The Nine Realms in One

Expounded by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai.

Fourth, directly discussing the present meaning, in two parts: first, briefly using Guangzhai's own terms to reveal the sense of "wondrous." As for the cause possessing three senses: that a single dharma-realm possesses the other nine dharma-realms within it is named "the essence is broad." That the nine dharma-realms are themselves the buddha-dharma-realm is named "the stage is high." That the ten dharma-realms are precisely empty, precisely provisional, precisely the middle is named "the function is long." Speaking of the one in terms of the three, and speaking of the three in terms of the one — neither each separately different, nor merely arranged side by side, nor merely one — hence it is called wondrous. As for the fruit's essence possessing three senses: that its essence pervades every place is named "the essence is broad." That it has long, long since attained buddhahood, incalculably long ago, is named "the stage is high." That, from the origin, the trace is let down, benefiting beings across the past, present, and future — the three times — is named "the function is long." These are the six senses of cause and fruit, differing from every other sūtra — hence it is called wondrous.

Again, the milk sūtra has one kind of cause and fruit that is broad, high, and long, and one kind that is narrow, low, and short — thus it has one coarse and one wondrous, and so on. The cream sūtra has only the one kind of cause and fruit that is narrow, low, and short — it is coarse only, without any wondrous. The fresh-curdled-butter sūtra has three kinds of cause and fruit that are narrow, low, and short, and one kind that is broad, high, and long — thus it has three coarse and one wondrous. The ripened-butter sūtra has two kinds of cause and fruit that are narrow, low, and short, and one kind that is broad, high, and long — thus it has two coarse and one wondrous. The ghee sūtra has only the one kind of cause and fruit that is broad, high, and long — it is wondrous only, without any coarse. Moreover, the ghee sūtra's wondrous cause and wondrous fruit are no different from the wondrous cause and wondrous fruit of any other sūtra — hence it, too, is called wondrous.

Moreover, an interpretation through the contemplation of mind: if, contemplating one's own mind, it is found not to contain the minds of sentient beings and of the Buddha, this is a narrow essence; if it is found to contain them, this is a broad essence. If one's own mind is not equal to the Buddha's mind, this is a low stage; if it is equal to the Buddha's mind, this is a high stage. If one's own mind, the minds of sentient beings, and the Buddha's mind are not precisely empty, precisely provisional, precisely the middle, this is a short function; if they are precisely empty, precisely provisional, precisely the middle, this is a long function. Moreover, to penetrate through the six identities' stages across the ten dharma-realms within a single dharma-realm is likewise a broad essence, a high stage, and a long function. The first account, in terms of the ten dharma-realms, reveals the oneness of principle; the next, in terms of the Five Flavors, is the oneness of teaching; the next, in terms of the contemplation of mind, is the oneness of practice; the next, in terms of the six identities, is the oneness of the person. This briefly indicates the sense of "wondrous," now complete.

Given at length: first "dharma," then "wondrous." Master Nanyue raises three kinds: the dharma of sentient beings, the dharma of the Buddha, and the dharma of mind. As the sūtra says: "For the sake of causing sentient beings to open, show, awaken to, and enter the Buddha's own knowledge and vision." If sentient beings did not possess the Buddha's knowledge and vision at all, what could there be to speak of "opening"? One should know that the Buddha's own knowledge and vision is already stored within sentient beings. Again, the sūtra says: "Merely with the eyes given by his father and mother" — this is the physical eye; "seeing through, inside and out, to Mount Sumeru" — this is the heavenly eye. Seeing through all forms without being stained or attached to them is the wisdom-eye. Seeing forms without error or confusion is the dharma-eye. Though not yet having attained the taintless, his eye-faculty is nonetheless pure. If this single eye already possesses the function of all the eyes, this is the buddha-eye. This is the present sūtra's own text clarifying the wondrous dharma of sentient beings. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "For one who studies the Mahāyāna, though he has only the physical eye, it is named the buddha-eye. The ear, nose, and the remaining five faculties are, by the same pattern, likewise so." The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra says: "As for that very eye-faculty, in every one of the tathāgatas it is eternal, complete without diminishment in its cultivation, seeing with perfect clarity and distinctness" — and this extends even to the mind-faculty, likewise so. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "The six sovereign kings, since their nature is pure" — and again: "All dharmas converge upon the eye; this convergence is unsurpassed." If the eye itself is unattainable, how much more so is there any "converging" or "not converging"! And this extends even to all dharmas converging upon the mind, likewise so. This is how the various sūtras clarify the wondrous dharma of sentient beings.

As for the wondrous dharma of the Buddha: as the sūtra says, "Stop, stop — there is no need to speak; my dharma is wondrous and hard to conceive." The Buddha's own dharma does not go beyond the provisional and the real: "This dharma is exceedingly deep and wondrous, hard to see and hard to fathom; among every kind of sentient being, none is able to know the Buddha" — this is the wondrousness of real wisdom. "And as for the Buddha's every other dharma, none is able to measure it either" — this is the wondrousness of the Buddha's provisional wisdom. Only buddha together with buddha is able to fully fathom, to their very limit, the true mark of all dharmas through these two dharmas together — this is named the wondrous dharma of the Buddha.

As for the wondrous dharma of mind: as in "Peaceful Practices," cultivating and gathering the mind, contemplating all dharmas, unmoving and unretreating; and again, a single thought-moment of rejoicing, and so on. The Contemplation of Samantabhadra Sūtra says: "My mind is itself empty; offense and merit have no master," and: "Contemplating mind, there is no mind; dharmas do not abide in dharmas," and again: "Mind is purely dharma." The Vimalakīrti says: "Contemplate the true mark of the body; contemplate the Buddha in just the same way. The liberation of all buddhas ought to be sought within the mental activity of sentient beings." The Avataṃsaka says: "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings — these three are without distinction," and: "Breaking open a single mote of dust of the mind, one brings forth scrolls of sūtras as vast as a great-thousand world-system." This is named the wondrous dharma of mind.

Now, in dependence on these three dharmas, let me differentiate them still further at length. In expounding the dharma of sentient beings at length, this generally discusses, all together, every cause and fruit and all dharmas. In expounding the dharma of the Buddha at length, this is based on the fruit. In expounding the dharma of mind at length, this is based on the cause.

The dharma of sentient beings has two parts: first, listing the dharma-numbers; second, explaining the dharma-marks. As for the numbers: sūtras and treatises sometimes clarify that a single dharma gathers in all dharmas, namely mind — "the three realms have no separate dharma of their own; they are made by the one mind alone." Sometimes they clarify that two dharmas gather in all dharmas, namely name and form — "within all the world, there is only name and form." Sometimes they clarify that three dharmas gather in all dharmas, namely life, consciousness, and warmth. Numbers of this kind increase in this way, up to a hundred, a thousand. The present sūtra uses ten dharmas to gather in all dharmas: "That is to say, all dharmas: such a mark, such a nature, such an essence, such a power, such an activity, such a cause, such a condition, such a fruit, such a retribution, and such an ultimate equality from beginning to end." Master Nanyue, reading this passage, read every instance as "thus," or "such" — hence it is called "the ten suchnesses."

The Tiantai master says: "Reading the text in accordance with its sense, there are, in general, three ways of parsing it. The first way reads: 'the mark, thus,' 'the nature, thus,' down to 'the retribution, thus.' The second way reads: 'thus, the mark,' 'thus, the nature,' down to 'thus, the retribution.' The third way reads: 'the mark, thus it is,' 'the nature, thus it is,' down to 'the retribution, thus it is.' If each is uniformly called 'thus,' then 'thus' as a name admits no distinction — this is the sense of emptiness. If it is read as 'thus, the mark' and 'thus, the nature,' pointing to emptiness while marking out mark and nature, names and designations proliferating differently from one another — this is the sense of the provisional. If it is read as 'the mark, thus it is,' where 'thus it is' refers to the true mark of the middle way — this is the sense of the middle." This differentiation is given to make it easier to understand; to clarify emptiness, the provisional, and the middle, and to grasp their meaning as one speaks of them: emptiness is itself the provisional and the middle. In terms of "thus," emptiness is clarified — one instance of emptiness, and every instance is empty. Pointing to "thus," the mark is clarified — one instance of the provisional, and every instance is provisional. In terms of "it is," the middle is discussed — one instance of the middle, and every instance is the middle: neither one, two, nor three, and yet one, two, and three; neither arranged in sequence nor set side by side — this is named the true mark. Only buddha together with buddha fully fathoms this dharma. These ten dharmas gather in all dharmas. If one follows what is convenient for the sense, this threefold differentiation is made; if one follows what is convenient for the reading, one should follow the verse text, which says: "Such is the great retribution, and the various meanings of nature and mark," and so on.

Next, judging the provisional and real status of the ten suchnesses: Guangzhai takes the first five suchnesses as provisional, belonging to ordinary beings, the next four suchnesses as real, belonging to sages, and the last one suchness as a general summation of the provisional and the real together. He cites the verse as proof, saying: "Such is the great retribution" — since it is "great," one knows it is real; "the various meanings of nature and mark" — hence one knows this is provisional. I fear this is not so. The sense of "great" has three aspects: great, many, and superior. If "great" is taken to mean "real," then "many" and "superior" ought likewise to be taken as such. Does the term "various" not itself carry the sense of "many"? And if the provisional is said to belong to ordinary beings, why should ordinary beings have no share in the real at all? And if the real is said to belong to sages, why should sages have no share in the provisional at all? Suppressing and obscuring the sense in this way cannot be relied upon. Again, a northern master takes the first five as provisional and the last five as real. All of this is nothing but personal opinion.

Now, clarifying the provisional and the real: the ten suchnesses are applied in terms of the ten dharma-realms, namely the six destinies and the four kinds of sages. That all ten are called "dharma-realms" has, in general, three senses. First: the ten numbers all depend upon the dharma-realm, and there is no further dharma outside the dharma-realm; what depends and what is depended upon are named together, and so it is called "the ten dharma-realms." Second: these ten kinds of dharma each have their own distinct boundaries, their causes and fruits held apart from one another, ordinary beings and sages differing from each other — hence "realm" is added to their name. Third: these ten are, every one of them, identical with the dharma-realm, gathering in all dharmas. That all dharmas converge upon hell is itself an unsurpassed convergence; identical, in its very essence, with principle, with nothing further to depend upon — hence it is named "dharma-realm." And this extends even to the buddha-dharma-realm, likewise so.

If the ten numbers depend on the dharma-realm, then what depends follows from what is depended upon — this is entering the realm of emptiness. That the ten realms are held distinctly apart, realm from realm, is the realm of the provisional. That the ten numbers are, every one of them, the dharma-realm, is the realm of the middle. This differentiation is given only to make it easier to understand; grasping the meaning as one speaks of it, emptiness is itself the provisional and the middle, with no separate one, two, or three, as before, and so on.

This single dharma-realm possesses the ten suchnesses within it; the ten dharma-realms possess a hundred suchnesses within them. Again, since a single dharma-realm possesses the other nine dharma-realms within it, there are, in all, a hundred dharma-realms, and a thousand suchnesses. Gathered together, these fall into five groupings: first, evil; second, good; third, the two vehicles; fourth, bodhisattvas; fifth, buddhas. Judged as two dharmas: the first four are provisional dharmas, and the last one is the real dharma — though, examined in fine detail, each of the five in fact possesses both the provisional and the real within it; for now, I rely on this twofold sense.

Yet this provisional and real is inconceivable — it is precisely the object of the buddhas' twin wisdom across the three times. Taking this as the object, what dharma is not gathered in? This object gives rise to wisdom — what wisdom is not thereby given rise to? Hence the text says "all dharmas." "All dharmas" means that the object illuminated is vast. "Only buddha together with buddha is able to fathom it fully" clarifies that the wisdom which illuminates it is profound, reaching to the very limit, exhausting its every depth. "Its gate of wisdom is hard to understand and hard to enter" praises the wondrousness of the object. "The wisdom I have attained is subtle and wondrous, most supreme of all" praises how wisdom and its object correspond to one another. The prose section of "Skillful Means" briefly teaches this dharma; the later "opening, showing, awakening to, and entering" teaches this dharma at length. The burning house gives a parable of this dharma. "Faith and Understanding" receives and understands this dharma. The elder bestows this dharma on his son. Medicinal Herbs restates and confirms this dharma. The phantom city draws beings in to this dharma. All such things as these are simply named the dharma of the ten suchnesses' provisional and real.

The Tathāgata sees through completely, fathoming the very depth of the ten dharmas, exhausting their every limit, clearly recognizing sentient beings: whether their seed has been planted or not, whether it has sprouted or not, whether it is ripe or not, whether they can be liberated or cannot be liberated — knowing this truly, as it really is, without any error. Aṅgulimāla, though an evil man, had his true-mark nature already ripe, and so was liberated at once. The bhikṣu of the fourth dhyāna, though a good man, had his evil nature and mark already ripe, and so could not be liberated. One should know that the dharma of sentient beings is inconceivable: though real, it is yet provisional; though provisional, it is yet real; the real and the provisional are mutually identical, and do not obstruct one another. One cannot observe sentient beings with the eyes of an ox or a sheep; one cannot appraise sentient beings with the mind of an ordinary person. Only wisdom equal to the Tathāgata's own is able to appraise them. Why is this? Because the dharma of sentient beings is wondrous.

Next, explaining the dharma of the ten suchnesses: first, the general explanation; second, the specific explanation. The general explanation: a mark, based on what is external, is what can be seen and distinguished — this is named "mark." A nature, based on what is internal, is what each thing has of its own, unchanging — this is named "nature." The governing substance is named "essence." Its capability is "power." Its construction is "activity." The habituated cause is "cause." The assisting cause is "condition." The habituated fruit is "fruit." The retributive fruit is "retribution." The initial mark is the "beginning"; the final retribution is the "end." The point to which all these converge is named the "ultimate equality," and so on. If this is read in the sense of "thus," then beginning and end both being empty is the "equality." If read in the sense of nature-and-mark, then the mark's presence remaining consistent from beginning to end is the "equality." If read in the sense of the middle, then beginning and end both being the true mark is the "equality." Here, I do not rely on any one of these three senses alone as sufficient, but take "ultimate equality" to mean all three fully together. For what is truly "ultimate" is the middle — it is precisely the true mark that constitutes the "equality."

Next, the specific explanation: taking together those of similar kind and category, it is combined into four rounds — first, the four evil destinies; next, humans and gods; next, the two vehicles; next, bodhisattvas and buddhas.

First, clarifying the ten dharmas of the four evil destinies: "such a mark" is precisely the mark of evil, signifying a fall into a place contrary to one's wishes. It is like a person not yet struck by misfortune, whose unlucky complexion is already visible; a physiognomist, examining and distinguishing it, is able to foretell the coming calamity and decline. When an evil mark arises, it points, from far off, toward the hells; ordinary people do not know this, the two vehicles know it only vaguely, bodhisattvas know it without full depth, and the Buddha knows it to its very limit. Like a skilled physiognomist who sees through to the beginning and end alike — hence it is called "such a mark."

"Such a nature" is the black nature belonging to oneself. Habituated purely to blackness and evil, it is hard to change or alter. It is like wood containing fire: when it meets the right condition, the fire ignites at once. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Because a conditioned dharma possesses the nature of generation, it is able to generate what generates it." This evil possesses the generative nature of the four evil destinies, and so a condition is able to ignite it. It is unlike a clay or wooden image, which, though it has an outward mark, has no generative nature within it, and so, though it might "generate," cannot actually generate anything. The evil nature is not like this — hence it is called "such a nature."

"Such an essence" is gathering together that which is broken and crushed — coarse and evil form and mind — as its own substantial essence. Moreover: in this present life, the mind is already broken first; in the life to come, the body is broken. Again, this present life's flowering retribution likewise breaks both body and mind; the life to come's fruit-retribution likewise breaks both body and mind. Hence body and mind, as what is broken, are taken as the essence.

