Classifying the Teachings

Seventh, pervading as the essence of every dharma: the Contemplation Sūtra says, "Vairocana pervades every place." Everything, without exception, does not go beyond the Four Noble Truths. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "What the Buddha has not taught is like the soil of the ten directions; what he has taught is like the soil upon a single fingernail." Kāśyapa says: "Since these Four Noble Truths have already been taught, ought there not also be a fifth truth not yet taught?" The Buddha says: there is none — it is simply that these same Four Noble Truths possess immeasurable marks. If this is so, then, opened out broadly, they become the four kinds of Four Noble Truths, exactly as explained in full within the wondrous of the object. One should know that suffering and its arising are the causes and effects, good and evil, of the mundane world; the path and cessation are every cause and effect of what transcends the world — all of these, without exception, take the real mark as their essence. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says, "From the root of non-abiding, every dharma is established" — is this not precisely this same sense?

Yet the essence that is depended upon, this essence's own wondrousness admits of no distinction at all; the dharma that depends upon it, this dharma does indeed have both coarse and wondrous aspects. Every dharma, set against one another in this way, may be distinguished and known accordingly. Traced through the Five Flavors, this same distinction, too, coarse and wondrous, may likewise be known. Opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous, too, may likewise be known, and so on. The sūtra's own essence has now been briefly explained, and is complete.

Third major chapter, Clarifying the Cardinal Doctrine. The cardinal doctrine is the very throat and collar of cultivated practice, the essential path leading to Clarifying the Essence — like the beams and pillars that hold up a house, or the guiding cords that give a net its structure: pull the guiding cord and the net's own mesh moves; let the beam rest secure and the rafters remain in place. Explaining the cardinal doctrine is treated under five senses: first, distinguishing the cardinal doctrine from the essence; second, directly clarifying the cardinal doctrine; third, the sameness and difference across the various sūtras; fourth, clarifying coarse and wondrous; fifth, drawing cause and fruit to a close.

As for distinguishing the cardinal doctrine from the essence: some say that the cardinal doctrine is itself the essence, and the essence is itself the cardinal doctrine. Here, this is not adopted. Why is this? The cardinal doctrine's own aim is precisely cause and fruit, and cause and fruit are themselves two aspects of the essence; yet what is neither cause nor fruit — the essence itself — is not two at all. If the essence were two, the essence would no longer be the essence; if the essence is not two, the essence is not the cardinal doctrine. If the cardinal doctrine were not two, the cardinal doctrine would no longer be the cardinal doctrine; if the cardinal doctrine is two, the cardinal doctrine is not the essence. How, then, could one possibly say that the essence is itself the cardinal doctrine, and the cardinal doctrine is itself the essence? Again, the pillar and the beam are the very guiding structure of the house; the house's own empty space is what the beam and pillar make available — one ought not to take the beam and pillar as themselves the house's own empty space, nor the house's own empty space as itself the beam and pillar. If the cardinal doctrine and the essence were one and the same, this same fault would follow. Again, if the cardinal doctrine and the essence were entirely different, then these two dharmas would stand isolated and unrelated to one another — the cardinal doctrine would no longer be the cardinal doctrine that clarifies the essence, and the essence would no longer be the essence belonging to the cardinal doctrine's own household. If the cardinal doctrine were not the cardinal doctrine that clarifies the essence, the cardinal doctrine would be deviant and inverted, without any seal of authenticity at all; if the essence were not the essence belonging to the cardinal doctrine's own household, then the essence would be narrow and incomplete, with some separate cause and fruit existing apart from the dharma-nature itself. If the cardinal doctrine and the essence were entirely different, this same fault would follow.

Here, then, it is said that they are not different and yet are different: in terms of what is neither cause nor fruit, cause and fruit are nonetheless discussed — hence there is this same distinction between the cardinal doctrine and the essence. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "Whatever departs from the real mark of all dharmas is, in every case, named a demon's own undertaking." The Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra says, "The Great Vehicle's own cause is the real mark of all dharmas; the Great Vehicle's own fruit is likewise the real mark of all dharmas" — precisely this same sense. One should know that the real mark's own essence pervades throughout, and yet is itself neither cause nor fruit — practice, at its very beginning, distinguishes the cause; practice, at its very end, discusses the fruit. And yet, further, the one-sided and the perfect differ in this respect: it is comparable to the very substance of copper, itself neither a beginning nor an end — cast into the mold to form a statue, this is named the statue's own beginning; polished and finished entirely, this is named the statue's own end — this illustrates the perfect teaching's own cause and fruit. If, instead, one casts it as a vessel or bowl, and this same vessel or bowl is brought to completion, the vessel's own beginning and end illustrate the one-sided teaching's own cause and fruit. Arousing the mind of the seven skillful means is called the one-sided cause; realizing nirvāṇa with residue or without residue is named the one-sided fruit; opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision is named the perfect cause; the ultimate, wondrous enlightenment is named the perfect fruit. If one recognizes this same illustration, neither identical nor separate, the sense of the cardinal doctrine becomes clear.

It is comparable to the correct-cause buddha-nature, itself neither cause nor fruit, and yet spoken of as: being the cause, not the fruit, it is named buddha-nature; being the fruit, not the cause, it is named great nirvāṇa. Again, buddha-nature is neither something yet to come nor something already possessed from the start, and yet it is said that it is originally, of itself, already possessed — every sentient being is itself already the mark of nirvāṇa, never again to be extinguished. It is also said that every sentient being possesses buddha-nature in full, and yet, in reality, does not yet possess the thirty-two marks, only to attain, in the future, the vajra body — precisely because it is not yet come, it is accordingly spoken of as already possessed from the start; and precisely because it is not already possessed from the start, it is accordingly spoken of as yet to come. The sense of the cardinal doctrine and the essence is exactly the same.

Master Huiyuan takes the one vehicle as the cardinal doctrine, namely the wondrous dharma itself, citing the text: "This vehicle is subtle and wondrous, having nothing above it." Here, I would say: this "one" exists only for the sake of breaking through the "three" — set against the coarse, it is not yet the wondrous cause, and does not encompass the whole from beginning to end.

Master Long says: the cardinal doctrine is the fruit alone. "Wondrous dharma" is precisely the very essence of the Tathāgata's own numinous wisdom — every coarseness exhausted is "wondrous"; moving and stilling, modeling every thing, is "dharma"; the dharma being truly wondrous, the lotus flower is borrowed to illustrate it — hence the fruit of wisdom is taken as the cardinal doctrine. Here, I would say: the fruit does not stand in isolation — how, then, could its own cause be discarded? This, too, runs contrary to the sūtra's own text.

Master Huiguan's own preface says: "Gathering the three into the one is the vehicle's own beginning; wisdom and awakening brought to full completion is the vehicle's own flourishing; extinguishing the shadow and clarifying the spirit is the vehicle's own end." Master Kumārajīva praised this, saying: "Were one not deeply versed in the sūtra-treasury itself, how could one possibly speak in such a way?" Master Yin says: the real mark of all dharmas is the one vehicle's own wondrous object; taking the object and the wisdom that knows it as the cardinal doctrine, the object being free of the three falsehoods, it is accordingly named "the real mark." Here, I would say: adding the object while lacking the fruit is like swelling without adding true flesh. Guangzhai takes the one vehicle's own cause and fruit together as the cardinal doctrine, the earlier portion of the text being the cause, and the later portion being the fruit. Here, I would say: each of the two portions of the text has its own cause and fruit — if one is retained while the other is discarded in each case, this does violence to the sūtra's own text.

Some take the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, as the cardinal doctrine. Here, I would say: if the provisional is used, one ought to clarify that the three vehicles are this sūtra's own cardinal doctrine — yet the three vehicles are precisely what this present sūtra sets aside — how, then, could what is set aside be taken as the cardinal doctrine?

Another master says: this is named "wondrous dharma lotus flower," and hence the very name itself is taken as the cardinal doctrine — "wondrous dharma" being the fundamental, true, and real dharma-nature the Buddha himself has attained, this nature being no different from affliction and defilement, and yet not identical with affliction either, and hence called "wondrous" — the cardinal doctrine is here simply the name itself. This is what the Dilun masters make use of, holding that the eighth consciousness is the ultimate fruit; the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, in our own time, refutes this, holding it to be, instead, the very root of birth-and-death.

Another master says: eternal abiding is the cardinal doctrine, though not yet at the very summit — this is clarifying permanence while its own mark still remains concealed. Here, I would say: this is entirely not the sūtra's own intent at all — if permanence remains concealed, what, then, does the cardinal doctrine actually reveal? And if permanence is not concealed, then permanence is not the cardinal doctrine either.

Another master says: this is clarifying permanence openly and plainly, differing from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra only in being broader or more concise. Here, I would say: if permanence itself were the cardinal doctrine, permanence would have no cause and fruit, and permanence, too, would then have no cardinal doctrine at all, and so on.

Some say: the ten thousand forms of good are the cardinal doctrine, since whatever is good, in every case, attains buddhahood. Here, I would say: if attaining buddhahood is itself the fruit, why not simply take the fruit as the cardinal doctrine?

Some say: among the ten thousand forms of good, the untainted alone is taken as the cardinal doctrine. Here, I would say: this is far too narrow, and, moreover, risks being confused with the Hīnayāna's own lesser nirvāṇa.

Some say: if one receives these various differing accounts and each, in turn, benefits from them, then none of these interpretations can be called wrong; yet if one hears them and remains unawakened, then none of these masters can be called right either. This one master's own intent values solely awakening itself, and holds that awakening alone ought to be taken as the sūtra's own cardinal doctrine. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Whatever bears a fixed mark is the dharma of birth-and-death, the mark of the demon-king himself; the Buddhadharma bears no fixed mark at all." Hence the Tathāgata sometimes speaks of what is not the path as the path, and sometimes speaks of the path as what is not the path — one should know that awakening alone is what is truly followed. Here, I would say: if awakening itself is taken as the cardinal doctrine, this is, in fact, the realized fruit, not what is meant by the cultivated cause.

Asking about the south while pointing toward the north — the very directions themselves become confused and disordered. And, further, if one fixedly takes awakening as the cardinal doctrine, this is itself a fixed position — how, then, could it be called "without fixed mark" at all? The various accounts given are exceedingly numerous, and cannot all be listed here in full.

Second, directly clarifying the cardinal doctrine: this sūtra, beginning from the "Introduction" chapter through to "Peaceful Practices," breaks through and sets aside skillful means, opening and disclosing the Buddha's own true and real knowledge and vision, while also clarifying the disciples' own real cause and real fruit, and also clarifying the teacher's own provisional cause and provisional fruit. Though its text and sense are broad, gathering their essential point, it is for the sake of bringing to completion the disciples' own real cause — the cause being correct, and the fruit peripheral — hence, within this earlier portion, the trace's own cause and the trace's own fruit are clarified. From the "Emerging from the Earth" chapter through to "Samantabhadra's Encouragement," the trace is disclosed to reveal the origin, setting aside the near life-span taken as a mere skillful means, and clarifying the vast, distant real fruit — while also clarifying the disciples' own real cause and real fruit, and also clarifying the teacher's own provisional cause and provisional fruit — yet, here, it is the teacher's own real fruit that is revealed, the fruit being correct, and the cause peripheral, hence, within this later portion, the origin's own cause and the origin's own fruit are clarified. Bringing together the cause and fruit discussed in both portions as, together, this sūtra's own cardinal doctrine — the intent lies precisely here. This is why the sūtra is divided into two portions of text, discussing the origin and discussing the trace, doubly titled by both dharma and metaphor, citing both the lotus and the flower — the teacher and the disciples, the provisional and the real, are, every one, contained entirely within this same structure.

Third, the sameness and difference of cause and fruit across the various sūtras: this refers to the trace's own cause and fruit, sometimes the same, sometimes differing; the origin's own cause and fruit are permanently different from the trace's. As for cause and fruit: the real mark, its seal running commonly through every essence — what sūtra does not discuss cause and fruit in terms of this same seal? The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra clarifies what is neither cause nor fruit, the real mark, as the essence, and yet takes the cause alone as the cardinal doctrine — prajñā's own sweeping away and dispelling is precisely the sense of the cause. Hence it says, "Within the bodhisattva's own mind, it is named prajñā; within the buddha's own mind, it is named the wisdom that knows all things." The text likewise speaks of the bodhisattva's own unborn, unceasing cause, obtaining the wisdom that knows all things as a fruit neither cut off nor eternal. Master Sengrui's own preface says: "Opening the profound chapter, it begins with non-abiding; returning to the three wisdoms, it ends with attainment-of-nothing" — this "end" and "beginning" are precisely cause and fruit. The text likewise speaks of the buddha's own fruit, the wisdom knowing all modes, as brought about for the sake of accomplishing prajñā's own cause — the cause being correct, and the fruit peripheral. The Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings proclaims the great prajñā, cultivated across countless eons — one thereby knows that that sūtra takes the cause as its own cardinal doctrine.

The Vimalakīrti Sūtra takes both the buddha-land's own cause and fruit together as its cardinal doctrine — Ratnākara fully questions both cause and fruit, and the Buddha fully answers both cause and fruit. One thereby knows that this sūtra takes both cause and fruit jointly as its own cardinal doctrine. The Avataṃsaka's own perfect and sudden teaching is explained differently as to its cardinal doctrine. Some say the cause alone is taken as the cardinal doctrine, basing this on the title itself: "Flower Adornment" being the sense of the ten thousand practices' own adorning splendor, the cultivation of the cause. The text speaks extensively of the conduct-marks of the forty grounds, hence the cause is taken as the cardinal doctrine. Others say the fruit is the cardinal doctrine, basing this on the title's own "great, vast, and expansive Buddha" — "Buddha" being the very name of the ultimate fruit, and "Flower Adornment" being concentration, wisdom, and the ten thousand forms of good adorning the buddha's own body, not adorning the cause. The text speaks extensively of Vairocana's own Dharma-body, hence the fruit is taken as the cardinal doctrine. Yet another interpretation says: cause and fruit together form the cardinal doctrine, as when it is said that "Buddha" is itself the fruit, and "Flower Adornment" is itself the cause; the text fully speaks of the Dharma-body, and likewise speaks of the various grounds, both cause and fruit together taken as the cardinal doctrine.

The various sūtras, addressing differing conditions, accordingly clarify their own cardinal doctrine differently. The Perfection of Wisdom teachings address the three kinds of persons together, the peripheral real cause and fruit — in this sense, they differ. Addressed particularly to the bodhisattva, there is, further, both the sharp and the dull faculty — for the dull faculty, the cause is clarified — in this sense, too, they differ; for the sharp faculty's own cause, in this sense, they are the same. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra's own sense of the buddha-land is combined — where there are three kinds of buddha-land cause and fruit, in this sense, they differ; where there is a single kind of buddha-land cause and fruit, they are the same. The Avataṃsaka, too, addresses two conditions, differing for the dull and the same for the sharp faculty, exactly as distinguished before. Taking up this same sense and tracing it through the Five Flavors' own cause and fruit, the pattern may thereby be known. This, then, is the mark of sameness and difference between the various sūtras' own cause and fruit and this present sūtra's own trace gate.

Second, the origin gate's own cause and fruit permanently differ from every other sūtra: if the Tripiṭaka teaching's own bodhisattva only just begins to practice the real cause and fruit, with no provisional cause and fruit at all, and clarifies only that the Buddha first accomplished the path beneath the bodhi tree — this is not the vast, distant trace and origin. The shared teaching's own bodhisattva likewise only just begins to practice the cause, and, in terms of spiritual transformation, discusses trace and origin — this, too, is not the vast, distant trace and origin. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra speaks of the bodhisattva as possessing trace and origin, while the two lesser vehicles do not, and speaks of the Buddha as only just now attaining the birth-body and Dharma-body's own trace and origin — it does not speak of anything vast or distant. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra does not speak of the śrāvaka as possessing trace and origin at all, but clarifies only the bodhisattva's own abiding within the inconceivable trace and origin — it speaks of the Buddha as possessing a pure land, yet what the Curly-Haired One sees, too, is not anything vast or distant. The Avataṃsaka speaks of Vairocana and Śākyamuni as trace and origin, and the bodhisattva, too, as possessing trace and origin — yet even the śrāvaka has not heard of it and does not understand it — how, then, could he possibly possess his own trace and origin?

This present sūtra discloses the śrāvaka as, too, possessing an origin, this origin itself possessing cause and fruit, shown as the two lesser vehicles' own cause and fruit within the trace. Disclosing the Buddha's own trace: the birth-body born within the royal palace, the Dharma-body born beneath the bodhi tree, and, further, every birth-body and Dharma-body born within the interval between — all of these, without exception, are trace. Only the very first attainment of the true and the response-body is taken and named the origin. Hence the teacher's and disciples' own original cause and original fruit are permanently different from every other sūtra. This present sūtra's own teacher-and-disciple cause and fruit within the trace has both sameness and difference with the various other sūtras; the teacher-and-disciple cause and fruit within the origin is something no other sūtra possesses at all — it is precisely this same cause and fruit that is taken as this sūtra's own wondrous cardinal doctrine.

Fourth, coarse and wondrous: if the cause is the "half-character" teaching, and the fruit is the universal fruit attained beneath the bodhi tree, this cardinal doctrine is coarse. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own clarification of the three vehicles' shared cause and fruit is likewise a case of this kind of unshared cause. Though it says the bodhisattva, in a single day's practice of prajñā, is like the sun illuminating darkness, and, the very moment the aspiration is aroused, already sports freely with spiritual powers — this still carries a coarse cause together with it, and the perfect cause is unable to be revealed on its own; though it speaks of the Dharma-body as neither coming nor going, this still carries a coarse fruit together with it, and the perfect fruit is unable to be revealed on its own — hence this is named coarse. Within the vaipulya teachings, though the one-sided cause and fruit are censured, "the lotus flower does not grow upon the high plateau or the dry land" — the one-sided is not distinguished as able to enter the perfect, and the perfect is not made manifest — this, too, is accordingly coarse. The Avataṃsaka, in its earlier portion, illuminates the high mountain, teaching a single perfect cause; in its final, ultimate body, teaches a single perfect fruit — yet it, too, carries the distinct teaching's own cause and fruit together with it, and wherever this is carried, that portion is coarse.

This present sūtra, the śrāvaka receiving his own prediction, the bodhisattva's own doubt removed, both alike opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, both alike entering the one perfect cause; disclosing the trace to reveal the origin, both alike awakening to the real fruit — the cause perfect and the fruit real, carrying no skillful means together with it at all — this permanently differs from every other sūtra, and is accordingly called wondrous. As for opening the coarse: formerly, conditions and faculties being dull, one was not yet able to bear hearing the buddha-vehicle's own cause and fruit praised directly, and so skillful cause and fruit were used to draw one in, meeting one's own present inclination; the Five Flavors having ripened one gradually, the mind gradually becomes penetrating and at ease, and the coarse cause is decisively resolved, alike accomplished as the wondrous cause; every coarse fruit is decisively resolved, alike accomplished as the wondrous fruit. Hence the multitude who merely bowed the head or raised a hand, attached to the Dharma in even the slightest way, all, without exception, accomplish the buddha-path, with no cause left over that is not the buddha-path's own cause. The buddha-path having already been accomplished, how could there possibly still remain any fruit that is not the buddha's own fruit? The scattered good, the minute cause — here, every one, is now opened and resolved, entirely the perfect cause — how much more so, then, the two lesser vehicles' own practice! How much more so the bodhisattva's own practice! There is nothing that is not, without exception, the wondrous cause and fruit.

Fifth, drawing to a close: this, in turn, is treated in two parts: first, drawing cause and fruit to a close; second, the four-proposition distinction.

The sūtra's own teaching of cause and fruit is directly for the sake of benefiting, in common, both the "born-through-response" and "born-through-the-dharma" practitioners. As for opening the provisional to reveal the real: this directly causes those of the seven skillful means' own birth-body not yet entered into the real to enter, while, incidentally, causing those whose birth-body and Dharma-body have already entered to advance further. As for teaching the vast, distant life-span: this, incidentally, causes those whose birth-body has not yet entered to enter, while directly causing those whose birth-body and Dharma-body have already entered to advance further. The "Spiritual Powers" chapter says, "every one of the Tathāgata's own exceedingly profound matters" — what is neither cause nor fruit is the exceedingly profound principle; cause and fruit are the exceedingly profound matter. From the seven skillful means, first attaining entry into the perfect and ascending to the stage of the copper wheel, this is named the cause. And so on, until only one more birth remains — should this one birth be transformed, wondrous enlightenment is thereby attained, this is named the fruit. From the second abiding through equal enlightenment, this interval is named both cause and the cause-of-the-cause, both fruit and the fruit-of-the-fruit. Using the path of no obstruction to subdue a portion of ignorance is named the cause; using the path of liberation to sever a portion of ignorance is named the fruit. In terms of this same liberation, further cultivating the path of no obstruction is accordingly called the cause-of-the-cause; from this same path of no obstruction, further attaining liberation is accordingly called the fruit-of-the-fruit.

