāsvara heaven, at the start of the eon, falling to earth, whereupon the earth caused desire to arise in them; or like the gods entering the Coarse and Rough Garden of Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, whereupon the garden gave rise to a quarrelsome mind — this is called the characteristic of the turbidity of the eon.

As for the turbidity of affliction: greed, like the ocean receiving every river, is never once sated; hatred, like a viper sucking in poison, disturbs every world; delusion, dark and obstinate, surpasses even lacquer and ink in blackness; pride looks down from on high with contempt beyond all measure; and doubt, a net without any trust, cannot be told the truth — these are the characteristics of the turbidity of affliction.

As for the turbidity of views: where there is no self, one supposes there to be a self; where there is a path, one supposes there to be no path; the sixteen forms of view, the sixty-two views, and the rest are like a net or a dense thicket, binding and entangling one so twistedly that one cannot get free — these are the characteristics of the turbidity of views.

As for the turbidity of sentient beings: grasping at body and mind, one posits a single governing self, like birdlime to which nothing fails to stick; drifting through the six destinies, receiving birth in place after place, whether as one who is poor or one who is short-lived, called long-lived or called wealthy — these are the characteristics of the turbidity of sentient beings.

As for the turbidity of lifespan: born in the morning and perishing by evening, emerging by day and vanishing by dusk, turning like a wave and swirling like smoke, never once stopping even for the space of an instant — these are the characteristics of the turbidity of lifespan. The characteristics of the turbidities are manifold, and cannot be set forth in full.

As for their sequence: affliction and views are the root; from these two turbidities the turbidity of sentient beings is formed; from sentient beings there arises the sustaining continuity that is the turbidity of lifespan; and these four, passing through time, are together called the turbidity of the eon. As for making distinctions:

Question: If the five turbidities obstruct the Great Vehicle, then how is it that in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra there are those who hear the teaching without having yet removed the turbidities?

Answer: This should be distinguished by a fourfold formula: first, sharp faculties for the Great Vehicle but heavy obstruction — because the faculties are sharp, the heavy obstruction is unable to obstruct; those in this land who first heard the Great Vehicle at the Avataṃsaka assembly are of this kind. Second, sharp faculties and light obstruction. Third, dull faculties and light obstruction — those who heard the Great Vehicle in the pure lands of other regions are of this kind. Fourth, dull faculties and heavy obstruction — like Śāriputra and his companions in this land, who could hear the Great Vehicle only after the turbidities had been removed.

Question: Do the five turbidities also obstruct the lesser vehicle?

Answer: With respect to the lesser vehicle, this too should be distinguished by a fourfold formula: sharp faculties for the lesser vehicle and light hindrance — the obstruction is unable to obstruct; Śāriputra is of this kind. Sharp faculties and heavy hindrance — the obstruction likewise is unable to obstruct; Aṅgulimāla is of this kind. Dull faculties and light hindrance — this too does not become an obstruction; Cūḍapanthaka is of this kind. Dull faculties and heavy hindrance — this indeed becomes an obstruction, as with those who never hear the lesser vehicle and are never brought to liberation.

Question: There are of themselves those who, being neither within the Avataṃsaka assembly nor within the Tripiṭaka teaching, nevertheless come to hear the Great Vehicle or to hear the lesser vehicle — why is this?

Answer: This should be distinguished with respect to the Four Teachings, making a further fourfold distinction of gates within each teaching. Sharp faculties and light hindrance enter upon hearing the gate of neither emptiness nor being; sharp faculties and heavy hindrance enter upon hearing the gate of both emptiness and being; dull faculties and light hindrance enter upon hearing the gate of emptiness; dull faculties and heavy hindrance enter upon hearing the gate of being. The four gates of two of the teachings are distinguished with respect to the lesser vehicle, and the four gates of the other two teachings are distinguished with respect to the Great Vehicle — considering this closely, it may be understood, and so on.

Question: Speaking generally, why do the five turbidities obstruct the Great Vehicle but not the lesser vehicle?

Answer: The turbidity of sentient beings being heavy, one falsely calculates the five aggregates to be the four virtues, and on hearing of the permanent self one grasps at what is not so as though it were so — like an old physician, dull and inexperienced, who does not know good milk from bad, does not know the root cause from which the illness arose, and does not know when a remedy should be given or withheld: knowing nothing at all, the turbidities become a heavy obstruction to him. The text says, "if I were to praise the buddha-vehicle, sentient beings would sink and drown in suffering" — this expresses precisely this meaning. But on hearing of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, one at once wearies of birth-and-death and delights in nirvāṇa, breaking one's own false calculation and grasping, and hence the five turbidities do not obstruct the lesser vehicle. The text says, "as I was pondering in this way, the buddhas of the ten directions all appeared, and with their brahma-voices comforted and encouraged me" — this expresses precisely this meaning.

Considering the five turbidities in relation to the four siddhāntas: the eon and lifespan correspond to the mundane siddhānta; sentient beings and views correspond to the individual siddhānta; affliction corresponds to the therapeutic siddhānta — the three siddhāntas are used to remove the five turbidities, and only afterward is the great siddhānta of ultimate meaning taught. If one considers this in terms of cause and fruit, then there are two causes and three fruits: one person and four dharmas, the four dharmas being simultaneous, with the two obstructions of recompense and the two obstructions of affliction, with karma lying in between. Sentient beings, as a turbidity, is a provisional designation formed from a cause; lifespan is a provisional designation of continuity; a provisional designation of mutual dependence may likewise be understood. Sentient beings is a provisional designation by way of the recipient; the other four are provisional designations by way of the dharma; the provisional designation of name applies to both. Affliction and views belong to ordinary beings; the remaining three turbidities apply to both ordinary beings and sages. Lifespan is short and the eon is long; the remaining three apply to both long and short. The eon is merely a matter of time; lifespan discusses time while bound up with the dharma of the body. The eon extends both within and without; lifespan lies only within. The three lesser turbidities harm persons but do not harm things; the three greater harm things but do not harm persons. The lesser eon belongs only to the human world; the greater eon extends to the form realm; lifespan extends throughout the five destinies and the three realms. The eon is a turbidity shared in common; the other four are turbidities each distinct in itself. The lesser eon is what is properly called the turbidity of the eon; the greater eon may be either turbid or not turbid. From eighty thousand years down to ten years constitutes a lesser eon; eighty full cycles of increase and decrease constitute a greater eon.

Question: Since we speak of "the five turbidities," what then are "the five purities"?

Answer: By analogy with the deviant and the correct forms of the three poisons: the deviant is the five turbidities, and the correct is the five purities. In the pure lands of other regions there is no deviant form of the three poisons, and hence the obstruction of the five turbidities there is light — this meaning may be understood accordingly, and so on.

From "if my disciples themselves declare" onward is, fourth, the distinguishing of the false in order to press home the true. If the Buddha's disciples are themselves able to have faith and understanding, they are genuine; if they lack faith and understanding, they are neither true disciples nor true arhats — this presses and urges the assembly of the time to accept the teaching with faith and understanding. With respect to the text, this falls into two: first, distinguishing the true from the false; second, exempting certain cases and resolving doubts. The distinguishing again falls into two: first, if one has not heard and does not know, one is not a true disciple; second, if one has heard but does not accept it with faith, one becomes possessed of overweening pride. Just as, in the world, a disciple follows and accords with his teacher's dharma, inheriting and transmitting the lamp — if he has not heard and does not know, then he has no dharma to accord with, so how could he be called a disciple? The Tathāgata formerly taught the five turbidities and opened the three vehicles; you accorded with this and attained nirvāṇa, having heard and having known, and so were called disciples. Now that the five turbidities have been removed, he teaches you the one, so why is it that you neither hear nor know? "Not hearing" means not hearing the oneness of the teaching; "not knowing" means not knowing the oneness of practice. Not being true means not attaining the oneness of principle; not being a disciple means not attaining the oneness of persons.

Next, from "moreover, Śāriputra" onward is, second, making clear that lack of faith becomes overweening pride, pressing home the need to bring about faith. Why is this? You yourselves suppose that this is your final body, and yet your bodies still have no measure — in truth this is not your final body; you yourselves suppose that you have reached the ultimate, and yet two hundred yojanas still remain — in truth this is not the ultimate. To suppose one has attained what one has not yet attained — is this not precisely overweening pride? A true arhat, once the turbidities are removed and his faculties are sharp, knows that this is not yet the ultimate; believing this to be the truth, and knowing that this is not yet his final body, he does not give rise to overweening pride. Knowing that it is not yet the ultimate, and believing in the true ultimate, is precisely believing in the oneness of principle; and being free of overweening pride is precisely accomplishing the oneness of practice. Believing is believing in the teaching, and this is the oneness of the teaching; being a disciple of the Buddha is the oneness of persons.

From "except after the Buddha has entered extinction" onward is, second, exempting certain cases and resolving doubts. First, the exemption: after the Buddha's extinction, this is not counted as overweening pride. Next, from "why is this? After the Buddha's extinction" onward makes clear that a good person is hard to find and a profound sūtra hard to understand, and this too is not counted as overweening pride. If, while the Buddha is in the world personally teaching this sūtra, one fails to believe and accept it, this is indeed not a true arhat and becomes overweening pride; but if one attains arhatship only after the Buddha's extinction, clinging one-sidedly to the provisional sūtras and not believing the perfect Dharma, this is permitted and not counted as overweening pride. But then, since the Buddha has entered extinction and yet this sūtra still remains, should not failing to believe and accept it still count as overweening pride? Here too an exemption is granted: after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, although this sūtra still exists, one who can explain its text and meaning is hard to encounter, and this causes arhats to fail to believe and understand — this too is permitted and not counted as overweening pride.