"Such a power" is evil's own capability. It is like an object not yet actually put to use: pointing to its intended purpose, one still speaks of it as having a "use." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "In building a house, one takes wood, not thread; in weaving cloth, one takes thread, not clay or wood." In hell, there is the capability of climbing blades and treading swords; among hungry ghosts, the capability of swallowing molten copper and devouring iron; among animals, the strong subduing the weak, fish devouring one another scale by scale, being harnessed to pull carts and haul heavy loads — all of these are the capability of evil's power.

"Such an activity" is the constructing and carrying out, the setting in motion of the three karmic activities, the establishing and initiating of every evil deed — this is named "activity." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle eight, says: "It is like, in the world, one who does evil deeds being called a 'half-person.'" Since he carries out evil deeds, this is named the activity of hell.

"Such a cause" is the habituated cause of evil. Its own seed generates its own kind, its habituation continuing without cease; because it is set off through habituation, doing evil is easily accomplished — hence it is named "such a cause." "Such a condition" is what assists. That is to say, all the various evils belonging to self and to what is self's own, everything one possesses in full measure, are all able to assist in accomplishing the habituated karma — like water able to moisten a seed. Hence the retributive cause is used as the condition.

"Such a fruit" is the habituated fruit. It is like a person of much desire who, receiving a body in hell, sees the instruments of torment there and, mistaking them for objects of desire, at once gives rise to defiled craving — this is called the habituated fruit. "Such a retribution" is the retributive fruit. It is like the person of much desire who, while in hell, in the very act of approaching what he takes for an object of desire, at once suffers the torment of the copper pillar and the iron bed. Hence it is named "such a retribution."

"Ultimate equality from beginning to end" has, in general, three senses: the beginning is empty, and the end is likewise empty — hence it is called "equal." Again, the evil fruit-retribution is already present within the initial mark and nature — this is the end being equal to the beginning. The initial mark and nature is already present within the evil fruit-retribution — this is the beginning being equal to the end. If there were no later matter present from the start, the physiognomist ought not to be able to foretell it in advance; if there were no earlier matter still present at the end, the physiognomist ought not to be able to trace it back afterward. One should know that the mark's presence remains consistent from beginning to end — this discusses "equality" in terms of provisional phenomena. The mind of the middle, real principle is no different from the Buddha's own fruit; a single color, a single fragrance, is nothing other than the middle way — this discusses "equality" in terms of principle. For this reason, it is said "ultimate equality from beginning to end," with all three senses fully present — hence it is called "equality."

Next, differentiating the ten dharmas of the realms of humans and gods: this is spoken of solely in terms of goodness and pleasure, differing from the four evil destinies. The mark signifies rising in purity. The nature is the white dharma. The essence is peaceful, blissful form and mind. The power is capability as a vessel fit for good. The activity is the cultivation of the two goods, restraint and active practice. The cause is white karma. The condition is the good self and what is self's own, everything one possesses in full measure. The fruit is the spontaneous arising of a good mind in requital. The retribution is the natural experience of pleasure. The equality is as explained before, and so on.

Next, differentiating the ten dharmas of the two vehicles' dharma-realm: this is in terms of the taintless real. The mark signifies nirvāṇa. The nature is neither the white nor the black dharma. The essence is the five-part Dharma-body. The power is the capability to move and to go forth, a vessel fit for the path. The activity is diligent, vigorous striving. The cause is the correct, taintless wisdom. The condition is the various practices that assist the path. The fruit is the four fruits of the śrāvaka path. Since the two vehicles are no longer subject to rebirth, there is accordingly no retribution. Why is it that the arising of the real is the fruit, yet retribution is not discussed? Because the taintless dharma arises in requital of the habituated cause, and this is called the habituated fruit; but the taintless diminishes rebirth, and is not a dharma that draws one into further birth — hence there is no later retribution. As for the third fruit having a retribution: this is because his residual afflictions are not yet severed, and he must still be reborn seven times, or once more return, or be reborn in the form realm — this is not a taintless retribution. Hence there are only nine, not ten. If one follows the Mahāyāna, however, this very taintless state is still named "with taints." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Those adorned with merit and virtue are still conditioned and still with taints." Since this śrāvaka assembly is thus not truly taintless, and has not diminished the distinct afflictions, it still undergoes the birth-and-death of change — the taintless serves as the cause, and ignorance as the condition, giving birth within the land of change — and so there is, after all, a retribution.

Next, clarifying the ten dharmas of the dharma-realms of bodhisattvas and buddhas: this may be further, more finely divided into three kinds of bodhisattva, and so on. For the bodhisattva of the six pāramitās, mark, nature, essence, and power are discussed in terms of merit and virtue; wholesome karma is the cause; affliction is the condition; the thirty-four minds severing the fetters are the fruit. The Buddha has no retribution, while the bodhisattva possesses all ten. For the bodhisattva of the shared teaching, mark and nature are discussed in terms of the taintless. Before the sixth ground, residual thought-afflictions still bring about retribution; once thought-afflictions are exhausted at the sixth ground, he no longer undergoes further birth in an ordinary body, but vows to sustain and give rise to habituated birth, which is not a true karmic retribution — hence there are only nine, not ten. For the bodhisattva of the distinct teaching, the ten dharmas are discussed in terms of cultivating the sequential contemplation of the middle-way practice. Though this person severs the shared afflictions, he knows for himself that he must still be reborn — hence he possesses all ten, and so on.

Now, birth within the land of change is, in general, of three different kinds. First, being born into change while having severed none of the distinct afflictions at all — this is the case of the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka teaching, the two vehicles, and the shared teaching. This is comparable to an ordinary being still bound to fragmentary birth-and-death who has not yet suppressed views and habituated thought, and so on. Second, being born into change while having suppressed, but not severed, the distinct afflictions — this is the case of a person at the thirty preliminary minds of the distinct teaching, cultivating the middle way, suppressing it without yet severing it, comparable to the path of skillful means still within fragmentary birth-and-death in the small vehicle, and so on. Third, being born into change while having actually severed the distinct afflictions — as with severing affliction at the first ground or the first abiding. This is comparable to the first fruit of stream-entry, where, though the truth seen has already been severed, seven further births still remain — it is likewise so here. If affliction has not yet been severed or suppressed, then the practice of skillful means, with the true taintless as cause and ignorance as condition, is used. If it has been suppressed or severed, then attachment to the dharma of according with the path serves as the cause, and ignorance as the condition, giving birth within the land of change, and so on.

As for the ten dharmas of the buddha-realm: all are differentiated in terms of the middle way. The Vimalakīrti says: "All sentient beings already possess the mark of bodhi — it is not something to be further attained." This is precisely the conditioning cause serving as the buddha-mark. "A nature, based on what is internal" — that wisdom and vow remain present, never lost — this wisdom is precisely the revealing cause serving as buddha-nature. The mind pure in its own nature is precisely the correct cause serving as the buddha-essence. This is precisely the three tracks, and so on. As for power: the very first arousing of the mind of bodhi, surpassing the two vehicles, is named the power. As for activity: the fulfillment of the four universal vows in due course. The cause is the adornment of wisdom. The condition is the adornment of merit and virtue. The fruit is the single thought-moment's correspondence, great awakening shining forth clearly, unsurpassed bodhi — this is the habituated fruit. The retribution is the fruit of great parinirvāṇa, the fruit's virtue of severance, meditative concentration and samādhi entirely complete — this is the retributive fruit. As for the equality of beginning and end: this is that the three truths of mark and nature are no different from the three truths of the ultimate — hence it is called equality. As for the equality of the truth of emptiness: from the very first suchness of sentient beings down to the buddha's own suchness, all are equal. As for the equality of the conventional truth: sentient beings not yet having aroused the mind, and the Buddha predicting they shall become buddhas; the Buddha, having already become a buddha, telling of the events of his own former births — this is precisely the mark's presence being consistent from beginning to end within the provisional, and so equal. As for the equality of the middle: ordinary beings and sages alike are the true mark. In the case of the buddha-realm, it is both nine and ten.

Speaking of it in the general way: at ground after ground, the ten thousand practices are present in every case; merit and virtue serve as the cause, ignorance as the condition; the habituated fruit and the retributive fruit, and the ten dharmas in their respective portions, are none of them lacking in full measure.

This present sūtra says: "Attaining the immeasurable, taintless, pure fruit-retribution. Long cultivating a pure life within the Dharma of the Dharma-king, only today at last attaining its fruit-retribution." And again: "What is attained through long-cultivated karma." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "May the food I now offer bring me the unsurpassed retribution." The Sūtra for Humane Kings says: "The three worthy stages and the ten sagely stages abide in fruit-retribution." The Compendium of the Mahāyāna says: "Birth-and-death through causes and conditions, and birth-and-death that has a further birth to follow." All of these discuss fruit-retribution in its various portions, and fruit-retribution is itself arising-and-ceasing. Why is this? When a portion of ignorance is exhausted, this is spoken of as "ceasing"; when true clarity grows increasingly full, this is spoken of as "arising." Again, so long as residual ignorance remains, this is spoken of as "arising"; when a portion of affliction is removed, this is spoken of as "ceasing." The Śāstra says: "One person is able to weed, and one person is able to plant." The ten thousand practices, nourishing and completing, are like the planting; wisdom, breaking through delusion, is like the weeding. The meaning of "increasing the path, diminishing rebirth" lies precisely here. All forty-one stages of the bodhisattva path each possess these ten dharmas.

As for the subtle awakening of full buddhahood itself, it is likewise both nine and ten. Why is this? The wisdom of the middle way itself diminishes rebirth, and since rebirth is not yet exhausted along the path leading to it, there are, at each of the various stages, different degrees of arising-and-ceasing. But at subtle awakening, the diminishing of rebirth is already complete — how, then, at this final stage, could retribution still be discussed? Hence it is said: "Only the Buddha, this one person, dwells in the pure land, his thirty births exhausted, equal to great awakening." There is no further birth-and-death to come, since affliction is exhausted. The virtue of wisdom is already complete, with no further habituated fruit, and he undergoes no further body — hence there is no retributive fruit. Again, in terms of present birth and later birth, it may be discussed as either nine or ten, and so on. According to the text of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, "may I attain the unsurpassed retribution" clarifies precisely that the buddha-realm's own retribution is unsurpassed. Since the Buddha's retribution is thus called unsurpassed, the Buddha's mark, nature, and the remaining nine dharmas are, every one of them, likewise unsurpassed. Why is this? The mark and nature of the six destinies entirely signify the five abodes of affliction. The mark and nature of the two vehicles signify the breaking through of four of the five abodes, while still entirely signifying ignorance. The mark and nature of bodhisattvas signify the sequential breaking through of all five abodes. The mark and nature of the Buddha signify the wisdom knowing all modes, pure as empty space, unstained by any of the five abodes. Hence the Buddha's ten dharmas are, of all, the most unsurpassed, and so on.

Moreover: the mark of the six destinies signifies the suffering of birth-and-death. The mark of the two vehicles signifies the bliss of nirvāṇa. The mark of the buddha-realm signifies what is neither birth-and-death nor nirvāṇa, the middle way's own eternity, bliss, self, and purity — hence the buddha-realm is said to be, of all, the most unsurpassed. Moreover: the four evil destinies signify evil, humans and gods signify good, the two vehicles signify taintless good, and bodhisattvas and buddhas signify good that is neither tainted nor taintless — hence the buddha-realm is, of all, the most unsurpassed. Moreover: the six destinies signify dharmas that arise from the causes and conditions of existence, the two vehicles signify what is precisely empty, bodhisattvas signify what is precisely provisional, and the Buddha signifies what is precisely empty, precisely provisional, and precisely the middle — hence the buddha-realm is, of all, the most unsurpassed. Moreover: the four evil destinies signify only evil, and cannot signify good; the marks of humans and gods signify only good, and likewise cannot signify evil; the two vehicles signify only the taintless, without encompassing good and evil together; but the Buddha's mark encompasses and signifies every mark at once. If one understands the Buddha's mark, one thereby understands every mark without exception — hence the buddha-realm is, of all, the most unsurpassed. Hence the Sagely Assembly Collection says: "A being in the intermediate state bound for hell sees only hell, and cannot know the destinies above it; but a being in the intermediate state bound for the heavens is able to know both the heavens and what lies below." To signify a mark in this way is not yet called correct and universal knowing. The Buddha's mark signifies correct and universal knowing. Since the Buddha's wisdom already universally knows every mark, the sūtra's own teaching, too, ought to universally teach them all.

If this dharma is applied across the Five-Flavor teachings: the milk teaching teaches only the two natures and marks of the bodhisattva-realm and the buddha-realm. Some enter equality through the provisional, some enter equality through the middle; entering the middle is indeed unsurpassed, and yet it is still accompanied by one skillful means, and so is not yet wholly unsurpassed. The cream teaching clarifies only the mark and nature of the two vehicles, able to enter equality through analytical emptiness, but not yet clarifying entering equality through embodied emptiness, how much less any further stage! Hence it is not unsurpassed. The fresh-curdled-butter teaching clarifies four kinds of mark and nature: some enter through analytical emptiness, some through embodied emptiness, some through the provisional, some through the middle. Only the Buddha's own mark and nature is able to enter precisely emptiness, precisely the provisional, and precisely the middle — yet even this is accompanied by three skillful means, and so is not unsurpassed. The ripened-butter teaching clarifies three kinds of mark and nature: some enter precisely emptiness, some precisely the provisional, some precisely the middle. Only the Buddha's own nature and mark is able to enter precisely emptiness, precisely the provisional, and precisely the middle — yet even this is accompanied by two skillful means, and so is not unsurpassed.

This present Lotus Sūtra clarifies all nine kinds of nature and mark alike entering precisely emptiness, precisely the provisional, and precisely the middle. "You are truly my son, and I am truly your father" — a single color, a single flavor, purely and solely the Buddha's own dharma, with no further dharma beyond it — hence one knows the buddha-realm is, of all, the most unsurpassed. Moreover: for those nine natures and marks clarified in other sūtras that are not yet able to enter the Buddha's own nature and mark of precisely emptiness, precisely the provisional, and precisely the middle, this present sūtra opens up skillful means for every one of them, universally causing them all to be able to enter. And, examined in terms of their own nature and mark, they are already precisely emptiness, precisely the provisional, and precisely the middle, without needing to be drawn in from elsewhere at all — this is precisely why the Tathāgata so earnestly and repeatedly praises this Lotus Sūtra as, of all, the most unsurpassed; the meaning lies precisely here.

Moreover, the hundred realms and thousand dharmas, spreading both vertically and horizontally, are very numerous — let me gather them together with a verse from sūtra and treatise, to make them easier to understand. The verse of the Middle Treatise says: "A dharma arisen through causes and conditions — I say that this is itself empty; it is also called a provisional name; it is also called the meaning of the middle way." The mark and nature of the six destinies is precisely "a dharma arisen through causes and conditions." The mark and nature of the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching is "I say that this is itself empty." The mark and nature of the six-pāramitā and distinct-teaching bodhisattvas is "it is also called a provisional name." The mark and nature of the buddha-realm is "it is also called the meaning of the middle way." Though the summarizing verse is short, it gathers in all the many senses discussed above — its meaning may thereby be seen, and so on.

Again, the Nirvāṇa verse says: "All conditioned things are impermanent — this is the dharma of arising and ceasing. When arising and ceasing have themselves ceased, this quiescent extinction is bliss." The mark and nature of the six destinies is precisely "all conditioned things." The mark and nature of the two vehicles and the shared teaching is precisely "impermanent." The mark and nature of the distinct-teaching bodhisattva is precisely "when arising and ceasing have themselves ceased." The mark and nature of the buddha-realm is precisely "this quiescent extinction is bliss." And again: "when arising and ceasing have themselves ceased, this quiescent extinction is bliss" is itself only the distinct teaching's own mark and nature — for it still waits for cessation to occur before bliss can be spoken of. But to find, within arising-and-ceasing itself, that this is already quiescent extinction, without waiting for a separate cessation before calling it bliss — this is the perfect teaching's own mark and nature of the buddha-realm, and so on.