Again, the initial ten abidings are the cause, and the ten practices are the fruit; the ten practices are the cause, and the dedications are the fruit; the ten dedications are the cause, and the ten grounds are the fruit; the ten grounds are the cause, and equal enlightenment is the fruit; equal enlightenment is the cause, and wondrous enlightenment is the fruit. Wondrous enlightenment is solely fruit, solely liberation, and cannot be named cause or named the path of no obstruction; the initial abiding is solely cause, solely the path of no obstruction, and cannot be named fruit or named liberation. Why is this? The initial abiding sees the truth, taking the truth as the cause; before this abiding, there is only resemblance, not yet the true cause. If one takes up inherent virtue as the very first cause, then snapping one's fingers or scattering flowers is the seed of the conditioning cause; hearing even a single phrase is the seed of the revealing cause; whoever simply possesses a mind at all has the seed of the correct cause. This, however, is discussing, from a great distance, the seeds of the three causes of inherent virtue — it is not yet their true, actual unfolding, and hence is not taken as "the cause" here.

Second, the four-proposition distinction.

Question: if it is said that entering principle at the initial abiding is already named the perfect cause and perfect fruit, how could the text also say, "gradually, step by step, cultivating and studying, one attains the buddha-path"?

Answer: this ought to be treated under two sets of four propositions: there is the gradual-perfect, the perfect-gradual, the gradual-gradual, and the perfect-perfect. The gradual-perfect refers to the seven skillful means outside of principle, alike opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, first seeing the perfect principle. Seeing the perfect principle comes about precisely because these same seven skillful means, outside of principle, gradually enter the perfect cause — hence it is called gradual-perfect. The gradual-perfect has, in turn, three further propositions, and so on. The perfect-gradual refers to first entering this same perfect teaching, alike contemplating the three truths, seeing the principle of the real mark, with no difference between the beginning and the end — and yet, within the concrete practice itself, one is not yet fully complete, and further study and cultivation are still required; based on this first entry into the perfect, it is accordingly named "perfect," and advancing to cultivate the higher practices is, in turn, named "gradual." The gradual-gradual refers to the interval from the second abiding through equal enlightenment — this is the perfect teaching's own gradual-gradual, not the gradual-gradual outside of principle. The perfect-perfect refers to reaching wondrous enlightenment, which is also named gradual-perfect and also named perfect-perfect — the perfect principle having already been perfect from the start, and now, further, the concrete matter, too, becomes perfect, hence it is called perfect-perfect. Again, the perfect-gradual corresponds to the initial abiding; the gradual-gradual corresponds to the second abiding onward through the thirty minds; the gradual-perfect corresponds to the initial ground onward; the perfect-perfect is precisely wondrous enlightenment itself.

Though the thirty minds share, alike, the sense of "worthy" and "sage," this sense is properly called "worthy," since subduing is much while severing is little; from the ten grounds onward, this is named "sage," since subduing is little while severing is much. Again, the ten abidings are named "worthy-sage"; the twenty minds are "sage-worthy"; the ten grounds and equal enlightenment are "sage"; wondrous enlightenment is "sage of sages." Here, borrowing the illustration of the first crescent moon: its own outline already complete in shape, yet its light and function not yet fully provided — this illustrates the perfect-gradual; from the second day to the fourteenth day, its brightness gradually advancing — this illustrates the gradual-gradual; reaching the fifteenth day, this illustrates the gradual-perfect, and also illustrates the perfect-perfect. Now, the moon itself neither wanes nor waxes, and yet, in terms of the moon, waning and waxing are distinguished; principle itself has no "perfect" or "gradual," and yet, in terms of principle, "perfect" and "gradual" are likewise judged accordingly. This sūtra's own cardinal doctrine, its benefit exceedingly vast, begins from the perfect-gradual and ends, at last, at the perfect-perfect. The Mahāyāna's own cause and fruit, increasing and growing, are thereby made complete, and so on.

Question: since it is called "perfect-gradual," it is also called "perfect-distinct" — should not the shared and Tripiṭaka teachings, too, be treated in this same way?

Answer: this sense is set forth within the Chapter on the Four Teachings. What, then, is its meaning? "Tripiṭaka-Tripiṭaka" may be understood directly. "Distinct" refers to the truths, conditioned origination, and the pāramitās. "Shared" refers to the real truth. "Perfect" refers to the accomplishment of the one beyond further training. "Shared-shared" refers to the shared attainment of no-generation. "Tripiṭaka" refers to the precepts, concentration, and wisdom within the truth of the path. "Distinct" refers to whether the correct habituated tendency is exhausted or not, the distinction between transforming others or not, and emerging into the provisional or not. "Perfect" refers to the shared realization of the truth. "Distinct-distinct" refers to the higher and the lower divisions within the distinct teaching itself. "Tripiṭaka" refers to cultivating the precepts, concentration, and wisdom within the immeasurable truth of the path. "Shared" refers to all four gates alike according with the middle. "Perfect" refers to the exhaustion of the five dwelling-grounds of affliction. "Perfect-perfect" refers to their perfect merging. "Distinct" refers to the difference among the four gates. "Shared" refers to the four gates' own mutual inclusion of one another. "Tripiṭaka" refers to the perfect truth of the path, the perfect precepts, concentration, and wisdom.

Since this same sense already applies broadly, the gradual-perfect, too, ought likewise to apply, and the gradual-perfect's own four propositions are all likewise attained. Drawing cause and fruit to a close is thereby, in every case, accomplished. And, thereafter, judging coarse and wondrous, opening the coarse to reveal the wondrous, is, in every case, likewise attained.

Fourth major chapter, Clarifying the Function. The function is the Tathāgata's own wondrous capacity, this sūtra's own supreme function. The Tathāgata takes the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, as this wondrous capacity; this sūtra takes severing doubt and giving rise to faith as its own supreme function — it is simply that these same two kinds of wisdom are what enable the severing of doubt and the giving rise of faith, and giving rise to faith and severing doubt derive from these same two kinds of wisdom; discussed in terms of the person or in terms of the dharma, this may be treated from either side interchangeably.

What came before, clarifying the cardinal doctrine, distinguished it in terms of the cardinal doctrine and the essence, so that the cardinal doctrine and the essence would not be confused with one another. Here, discussing the function, it is distinguished in terms of the cardinal doctrine and the function, so that the cardinal doctrine and the function will not be confused with one another. Why is this? The cardinal doctrine, too, has its own function; the function, too, has its own cardinal doctrine. The cardinal-doctrine-aspect of the function is not the function-aspect of the function; the function-aspect of the function is not the cardinal-doctrine-aspect of the function; the cardinal-doctrine-aspect of the cardinal doctrine is not the function-aspect of the cardinal doctrine. As for the cardinal-doctrine-aspect of the function: cause and fruit are the cardinal doctrine, and cause and fruit each have their own severing and subduing as their own function. As for the cardinal-doctrine-aspect of function having its own function: compassion is the cardinal-doctrine-aspect of the function; severing doubt and giving rise to faith is the function-aspect of the function. If discussing the cardinal doctrine, one sets aside severing and subduing, and discusses only cause and fruit; here, clarifying the function, one discusses only severing doubt and giving rise to faith, and sets aside compassion. If one grasps this same sense, one thereby knows that the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, being able to sever doubt and give rise to faith, is this present sūtra's own great function — its sense thereby made clear!

Discussing the function is opened out into five: first, clarifying the power of this function; second, clarifying its sameness and difference; third, clarifying it stage by stage; fourth, matching it against the four siddhāntas; fifth, the sameness and difference of the siddhāntas themselves.

First, correctly clarifying the function: other sūtras do not purely clarify the Buddha, and wisdom does not fully unfold — the Buddha responds only through his own trace, without correctly breaking through and setting aside the two lesser vehicles' own fruit, without severing the birth-body bodhisattva's own near doubt or arousing his own distant faith, without disclosing the original ground, without increasing the Dharma-body bodhisattva's own great mindfulness of the buddha-path, and without diminishing birth beyond the three realms. Power and function of this kind is something no other sūtra possesses at all; this present sūtra alone is complete with it, and this is precisely why this chapter is given its own title. It does not discuss the two lesser vehicles' or the bodhisattva's own wisdom, but purely discloses the Buddha's own subtle and wondrous wisdom alone; it does not open sentient beings' own knowledge and vision within the nine dharma-realms, but purely opens sentient beings' own buddha-knowledge and vision alone. Other sūtras speak only of the Buddha's own transformation bodies as trace, without speaking of the Buddha's own body itself as trace; this present sūtra itself speaks of the Buddha's own body as trace — how, then, could every other transformation body possibly fail to be trace as well? This present sūtra directly breaks through and sets aside the conjured city, the two lesser vehicles' own fruit — how much more so, then, their own causal practice! It further breaks through the bodhisattva who, having received the teaching of skillful means, clings to the trace as the ultimate — all of this is now, every one, disclosed and set aside, all alike proclaimed to be the provisional trace, and every doubt within the interval is thereby, every one, severed, arousing a deep, distant, inconceivable faith. It further discloses the original ground's own true and real merit, causing the Dharma-body bodhisattva to gain great benefit. Beginning from the very first "a" and ending, at last, adjoining the final "dha" — grinding the lands of the ten directions, numerous as nayutas, into motes of dust, even bodhisattvas who have advanced the path this many times over could not exhaust them all. This is entirely because the Tathāgata rains down the single flavor of rain of the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, universally and equally, falling upon all four directions at once — every one of the four gates alike is thereby broken through. Fully satisfying whoever seeks the complete and perfect path, severing their own deep doubt, arousing their own great faith, causing them to enter the one perfect cause — reining in the Mahāyāna's own cart, roaming through the four directions, arriving directly at the place of enlightenment — this great function, this great power, this wondrous capacity, this wondrous benefit, still has not yet been exhausted even by all of this.

Again, this same power is able to break through the two lesser vehicles' own fruit. The two lesser vehicles, dreading birth-and-death, enter emptiness and take this as their own realization, giving rise to the notion "I am now at peace," giving rise to the notion "I have already been delivered," and thereby fall into the pit of the three unconditioned states. Like death, or like the sufferings resembling death, they have already become as scorched seeds, never to sprout again — even the wisest physician can only fold his hands, his every remedy rendered useless. Even the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own ability to cure the icchantika is, by comparison, still the easier task: the icchantika's own mind and intellect are not yet extinguished, and whoever simply possesses a mind at all shall, without exception, attain buddhahood — he is not truly a dead person, and curing him is thus not difficult. But the two lesser vehicles have reduced body to ashes and extinguished intellect — body reduced to ashes means form no longer abides eternally, and intellect extinguished means every mental deliberation has already been exhausted. Scorched sprouts, ruined seeds, further lying upon the high plateau and the dry land — already deaf and mute, forever without any turning back — cast aside by every teacher, unresponsive to every sūtra's own remedy. Now, however, the fundamental buddha-wisdom is great, and the wondrous dharma-medicine is potent: the physical body is not, in fact, reduced to ashes at all, but is like pure lapis lazuli, every form and image, inward and outward, appearing entirely within it, causing mind and intellect never to be extinguished, opening, showing, awakening, and entering the Buddha's own knowledge and vision. It causes the hired servant, the lowly person, to be entrusted with the household estate of bodhi; the high plateau and the dry land are granted the Buddha's own lotus flower. His ear, in a single moment, hears the sounds of all ten dharma-realms at once; his tongue, according with every kind of being, proclaims the Buddha's own voice, causing everyone to hear it. Being able, by means of a single faculty, to serve every function pervasively at once — this, precisely, is this present sūtra's own power and function.

Having already discussed the Buddha's own power of wisdom above, this shall now be discussed once more. It is like the division of the realm into three at the end of the Han dynasty: Lord Cao's own strategic wisdom was foremost of his own time, and yet he still fell short of Yang Xiu by thirty-five li. This land's own human wisdom does not equal the non-Buddhist outsiders' own wisdom in foreign lands, as a mustard seed compared to a mountain. Every worldly person's and non-Buddhist outsider's own wisdom together does not equal even a sixteenth part of Śāriputra's own wisdom. The two lesser vehicles' own wisdom is like a firefly's own light; the bodhisattva's own wisdom is like the light of the sun. The shared teaching's own bodhisattva's wisdom is like a wild goose or a swan — its own strength unable to reach far. The distinct teaching's own bodhisattva's wisdom is like the golden-winged garuḍa bird, flying from one Mount Sumeru to another. The distinct teaching's own bodhisattva's own wisdom, compared to the perfect teaching's, is like the soil upon a single fingernail compared to the soil of the ten directions. One should know that the Buddha's own wisdom is utterly merged, utterly identical, utterly sudden, utterly real, inconceivable, neither vertical nor horizontal, perfect and wondrous beyond compare — no illustration or discussion could possibly exhaust it. Other sūtras do not purely teach this; this present sūtra alone purely teaches it — this is the Buddha's own real wisdom, its power vast indeed. It is comparable to ten small oxen — or, further, a single dragon, or ten dragons, or a single strongman, or ten strongmen — none equaling a single person possessing the five spiritual powers; outsiders possessing the five spiritual powers do not equal a single arhat; every arhat together does not equal a single Maudgalyāyana; Maudgalyāyana does not equal a single Śāriputra; Śāriputra does not equal a bodhisattva; the bodhisattva does not equal the distinct teaching's own bodhisattva; the distinct teaching's own bodhisattva does not equal the perfect teaching's own bodhisattva; the perfect teaching's own bodhisattva does not equal the Buddha himself. The Buddha's own trace is exceedingly vast — transformation gives rise to further transformation, transformation upon transformation without end, unplanned and yet always fitting, like the self-sounding harp of the Asuras — no worthy or sage whatsoever is able to fathom it.

The Buddha's own provisional power being thus, every other sense of this kind may likewise be understood, and shall not be recorded here further.

Second, clarifying sameness and difference.

Question: since the essence of the real mark and the cardinal doctrine of cause and fruit already run in common through every sūtra, what, then, of the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real?

Answer: though the names are used in common, their power differs vastly. The Tripiṭaka and shared teachings use these two kinds of wisdom to sever the doubt of the four dwelling-grounds of affliction, giving rise to faith in the one-sided real. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra, though it censures the two lesser vehicles and the one-sidedly practicing bodhisattva, is likewise severing doubt and giving rise to faith only within the three realms, unable to cause the Hīnayāna or the bodhisattva of skillful means to sever the great doubt and give rise to the great faith. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own shared sense is likewise doubt severed and faith given rise to within the three realms; its own particular sense, though it lies beyond the three realms, has still not severed the near doubt and given rise to the distant faith. The Avataṃsaka's own correct sense severs the doubt beyond the three realms, giving rise to perfect faith, and yet has still not severed the near to give rise to the distant. Hence, though the two names "provisional" and "real" are used in common, their power differs vastly. This present sūtra uses the buddha-bodhi's own two kinds of wisdom to sever the greatest ignorance of the seven skillful means, alike entering the one perfect cause. Breaking through the clinging inclination toward the near trace, it gives rise to deep faith in the original ground, even through equal enlightenment, likewise causing doubt to be severed and faith to arise. A supreme function of this kind — how could it possibly be the same as any other sūtra?

Third, distinguishing particularly, this is treated in two parts: first, particularly explaining the trace gate; second, particularly explaining the origin gate.

Explaining the trace gate is treated under ten senses: first, breaking through the three to reveal the one; second, abolishing the three to reveal the one; third, opening the three to reveal the one; fourth, gathering the three to reveal the one; fifth, abiding in the one to reveal the one; sixth, abiding in the three to reveal the one; seventh, abiding in neither the three nor the one to reveal the one; eighth, concealing the three to reveal the one; ninth, abiding in the three while making use of the one; tenth, abiding in the one while making use of the three.

This same sense runs through all ten of the wondrous aspects, each single one of the ten wondrous aspects being complete with all ten of these same senses — this may be inferred and understood by the same pattern, and so on.

Here, discussing them particularly: breaking through the three to reveal the one directly breaks through the inclination toward the three and reveals the one wisdom. Why is this? Formerly, when the buddha-vehicle was first praised, sentient beings, sunk in suffering, were not yet able to bear hearing of the great vehicle, and so, calling to mind the skillful means once practiced by buddhas of the past, the three vehicles, too, had to be taught. Once the three vehicles were taught, hearers, bound within this same teaching, sealed themselves within the inclination toward the three, no longer wishing for anything better. Now, breaking through this same clinging to the three reveals the Buddha's own wisdom, hence it is said, "after a long duration, every buddha's own dharma will inevitably come, at last, to teach what is true and real."

Abolishing the three to reveal the one directly abolishes the teaching itself. Though the inclination toward the three has already been broken through, if the teaching itself is not abolished, the very notion of the three vehicles as fixed things will arise once more, and clinging to the teaching gives rise to confusion — hence the teaching itself must be abolished. "Correctly and directly setting aside skillful means, teaching only the unsurpassed path" — "within the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the one-vehicle dharma, with no second, and likewise no third."

Opening the three to reveal the one directly concerns principle, while, incidentally, it also touches upon the teaching. In terms of the teaching: the former teaching clarified the three kinds of persons entering the truth; the present teaching clarifies these same three kinds of persons attaining buddhahood. Directly, in terms of principle: this is simply the two lesser vehicles' own real emptiness, which of itself already possesses the real mark. Formerly, the skillful means was not yet deep enough, and one was unable to see this wondrously. Now, opening this same emptiness reveals it to be itself the real mark — hence it is said, "decisively resolving the śrāvaka's own dharma, this being the king of every sūtra," and, "opening the gate of skillful means, showing the true and real mark." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "for the sake of the śrāvakas, opening and bringing forth the eye of wisdom."

Gathering the three to reveal the one directly concerns practice. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own gathering of the cardinal doctrine says, "the four applications of mindfulness, the four dhyānas, and the rest, are all, alike, the Mahāyāna" — yet this gathers only the dharma itself, not yet gathering the persons. This present sūtra gathers person, dharma, and practice all together at once, hence it is said, "what you yourselves have practiced is itself the bodhisattva path," "gradually, step by step, cultivating and studying, all shall attain buddhahood," "bowing the head, or raising a hand, all have already accomplished the buddha-path," and so on.

Abiding in the one to reveal the one directly concerns the Buddha's own original intent — originally teaching beings by means of real wisdom, the Buddha teaches equally, like a single flavor of rain: "the Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle, adorned with the power of concentration and wisdom in accordance with the dharma he has attained, and by means of this delivers sentient beings." "If I were to teach by means of the Hīnayāna alone, I would thereby fall into stinginess and greed — this would not be acceptable." One thereby knows that, from the very night of attaining the path onward, he has always taught the middle way, always taught the Mahāyāna; and yet, on account of sentient beings' own faults, the Tathāgata was caused to smear poison upon milk, wear tattered, soiled garments, and, through skillful, gentle accommodation, gradually draw them toward the great vehicle. Hence it is said, "though teaching every kind of path, in reality, it is all for the sake of the one vehicle alone," and so on.

Abiding in the three to reveal the one directly concerns the Buddha's own provisional wisdom, teaching beings through skillful means. "Calling to mind the skillful means once practiced by buddhas of the past, I, too, now do exactly the same" — thus proceeding to Vārāṇasī and, by the power of skillful means, teaching the five monks. The buddhas of the past likewise abided within the three vehicles while revealing the one vehicle; the present buddha, too, does exactly the same, hence it is said, "further employing a different kind of skillful means, helping to reveal the truth of ultimate meaning." Again, "formerly, before the bodhisattvas, disparaging the śrāvakas, and yet the Buddha, in reality, brought about their deliverance by means of the Mahāyāna."

Abiding in neither the three nor the one to reveal the one is discussed either in terms of principle or in terms of concrete matter. In terms of principle: "this dharma abides within the dharma's own position, the mark of the world constantly abiding" — "this dharma cannot be shown" — "knowing the dharma to be constantly without any fixed nature of its own, the buddha's own seed arises from conditions." Being without fixed nature is precisely neither the three nor the one; arising from conditions is precisely the three conditions revealing the one, causing one to converge upon what is neither the three nor the one. In terms of concrete matter: this is precisely the vehicle of humans and devas — this vehicle is neither the three nor, likewise, the one — and yet it is constantly used to draw beings toward the great vehicle: "bowing the head, or raising a hand, all have already accomplished the buddha-path"; "whenever I encounter sentient beings, I teach them, entirely, by means of the buddha-path."

Concealing the three to reveal the one concerns the many-sided skillfulness of the provisional: the provisional taught earlier, the earlier crossing-over, removes only the illness, not the dharma itself — since the dharma itself is not removed, it remains available for transforming those of later conditions; were this dharma to be broken through entirely, what would it then be used for later? Where the capacity has come to rest, it is concealed; where the capacity arises anew, it is used — and this is true not only of the Buddha but of the bodhisattva who has already entered the real as well: "if there are those who do not yet believe this dharma, within some other, deeper dharma, show, teach, benefit, and delight them," and so on.