Next, the resolving of doubts. If, after the Buddha's extinction, one who can explain the sūtra is hard to encounter, then does one who attains arhatship in that time enter final nirvāṇa forever? The explanation given is this: although such a person gives rise to the notion of having attained extinction, after relinquishing this life he is born into a land beyond the threefold world where a remainder still persists, and there, encountering another buddha, he comes to hear this sūtra and is at once brought to full resolution. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fascicle ninety-three, in its explanation of the "Chapter on What Is Ultimately Fixed," says: "An arhat still bears the body of his former life, and this body must certainly perish — in what place, then, does he come to complete the buddha-path? Answer: 'Once the causes and conditions of the arhat's contaminations within the threefold world are exhausted, he is never again born within the threefold world; beyond the threefold world there is a pure buddha-land free of the name of affliction, and there, in the presence of the buddha of that land, he hears the Lotus Sūtra and completes the buddha-path.'" This in turn cites the Lotus Sūtra, saying: "If there is an arhat who has not heard the Lotus Sūtra and supposes himself to have attained extinction, I will, in another land, teach this very matter to him, that he too shall become a buddha." Since the Śāstra itself cites the sūtra as its proof, the present commentary, in turn, uses the Śāstra to explain the sūtra. Master Nanyue says: "'Another buddha' refers to the four reliances — an arhat who encounters one of them hears the sūtra and is brought to full resolution. Moreover, an arhat who cultivates the samādhi of buddha-recollection sees the buddhas of the ten directions, who teach him this sūtra, whereupon he too attains full resolution. And an ordinary practitioner who, in the depths of suffering, repents and sees the buddhas of the ten directions teaching him, likewise attains full resolution." Master Yao says: "A true arhat must of himself know that the Lotus Sūtra's intent is to seek the Great Vehicle — one of sharp faculties knows this of himself, while one of middling or dull faculties must hear it in order to know it, and hence it is said, 'having heard and having known.' How, then, could it be permitted that after the Buddha's extinction one should not hear the Lotus Sūtra at all?

Or does he hear it and yet not believe, coming to understand it only upon encountering another buddha? Even ordinary beings in the age of the Dharma's decline are still able to believe it — how much more so a sage? 'Except after the Buddha's extinction' therefore refers to ordinary beings." There are those who say: "Ordinary beings have not yet realized the mark of the dharmas; their perception is unclear and their grasping mind is not fixed, and this is why they believe easily. Arhats have realized the mark of the dharmas; their perception is clear and their grasping mind is firmly fixed, and so, on suddenly hearing an unfamiliar teaching, they do not straightaway accept it with faith — hence it is said that they 'do not believe,' and this meaning must necessarily be so. Hence Śāriputra says, 'Might this not be some demon impersonating the Buddha, come to trouble and confuse my mind?'" If one follows this interpretation, then the phrase refers to arhats and not to ordinary beings, and so on. This is simply a differing interpretation, and this present commentary does not adopt it.

From "Śāriputra" onward is, fifth, making clear the absence of falsehood, in order to halt any slandering mind among the assembly. This falls into three: first, urging faith in Śākyamuni's truthful teaching, hence it says, "you should, with a single mind, believe, understand, receive, and uphold the Buddha's words"; next, urging faith in the buddhas in general, hence it says, "the words of the buddhas are without falsehood" — since the path of all buddhas is the same, one's faith and acceptance should be all the more increased; and last, concluding that this is without falsehood, hence it says, "there is no other vehicle; there is only the one buddha-vehicle."

Second, the verse section, consisting of one hundred and twenty-one lines, divides into two: first, four lines and one phrase versify the earlier granting of a response; and second, one hundred sixteen lines and three phrases versify the earlier direct response. The earlier granting of the response had three parts — namely, compliance, admonition, and the singling-out of the assembly — and the present verse does not versify the compliance, but versifies only the singling-out and the admonition. The singling-out of the assembly divides into two: first, three-and-a-half lines versify the earlier withdrawal of the five thousand; next, two phrases versify the earlier purity of the remaining assembly; and next, one phrase versifies the admonition to listen. Overweening pride and self-conceit, and the lack of faith, are found in common among the fourfold assembly, but it is chiefly the two assemblies of those who have left the household life who, having cultivated the path and attained dhyāna, mistakenly suppose this to be the fruit of sagehood, and one-sidedly give rise to overweening pride; those who remain in lay life, proud of their own eminence, chiefly give rise to self-conceit; and women, being of shallow wisdom, frequently give rise to deviant and perverse views.

"Not seeing their own faults themselves" — these three failings cover over the mind, concealing their blemishes while flaunting their supposed virtues, unable to examine themselves; such are persons without shame. One who does see his own faults for himself is a monastic possessed of a sense of shame. "Having deficiencies and lapses with regard to the precepts" — a failing in the rules of moral conduct is called a "deficiency"; a failing in the concentration-associated or the path-associated precepts is called a "lapse." Lacking the path and concentration precepts, evil thoughts arise within, like a jade stone harboring a flaw; lacking the rules of moral conduct, the body and speech stir outwardly, like a jade stone's flaw exposed on its surface; and covering up their transgressions for their own gain is why they are called "protecting and cherishing" their reputation.

"Of shallow wisdom" — they have not attained the wisdom of the trainee or the adept-beyond-training, but only possess a shallow, worldly wisdom, falsely supposing what is contaminated to be uncontaminated; being the shallowest among the shallow, they are called those "of shallow wisdom." "Chaff and husk" — lacking the moistening of uncontaminated meditative concentration, they are like chaff; lacking the wisdom of principle, they are like husk. These five thousand possess a worldly meditative concentration like chaff, and a literal understanding like husk — clinging to the letter and losing the meaning is like husk with no grain of rice within it. Moreover, "chaff and husk" likens them to those without the capacity for the Great Vehicle, and "branches and leaves" likens them to vessels unfit for use — being altogether unfit to be employed, they must therefore be sent away.

"Śāriputra, listen well" versifies the earlier admonition and granting of the response, admonishing the assembly to listen well.

From "the dharma attained by the buddhas" onward, there are one hundred sixteen lines and three phrases that versify the direct response above; this again divides into two: first, from "the dharma attained by the buddhas" onward, seventy-three lines and one phrase versify the section on the four buddha-gates; and from "I too am now like this" onward, forty-three-and-a-half lines versify the section on Śākyamuni. Within the first of these, there are again four parts: first, from "the dharma attained by the buddhas" onward, thirty-four lines and three phrases versify the gate on the buddhas in general; second, from "throughout countless past eons" onward, twenty-seven-and-a-half lines versify the gate on past buddhas; third, from "the world-honored ones of the future" onward, six-and-a-half lines versify the gate on future buddhas; and fourth, from "revered by gods and men" onward, four-and-a-half lines versify the gate on present buddhas.

Now, within this first section versifying the gate on the buddhas in general, there are in all three points of difference from the prose section: first, each contains what the other lacks; second, the sequence of earlier and later is interposed differently; and third, the opening and combining of topics differ. The prose above has the praise of the rarity of the Dharma but lacks the five turbidities; the verse has the five turbidities but lacks the praise of the Dharma. The prose first praises the Dharma and only then makes clear the absence of falsehood, opening the provisional to reveal the real; the verse first opens the provisional to reveal the real, and only afterward makes clear the absence of falsehood. The prose combines the urging of faith together with the absence of falsehood in a single discussion; the verse separates the urging of faith, setting it apart from the absence of falsehood. My own view is that the prose above uses Śākyamuni's skillful means to explain and complete the buddhas' provisional teaching, while the verse uses Śākyamuni's real teaching to explain and complete the buddhas' revealing of the one — this is the fourth point of difference.

This first section of verse falls into five parts: first, from "the dharma attained by the buddhas" onward, five lines and three phrases versify the buddhas' bestowal of the provisional; second, from "I set forth these skillful means" onward, thirteen lines versify the buddhas' revealing of the real; third, from "if a person has faith and takes refuge in the Buddha" onward, four-and-a-half lines versify the urging of faith in the buddha-section; fourth, from "if I encounter sentient beings" onward, nine-and-a-half lines extensively versify the five turbidities; and fifth, from "I have the power of skillful means" onward, two lines versify the absence of falsehood above. Now, first, explaining the opening of the provisional: the text falls into two: first, four lines and one phrase versify the direct bestowal of the provisional; next, one-and-a-half lines versify the concluding of the intent behind bestowing the provisional.

Now, first: "the dharma attained by the buddhas" refers to attaining, through cultivating the path, all of the provisional dharmas. From "the power of immeasurable skillful means" onward versifies the earlier "countless skillful means, expounding all dharmas through various causes and conditions." "The thoughts in sentient beings' minds" versifies the earlier teaching adapted to what is fitting; within the verse, the marks of this adaptation to what is fitting are set forth at length — namely, illuminating the capacities of the nine dharma-realms and teaching the seven kinds of expedient means; taken together, the nine and the seven cannot be fixed and determined in every case, and hence it says "so many" or "so various." Adapting to what accords with desire, one should employ the mundane siddhānta; adapting to what accords with nature, one should employ the individual siddhānta; adapting to what accords with evil karma, one should employ the therapeutic siddhānta. A present arising expectation is called "thought"; the differing dharma-gates are called "various"; what has been habituated in the past is called "nature"; what is delighted in at present is called "desire" — or it may be said that habituated desire becomes nature, and nature, once formed, gives rise to habituated desire, and so on.