Again, the verse of the precept common to the seven buddhas says: "Commit no evil whatsoever; uphold and practice every good; purify one's own mind entirely — this is the teaching of all buddhas." The mark and nature of the four evil destinies is precisely "evil." The mark and nature of humans and gods is precisely "every good." "Purify one's own mind" itself contains both the analytical and the embodying purification of mind, which is the mark and nature of the two vehicles. Purification that enters the provisional is the mark and nature of bodhisattvas. Purification that enters the middle is the mark and nature of the buddha-realm, and so on. If one is able to understand these ten marks and natures, and how they accord with the various sūtras, treatises, and vinaya texts, one thereby penetrates through the Tripiṭaka, shared, and distinct teachings, knowing all dharmas without any obstruction. This closes the broad clarification of the dharma-marks of sentient beings.

Second, expounding the dharma of the Buddha at length: does the Buddha, then, have some separate dharma of his own? It is simply that the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses are themselves the Buddha's own state — only buddha together with buddha fully fathoms this principle. As the box is large, so its lid, too, follows in largeness. Illuminating the vast, boundless buddha-state with boundless buddha-wisdom, reaching to its very source and depth, this is named the dharma that follows one's own intention. If it illuminates the nature, mark, beginning, and end of the nine other dharma-realms, leaving not so much as a mustard-seed's worth unaccounted for, this is named the dharma that follows others' intentions. From these two dharmas as their root, the traces of the ten dharma-realms are let down. At times he shows his own body, at times he shows another's body; at times he speaks his own intended words, at times he speaks words intended for others — his own intention and others' intention are inconceivable, his own body and another's body subtle and utterly quiescent, neither provisional nor real, and yet able to respond with the provisional of the nine realms and the real of the one realm, all without any diminishment whatsoever to the Buddha's own dharma. How could the dharma of all buddhas fail to be wondrous? This matter can be understood readily enough, and needs no lengthy exposition here — it shall be clarified again, further, in the "Skillful Means" chapter.

Third, explaining the dharma of mind at length: how could the dharma already clarified above be any different from mind itself? It is only that the dharma of sentient beings is exceedingly vast, and the dharma of the Buddha exceedingly lofty, and so both are difficult for a beginning student. Yet since mind, Buddha, and sentient beings — these three are without distinction, it is far easier simply to contemplate one's own mind directly. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "All sentient beings possess the three concentrations in full. The supreme concentration is buddha-nature itself." To be able to contemplate the nature of mind is named the supreme concentration. What is supreme is able to encompass what is lesser, and so it already gathers in the dharma of sentient beings as well. The Avataṃsaka says: "Let the mind roam through the dharma-realm as through empty space, and one thereby knows the state of all buddhas." The dharma-realm is precisely the middle; empty space is precisely emptiness; mind and Buddha are precisely the provisional. All three complete together is precisely the buddha-state. This is the contemplation of mind, which already contains the dharma of the Buddha within it.

Again, as for letting the mind roam through the dharma-realm: contemplating the sense-faculty and its object confronting one another, a single thought-moment arising must belong to one of the ten realms; and if it belongs to that one realm, it already possesses the hundred realms and thousand dharmas within it, fully provided for, complete, within that single thought-moment. This illusion-conjuring mind, within a single day and night, constantly creates various sentient beings, various sets of the five aggregates, various lands — that is, the provisional and real lands of hell, all the way up to the provisional and real lands of the buddha-realm. It is for the practitioner himself to choose which path he will follow. Again, as for "like empty space": contemplating that mind arises of itself, mind does not actually need to depend on conditions; if it depended on conditions to have mind at all, mind would have no power of its own to generate anything. If mind has no power to generate, then conditions, too, have no power to generate. Since mind and condition are each without generative power, how could their combination possess it? Their combination, then, is itself unattainable; and apart from one another, neither can generate anything either. If not even a single thing can be generated, how much less the hundred realms and thousand dharmas! Because mind is empty, everything generated from mind is likewise entirely empty — and this very emptiness, too, is empty. If emptiness is not merely emptiness, then, pointing to emptiness, the provisional is set forth — yet this provisional, too, is not truly provisional; with neither the provisional nor emptiness fixed as such, this is ultimate purity. And, moreover, as for the "state of the Buddha": above, it is equal to the dharma of the Buddha; below, it is equal to the dharma of sentient beings. And as for the dharma of mind: that mind, Buddha, and sentient beings — these three are without distinction — this is what is named the dharma of mind.

Question: How can a single thought-moment of mind contain and hold the hundred realms and thousand dharmas within it? Answer: This may be explained by borrowing three kinds of simile, as set forth in the Mo-ho Chih-kuan, and so on.

Second, clarifying "wondrous": first, the general explanation; second, the specific explanation. The general explanation, too, has two parts: first, the relative; second, the absolute. This sūtra discusses only these two wondrouses, and has no further passage speaking of anything neither absolute nor relative. Were one to construct such a thing, what confusion would it dispel? What principle would it reveal? Hence it is not discussed any further. Guangzhai uses the wondrousness of the Lotus, relative to which every earlier teaching is coarse — this has already been shown to be greatly problematic, as objected to above, and so on. Here, the coarse and wondrous discussed relatively are: relative to the half-word, the full-word is clarified as wondrous — likewise the eternal and the impermanent, the great and the small, discussed relatively as coarse and wondrous. The Vimalakīrti says: "Teaching the Dharma neither as existent nor as nonexistent, since it is through causes and conditions that all dharmas arise" — this itself clarifies the full-word. From his first sitting beneath the bodhi tree, subduing Māra by his own power, attaining the extinction of sweet dew and accomplishing the path of awakening — this itself raises up the past's half-word relative to which the full-word emerges. The Prajñāpāramitā says: "In Jambudvīpa, a second turning of the Dharma-wheel is seen" — this, too, treats the Deer Park as the first, relative to which the Prajñā is the second. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Formerly, at Vārāṇasī, the Dharma-wheel was first turned; now, at Kuśinagara, the Dharma-wheel is turned once more." Every sūtra alike takes the Deer Park as the half, the small, the coarse, relative to which fullness, greatness, and wondrousness are clarified — their meaning is the same throughout. Now, this Lotus Sūtra clarifies that, formerly, at Vārāṇasī, the Dharma-wheel of the Four Noble Truths, the arising-and-ceasing of the five aggregates, was turned; now, once more, the most wondrous, unsurpassed Dharma-wheel is turned. This, too, is relative to the Deer Park as coarse, the Lotus as wondrous. The sense of "wondrous" is the same throughout, and what it is relative to as "coarse" is likewise consistent — the textual meaning lies precisely here.

Question: If, from the Vaipulya period onward, the principle of fullness is no different, should not all of these alike be called wondrous? Answer: Here, too, I do not fix rigidly on any single teaching or determinate time — how, then, could one suddenly say "from the Vaipulya period onward"? Even granting that this were so, there is a further reason to distinguish them. Why is this? For a sharp-faculty bodhisattva, entering the wondrous at that point is no different from entering it at the Lotus. But dull-faculty bodhisattvas and the two vehicles are still accompanied by skillful means, tempered by the various flavors along the way. The Vaipulya period discusses the wondrous, relative to the coarse, while still accompanied by the fresh-curdled-butter teaching; the Prajñā period discusses the wondrous, relative to the coarse, while still accompanied by the ripened-butter teaching; the present sūtra alone discusses the wondrous, relative to the coarse, with no accompaniment of either of these two flavors' skillful means at all, being purely and genuinely the ghee itself. This wondrous and that wondrous do not differ in the sense of "wondrous" itself — the only difference lies in whether it is accompanied by skillful means or not.

Moreover, the Tripiṭaka teaching is only the half-word gate of arising-and-ceasing, unable to penetrate through to the principle of fullness — hence it is named coarse. The full-word is the gate of neither arising nor ceasing, able to penetrate through to the principle of fullness — hence it is named wondrous. This ability to penetrate through to the principle of fullness, moreover, has two kinds: first, penetrating through to the principle of fullness while accompanied by skillful means; second, directly revealing the principle of fullness. The Vaipulya and Prajñā periods penetrate through to the principle of fullness while accompanied by skillful means; the present sūtra directly reveals the principle of fullness. Hence the Middle Treatise says: "For disciples of dull faculties, the mark of arising-and-ceasing through causes and conditions is taught; for disciples of sharp faculties, the mark of neither arising nor ceasing through causes and conditions is taught," and so on. If what does not directly reveal emptiness serves as a skillful means for penetrating through to the real, it is therefore called coarse; if it is able to directly reveal emptiness, this is a skillful means for penetrating through to the middle. As for the skillful means for penetrating through to the middle: if it is accompanied by directly-revealed emptiness and the provisional in penetrating through to the middle, this is coarse; if, without any accompaniment of emptiness or the provisional, it directly penetrates through to the middle, this is wondrous, and so on.

Question: From the milk teaching to the ghee, all alike are called "full" — what is the simile for this? Answer: Let me now explain this through a simile. It is like the government possessing three ferries, along with private boats as well, carrying people across from this shore to the far shore. The milk teaching is like two of the great and middle ferries together carrying people across to the far shore. The cream teaching is like a private boat, carrying people only to the mid-river islet. The fresh-curdled-butter teaching is like four kinds combined: the small ferry and the private boat carry people to the mid-river islet, while the two larger ferries carry people across to the far shore. The ripened-butter teaching is like three ferries: one ferry to the islet, two ferries to the far shore. The ghee is like the great ferry alone, carrying people across to the far shore. Since all three ferries are alike government property, they are all together called "full"; the private boat is not government property, and so it is called "half." Among the government's own property, two of the ferries are small, and hold relatively little; the great ferry is grand and magnificent, holding double the capacity, and is alone called "wondrous." The wise grasp understanding through such similes — the sense of this simile is as given here, and so on.

Second, clarifying "wondrous" through the absolute reading: this has four parts. First, when the threefold provisional following worldly convention arises, once one enters the truth of the real, all relative contrasts are themselves cut off. Hence Śāriputra says: "I have heard that, within liberation, there is nothing that can be spoken." This is the sense of the absolute within the Tripiṭaka teaching's own sūtras. Second, if the threefold provisional following principle arises, then all the world is like illusion and transformation, and, precisely in phenomena, it is the real — there is not a single phenomenon that is not the real; what, then, is there left to be relatively contrasted against as "not real"? Measured against the Tripiṭaka teaching, this absolute is, after all, not truly absolute. Yet that, precisely in phenomena, it is the real — this is itself the absolute; this is the shared teaching's own absolute. Third, when the distinct teaching arises, measured against this very "absolute of phenomena being the real," it is, after all, still only conventional truth. Why is this? Because it is not yet the great nirvāṇa itself, but still the conventional truth of birth-and-death — this "absolute," too, still has something relative about it. Only upon entering the distinct teaching's own middle way is the relative truly cut off! Fourth, when the perfect teaching arises, teaching a dharma beyond all differentiation, precisely in the extreme is the middle, with nothing that is not the Buddha's own dharma, utterly dissolved and pure. How, then, could the Buddha's own dharma still be relatively contrasted against the Buddha's own dharma? Since it is the Tathāgata's own dharma-realm, beyond the dharma-realm there is no further dharma that could be compared or contrasted against it at all. Relative to what could it be called coarse? Contrasted against what could it attain "wondrous"? There is nothing it can be relative to, and likewise nothing it can be cut off from — not knowing what to call this, one is forced to speak of it as "absolute."

The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The name 'great' is beyond measure and reckoning, inconceivable — hence it is named 'great.' It is like empty space, which is not named 'great' by contrast with some lesser space; nirvāṇa, too, is likewise so, not named 'great nirvāṇa' by contrast with some lesser mark." The wondrous, too, is likewise so: the name "wondrous" is itself inconceivable, not named "wondrous" by contrast with the coarse. If one supposes there is definitely some vast dharma-realm, uniquely absolute, existing as such, then this is "having something as a possession" — how could this be called absolute? The dharma-realm as it truly is, is pure, beyond seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, and cannot be shown or spoken of. The text says: "Stop, stop — there is no need to speak; my dharma is wondrous and hard to conceive." "Stop, stop — there is no need to speak" is itself the cutting off of speech; "my dharma is wondrous and hard to conceive" is itself the cutting off of thought. And again: "This dharma cannot be shown; the marks of speech are themselves quiescent and extinct" — this, too, is a passage praising it by cutting it off. It cannot be shown through relative contrast, and cannot be shown through absolute negation either — extinguishing both the relative and the absolute alike, hence it is called "quiescent extinction." And again: "All dharmas, ever bearing the mark of quiescent extinction, in the end return to emptiness" — and this emptiness, too, is itself empty, and so there is no longer any relative or absolute left at all. The Middle Treatise says: "If a dharma is established through relative contrast, that dharma remains, after all, something merely relatively established." Here, then, there is no cause to be relative to, and likewise nothing established at all. The opening of the Lotus says: "Having already attained the forbearance of non-arising, he no longer even gives rise to 'non-arising' itself." Non-arising is itself without arising — this is named the absolute.

Beyond this point, were one to construct anything further, what would it cut off? What principle would it reveal? To wander on without end in this way is to fall into idle speculation. This is nothing but the differentiation of a deluded mind, where the absolute fails to be truly absolute, and "neither absolute nor relative" becomes relative, in turn, to "both relative and absolute" — words chasing after words, with never an end to it! Why is this? Because words arise from discursive and reflective thought, and so long as the mind's deliberation does not cease, how could words ever be cut off? It is like a foolish dog chasing after a clod of earth thrown at it — merely wearing itself out in vain, while the clod itself never comes to an end. But if one is able to awaken to the wondrous at the very center of the matter, stilling the wind of discursive and reflective thought, the water of the mind becomes clear and still, and words and thought are both cut off at once. It is like a clever lion, who, when a clod is thrown, chases after the person who threw it rather than the clod — the very root of the clod is thereby removed, and the clod itself comes to an end! At the moment of wondrous awakening, seeing through completely that there is no dharma outside the dharma-realm, and discussing the absolute in these terms — this clarifies the absolute in terms of the gate of existence. That this very absolute, too, is itself cut off — this clarifies the absolute in terms of the gate of emptiness. Like a swift horse who enters the right path at the very sight of the shadow of the whip, entering without fail — this is named the wondrous of the absolute reading. Using these two wondrouses, the three dharmas above are made wondrous: the dharma of sentient beings likewise possesses both wondrouses, and is thereby called wondrous; the dharma of the Buddha and the dharma of mind likewise possess both wondrouses, and are thereby called wondrous.

If these four kinds of the absolute discussed above are applied across the Five-Flavor sūtras: the milk teaching has two absolutes, the cream teaching has one absolute, the fresh-curdled-butter teaching has four absolutes, the ripened-butter teaching has three absolutes, and the present sūtra has only the one absolute. If the provisional is opened and cut off, then there is nothing that fails to enter this single, wondrous absolute.

Question: Why is "wondrous" explained through "absolute"? Answer: This is simply calling the wondrous "absolute" — "absolute" is another name for "wondrous," just as ordinary people speak of "unsurpassed skill." Again, the wondrous is what does the cutting off, and the coarse is what is cut off; since this wondrous has the function of cutting off the coarse, "cutting off" is used to name the wondrous. It is like how, within the trace gate, the teaching of skillful means is first bestowed, before the great teaching can arise at all; now, once the great teaching arises, the skillful-means teaching is cut off — and it is this very cutting-off that is used to name the wondrous. Again, once the trace gate's great teaching has arisen, the origin-ground's own great teaching cannot yet flourish; now, once the origin-ground's teaching flourishes, the trace gate's great teaching is at once cut off. That the trace's greatness is cut off is due to the merit of the origin's greatness — and it is this cutting-off of the trace's greatness that is used to name the origin's greatness, hence it is spoken of as "absolute." Again, once the origin's own great teaching has flourished, the wondrousness of the contemplation of mind cannot yet arise; now, entering contemplation, its conditioned objects fall quiescent, and the path of words is cut off — the origin's own teaching is at once cut off. This cutting-off comes about through contemplation, and it is this very name of "cutting-off" that is used to name the wondrousness of contemplation — and it is to make this very sense clear that "absolute" is used to name "wondrous."