Abiding in the three while making use of the one concerns the Dharma-body's own wondrous responsive retinue: whereas the earlier "abiding in the three to reveal the one" belonged to the teacher's own gate, "abiding in the three while making use of the one" here belongs to the disciples' own gate. As with Pūrṇa and the rest: in reality, already the Dharma-body, they manifest as śrāvakas, showing themselves as abiding within the three while constantly revealing the one, thereby benefiting their own fellow practitioners of pure conduct.

Abiding in the one while making use of the three concerns the original vow: as when the buddha Padmaprabha vowed to teach the three vehicles, though not within an evil age; the present buddha, too, at the place of the buddha Ratnagarbha, vowed to teach these same three vehicles precisely within an evil age, and so on. Yet the provisional and real's own great function, encompassing the entire dharma-realm, is by no means limited to these ten senses alone — it is only for the sake of revealing the function of the ten wondrous aspects that these ten are briefly stated here.

Breaking through the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of wisdom; abolishing the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of teaching the Dharma; opening the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of the object; gathering the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of practice; abiding in the one to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of the vehicle; abiding in the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of sympathetic response; abiding in neither the three nor the one to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of spiritual powers; concealing the three to reveal the one is the function of the wondrous of stage; abiding in the three while making use of the one is the function of the wondrous of the retinue; abiding in the one while making use of the three is the function of the wondrous of merit and benefit.

Matching these ten functions against the corresponding ten wondrous aspects, distinguishing the text and its sense accordingly, the general sense may thereby be understood, and so on.

Second, the origin gate's own power and function is likewise treated under ten senses. If following the convenience of the text, one should speak of "opening the near to reveal the distant"; if following the convenience of meaning, one should speak of "origin and trace" — simply calling the near the trace and the distant the origin, the names differing while the meaning is the same. The ten senses spoken of are these:

First, breaking through the trace to reveal the origin; second, abolishing the trace to reveal the origin;
third, opening the trace to reveal the origin; fourth, gathering the trace to reveal the origin;
fifth, abiding in the origin to reveal the origin; sixth, abiding in the trace to reveal the origin;
seventh, abiding in neither the trace nor the origin to reveal the origin; eighth, concealing the trace to reveal the origin;
ninth, abiding in the trace while making use of the origin; tenth, abiding in the origin while making use of the trace.

In general terms, each single one of the origin gate's own wondrous aspects is likewise complete with all ten of these senses. Discussing them particularly: breaking through the trace to reveal the origin likewise concerns breaking through a certain inclination. The three passages of the "Introduction," "Skillful Means," and "Jeweled Stūpa" chapters had already stirred a certain clinging and given rise to doubt. As when Mañjuśrī, answering Maitreya, said: formerly, the eight princes served the buddha Candrasūryapradīpa as their teacher; Candrasūryapradīpa had already occupied the stage of the one bound for buddhahood in his very next life, and yet these same princes attained buddhahood, one of them named Dīpaṃkara. His own disciple has, now, likewise attained buddhahood, named Śākyamuni. Candrasūryapradīpa, conversely, became the disciple, under the name Mañjuśrī. This stirring of a certain clinging to the trace gives rise to precisely this doubt — by what means can it be resolved? It is now said that this is neither a case of the one bound for buddhahood in his next life lingering too long, nor of a disciple leaping ahead of his teacher; the true reason is simply that Śākyamuni attained the path long, long ago, formerly showing himself as the disciple, now showing himself as the teacher. Brushing aside this doubt concerning the trace reveals the wisdom of the origin, hence it is said, "breaking through the trace to reveal the origin." The "Skillful Means" chapter says, "from long, distant kalpas past, I have praised and shown the path of nirvāṇa, the suffering of birth and death forever ended — I have always taught exactly this." One thereby knows that the suffering of birth and death was, long ago, already forever ended, and this was by no means a case of only entering nirvāṇa for the first time somewhere in the middle. The jeweled stūpa's own emergence bears witness to the showing of an extinction that is not extinction, the trace itself being constant. Every emanation-body gathers together, uncountable throughout the eight directions — and since these emanation-bodies are already so numerous, one thereby knows that buddhahood was attained long, long ago, just as in the simile of the lotus stems piled to fill a pond. Following through the text of these three chapters, one already finds, by gradual degrees, the breaking through of the trace.

Hence, those who spring forth from beneath the earth are neither beings taught at the site of quiescent enlightenment nor beings taught by emanation-bodies from other regions — both of these kinds of persons, Maitreya already recognizes, and yet these new ones he fails to recognize, hence his astonishment and doubt. Breaking through this inclination toward the near reveals the origin's own vast distance, hence the text says, "the whole world, one and all, supposes that I, Śākyamuni, having gone forth from the palace of the Śākya clan, attained complete awakening not far from the city of Gayā. Yet, in reality, since I attained buddhahood, immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas have passed." Simply raising the question of the number of world-systems before Maitreya, Maitreya himself does not know their number — how much less, then, could the specks of dust within these very world-systems ever be counted? This is precisely the breaking through of a clinging to the near, giving rise to a distant wisdom.

Abolishing the trace to reveal the origin likewise concerns the teaching of the Dharma. Formerly, because the obstruction of the five turbidities was heavy, it was not possible to teach the distant origin-ground, and only the trace's own recent attainment was shown. Now, the obstruction having been removed and the capacity stirred, the trace's own teaching at the Bodhi-tree and the royal city must be abolished, all of it being nothing but skillful means. Once the mind's own clinging to the near has been cut off, the teaching sealed within the near likewise comes to rest. The text says, "from that time to the present, I have constantly remained within this sahā world, teaching and transforming, and, in other places besides, throughout hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of asaṃkhyeyas of lands, guiding and benefiting sentient beings." This is precisely the abolishing of the trace's own teaching, confined to a single lifetime, revealing the origin's own teaching, distant beyond measure.

Opening the trace to reveal the origin likewise concerns both the dharma and principle. Simply what Mañjuśrī himself related — the buddha Dīpaṃkara and, from distant kalpas past, the praising and showing of the path of nirvāṇa, together with the emanation-buddhas — this kind of trace-teaching already carries within it the sense of revealing the origin, and yet the confused have not yet awakened to this profound meaning. Now, in revealing the origin, one need not, by any means, proceed by some entirely different route — one need only open this same near trace to show what is essential within the origin. In terms of principle: simply by deeply contemplating the trace of skillful means, the origin's own principle is thereby revealed. The text says, "since I, in reality, attained buddhahood, so long, distant a time has passed as this, and yet, only by means of skillful means, I teach and transform sentient beings, causing them to enter the buddha-path." If one enters the buddha-path, then, precisely within the trace, the origin is attained.

Gathering the trace to reveal the origin concerns practice. Following through the various practices found within the trace: some, through practicing beneath this buddha, receive a prediction; some, through practicing beneath that buddha, receive a prediction; some show forth their own body, others another's body, manifesting in response to capacity, whether long or short, great or small. Every trace, without exception, is let down from the origin — gathering together and joining past and present is simply joining the trace and thereby revealing the origin. Though origin and trace differ, they are, inconceivably, one. The text says, "you good sons! within this interval, I have spoken of the buddha Dīpaṃkara and the rest, and have also said that I entered nirvāṇa — all of this, alike, is nothing but a distinction drawn through skillful means." This is precisely the sense of gathering the trace to reveal the origin.

Abiding in the origin to reveal the origin concerns the Buddha's own original intent — namely, as with the bodhisattvas from beneath the earth abiding within empty space, the Dharma-body buddha teaching the Dharma-body bodhisattvas, the Dharma-body cultivating the path, teaching purely and solely the one vehicle. The text says, "the sahā world, purely made of gold as its ground, filled to the full with humans and devas." Again, "the assembled people see it consumed by fire, and yet my own pure land is never destroyed." Being able to contemplate deeply in exactly this way is what is meant by the mark of deep faith and understanding — constantly abiding within this same origin, forever revealing the origin. The text says, "since I attained buddhahood, an exceedingly vast, distant time has passed; my lifespan is of immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas, constantly abiding, never extinguished." Is this not precisely abiding in the origin to reveal the origin?

Abiding in the trace to reveal the origin concerns the sense of the trace itself — namely, Śākyamuni's abiding within his own born body while revealing the one. Because the one is thereby revealed, the ancient buddha's own stūpa springs forth. Because the stūpa springs forth, the emanation-bodies are summoned. Because the emanation-bodies gather together, a search is made for one to broadly proclaim the sūtra, and those from beneath the earth emerge. Because a search is made for one to broadly proclaim the sūtra, and those from beneath the earth emerge, Maitreya is stirred to doubt and question. Because of this questioning, the lifespan's own vast distance is taught, stirring up the clinging and dispelling the doubt — this is precisely abiding in the trace to reveal the origin. The text says, "with the buddha-eye, I observe their various faculties, such as faith and the rest, and, by every kind of skillful means, teach the subtle and wondrous Dharma, thereby causing sentient beings to give rise to a joyful mind."

Abiding in neither the trace nor the origin while revealing the origin concerns a wordless, hidden convergence — this is precisely being neither the origin nor the trace and yet being able to give rise to both origin and trace. Formerly, being no trace, and yet letting down the trace; now, being no origin, and yet revealing the origin. The text says, "neither real nor unreal, neither thus nor otherwise" — such matters as these, the Tathāgata alone clearly sees.

Concealing the trace to reveal the origin likewise concerns the many-sided nature of responding to capacity. Where clinging to the trace obstructs the origin, it is thereupon concealed so as to prevent this same clinging; yet, faced once more with a later capacity, the trace must still be used again, hence there is the power of the lion's vigorous energy. The text says, "by means of various words and phrases, causes and conditions and parables, teaching the Dharma in every kind of way" — the buddha-work thereby accomplished has never, even for a moment, been abandoned.

Abiding in the trace while making use of the origin: the "abiding in the trace to reveal the origin" spoken of earlier above is directly a matter of, within the trace, responding to capacity through skillful means to reveal the principle of the origin-ground. What is now spoken of as "abiding in the trace while making use of the origin" is precisely this: throughout the interval, from the trace up to the Bodhi-tree, repeatedly being born and repeatedly passing away — every other body and every other event, all of them, alike, make use of the origin-ground's own real cause and real fruit, its every kind of original dharma, for the sake of sentient beings performing buddha-work; hence it is said, "abiding in the trace while making use of the origin" — this is explained in terms of the teacher. In terms of the disciples: this is precisely the origin-time's own wondrously responsive retinue, abiding within the provisional trace, letting down its form throughout the nine realms, while making use of the original dharma to benefit sentient beings. The text says, "and yet I, now, have not, in reality, passed into extinction, and yet I proclaim that I am about to attain extinction. By means of this same skillful means, the Tathāgata teaches and transforms sentient beings." This is precisely abiding in the trace while making use of the origin-time's own extinction, showing extinction.

Abiding in the origin while making use of the trace is precisely this: the origin-ground remaining unmoved, and yet the trace pervading the entire dharma-realm — showing birth though not, in reality, being born, showing extinction though not, in reality, being extinguished — constantly using this same trace to benefit and enrich sentient beings. This sense is grounded in the teacher. In terms of the disciples: this is precisely the Dharma-body bodhisattva, by means of not abiding within any dharma, abiding within the origin-ground, its unschemed provisional means and trace-function being inexhaustible. The text says, "again, you good sons! every buddha and tathāgata's own dharma is, alike, exactly like this — for the sake of delivering sentient beings, all of it, alike, real and not false." The Buddha, scattering himself to meet the many conditions of beings, the text being brief and not laid out in strict sequence — this quotation, brought forward to prove the point, has now exhausted the text of the "Lifespan" chapter.

Breaking through the trace to reveal the origin, and gathering the trace to reveal the origin, are, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original cause. Opening the trace to reveal the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original fruit. Abiding in the origin to reveal the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original land. Abolishing the trace to reveal the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original teaching of the Dharma. Abiding in neither the trace nor the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original sympathetic response. Concealing the trace to reveal the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original spiritual powers. Abiding in the trace while making use of the origin is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original lifespan, and also the function of the wondrous of the original retinue. Abiding in the origin while making use of the trace is, in particular terms, the function of the wondrous of the original nirvāṇa, and also of the original merit and benefit, and so on.

Fourth, bringing together and completing the four siddhāntas: the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, differing in their ten functions, are yet, alike, a single voice proclaiming the Dharma, each kind of being understanding it according to its own kind. Within the trace, the breaking through and the abolishing cause the seven kinds of skillful means to open the Buddha's own knowledge and vision. Within the origin, the breaking through and the abolishing cause bodhisattvas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges to cut off doubt and increase in the path — all of this, alike, is the sense of the four siddhāntas, bringing sentient beings to maturity. Now, gathering these same ten functions together under the four siddhāntas: first, gathering the trace gate; next, gathering the origin gate.

The trace, again, is treated in two parts: first, gathering them particularly; next, gathering them in general. Particularly: opening the three to reveal the one, abiding in the three while making use of the one, and gathering the three into the one — these three items belong to the siddhānta of the person. Why is this? Originally practicing these same three, one now, in turn, cultivates the one by means of these same three, without changing course or altering track — simply by deeply contemplating these three, the one principle reveals itself. Within the three there already is the one, requiring neither adoption nor rejection; hence opening the three to reveal the one belongs to the siddhānta of the person. Abiding in the three while making use of the one is likewise the same: simply, within these same three, cultivating the one path, as with Pūrṇa, who, only by abiding as a śrāvaka, benefits himself, while likewise being able to benefit his own fellow practitioners of pure conduct — this is precisely giving rise to a single understanding without changing the threefold dharma, and belongs, alike, to the siddhānta of the person.

Breaking through the three, abolishing the three, and concealing the three — these three items belong to the siddhānta of the counteragent. As for the inclination sealed within the three, doubting the one, this same inclination is rebuked and broken through, the provisional teaching is abolished, and the provisional dharma is secretly concealed — causing the mind that clings to this illness to be removed, entering the one real path, and abiding at peace within the real wisdom. Abiding in the three to reveal the one, and abiding in the one while making use of the three — these two items belong to the siddhānta of the mundane. Why is this? The mundane takes delight and desire as its foundation — if sentient beings desire to attain the path of the three vehicles and do not wish to hear the teaching of the one real vehicle, the Buddha, though himself abiding in the one, accordingly teaches the three, just as they wish. Again, the conditions of the three vehicles differ from one another, just as the mundane world is itself divided into separate regions, hence it is named the siddhānta of the mundane. Abiding in the three to reveal the one is likewise the mundane. Why is this? The Buddha, according to person and dharma, abides within skillful means, tempering and maturing beings to reveal the one, hence it belongs to the siddhānta of the mundane. Abiding in the one to reveal the one, and abiding in neither the three nor the one to reveal the one — these belong to the siddhānta of ultimate meaning.

Explaining the four siddhāntas in general terms: simply within "breaking through the three to reveal the one" itself, there already are four kinds of benefit. Why is this? The noble person delights in hearing of his own faults, while the petty person hates hearing of his own transgressions; wishing to know one's own faults so as to inevitably correct them is precisely breaking through clinging and removing illness — joyfully receiving and upholding this is precisely the mundane. If, clinging, one abides within the three and is unable to advance in the path, breaking through the three and following the one gives rise to a mind of awakened understanding, wholesome dharmas thereby increasing and advancing — this is named the person. Clinging to the three is itself the illness; teaching the one is the medicine — this is named the counteragent. If, upon hearing the breaking through of the three, one attains sight of the principle, this is named ultimate meaning. The remaining nine kinds of function follow this same pattern. One thereby knows that the Buddha's own skillful excellence, matching and according with the conditions of capacity, causes benefit to be attained in every case — this is the power of the four siddhāntas, and so on.

Second, bringing together the origin gate's own ten functions under the four siddhāntas likewise has two senses, particular and general. Abiding in the trace to reveal the origin, and abiding in the origin while making use of the trace — these belong to the siddhānta of the mundane, also named according with delight and desire, explained as before. Opening the trace to reveal the origin, gathering the trace to reveal the origin, and abiding in the trace while making use of the origin belong to the siddhānta of the person — cultivating further without changing course, still, by means of the original dharma itself, cultivating the revealing of the origin, explained as before. Breaking through the trace, abolishing the trace, and concealing the trace belong to the counteragent. Abiding in the origin to reveal the origin, and abiding in neither the origin nor the trace to reveal the origin, belong to ultimate meaning, explained as before.

Next, drawing together in general terms upon a single item to bring together the four siddhāntas is likewise as before, and the remaining nine follow this same pattern, to be fully understood accordingly, and so on.

Fifth, the sameness and difference of the siddhāntas: other sūtras likewise employ the four siddhāntas, breaking through the three to reveal the one, breaking through the trace to reveal the origin, and so forth, and yet, with this present sūtra, there is a difference. This is treated in two parts: first, clarifying the difference within the trace gate; second, clarifying the difference within the origin gate.

The trace gate's difference: within the Tripiṭaka teaching, the four siddhāntas are likewise employed, in the sense of breaking through and abolishing, and yet only for the sake of nirvāṇa with remainder and nirvāṇa without remainder, and so on. Within the shared teaching of the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, the four siddhāntas are likewise employed, in the sense of breaking through, establishing, and abolishing, and yet only awakening to the true principle, not yet able to reach lasting perfection, and so on. Within the Vaipulya teaching, the three are likewise broken through to reveal the one, and, for bodhisattvas, there is a certain partial sameness, yet persons of the two lesser vehicles are not able to enter the real — hence the ten disciples, rebuked by Vimalakīrti, are said to fall into the eight kinds of error and not be counted among the assembly; these are words of censure and refutation. The praising of the inconceivable path of the Mahāyāna likewise employs the sense of the four siddhāntas throughout, and yet the two lesser vehicles do not awaken to it. This present sūtra's own employment of the sense of the four siddhāntas causes the two lesser vehicles to cut off doubt, remove clinging, enter the Buddha's own true path, and receive the prediction of buddhahood. One thereby knows that this sūtra's employment of the four siddhāntas is skillful and wondrous. The text says, "words gentle and soft, delighting and pleasing every mind." Śāriputra, expressing his own understanding, says: "the Buddha, by means of every kind of circumstance, through skillful parables and sayings, his mind at peace as the sea itself; hearing this, I have cut through the net of doubt ... abiding at peace within the real wisdom." This is precisely this same sense.

Question: the Lotus's own revealing of the one still relies on an earlier breaking through — without the earlier tempering and maturing, this, too, would not be understood.

Answer: today's own attainment of awakening comes about by means of the earlier censure and rebuke, and yet the merit belongs to this present sūtra, the credit not belonging to that earlier one. It is just as when a hundred men together surround a single thief — though the strength of the siege in reality depends upon the whole company, the one who actually seizes the thief alone receives the merit, this merit not belonging to the hundred, and so on.

This present sūtra's own opening of the provisional to reveal the real makes the great function of the four siddhāntas most powerful and vigorous of all, and so on. Bringing forth the trace to reveal the origin, the four siddhāntas here are forever different from every other sūtra. Why is this? The trace's own power and function has already surpassed every other teaching; the origin's own ten functions, no other sūtra possesses even a single one of them, much less all ten! The trace's own siddhāntas have already surpassed every other sūtra; the origin's own siddhāntas, no other sūtra possesses even a single one of them, much less all four! This may be inferred by reflection, and need not be recorded at further length.

Great Chapter Five, Explaining the Marks of the Teachings: if one is propagating some other sūtra, not clarifying the marks of its teaching does no harm to its meaning; but if one is propagating the Lotus Sūtra, not clarifying its teaching leaves a gap in both the text and its meaning. Yet the sage's own intent is hidden deep, and the dharma of the teachings all the more difficult to grasp. Among the masters of former generations, some inherited their reading from a renowned teacher, others conceived it from their own inspired insight — though the paths run every which way, crisscrossing, none can say for certain which is correct. And yet meaning cannot stand doubled, nor can principle exist in two forms at once — where a reading has deep grounds and, further, accords with the sūtras themselves, it is recorded and put to use; where it has neither textual basis nor sound meaning, it cannot be trusted or accepted. Master Nanyue had personal realization in his own mind, and, further, checked this against sūtra and treatise alike, faithfully following the Buddha's own words; the Tiantai Master both transmits and follows this same usage. Briefly clarifying the teachings, this is treated in five parts: first, the general sense; second, setting forth the differences; third, clarifying the difficulties; fourth, what to accept and reject; fifth, classifying the teachings.