"Good and evil karma" — the seven kinds of expedient means, passed on from one to the next, become either good or evil, and so on. The Buddha, with his provisional wisdom, illuminates the nature and desire of all these expedients, and only afterward, by means of causes, conditions, and similes, teaches the nine divisions of the scriptures in accordance with what is fitting — the twelve divisions are as explained in the Fahua Xuanyi. "Those of dull faculties who delight in the lesser dharma" — one-and-a-half lines conclude the intent behind bestowing the provisional. Those whose faculties were dull in a former life and who lack the capacity in the present life cannot bear to hear the Great Vehicle, hence it says, "unable to practice the profound and sublime path"; those whose greed and attachment were heavy with obstruction in a former life and who in the present life are troubled by manifold sufferings can only hear the lesser vehicle, hence it says, "for their sake he taught nirvāṇa."

From "I teach these skillful means" onward is, second, thirteen lines versifying the buddhas' revealing of the real. The text falls into four: first, three lines versify the oneness of principle. "So that they may enter the Buddha's wisdom" versifies the earlier "one great cause and condition." "He resolutely teaches the Great Vehicle" generally versifies "opening, revealing, awakening to, and entering the buddha's knowledge and vision." "Entering the Great Vehicle is the basis" versifies the earlier "entering the buddha's knowledge and vision."

From "the buddha's disciple, his mind pure" onward is, second, four-and-a-half lines versifying the earlier statement that the buddha-tathāgatas only teach and transform bodhisattvas, thereby making clear the oneness of persons. The prose above simply speaks of "teaching and transforming bodhisattvas," while the verse sets forth at length how all persons of every expedient means alike become persons of the real. "There is a buddha's disciple whose mind is pure" refers to a person of the distinct teaching; for the sake of this disciple the Great Vehicle sūtra is taught, and upon receiving the prediction his mind rejoices, whereupon he becomes a true person of the perfect teaching. "Whether śrāvaka or bodhisattva" — "śrāvaka" here includes also the pratyekabuddha, and "bodhisattva" includes also the bodhisattvas of the six-perfections vehicle, the shared teaching, and the rest. "All become buddhas without doubt" means precisely that none among the seven kinds of expedient means fail to be a buddha's disciple — this is precisely the versifying of the oneness of persons.

From "within the buddha-lands of the ten directions" onward is, third, one line and three phrases versifying the earlier statement that the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma to sentient beings only by means of the one buddha-vehicle, with no other vehicle, whether two or three. If the buddhas of the ten directions teach only the one dharma, this is precisely the oneness of the teaching; the provisional names by which beings are guided are precisely the teaching of skillful means. Citing the provisional names of the three teachings while revealing the one teaching of the buddha's wisdom — the meaning of the text is plain. "There is no other vehicle" means there is no remainder of the perfect teaching entering into the distinct teaching within the distinct teaching itself. "No two" means there is no pairing of the half and the full within the shared teaching. "No three" means there is no three within the Tripiṭaka teaching. All such twos and threes as these are merely provisional names and designations, used to guide sentient beings — the present teaching is only the one vehicle of the buddha's perfect teaching. From "the buddhas come forth into the world for this one matter alone, which is real" onward is, fourth, three lines and three phrases versifying the earlier statement that whatever the buddhas undertake is always for the sake of the one matter — the text on the oneness of practice.

"Matter" here is precisely "practice": "in the end he never uses the lesser vehicle to ferry sentient beings across" versifies precisely the earlier intent of always being for the sake of the one great matter. "The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle, and by means of this ferries sentient beings across" versifies the earlier "only by means of the buddha's own knowledge and vision does he show and awaken sentient beings."

The following line explains the intent behind not using the lesser vehicle to bring about liberation.

From "if a person has faith and takes refuge in the Buddha" onward is, third, four-and-a-half lines versifying the earlier urging of faith, where the prose above says, "you should believe what the Buddha has taught." Within the verse there are two parts: first, two-and-a-half lines cite the fruit to urge faith; second, from "Śāriputra" onward, two lines cite the cause to urge faith. Within the citing of the fruit, the first one-and-a-half lines cite the inner mind: "if a person has faith and takes refuge in the Buddha, the Tathāgata does not deceive or delude" makes clear that the Buddha's mind is pure — ignorance, stinginess, defilement, and every evil having already been cut off, this is spoken from within a pure mind, and hence it may be believed. From "I adorn my body with these marks" onward, one line makes clear the outward form: the bodily marks shine forth resplendent, the radiant countenance dignified and fine — within there is no darkness or delusion, and without there is radiance; the mouth is without deceit and is revered by the assembly, and so the seal with which he teaches the Great Vehicle may be believed and accepted.

From "I originally established a vow" onward, two lines cite the cause to urge faith; this again falls into two: first, from "I originally established a vow" onward, one line cites the vow of the past; second, from "just as I formerly" onward, one line makes clear that the vow has been fulfilled. My vow of the past was not only a vow for my own bodhi, but also a vow that sentient beings should equally enter into the buddha's wisdom; the present teaching is the fulfillment of that vow, and hence it too may be believed. Now that my bodhi is fulfilled, sentient beings likewise enter it; since you yourselves have realized the buddha's wisdom, this also proves that my vow was not false — concluding and completing the citing of the cause to urge faith.

Question: If the original vow was universal, and yet sentient beings even now remain many, how can the vow be said to be fulfilled?

Answer: The Buddha benefits beings throughout the three periods of time; the present discussion makes clear only the fulfillment of the vow as it stands in the present.

From "if I encounter sentient beings" onward is, fourth, nine-and-a-half lines citing the five turbidities. Above, the five turbidities were explained after the Śākyamuni section; here in the verse, this passage stands at the end of the section on the buddhas in general, and it appears yet again, repeated, within the Śākyamuni section — this makes clear that all buddhas alike come forth on account of the five turbidities, and all alike first teach the three and only afterward the one. This text falls into four parts: first, one line generally makes clear that the five turbidities obstruct the Great Vehicle; second, six lines individually make clear how the five turbidities obstruct the threefold path; third, one line makes clear that, on account of the five turbidities, the lesser vehicle is taught as a skillful means; and fourth, one-and-a-half lines make clear that, in order to teach the lesser on behalf of the Great, the lesser is used to treat the five turbidities so that the great vow may be brought to fulfillment.

"If I encounter sentient beings" — the Madhyama Āgama, fascicle twelve, says: "At the start of the eon, the beings of the Ābhāsvara heaven descended and were born into the world; there was then no male or female, no noble or base, and the multitude were together born into the world, and hence they are called 'sentient beings.'" This is based on the very beginning. If one grasps at the aggregates and thereby posits the provisional name "sentient being," this is based on a single period of received recompense. If one says that they are called "sentient beings" because they receive birth in place after place, this is based on their being carried along the five destinies by the force of karma.

The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra says: "There are ten kinds of sentient beings: long, short, square, round, triangular, blue, yellow, red, white, and purple. What is meant by sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'long'? While in hell, the body undergoes inconceivable suffering, and the mind thinks immeasurable and boundless evil; while an animal, bodies devour one another in turn, and minds torment one another in turn; while a hungry ghost, the body is as though burning like a mountain and the mind like a boiling cauldron, wrong views blazing, butting and clashing, foolish and fierce; while a human, body, speech, and mind constantly perform unbeneficial deeds, wearing oneself out thereby, and constantly dwell on unbeneficial thoughts, entangling oneself thereby; while a god, one is steeped and dyed in the six sense-objects, given over to idle pleasure and play, not hearing the true Dharma, and stopping up the source of merit — this is called sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'long.' What is meant by sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'short'? While in hell, one is able, for a single thought-moment, to take up the precepts with a mind of stillness; while an animal, one is able, for a single thought-moment, to rely upon the Three Jewels with a mind of stillness; while a hungry ghost, one is able, for a single thought-moment, to still the faculties with a mind of stillness; while a human, one is able to cultivate the six pāramitās, care for one's parents, and revere the Three Jewels, adorning body, speech, and mind with goodness; while a god, one relinquishes heavenly pleasures to uphold the precepts and delight in meditation, teaching and transforming others, reciting the scriptures, practicing the holy life, and speaking little — this is sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'short.'

What is meant by sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'square'? As with the people of Uttarakuru, who with regard to every thing have no notion of 'mine,' and upon relinquishing this body invariably ascend to the heavens, and from heaven ascend yet again to a higher heaven, rising only ever toward good destinations — this is called birth-and-death that is 'square' and 'angular.' What is meant by sentient beings whose birth-and-death is 'round'? Being confined only within the three evil paths and the four lower destinies, turning round and round in a circle like a whirling fire-wheel or swirling smoke — this is it. What is meant by 'triangular' birth-and-death? This refers to wholesome karma, unwholesome karma, and karma that is indeterminate, and the like.

What is meant by 'blue' birth-and-death for sentient beings? Constantly entering the dark hells, forever in terror and dread — this is it. What is meant by 'yellow' birth-and-death? Hungry ghosts, starving and emaciated, sallow and withered — this is it. What is meant by 'red' birth-and-death? Animals devouring one another in turn, blood flowing bright red — this is it. What is meant by 'white' birth-and-death? This refers to the white karma and good path within the human and heavenly realms — as when, at a god's approaching death, the other gods say to him, 'You are going to be born in the human path'; or when, at a human's approaching death, his friends and acquaintances say to him, 'You are going toward the heavens' — one should know that these two cases are 'white' birth-and-death."

The same sūtra, fascicle five, also says: "Painted by the mind: hell is black in color, hungry ghosts are dove-gray, animals are yellow, humans are red, and gods are white — what does this mean? Answer: 'What was said above concerns the recompense of the five destinies; what is said here concerns the karma that creates the five destinies — hence they differ,' and so on."

As for sentient beings of these various kinds, how is it that they come to "encounter" the Buddha? Sentient beings consume themselves with suffering and affliction, while the buddhas, with great compassion, ferry beings across — compassion stands opposite to suffering, and hence it is called an "encounter." Furthermore, the suchness of the Buddha and the suchness of sentient beings are one and the same suchness, without a second suchness, related as if by a natural bond — and hence it is called an "encounter."