Now, using the trace's own absolute wondrous, the dharma of sentient beings is made wondrous; using the origin-ground's own absolute wondrous, the dharma of the Buddha is made wondrous; using the contemplation of mind's own absolute wondrous, the dharma of mind is made wondrous. The four absolutes discussed earlier are arranged horizontally, in terms of the Four Teachings; these three absolutes are arranged vertically, in terms of the perfect teaching alone, and so on.

As for the specific interpretation of "wondrous": this has three parts. As for the Deer Park's three coarse teachings and the vulture-peak assembly's one wondrous teaching — these are both spoken of within the trace gate; in terms of the trace, ten aspects are opened up to discuss "wondrous." This wondrous has both a trace and an origin: the origin is based on the original beginning — the original, primordial wondrous, likewise opened into ten aspects to discuss "wondrous." The trace and the origin are both teachings; in dependence on the teaching, contemplation is practiced, and contemplation, too, has its own ten aspects to discuss "wondrous." Within the trace gate there is the wondrous of the dharma of sentient beings, the wondrous of the dharma of the Buddha, and the wondrous of the dharma of mind, each with its own ten aspects, thirty aspects in all. These have both agreements and differences with how "wondrous" is discussed in other sūtras and treatises. The thirty wondrous aspects within the origin gate, however, differ from every other sūtra without exception. And each of these sixty aspects, in turn, has both its relative wondrous and its absolute wondrous, giving one hundred twenty aspects in all. If breaking through the coarse to reveal the wondrous, the relative wondrous discussed above is used; if opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous, the absolute wondrous discussed above is used, and so on.

The ten wondrous aspects of the trace gate are: first, the wondrous of the object of contemplation; second, the wondrous of wisdom; third, the wondrous of practice; fourth, the wondrous of stage; fifth, the wondrous of the three tracks; sixth, the wondrous of sympathetic response; seventh, the wondrous of spiritual powers; eighth, the wondrous of teaching the Dharma; ninth, the wondrous of the retinue; tenth, the wondrous of merit and benefit. Explaining the ten wondrous aspects is done in five rounds: first, marking each aspect; second, citing proof-texts; third, showing their arising in sequence; fourth, the broad interpretation; fifth, concluding with the provisional and the real. As for marking each aspect: what is the wondrous of the object of contemplation? It refers to the ten suchnesses, dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths, the three truths, the two truths, the one truth, and the like. These are what all buddhas take as their own teacher — hence it is called the wondrous of the object of contemplation.

The wondrous of wisdom: that is to say, the twenty kinds of wisdom, the four kinds of bodhi-wisdom, the lower, middling, upper, and superior-upper, the sevenfold provisional-and-real, the fivefold threefold wisdom, and the single true-and-real wisdom. Since the object is wondrous, wisdom, too, follows it in being wondrous. Since the dharma is eternal, all buddhas, too, are eternal. Box and lid fitting each other exactly, object and wisdom are inconceivable — hence it is called the wondrous of wisdom. The wondrous of practice: that is to say, the practices classified by increasing numbers, the five sequential practices, and the five non-sequential practices. Since wisdom guides practice, it is called the wondrous of practice. The wondrous of stage: that is to say, the stages of the three kinds of herbs, the two kinds of trees, and the one real stage. Since the wondrous practice arrives at and accords with these, it is called the wondrous of stage.

The wondrous of the three tracks: that is to say, the three tracks taken as a whole, the three tracks arranged vertically, the three tracks arranged horizontally, the three tracks neither vertical nor horizontal, and the three tracks extended by analogy to other triads — all of these being the secret treasury, hence it is called wondrous. The wondrous of sympathetic response: that is to say, the fourfold sympathetic response, the thirty-six-fold sympathetic response, the twenty-five-fold sympathetic response, and the distinct and perfect teachings' own sympathetic response. The water does not rise upward, and the moon does not descend downward, and yet a single moon, in a single moment, appears fully within every water; the buddhas do not come, and sentient beings do not go, and yet, through the power of their compassionate good roots, this very event is seen to occur — hence it is named the wondrous of sympathetic response.

The wondrous of spiritual powers: that is to say, the spiritual power belonging to karmic retribution, the spiritual power gained through cultivation, the spiritual power of deliberate intention, the spiritual power of embodying dharmas, and the neutral, self-transforming spiritual power — a skillful means without deliberation, transforming and changing in accordance with conditions, whether for those distant or near, whether planting the seed, ripening it, or bringing about liberation, all of it for the sake of the one vehicle — hence it is called the wondrous of spiritual powers. The wondrous of teaching the Dharma: that is to say, teaching the twelve divisions of scripture, the teachings belonging to the lesser divisions, the teachings belonging to the greater divisions, the teachings matched to conditions, the dharma expounded, and the perfect, wondrous dharma — taught perfectly, in accordance with principle, causing sentient beings, every one, to open, show, awaken to, and enter the Buddha's own knowledge and vision — hence it is called the wondrous of teaching the Dharma.

The wondrous of the retinue: that is to say, the retinue of karma, the retinue of spiritual powers, the retinue of vows, the retinue of sympathetic response, and the retinue of the dharma-gate — like clouds encircling the moon, or a throng of officials and noble clans surrounding their lord before and behind — hence it is called the wondrous of the retinue. The wondrous of merit and benefit: that is to say, the benefit of the fruit, the benefit of the cause, the benefit of emptiness, the benefit of the provisional, the benefit of the middle, and the benefit within the birth-and-death of change — like the great ocean, able to receive the dragon-king's rain without overflowing — hence it is named the wondrous of merit and benefit.

Second, citing proof-texts: here only trace-gate passages are cited, and not even origin-gate passages, let alone passages from other sūtras. The text says: "All dharmas, such a mark and the rest — only buddha together with buddha is able to fully fathom the true mark of all dharmas." The true mark is the Buddha's own gate of wisdom, and this gate is precisely the object of contemplation. And again: "This exceedingly deep and subtle, wondrous dharma is hard to see and hard to fathom; only I and the buddhas of the ten directions are able to know this mark" — this is precisely the wondrous of the object. "The wisdom I have attained is subtle and wondrous, most supreme of all"; and again, seeking the unsurpassed path with this very wondrous wisdom; "the taintless, inconceivable, exceedingly deep and subtle, wondrous dharma — only I know this mark," and so on — this is precisely the wondrous of wisdom. "From the very beginning, following countless buddhas, fully practicing every path — having practiced these paths in full, at the seat of enlightenment the fruit is at last accomplished"; and again: "With palms joined and a reverent mind, wishing to hear the complete path"; and again: "All dharmas, from their very origin, ever bear the mark of quiescent extinction of themselves; the sons of the Buddha, having practiced this path, in a future life shall attain buddhahood" — this is precisely the wondrous of practice. "Heaven rains down the four flowers," signifying the abodes, practices, dedications, and grounds; "opening, showing, awakening to, and entering," too, carries the sense of stage. "Riding this jeweled vehicle," wandering to the four directions — the four directions are the stage of the cause; "directly reaching the seat of enlightenment" is the stage of the fruit. This is named the wondrous of stage. "The Buddha himself abides in the Mahāyāna, adorned with the power of the concentration and wisdom of whatever dharma he has attained" — the Mahāyāna is precisely the true-nature track, concentration is precisely the resourceful-deeds track, and wisdom is precisely the contemplative-wisdom track. This is the wondrous of the three tracks.

"For three times seven days, I reflected upon a matter such as this"; and again: "With the Buddha-eye I observe, and see sentient beings of the six destinies"; and again: "All sentient beings are, every one, my own children"; and again: "From far off he beholds his father, seated upon a lion-throne" — this is precisely the wondrous of sympathetic response. That the present Buddha, the World-Honored One, entered into samādhi — this being inconceivable, manifesting an event never before witnessed — is the wondrous of spiritual powers. That the Tathāgata is able to differentiate in various ways, skillfully expounding all dharmas, his words gentle and soft, gladdening the minds of the assembly — Śāriputra says: "Hearing the Buddha's gentle, soft voice, so deep, far-reaching, and exceedingly subtle"; and again, that what he teaches all, without exception, arrives at the ground of the wisdom that knows all things; and again, that he speaks only of the unsurpassed path; and again, that what has already been taught, is now being taught, and shall yet be taught, is, of all, the hardest to believe and hardest to understand — this is precisely the wondrous of teaching the Dharma. "Only teaching and transforming bodhisattvas," with no disciples of the śrāvaka vehicle present — this is precisely the wondrous of the retinue. "Whether in the present or the future, if one hears even a single phrase or verse, all shall receive a prediction of complete awakening"; and again: "Whoever hears it even for an instant at once attains ultimate, complete awakening"; and again: "If I were to teach through the small vehicle alone, I would myself fall into stinginess and greed — this is not permissible"; and again: "In the end, he does not let any single person attain extinction alone, but brings every being to extinction through the Tathāgata's own extinction" — this is precisely the wondrous of merit and benefit.

Third, showing their arising in sequence: the object of the true mark is not something made by buddhas, gods, or humans — it is inherently present of itself, not something that first appeared now, and so it is placed first of all. Confusion about principle gives rise to delusion; understanding principle gives rise to wisdom. Wisdom is the very root of practice — by means of wisdom as the eye, practice arises as the foot. Eye, foot, and their object together — these three dharmas form the vehicle; riding upon this very vehicle, one enters the cool, refreshing pool, and ascends through the various stages. Where does this stage abide? It abides within the secret treasury of the three tracks. Having abided in this dharma, one is quiescent and yet ever illuminating, illuminating the capacities across the ten dharma-realms — and when a capacity comes forward, a response inevitably follows. In responding to a capacity and manifesting a reply, the wheel of the body is used first, spiritual powers startling and arousing it. Having witnessed this transformation, the capacity becomes fit to receive the path, and then the wheel of the mouth proclaims and shows, opening and guiding it. Having thus been moistened by the rain of the Dharma, receiving the teaching and undertaking the path, one becomes a member of the Dharma-family. The Dharma-family practices its own practices, uprooting the very root of birth-and-death, opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, and attaining great benefit. The first five aspects are in terms of oneself, cause and fruit both complete; the last five are in terms of others, what is able and what is done both complete. Though the dharma is immeasurable, the sense of these ten aspects is perfectly whole — self and other, beginning and end, are, every one of them, brought to their ultimate completion.

Expounded by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai.

Fourth, the broad exposition of the object of contemplation, in two parts: first, explaining each of the objects; second, discussing the agreements and differences among these objects. Explaining the objects has six parts: first, the object of the ten suchnesses; second, the object of dependent origination; third, the object of the Four Noble Truths; fourth, the object of the two truths; fifth, the object of the three truths; sixth, the object of the one truth. Now, the various sūtras, responding to their conditions, clarify objects in very many ways — how could they all be set down in full? Here, six kinds are raised in brief. As for the sequence of these six: the ten suchnesses are what this present sūtra itself teaches, and so are placed first. Next, the twelve links of dependent origination, the cycling through the three times, are inherently present from the start; when the Tathāgata appeared in the world, he differentiated and skillfully showed them, and so the name "Four Noble Truths" arose. Proceeding from the broad to the concise, the two truths are next differentiated. Since the language of the two truths is general, and the middle way is shown only in a specific, particular way, the three truths are next clarified. Since the three truths are still accompanied by skillful means, and what directly reveals the true and real is next, the one truth is clarified. Since the one truth still retains name and mark, the truth beyond all truths is clarified next. Beginning from ignorance and ending at the ultimate limit, these six kinds, briefly used, suffice. First, clarifying the object of the ten suchnesses: this has already been explained above, and so on.

Second, explaining the object of dependent origination. This, too, has four parts: first, the correct explanation; second, judging the coarse and the wondrous; third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous; fourth, the contemplation of mind. The correct explanation, in turn, has four parts: first, clarifying the conceivable, arising-and-ceasing twelve links of dependent origination; second, clarifying the conceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links; third, clarifying the inconceivable, arising-and-ceasing twelve links; fourth, clarifying the inconceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links.

The two "conceivable" kinds of dependent origination are discussed for the sake of both sharp and dull conditions, as a discussion of dharmas within the three realms. The Middle Treatise says: "For disciples of dull faculties, the arising-and-ceasing mark of the twelve links of dependent origination is taught." This distinguishes it from the non-Buddhist paths, which wrongly hold that all dharmas are born from Maheśvara, or speak of a primal nature, or of atoms, or of parents, or of no cause at all — various false speculations, none according with the true principle. This correct dependent origination is unlike such false calculations: it is solely that, within the deluded, inverted mind of past ignorance, various volitional formations are constructed, able to bring forth the suffering-fruit of the six destinies in the present life, differing in their goodness or badness. The Sūtra of the Right Mindfulness of Dharma says: "A painter, laying out the five colors, depicts every kind of form — upright and handsome, or ugly and deformed, beyond all reckoning." Tracing this back to its very root, it issues from the painter's own hand; the distinctions among the six destinies are not made by Maheśvara or any such being, but issue entirely from the single thought-moment of the ignorant mind. When ignorance combines with upper-grade evil karmic action, the causes and conditions of hell at once arise — like the painter producing the color black. When ignorance combines with middle-grade evil action, the causes and conditions of the animal destiny arise — like producing red. When ignorance combines with lower-grade evil action, the causes and conditions of the hungry-ghost destiny arise — like producing blue-green. When ignorance combines with lower-grade good action, the causes and conditions of the asura destiny arise — like producing yellow. When ignorance combines with middle-grade good action, the causes and conditions of the human destiny arise — like producing white. When ignorance combines with upper-grade good action, the causes and conditions of the heavenly destiny arise — like producing the purest, most brilliant white. One should know that it is because ignorance combines with the various volitional formations that the six destinies come to be — name-and-form, the six sense-fields, contact, sensation, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old age, sickness, and death, and the rest, each differing according to upper, middle, or lower grade. Among the various destinies of humans and gods, suffering and pleasure take ten thousand forms; from birth one returns to death, and from death one is born once again — cycling through the three times, like a cart-wheel spinning through fire. Hence the sūtra says: "There is a river whose eddies drown sentient beings, blinded by ignorance, unable to escape." The sūtra also calls this the twelve links binding and constraining one another in turn, also named the twelve-layered city, also named the twelve-thorned garden. These twelve links, ever newly arising and ceasing, never abiding from thought-moment to thought-moment — hence they are named the arising-and-ceasing twelve links of dependent origination.

Resolving doubts: the Yingluo Sūtra, fascicle four, says: "Ignorance conditioning volitional formations gives rise to twelve links; and likewise, birth conditioning old age and death also gives rise to twelve links — this then makes one hundred twenty causal conditions. The first is delusion, and old age and death, too, are delusion. Because of non-awareness there is delusion — the first link is non-awareness, and old age and death, too, are non-awareness; because of delusion there is birth, and because of delusion there is death. If one is able to awaken to the causal conditions, the causal conditions themselves cease to operate; because delusion ceases to operate, the birth-and-death yet to come is exhausted — this is named cleverness, and cleverness itself follows the path." Again: are the twelve as "conditions that arise" and the twelve as "conditions that generate" the same, or different? In that both are, alike, conditioned dharmas, there is no difference. Yet there is also a distinction: the cause is "conditions that arise," and the fruit is "conditions that generate" — thus there are two conditions-that-arise and five conditions-that-generate, or three conditions-that-arise and two conditions-that-generate. Again: ignorance is a condition-that-arises, and volitional formation is a condition-that-generates; and so on, down to: birth is a condition-that-arises, and old age and death are a condition-that-generates. And a further fourfold analysis: what arises-as-condition but does not generate — this is the two future links. What generates but does not arise-as-condition — this is the two past links, and the very last moment of an arhat's death-aggregates in the present. What both arises-as-condition and generates — this is every other past and present dharma, excepting the past and present arhat's own death-aggregates. What neither arises-as-condition nor generates — this is the unconditioned dharma.