The general sense: the Buddha, within what has no name or mark, provisionally teaches by means of name and mark; in teaching the other sūtras, each meets its own conditions and gathers its own benefit. Take, for instance, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra: at first meeting the capacity of the perfect and distinct teachings alone, illuminating the high mountain peaks first, directly clarifying the sequential and the non-sequential, the merit of practice at the stages of abiding and of the grounds — it does not distinguish the Tathāgata's own intent in teaching the sudden teaching as such. As for the teaching of the four Āgamas: the Ekottarika clarifies the causes and fruits of humans and devas, the Madhyama clarifies the profound meaning of true quiescence, the Saṃyukta clarifies the various states of meditative concentration, the Dīrgha refutes the non-Buddhist paths — and all of them, alike, teach impermanence, knowing suffering, cutting off its origin, realizing cessation, and cultivating the path — yet none clarifies the Tathāgata's own intent in skillfully and subtly bestowing the lesser vehicle. As for the Vaipulya teachings, breaking down the lesser and censuring the one-sided, praising the great and extolling the perfect, compassion and vows, phenomena and principle set apart from one another at the furthest extreme — none clarifies the intent behind setting censure and praise side by side. As for the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras: discussing them in terms of the shared teaching, the three kinds of persons enter together; discussing them in terms of the distinct teaching, the bodhisattva alone advances, broadly passing through the aggregates and sense-fields, entirely purified and interfused — yet, likewise, none of this clarifies the intent behind the shared and the distinct. As for the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, coming last, briefly rebuking the three mistaken cultivations, roughly pointing to the Five Flavors — yet, likewise, it does not fully explain the Tathāgata's own placement of the teachings from beginning to end, tying together what is essential at the very close. In every one of these sūtras, without exception, it is a matter of meeting the intent of others, causing others to gain benefit — none of them discusses the Buddha's own intent itself. Toward what, then, does this intent tend?

This present sūtra is not like this. Whatever belongs to the fine mesh of the dharma-gate, the great and lesser contemplation methods, the ten powers, the fearlessnesses, every kind of regulation and rule — none of this is discussed here, since the earlier sūtras have already taught it. Rather, only the Tathāgata's own original starting point in laying out the teaching is discussed, together with the timing, throughout the interval, of taking and giving, the gradual and the sudden, each suited to its own moment; the great cause and condition, brought to its final consummation; the very outline and framework of the teaching taught; the fish-trap and rabbit-snare of the great transformation. For those whose roots, long planted, are already deep and rich, the sudden is given at once, directly clarifying the bodhisattva's own stages, practice, and merit, its words never touching upon the lesser. The text says, "as soon as they saw my body and heard what I taught, all of them, at once, believed and accepted it, entering the Tathāgata's own wisdom." For those unable to bear this, his immeasurable spiritual virtue is hidden, and, by means of the dharma the poor themselves delight in, he draws near through skillful means, bidding them to labor diligently. The text says, "were I to praise the buddha-vehicle alone, sentient beings, sunk in suffering..." Persons such as these should, by means of this same dharma, gradually enter the Buddha's own wisdom. Once the path has already been attained, censure and rebuke become fitting, just as in the Vaipulya teaching, breaking down the lesser by means of the great. The text says, "having severely and bitterly reproached him, he then shows him the jewel bound within his own garment." Where a combined, comprehensive approach is fitting, the half and the full are winnowed and sifted, as in the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own dispelling and sweeping away of every clinging to marks, gathering together their own cardinal path. The text says, "leading the assembled multitude, about to cross a perilous road." Once this difficulty has been passed, they are settled as father and son, entrusted with the family estate, its provisional trace brushed away, its real origin revealed.

One should know that this present sūtra discusses only the Tathāgata's own great outline in setting forth the teachings, and does not attend to the fine, minute details. It is like a calculator: entering figures first, then dividing them out, recording only the overall total, not preserving each individual unit of measure. Hence the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma" — this being, with respect to the one buddha-vehicle, distinguishing and teaching the three. This is the simile of entering the figures. As for gathering the immeasurable back into the one, and joining the three to return to the great — this is the simile of dividing out the total, recording only the overall sum. Meanings such as these are all a matter of the Dharma-body's own ground, quiescent and yet constantly illuminating — this is by no means something first begun at the Bodhi-tree, meeting the great capacity here and the lesser capacity there. The Buddha's own wisdom illuminating capacity has, in fact, an exceedingly long history. The text says, "solely for the sake of the one great cause and condition, appearing in the world" — this is illuminating the great, from long ago. The text says, "earnestly and diligently praising skillful means" — this is illuminating the lesser, from long ago. The text says, "after a long duration, every buddha's own dharma will inevitably come, at last, to teach what is true and real" — this is illuminating the gathering of the lesser back into the great, from long ago!

The "Faith Discernment" chapter says, "seated upon the lion throne, he sees his son and recognizes him at once" — these words show his discernment of the great capacity, from long ago! "Gazing from within the window, seeing his son from afar" — this shows his discernment of the lesser capacity, from long ago! "Secretly sending two men, drawing near through skillful means, bidding him to labor diligently" — this shows his discernment of the need to open the three, from long ago! "Their minds coming to trust one another, entering and leaving without difficulty" — this shows his discernment of tempering and rebuking, from long ago! "Taking charge of and coming to know every belonging" — this shows his discernment of winnowing and sifting, from long ago! "Afterward, entrusting him with the family estate" — this shows his discernment of teaching and practice alike, from long ago!

One should know that the Buddha's own intent is profound and far-reaching — even Maitreya does not recognize the causes and conditions involved, how much less, then, the two lesser vehicles and ordinary beings of the lower stages! The text says, "only I know this mark, and the buddhas of the ten directions likewise." Again, of the already-taught, the now-being-taught, and the yet-to-be-taught, this present teaching is the most difficult of all to believe and to understand. The earlier sūtras are the already-taught, according with the intent of others; they do not clarify this present intent, and are therefore easy to believe and to understand. The Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings is the now-being-taught, likewise according with the intent of others, and likewise easy to believe and to understand. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is the yet-to-be-taught, already heard of beforehand, and likewise easy to believe and to understand. As this present teaching was about to be taught, doubt and entreaty piled up, one upon another, fully set out, exactly as in both the trace and origin portions of the text. At the time of receiving the entreaty and teaching, what is taught is simply the intent of the teaching itself — the teaching's own intent is the Buddha's own intent, the Buddha's own intent being precisely the Buddha's own wisdom, the Buddha's own wisdom being utterly profound — hence the three refusals and four entreaties.

Such difficulty as this, compared against the other sūtras, shows the other sūtras to be, by comparison, easy.

As for when he first sat at the site of enlightenment, Brahmā's first entreaty simply asked, in a straightforward request, for the Dharma to be taught, with no net of doubt at all involved. Going back and forth earnestly, teaching the various Vaipulya sūtras — this can be seen from the text itself. At the time of teaching the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, he still, in essence, answered Brahmā's own entreaty. Only within the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the entreaty made to Vajragarbha, might be classed together with this present case. And yet certain human teachers, attached to one particular reading, claim this surpasses even the Lotus Sūtra's own entreaty, saying that the entreaty made by the lesser vehicle does not measure up to that made by the bodhisattvas — this is a one-sided view. Śāriputra, expressing the mind of the whole assembly, says, "we, the Buddha's own children, born from his mouth, join our palms and gaze up at him, waiting — those who seek the Buddha's own path, the bodhisattvas among us, number eighty thousand in all, and wish to hear the complete and perfect path" — how could this be the entreaty of the lesser vehicle alone? Again, when Maitreya, on behalf of the whole assembly, seeks a resolution, and Mañjuśrī answers, together with Vimuktacandra and Vajragarbha — how would this be any different?

Again, within the origin gate, bodhisattvas entreat the Buddha to teach the Buddha's own dharma — how could this be compared to bodhisattvas entreating a bodhisattva to teach a bodhisattva's own dharma? Considered from this angle, this present sūtra surpasses that one. As for that assembly's own list of participants, gathering like clouds from the ten directions, all of them are Vairocana Buddha's own acquaintances from past lives; this present sūtra's own gathering, the bodhisattvas emerging from beneath the earth, all of them, without exception, first set forth the thought of awakening under Śākyamuni himself, and are precisely those he himself has transformed — considered in this one respect, the two are equal, and yet not without a difference in closeness and distance. Again, that sūtra clarifies that the buddhas of the ten directions who taught the Avataṃsaka, and who received its blessing, share identical names — Dharmamati, Vajragarbha, and the rest — without saying that these buddhas are themselves Vairocana's own emanation-bodies; this present sūtra now clarifies the threefold transformation of the land, each direction filled, four hundred myriad koṭis of nayutas of lands in every one, entirely filled with buddhas, every one of them, without exception, Śākyamuni's own emanation-bodies — this sense differs from that other sūtra.

As for those who take the Avataṃsaka to be superior, this too has been brought up in a phrase or two above, not out of any wish to deliberately raise a dispute — yet, were one actually to weigh their relative merits against each other, this would risk missing the point entirely. It is simply that this Lotus Sūtra's own opening of the provisional to reveal the origin, in both the earlier and later portions of the text, involves doubt piled upon doubt and entreaty redoubled upon entreaty, unlike any other sūtra — precisely because it discusses the Buddha's own teaching most profoundly, expounds the sage's own mind most wondrously, converges, in the near term, upon the perfect cause, and extends, in the distant term, to disclose the original fruit; this is why the doubting and the entreaty never come to an end. If one is able to know the marks of the teachings with precision, one thereby comes to know the Tathāgata's own two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real. The intent behind the teachings is exceedingly profound — its general outline is as has just been given.

Second, setting forth the differing interpretations: this is treated under ten senses, namely, the Southern three and the Northern seven.

Both the Southern and Northern regions, in common, employ three kinds of marks of the teaching: first, the sudden; second, the gradual; third, the indeterminate. The Avataṃsaka, teaching the bodhisattvas, is like the sun illuminating the high mountain peaks first — this is named the sudden teaching. The Tripiṭaka teaching, teaching the lesser vehicle, first teaches the half-word — hence it is named the teaching of marks. After twelve years, for persons of the Mahāyāna, the Perfection of Wisdom is taught across five periods, on up through constant abiding — this is named the teaching of no marks. All of these together constitute the gradual teaching. There is, further, a certain sūtra, not subsumed under either the sudden or the gradual, which clarifies the constant abiding of buddha-nature — the Śrīmālā and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, and the like, are such sūtras — this is named the partial, indeterminate teaching. These same three senses are employed in common, throughout, by every school.

First: Master Ji of Tiger Hill relates the sudden and the indeterminate without any difference from the older reading just given; the gradual, however, he further divides into three: before the twelve years, clarifying the Tripiṭaka teaching, seeing existence and attaining the path, named the teaching of marks; after the twelve years, on up to the Lotus, clarifying seeing emptiness and attaining the path, named the teaching of no marks; and, last of all, at the twin śāla trees, clarifying that every sentient being possesses buddha-nature, and that even the icchantika attains buddhahood, named the teaching of constant abiding.

Second: Master Zong'ai — the sudden and the indeterminate are the same as before, while, within the gradual, he further classifies four periods of teaching, this being the same scheme employed by Master Min of Zhuangyan. The first three periods are no different from before; further, after the teaching of no marks and before the teaching of constant abiding, he points to the Lotus's own gathering of the three into the one, every wholesome deed alike tending toward awakening, named the teaching of the common return.

Third: Masters Rou and Ci of Dinglin, together with Master Guan of Daochang, clarify the sudden and the indeterminate as the same as before, while further classifying the gradual into five periods of teaching, this being the very scheme employed by Kaishan and Guangzhai. The first four periods are no different from before; further, between the teaching of no marks and the teaching of the common return, he points to the Vimalakīrti, the Sūtra of Contemplating the Mind Ground, and the various Vaipulya sūtras, named the teaching of censure and praise, disparagement and exaltation.

Fourth: a Northern master likewise makes a five-period teaching, but takes the Trapuṣa and Bhallika Sūtra as the teaching of humans and devas, combines the Vimalakīrti and the Perfection of Wisdom together as the teaching of no marks, the remaining three periods being no different from the Southern scheme.

Fifth: Bodhiruci clarifies the half-and-full teaching: before the twelve years, all of it, without exception, is the half-word teaching; after the twelve years, all of it, without exception, is the full-word teaching.

Sixth: the Tripiṭaka Master Buddhaśānta and the scholar Guangtong distinguish a fourfold classification of the teachings by doctrine: first, the doctrine of causes and conditions, pointing to the Abhidharma's own six causes and four conditions; second, the doctrine of provisional names, pointing to the Chengshi Lun's own three kinds of the provisional; third, the doctrine of deceptive marks, pointing to the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra and the Three Treatises; fourth, the doctrine of constancy, pointing to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Avataṃsaka, and the like, whose constantly abiding buddha-nature is originally present, clear and unclouded.

Seventh: a certain master opens this into a fivefold classification by doctrine — the first four senses no different from before, while, further, he points to the Avataṃsaka as the doctrine of the dharma-realm, this being the very scheme employed by Master Hushen's own Zigui Dasheng.

Eighth: a certain person, citing Guangtong, says: the fourfold classification by doctrine leaves something not encompassed, and further opens this into a sixfold classification: pointing to the Lotus's own gathering of every wholesome deed into the common return, and "after a long duration, every buddha's own dharma will inevitably come, at last, to teach what is true and real," named the doctrine of the true. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra's own interfusion, alike, of the defiled and the pure, the dharma-realm perfectly universal, named the doctrine of the perfect. The remaining four doctrines are as before — this being the very scheme employed by Master Lin of Qishe.

Ninth: a Northern Chan master clarifies two kinds of Mahāyāna teaching: first, the Mahāyāna of marks; second, the Mahāyāna of no marks. The Mahāyāna of marks is as in the Avataṃsaka, the Yingluo, the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, and the like, teaching the graded ranks of the ten grounds and the marks of meritorious practice. The Mahāyāna of no marks is as in the Laṅkāvatāra and the Sūtra of Contemplating the Mind Ground, the true dharma having no sequence to be explained at all, every sentient being already being, itself, the mark of nirvāṇa.

Tenth: a Northern Chan master, rejecting the fourfold, fivefold, and sixfold classifications by doctrine, the two-marks teaching, the half-and-full teaching, and the rest, holds that there is only the one buddha-vehicle, with no second, and likewise no third — a single voice teaching the Dharma, each kind of being understanding it differently according to its own kind. The buddhas constantly practice the one vehicle; sentient beings see three — this alone is the single-voice teaching. Setting forth the differing interpretations is now complete.

Third, clarifying the difficulties: first, raising difficulties against the Southern five-period scheme — once its own sense fails to hold up, the remaining four-period and three-period schemes fail by the same pattern.

As for the claim that the period before the twelve years is named the teaching of marks: this is the Chengshi Lun masters themselves slandering their own treatise. The treatise itself says, "I now wish, precisely, to clarify the real meaning within the Tripiṭaka." This "real meaning" is none other than emptiness — is this emptiness not itself the absence of marks? And is the Tripiṭaka teaching itself not precisely what belongs to the period before the twelve years? Again, within the Āgamas it is said, "'this is old age and death' and 'who undergoes old age and death' are both, alike, wrong views; the absence of 'this is old age and death' is precisely the emptiness of dharmas, and the absence of 'who undergoes old age and death' is precisely the emptiness of the person." The Tripiṭaka sūtras themselves already speak of these two emptinesses — how could these two emptinesses not themselves be the absence of marks? Again, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "within the Tripiṭaka, clarifying the emptiness of dharmas is itself the great emptiness." Within the Mahāyāna, clarifying the emptiness of the ten directions is the great emptiness. Since the emptiness of dharmas is itself already taken as the great emptiness, this is itself already the great absence of marks. Again, only six years after attaining the path, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra was already taught, clarifying emptiness most urgently of all — if this is not the absence of marks, then what could possibly be the absence of marks, and so on? Again, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "from the night of attaining the path to the night of entering nirvāṇa, the Perfection of Wisdom was constantly taught." The Perfection of Wisdom is itself precisely the wisdom of emptiness.

Furthermore: as for the period before the twelve years, named the teaching of marks — did persons attain the path within it, or did they not? If they attained the path, this itself contradicts the Chengshi Lun. The treatise-masters themselves say: the four noble truths taught with marks are only a skillful means for taming the mind, and one does not, in reality, attain the path by them; one must see the level, undifferentiated emptiness before one is able to attain the path at all. Since it is already said that this teaching has marks, how, then, could the path suddenly be attained within it? If, on the other hand, the path was not attained within it, then what use is this teaching at all? Again, Kauṇḍinya and the other four monks, at the very first encounter with the Buddha's own Dharma, in utter quiescence, with neither sound nor word, attained true and real knowledge and vision. Does this word "first" not itself mean that the path was attained within the period before the twelve years? Again, if the path was attained, then this teaching is identical to the teaching of no marks; if the path was not attained, then this teaching is identical to a wrong doctrine. Again, if the path was attained, what kind of path was attained? If it was attained by seeing emptiness, then this again is identical to the teaching of no marks; if it was attained without seeing emptiness, then this is likewise identical to the ninety-five non-Buddhist paths, and is not the attainment of the buddha-path at all. The teaching of marks, either way, carries both of these faults, and so on.

Second, raising a difficulty against the period after the twelve years, named the teaching of no marks: the claim that it clarifies emptiness, sweeping away marks, without yet clarifying the constant abiding of buddha-nature, and is therefore still impermanent — and that, throughout the Buddha's eighty years, it neither gathers the three into the one nor contains any censure, rebuke, disparagement, or praise — this cannot be accepted. If it is called the teaching of no marks, why, then, does it not also sweep away impermanence itself? If impermanence still remains, in what sense can it be called the absence of marks at all? If it is said that it does not clarify the constant abiding of buddha-nature as Dharma-body: the shared teaching within the Perfection of Wisdom might, perhaps, not concern the constancy of buddha-nature as Dharma-body and the rest — but as for the unshared teaching within the Perfection of Wisdom, how could this not concern buddha-nature? The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "buddha-nature has five kinds of names; it is also named the Śūraṅgama, and also named prajñā." Prajñā is itself simply another name for buddha-nature — how, then, could it be denied? They would then defend themselves by saying: where the sūtra calls buddha-nature also by the name prajñā, this is the prajñā of the three virtues — what does this have to do with the prajñā of the teaching of no marks? If this is so, then why does the eighth fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra say, "just as I formerly said, within the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, that self and non-self are, in their own nature, not two"? This nature that is not two is itself precisely the real nature, and the nature that is the real nature is itself precisely buddha-nature. Pointing back in this way, from such a distance, the clear text is plain and evident — on what grounds, then, could this be denied?

Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own buddha-nature is simply the dharma-nature's own constant abiding, incapable of change or alteration. The Perfection of Wisdom's own clarifying of the real mark and the real limit, neither coming nor going, is itself precisely the Buddha's own unborn dharma, this unborn dharma being itself precisely the Buddha. How, then, do these two senses differ? One thereby knows that the dharma-nature's own real mark is itself precisely the correct-cause buddha-nature; the Perfection of Wisdom's own contemplative illumination is itself precisely the revealing-cause buddha-nature; and the merit of the five perfections nourishing and bringing forth this same Perfection of Wisdom is itself precisely the conditioning-cause buddha-nature. How, then, do these three kinds of prajñā differ at all from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own three kinds of buddha-nature? The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra says, "merit alone does not tend toward awakening; it is the two together that are able to tend toward awakening." With respect to what is other than itself, this is named the generative cause; with respect to what is real, this is named the revealing cause. The real mark, as the revealing cause, is itself able to tend toward awakening — how could this not be buddha-nature? It is simply that the names differ while the meaning is the same, exactly as distinguished above — how, then, could one, upon hearing the name Śakra Devānām Indra, claim this is not the same as Indra himself? Such an error is of exactly the same kind as this one.

If it is said that, since impermanence is what the eighty-year-old Buddha himself taught, this cannot be the constant abiding of buddha-nature: the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, too, likewise says, "the eighty-year-old Buddha's back ached, and he suffered illness, entering extinction among the śāla trees." How, then, could this same sūtra suddenly go on to discuss constancy and distinguish buddha-nature, and so on? The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "the Buddha has a born body and a Dharma-body" — the born body is the same as ordinary human beings and their dharmas, subject to cold and heat, sickness and affliction, the eating of horse-fodder and the begging of milk; the Dharma-nature body buddha, its light boundless, its form and image boundless. This venerable and extraordinary body is like empty space itself, teaching the Dharma for Dharma-nature-body bodhisattvas — and even the assembly that hears this teaching is itself already no longer a body subject to birth and death, how much less, then, the Buddha himself? The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom further says, "the born-body buddha's own lifespan is finite in measure, while the Dharma-body buddha's own lifespan is immeasurable" — how, then, could the impermanent eighty years possibly be imposed upon the Dharma-body? Even within the lesser vehicle it is said that the Dharma-body, still, does not perish — as when the novice Cunda grieves, and the Buddha asks him: "has your preceptor's own body of moral discipline perished?" He answers: "no." And so on, up to: "has his body of the knowledge and vision of liberation perished?" He answers: "no." How much less, then, could the Dharma-body of the Perfection of Wisdom itself be called impermanent!