Now, great compassion constantly has pity on sentient beings: if I were to teach them only the paths of humans and gods, I myself would fall into darkness and delusion, merely sparing them the blue, yellow, red, purple, square, round, and angular forms of birth-and-death, but this would not be teaching the buddha-path. If, encountering sentient beings, I were to have them cultivate only the lesser vehicle, I myself would fall into stinginess and greed — this would not do, for it would only bring them out of the twenty-five states of existence. If, encountering sentient beings, I were to teach them only the shared or the distinct teaching, I myself would fall into one-sided narrowness, losing the buddha's knowledge and vision. Now I cause all sentient beings, without exception, to attain the sublime wisdom of the mark of reality, to embody and penetrate the truth that everything without exception is the buddha-dharma and nothing is other than the true path — this alone is teaching the buddha-path to the very end, so that the suffering of birth-and-death is forever exhausted.

I have always taught in this way, yet because sentient beings' faculties are dull and their transgressions heavy, this vow cannot always be fulfilled as intended. In the past there was a buddha named Abiding-in-the-Unabiding, who made a vow that the sentient beings of his own land should all become buddhas on the very same day and at the very same hour, and enter extinction that very day. And before the present Fortunate Eon there was a buddha named Equality, who likewise vowed that the sentient beings of his own land, together with those of the ten directions, should all become buddhas on one and the same day and enter extinction that very day. If this is so, then how is it that today there is a buddha, and yet there still remain sentient beings who have not become buddhas?

The Buddha said: "Stop, stop! What I said before applied only to those who had attained a human body." Was there ever, then, a vow made that beings of all five destinies should become buddhas on the same day? The Buddha said: "It is not possible for a body that is not a fit vessel to attain the unsurpassed path; one must first transform beings of the three evil destinies so that they attain the human or heavenly state, and only then can the vow be fulfilled as intended. How could the three evil destinies, being not good paths, possibly attain buddhahood? It is like a person seeking a heap of treasure — he does not seek it in empty space."

From "I know that these sentient beings" onward is, second, six lines individually making clear the five turbidities, treated as five parts: first, two lines make clear the turbidity of sentient beings. "The wholesome root" is suchness, the mark of reality; it is because beings do not rely upon and plant this seed of wholesomeness that they fail to be moved by the Great Vehicle. "Firmly attached to the five desires" is precisely the root of every evil; from delusion, there is craving, and from this the affliction of self arises.

From "receiving the minute form of the womb" onward is, second, one line individually making clear the turbidity of lifespan. Explained in terms of the contemplation of mind: a single arising thought at once creates karma for the future; this karma is precisely the "womb," and the karma of this womb is inexhaustible, unbroken from one life to the next — this unbrokenness is precisely "increase." "Receiving the minute form of the womb": "form" here is precisely the five aggregates; the aggregates are called "the world," and the sustaining continuity of the lifespan, upholding these aggregates, enters the world — from the initial stage resembling thin curds all the way to old age and death — hence it is called "increasing from life to life," and this is the turbidity of lifespan.

The Sūtra on Receiving the Aggregates in the Body says: "When an ordinary being receives a body, in the first seven days it has not yet changed or transformed; in the second seven days the mark of life appears, resembling thin curds; in the third seven days it is like thick curds; in the fourth seven days it is like congealed cream; in the fifth seven days it is like a lump of clay; in the sixth seven days it is like a ball of flesh; in the seventh seven days, from this ball of flesh, five swellings arise — the head, the hands, and the feet; in the eighth seven days five more swellings arise — one for the head, two for the shoulders, and two for the wrists; in the ninth seven days a further twenty-four swellings arise in succession, four swellings forming the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue, and twenty swellings forming the twenty fingers and toes; in the tenth seven days the form of the belly gradually appears, and skin and bone gradually differentiate, forming various distinct features, and seven hundred sinews and seven thousand vessels arise; and according to whichever feature is needed, a particular wind imbues it — where a white feature is needed, a white wind imbues it, and so on for every other wind as well; a fragrant wind brings peace and fine features, while a foul wind brings unease, and so ugliness and crookedness result; and after the child is born from the womb and eats the five grains, eighty thousand households of worms then arise within it."

From "entering into the dense thicket of wrong views" onward is, third, one line making clear the turbidity of views. The five kinds of wrong view intertwine, dense as a thicket: taking "there is" is eternalism, and taking "there is not" is nihilism, and from these two views the sixty-two views arise. Or it is said that non-Buddhist schools calculate the self in four ways: form is itself the self; the self is apart from form; form is greater and the self smaller, the self dwelling within form; or the self is greater and form smaller, form dwelling within the self — and since the same fourfold pattern applies to each of the other four aggregates as well, this makes twenty. Multiplied across the three times, this makes sixty, and adding the root view itself makes sixty-two — or else it is as explained in the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra.

Next, from "deeply attached to falsehood" onward is, fourth, one line versifying the turbidity of affliction, as the text has it. From "throughout thousands of myriads of koṭis" onward is, fifth, one line versifying the turbidity of the eon: a long span of time without any buddha-dharma is precisely the turbidity of the eon. Moreover, the four turbidities discussed above, gathering together within time, are together called the turbidity of the eon. "Such people are hard to bring to liberation" — because obstructed by the five turbidities, they do not believe in the one vehicle, and hence cannot be brought to liberation. Explained through contemplative understanding: thought after thought of evil deliberation, forever without right contemplation or self-awareness, means one does not see the Buddha; a mind without the eightfold correct path means one does not hear the Dharma — such a mind is hard to bring to liberation.

From "for this reason, Śāriputra" onward is, third, one line making clear that the provisional is taught as the lesser vehicle, as the text has it.

From "although I teach nirvāṇa" onward is, fourth, one-and-a-half lines making clear the final leading of beings into the Great Vehicle. Analyzing away the delusions of the threefold world to their very end, extinguishing form and grasping at emptiness, is not the true extinction; only if one embodies and penetrates the truth that ignorance is, at its root, without arising and inherently still, is this the true extinction. Though this original absence is itself still, if one does not cultivate the path there is no way to realize and merge with it — hence it says, "once the buddha's disciple has completed the practice of the path, in a future life he shall attain buddhahood."

From "I have the power of skillful means" onward is, fifth, two lines versifying the earlier absence of falsehood, where the passage above says, "you should believe that what the Buddha has taught is not false." The urging of faith has already been versified above; the absence of falsehood is now versified afresh. The first two phrases first make clear that Śākyamuni opened the three vehicles first; the following two phrases make clear that the buddhas afterward revealed the real — the two simply appear in each other's place. The final line directly makes clear the absence of falsehood: the provisional came first and the real afterward, and these true words are without falsehood — let no doubt arise.

From "throughout countless past eons" onward is, second, twenty-seven-and-a-half lines versifying the earlier section on past buddhas; the text falls into two: first, two lines versify the opening of the three, as the text has it; and from "these world-honored ones" onward is, second, twenty-five-and-a-half lines versifying the revealing of the one — the prose section above, in revealing the real, also contained all four onenesses together, and the present verse versifies them in full. Within this there are again two parts: first, one line briefly versifies the three onenesses above: "all taught the one-vehicle dharma" is precisely versifying the oneness of the teaching; "transforming immeasurable sentient beings" versifies the oneness of persons; and "causing them to enter the buddha-path" versifies the oneness of principle, while also encompassing the oneness of practice.

Next, from "moreover, all the great sagely lords" onward is, second, twenty-four-and-a-half lines that, with respect to the five vehicles, extensively versify the revealing of the one. The text falls into two: first, one-and-a-half lines generally, with respect to the five vehicles, reveal the one — "gods, humans, and every class of living being" cites all the vehicles to make clear the oneness of persons; "furthermore, by means of differing skillful means" cites the various practices to reveal the oneness of practice, while also encompassing the oneness of the teaching; and "the ultimate meaning" is precisely the oneness of principle. As to what follows "differing skillful means": the buddha-nature that is the correct cause is itself the principle of ultimate meaning — if one employs the perfect and sublime correct contemplation, this is precisely the skillful means of the mark of reality itself, and is not called "differing"; but if one employs the contemplations of the seven kinds of expedient means to help reveal the ultimate meaning, these are called "differing skillful means."

Next, from "if there are sentient beings" onward is, second, twenty-three lines that, individually with respect to the five vehicles, reveal the true reality; this falls into three: first, two lines open the bodhisattva vehicle; second, one line opens the two vehicles; and third, twenty lines open the vehicles of gods and humans. Now, first: from "if there are classes of sentient beings" onward, two lines open the bodhisattva vehicle. If one interprets this in terms of the five vehicles, it refers only to the bodhisattva vehicle of the six pāramitās; but if one interprets it in terms of the seven kinds of expedient means, it also encompasses the bodhisattvas of the shared and distinct teachings. Why is this? The Great Vehicle of all three teachings practices the six pāramitās, yet the operation of mind involved differs. Practicing the six pāramitās with a mind that grasps at marks is the Tripiṭaka-teaching bodhisattva; practicing them without any mark at all is the shared-teaching bodhisattva; and practicing them progressing in sequence from neither-mark to no-mark is the distinct-teaching bodhisattva. Here the text simply lists "the six pāramitās" without specifying to which of these it definitely belongs. Considering the phrase above, "furthermore, by means of differing skillful means," this is not the bodhisattva of the six pāramitās alone, but the skillful means of the bodhisattvas of all three teachings. Those who formerly heard the Dharma have all already accomplished the oneness of the teaching; those who formerly practiced the six pāramitās have all already accomplished the oneness of practice; and all such persons as these have already accomplished the oneness of persons, and, having already accomplished the buddha-path, have already accomplished the oneness of principle.