The Dharma-body Sūtra says: "When ignorance definitely gives rise to volitional formation, the two never separating, ever accompanying one another, this is named 'condition that arises,' not 'condition that generates.' When ignorance does not definitely give rise to volitional formation, at times separating and not always accompanying one another, this is named 'condition that generates,' not 'condition that arises.' And this extends likewise down to old age and death." The Venerable Vasumitra says: "The cause is the condition-that-arises; the dharma generated from the cause is the condition-that-generates. The combining is the condition-that-arises; what is generated from this combining is the condition-that-generates." Among the twelve links, two belong to the past — this checks the extreme of eternalism; two belong to the future — this checks the extreme of annihilationism; and the present reveals the middle way. Reasoning from the present's three causes, the future's two fruits are spoken of; reasoning from the present's five fruits, the past's two causes are spoken of. All three time-periods, each, possess the full twelve links — it is only for the sake of reasoning between cause and fruit that they are spoken of in this differentiated way.

As for the twelve as time-periods: "ignorance" is the time of the past fetters. "Volitional formation" is the time of the past actions. "Consciousness" is the time of the continuing mind and its associated factors. "Name-and-form" is the time after conception, in continuing existence, before the four kinds of physical faculties have yet arisen and the six sense-fields are not yet complete — namely the five embryonic stages: first, kalala; second, arbuda; third, peśī; fourth, ghana; fifth, praśākhā. Times such as these are named "name-and-form." "The six sense-fields" is when the four kinds of physical faculties have already arisen, and the six sense-fields are complete, yet these faculties are not yet able to serve as the basis for contact — this time is named "the six sense-fields." When these faculties are already able to serve as the basis for contact, yet suffering and pleasure are not yet differentiated, unable to avoid danger and harm, grasping fire, touching poison, or handling an unclean blade — this time is named "contact." When one is able to differentiate suffering and pleasure, to avoid danger and harm, and the like, able to give rise to craving desire, yet without yet arousing sexual desire, and not yet giving rise to defiled attachment toward any object — this time is named "sensation." Possessing the three sensations above — this time is named "craving." Because of craving one's objects, seeking after them in every direction — this time is named "grasping." At the very time of this seeking, giving rise to actions of body, speech, and mind — this time is named "becoming." Just as present consciousness exists in the future — this time is named "birth." Just as present name-and-form, the six sense-fields, contact, and sensation exist in the future — this time is named "old age and death."

As for the twelve conditions within a single thought-moment: if one kills a living being with a mind of craving, the delusion associated with this act is "ignorance." The intention associated with it is "volitional formation." The mind associated with it is "consciousness." That an action arises at all necessarily involves "name-and-form." That an action arises at all necessarily involves "the six sense-fields." The contact associated with it is "contact." The sensation associated with it is "sensation." The craving itself is "craving." The entanglement associated with it is "grasping." The action of body and speech is "becoming." The arising of these various dharmas is "birth." The changing of these various dharmas is "aging." The perishing of these various dharmas is "death."

Question: Why is illness not spoken of as a link? Answer: A link is established only for what is present at every time and in every place. There are, however, people who have never had illness from birth — such as Bakkula, who from birth never even knew a headache, how much less any other illness! Hence it is not established as a link. Question: Are grief and sorrow a link? Answer: No — they only reveal the beginning through the end, as old age and death necessarily bring grief and sorrow.

Question: Does ignorance have a cause? Does old age and death have a fruit? If they do, they ought to be established as further links. If they do not, then this falls into the view of a dharma without cause and without fruit. Answer: They do have these, and yet are not established as separate links. Ignorance has a cause, namely incorrect reflection; old age and death has a fruit, namely grief and sorrow. Again: ignorance has a cause, namely old age and death; old age and death has a fruit, namely ignorance. Present craving and grasping are precisely past ignorance; present name-and-form, the six sense-fields, contact, and sensation, if projected into the future, are named old age and death. Just as sensation is said to condition craving, one should know that old age and death, too, is said to condition ignorance — it is just like a cart-wheel, each part conditioning every other part in turn.

For womb-born beings of the desire realm, all twelve links are present in full. For the form realm, there are eleven — lacking name-and-form. For the formless realm, there are ten — omitting both name-and-form and the six sense-fields. Yet it may also be said that these, too, possess them in full: at the form realm's initial birth, before the sense-faculties have yet become vigorous and sharp, this very time is itself named "name-and-form." The formless realm, though lacking form, still possesses name — one should therefore know that it, too, possesses all twelve links in full. Question: How do ignorance and volitional formation differ from grasping and becoming? Answer: They differ as past versus present, and as old versus new — that is, as having already borne fruit versus not yet having borne fruit, and the like.

Second, the conceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links: this uses the skillful to break through the clumsy. The Middle Treatise says: "For disciples of sharp faculties, the twelve links of neither arising nor ceasing are taught." Delusion is like empty space, and so on down to old age and death being like empty space; ignorance is like illusion and transformation, unattainable — and so on down to old age and death being like illusion and transformation, unattainable. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra says: "The essence and mark of ignorance is, at root, inherently nonexistent; it exists only through the combining of deluded thought and causal conditions." It is constructed by unwholesome, reflective mental activity — like a magician standing at a crossroads, conjuring various illusory elephants, horses, ornaments, and human figures: the deluded take these as real, while the wise know they are not real. Ignorance conjures up the dependent and principal aspects of the six destinies — one should know that these, too, are, at root, inherently nonexistent, brought about only by ignorance. As when one recognizes that what one took for a snake is really only a rope, the fearful mind no longer arises — and since it no longer arises, it likewise no longer ceases. This is named the mark of the conceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links of dependent origination.

Third, the inconceivable, arising-and-ceasing causal conditions: this breaks through the small to clarify the great, teaching the dharma beyond the three realms for the sake of both sharp and dull conditions. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Mind is like a skilled painter, creating every kind of the five aggregates. Within all the world, there is nothing that is not made by mind." The painter is precisely the ignorant mind; all the world is precisely the provisional and real lands of the ten dharma-realms, and the rest. The various treatises differ in clarifying how mind brings forth all dharmas: some say the ālaya is the true consciousness, bringing forth all dharmas; some say the ālaya is the never-perishing consciousness, its neutral ignorance bringing forth all dharmas. If one holds fixedly to some real, inherent nature, this falls into the error of a primordial darkness first giving rise to awareness, and awareness then giving rise to a self-mind. This does not even succeed as an account of the conceivable causal conditions within the three realms — how much less could it succeed as an account of the inconceivable causal conditions beyond the three realms? Since delusion itself is not an inconceivable object, how could the understanding that reverses delusion possibly become inconceivable wisdom? The refutation of this is set forth in the Mo-ho Chih-kuan. Here, let me clarify that the mind of ignorance is neither self-caused, nor other-caused, nor jointly caused, nor causeless — all four propositions are inconceivable. Yet, if there is a causal condition matched to the four siddhāntas, it may nonetheless still be spoken of: just as, though the four propositions cannot locate a dream as ultimately real, one may still speak of seeing all manner of things within a dream; though the four propositions cannot locate ignorance as ultimately real, all dharmas within and beyond the three realms still issue from ignorance. Ignorance's issuing of the twelve links within the three realms is as explained above.

As for the twelve links' issuing beyond the three realms: as the Ratnagotravibhāga says, "The empty wisdom of arhats and pratyekabuddhas has, from the start, never seen the Tathāgata's own body." Though the two vehicles possess the fourfold antidote of impermanence and the rest, measured against the Tathāgata's own Dharma-body, this too is an inverted view — and being inverted, it is itself ignorance. Abiding within the taintless realm, there are four kinds of obstruction: condition, mark, birth, and destruction. "Condition" means that the abode of ignorance serves as a condition for volitional formation. "Mark" means that ignorance, together with volitional formation, serves as a cause. "Birth" means that the abode of ignorance, together with the cause of taintless karma, gives birth to the three kinds of mind-made body. "Destruction" means that the three kinds of mind-made body are conditioned by the inconceivable death of change. This, too, follows the same pattern as the twelve links within the three realms, from ignorance to old age and death. "Condition" is precisely the link of ignorance. "Mark" is the link of volitional formation. "Birth" is precisely the five links, name-and-form and the rest. The three links of craving, grasping, and becoming may be understood by the same pattern as before. "Destruction" is precisely the link of birth-and-death. These twelve links, though equal in number to those within the three realms, differ greatly in their meaning and sense. That treatise says: "The three kinds of mind-made body, not yet having attained separation from the taint of ignorance, have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned purity; ignorance and its subtle idle speculation not yet permanently extinguished, they have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned self; the accumulation of ignorance and subtle idle speculation, and the mind-aggregates born through taintless karma, not yet permanently extinguished, they have not yet attained the unconditioned bliss; the taint of affliction, the taint of karma, and the taint of birth not yet ultimately extinguished, they have not yet realized the ultimate, eternal sweet dew." Because of "condition," the path of affliction, they do not attain great purity; because of "mark," the path of karma, they do not attain the eight sovereign selves; because of "birth," the path of suffering, they do not attain great bliss; because of "destruction," old age and death, they do not attain the unchanging eternal — all of this is due to the inconceivable, arising-and-ceasing twelve links. This is the mark of the inconceivable, arising-and-ceasing twelve links of dependent origination beyond the three realms, and so on.

As for the inconceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links: this is for sharp-faculty persons, revealing principle precisely within phenomena. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The twelve links of dependent origination are named buddha-nature" — since ignorance, craving, and grasping are themselves affliction, the path of affliction is itself bodhi. Bodhi penetrates through completely, with no further affliction remaining; and since affliction is thus nonexistent, this is ultimate purity, the revealing cause of buddha-nature. Volitional formation and becoming are the path of karma, which is itself liberation; liberation's own freedom is the conditioning cause of buddha-nature. Name-and-form and old age-and-death are the path of suffering; suffering is itself the Dharma-body. The Dharma-body is neither suffering nor pleasure — this is named great bliss. Neither arising nor dying is eternity, the correct cause of buddha-nature. Hence it is said that ignorance and craving, these two, mark the interval between — this is precisely the middle way: ignorance is the past, craving is the present, and whether at the extreme or at the middle, none of it is other than buddha-nature, all of it being eternity, bliss, self, and purity; ignorance neither arises nor, likewise, ceases. This is named the inconceivable, neither-arising-nor-ceasing twelve links.

Second, judging the coarse and the wondrous: the object of dependent origination is not, in itself, either coarse or wondrous — it is only in how shallowly or deeply it is grasped that the difference between them arises. If ignorance gives rise to the volitional formations down to old age and death, three links generating two, two generating seven, seven generating three, one condition generating another in turn — affliction-conditions-karma, karma-conditions-suffering, impermanent, arising and ceasing — the Middle Treatise judges this to be the teaching for dull faculties, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra calls it the earnestly-repeated half-word, and this present sūtra says: "Only by leaving falsehood behind is it named liberation." One thus knows that this object, read in this way, is coarse. If the essence and mark of ignorance is, at root, inherently nonexistent, existing only through the combining of deluded thought and causal conditions, then, since the object is itself like an illusion, wisdom too becomes unattainable as any fixed thing. The sūtra says: "If there were any single dharma surpassing even nirvāṇa, I would say that this, too, is like an illusion, like a conjuration." The Middle Treatise clarifies this as the teaching for sharp faculties; the Nirvāṇa Sūtra calls it the elder's own teaching; the Vyākaraṇa treatise and the Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra name it "the skillful crossing that accords with the real"; this present sūtra names it the small tree. This object, read in this way, is skillful.

If ignorance is itself a condition, from which the mark arises, from the mark existence arises, and from arising, destruction follows — then extinguishing the condition brings purity, removing the mark brings the self, exhausting arising brings bliss, and having no destruction brings eternity. The Middle Treatise says: "A dharma arisen through causes and conditions is also called a provisional name." The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra calls it "the twelve links, the dharma unique to bodhisattvas." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that, through extinguishing ignorance, one attains a blazing illumination. This present sūtra treats it as the great tree that comes to full growth. Compared to what came before, this is wondrous; measured against what follows, it is coarse. If it is said that the three paths of ignorance are themselves the three virtues, with no need to sever the three virtues in order to seek yet other three virtues — the Middle Treatise says: "A dharma arisen through causes and conditions is also called the meaning of the middle way." The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says that the twelve links of dependent origination are what constitutes sitting at the seat of enlightenment. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Ignorance and craving, these two, mark the interval between — this is precisely the middle way." This present sūtra says: "The buddha-seed arises through conditions — hence I teach the one vehicle," also named the most real matter. How could this fail to be wondrous! The first three readings are provisional, and hence coarse; the last is real, and hence wondrous. Applying this coarse-and-wondrous distinction across the Five-Flavor teachings: the milk teaching contains two kinds of dependent origination, one coarse and one wondrous. The cream teaching has one, coarse only. The fresh-curdled-butter teaching has three coarse and one wondrous. The ripened-butter teaching has two coarse and one wondrous. The Lotus alone teaches only the one wondrous. This is named the relative reading of dependent origination, clarifying dependent origination as wondrous.

Third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous: as the sūtra says, "My dharma is wondrous and hard to conceive" — the first three readings are, every one of them, already the Buddha's own dharma; how could there really be a coarse conceivable set apart from a different, wondrous inconceivable? There is no teaching of the meaning of liberation apart from words themselves — it is simply that the very substance of the conceivable is itself the inconceivable. It is like the elder who hands over baskets, vessels, rice, and flour to the destitute son, which become the destitute son's own belongings; and if his true parentage is settled, the destitute son is no longer a hired laborer at all, and the baskets and vessels, returning to the household, how could they still be regarded as another's property? Since the Tathāgata teaches the coarse only as an inconceivable skillful means, how could one insist on holding the coarse to be truly different from the wondrous? Now, resolving and making plain the śrāvaka's own dharma is the king of all sūtras — this is precisely opening up the first two readings of dependent origination and thereby discussing the wondrous. Again, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "For the sake of the śrāvakas, he opens and develops their wisdom-eye" — formerly, their wisdom-eye saw only emptiness, and did not see the not-empty; now, their wisdom-eye is opened, and they see the not-empty as well, and seeing the not-empty is precisely seeing buddha-nature. Hence it is said: "The wisdom-eye sees it, yet not with full clarity; the Buddha, with the buddha-eye, sees it with complete clarity." This is precisely resolving the bodhisattva's own wisdom-eye, opening the third reading — and this is discussing the wondrous through the absolute reading.

Fourth, the contemplation of mind: contemplating that the single thought-moment of ignorance is itself clarity. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Ignorance's own clarity is precisely ultimate emptiness." The wisdom of emptiness illuminates ignorance, and ignorance itself becomes pure. It is like a person who, becoming aware there is a thief present, thereby renders the thief unable to act. Since one is thus no longer stained by ignorance, this is itself the purity of the path of affliction. Since affliction is pure, there is then no karma; since there is no karma, there is no bondage; since there is no bondage, this is the sovereign self. The self being sovereign, no longer bound by karma — who, then, receives this name-and-form, contact, and sensation? Without sensation, there is no suffering. Since there is no longer any aggregate of suffering, what, then, could still be transformed and extinguished? This is precisely the virtue of eternity. Since a single thought-moment of mind already possesses the twelve links of dependent origination within it, contemplating these very links, one constantly cultivates the contemplation of eternity, bliss, self, and purity. The mind, moment after moment, abiding within the secret treasury, constantly cultivating this contemplation, is named "entrusting oneself to the sagely womb." As the contemplative practice matures fully, the embryo comes to completion. Once ignorance is broken through, this is named "emerging from the sagely womb," and so on.