If it is said that the Perfection of Wisdom contains no gathering of the three: why, then, does the "Questioning Abiding" chapter say, "you sons of the devas, those among you who have not yet given rise to the mind of complete awakening should now do so. If one has already entered the correct stage of the śrāvaka, such a person is no longer able to give rise to the mind of complete awakening — why is this? Because it has already become a barrier and obstruction against birth-and-death itself. Yet, should such a person nonetheless give rise to the mind of complete awakening, I, too, would rejoice together with him — why is this? Because a superior person should seek the superior dharma, and I would never, in the end, cut off his merit." If the śrāvaka does not seek the superior dharma, then in what would there be anything to rejoice together over? Since there already is rejoicing together over the superior dharma, this is itself already a gathering of the three. If it is said that the Perfection of Wisdom contains no censure and rebuke: the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says, "the wisdom of the two lesser vehicles is like the light of a firefly; a bodhisattva studying wisdom for a single day is like the sun illuminating all four continents." Again, its thirteenth fascicle says, "it is like a dog that, instead of seeking food from its own master, turns instead to beg from the servants. In an age yet to come, good men and women will abandon the profound Perfection of Wisdom and cling instead to mere branches and leaves, taking up the scriptures proper to the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha." Again it says, "seeing only the image, contemplating only the footprint — both of these, alike, are named unwise." How could there be any censure and rebuke more severe than this, and yet it be said that no disparagement or praise is present here at all?

If it is said that the Perfection of Wisdom is the second-period teaching, citing the sons of the devas addressing the Buddha, "we have seen the second turning of the Dharma-wheel" — which sūtra does not show a second turning, that this should be said of the Perfection of Wisdom alone? The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says, "first seated beneath the Bodhi-tree, by his own power subduing Māra, attaining the nectar of extinction, awakening to the path's own completion... and so, teaching the Dharma, neither existent nor nonexistent." These two teachings set against each other should, by this same logic, likewise be called a second turning of the Dharma-wheel. The Lotus Sūtra, too, likewise says, "formerly, at Vārāṇasī, I turned the Dharma-wheel of the four noble truths; now, once again, I turn the highest of all Dharma-wheels." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, again, says, "formerly, at Vārāṇasī, when the Dharma-wheel was first turned, eighty thousand devas attained the fruit of stream-entry; now, here, at this very Kuśinagara, at the time of turning the Dharma-wheel, eight hundred thousand koṭis of beings attain non-retrogression." Every single sūtra, without exception, carries this same sense — should all of them, then, likewise be called a second turning? Why should this be said of the Perfection of Wisdom alone? If it is said that the period after the twelve years clarifies the teaching of no marks: how, then, could the Perfection of Wisdom be constantly taught throughout the entire span between the two nights, from attaining the path to entering nirvāṇa? One thereby knows that the faults in the teaching of no marks are likewise exceedingly numerous, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against the censure-and-praise teaching being the third period: though it speaks of seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas, this, too, is still said to be impermanent, not yet clarifying constant abiding, being simply censure, rebuke, disparagement, and praise, and nothing more. Now I ask: at the time of teaching the Perfection of Wisdom, every great disciple, in turn, taught the Dharma themselves — though they did not seek this for themselves, they had already come to fully know the bodhisattva's own dharma-gate; how, then, could they have been rebuked? One is left utterly at a loss, unable to make out what this even means, unable to say how to answer it. One thereby knows that censure and praise ought not to be placed after the Perfection of Wisdom, and this is not the third period at all. Again, even Maitreya and the rest were likewise made to yield — why should this be true of the śrāvakas alone? As for the claim regarding the seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas: this, too, does not hold. The text itself says that the Buddha's own body is unconditioned, falling under no numerical count at all — being of a body as indestructible as the vajra, what illness, what affliction could it have? Only for the sake of delivering sentient beings does it manifest such things! The text distinguishes the vajra-body, and yet people classify it under the seven hundred; the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, too, likewise distinguishes the vajra-body — how, then, could this suddenly not be constancy? Again it says, "contemplating the real mark of the body, contemplating the buddha is likewise the same," and, again, inconceivable liberation has three kinds: true nature, real wisdom, and skillful means — this being itself precisely the sense of the three buddha-natures. Moreover, "the very company of worldly affliction is itself the Tathāgata's own seed" — is this not itself the correct-cause buddha-nature? "Not cutting off delusion and craving, and yet giving rise to every kind of illumination and liberation" — illumination is itself the revealing-cause nature, liberation is itself the conditioning-cause nature. These three senses stand out plainly and clearly, and yet this is classified as impermanent — how, then, could the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own three kinds of buddha-nature possibly be constant?

Next, raising a difficulty against the fourth period, the teaching of the common return: this is precisely a matter of gathering together every wholesome deed, drawing it into the one vehicle, without clarifying buddha-nature — merely using spiritual powers to extend the lifespan, exceeding the sands of the Ganges before and doubling that number afterward — and this, too, they say, does not clarify constancy. This cannot be accepted. The Lotus Sūtra clarifies a single kind of nature and mark, born from a single ground, its own teaching bringing every being, without exception, to the ground of omniscience itself, its very title-chapter saying, "opening, showing, awakening to, and entering the Buddha's own knowledge and vision." The Avataṃsaka clarifies the Buddha's own wisdom while still carrying the bodhisattva's own wisdom alongside it — the bodhisattva's own wisdom being like the soil upon a fingernail, the Tathāgata's own wisdom being like the soil of the ten directions. The Lotus teaches purely and solely the Buddha's own wisdom, like the soil of the ten directions — and yet, if this is said not to be constant, how, then, could the Avataṃsaka's mere soil upon a fingernail possibly clarify constant abiding? Again, the Avataṃsaka has him first seated at the site of enlightenment, only just then attaining complete awakening — his attainment of buddhahood far too recent. The Lotus clarifies that his attainment of buddhahood is distant beyond measure, and that everything in between, up to the present, is nothing but a trace. If what is taught within the trace itself is already said to be constant, how could the teaching of the origin-ground possibly fail to clarify constancy? Again, the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "in teaching the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness, cultivated over many kalpas of practice, I have never yet proclaimed a sūtra as profound as this Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings." This Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, already profound in itself, being profound, is itself only a lead-in for the Lotus — how could this fail to clarify constancy? If it is said that the language of constant abiding is scanty here: is not even a single word from the son of heaven himself already a decree? The text says, "the mark of the world constantly abides," and, again, "immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas, my lifespan immeasurable, constantly abiding, never extinguished." The lifespan at the city of Gayā, and its repeated manifestation, and the rest, is the lifespan of the response-body buddha; the immeasurable lifespan of asaṃkhyeya kalpas is the lifespan of the reward-body buddha; constantly abiding, never extinguished, is the lifespan of the Dharma-body buddha. The three buddha-bodies stand out plainly and clearly, and the sense of constant abiding is thereby complete.

The Fahua Lun says: three kinds of bodhi are shown forth. First, the bodhi of the response-and-transformation buddha: manifesting in accordance with however he is seen, that is, going forth from the palace of the Śākya clan, not far from the city of Gayā, seated at the site of enlightenment, attaining complete awakening. Second, the bodhi of the reward buddha: the ten grounds being fulfilled in full, attaining constant nirvāṇa. The text says, "since I, in reality, attained buddhahood, immeasurable, boundless hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas have passed." Third, the bodhi of the Dharma buddha: the tathāgatagarbha's own inherently pure nirvāṇa, constantly pure and unchanging. The text says, "the Tathāgata truly and as-it-is knows and sees the marks of the three realms ... not as the three realms are, does he see the three realms" — meaning that the realm of sentient beings is itself the realm of nirvāṇa; not apart from the realm of sentient beings is the tathāgatagarbha itself. Again it says, "I would not dare to hold you in contempt — every one of you shall become a buddha" — this is precisely the correct-cause buddha-nature. Again it says, "for the sake of causing sentient beings to open the Buddha's own knowledge and vision" — this is precisely the revealing-cause buddha-nature. Again it says, "the buddha-seed arises from conditions" — this is precisely the conditioning-cause buddha-nature. The Fahua Lun likewise clarifies these same three kinds of buddha-nature. The treatise says: only the Buddha, the Tathāgata, realizes great bodhi, ultimately fulfilling every kind of wisdom in full — hence it is named great. The saying, "I would not dare to hold you in contempt; every one of you shall become a buddha," shows that every sentient being, without exception, already possesses buddha-nature. With both sūtra and treatise offering such clear evidence, on what grounds could this be denied?

Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "this sūtra, appearing in the world, is like a ripened fruit, greatly beneficial and bringing peace and happiness to all, able to cause sentient beings to see the Tathāgata's own nature — just as, within the Lotus Sūtra, the eight thousand śrāvakas already receive their own prediction, ripening into a great fruit, like the autumn harvest stored away for winter, with nothing further left to be done." If these eight thousand śrāvakas, within the Lotus Sūtra, did not actually see buddha-nature, then the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra ought not to point to this from such a distance — with such clear textual evidence, verified and confirmed, why should one still labor to cling stubbornly to a mistaken reading? Again, the twenty-fifth fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the ultimate, final matter is the one vehicle that every sentient being attains; this one vehicle is itself named buddha-nature. For this very reason, I teach that every sentient being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, and every sentient being, without exception, possesses the one vehicle." Hence this present sūtra is itself the teaching of the one vehicle, converging profoundly with the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Moreover, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra still carries traces of the three vehicles attaining the path, while this present sūtra is purely one, without any admixture; the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, further, never brings forth the trace at all, while this present sūtra reveals the origin, its meaning made manifest. Everywhere proclaiming birth, everywhere manifesting extinction, in the future constantly abiding, throughout the three time-periods benefiting beings — "the assembled people see it consumed by fire, and yet my own land is never destroyed" — how could this possibly be a matter of merely extending the lifespan through spiritual powers, with an actual final extinction still to come? This refutes the sense of "extending the lifespan through spiritual powers," and so on.

Raising a difficulty against the fifth-period teaching — the twin śāla trees' own constant abiding, sentient beings' own buddha-nature, the icchantika's own attainment of buddhahood: I ask the Chengshi Lun masters, who explain meaning by means of the two truths, whether this fifth-period teaching is itself subsumed under the two truths or not. If it is subsumed under the two truths, then it is the same as every other teaching — the two truths of the earlier teachings are still said to be impermanent, so how could the two truths at the twin śāla trees possibly be constant? If, on the other hand, the twin-śāla-trees teaching does not go beyond the two truths, and yet is able to illuminate a distinct principle and break through a distinct delusion, and is therefore said to be constant — then the two truths clarified within the earlier teachings likewise illuminate a distinct principle and break through a distinct delusion; how, then, could these suddenly be impermanent? "Sentient beings possess buddha-nature" and "the icchantika attains buddhahood" fall under exactly this same kind of difficulty. One thereby knows that the principle clarified here is no different from the earlier periods — on what grounds, then, could this be called constant abiding?

Raising a difficulty against the sudden teaching: this may be understood by the same pattern. Since the real is already the same throughout, on what grounds could this be called sudden? Though the provisional does indeed differ from case to case, one ought not to judge great and small merely by outward circumstance — to do so would be a great inversion, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against the partial, indeterminate teaching, said to fall outside the sequential order, addressed particularly to some one, single set of conditions, as with the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the Śrīmālā, the Laṅkāvatāra, the Aṅgulimālīya, and sūtras of this same kind: I ask — the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, taught only six years after attaining the path, lists its own assembly in sequential order, thoroughly distinguishing every other teaching, censuring and rebuking, clarifying constancy, and clearly distinguishing every other teaching by name — Śakra, Brahmā, the four heavenly kings, and the ten great disciples, on up to Mañjuśrī himself, are all, without exception, subjected to censure and rebuke — this same assembly listening together stands out plainly and clearly, and it ought, therefore, to belong within the sequential order; and yet it is now classified as partial. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra, too, likewise contains censure and rebuke — how, then, could it be cited as belonging within the sequential order? Again, what the Vimalakīrti Sūtra itself censures is a matter set in the past, recounting words spoken earlier, on the grounds that such language could no longer be endured. One should know that, already, before the twelve years, this same censure ought to have taken place, exactly as in the Aṅgulimālīya. If the Aṅgulimālīya is partial, then the Vimalakīrti, too, is not properly sequential. And if it is said that the Aṅgulimālīya clarifies constancy, addressed particularly to some one, single set of conditions — the Vimalakīrti Sūtra itself says, "the very company of worldly affliction is itself the Tathāgata's own seed" — how, then, could this possibly be called a sequential teaching, and so on?

Next, raising a difficulty against relying on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own Five Flavors to classify the five periods: taking "from the cow comes milk" as a metaphor for the Tripiṭaka teaching of marks before the twelve years; "from milk comes cream" as a metaphor for the Perfection of Wisdom's own teaching of no marks after the twelve years; "from cream comes curdled butter" as a metaphor for the Vaipulya teaching of censure and praise; "from curdled butter comes clarified butter" as a metaphor for the Lotus's own teaching of the common return of every wholesome deed; and "from clarified butter comes ghee" as a metaphor for the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own teaching of constant abiding. This, upon actual examination, is found to contradict the text's own wording and sense, its own sequence of arising inverted, and by no means properly sequential at all. Why is this? The sūtra says, "from the cow comes milk," as a metaphor for the twelve divisions of scripture first coming forth from the Buddha — how, then, could these twelve divisions be matched against the nine divisions belonging to the teaching of marks alone? First, the teaching of marks does not itself possess all twelve divisions. Second, the teaching of marks is not itself the Buddha's own first teaching — hence this pairing ought not to be made at all, and so on. They would then defend themselves by saying: the lesser vehicle, too, possesses all twelve divisions. Citing the text as proof, they say: on the snow mountain there is a certain tolerant grass — if the cow eats this, it then produces ghee; there is, further, a different kind of grass — if the cow eats this, it does not produce ghee. One thereby knows that the great and lesser vehicles alike, in common, possess all twelve divisions, differing only in the presence or absence of buddha-nature!

I now ask: even granting that both share, in common, all twelve divisions, why, then, is the milk teaching not taken to be the twelve divisions that already clarify buddha-nature? The seventh fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the nine divisions that do not clarify buddha-nature — one who says so commits no fault, just as one who says the great ocean contains only seven kinds of treasure, and not an eighth, commits no fault." Following this same pattern: if the twelve divisions lack buddha-nature, then one who says so would commit a fault. Since it is already said that these twelve divisions are complete, why, then, would failing to clarify buddha-nature not itself fall under the very clause that commits a fault — how, then, could this possibly converge with "the twelve divisions without fault"? If it is said that from the twelve divisions comes the sūtra-division proper, and this sūtra-division is matched against the teaching of no marks, the Perfection of Wisdom: the sūtra-division, in fact, runs in common through everything, marked and unmarked alike — all five periods, without exception, are named sūtra — why, then, should it be matched against the teaching of no marks, the Perfection of Wisdom, alone? They would explain: the Perfection of Wisdom contains the sense of direct exposition, and, further, is the second period — hence it is matched against it. If it is said that direct exposition ought properly to be the sūtra-division: the Perfection of Wisdom also contains explanation by parable, explanation by causes and conditions, explanation by prediction, and explanation by doctrinal discussion — how, then, could it be direct exposition alone? If the Perfection of Wisdom, containing every kind of exposition together at once, is nonetheless named by the sūtra-division alone — the other sūtras, too, likewise contain direct exposition; why, then, are they not matched against the sūtra-division as well? And if it is said this is because it is the second period, then which sūtra is not the second period — this has already been raised as a difficulty above.

As for "from the sūtra-division comes the Vaipulya sūtras," matched against the censure-and-praise teaching of the Vimalakīrti and the rest: the Vimalakīrti ought not to come after the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, as has already been refuted above, and so on. As for "from the Vaipulya comes the Perfection of Wisdom," matched against the Lotus: the text of the sūtra itself says "curdled butter," and yet this is twisted about to mean the Lotus — bending the sūtra's own wording to fit one's own reading is the height of arbitrariness. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the eight thousand śrāvakas received their prediction within the Lotus," and does not say they received their prediction within the Perfection of Wisdom — how, then, could the Lotus be called the Perfection of Wisdom? This contradicts the text and loses the point entirely, and cannot be made to form a proper sequence. As for "from the Perfection of Wisdom comes the Mahāparinirvāṇa": they would then explain this as "from the Lotus comes the Mahāparinirvāṇa." This, too, fails to accord with the sūtra's own text — it is like a stubborn, disobedient child, or again, like a sheep led astray, and so on.

The faults in the five-period scheme are of exactly this kind — as for the four-period and three-period schemes, there is no need to raise further difficulties against them; the Southern marks of the teaching cannot be relied upon any longer. Now, raising one further difficulty against those who hold the three-period scheme: they say that, from after the twelve years all the way up to the Lotus, this is uniformly named the teaching of no marks — yet the Lotus gathers the three into the one; the Perfection of Wisdom, too, ought therefore likewise to return to the one. If this is not so, then how could the two possibly be called, uniformly, the teaching of no marks? The four-period scheme fails by exactly this same pattern.

Next, raising a difficulty against the Northern five-period scheme: if it is said that the Trapuṣa Sūtra teaches the five precepts and the ten wholesome deeds, that sūtra itself clarifies only the five precepts and does not clarify the ten wholesome deeds — it is solely a teaching for humans, and not, therefore, a teaching for devas as well. Even granting that it be taken as a teaching for humans and devas together, every other sūtra, too, clarifies moral discipline and wholesome conduct — should these, too, then, all be called teachings for humans and devas? Again, that sūtra itself says, "the five precepts are the mother of every buddha; those who wish to seek the buddha-path should recite this sūtra; those who wish to seek arhatship should recite this sūtra." Again it says, "those who wish to attain the deathless ground should wear the talisman of long life, take the elixir of deathlessness, and hold the seal of lasting joy." This "talisman of long life" is itself the dharma of the three vehicles; this "seal of lasting joy" is itself the path of nirvāṇa. How, then, could this be called solely a teaching for humans and devas? Again it says: the five precepts are the root of heaven and earth, the wellspring of every spirit — heaven, upheld by them, harmonizes yin and yang; earth, upheld by them, gives birth to the ten thousand things; they are the mother of the ten thousand things, the father of every spirit, the source of the great path, the foundation of nirvāṇa. Again, the root of the four elements, the root of the five aggregates and the six kinds of decay — the four elements being the four great elements, the four elements originally pure, the five aggregates originally pure, the six kinds of decay originally pure — teachings such as these, exhausting the ultimate source and reaching the furthest wonder, how could they be called solely a teaching for humans and devas? Again, the elder Trapuṣa himself attains the forbearance of non-arising, three hundred persons attain the forbearance of faith, two hundred persons attain stream-entry, the four heavenly kings attain the pliant forbearance of the dharma, the nāga king attains the root of faith, and the whole assembly of asuras, without exception, gives rise to the intent of unsurpassed, true, and correct awakening — considering this attainment of the path, how could this possibly be a teaching for humans and devas alone?

Furthermore, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom's own compilation of the dharma-treasury holds that, from the very first teaching at Vārāṇasī up to the eve of entering nirvāṇa, every lesser-vehicle dharma taught throughout is compiled into the three dharma-treasuries; and that, from his very birth up to the twin śāla trees, every Mahāyāna teaching throughout is compiled into the Mahāyāna treasury — whatever comes before the Deer Park at Vārāṇasī is not included within the lesser vehicle at all. Why is this? Because, at that time, the Saṃgha Jewel did not yet exist — hence the Trapuṣa Sūtra ought not to be used as the very first teaching. And if it is said that the Trapuṣa Sūtra is a secret teaching, a single voice understood differently by different hearers, then it ought not to stand at the very beginning of what is openly revealed. The remaining four periods are the same as the Southern scheme, and have already been refuted above, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against Bodhiruci's own half-and-full scheme: that, from the very first teaching at the Deer Park, the entire Tripiṭaka clarifies only the half-word meaning, while, from the Perfection of Wisdom onward, up through the Mahāparinirvāṇa, the whole clarifies only the full-word meaning — this cannot be accepted. From the night of attaining the path onward, the Perfection of Wisdom was constantly taught; from the Deer Park onward, when has it ever not been full? As at the time of the Trapuṣa Sūtra, immeasurable devas and humans already attained the forbearance of non-arising. Only six years after attaining the path, the Aṅgulimālīya was already taught. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "when I first attained the path, bodhisattvas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges already came to ask about this same meaning, no different from yourself." One should thereby know that the Deer Park period ought not to be purely half at all. As for saying that every sūtra from the Perfection of Wisdom onward is, alike, full: the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "the Perfection of Wisdom is not a secret teaching, and so was entrusted to Ānanda; the Lotus is a secret teaching, and so was entrusted to the bodhisattvas." If both, alike, are the full teaching, how could one be secret and the other not secret? Again, if both, alike, are full, then both ought equally to gather the three. Again, if both, alike, are full, then curdled butter and clarified butter ought equally to be ghee, and ghee ought equally to be curdled butter and clarified butter. Since the flavors doing the illustrating already differ from one another without exception, how could the dharmas being illustrated by them possibly, all alike, be full, and so on?