From "after the buddhas have entered extinction, if a person's mind is good and gentle" — one line opens the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, both entering the one vehicle. How can this be known? The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra praises the arhat's mind as tempered and gentle, and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says, "abiding in a subdued mind is the practice of the worthy and the sage" — from this it may be known. Their formerly good and gentle mind has already become the oneness of practice; "all such persons" is the oneness of persons; and their accomplishing the buddha-path is the oneness of principle.

From "offering to the relics" onward is, third, twenty lines opening the vehicles of gods and humans. The text does not explicitly announce that this is the vehicle of gods and humans, but simply describes the making of images and the raising of stūpas, whether done with utmost devotion or with a distracted mind, and from this it may be known that this is the karma of gods and humans. A Dilun master explains: "The child here stands for the ground of childlike purity, having a mind free of the extremes of desire belonging to either the two lesser vehicles or ordinary beings. Gathering sand to build a stūpa: the sand is non-attachment, and the stūpa is the accumulation of the many practices, containing within it the mind of true awakening." That master takes this as a meeting with non-arising and considers it a profound attainment, but the present commentary considers this to depart from the text and to be forced and narrow. Why is this? One who has ascended to the bodhisattva grounds should naturally become a buddha — how could this be remarkable, any more than an asura crossing the sea? Here, rather, it is precisely because a mere child at play with sand, with a distracted mind singing snatches of song, points to something so trifling and yet it still takes hold, that it is like an ordinary being crossing the sea — utterly inconceivable. The Buddha here clearly and broadly gathers together the five vehicles, letting not the tiniest good deed go uncollected, and it would be a mistake to abandon this broad, all-gathering intent and take instead only the narrow reading of non-arising. If one follows that Dilun interpretation, it can hardly even encompass the two lesser vehicles, let alone ordinary beings. Discussed at the level of profundity, both readings come to the same point; but fixed at the level of breadth, that interpretation departs from the text of the sūtra.

Question: Small wholesome deeds of gods and humans ought properly to bring about a fruit of recompense within saṃsāra — why, then, is it said that they have all already accomplished the buddha-path?

Answer: This should be explained by way of the meaning of the three buddha-natures. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "There is, moreover, a buddha-nature that persons with wholesome roots possess and that icchantikas lack" — this refers precisely to the small wholesome deeds of gods and humans. Bowing the head or raising a hand, the first basketful of earth that begins a mountain, the first hair's breadth of an embrace — formerly, before the skillful means had been opened, these were thought to bring about only a fruit of recompense; now that the practice of skillful means has been opened, these are seen to be precisely the buddha-nature that is the conditioning cause, able to advance toward bodhi — this is the meaning of the revealing of the real.

This falls into two: the first nineteen lines, with respect to the small wholesome deeds of gods and humans, form the seed of the conditioning cause, thereby making clear the revealing of the real; the last line, with respect to the seed of the revealing cause, makes clear the revealing of the real — considering the text, this may be understood. The first nineteen lines fall into ten parts: first, three-and-a-half lines, with respect to the building of stūpas, make clear the vehicle of the gods — at the time of the cause, one pours out one's wealth and gives up one's treasures with a devoted mind, and at the time of the fruit, one spontaneously and naturally receives happiness, and hence this is the vehicle of the gods. As for "mì wood": in Chang'an there is a wood called mì, which is also suitable for carving images. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra says: "If one places a relic of the Buddha, no larger than a mustard seed, within a small stūpa, one already obtains a spontaneous fruit of recompense among the gods of the Trāyastriṃśa heaven" — this expresses precisely this meaning.

Next, from "even a child" onward is, second, one line: a child at play building a stūpa out of sand is precisely the karma of humans — at the time of the cause, the good deed is done idly and casually, and at the time of the fruit, happiness is obtained only through deliberate and diligent seeking, and hence this is the karma of humans. Next, from "if a person, for the Buddha's sake" onward is, third, four lines that, with respect to the devoted making of images, make clear the karma of the gods.

The Upāsaka-śīla Sūtra does not permit the use of animal glue, warning that one incurs a fault of intention by using it. Yet the present sūtra makes use of it — ancient masters say: "In foreign lands, plant-derived glue alone is used." Guangzhai [Fayun] says: "There may be a place where, for an image, the use of cowhide glue must be permitted, but where any other substitute is available, it should not be used." There are those who say: "The juice of soybeans may be used in place of clear glue." Yet cowhide, in the end, is an impure substance, and using it later brings an impure recompense. Impure money is not fit to be used for making images; one should exchange it for lawfully obtained pure money with which to make the image. The Bodhisattva-bhūmi does not permit orpiment or other foul-smelling substances; the Precepts Sūtra does not permit the making of half-length images, warning that one incurs a fault of intention, and the mark of goodness fails to arise, falling instead into birth-and-death. Yet the making of images is each suited to its intended purpose: an image meant for the main hall must be seated; an image meant for private devotion may be either seated or reclining; and an image depicting the Buddha in motion must be standing.

And yet a disciple, standing before an image within a stūpa hall, is not permitted to sit, because this place is definitely reserved for the Buddha; but if, in a layperson's dwelling, one is seated elsewhere before an image and unable to stand for long, one who asks permission to sit may do so — but standing directly before the image, one may not sit, and so on. Next, from "even a child" onward is, fourth, one line making clear the karma of humans. Next, from "such persons as these" onward is, fifth, one-and-a-half lines concluding and completing the revealing of the real: all such persons have already accomplished the oneness of persons; gradually accumulating merit and perfecting a mind of great compassion is precisely accomplishing the oneness of practice; the buddha-path is precisely accomplishing the oneness of principle; and having already become buddhas, they are again able to accomplish the fourfold oneness — merely by transforming bodhisattvas — and this is precisely the oneness of the teaching, and so on.

Next, from "if a person, before a stūpa or shrine" onward is, sixth, three-and-a-half lines that, with respect to offerings of every kind of adornment, make clear the karma of the gods. As for "bronze cymbal": the people of Chang'an call the exposed parasol-disk atop a stūpa a "bronze cymbal," and since the sūtra was translated there, that local name is used here. Next, from "if a person, with a scattered mind" onward is, seventh, one line that, with respect to a distracted mind making offerings of adornment, makes clear the karma of humans. Next, from "or there are those who bow in worship" onward is, eighth, one line that, with respect to bodily karma in making offerings, makes clear the karma of both gods and humans: within the single phrase on bowing in worship, prostrating the five limbs to the ground is the higher form of worship, which is the karma of the gods, while joining the palms and lowering the head is the middling form of worship, which is the karma of humans.

Next, from "by means of this offering" onward is, ninth, one-and-a-half lines concluding and completing the passage: not only does this reveal the real and bring about buddhahood of itself, but it is also able to open the provisional, so that, the firewood exhausted, one enters nirvāṇa, and so on. Next, from "if a person, with a scattered mind" onward is, tenth, one line that, with respect to verbal karma, by the pattern above ought to include both the karma of gods and of humans, but here only the karma of humans is set forth, and so on.

"Namo" carries a rich range of meanings. Some say it means, "save me, save me — may this be given to sentient beings." If the Buddha's answer were, "the buddhas save me," the meaning would not fit properly. The Sūtra on the Five Precepts speaks of it in terms of terror — it is terror above all that may properly be offered up to the Buddha. Birth-and-death, perilous and difficult, is truly terrifying; being unable to save oneself by the Great Vehicle, one now, in common with all buddhas, is ferried across by the lesser — offering up one's terror to the Buddha is fitting, and hence the text says, "joyfully proclaiming, 'Namo Buddha.'" "Joy" is the joy of the manner in which one is saved. The Sūtra on the Five Precepts also says: "'Taking refuge with one's life' means offering everything up to sentient beings." When Devadatta, at the point of death, proclaimed "Namo," he had not yet managed to say "Buddha" before he fell into hell; yet the Buddha predicted that, upon emerging from hell, he would become a pratyekabuddha named Namo.

There were, in a foreign land, those who served an image of a heavenly deity, its head made of gold. When thieves came to steal it, they were unable to remove the head, until they cried out, "Namo Buddha!" — whereupon the head came free at once. The next day the people gathered and said: "If the heavenly image lost its head, then no god was truly dwelling within it after all — for if a god had truly been present, how could the head have been lost?" The god then descended and possessed a man, saying through him: "When the thieves came to take the head, they cried out, 'Namo Buddha!' — and all the gods were startled and shaken, and it was for this reason that they were able to seize it, and for this reason that the head was lost." The people said: "Is a god, then, not the equal of the Buddha? And if he is not his equal, then why do we not now serve the Buddha instead?" If even thieves, by crying "Namo Buddha," were able to obtain a god's head, how much more should a worthy person who cries "Namo Buddha" expect? The venerable spirits of the ten directions dare not stand against it — one need only apply oneself diligently, without slackening.

The Nāgasena Sūtra says: "A person, at the point of death, who cries 'Namo Buddha' is able to escape niraya — why is this? It is like a person holding a single stone and placing it in water: the stone must certainly sink, without doubt; but if one is able to load a hundred stones onto a boat, they will certainly not sink. If one simply dies as one is, one must certainly enter niraya, like the stone placed in the water; but if, at the point of death, one cries 'Namo Buddha,' then, by the power of the Buddha, one is caused not to enter niraya, just as, by the power of the boat, the stones are caused not to sink," and so on.

The Garbha Sūtra and the Sūtra on Repaying Kindness say: "At the third great assembly in Hualin Garden, of the nine billion two hundred million people gathered there, these are, within the Dharma bequeathed by Śākyamuni, those who, having once proclaimed 'Namo Buddha,' shall be able to behold Maitreya."