Third, clarifying the object of the Four Noble Truths, in four parts: first, clarifying the Four Noble Truths themselves; second, judging the coarse and the wondrous; third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous; fourth, the contemplation of mind. The first, in turn, has two parts: first, presenting other masters' interpretations; second, the fourfold Four Noble Truths. One master interprets the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra's "boundless noble truths" as contrasting with the two vehicles' "truths with remainder," making manifest the Buddha's own ultimate truths. The two vehicles' truths are the "constructed" Four Noble Truths — "constructed" meaning the measured Four Noble Truths. The "unconstructed" Four Noble Truths are the immeasurable Four Noble Truths. Constructed and unconstructed pertain to practice; measured and immeasurable pertain to the dharma itself. When the two vehicles contemplate the truths, their grasp of the dharma is not exhaustive, and there remains further construction yet to be done — hence it is named "constructed." Since their grasp of the dharma is not exhaustive, it is therefore measured, finite. The sūtra says: "Knowing through another, this knowing is a constructed activity." Knowing through another is not knowing everything — one does not know the immeasurable dharma — hence it is called "constructed" and "measured." As for the unconstructed and the immeasurable: the Buddha's own knowledge is without limit or exhaustion, with nothing further to be constructed — hence it is named "unconstructed." Knowing everything by his own power, this knowing is an unconstructed activity. "Everything" is precisely the immeasurable dharma. This interpretation, though it proclaims four names, in fact amounts to only two senses, and is not the interpretation used here.

The four kinds of the Four Noble Truths are: first, arising-and-ceasing; second, non-arising-and-ceasing; third, immeasurable; fourth, uncreated. Their sense derives from the "Chapter on Sagely Practice" in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, differentiated fourfold in terms of the partial and the perfect, phenomena and principle. As for "arising-and-ceasing": since confusion about the real is heavy here, it takes its name from phenomena. Now, suffering and its arising are, in fact, a single dharma, divided into cause and fruit to make two; the path and cessation are likewise so. A verse of the Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya says: "The nature of the fruit of volitional formations — this speaks of the truth of suffering; the nature of the cause speaks of the truth of its arising. That all conditioned, taint-bearing dharmas ultimately cease speaks of the truth of cessation; that all taintless practices exist speaks of the truth of the path." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The aggregates and sense-fields, a heavy burden, pressing and binding one — this is the truth of suffering. The afflictions of views and craving, able to summon a future fruit — this is the truth of its arising. Precept, concentration, and wisdom, and impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, able to remove the very root of suffering — this is the truth of the path. The severing of the bonds of the twenty-five states of existence's own children and fruits — this is the truth of cessation." The Sūtra of the Buddha's Final Bequest says: "The gathering of the real is itself the cause — there is no separate cause apart from it. The path that extinguishes suffering is itself the true path." All of this clarifies the mark of the arising-and-ceasing Four Noble Truths.

As for the sequence: proceeding from the coarse to the fine. The mark of suffering is coarse, and so it is spoken of first; though cessation is not yet the true real, one meets the real through cessation, and the mark of cessation is likewise coarse, and so it, too, is spoken of first. Again: raising up the worldly fruit of suffering causes one to grow weary of the world's arising; cessation, able to meet the world-transcending fruit, causes one to delight in the path. It is in this sequence that they are given. "Noble" contrasts with and refutes what is false — hence it is spoken of as "correctly noble." "Truth" admits of three interpretations, and so on: that is to say, that its own nature is not empty of substance is why it is called "truth." Again, that seeing these four brings an unerring, undistorted awakening is why it is called "truth." Again, that one is able to use this dharma to reveal it to others is why it is named "truth." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Ordinary beings have suffering, but no truth; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have suffering, and have the truth of suffering." One should know that ordinary beings, not seeing the sagely principle, do not attain wisdom, and cannot teach it — they have only suffering, without the truth. Śrāvakas possess all three senses, and so it is called truth for them. This interpretation accords with the sūtra.

As for the non-arising reading: since confusion about the real is light here, it takes its name from principle. Suffering has no mark of oppression; its arising has no mark of combination; the path has no mark of duality; cessation has no mark of arising. Again: cultivation accords with the emptiness of suffering, and the other three are likewise so. Again, as for "non-arising": "arising" names its arising and the path. The arising and the path are themselves empty. Being empty, they do not truly give rise to the arising or the path. Since the arising and the path do not truly arise, there is likewise no suffering and no cessation — it is precisely within phenomena that one finds the real, not a real that comes only after cessation. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The various bodhisattvas understand suffering as without suffering — hence there is no ordinary suffering, yet there is the true truth." The other three are likewise so. Hence this is named the non-arising Four Noble Truths. The sense of "noble truth" is as explained above.

As for the immeasurable reading: since confusion about the middle is heavy here, it takes its name from phenomena. Suffering has immeasurable marks, since the fruits of the ten dharma-realms differ from one another. Its arising has immeasurable marks, since the five abodes of affliction differ from one another. The path has immeasurable marks, since the buddha-dharmas, numerous as the sands of the Ganges, differ from one another. Cessation has immeasurable marks, since the various pāramitās differ from one another. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "To know that the aggregates are suffering is named middling wisdom. To differentiate that the aggregates possess immeasurable marks is not something known by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas — in that other sūtra, I did not, in the end, teach it." The other three are likewise so. This is named the immeasurable Four Noble Truths.

As for the uncreated reading: since confusion about the middle is light here, it takes its name from principle. Because of confusion about principle, bodhi itself is called affliction, named the truth of its arising; nirvāṇa itself is called birth-and-death, named the truth of suffering. Because of the ability to understand, affliction is itself bodhi, named the truth of the path; birth-and-death is itself nirvāṇa, named the truth of cessation. Precisely within phenomena is the middle, without deliberation, without thought, with no one who constructs anything at all — hence it is named "uncreated." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The conventional truth is itself the truth of ultimate meaning. Through skillful means, according with sentient beings, two truths are spoken of; but those who have transcended the world know that they are, in fact, one and the same, the truth of ultimate meaning." The single, real truth — free of falsehood, free of inversion, eternal, blissful, self, and pure, and the rest — this, therefore, is named the uncreated Four Noble Truths.

Yet the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, in speaking of the uncreated Four Noble Truths, specially singles out the one truth of cessation as what the Buddha ultimately realizes — it alone is eternal, is truth, is a refuge; the other three are impermanent, not truth, not a refuge. Why is this? The other three fall within the mark of the conditioned, and are therefore impermanent. Being impermanent, they are false, and therefore not truth. Being impermanent, they give no security, and therefore are no refuge. The truth of cessation is free of the conditioned, and is therefore eternal. It is not false, and therefore is truth. It is the foremost security, and therefore is a refuge. Hence it is named the truth of ultimate meaning, also named the inconceivable.

Dharmottara objects to this sense: yet the sūtra speaks of the Buddha's bodhi-path as eternal for three reasons — first, eternal because affliction is exhausted; second, eternal because it does not arise from affliction; third, eternal because understanding is complete, like every stream returning to the sea. How, then, can it be said that the truth of the path is impermanent? Answer: What the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra means by this statement is that the earlier truth of suffering's own cessation is not the cessation of a dharma that is destroyed. The beginningless, uncreated, and the rest, surpassing buddha-dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, are already accomplished. It speaks of the Tathāgata's own Dharma-body as never separate from the treasury of affliction: speaking of the truth of suffering in its hidden aspect, it is named the tathāgatagarbha; in its manifest aspect, it is named the Dharma-body. The empty wisdom of the two vehicles, before the four undistorted objects, neither sees nor knows this. Now, wishing to reveal and speak of it, it speaks of the one truth as eternal, as true, as a refuge — since there is a treating, a removing of obstructions, and a manifestation of the body involved, it therefore clarifies the other three as neither eternal nor true, the one alone being eternal and true.

Here I raise an objection: if this is so, then the one truth that is revealed is the uncreated truth, while the three truths not yet revealed are not the uncreated truth; the one is the definitive meaning, and the three are not the definitive meaning. One should know that what the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra teaches is spoken in a sequence, proceeding from the shallow to the deep, still held apart stage by stage and not yet fused together — this is only the "uncreated" within the immeasurable Four Noble Truths, not the uncreated in which the resolve first aroused and its ultimate completion are not, in the end, different from one another. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "There is truth, there is reality" — one should know that all four kinds alike are called truth, called reality, called eternal.

Second, judging the coarse and the wondrous: the truths discussed in both the greater and lesser vehicles do not go beyond these four kinds. Where teaching, practice, and realization are not fused together, this is coarse; where the teaching is fused but practice and realization are not yet fused, this, too, is coarse; only where all are fused together is it wondrous. In terms of the Five Flavors: the milk teaching has two kinds, and the two vehicles hear neither of them at all, since the great is kept apart from the small — hence it has one coarse and one wondrous. The cream teaching has one kind, unused by the Mahāyāna, since the small is kept apart from the great, its roots broken, deaf and mute — hence it is coarse. The fresh-curdled-butter teaching has four kinds: one breaks through the other three, and two of them fail to enter the fourth; though the one does enter, the teaching itself remains unfused — hence it has three coarse and one wondrous. The ripened-butter teaching has three kinds: one breaks through the other two, one enters, and one does not enter; though the one does enter, the teaching remains unfused — hence it has two coarse and one wondrous. The ghee teaching has only the one kind of the Four Noble Truths, wondrous alone, without any coarse. This is the relative reading, clarifying the wondrous.

Third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous: let me first set out the intent of the various sūtras. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra clarifies only three kinds of the Four Noble Truths. The text says: "Form is itself empty; it is not that form ceases into emptiness" — this is the sense of non-arising. "All dharmas converge upon form; this convergence is unsurpassed" — this is the sense of the immeasurable. "Form itself is unattainable — how much more so is there any converging or not converging!" — this is the sense of the uncreated. The Middle Treatise's own verses likewise have three senses; its final two chapters clarify the small vehicle's own method of contemplation, which is precisely the arising-and-ceasing sense. The Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings clarifies how the immeasurable issues from the one — this is opening the three kinds of the Four Noble Truths out from the uncreated. The Lotus clarifies how the immeasurable enters the one — this is gathering the three kinds of the Four Noble Truths back, returning them to the single, uncreated kind. The "Chapter on Sagely Practice" in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra retrospectively differentiates the various sūtras, and so teaches all four kinds of the Four Noble Truths in full. The "Chapter of King Guangde" retrospectively dissolves the various sūtras, quiescing all four kinds of the Four Noble Truths together. The text says: "Arising-arising cannot be spoken; arising-non-arising cannot be spoken; non-arising-arising cannot be spoken; non-arising-non-arising cannot be spoken." The sūtra itself explains the first phrase, saying: "Why can arising-arising not be spoken? Because arising-arising gives rise to arising, and arising-arising gives rise to non-arising, it therefore cannot be spoken." If one follows the text literally, it only raises "arising, non-arising" to explain "arising-arising" — this very "arising-arising" is itself "arising, non-arising" — how, then, could it be spoken of only, one-sidedly, as "arising-arising"? The Buddha, for the sake of sharp-faculty persons, raises up one instance as an example for all the rest. If one grasps the underlying sense, "arising-arising" is itself "arising, non-arising," and is likewise "non-arising, arising," and likewise "non-arising, non-arising" — how, then, could it be spoken of only, one-sidedly, through this single phrase "arising-arising"!

If one grasps this sense, the same pattern applies to all three remaining phrases below. Question: Why does the Buddha give such a one-sided explanation? Answer: For the sake of sharp faculties, and because there is a fitting causal condition, it is right that it should be so. The assembly at that time was like a swift horse who enters the path at the very sight of the shadow of the whip, not needing to be struck to the very bone. Given such a retrospective dissolving as this, what teaching would fail to become quiescent! At times, three ways of speaking of it are coarse, and one way of speaking of it is wondrous. At times, three ways of not-speaking of it are coarse, and one way of not-speaking of it is wondrous. At times, all four ways of speaking of it are coarse, and all four ways of not-speaking of it are wondrous. At times, the four ways of speaking of it themselves contain both coarse and wondrous. At times, the four ways of not-speaking of it themselves contain both coarse and wondrous. At times, all four ways of speaking of it are neither coarse nor wondrous. At times, all four ways of not-speaking of it are neither coarse nor wondrous. All such various formulations as these are, every one, resolved and made plain, entering the wondrous, opening the provisional to reveal the real. That all four cannot be spoken is the stage being high. That all four can be spoken is the essence being broad. That all four both can and cannot be spoken is the function being long. That all four are neither speakable nor unspeakable is neither high nor broad, neither long nor short, neither one nor different — alike named wondrous. The contemplation of mind may be understood accordingly, and need not be separately recorded.

Fourth, clarifying the two truths, in four parts: first, briefly setting out the various senses; second, clarifying the two truths themselves; third, judging the coarse and the wondrous; fourth, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous. Now, the term "two truths" issues from many sūtras, and yet its principle is difficult to fathom — the world has long debated it in confusion, a dispute of long standing among great minds. The Sūtra of Wondrous Concentration says: "The Buddha, long ago, together with Mañjuśrī, disputed the two truths, and both fell into hell as a result. Not until the time of Kāśyapa Buddha did they resolve together the matter they had doubted." If these two sages, still at the causal stage, could not yet fully understand it, how much more should one refrain from stubbornly forcing one's own personal opinion to accept or reject it?

Question: Śākyamuni, meeting Kāśyapa Buddha, was already a bodhisattva two lifetimes away from buddhahood — how, then, could he only then have first understood the two truths? And, before that time, he ought not to have fallen into an evil destiny at all! Answer: The phrase "before that time" is broad — why must one insist that his emergence from the evil destinies occurred exactly at the point two lifetimes before buddhahood? Moreover, a bodhisattva two lifetimes from buddhahood is drawing near to the stage of a buddha's immediate successor, and such a stage belongs mostly to the distinct and perfect teachings, where there is certainly no possibility of this at all. It ought rather to be that, as a bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka teaching, even at two lifetimes from buddhahood he had still not yet severed affliction, and only then first understood the two truths — there is no fault in this interpretation. That he fell into an evil destiny before that time likewise has its own sense.

Question: If it is only the Tripiṭaka teaching's bodhisattva who can fall into an evil destiny, and the other three teachings have no such case, then why does the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra say that "even at the tenth ground there is still the fear of tigers, wolves, lions, and the like"? Answer: To be killed by an evil companion is to fall into hell; to be killed by a rampaging elephant is not to fall into hell. Now, in the perfect teaching, there is a sense in which one's own physical body, within a single lifetime, may leap directly to the tenth ground — in this case, affliction has already been broken through, and there is no karma for hell, yet, since one still possesses a physical body, one is not exempt from wild beasts. In the other teachings, the physical body, within a single lifetime, does not ascend to the tenth ground at all, but only carries out the practice of understanding, taking affliction itself as the "tiger and wolf." Those who carry out this practice of understanding — in terms of principle, this may apply generally; in terms of actual fact, it does not go so far, and so on.

Yet those who hold to particular positions differ from one another. Zhuangyan Min holds that the Buddha's own fruit stands outside the two truths — a position for which the Middle Treatise masters examined him closely: if this is so, what principle does the Buddha's wisdom illuminate? What delusion does it break through? If there is no separate principle for it to illuminate, it ought not to stand outside the two truths at all; and if it does stand outside them without illuminating any separate principle, on what basis could it be said to stand outside at all? Advancing, this position fails to establish a third truth; retreating, it fails even to establish the original two. In the Liang dynasty, the Satyasiddhi masters held differing views of the conventional truth: some said the conventional truth possesses name, function, and essence all together; some said it has only name and function, without essence; some said it has only name, without essence or function, and so on. In the Chen dynasty, the Middle Treatise masters differed in what they refuted and what they established: some refuted the twenty-three schools of old that had clarified the sense of the two truths, and established their own sense of the two truths in its place; some, having finished refuting others, clarified the two truths in terms of the fourfold provisional. Ancient and modern positions differ from one another, each citing its own evidence, each holding fast to a single text, and none trusting what the others say.