Next, raising a difficulty against the fourfold classification by doctrine: as for the doctrine of causes and conditions, said to point to the Abhidharma's own six causes and four conditions — if this is so, the Chengshi Lun likewise clarifies three causes and four conditions, and every dharma, without exception, is formed by causes and conditions; the language of "causes and conditions" runs in common through everything — why, then, should it belong to the Abhidharma alone? Again, the doctrine of causes and conditions is said to differ from the doctrine of provisional names, since the Chengshi Lun itself says, "seeing existence within the four noble truths is a dharma for taming the mind, and is not able, by itself, to attain the path." Since the doctrine of causes and conditions has already been established as its own doctrine, what kind of path, then, does it attain? If it attains the path of the lesser vehicle, then it is identical to the doctrine of provisional names — what need is there to establish it separately? If it attains the path of the Mahāyāna, then it is identical to the perfect and constant doctrines and the rest — what need is there to establish it separately? To set it up now as its own separate doctrine, one ought, correspondingly, to be able to point to some separate path it alone attains, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against the doctrine of provisional names: pointing to the Chengshi Lun's own contemplation of the three kinds of the provisional as insubstantial and unreal — this is simply a mundane-truth matter of phenomena, and is not that treatise's own actual doctrine at all. That treatise itself holds that seeing emptiness is what attains the path, and so ought properly to take emptiness itself as its doctrine. Again, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom clarifies, within the Tripiṭaka, a gate of emptiness, but no gate of provisional names at all — if one is pointing to that same treatise's own meaning, one ought to use that same treatise's own doctrine; since a separate name has already been established instead, this then is no longer "seeing emptiness attains the path" at all, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against the doctrine of the untrue: this points to the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own ten similes, taken as the untrue, deceptive mark. Yet Nāgārjuna himself, refuting the Vaipulya masters, says, "taking up the Buddha's own ten similes, and teaching that everything is like an illusion, like a magical creation, without arising, without ceasing, is to lose the Perfection of Wisdom's own true meaning, and to become identical to the non-Buddhist paths." How, then, could one pick up this very meaning, already refuted by Nāgārjuna himself, and use it to establish the doctrine of the untrue? If it is said that, since the text clarifies illusion and magical creation without distinguishing the constant abiding of buddha-nature, it is therefore called untrue — this, too, is mistaken. This sūtra clarifies the constant abiding of buddha-nature, exactly as already shown above — why should this particular sūtra alone be said to clarify illusion and magical creation? The Avataṃsaka, too, likewise speaks of "the forbearance of the illusory, the forbearance of the dreamlike," "the mind is like a skilled magician," and every kind of similar simile. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, too, likewise says, "every dharma is like an illusion, like a magical creation, and the Buddha remains unattached within them" — every one of these sūtras, without exception, clarifies illusion and magical creation; should all of them, then, likewise be called the doctrine of the untrue? If, in these other sūtras, illusion and magical creation are not called the doctrine of the untrue, why should the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra alone be so bitterly singled out as the deceptive mark? Again, raising a difficulty against the doctrine of constancy, pointed at the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: how could this same Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra clarify constancy alone? It likewise clarifies neither constancy nor impermanence, and the dual function of being able to be constant and being able to be impermanent, complete with all eight techniques — why, then, should the function of constancy alone be singled out as its doctrine? Why not, instead, take the function of impermanence as its doctrine? A single wheel, a single wing, is unable to fly at all, and so on.

They would say: the deceptive-mark, untrue doctrine is itself the shared teaching, while the doctrine of constancy is simply the true doctrine — this is itself the shared doctrine. Yet the doctrine, in that case, runs in common through both the true and the untrue — why, then, should the untrue lose its own doctrine-status and be reclassified merely as a teaching? And why should the true doctrine lack any teaching, and yet still be established as a doctrine? If a doctrine has no corresponding teaching, how could the true be known at all? If the true doctrine loses its own doctrine-status and instead has a teaching, then it becomes identical, in name, to the shared teaching. If both lose their teaching and retain only doctrine, then both become identical, in name, to the shared doctrine. If both, instead, retain their teaching, then both become identical, in name, to a shared doctrine-and-teaching. If, instead, the untrue and the true are both retained together, then this would be named a shared untrue-and-true doctrine. If the teaching runs in common through the true doctrine, and the teaching runs in common through the untrue doctrine as well, this could then be practiced in common by all three vehicles — and, in that case, the true doctrine that runs in common ought likewise to be practiced in common by all three vehicles. If it is said that this "shared" here means the "shared" of "interfused and shared," then the shared teaching, too, is itself simply the true nature of "shared with the true." This, then, collapses the two names into one and the same thing, with no actual difference in meaning between them at all. They cite the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which says, "the teaching that is explained is for the ignorant and untutored; the doctrine that is grasped is for the bodhisattva" — and, on this basis, take the true doctrine to be itself the shared doctrine. If this is so, then causes-and-conditions, provisional names, and the untrue would all, alike, be for the ignorant and untutored, and none of them ought to be established as its own separate doctrine at all. Turning this over and settling it once and for all, the naming and the meaning of this fourfold classification by doctrine prove to be exceedingly inconvenient and unworkable.

Next, raising a difficulty against the fivefold classification: the difficulty against the fourfold classification, as raised above, applies here as well. If it is said that the Avataṃsaka is the doctrine of the dharma-realm, differing from the Mahāparinirvāṇa, and that the Mahāparinirvāṇa is not the dharma-realm but only the doctrine of constancy — the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra itself says, "the great parinirvāṇa is itself the dharma-realm of every buddha." How, then, could it be inferior, ceding this place to the Avataṃsaka? If constancy is not the dharma-realm, and the dharma-realm is not constancy, then the dharma-realm, not being constant, ought to be subject to arising and ceasing; and constancy, not being the dharma-realm, would then fail to encompass every dharma without remainder — neither of these can possibly hold. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says, "not a single dharma is seen to lie outside the dharma-nature" — the dharma-nature is itself the dharma-realm. Again it says, "every dharma tends toward form, and this tendency does not go beyond it" — is this not itself a statement of the dharma-realm? Why, then, should the Avataṃsaka alone be called the dharma-realm, as though differing from the Mahāparinirvāṇa and the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra?

Next, raising a difficulty against the sixfold classification: the fourfold classification's own difficulties, as raised above, apply here as well. I now ask: as for the true doctrine and the doctrine of constancy — if the true and constancy are the same, why open them as two separate doctrines? And if the true and constancy differ, then neither of them, alike, is the wondrous dharma at all. Why is this? If the true is not itself constant, then the true is subject to arising and ceasing; if constancy is not itself true, then constancy is empty and false. Again, if the true is not itself constant, how does it differ from the earlier three doctrines? If constancy is not itself true, then there already exists some dharma capable of being broken and destroyed.

Next, raising a difficulty against the doctrine of the perfect: if it is said that the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra's own interfusion of the defiled and the pure differs from the Mahāparinirvāṇa and the Avataṃsaka — this, too, is mistaken. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says, "form itself is emptiness; it is not that form is destroyed to become emptiness." The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, explaining this, says, "form is birth-and-death, emptiness is nirvāṇa; the limit of birth-and-death and the limit of nirvāṇa are one and the same, with no second." Is this not itself the interfusion of the defiled and the pure together? Again it says, "every dharma tends toward form and desire, tends toward anger, tends toward delusion, and every kind of view" — is this not itself the mark of this same interfusion? The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says, "every affliction of worldly toil is itself the Tathāgata's own seed. Not cutting off delusion and craving, and yet giving rise to every kind of illumination and liberation, practicing what is not the path, and yet penetrating through to the buddha-path" — how does this same interfusion differ at all from the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and so on?

This sixfold and this fivefold classification are both opened up simply by leaning upon the fourfold classification, and yet the fourfold classification itself has no textual basis at all — some say it derives from the Sūtra of the Crown-King, which says, "first teaching that every dharma is empty through causes and conditions, and then teaching every disciple the constantly abiding dharma of the one vehicle." Yet "every dharma is empty" ought not to be the doctrine of provisional names at all, and "the one vehicle, constantly abiding" ought not to be the shared teaching's own deceptive mark at all. Others say that this sūtra itself was never actually translated at all. Since the fourfold classification is already like this, the fivefold and sixfold classifications, opened up and established by relying upon it, are all, alike, difficult to trust or put to any use.

Next, raising a difficulty against the Mahāyāna of marks and the Mahāyāna of no marks: marked and unmarked ought not to be spoken of as strictly separate at all. Why is this? Originally, on the basis of the true, one discusses the mundane; and, in turn, on the basis of the mundane, one discusses the true — the person of complete wisdom, taking the unconditioned dharma as his basis, nonetheless distinguishes differences within it. Though the Avataṃsaka discusses the ten grounds, when has it ever failed to speak in terms of the Dharma-body? Though the Laṅkāvatāra and the Sūtra of Contemplating the Mind Ground discuss emptiness, when have they ever failed to teach the forbearance of non-arising? If one uses marks alone, and purely so, then marks have no essence of their own at all — what, then, would such a teaching actually convey? Nor could the path be attained by it. If one uses no marks alone, and purely so, then this same absence of marks, truly quiescent, cutting off all words and departing from every mark, the path of language itself severed, the sphere of mental activity itself extinguished — this could then no longer even be called a teaching at all — how, then, could it possibly be spoken? And if it is said that this, too, is a teaching, then a teaching is itself already a mark — in what sense, then, could it be called the absence of marks? Within the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, Subhūti asks: if every dharma, in the final analysis, has no existence whatsoever, how, then, can there be talk of a first ground, on up to a tenth ground? The Buddha answers: it is precisely because every dharma, in the final analysis, has no existence whatsoever that there can be a bodhisattva's first ground, on up to the tenth ground; were every dharma to possess some fixed, determinate nature of its own, there could then be no first ground, nor any ground on up to the tenth, at all. One thereby knows that these two kinds of Mahāyāna, spoken of as strictly separate, contradict the sūtra itself, and so on.

Next, raising a difficulty against the single-voice teaching: to say only "the one Mahāyāna, with no difference among the three" is to see only real wisdom, and not to see provisional wisdom at all. If it were the Mahāyāna alone, why, then, does the Lotus Sūtra say, "were I to praise the buddha-vehicle alone, sentient beings, sunk in suffering, breaking the dharma and unable to believe it, would fall into the three evil paths — I then thought, at that very moment, of skillful means instead, and every buddha rejoiced"? One thereby knows that this is by no means the Mahāyāna teaching alone. If it were purely and solely the one vehicle, then the elder's own body, too, ought to have remained purely and solely as it was — yet, since it already possesses a body clothed in filthy garments, this itself already carries a difference between great and lesser teaching; how, then, could one confusedly classify this all as a single voice, and thereby lose sight of skillful means entirely? If it is said that the Buddha constantly teaches the one vehicle, while sentient beings themselves see three — then, in that case, sentient beings would be the ones doing the transforming, and the Buddha would be the one transformed. Yet, since the Buddha is himself the one who does the transforming, he ought, correspondingly, to be able to teach the three vehicles as well — how, then, could only the one vehicle be used? If this is said only of the Lotus, which is purely one, this would be acceptable. Yet even the Avataṃsaka, with its own back-and-forth movement through the five regions of India, likewise opens a separate skillful means for bodhisattvas of dull faculties — how much more, then, must this be true of every other sūtra? One thereby knows that the single-voice teaching possesses only the one great cart, with no attendants, no skillful means, no guards in escort at all — possessing only the perfection of wisdom, and not the perfection of skillful means, and so on.

Fourth, researching and considering in detail what to accept and reject: examining the real is called researching; examining the provisional is called considering; and matching what fits the marks of the dharma is called accepting and rejecting.

As for the five-period classification of the teachings: it grasps the text of the Five Flavors' own skillful means, and yet loses the true and real meaning of the one path. Though it grasps the text itself, its own pairing of that text loses the point entirely — the text itself may be used in common by everyone, but this particular pairing ought to be set aside.

As for the claim that the period before the twelve years clarifies the teaching of marks: this grasps only one of the four gates of the lesser vehicle, and loses the other three. Why is this? The Tripiṭaka teaching has four gates for attaining the path: some attain the path by seeing existence, as in the Abhidharma; some attain the path by seeing emptiness, as in the Chengshi Lun; some attain the path by seeing both existence and emptiness together, as in the Kalanda; some attain the path by seeing neither emptiness nor existence, as in the Vinaya of Chariot. One thereby knows that sentient beings each enter the true dharma-jewel of nirvāṇa through every kind of gate — if one wishes to raise a single gate as representative of all four, one ought properly to speak of "the Tripiṭaka teaching" as a whole; if one wishes to explain it broadly, one ought to establish all four gates in full — why, then, single-mindedly retain only the gate of marks, losing the other three entirely? This misleads later students, and turns emptiness and existence into a matter of dispute. If a bodhisattva within the Tripiṭaka teaching must broadly study all four gates, penetrating every kind of skillful means, then, upon later attaining buddhahood, he is named "correctly and universally aware." If one designates only the teaching of marks, one grasps only the single gate of the śrāvaka who attains the path by seeing existence, entirely losing the other three gates on the path into nirvāṇa — this then leaves a gap in the very meaning of the lesser vehicle itself. If one has only marks, one knows only this one gate alone, in a one-sided way, without understanding the other three gates — this is not "correctly and universally aware" at all, and leaves a gap in the very meaning of the bodhisattva. What is lost, in this scheme, is the greater part, and so it must be discarded; what is gained is the lesser part, retaining only this one gate alone.

As for the period after the twelve years, said to clarify the teaching of no marks: "no marks," here, grasps only the shared Perfection of Wisdom, and loses the unshared Perfection of Wisdom. The shared Perfection of Wisdom has four gates: "like an illusion, like a magical creation, yet existent" is the gate of existence; "illusion and magical creation are themselves nonexistent" is the gate of emptiness; "illusion and magical creation exist, and yet do not exist" is the gate of both emptiness and existence together; and "neither illusion nor magical creation" is the gate of neither emptiness nor existence. If it is said that the Perfection of Wisdom is "no marks," this grasps only the shared Perfection of Wisdom's single gate of emptiness, entirely losing the other three gates, and likewise losing the seven gates of the unshared teaching as well. This falls short even of "correctly and universally aware" while still on the causal path, how much more so of "correctly and universally aware" upon the fruit of buddhahood itself. What is lost here should be set aside; what is gained should be retained, and so on.

As for the claim regarding the third period, that it restrains and humbles the śrāvaka while praising and exalting the bodhisattva: this grasps only the single kind of censuring the lesser śrāvaka, entirely losing the other seven kinds of śrāvaka; it grasps only the single sense of manifesting the great, entirely failing to restrain and humble the various one-sided bodhisattvas while praising and exalting the utterly perfect bodhisattva, and likewise failing to restrain and humble the various provisional bodhisattvas while praising and exalting the real bodhisattva. Again, it fails to recognize the fourfold gate of the one-sided, the perfect, the provisional, and the real at all — what it grasps is little, and what it fails to grasp is much.

As for the claim regarding the fourth period, the teaching of the common return: this grasps only the name "every wholesome deed returns in common to the one vehicle," without grasping the actual place to which every wholesome deed returns in common in the one vehicle. This "place" is itself precisely buddha-nature — the common return to constant abiding, and the rest. It grasps only the gathering of the three into the one, without grasping the gathering of the five into the one, nor the gathering of the seven into the one; it grasps only the return to the one, without grasping the return to buddha-nature's own constant abiding — faults of exactly this kind are present here, and so on.

As for the fifth period: if constant abiding is discussed on the basis of the two truths, then it is not, in fact, constant abiding at all; if it is not discussed on the basis of the two truths, then there is nothing left open to objection. Though that scheme clarifies constancy, it entirely loses "neither constancy nor impermanence" and the dual function of using both constancy and impermanence together — it grasps only one of the four techniques, entirely losing the other seven, and, moreover, fails to grasp its own correct essence at all, and so on.

As for the four-period and three-period teachings: they have no text to rely upon, no reality to base themselves on — whether advanced or set aside, there is nothing in them worth accepting at all, and so on.

The Northern five-period scheme likewise has no textual basis, and likewise loses the real meaning — what within it should be accepted or rejected may be understood by the same pattern as above. The half-and-full teaching grasps the real meaning, but loses the meaning of skillful means. The fourfold classification by doctrine loses the meaning of the Five Flavors' own skillful means, and, moreover, loses the real meaning as well. The fivefold and sixfold classifications follow this same pattern. The two kinds of Mahāyāna teaching set the provisional and the real at odds with each other, father and mother estranged from one another — how, then, could any guiding teacher ever be born from them? If the provisional is severed from the real, it lacks the seal of the real mark, and becomes the teaching of Māra himself; if the real is severed from the provisional, it can never be taught or shown to anyone at all. The single-voice teaching grasps the real but loses the provisional — like a widower or a widow, unable to sustain a household, forever without descendants.

The various schools' own explanations of the teachings differ from one another in every kind of way — each, alike, being the teachers of their own particular age, each, individually, claiming to have reached some profound insight of their own. As time passed and these views spread further, their meanings, too, became increasingly mixed and confused, and later worthies, clinging emotionally to their own positions, fell into idle, tangled disputes with one another — this is why, above, difficulties were first researched, and, next, what to accept and reject is now discussed, so that the general sense might be briefly understood, and so on.

If the illness alone is removed, exactly as has been explained above, and the dharma itself is not removed, then its use will differ accordingly. In what way does its use differ? "Marks" should be used to mean all four gates together in full; "no marks" should be used to mean all eight gates, shared and unshared together. "Censure and praise" should be used to mean censuring the lesser and praising the great, censuring the one-sided and praising the perfect, censuring the provisional and praising the real. "Common return" should be used to mean the common return to the one vehicle, to constant abiding and buddha-nature, to the ultimate and perfect direction. "Constant abiding" should be used to mean neither constancy nor impermanence, the dual use of both constancy and impermanence together, the two birds roaming together, all eight techniques complete. As for the use of the Five Flavors, their own sequence follows the text itself, to be explained further below. As for the use of the Trapuṣa and Bhallika Sūtra, this, too, is by no means merely the vehicle of humans and devas alone. As for the use of "half and full," there are five formulations: the full itself; opening the full to establish the half; breaking the half to clarify the full; the full carried alongside the half; and the full with the half abolished. As for the use of "causes and conditions" and "provisional names," these are simply two gates within the Tripiṭaka teaching. As for the use of "the deceptive mark," this is simply one gate within the shared teaching. As for the use of "the true," this is simply constancy; and constancy is simply the true. "The dharma-realm" does not belong to the Avataṃsaka alone; "the doctrine of the perfect" does not point one-sidedly to the Mahāsaṃnipāta alone. As for the use of "marks" and "no marks," marks should be used to clarify no marks, and no marks should be used to clarify marks — the two are never separate from each other. As for the use of "the single voice," there is an understanding of wisdom accompanied by skillful means, and an understanding of skillful means accompanied by wisdom. Even where the same names are provisionally retained, their manner of use here differs entirely from before, and so on.

Fifth, classifying the marks of the teaching: this is treated under six points: first, raising the great outline; second, citing three proof-texts; third, the Five Flavors and the half-and-full mutually completing each other; fourth, clarifying combination and non-combination; fifth, resolving doubts, common and particular; sixth, clarifying the teaching through increasing numbers.

First, the great outline has three kinds: first, the sudden; second, the gradual; third, the indeterminate. These three names are the same as the old ones, though their meaning differs, and so on. Explaining these same three teachings now, each is given two interpretations: first, an interpretation in terms of the gate of teaching; second, an interpretation in terms of the gate of contemplation. The gate of teaching is for the practitioner of faith, and, further, constitutes the meaning of hearing; the gate of contemplation is for the practitioner of the dharma, and, further, constitutes the meaning of wisdom. When hearing and wisdom are both complete, it is like a person possessing eyes, upon whom the sun's own bright light shines, seeing every kind of form — fully as in the verse of the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, and so on.

First, in terms of the teaching: as with the Avataṃsaka's own teaching across seven places and eight assemblies, likened to "when the sun rises, it illuminates the high mountains first." Within the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, "smelling only the campaka flower." Within the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, teaching "the unshared Perfection of Wisdom." The Lotus says, "teaching only the unsurpassed path," and, again, "as soon as they first saw my body and heard what I taught, all of them, at once, believed and accepted it, entering the Tathāgata's own wisdom" — "whenever I encounter sentient beings, I teach them, entirely, by means of the buddha-path." The twenty-seventh fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "on the snow mountain there is a grass named forbearance — if the cow eats it, it then produces ghee." Again it says, "when I first attained buddhahood, bodhisattvas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges already came to ask about this same meaning, no different from yourself." Every Mahāyāna sūtra that carries this same sense and meaning, by the same pattern, is named, alike, a sudden mark of teaching — not a "sudden teaching" as a fixed period of the canon.