Next, from "with regard to the buddhas of the past" onward is, second, one line making clear the seed of the revealing cause; by analogy with what came above, there are here as well the seeds of the five vehicles — with mark and without mark, neither with mark nor without mark, with a devoted mind and with a distracted mind — and here all are opened up and brought into the single reality, and so on. "Hearing with a devoted mind" is a single phrase constituting the karma of the gods; "hearing with a distracted mind" is a single phrase constituting the karma of humans, and so on.

Question: Why is it that the section on past buddhas alone extensively makes clear the five vehicles?

Answer: All buddhas of the three periods of time equally open the provisional, but for the future it has not yet arisen, and for the present it has only just begun to be carried out — for either of these, the force of the proof is weak. But the opening of the provisional by past buddhas has long since taken place, and those who received their transforming teaching have all already accomplished the fourfold oneness, scattered throughout the ten directions, bestowing the provisional and revealing the real — for this, the force of the proof is strong. Constructing an argument from empty words is not as good as verifying it with something real, and hence it is with respect to past buddhas that the five vehicles are extensively set forth.

From "the world-honored ones of the future" onward is, third, six-and-a-half lines versifying the earlier section on future buddhas. The text falls into two: first, one-and-a-half lines versify the opening of the three; and the following five lines versify the revealing of the one. "Delivering and liberating all sentient beings" is one line versifying the oneness of persons. "The buddhas' original vow" is one line versifying the oneness of practice: the buddhas, in practicing the path, vowed to bring all beings to attain this very path — is this not precisely the oneness of practice? "The buddhas of the future age" is two lines versifying the oneness of the teaching.

"Knowing that dharmas are ever without self-nature" — the mark of reality is eternally abiding and without any self-nature, and even the nature of being without a cause is itself without nature — this "without nature" is itself also without nature, and this is called "the absence of self-nature." "The buddha-seed arises from conditions" — the absence of self-nature that is the middle way is itself precisely the buddha-seed: for one deluded about this principle, ignorance serves as the condition, and thereby sentient beings arise; for one who understands this principle, teaching and practice serve as the condition, and thereby true awakening arises — wishing to bring forth the buddha-seed, one requires the one-vehicle teaching, and this is precisely the versifying of the oneness of the teaching.

Moreover, "the absence of self-nature" is precisely the buddha-nature that is the correct cause; "the buddha-seed arises from conditions" is precisely the buddha-natures that are the conditioning cause and the revealing cause. By the conditioning cause providing for the revealing cause, the correct seed is able to arise — once one arises, all arise; these three natures, taken together in just this way, are called the one vehicle. "This dharma abides in the rank of dharma" is one line versifying the oneness of principle: sentient beings and true awakening are one and the same suchness, without a second suchness, none of them ever departing from suchness, all taking suchness as their own rank.

"The mark of the world is ever abiding" — the transmundane true awakening takes suchness as its rank, and also takes suchness as its mark, and this rank and mark are ever abiding; the sentient beings of the mundane world likewise take suchness as their rank, and likewise take suchness as their mark — how could this not be ever abiding? Since the mark of the world is ever abiding, is this not precisely the oneness of principle? Furthermore, explained otherwise, "the world" here refers to the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields, and "ever abiding" refers precisely to the correct cause. Now, this correct cause is not identical with the six ordinary mundane dharmas, yet the conditioning and revealing causes are never apart from the six dharmas; since the correct cause is ever abiding, the conditioning and revealing causes are likewise ever abiding, and hence it says, "the mark of the world is ever abiding." "Having known this at the site of enlightenment" — this cites the fruit to explain and complete the opening of the provisional to reveal the real: at the site of enlightenment this principle became luminously clear and, long dwelling within it, unfolded outward, but because the sentiment of beings was heavily obstructed, the three vehicles were bestowed as skillful means, and so on.

From "revered by gods and men" onward is, fourth, four-and-a-half lines versifying the section on present buddhas; the prose above had four parts, but the verse here versifies only three, not versifying the final conclusion. The first one-and-a-half lines versify the intent behind the transforming teaching, which is precisely to bring peace and security to sentient beings. Next, from "knowing the foremost stillness and extinction" onward, one line versifies the earlier revealing of the real: "knowing the foremost stillness and extinction" versifies the oneness of principle, while "in reality this is the buddha-vehicle" versifies either the oneness of the teaching or the oneness of practice. Last, from "knowing the various practices of sentient beings" onward, two lines versify the opening of the provisional, as the text has it.

From "I too am now like this" onward is, second, forty-three-and-a-half lines versifying the Śākyamuni section; the prose section above lacks the praise of the rarity of the Dharma, but the verse here contains all six meanings in full. However, the old explanations of the Śākyamuni section, in pointing out the basis for the parable, cite what stands above while glossing what lies below, so that text and meaning become tangled together — consulting the commentary leaves the eyes dazzled, and listening to it explained leaves the mind confused, and those of duller faculties are brought only to bewilderment. This private record therefore first sets forth the parable correspondences in advance, to be matched again against the text when it is reached, in the hope that this may serve as its own mirror.

Now, the verse of the Śākyamuni section has, in all, two aspects of meaning: first, versifying what came above; and second, forming the basis for what lies below. Those of superior faculties have already awakened, but those of middling faculties have not yet understood, and hence a parable must be made, returning to give an analogy for the dharma taught above — a parable does not arise on its own, but follows upon and continues from what precedes it for a reason, and hence it is called "the basis of the parable." The old oral tradition gave five parables: first, the parable of the elder; second, the parable of pondering how to save the children; third, the parable of luring with the provisional; fourth, the parable of equality; and fifth, the parable of the absence of falsehood. Yet the first of these is the general parable, not the elder alone, and "pondering how to save" refers merely to the meaning of being unable to save the children — this scheme still lacks the parable of seeing the fire, and so it is not adopted here.

Master Yao says: "Within 'Skillful Means,' from 'the buddhas, in accordance with what is fitting, teach' to the end of the prose section, this directly reveals the reality of the one vehicle. There are, in all, four sections: first, opening the former four and three to accomplish the present fourfold one; second, teaching that, on account of the five turbidities, the one vehicle cannot be taught; third, from 'if my disciples themselves declare' onward, making clear those who cannot attain it; and fourth, from 'you should, with a single mind, believe and understand' onward, making clear the absence of falsehood. Though the wording differs from beginning to end, seeking out the intent shows all of these to be equally real. Within the parable of the burning house that follows, only three of the sections within 'Skillful Means' are given a parable: from 'it is like' to 'wishing to bestow them at the fitting time' is the first, the parable of the section on the five turbidities; from 'he equally bestowed on each of the children a single great cart' to 'obtaining what they had never had before' is the second, the parable of the section on the real; and from 'that elder equally bestows on his children' to 'is there any falsehood in this?' is the third, the parable of the section on the absence of falsehood."

Master Xuanchang speaks of six parables: "First, the marks of the many calamities within the house; second, the one who is aware — the Buddha alone — gives rise to the thought of the one vehicle; third, sentient beings do not accept it, and so the fearful matter is spoken of; fourth, the pleasures of the three vehicles are taught; fifth, the one-vehicle teaching is taught once again; and sixth, the conclusion, that this is without falsehood."

Master Long speaks of six parables: "First, the house and the father and children, likening the Buddha as sovereign of the threefold world who transforms sentient beings; second, the elder seeing the fire, likening my seeing, with the buddha-eye, the sentient beings of the six destinies; third, the elder trying to save them from the fire, likening the Buddha's three-times-seven-days' wish to liberate sentient beings, unable to use the Great Vehicle; fourth, the elder luring them out with the skillful means of the three carts, likening the Buddha setting forth the teaching of the three vehicles; fifth, the elder bestowing the single great cart, likening the teaching of the sublime Dharma Lotus; and sixth, the parable of the absence of falsehood."

The ten parables of the burning house: first, "I too am now like this," two lines, generally versifying the provisional-and-real above, forming the basis for the general parable below; second, "Śāriputra, you should know," four lines, versifying the five turbidities above, forming the basis for the parable of seeing the fire below; third, "when I first sat at the site of enlightenment," six-and-a-half lines, making clear that transformation by the Great Vehicle could not be achieved, forming the basis for the parable of being unable to save the children below; fourth, "reflecting upon the past buddhas," eleven lines, making clear that transformation by the three vehicles could be achieved, forming the basis for the parable of saving the children below; fifth, "I saw the buddha's disciples," one line, making clear that the capacity for the Great Vehicle had been stirred, forming the basis for the parable of seeing the children escape the danger below;

sixth, "all with a reverent mind," one line, making clear the seeking of the fruit of the three vehicles, forming the basis for the parable of the children seeking carts below; seventh, "I then had this thought," two lines and one phrase, making clear the Tathāgata's joy, forming the basis for the parable of the elder's joy below; eighth, "before all the bodhisattvas," three phrases, making clear the teaching of the Great Vehicle, forming the basis for the parable of equally bestowing the great cart below; ninth, "the bodhisattvas, having heard this dharma," one line, making clear the joy of sentient beings, forming the basis for the parable of the children's joy at receiving the cart below; and tenth, "you should have no doubt," one-and-a-half lines, making clear the Buddha's freedom from falsehood, forming the basis for the parable of the elder's absence of falsehood below.

There are those who evaluate this scheme, saying that, if judged by phrase, there ought to be nineteen phrases, but if judged by meaning, there are six meanings: first, the general; second, seeing the fire; third, transformation by the one vehicle being unable to be achieved; fourth, transformation by the three vehicles being achieved; fifth, teaching the one vehicle once again; and sixth, the absence of falsehood — the remaining items are all gathered within these six meanings.