Here, I say it is not so. All the differing statements of sūtra and treatise are, without exception, the Tathāgata's own skillful expedient means, knowing each being's own capacity and each being's own desire, and differing accordingly in various ways. Briefly, there are three kinds of difference: according with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom together, and wisdom alone. As for teaching that accords with feeling: since the feelings and natures of beings differ, the teaching accordingly differs too. As the Vibhāṣā clarifies: the supreme worldly dharma has immeasurable kinds — even at the very brink of the real, this is already so, how much more elsewhere! It is like humoring the feelings of the blind, showing them milk in various ways. The blind, hearing these differing accounts, dispute among themselves — yet is the color white itself really the same thing as milk? The various masters fail to grasp this underlying sense, each clinging to a single text, each stirring up his own view and dispute, mutually affirming and denying one another, believing one account while disbelieving another — how vast and confused this is, with no one knowing which is correct! As for the twenty-three accounts and those who refute them: wherever there is scriptural proof-text supporting them, all of these should be judged as belonging to the sense of the two truths that accords with feeling. Wherever there is no such scriptural proof, these are entirely false speculations, the same as the non-Buddhist paths, and are not included among the two truths at all.

As for teaching that accords with feeling-and-wisdom together: as feeling would have it, the two truths are both conventional; but once one awakens to the principle of truth, this may then be called the real, and the real is only one. It is like the five hundred bhikṣus, each speaking of the cause of his own attainment in the body — the causes are many, yet the correct principle is only one. The sūtra says: "What worldly people's minds perceive is named the conventional truth; what those who have transcended the world perceive is named the truth of ultimate meaning." Teaching spoken in this way is precisely the two truths that accord with feeling-and-wisdom together. As for teaching that accords with wisdom alone: the sage, awakened to principle, not only sees the real but is also able to fully understand the conventional. It is like an eye with its cataract removed, seeing both form and emptiness. Again, it is like one who enters meditative absorption and, upon emerging from contemplation, finds body and mind open and empty, like a light mist dissolving into the sky — already unlike an ordinary, scattered mind — how much more so, then, should one who has awakened to the real fail to fully understand the conventional? The Abhidharma says: "A small cloud produces a small obstruction, a large cloud produces a large obstruction — the deeper the taintlessness, the purer worldly wisdom in turn becomes." The sūtra says: "Ordinary people move through the world without knowing the marks of the world; the Tathāgata moves through the world, clearly understanding the marks of the world." This is the two truths that accord with wisdom alone. If one understands these three senses, and then goes on to search through sūtra and treatise, one will find that, though they speak of it in various ways, each and every one of the two truths, in fact, carries all three senses within it.

Second, correctly clarifying the two truths themselves: grasping the underlying sense while keeping things brief, one need only point to the dharma-nature as the truth of ultimate meaning and to ignorance and the twelve links of dependent origination as the conventional truth, and the sense already suffices. But since people's minds are coarse and shallow, and fail to perceive its depth and subtlety, it must be further opened up and expanded — hence the seven kinds of two truths are discussed. Each single pair of the two truths, opened further, yields three kinds, amounting together to twenty-one kinds of two truths. If the first of these pairs of two truths is used, it breaks through every false view and attachment entirely, like the fire that consumes an entire kalpa, leaving not even a mustard seed behind — how much more so, then, do the truths that follow, reaching far beyond the words themselves, defy any ordinary, worldly reckoning. As for what is called the seven kinds of two truths: first, the really existent is the conventional; the extinction of the really existent is the real. Second, the illusorily existent is the conventional; the illusorily existent, precisely as emptiness, is the real. Third, the illusorily existent is the conventional; the illusorily existent, precisely as emptiness and as not-empty together, is the real. Fourth, the illusorily existent is the conventional; the illusorily existent, precisely as emptiness and as not-empty, all dharmas converging upon emptiness and not-empty, is the real. Fifth, the illusorily existent and the illusorily existent precisely as emptiness are both named the conventional; neither existent nor empty is the real. Sixth, the illusorily existent and the illusorily existent precisely as emptiness are both named the conventional; neither existent nor empty, all dharmas converging upon neither existent nor empty, is the real. Seventh, the illusorily existent and the illusorily existent precisely as emptiness are both the conventional; all dharmas converging upon existence, converging upon emptiness, and converging upon neither existent nor empty, is the real.

As for the two truths of the really existent: the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, and the rest, are all real dharmas. What is accomplished by these real dharmas, spreading out in ten thousand forms like a dense forest, is named the conventional. Through skillful cultivation of the path, once this conventional is extinguished, one is then able to meet the real. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Emptiness-of-form, form-emptiness" — because the conventional is extinguished, it is called "emptiness-of-form"; because form itself is not extinguished, it is called "form-emptiness." That there is no medicine within the illness itself, and no bodhi within the mere words themselves, are both this very sense. This is the mark of the two truths of the really existent. Applied here, too, there are the three senses of according with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom together, and wisdom alone — this may be inferred accordingly.

As for the two truths of the illusorily existent as empty: this refutes the previous sense. Why is this? When existence is really existent, there is no real present at all; when existence is extinguished, there is no conventional present at all — the sense of two truths thus fails to be established. If, instead, illusory existence is clarified: illusory existence is the conventional, and illusory existence is unattainable — precisely within the conventional is the real. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Form is itself emptiness; emptiness is itself form." Emptiness and form being mutually identical, the sense of two truths is thereby established. This is named the two truths of illusory existence being without separate existence. Applied here, too, there are the three senses of according with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom together, and wisdom alone, and so on. As for according with wisdom, a small further differentiation is needed. Why is this? Under the really-existent scheme, according with wisdom to illuminate the real is no different from this present scheme; but according with wisdom to illuminate the conventional differs. Why is this? A person of the shared teaching who enters contemplation is skillful, yet, restricted by his own further stage, his illumination of the conventional, too, is skillful only within that restriction. It is like the hundred rivers meeting the sea, where their flavor is no longer distinguished — yet, restricted back to their own separate sources, the Yangtze and the Yellow River still differ from one another. The conventional is a phenomenal dharma, and that its illumination differs from person to person is beyond doubt; the real is a principial dharma, and cannot fail to be the same for all. It is only in terms of how a person of the shared teaching emerges into the provisional that people differ from one another — this may be grasped by inference. By the same pattern, how a person of the Tripiṭaka teaching emerges into the provisional ought likewise to be so, and so on.

As for the two truths of the illusorily existent as both emptiness and not-emptiness: the conventional does not differ from before, but the real now differs in three ways. A single conventional, followed by three different senses of the real, thus yields three kinds of two truths. What is the mark of this? As the Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra clarifies "neither tainted nor taintless." At first, one person takes "not tainted" to mean "not conventional," and "not taintless" to mean dispelling attachment to the taintless. Why is this? A practitioner, taking the taintless as his object, gives rise to attachment to it, just as one may give rise to a fixation by taking cessation as one's object; breaking through this attachment of mind, he returns and enters the taintless. This is one kind of two truths. Next, another person, hearing "neither tainted nor taintless," takes it to mean "neither of the two extremes," specifically revealing the principle of the middle — the principle of the middle being the real. This, too, is one kind of two truths. Again, another person, hearing "neither tainted nor taintless," at once understands this double negation as directly revealing the middle way — the dharma-realm of the middle way, its power and function vast, equal to empty space, all dharmas converging upon "neither tainted nor taintless." This, too, is one kind of two truths. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Śrāvakas see only emptiness, and do not see the not-empty," and: "The wise see both emptiness and the not-empty" — this is precisely this sense. The two vehicles are said to be attached to this very emptiness, and it is to break through this attachment to emptiness that "not-empty" is spoken of; once the attachment to emptiness is broken through, one merely sees emptiness, without yet seeing the not-empty. A person of sharp faculty takes the not-empty to be wondrous existence, and so speaks of "not-empty" in this sense. A person of the very sharpest faculty, hearing "not-empty," takes it to be the tathāgatagarbha itself — all dharmas converging upon the tathāgatagarbha. Thus, in terms of emptiness and not-emptiness alone, there are already three kinds of two truths.

Moreover, in terms of "all dharmas converge upon neither tainted nor taintless," three different senses may be shown: at first, one person, hearing that all dharmas converge upon "neither tainted nor taintless," takes it to mean that all dharmas do not depart from emptiness — traveling through the ten directions' worlds, one still returns to the same suchness of a mere jar-in-its-place. Another person, hearing "converge," understands that the principle within this must be brought forth by every practice converging upon it. Another person, hearing "all convergence is itself neither tainted nor taintless," understands that this itself possesses all dharmas in full. Hence it is said that this single conventional turns in accordance with three different senses of the real — matched, respectively, against a single real, a compound real, and an inconceivable real. Its immeasurable forms and configurations, bending and turning to meet each capacity, appearing and disappearing to benefit beings, each and every one of them likewise carries the three senses of according with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom together, and wisdom alone. If one follows realization through wisdom, the conventional turns in accordance with wisdom: realizing wisdom of the one-sided real forms the shared teaching's own two truths; realizing wisdom of the not-empty real forms the distinct-teaching-entering-the-shared-teaching's two truths; realizing wisdom of the all-convergence-upon-not-empty real forms the perfect-teaching-entering-the-shared-teaching's two truths. These three persons' entry into wisdom differs, and their illumination of the conventional, restricted accordingly, likewise differs. Why is it that these three persons, hearing the very same two truths, arrive at differing understandings? This is because it is the exclusive Prajñāpāramitā teaching spoken together with the two vehicles, and so the distinction lies only in shallowness and depth. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "There is a bodhisattva who, at the very first arousing of the mind, already corresponds with omniscience; there is a bodhisattva who, at the first arousing of the mind, is like one at play with spiritual powers, purifying buddha-lands; there is a bodhisattva who, at the first arousing of the mind, at once sits at the seat of enlightenment, becoming, as it were, a buddha." This is precisely this very sense.

As for the illusorily existent and its non-existence as the conventional, and neither existent nor nonexistent as the real: existence and nonexistence, being two, form the conventional; the middle way's own neither-existence-nor-nonexistence, being non-dual, is the real. The two vehicles, hearing this real and this conventional, understand neither at all, and so are as if mute, as if deaf. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "I discussed the conventional truth together with Maitreya, yet the five hundred śrāvakas took it to be a discussion of the truth of ultimate meaning." This is precisely this very sense. Applied here, too, there are the senses of according with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom together, and wisdom alone, and so on.

As for the perfect-teaching-entering-the-distinct two truths: the conventional is the same as the distinct teaching's own, but the truth of ultimate meaning differs. A person of the distinct teaching takes the not-empty to be merely principle alone; wishing to reveal this principle, he requires the skillful means of conditioned cultivation, and so it is said: "All dharmas converge upon the not-empty." A person of the perfect teaching, hearing of the not-empty principle, at once knows that it already possesses all buddha-dharmas in full, without the slightest lack, and so it is said: "All convergence is itself the not-empty." Applied here, too, there are the senses of according with feeling and the rest, and so on.

As for the perfect teaching's own two truths: this directly teaches the inconceivable two truths. The real is itself the conventional; the conventional is itself the real. It is like the wish-fulfilling jewel: the jewel itself is a simile for the real, and its function a simile for the conventional. The very jewel is itself the function, and the very function is itself the jewel — not two, and yet spoken of as two, only to distinguish the real from the conventional. Applied here, too, there are the senses of according with feeling and wisdom, and so on. Śāriputra says: "Through various causes and conditions, and skillfully chosen parables and words, the Buddha teaches; his mind is settled, calm as the sea; hearing him, the net of my doubt is severed." This is precisely this very sense.

Question: Real and conventional ought to correspond to one another — how, then, can they differ from teaching to teaching? Answer: This should be understood through four propositions: the conventional differs while the real is the same; the real differs while the conventional is the same; both real and conventional differ, yet correspond to one another; both real and conventional are the same, yet correspond to one another. Between the Tripiṭaka teaching and the shared teaching, the real is the same while the conventional differs. Between the two teachings entering the shared teaching, the real differs while the conventional is the same. In the distinct teaching, both real and conventional differ from the others, yet still correspond to one another. In the perfect-teaching-entering-the-distinct, the conventional is the same while the real differs. In the perfect teaching itself, real and conventional are not different from one another, and yet still correspond — not the same, and yet the same. Where they do not mutually enter one another, one should hold real and conventional distinct, and take them as simply corresponding, and so on.

The seven kinds of two truths are set out at length as above. Stated briefly: within the three realms, mutually identical or not mutually identical; beyond the three realms, mutually identical or not mutually identical — this makes four kinds of two truths. The distinct teaching received into the shared teaching is the fifth. The perfect teaching received into the shared teaching is the sixth. The perfect teaching received into the distinct teaching is the seventh. Question: Why is the Tripiṭaka teaching not received into a higher teaching? Answer: The Tripiṭaka teaching, within the three realms, is not mutually identical with anything higher; its small-vehicle practitioners, having already grasped their own realization, are persons whose root-capacity is already broken off — hence there is no question of their being received. The remaining six all belong to the gate of the Mahāyāna, and, should they wish to advance further, are indeed able to go on — hence they may be received. Question: If a teaching is not received, does it also fail to be gathered together with the others? Answer: "Being received" and "being gathered together" are not the same sense — before a teaching has been gathered together, the question of its being received does not yet arise.

Third, judging the coarse and the wondrous: the two truths of the really existent are the half-word dharma-gate, drawing dull-faculty persons onward, sweeping away the dung of idle speculation — yet the sense of two truths does not fully succeed here, and so this dharma is coarse. The illusory two truths are the full-word dharma-gate, teaching sharp faculties; the true mark of all dharmas, attained together by the three persons alike — compared to what came before, this is wondrous; yet, seeing only bare emptiness alike among the three, measured against what follows, it is coarse. Taking the distinct-teaching-entering-the-shared, able to see the not-empty, this is then wondrous; yet, its teaching's own account of principle not yet fused, it is therefore coarse. Taking the perfect-teaching-entering-the-shared as wondrous, this wondrous is no different from what follows it; yet, still accompanied by the shared teaching's own skillful means, it is therefore coarse. The distinct teaching's own two truths, not accompanied by the shared teaching's skillful means, are therefore wondrous; yet, its teaching's own account of principle not yet fused, it is therefore coarse. The perfect-teaching-entering-the-distinct, its principle fused, is wondrous; yet, still accompanied by the distinct teaching's own skillful means, it is coarse. Only the perfect teaching's own two truths are the direct, unsurpassed path without deviation — hence they alone are wondrous.

Next, judging the coarse and the wondrous in terms of according with feeling and according with wisdom: taking the Tripiṭaka teaching as the example, at first, hearing the two truths that accord with feeling, one takes true speech to be empty speech, giving rise to a view attached to mere words — birth-and-death stretches on vast and boundless, with not the slightest trace of the buddha-dharma's own flavor. If one is able to diligently cultivate the applications of mindfulness and bring forth the four good roots, then, at this time, the two truths that accord with feeling are both named the conventional; once the taintless is brought forth and attained, the two truths thus illuminated are both named the real. From the stage of the fourth fruit onward, the real and conventional illuminated by taintless wisdom are both named the two truths that accord with wisdom. According with feeling is coarse; according with wisdom is wondrous — it is like the turning of milk, which first becomes cream. Once it has become cream, the mind's own disposition gains trust and confidence, and entering and emerging present no difficulty. One then attains the two truths that accord with feeling, feeling-and-wisdom, and wisdom, and one teaches the shared teaching, the distinct-entering-shared, and the perfect-entering-shared, causing the hearer to feel ashamed of the small and long for the great, grieving over himself as a blighted seed, thirsting after and admiring the higher vehicle. This is like the turning of cream into fresh curdled butter. As the mind gradually becomes open and at ease, one then teaches, for the sake of feeling, feeling-and-wisdom, and wisdom, the distinct teaching and the perfect-entering-distinct, clarifying the exclusive Prajñāpāramitā, entrusting him with the management of the household estate — gold, silver, and every precious treasure, its every transaction of taking in and giving out — causing him to know it all. Having come to know this fully, it is like the turning of fresh curdled butter into ripened butter. Long after teaching the various buddha-dharmas, one must in the end teach the true treasure itself — this is teaching, for the sake of feeling, feeling-and-wisdom, and wisdom, the perfect teaching's own two truths, like the turning of ripened butter into ghee. Thus these six kinds of two truths temper and ripen sentient beings; though they come to form the four flavors, they are, for that very reason, coarse; the single flavor of ghee alone is, for that reason, wondrous.