Second, the gradual mark of teaching: as the thirteenth fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "from the Buddha come the twelve divisions of scripture; from the twelve divisions of scripture comes the sūtra-division; from the sūtra-division come the Vaipulya sūtras; from the Vaipulya sūtras comes the Perfection of Wisdom; from the Perfection of Wisdom comes the Mahāparinirvāṇa." A sense such as this is itself precisely the gradual mark of teaching.

Again, beginning from humans and devas, then the two lesser vehicles, then the bodhisattva, and finally the buddha-path, is likewise the gradual. Again, entering by sequential stages throughout the interval is likewise the gradual, and so on.

Third, the indeterminate teaching: this has no separate dharma of its own — simply on the basis of the sudden and the gradual, its own meaning becomes self-evident. Now, relying on the twenty-seventh fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which says, "poison placed within milk kills a person outright; within cream, curdled butter, clarified butter, and ghee, it is likewise able to kill a person" — this refers to one who, at the place of a buddha of the past, once heard the Mahāyāna teaching of the real mark, here likened to poison. Now, encountering Śākyamuni's own vocal teaching, that same poison is triggered, binding delusion and causing the person's death. As with the Trapuṣa and Bhallika Sūtra: though hearing only the five precepts, without giving rise to the forbearance of the dharma — yet three hundred persons attain the forbearance of faith, the four heavenly kings attain the pliant forbearance, all of them taking the medicine of lasting joy, wearing the talisman of long life, abiding within the precepts, and seeing the mother of every buddha — this is precisely "killing a person within the milk."

"Killing a person within cream": as the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "teaching has two kinds: first, the openly revealed teaching; second, the secret teaching." The openly revealed teaching is this: at the first turning of the Dharma-wheel, the five monks and eighty thousand devas attained the pure Dharma-eye. Within the secret teaching, immeasurable bodhisattvas attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas. This is the poison, having reached the cream stage, still able to kill a person. "Killing a person within curdled butter": there are bodhisattvas who, within the Vaipulya Mahāyāna teaching, come to see buddha-nature and abide within the great nirvāṇa — this is precisely this same sense. "Killing a person within clarified butter": there are bodhisattvas who, within the teaching of the Great Perfection of Wisdom, come to see buddha-nature — this is precisely this same sense. "Killing a person within ghee": as within the teaching of the Mahāparinirvāṇa, śrāvakas of dull faculty open and bring forth the eye of wisdom, coming to see buddha-nature, on up to pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas of dull faculty passing through the seven kinds of skillful means, all, without exception, entering ultimate nirvāṇa — this is precisely this same sense. This is named the indeterminate mark of teaching — not an "indeterminate teaching" as a fixed period of the canon.

Second, clarifying the meaning in terms of the gate of contemplation: first, the perfect and sudden contemplation — from the very first arousal of the intent to awaken, one already contemplates the real mark, cultivates the four kinds of samādhi, and practices the eightfold noble path, thereby opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision at the very site of enlightenment itself, attaining the forbearance of non-arising. It is like the cow eating the grass of forbearance and thereby directly producing ghee — its full meaning is set out completely in the Mohe Zhiguan, and so on.

Second, the gradual, sequential contemplation: from the very first arousal of the intent to awaken, for the sake of the perfect and ultimate goal, one cultivates the twelve gates of ānāpāna meditation — this is itself the fundamental practice. Hence it is said, "the ordinary person is like milk mixed with blood." Next, one cultivates the six wondrous gates, the sixteen special excellences, contemplation, refinement, permeation, cultivation, and the rest, on up through the factors of the path, the contemplation of the four noble truths, and the rest — this is itself the dharma of the śrāvaka, like the practice of pure milk. Next, one cultivates the contemplation of the twelve links, this being itself the pratyekabuddha, like the practice of cream. Next, one cultivates the four universal vows and the six perfections, the phenomenal and principial dharmas practiced by bodhisattvas of the shared and Tripiṭaka teachings, all of them, alike, like the practice of curdled butter. Next, one cultivates the practice practiced by bodhisattvas of the distinct teaching, all of it, alike, like clarified butter — hence it is said, "the bodhisattva is like clarified butter." Next, one cultivates the self-nature dhyāna, entering every kind of dhyāna, on up to the perfectly pure dhyāna — these dharma-gates, one and all, are able to see buddha-nature, abide within the great nirvāṇa, the true and the responsive both fulfilled in full — hence this is named the practice of ghee.

If one discusses the sense of the Five Flavors precisely in terms of the bodhisattva's own stages, this has already been distinguished above, within the wondrous of practice, and is likewise set out in the Cidi Chanmen — this is named the gradual, sequential contemplation.

The indeterminate contemplation: one who, at the place of a buddha of the past, deeply planted wholesome roots, now cultivating and realizing the twelve gates, suddenly opens to awakening, attaining the forbearance of non-arising — this is precisely "the poison within the milk," itself already able to kill a person. If one sits and realizes the contemplation of impurity, the nine perceptions, the ten perceptions, the eight liberations, the eight bases of mastery, the contemplation of the four noble truths with effort, and the rest, and, through this same meditative concentration, suddenly the mind opens and understanding dawns, attaining the forbearance of non-arising — this is precisely "the poison, having reached the cream, kills a person." If a person gives rise to the four private vows, cultivates the six perfections, embodies the provisional to enter emptiness, contemplates the four noble truths as unarisen, and suddenly awakens to understanding, attaining the forbearance of non-arising — this is precisely "the poison, having reached the curdled butter, kills a person." If a person cultivates the six perfections, cultivates emerging from emptiness into the provisional, cultivates the contemplation of the four noble truths as immeasurable, and suddenly the mind awakens, attaining the forbearance of non-arising — this is "the poison, having reached the clarified butter, kills a person." If one sits in meditation, cultivating the correct contemplation of the middle way's own self-nature and the rest of these same dhyānas, studying the four noble truths as uncontrived, practicing the Lotus Samādhi, the Pratyutpanna Samādhi, and the rest of the four kinds of samādhi, and suddenly the mind awakens, attaining the forbearance of non-arising — this is precisely "killing a person within the practice of ghee."

Now, distinguishing the two practices of faith and dharma, clarifying the Buddha's own dharma, each is given three senses, passing through every one of the teachings given above — there is not a single item among them that does not differ from every other dharma-master's own reading. If one wishes to cultivate meditation and study the path, passing through every one of the contemplations given above, for the sake of the practitioner of the dharma, expounding the dharma for settling the mind — there is not a single item among them that is the same as any worldly meditation-master's own teaching. This is named briefly pointing out the general sense of teaching and contemplation, broadly encompassing the whole of the Buddha's own dharma.

Second, citing three proof-texts: namely, the "Skillful Means" chapter, the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, and the "Faith Discernment" chapter. The "Skillful Means" chapter says: "when I first sat at the site of enlightenment, gazing at the tree, and also walking in meditation, throughout three times seven days, I reflected on this very matter: the wisdom I myself had attained was subtle and wondrous, supreme above all, and yet the faculties of sentient beings are dull — how, then, could they possibly be delivered by it? I would rather not teach the Dharma at all, and swiftly enter nirvāṇa. Then, calling to mind the skillful means once practiced by buddhas of the past, I resolved that the path I myself had now attained ought likewise to be taught as three vehicles."

"When I first sat at the site of enlightenment" is itself a clarification of the sudden. Why is this? Descending from Tuṣita heaven, his Dharma-body's own retinue, like clouds enveloping the moon, together descended into the maternal womb; that womb, like empty space itself, constantly taught the wondrous Dharma, on up to the site of quiescent enlightenment, first attaining complete awakening, and, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, teaching purely and solely the Mahāyāna — like the sun's own first rising, illuminating the high mountains first. This clarifies Śākyamuni's own very first, sudden teaching.

The "Introduction" chapter says, "the Buddha released light from between his brows, universally illuminating eighteen thousand lands to the east, revealing the sagely, lion-like lord, expounding the dharma of the sūtras, subtle and wondrous, supreme above all, teaching the bodhisattvas." Next it says, "if there are those who encounter suffering ... he teaches them nirvāṇa, exhausting the very limit of every suffering." This is itself the present buddha, first sudden and afterward gradual. Again, Mañjuśrī, resolving the doubt, cites the buddhas of the past as likewise doing exactly the same. The text says, "again, I see every tathāgata, of themselves, attaining the buddha-path; the World-Honored One, amid the great assembly, expounds the profound meaning of the Dharma." Next it says, "within each and every one of these buddha-lands, the assembly of śrāvakas is beyond number." This is itself the buddhas of old, first sudden and afterward gradual. Again, the bodhisattvas emerging from beneath the earth pay their respects and inquire, and the Buddha answers, saying, "just so! just so! these sentient beings are easy to deliver — as soon as they first saw my body and heard what I taught, all of them, at once, believed and accepted it, entering the Tathāgata's own wisdom. Excepting only those who had formerly cultivated and studied the lesser vehicle — even these, I now likewise cause to hear this sūtra and enter the Buddha's own wisdom." This is itself Śākyamuni, first sudden and afterward gradual.

This kind of "sudden at first" does not necessarily mean teaching only the Dharma-body bodhisattvas purely and solely — there are also ordinary beings of great capacity here as well. This carries two senses at once: for one who, in the very substance itself, awakens through the perfect and sudden teaching, this is itself ghee. For a person at the very outset of the mind of awakening, though hearing this same great teaching, only just entering the ten stages of faith, this is the very first of the flavors — being first, it is able to give rise to what comes after, and is, in this respect, milk instead. Why is this? Though it is called sudden, some are urgent in both vehicle and precept together, while others are lax in precept but urgent in vehicle — beings born through karma of this kind are unable, of themselves, to reach it directly, and must necessarily be born in response, drawn into the seven places and eight assemblies. Great capacity knocking upon the Buddha is likened to the grass of forbearance; the perfect response, suddenly taught, is likened to the production of ghee. Again, the sudden teaching, at its very outset, is when one first enters the stage of the "inner ordinary person" — and this, too, is still called milk. The reason it is called milk is not because of any thinness in flavor, but because it is first, and because it is fundamental.

It is like a cow newly giving birth: its blood transforms into milk, pure and undefiled within the body — as soon as the calf suckles, the cow produces milk. The Buddha, too, is exactly the same: first seated at the site of enlightenment, newly attaining complete awakening, the blood of ignorance and the rest is transformed into illumination, the eighty thousand dharma-treasuries and twelve divisions of scripture all complete within the Dharma-body — the calf of great capacity, sensing this first, obtains the milk. Milk, being the very first of all the flavors, is a metaphor for the sudden teaching standing at the head of every teaching — hence the Avataṃsaka is taken as milk. Distinguished under the threefold teaching, it is named the sudden teaching, and is likewise itself ghee. Distinguished under the Five Flavors, it is named the milk teaching.

Again, in terms of practice: great capacity, receiving the sudden teaching, thereby breaks through ignorance and attains the forbearance of non-arising — this practice is like ghee. Again, though receiving this same sudden teaching, one not yet able to awaken and enter it, only just beginning to establish this same practice — this practice, too, is therefore like milk. And, considered from the standpoint of a person of lesser capacity, this practice, too, is again like milk. Why is this? The great teaching, measured against the lesser capacity, is like deafness, like muteness — not within the scope of one's own wisdom at all, this practice remaining at the ordinary person's own stage, entirely raw, and therefore like milk. For this reason, the sudden teaching, standing at the very outset, is named both ghee and milk at once — its own sense can thereby be seen clearly.

Next, opening the gradual: the Buddha originally intended, by means of the Mahāyāna, to deliver sentient beings; for those unable to bear this, he then thought of skillful means, proceeded to Vārāṇasī, and, within the one-vehicle path, distinguished and taught the three — this is itself the opening of the Tripiṭaka teaching. It is by no means only Śākyamuni who conceals his own immeasurable spiritual virtue in order to carry out this same gradual transformation; the buddhas of the past and present likewise do exactly the same. As already cited above, one should know that, after the sudden teaching comes first, the gradual is next opened. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "from the Buddha comes the twelve divisions of scripture; from the twelve divisions comes the sūtra-division" — this exactly corresponds to this same sense. It is likened to the cow producing milk, and the milk producing cream — this simile is in no way at odds with it. A hearer of gradual capacity, not yet transformed by the sudden teaching, remains entirely raw, like milk; transformed within the Tripiṭaka teaching, changing from an ordinary being into a sage, this is likened to milk changing into cream — this is itself a sequential arising, one stage from the next, constituting the second-period teaching; this simile is not meant to convey any judgment of thickness or thinness, superiority or inferiority. The text of the "Skillful Means" chapter runs exactly this far.

Next, citing the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings as proof: the text says, "with the buddha-eye, I observe every dharma, and it cannot be fully proclaimed in words. Why is this? Because the natures and desires of sentient beings are not the same." Since natures and desires are not the same, every kind of teaching is given; the wording is one and the same, and yet the meaning differs from case to case — because the meaning differs, sentient beings' own understanding differs; and because their understanding differs, what dharma, what fruit, and what path they attain likewise differ. At first, teaching the four noble truths for the sake of those who seek the śrāvaka path — and yet eight hundred million devas came down to hear the Dharma, giving rise to the intent of awakening. In the middle, everywhere teaching the profound twelve links of dependent origination, for the sake of those who seek the pratyekabuddha path. Next, teaching the Vaipulya's own twelve divisions of scripture, the Great Perfection of Wisdom, and the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness, proclaiming the bodhisattva's own cultivation of practice throughout many kalpas — and yet hundreds of thousands of monks, and immeasurable sentient beings, gave rise to the intent of awakening, while some remained as śrāvakas, and myriads of koṭis of humans and devas attained stream-entry, on up to arhatship, or remained as pratyekabuddhas.

"With the buddha-eye, I observe every dharma" is itself the sudden dharma standing at the beginning; the four noble truths and the twelve links are themselves the gradual that follows next. According to this text, once the Tripiṭaka teaching has been taught in full, the Vaipulya's own twelve divisions of scripture are taught next. The reason the great is taught next, after the lesser: the Buddha originally intended to bestow the great teaching, but sentient beings were unable to bear it, and so, drawing the great teaching back and bringing forth the lesser instead, he caused them to cut off their fetters and become sages — though this benefit did indeed occur, it was by no means the Buddha's own original intent. Next, teaching the Vaipulya, the Vimalakīrti, the Sūtra of Contemplating the Mind Ground, and the Aṅgulimālīya, censuring and rebuking the lesser vehicle's own perverse clinging to its fruit, and mocking and criticizing the Tripiṭaka's own mistaken view of total cessation. Hence Śāriputra and Subhūti, bound wholly within the Tripiṭaka teaching, devoted solely to the lesser, had, at first, never once heard of the Mahāyāna's own majestic virtue — some, utterly bewildered, cast aside their almsbowls; others, terrified, brushed away the flowers — not knowing what these words could even mean, not knowing how they might possibly answer them.

Yet, though the Vaipulya's own censuring and rebuking teaching stands after the Tripiṭaka teaching in this sequence, the actual moment of being rebuked ought to belong to the period before the twelve years. How can this be known? Because, in every case, it is a matter of recounting a past censure, evidence that this event lies in the past. Why is this? Because they had already received the teaching and attained the path beforehand, having already realized the stage beyond further study, deeply grateful for the Buddha's own kindness, their minds now trusting him utterly, they no longer felt anger or resentment. From that past time up to the present, they freely bear the Aṅgulimālīya's own mockery and submit to the Vimalakīrti's own reproach, thereby gaining the benefit of feeling shame at the lesser and longing for the great — likened to boiling cream to make curdled butter. This is precisely this same sense. Relying on the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, one thereby comes to know that the Vaipulya stands after the Tripiṭaka teaching, constituting the third-period teaching.

Relying on the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, which says, "next teaching the Great Perfection of Wisdom, the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness, and cultivation of practice throughout many kalpas" — this stands after the Vaipulya and clarifies the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra sometimes teaches impermanence and non-self, sometimes teaches emptiness, sometimes teaches neither arising nor ceasing — in every case, passing through form and mind on up to the wisdom of all modes, phrase by phrase turning the discussion around, clarifying the dharma of cultivated practice — this is itself the very sense of "cultivation of practice throughout many kalpas." Again, the saying "hundreds of thousands of monks, myriads of koṭis of humans and devas attain stream-entry and arhatship, and remain as pratyekabuddhas" is evidence that this is the shared Perfection of Wisdom. As for the saying "the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness" — if this were taken to mean the Avataṃsaka taught at the site of quiescent enlightenment, this would not fit the proper sequence at all. Now, relying on the Faxing Lun, which says, "the bodhisattva of dull faculty enters the dharma-realm at three places: first, through the Perfection of Wisdom; next, through the Lotus; and, last, through the Mahāparinirvāṇa" — entering the dharma-realm by means of the Perfection of Wisdom is itself this same "ocean of emptiness" spoken of as the Avataṃsaka's own.

Again, the Avataṃsaka's own period was long, and, at that time, the lesser capacity was not yet able to enter it, being like deafness, like muteness; now, hearing the Perfection of Wisdom, this same capacity is able to enter at last — this is precisely this same sense. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra runs in common through persons of all three vehicles, and so the four fruits can be attained within it; the Avataṃsaka excludes the lesser vehicle entirely, and so this sense is absent from it. Hence, after the Vaipulya, the Perfection of Wisdom is taught next, constituting the fourth-period teaching.

Further, as for speaking of the flavor of clarified butter: being commanded to teach in turn, taking charge of and coming to know every belonging, the mind gradually becoming open and at ease, knowing of itself that the firefly's own light cannot compare to the sun's, this feeling of reverent submission deepens all the more — like curdled butter, in turn, becoming clarified butter. Again, explaining "after the Perfection of Wisdom, clarifying the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness" — this is itself the perfect and sudden teaching of the Lotus. Why is this? At the time of first attaining the path, the perfect and sudden was taught purely and solely; for those who did not yet understand it, their great capacity not yet ripe, the Tripiṭaka, Vaipulya, and Prajñā teachings winnowed and refined them, ripening them to maturity, sharpening their faculties, and removing their obstructions, until, finally able to bear the perfect and sudden teaching, the Lotus is then taught, opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, causing them to enter the dharma-realm — equal to the Avataṃsaka itself, this being precisely the entering spoken of within the Faxing Lun. Hence the text below says, "as soon as they first saw my body ... entering the Tathāgata's own wisdom." Now, hearing this sūtra, and entering the Buddha's own wisdom — the earlier and the later buddha-wisdom, in their perfect and sudden meaning, being equal to each other — hence, after the Perfection of Wisdom, the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness is taught, equal to the Lotus itself, this likewise constituting the fifth-period teaching.

Further, as for speaking of ghee: this stands after every other flavor. The Mahāparinirvāṇa is called ghee; this present sūtra is named "the great king's own feast" — one thereby knows that both sūtras, alike, are ghee. Again, the buddha Candrasūryapradīpa, having finished teaching the Lotus Sūtra, that very same night proclaimed his entry into nirvāṇa. That buddha's own single teaching-career first taught the Avataṃsaka and afterward taught the Lotus. At the time of the buddha Kāśyapa, it was likewise exactly the same — in neither case is the Mahāparinirvāṇa clarified at all, and, in both, the Lotus alone is taken as the final teaching, the final flavor. The present Buddha, having ripened the earlier group of persons, takes the Lotus as ghee for them; and, further ripening the later group of persons, once more takes up the Perfection of Wisdom to winnow and refine them, only then bringing them into the Mahāparinirvāṇa — and, for these persons, in turn, takes the Mahāparinirvāṇa as the final teaching, the final flavor. It is likened to a farming household: what is planted first ripens first and is harvested first; what is planted late ripens late and is harvested late. The Lotus's own eight thousand śrāvakas, and the immeasurable bodhisattvas who sacrificed their own lives, are themselves the fruit that ripens first, harvested within the Lotus itself, with nothing further left to be done. As for the five thousand who rose of their own accord and left the assembly, and the humans and devas who were shifted elsewhere, all of these, alike, ripen later, harvested within the Mahāparinirvāṇa instead. For this very reason, it is said, "from the Great Perfection of Wisdom comes the great nirvāṇa" — this is itself the sequence for the later group. Relying on the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, which says, "the Great Perfection of Wisdom, next the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness" — this is itself the sequence for the earlier group, within the Lotus itself.

Question: how can it be known that those of dull faculty do not enter through the Lotus itself, and must, instead, once more make use of the Perfection of Wisdom to winnow and refine them?