Moreover, with these ten parables, the direct teaching and the parable-teaching fall out of step with one another: in the direct teaching the seeking of the cart comes first and the father's joy comes after, while in the parable-teaching the father's joy comes first and the seeking of the cart comes after — though one might wish to reconcile the two, in the end this only becomes circuitous. Moreover, the great and the small are set at odds: in the direct teaching, seeing the capacity for the Great Vehicle stirred is the cause of joy, while in the parable-teaching, seeing the lesser conditions escape danger is the cause of joy; the direct teaching makes clear the great cause, while the parable-teaching narrates the lesser fruit; in the direct teaching the great obstruction is on the verge of collapsing, while in the parable-teaching the lesser difficulty has already been escaped — the sense and thrust of the two diverge from each other at every point. Moreover, because of a difference in presence and absence: in the direct teaching, it narrates that those of superior faculties awaken easily, and hence there is no seeking of a cart; in the parable-teaching, it makes clear that those of middling faculties are still confused, and hence there is a seeking of a cart.

If one were to cite "with a reverent mind" as the seeking of a cart, this would utterly fail to grasp the intent of the text — the present scheme is free of these four faults. As for the presence and absence of items: the prose section has five parts — first, opening the three; second, revealing the one; third, the five turbidities; fourth, the true and the false; and fifth, the absence of falsehood. The verse likewise has five, but where the prose has the true and the false, the verse lacks this, and where the verse has the praise of the Dharma, the prose lacks this — the two simply appear alternately in each other's place. As for their sequence: the prose first opens the three and only afterward reveals the one, while the verse first reveals the one and only afterward opens the three. As for opening and combining: opening the three to reveal the one forms the basis of the general parable, and the two verses on this are combined rather than kept separate; next, the passage setting the five turbidities apart forms the basis of four of the parables, and here they are kept separate rather than combined; the absence of falsehood forms the basis of the parable of the absence of falsehood, and here it is neither combined nor separated. As for what is taken up and what is set aside: the four sections of the sūtra text form the basis of the six parables, and these are taken up rather than set aside; the one section on the praise of the Dharma does not belong among the six parables, and hence it is set aside rather than taken up. As for discussing the general and the particular: the opening section, opening the three to reveal the one, generally narrates the whole of Śākyamuni's single transforming teaching-gate; from the five turbidities onward, all of this belongs to the particular parables.

Next, as to the trace and the origin: the general narration of the Buddha's teaching generally encompasses both the origin and the trace, while from the five turbidities onward, the trace and the origin are made clear individually. The one section on the five turbidities directly makes clear the Buddha's dwelling in the origin that is the dharma-body, seeing the suffering of sentient beings and giving rise to great compassion; from the passage on the inability to achieve transformation by the one vehicle onward, this is the manifesting of the trace, and so on. The present view, however, is that the essential intent of the trace gate is precisely the opening of the three to reveal the one: earlier, the direct teaching in prose was enough for those of superior faculties to awaken and understand at once, but those of middling and lesser faculties had not yet awakened, and so a parable had to be made besides, giving an analogy for the three and the one so that they might be brought to understanding. Since the earlier direct teaching in prose already, in both brief and extended form, opened the three to reveal the one, the parable-teaching that follows ought likewise, in both brief and extended form, to grant the three and bestow the one, and the causal-condition teaching ought likewise to bring the three into the one — but if one were to construct three parables, six parables, or ten parables as fixed schemes, this would fail to accord with the text across the three rounds of teaching, and would diverge from the faith and understanding of the four kinds of persons — and hence such schemes are not adopted here.

Now, to explain the versifying within the Śākyamuni section: this divides broadly into two: first, from "I too am now like this" onward, two lines of verse briefly versify the provisional-and-real above, forming the basis for the general parable below; and second, from "I, with the buddha-eye, observe and see" onward, forty-one-and-a-half lines of verse extensively versify the six meanings above, forming the basis for the particular parables below. Now, within this brief versifying there are precisely six points of meaning, able to form the basis for the six meanings of the general parable. The verse says, "I too am now like this" — "I" refers to Śākyamuni, the lord of this single transforming teaching, forming the basis for the parable of the great elder below.

"Peace and security" refers to the abode of the great nirvāṇa's permanence and bliss; this place is still and quiet, without the obstruction of the five turbidities, and hence it is called "peace and security." "Peace and security" stands opposite "the absence of peace and security," and "the absence of peace and security" refers to the place of birth-and-death and transforming activity within the threefold world — being obstructed by the five turbidities is called "the absence of peace and security," and this forms the basis for the parable of the burning house below. "Sentient beings" refers to the followers of the five destinies who receive the transforming teaching, forming the basis for the parable of the five hundred people below. Moreover, "peace and security" refers precisely to the dharma of peace and security, again standing opposite the dharma of the absence of peace and security, and the dharma of the absence of peace and security is precisely the dharma of the five turbidities, forming the basis for the parable of the fire breaking out below. "Various dharma-gates" stands opposite "not various," forming the basis for the parable of there being only a single gate below. "Knowing the nature and desire of sentient beings" refers to the differences of the three vehicles found within the root-natures of the five destinies, forming the basis for the parable of the thirty children below.

What has been given above is the brief versifying, and what follows is the basis for the general parable — the beginning and the end correspond to and follow from each other, text and meaning both complete, and within the parable itself the earlier passage will again be cited to confirm the later, and so on. Within the extensive versifying of the six meanings above, the text divides into four, forming the basis for the particular parables below: first, from "I, with the buddha-eye, observe" onward, four lines extensively versify the five turbidities above, forming the basis for the parable of seeing the fire below; second, from "when I first sat at the site of enlightenment" onward, seventeen-and-a-half lines extensively versify the earlier opening of the three from within the one, forming the basis for the parable of setting aside the Great Vehicle and bestowing the lesser below; third, from "I saw the buddha's disciples" onward, six lines extensively versify the earlier revealing of the real, forming the basis for the parable of equally bestowing the great cart below;

fourth, from "just as the buddhas of the three periods of time" onward, five-and-a-half lines extensively versify the earlier praise of the rarity of the Dharma; next, two-and-a-half lines directly versify the earlier absence of falsehood; and next, six lines versify the earlier pressing home of faith — these three points of meaning together form the basis for the parable of the absence of falsehood below, though it is properly the two-and-a-half lines versifying the absence of falsehood that form the basis for that parable.

This is the general outline; each division opens further still. Within the first, the versifying of the five turbidities, there are three points of meaning: first, half a line and one character make clear the buddha-eye's observing and seeing, forming the basis for the later parable of the elder's ability to see; second, from "the sentient beings of the six destinies" onward, two lines, three phrases, and four characters make clear the five turbidities that are seen, forming the basis for the later parable of the fire that is seen; and third, from "for the sake of these sentient beings" onward, half a line makes clear the arising of great compassion, forming the basis for the later parable of the elder, startled, entering the burning house.

Second, from "when I first sat" onward, as for the versifying of the opening of the three, this opens further into two points of meaning: first, six-and-a-half lines reflect on the inability to transform beings by use of the Great Vehicle, forming the basis for the parable, below, of the elder possessing strength of body and hand yet not using it, setting the Great Vehicle aside; and next, from "reflecting upon the past" onward, eleven lines reflect on transformation by the three vehicles in common with the other buddhas, forming the basis for the later parable of setting forth the three carts and bestowing the lesser.

Third, within the versifying of the earlier revealing of the real, this opens further into four points of meaning: first, from "Śāriputra, you should know, I saw the buddha's disciples" onward, two lines make clear that the capacity for the Great Vehicle has been stirred, forming the basis for the later parable of seeking the cart; next, from "I then" onward, second, two lines and one phrase make clear the Buddha's joy, forming the basis for the later parable of seeing the children escape the danger; next, from "before all the bodhisattvas" onward, third, three phrases directly reveal the real, forming the basis for the later parable of equally bestowing the single great cart; and next, from "the bodhisattvas, having heard this" onward, fourth, one line makes clear the accepting, practicing, and awakened entering, forming the basis for the later parable of the children's joy at receiving the single great cart.

The versifying of the absence of falsehood above directly forms the basis for the parable of the absence of falsehood below, without any further division being discussed. Furthermore, taken together all at once, this opens broadly into three parables: first, "I too am now like this," two lines, combined rather than kept separate, forming the basis for the general parable below; second, from "I, with the buddha-eye, observe" onward, kept separate rather than combined, forming the basis for the particular parables below; and third, the parable of the absence of falsehood, neither separated nor combined, forming the basis for the parable of the absence of falsehood. If one follows this scheme of the brief and the extended versifying, corresponding to what comes above and what lies below, then it holds good throughout the three rounds of teaching and the section on faith and understanding as well, with neither the text nor the meaning ever lacking. And if, with respect to the extensive versifying, one opens this further into four points of meaning versifying the four meanings above, forming the basis for the four parables below, this too holds good throughout the three rounds of teaching and the section on faith and understanding, with the text and meaning never lacking.

And if one divides this further still, opening the versifying of the five turbidities into three, the versifying of the skillful means into two, the versifying of the revealing of the real into four, and the absence of falsehood remaining as one, this together makes ten points of meaning, forming the basis for the ten parables below. But these ten points of meaning belong only to the direct-teaching and parable rounds, and are lacking in the text of the faith-and-understanding round and the causal-condition round — hence the present commentary constructs these three tiers of division, corresponding to what comes above and what lies below, and this is not done aimlessly or at random.

Within the brief versifying, the first line versifies the earlier revealing of the real, and the second line versifies the earlier opening of the provisional; though this passage is narrow, it versifies the fourfold oneness in full. "I too am now like this" — "like this" as with the buddhas, equally teaching and transforming sentient beings by means of the single reality — this is the general versifying of the revealing of the real. "Peace and security" — the secret treasury of nirvāṇa is the place of peace and security; the Buddha himself dwells within it, and also settles sentient beings within this secret treasury. The place of peace and security versifies the oneness of principle; sentient beings versifies the oneness of persons; the various dharma-gates entering into the buddha-path versifies the oneness of practice; and "proclaiming and showing" versifies the oneness of the teaching.