Again, judging the coarse and the wondrous in summary: though the first two teachings possess a sense of according with wisdom as well, they are, taken altogether, according with feeling, since they speak words intended for others' understanding — hence they are named coarse. From the distinct-entering-shared onward, though they, too, possess a sense of according with feeling, they are, taken altogether, gathered together as feeling-and-wisdom, since they speak words intended both for oneself and for others — hence they are both coarse and wondrous. The perfect teaching's own two truths, though they, too, possess a sense of according with feeling, are, taken altogether, according with wisdom alone, since they speak words intended for the Buddha's own understanding — hence they alone are called wondrous. Question: If the first two kinds of two truths are, altogether, according with feeling, ought they not then to be without any seeing of the truth at all, and unable to attain the path? Answer: They do not attain the middle way, and are therefore called "according with feeling" — yet the buddhas and tathāgatas never teach the Dharma in vain: though this is not the siddhānta of ultimate meaning of the middle way, it does not fail to carry the benefit of the other three siddhāntas. Judged in broad outline, all of it belongs to what accords with feeling, and is therefore coarse.

If the seven kinds of two truths are applied across the Five-Flavor teachings: the milk teaching has the distinct, perfect-entering-distinct, and perfect kinds of two truths, three in all — two coarse and one wondrous. The cream teaching has only the really-existent two truths, coarse alone. The fresh-curdled-butter teaching possesses all seven kinds of two truths — six coarse and one wondrous. The ripened-butter teaching has six kinds — five coarse and one wondrous. The Lotus alone has the single kind of the perfect teaching's own two truths, without any of the other six skillful means — wondrous alone, without any coarse. That the title marks it as "wondrous" has precisely this sense in mind — this is the relative reading, judging the coarse and the wondrous.

Fourth, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous: the buddhas of the three times, at root, cause sentient beings to open the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, to attain the forbearance of non-arising — it is on account of this one great cause and condition that they appear in the world. The Fahua Lun says: "The sense of the lotus flower rising from the water: since one cannot fully rise up and leave behind the small vehicle's own muddy, turbid water, one enters and sits among the Tathāgata's own great assembly, as the various bodhisattvas sit upon the lotus flower, hearing the teaching of unsurpassed, pure wisdom" — this certainly does not mean sitting upon an actual flower-petal. It means, rather, that the various bodhisattvas, hearing the teaching of the one perfect path and realizing the one perfect fruit, dwell within the world of the flower-king, seated upon the lotus dais alongside Vairocana Buddha himself. This is the Buddha's own intention. From the moment one first beholds my own body, and first hears the one, real truth, one has already entered the flower-dais. For those who have not yet entered it, he proceeds from the sudden to open up the gradual, and further employs a variety of skillful means, helping to reveal the truth of ultimate meaning. He teaches the various two truths — some single, some compound, some inconceivable, various and differing — all of it made as skillful means leading toward the flower-dais. Yet the Tathāgata, ever quiescent, extends his transforming influence throughout the entire dharma-realm, without truly differentiating anything at all — planning first, acting only afterward — bestowing this power of compassionate good roots that draws beings in, causing every sentient being to gain entry from wherever they stand.

There are those who say: "Beginning from the Deer Park onward, all of it was already a lead-in toward the Lotus." Here I say this is not so. Even taking the nearer view — that ever since the teaching at the seat of quiescent extinction, all of it has been a lead-in toward the Lotus, so that the emission of light illuminating other lands and manifesting buddhas there was all for the sake of opening the gradual out of the sudden, and Mañjuśrī's citing of an earlier buddha was likewise for the sake of opening the gradual out of the sudden — even this reading of the lead-in, I would say, still keeps it too near. From the time of Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū Buddha onward, this same skillful means for the Lotus was already being made for the sake of sentient beings — one should know that it did not begin only nearby, at the seat of quiescent extinction. And even this is still too near: from the time of his original attainment of buddhahood onward, this skillful means for the flower-dais was already being made for the sake of sentient beings. And this, too, is still too near: from the time of his original practice of the bodhisattva path, this skillful means for the flower-dais was already being made for the sake of sentient beings. The text says: "I originally established this vow — that I would universally cause every being to attain, likewise, this very same path." One should know, then, that this lead-in is hardly confined to the present alone! Those originally transformed and brought to enter the flower-dais are, in themselves, one portion of the whole; for those not yet entered, the skillful means described above never cease, and the same holds true throughout the interval between. As for those who, coming from the Avataṃsaka, the Vaipulya, or the Prajñā sūtras — whether through the distinct-entering-shared, the perfect-entering-shared, or the perfect-entering-distinct — enter the flower-dais, they are no different from those who entered from the very beginning, and are, likewise, in themselves, another portion of the whole. For those not yet entered, tempered and ripened through the four flavors, all of them, in this present sūtra, come to enter the flower-dais. Among the various teachings, whether abiding at three flavors, two flavors, one flavor, or remaining entirely raw, all alike are resolved from the coarse and made wondrous, entering, every one, the flower-dais.

The Tripiṭaka teaching's own guarded fruit — hard as it is to break through, has already been broken through; hard as it is to open, has already been opened — how much more so, then, whatever is easy to break through and easy to open! All of it, following each being's own feeling while still returning to the root, directly at its own gate reveals the real, and thereby enters the flower-dais. The text says: "Carts of the seven treasures, immeasurable in number, bestowed alike upon each of his sons," and so on. This is precisely opening the provisional to reveal the real: every coarse teaching is, alike, made wondrous — this is the absolute reading of the wondrous.

If it is as explained above, then the Lotus gathers together and encompasses every sūtra, and the matter reaches its very culmination here — this is the Buddha's own fundamental intention in appearing in the world, and the point to which every teaching's own doctrine ultimately returns. People who fail to see this principle take it merely as a matter of causal circumstance, and, disparaging it without restraint, their very tongues rot within their mouths. But if one grasps this purport, one sees deeply into the seven kinds, the twenty-one kinds, and the immeasurable gates of teaching — their sense and spirit vast and far-reaching, interpenetrating one another, embroidered in fine and subtle detail, spreading horizontally and plumbing vertically without limit — all of them, in the end, returning and gathering into the Lotus. The twenty thousand buddhas named Candrasūryapradīpa, and Kāśyapa, and the other ancient buddhas' own establishing of their teachings reach their very culmination of wondrousness here. A sūtra says: "When Maitreya comes in the future, his teaching, too, shall reach its very culmination of wondrousness here; Śākyamuni, looking up in accord with the buddhas of the three times, likewise reaches his very culmination of wondrousness here." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's own precious ransom for life is only a further clapping of the hands in confirmation of this same point. Contemplating this wondrous purport, vast and grand, embracing and containing everything — those who seek it out must broaden their own minds to meet it, and must not confine that great emptiness within the narrow bounds of ordinary human feeling.

The Compendium of the Mahāyāna clarifies the sense of the ten supreme marks, everyone taking it to be the very deepest of teachings, so much so that it caused the Daśabhūmika school itself to shift its own allegiance. Let me now try comparing it against the ten wondrous aspects — and it turns out to have gaps. Taking, for instance, the wondrous of principle, compared against the "basis" supreme mark: our treatise clarifies the fourfold refutation of attachment through the inconceivable causal conditions — how could it still cling to the ālaya or the amala consciousness as any fixed "basis" at all? Its own establishing of the four siddhāntas does not stop merely at establishing the single proposition that ignorance is generated by another — that treatise is only a single, straightforward account of its own sense, and does not perceive the opening-up and combining of the various sūtras' sudden and gradual teachings for the sake of beings, in terms of teaching, in terms of practice, according with feeling, according with wisdom, broadly embracing the Buddha's entire transforming activity, deeply encompassing its beginning and its end. Our single object of dependent origination alone is already broader than their entire "basis." And if one further compares it against the four kinds of the Four Noble Truths, the seven kinds of two truths, the five kinds of three truths, the one truth, and the rest — that treatise has nothing at all to set against them. Even the ten wondrous aspects of the trace gate alone already reveal its gaps — how much more so the ten wondrous aspects of the origin gate, found in no other sūtra at all, let alone in that treatise! And the ten wondrous aspects of the contemplation of mind, which one may put directly into practice and use — compared to these, that treatise is like a poor man merely counting another's treasure. One should know that the dharma-gate of the ten wondrous aspects, layered and piled up like fish-scales, is beyond what words could ever exhaust! Even India's own Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra is not of the same class — how, then, could the teaching-masters of this Divine Land ever trouble to compare themselves against it? This is not spoken to boast of our own doctrinal splendor — let the reader see this for himself; there is no need for further wasted words.

Fifth, clarifying the three truths: the various sūtras all, in fact, possess this sense, though the name itself issues from the Yingluo Sūtra; the Sūtra for Humane Kings speaks of the truth of existence, the truth of nonexistence, and the truth of the middle way as ultimate meaning. The present sūtra, too, possesses this very sense — the "Lifespan" chapter says: "Neither identical nor different" — this is precisely the middle way. "Identical" is precisely the real; "different" is precisely the conventional. Question: If this present sūtra lacks the names of the four kinds of dependent origination and the rest, how can its sense still be used here? Answer: The names "the five abodes" and "the two kinds of death" issue from the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra — does this mean the Nirvāṇa Sūtra ought not to be able to use their sense? If it did not use the five abodes, it could not break through ignorance; if it did not use the two kinds of death, it could not speak of eternal abiding. Again, the names of the three buddha-bodies issue from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra — does this mean other sūtras ought to be without the sense of the three buddha-bodies at all? All the various sūtras alike are the Buddha's own teaching — though their names differ, their sense cannot be walled off from one another, and so on.

Now, clarifying the three truths, in three parts: first, clarifying the three truths themselves; second, judging the coarse and the wondrous; third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous. Setting aside the first two kinds of two truths, since they do not clarify the middle way, it is among the remaining five kinds of two truths that the middle way can be discussed, and so there are, accordingly, five kinds of three truths. In terms of the distinct-teaching-entering-the-shared, pointing to "neither tainted nor taintless," the sense of three truths is established: the tainted is the "conventional"; the taintless is the "real"; and neither tainted nor taintless is the "middle." Discussed within the terms of this teaching, the middle is merely a further kind of emptiness, differing only in name; the middle here has no functioning power of its own, and does not encompass all dharmas within it. As for the perfect-teaching-entering-the-shared's own three truths: the two truths are no different from before, but pointing to "neither tainted nor taintless" as possessing all dharmas within it differs from the previous middle. As for the distinct teaching's own three truths: this opens the conventional truth of that scheme into two truths, setting them against the real to form the middle — the middle here being principle alone, and so on. As for the perfect-teaching-entering-the-distinct's own three truths: the two truths are no different from before, but pointing to the real, the middle way is understood as possessing all buddha-dharmas fully within it. As for the perfect teaching's own three truths: it is not only the middle way that possesses all buddha-dharmas fully within it — the real and the conventional, too, are likewise so. The three truths are perfectly fused: one within three, three within one, as is set forth in the Mo-ho Chih-kuan, and so on.

Second, judging the coarse and the wondrous: the distinct-teaching-entering-the-shared and the perfect-teaching-entering-the-shared, still accompanied by the shared teaching's own skillful means, are therefore coarse; the distinct teaching's own three truths, unaccompanied by the shared teaching's skillful means, are wondrous. The perfect-teaching-entering-the-distinct, still accompanied by the distinct teaching's own skillful means, is coarse; the perfect teaching's own three truths, unaccompanied by any such skillful means, are the most wondrous of all. In terms of the Five-Flavor teachings: the milk teaching teaches three kinds of three truths, two coarse and one wondrous. The cream teaching is coarse only, without any wondrous. The fresh-curdled-butter and ripened-butter teachings each possess all five kinds of three truths, four coarse and one wondrous. This present sūtra has only the single kind of three truths — this is the relative reading of the wondrous. Third, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous: resolving all the previously coarse readings into the single wondrous, the three truths have nothing left to be relative to at all — this is the absolute reading of the wondrous.

Sixth, clarifying the one truth: the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "What is called the two truths is, in reality, one truth — it is only through skillful means that two are spoken of. It is like one who, still drunk and not yet having vomited up the wine, sees the sun and moon turning, and takes there to be both a turning sun and a non-turning sun." A sober person sees only the non-turning, and does not see any turning at all. Turning two is coarse; not turning is wondrous. The Tripiṭaka teaching is entirely a turning of two, the same as that drunken man. The various Mahāyāna sūtras carry along a turning-two while also teaching a non-turning one. This present sūtra, directly and without deviation, casts aside skillful means, and speaks only of the unsurpassed path, not turning the one real truth at all — hence it alone is wondrous. The Bodhisattva-bhūmi clarifies the sense of "the mark of the ground," teaching a resembling dharma; and it clarifies the sense of "the reality of the ground," teaching the truly real dharma. Again, the gate of the teaching's own skillful means is precisely the sense of the path of teaching; teaching the dharma that is realized is precisely the sense of the path of realization. Let me borrow this pattern here: "Long after teaching the various buddha-dharmas, one must in the end teach the true reality" is precisely the sense of "the reality of the ground." "The dharma attained at the seat of enlightenment" is precisely the sense of the path of realization — and it is for this reason that it alone is wondrous. To cling attached to this very reality, taking true speech as empty speech, giving rise to a view attached to mere words — this is named coarse. To fuse it through, unattached, is therefore called wondrous. Opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous may be understood accordingly, and so on.

As for the sense that all truths cannot be spoken at all: "All dharmas, from their very origin, ever bear the mark of quiescent extinction of themselves" — how, then, could the various truths still stand entangled and mutually obstructing one another? If even the one truth itself does not exist as such, how could the many truths possibly exist at all? Each and every one of them, in truth, cannot be spoken — that they can be spoken is coarse; that they cannot be spoken is wondrous. That they cannot be spoken, and that this very "cannot be spoken" likewise cannot be spoken, is wondrous — this wondrous is itself wondrous, since the path of words is entirely cut off here. If, in general terms, one speaks of what cannot be spoken: arising-arising cannot be spoken, down to non-arising-non-arising cannot be spoken. The former "cannot be spoken" is coarse; "non-arising-non-arising cannot be spoken" is wondrous. If the coarse and the wondrous are held as truly different, this is the relative reading, not yet fused; if the coarse and the wondrous are not-two, this is the absolute reading of the wondrous, and so on. In terms of the Five-Flavor teachings: the milk teaching has one coarse "no-truth" and one wondrous "no-truth." The cream teaching has one coarse "no-truth." The fresh-curdled-butter teaching has three coarse "no-truths" and one wondrous "no-truth." The ripened-butter teaching has two coarse "no-truths" and one wondrous "no-truth." This present sūtra has only the one wondrous "no-truth." Opening the coarse follows the pattern given above, and so on.

Question: Why do both the greater and lesser vehicles alike discuss the truth of no-truth? Answer: The Śāstra says: "This does not refute the nirvāṇa attained within the sage's own mind — it is only, for the sake of one who has not yet attained it, that clinging attachment to nirvāṇa gives rise to idle speculation, just as one may give rise to a fixation by taking non-arising as one's object, and it is this that is thereby refuted" — this is what is meant by "no-truth." Question: If this is so, then both the small vehicle's attainment and its non-attainment alike ought to be refuted, and by the same reasoning the great vehicle's attainment and its non-attainment likewise both ought to be refuted. Answer: This is not the same case. The small vehicle still has further, distinct afflictions yet to be removed, and further, distinct principle yet to be revealed — hence, even having attained it, this attainment must still be refuted. The middle way is not so — once it is truly attained, how could it possibly need to be refuted? Question: If this is so, then the middle way ought to have only the one real truth, and it ought not to be spoken of as "no-truth" at all? Answer: For the sake of one who has not yet attained it, clinging attachment to the middle itself gives rise to delusion — hence "no-truth" is still needed here. For one who has truly attained it, there is truth; for one caught in idle speculation, there is no-truth, and so on.