"The power of wisdom" refers precisely to the power of provisional wisdom. "Knowing the nature and desire of sentient beings" refers to discerning the lesser capacities. "Teaching all dharmas by skillful means" refers directly to the bestowal of the provisional. "Causing them all to attain joy" refers to according with what is fitting to match their capacity. Though these two verses are brief, they gather in the whole of the Buddha's single transforming teaching, the opening of the provisional and the revealing of the real, tracing it from beginning to end and exhausting it completely without remainder — hence this is called the brief versifying that forms the basis of the general parable below.

Second, from "I, with the buddha-eye, observe" onward, forty-one-and-a-half lines extensively versify the six meanings above. The old interpretation took the final seven lines to be the dissemination of the direct teaching, but this is not adopted here; instead, they are taken as versifying the praise of the Dharma and the pressing home of faith. The first four lines versify the earlier opening of the three on account of the five turbidities; the second, seventeen-and-a-half lines, versify the bestowing of the transforming teaching by skillful means; the third, six lines, versify the earlier revealing of the real; the fourth, five-and-a-half lines, versify the earlier praise of the rarity of the Dharma — though the Śākyamuni section lacks this, it points back to what is found within the section on the buddhas in general; the fifth, two-and-a-half lines, versify the earlier absence of falsehood; and the sixth, six lines, versify the earlier pressing home of faith.

The first four lines versify the five turbidities; the prose above had four parts — stating the number, listing the names, setting forth the essence, and explaining and concluding — but the verse here versifies only three of these: number, name, and essence. The prose above said that the three vehicles are taught on account of the five turbidities; the verse here says that the Buddha comes forth into the world on account of the five turbidities — coming forth into the world, he should properly teach the Great Vehicle, but being obstructed and unable to do so, he first teaches the lesser. This again falls into three: first, eleven characters make clear that the Buddha possesses the eye capable of seeing; second, from "the six destinies" onward, two lines, three phrases, and four characters make clear the five turbidities that are seen; and third, from "for the sake of these sentient beings" onward, half a line makes clear the arising of great compassion, responding to what is seen.

As for the first eleven characters, "I, with the buddha-eye, observe and see": the text below says, "the elder stood outside the gate" — citing what lies below to confirm what stands above, one knows that the Buddha, dwelling in the ground of the dharma-body, with the ever-still buddha-eye perfectly illuminates the capacities of the many, and that, if the faculties are sharp and the turbidities light, he then teaches the one-vehicle dharma in the form of Vairocana, while if the faculties are dull and the turbidities heavy, he then removes his jeweled ornaments, taking the form of an old bhikṣu, and, startled, enters the burning house, opening the three vehicles as a skillful means — this is simply discerning the capacity of the moment, and hence it says, "I, with the buddha-eye, observe and see." Now, if one is observing physical form, one should properly employ the heavenly eye, and if one is discerning capacities, one should properly employ the dharma-eye — why, then, does it speak of seeing "with the buddha-eye"? The buddha-eye is perfectly all-encompassing, raising up the superior while also including the inferior, and moreover, when the other four eyes enter into the buddha-eye, they are all likewise called the buddha-eye, and so on.

From "the sentient beings of the six destinies" onward is, second, two lines, three phrases, and four characters making clear the five turbidities that are seen. "Poor and destitute, without merit or wisdom" — half a line — versifies the turbidity of sentient beings; "entering the perilous path of birth-and-death, its sufferings continuing without break" versifies the turbidity of lifespan; "deeply attached to the five desires," one line, versifies the turbidity of affliction; "not seeking the buddha of great power, nor the dharma that cuts off suffering" versifies the turbidity of the eon; and "deeply entering into every wrong view, wishing by suffering to escape suffering" versifies the turbidity of views. Some say this refers to scorching the body with the five kinds of heat, wishing thereby to escape suffering but instead receiving only suffering as recompense; others say that these views are themselves a form of feeling, and feeling is itself suffering — practicing this very cause of suffering while wishing to escape suffering, how could this ever be attained?

The Lalitavistara says: "As for the origin of the five destinies: the five precepts make one human; the ten wholesome deeds bring birth among the gods; stinginess and greed bring a fall into the realm of hungry ghosts; butting and clashing bring a fall into the animal realm; and the ten evil deeds bring a fall into hell." To be without the five destinies, the five aggregates, and the six forms of decay is itself nirvāṇa; yet neither dwelling in birth-and-death nor abiding in nirvāṇa, one then receives the prediction of bodhi. The Abhidharma Vibhāṣā, fascicle seven, says: "When a person is first born in hell, he thinks: 'I formerly heard a śramaṇa teach that greed and desire are the transgression that leads to this greatly fearsome place, hell; because I formerly did not cut off greed and desire, I now undergo this intense affliction.'" This cites greed and desire as the cause of hell.

It also says: "Each of the five destinies has its own natural characteristic: in hell, form is cut off and yet continues again; among animals, there are those able to fly through the sky; among hungry ghosts, when food is offered up in a handful, they are able to come to the midst of humans; among humans there is courage and vigor, the power of recollection, and the holy life — courage and vigor meaning that, without yet seeing the fruit, one is broadly able to cultivate the cause; the power of recollection meaning that deeds done long ago can still be remembered; and the holy life meaning that one is able to attain liberation, reach the portion leading to it, and attain right and certain determination; and among the gods there is the natural following of one's own wishes, so that whatever is needed is obtained at once," and so on. In hell, one still possesses the afflictions, karma, and wholesome deeds belonging to the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven, though these do not manifest and operate there; and in the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven, one still possesses the afflictions, karma, and unwholesome deeds belonging to hell, though these likewise do not manifest and operate there — citing the highest and citing the lowest in this way, what lies in between may be inferred accordingly.

"Hell" is the name for this in our own land; in the languages of foreign lands it is called niraya, which, translated into Chinese, means "without": without joy or happiness, without any pleasant flavor, without delight, without benefit — hence it is called "without." Some also render it as "the lowly and base," or as "the fallen," because in the intermediate state one hangs upside down and every faculty is destroyed. Some render it as "without" in the sense that there is, moreover, no place of pardon there.

As for the wardens of hell, these are conjured apparitions made to be seen, and are not counted among sentient beings; when a guilty person is first bound and led to the presence of King Yama, this is counted among sentient beings, but at the time of undergoing suffering, this is not counted among sentient beings — those who explain it this way take the initial cries all to be coherent speech, while the cries uttered during the actual suffering can no longer be distinguished as such. As for animals: their bodies lie sideways, and their movement is sideways, and hence they are called "animals." Animals are also called "the pervasively present," because they are found pervasively throughout the five destinies — even within the four heavens and the thirty-three heavens they are all present, though the elephants, horses, and the like on which the gods above ride are conjured by the power of merit, and are not counted among sentient beings. Animals are also called "the blind and benighted," because it is on account of their abundant ignorance that they are called animals. At the start of the eon they were all able to understand the language of the sages; afterward, as food and drink came to differ, and flattering minds arose, their speech was entirely transformed, and some lost the ability to speak at all.

As for hungry ghosts: in a foreign tongue they are called preta, which, translated into Chinese, means "ancestor" — the sentient being first born into that destiny is called "the ancestor," and those born there afterward are likewise called "ancestors"; moreover, it is stinginess and greed that cause a fall into this destiny, and this destiny is marked by great hunger and thirst, and hence they are called "hungry ghosts"; they are also driven and made use of by the gods, and constantly long for food and drink, and this too is why they are called "hungry ghosts."

As for humans: in a foreign tongue they are called manuṣya, which means "mind" — formerly, when King Mūrdhaja first transformed the people, teaching that in whatever they undertook they should think well, deliberate well, and recollect well, the people, following the king's teaching in whatever they undertook, first deliberated and recollected — and hence humans are called after "mind." Moreover, humans are able to still the mind and are able to cultivate the path and reach the portion leading to it. It is also said that "human" means "pride," since, among the five destinies, it is among humans that pride is most abundant, and hence the human destiny is so named.

As for the asuras: "sura" means "god," and "a" means "not" — being not gods, they are called "asura"; or "sura" means "upright and fine-featured," and, they being not upright and fine-featured, they are called "asura"; or "sura" means "wine," and "a" means "without," and, they being without wine, they are called "asura." As for the gods: "heaven" means naturally and spontaneously superior — superior in happiness, superior in body — and hence "heaven" means "superior," every matter there being superior to that of the other destinies, and they constantly illuminate themselves with their own light, and hence they are called "gods"; the gods are also naturally and spontaneously so. An Āgama sūtra says: "Sentient being is a provisional designation; the dharma-realm is the true dharma. The sentient beings of the five destinies are united together with the dharma-realm: when sentient beings act with an unwholesome mind, they are united together with the unwholesome realm; when they act with a wholesome mind, they are united together with the wholesome realm; when they act with a superior mind, they are united together with the superior realm; and when they act with a base mind, they are united together with the base realm — for this reason, monks, you should train yourselves in this way, skillfully understanding these various realms." What has come before explains the six destinies in terms of causes and conditions; what follows resembles an explanation of the six destinies in terms of the contemplation of mind.

From "for the sake of these sentient beings" onward is, third, half a line making clear the arising of great compassion. "And so he gave rise to a mind of great compassion" — above, the ability to see was cited, and next, what is seen was made clear; now it is made clear that great compassion suffuses the mind, and that he ought to enter the threefold world and set forth skillful means, drawing beings toward the buddha's wisdom.