Answer: the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom asks: why does Subhūti ask once again whether the bodhisattva is finally settled or not yet finally settled? It answers: Subhūti, having already heard, within the Lotus, that the bodhisattvas receive their own prediction of buddhahood, now, within the Perfection of Wisdom, asks once again whether they are finally settled or not yet finally settled. One should thereby know that, after the Lotus, the Perfection of Wisdom is clarified once again.

Third, citing the "Faith Discernment" chapter, where the four great śrāvakas' own expression of understanding of the teaching proves the sequence: the text says, "his father, having formerly searched for his son without success, had settled partway in a certain city; that household was extremely wealthy, possessing many servants, and ministers, officials, and retainers besides, in great number."

"At that time, the poor and destitute son happened to arrive at his father's own house, and, swiftly fleeing, ran away; the father then sent men after him, urgently pursuing him and bringing him back. The poor son, startled and alarmed, cried out in protest, shouting that he was innocent and yet was being seized and bound, certain that this meant death. The father said to his men, 'there is no need for this man — do not force him to come back.'" What sense does this express? It expresses the moment of first attaining buddhahood at the site of quiescent enlightenment, surrounded by the Dharma-body's own great beings, the retinue of the forty-one grounds, teaching the perfect and sudden gate — at that time, offering the great teaching to the son, his capacity fainted away entirely. One should thereby know that, when the Buddha's own sun first rose, the sudden teaching opened first — likened to the cow, which must first produce milk.

"At that time, the elder, wishing to draw his son in gradually, employed a skillful means, secretly sending two men, haggard and worn in appearance, without any imposing dignity: 'go to him, and gently say to the poor son, "we will hire you to clear away dung."' He then removed his own necklace of jewels and put on soiled, filthy garments, and, by means of this same skillful means, was able to draw near to his son." What sense does this express? This expresses the moment, right after the sudden teaching, of concealing Vairocana's own majestic virtue and marks of excellence, taking on the appearance of an aged monk, teaching the doctrine of the Tripiṭaka, causing him, for twenty years, to constantly clear away dung, receiving each day's own wage — this is itself the sūtra-division coming forth after the twelve divisions of scripture; at that time, view and thought had already been cut off, the mind, free of outflow, becoming pure — likened to cream coming forth from milk.

"Again, after this time had passed, their minds came to trust one another, entering and leaving without difficulty; yet the son's own dwelling still remained where it had been before." What sense does this express? It clarifies that, after the Tripiṭaka teaching, the Vaipulya is taught next: having already attained the fruit of the path, their minds now trusting one another, hearing the great teaching is named "entering," while abiding within the lesser is named "leaving," and the bitter words of censure and rebuke are named "without difficulty." Again, advancing within the house itself is named "entering" — entering, and seeing the assembled ministers and noble clans, their great power of merit, hearing the jeweled-torch dhāraṇī, and witnessing the inconceivable liberation's own spiritual transformations — hence it is named "entering." "Leaving" means still lodging within the grass hut, the state of the two lesser vehicles being named "leaving." "Their minds came to trust one another": having already attained arhatship, hearing themselves reviled and yet feeling no anger, inwardly ashamed, not daring to use the śrāvaka's or pratyekabuddha's own dharma to teach others — their minds gradually ripening to maturity, like curdled butter coming forth from cream. This is named the sūtra-division giving rise to the Vaipulya sūtras, constituting the third-period teaching.

"At that time, the elder fell ill, and, knowing of himself that death was not far off, said to the poor son: 'I now possess great quantities of gold, silver, and every kind of precious treasure, my storehouses filled to overflowing — as to how much of this there is, and how it should be given and received, you are to take charge.' The poor son, receiving this command, took charge of and came to know every one of these belongings, and yet had no desire to take even a single meal's worth for himself; his own dwelling still remained where it had been before." What sense does this express? After the Vaipulya, the Perfection of Wisdom is taught next. The Perfection of Wisdom's own contemplative wisdom is itself the family estate; passing through name-and-form on up to the wisdom of all modes is itself "every one of these belongings." Subhūti and the rest, teaching in turn, is itself "taking charge of and coming to know." Yet, since this was taught only for the sake of the bodhisattvas, and they themselves did not practice or realize it, they had no fear of taking it for themselves — this is itself the Vaipulya sūtras giving rise to the Great Perfection of Wisdom. Through this, they came to recognize the great being's own dharma-gate, extinguishing and breaking through their own ignorance — likened to clarified butter coming forth from curdled butter. This constitutes the fourth-period teaching.

"After a further short time had passed, the father, knowing his son's own mind to have gradually become open and at ease, and, on the point of death, summoned his son, together with his own relatives and clan, and himself proclaimed: 'this is, in reality, my own son; I am, in reality, his father; everything I now possess is, entirely, this son's own.' He then entrusted him with the family estate, and the poor son rejoiced, attaining what he had never before experienced." What sense does this express? This is itself, after the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lotus being taught next. Having already, earlier, taken charge of and come to know every item in the storehouse, there is now no further need to explain anything — one need only entrust him with the estate itself, and that is all. This is likened to the earlier teaching-in-turn, wherein they already knew the dharma-gate in full, and there was no need to expound the method of contemplation once more, but simply to break through the grass hut directly, bestow the one great cart, and confer the prediction of buddhahood — is this not itself clearly seeing buddha-nature and abiding within the great nirvāṇa? Hence it is said, "from the Great Perfection of Wisdom comes the great nirvāṇa" — at this time, ignorance is broken through, the principle of the middle way is revealed, the mind itself bright and clear, like pure ghee — this is itself clarified butter, in turn, becoming ghee, constituting the fifth-period teaching.

These Five Flavors of teaching temper and ripen one continuous group of sentient beings of gradual capacity — as with Śāriputra and the other great śrāvakas, who, within the Lotus, receive their own prediction, see the Tathāgata's own nature, and ripen into a great fruit, like the autumn harvest stored away for winter, with nothing further left to be done, unborn upon unborn — this is named the great nirvāṇa, and constitutes the earlier group: from the Great Perfection of Wisdom comes the Wondrous Dharma Lotus. For those not yet ripe, the Perfection of Wisdom is discussed once again, and they enter the Mahāparinirvāṇa and thereby see buddha-nature — this constitutes the later group: again, from the Perfection of Wisdom comes the great nirvāṇa.

Yet the two sūtras' own teaching-intent, from beginning to end, is the same. Just as the Lotus's own three-round teaching of the Dharma severs and settles the śrāvakas, all of them, alike, returning to the one real truth, and afterward opens the near to reveal the distant, clarifying the bodhisattva's own affair — the Mahāparinirvāṇa, too, does exactly the same: first surpassing the three cultivations, severing and settling the śrāvakas, entering the secret treasury, and afterward, through its own thirty-six questions, clarifying the bodhisattva's own affair. Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa, on the verge of its own extinction, further supports the Tripiṭaka, admonishing and cautioning the age to come, so that dull-faculty beings of the final age would not give rise to a view of total cessation with regard to the Buddha's own dharma — broadly opening the doctrine of constancy, breaking through this same inversion, causing the Buddha's own dharma to abide long in the world. In matters such as these, the two sūtras' own intent does indeed differ somewhat — yet, as the fifth flavor, ghee, their flavor of buddha-nature is one and the same.

Third, discussing how the Five Flavors and the half-and-full mutually complete each other: if one discusses the Five Flavors alone, and directly so, this remains the same as the Southern masters, grasping only skillful means; if one discusses the half-and-full alone, and directly so, this remains the same as the Northern masters, grasping only the real. Now it is clarified that the Five Flavors are never apart from the half-and-full, and the half-and-full is never apart from the Five Flavors.

The Five Flavors possessing the half-and-full is itself the understanding of wisdom accompanied by skillful means; the half-and-full possessing the Five Flavors is itself the understanding of skillful means accompanied by wisdom. The provisional and the real roam together, like a bird's own two wings — though roaming together, each, in its own movement and rest, finds its proper place.

As for the Avataṃsaka's own sudden and full Mahāyāna family estate: it clarifies only the one real truth, with no need for skillful means at all — full alone, and not half — and, within the gradual sequence, constitutes milk. The Tripiṭaka's own hired labor is simply skillful means alone — half alone, and not full — and, within the gradual sequence, constitutes cream. As for the Vaipulya's own censure and rebuke: here, the half and the full stand set against each other, the full rebuking the half, and, within the gradual sequence, constitutes curdled butter. As for the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra's own teaching-in-turn: the half is carried alongside the discussion of the full — the half running in common through all three vehicles, the full belonging to the bodhisattva alone — and, within the gradual sequence, constitutes clarified butter.

As for the Lotus's own entrusting of the family fortune: the half is abolished and the full alone is clarified — yet, without the half-word skillful means that first tempers and ripens the dull faculty, there could likewise be no full-word opening of the Buddha's own knowledge and vision at all; and, within the gradual sequence, this constitutes ghee. This is precisely the sense behind the Tathāgata's own earnest and repeated praise of skillful means: the half possesses the merit of bringing about the full. The four great śrāvakas' own expression of understanding — "the unsurpassed treasure-heap, sought by none, and yet attained of itself," "abiding at peace within the real wisdom" — all of this, alike, arises from the half and the full mutually completing each other. This is precisely the sense intended here.

Fourth, clarifying combination and non-combination: since the half-and-full and the Five Flavors already run in common across every sūtra, and yet every sūtra differs from the others, one must now distinguish their own opening and combination. As for the Avataṃsaka: it directly excludes the lesser to clarify the great — within its own earlier portion, śrāvakas are entirely absent; within its later portion, they are indeed present, and yet, though seated within the assembly, they remain like the deaf, like the mute, this being simply not within their own sphere at all. At that time, the half did not yet even exist — what combination, then, could possibly be discussed? Next, opening the three vehicles, drawing in and receiving the lesser capacity, causing them to cut off view and thought — this uses the lesser to exclude the great; since the full is not even discussed here, what combination could possibly be made? Hence the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "the three dharmas, the four fruits, and the two paths are not one" — not being one is itself non-combination.

As for the Vaipulya teaching: sometimes the half and the full are both clarified together; sometimes the half and the full stand set against each other; sometimes the full rebukes the half. Receiving the half and hearing the full, though one comes to know shame at the lesser, one still has not yet entered the great — hence it is said, "still lodging within the grass hut" — this lowly, inferior mind still not yet able to be changed; this, then, is the half and the full not yet combined. The Perfection of Wisdom uses the full to winnow and refine the half, commanding him to take charge of the family estate, clarifying that the half's own skillful means, in common, enters into non-arising — the half-word dharma-gate, all of it, alike, being the Mahāyāna itself — this is combining the dharma. Yet "he had no desire to take even a single meal's worth for himself" is itself the person not yet combined — hence the half and the full are still not combined.

Only upon reaching the Lotus does one awaken to the fact that the phantom city was never real, and hear, "what you yourselves have practiced is itself the bodhisattva path" — this is itself combining the dharma. "You are, in reality, my own son" is itself combining the person — person and dharma both combined together. From the Deer Park's own opening of the provisional, passing through every sūtra's own teaching, on up to arriving at the Lotus, only then does one attain combination with the real — hence the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "for more than forty years, the truth and the real have not yet been revealed." Should combination not yet be attained at the Lotus, it is attained at the Mahāparinirvāṇa instead — the Faxing Lun's own clarification that the middling and lesser of the two remaining faculties enter the dharma-realm there is itself precisely these bodhisattvas' own attainment of combination.

As for discussing the śrāvaka: first, secret combination; second, openly revealed combination. Secret combination: already, at the very first teaching of the five precepts for the sake of Trapuṣa, there were those who secretly awakened to the forbearance of non-arising — how much more, then, within the sūtra-division, the Vaipulya, and the Perfection of Wisdom, could there fail to be secret awakenings? This, then, need not be further discussed. In terms of the openly revealed: śrāvakas not yet settled in their own stage likewise attain combination at various points along the way — as, for example, with the three hundred monks who receive their prediction within the Perfection of Wisdom. As for the śrāvaka settled and fixed in his own fruit, he decisively reaches combination only at the Lotus, through its own urging of faith. If, being settled in his own fruit, he still does not attain combination — this being the case of the overly proud, not yet settled in their own stage, the five thousand who withdrew and left the assembly — then, upon reaching the Mahāparinirvāṇa, combination is finally attained there instead.

Summarizing this across every teaching in common, four propositions may be made: the Avataṃsaka and the Tripiṭaka are neither combination nor non-combination; the Vaipulya and the Perfection of Wisdom are, throughout, non-combination; the Lotus is, throughout, combination; the Mahāparinirvāṇa is both combination and non-combination. Why is this? Because the Mahāparinirvāṇa, for the sake of the final age, once more opens up every kind of provisional means, drawing in the dull faculties of later generations — hence it is said to also be non-combination.

Question: bodhisattvas who enter the dharma-realm by means of the Lotus thereby combine with the Avataṃsaka — yet one does not see any bodhisattva who enters the one vehicle by means of the Avataṃsaka thereby combining with the Lotus.

Answer: entering the dharma-realm by means of the Avataṃsaka is itself precisely entering the one vehicle, and so on.

Fifth, resolving doubts: this is treated under three senses: first, in terms of the common and the particular; second, benefiting or not benefiting; third, in terms of every teaching.

The common and the particular: as for the Five Flavors and the half-and-full, discussed particularly, each has its own fixed boundary; discussed in common, each runs in common from beginning to end. As for the Avataṃsaka's own sudden milk: particularly, it belongs only to the beginning; in common, it runs through to the very end — hence the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "next teaching the Perfection of Wisdom's own cultivation of practice throughout many kalpas, the Avataṃsaka's own ocean of emptiness," and the Lotus's own gathering into the Buddha's own wisdom — this is itself running in common through to these same two sūtras.

Again, the Sūtra of Resolving Doubts in the Age of the Semblance Dharma says, "within today's assembly, the countless multitudes each see something different — some see the Tathāgata entering nirvāṇa; some see the Tathāgata abiding in the world for a single kalpa, or less than a kalpa, or immeasurable kalpas. Some see the Tathāgata's own sixteen-foot body; some see a small body; some see a great body; some see the reward-body, the Lotus Treasury World Ocean, teaching the Mind Ground dharma-gate for the sake of a thousand hundred million Śākyamuni buddhas. Some see the Dharma-body, identical to empty space itself, without any distinction, without mark, without obstruction, pervading and identical to the dharma-realm throughout. Some see, in this very place, mountains, forests, earth, and sand; some see the seven kinds of treasure; some see this very place as itself the place where every buddha of the three time-periods has practiced; some see this very place as itself the true and real dharma, the inconceivable state of every buddha." When the sun first rises, it illuminates the high mountains first; and when the sun is about to set, its lingering rays likewise still touch the towering peaks. Hence the Lotus Treasury World Ocean runs in common all the way through to after the Mahāparinirvāṇa itself — how much more, then, must this be true of the earlier teachings?

As for the sūtra-division's own half, the cream teaching: discussed particularly, it belongs to the second period; discussed in common, it likewise runs through to the very end. Why is this? Kālodāyin, having already received his own prediction of buddhahood face to face within the Lotus, later enters a village and is killed there, this becoming the very occasion for establishing a monastic precept. Again, as with Śāriputra: the one who himself entreated the teaching of the Lotus, he later enters extinction, and the novice Cunda carries his three robes to ask the Buddha about them, and so on. Is this not itself the Tripiṭaka running through to the very end? The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "from the very first teaching at the Deer Park to the night of entering nirvāṇa, the precepts, concentration, and wisdom that were taught are compiled into the Vinaya-division and the rest of the treasuries." One should thereby know that the Tripiṭaka runs in common all the way through to the very end.

As for the Vaipulya teaching, the half and the full set against each other, this being the curdled-butter teaching: discussed particularly, it is the third period; discussed in common, it likewise runs through to the very end. Why is this? The "Dhāraṇī" chapter says, "formerly, at Rājagṛha, predictions were bestowed upon the śrāvakas; now, again, within the Jetavana grove at Śrāvastī, predictions are, once more, bestowed upon the śrāvakas." Formerly, at Vārāṇasī, predictions were bestowed upon the śrāvakas — Śāriputra says, "the World-Honored One is never false; what he speaks is true and real, and so he is able, a second time and a third time, to bestow predictions upon us." One thereby knows that the Vaipulya runs through to after the Lotus itself.

The Perfection of Wisdom, carrying the half alongside the discussion of the full, is the clarified-butter teaching: discussed particularly, it belongs to the fourth period; discussed in common, it likewise runs through from beginning to end. Why is this? From the night of attaining the path to the night of entering nirvāṇa, the Perfection of Wisdom was constantly taught. Again, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "Subhūti asks whether the bodhisattva is finally settled or not yet finally settled" — one should thereby know that the Perfection of Wisdom, too, runs through to after the Lotus.

As for the Mahāparinirvāṇa's own ghee, the full teaching: discussed particularly, it belongs to the fifth period; discussed in common, it likewise runs through to the very beginning. Why is this? The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "from the very first arousal of the intent to awaken, one constantly contemplates nirvāṇa and practices the path." Among every one of the earlier teachings, could there possibly fail to be a bodhisattva who has already aroused this same intent to awaken and contemplates nirvāṇa? The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "when I sat at the site of enlightenment, beneath the Bodhi-tree, first attaining complete awakening, at that time, bodhisattvas from immeasurable asaṃkhyeya world-systems, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, likewise once asked me about this same profound meaning. Yet the meaning of the questions they asked, and their own merit, were, alike, exactly the same as this, equal, with no difference at all. Those who ask in this same way are then able to benefit immeasurable sentient beings." This, then, runs in common all the way through to the very beginning.

As for the Lotus: discussed in terms of its openly revealed side, it is not seen to be present in the earlier teachings; discussed in terms of its secret side, there is, in principle, no obstruction to its being present there. Hence Śāriputra says, "formerly, I heard, from the Buddha, this same dharma, and saw the bodhisattvas receive their own prediction of buddhahood" — is this not itself proof of a text bestowing predictions in common, already in the past?

Question: the Mahāparinirvāṇa retrospectively teaches the four teachings; the Vaipulya directly opens the four teachings; the distinct teaching, again, itself possesses its own four — how are these to be distinguished from one another?

Answer: the Mahāparinirvāṇa's own four teachings, in common, enter buddha-nature; the distinct teaching's own four, in sequence, see buddha-nature only afterward; the Vaipulya's own four, holding fast to their own attainment, in two of the four fail to see buddha-nature at all, and so on.

Second, resolving doubts in terms of benefiting or not benefiting: if the Avataṃsaka is milk and the Tripiṭaka is cream, this would seem to mean that the flavor of skillful means is strong while the flavor of the Mahāyāna is thin. This is explained under three senses: first, taking actual benefit as the basis for discussion — just as a costly medicine that does not treat the illness at hand is useless, while a cheap medicine suited to the illness at hand is what is needed; the costly medicine, unsuited, is taken in vain, to no benefit at all. When the Avataṃsaka was first taught, it brought no deep benefit to the beginner's own mind, and likewise did not yet transform the gradual capacity — for these two kinds of conditions, it is therefore like milk. If the gradual capacity receives the Tripiṭaka teaching instead, it is able to cut off view and thought, the three poisons gradually exhausted, thereby transforming the ordinary being into a sage — like milk changing into cream. One should not, on this basis, take "actually beneficial" to mean "cheap and yet superior," nor take "not actually beneficial" to mean "costly and yet inferior." The Avataṃsaka is likewise exactly the same: for the lesser capacity, it is like milk; for the great capacity, it is like ghee. This is only a partial simile, and should not be pressed to yield a complete answer.

Second, it is like a skilled physician who possesses a single secret formula, complete with twelve medicinal ingredients, three kinds being most costly, who skillfully divines the marks of the illness and knows how much to increase or reduce the dose as fitting, never once mistaking the symptoms or wrongly applying the treatment. The Buddha, too, is exactly the same: his perfect and skillful prescription, complete with the twelve divisions of scripture — unquestioned exposition and broad prediction — is most profound of all. The bodhisattva, sharp in wisdom, takes the entire prescription in full; the two lesser vehicles, whose illness is severe, are given only nine of the twelve as their dose. Were this dose not reduced accordingly, it would bring no benefit to their illness at all. What is not reduced is taken as milk; what is reduced is taken as cream. This simile is meant only to convey a sequential arising, one stage giving rise to the next, and is not meant to convey any judgment of thickness or thinness, depth or shallowness.

Third, in terms of the practitioner's own mind: when the Avataṃsaka was taught, the ordinary being's own view and thought remained untransformed, hence it is said to be like milk. When the Tripiṭaka was taught, view and thought's own delusion was cut off, hence it is said to be like cream. Upon reaching the Vaipulya period, being humbled and made ashamed, not yet speaking of the true and ultimate, hence it is like curdled butter. Upon reaching the Perfection of Wisdom period, taking charge of the teaching and coming to recognize the dharma, it is like clarified butter. Upon reaching the Lotus period, breaking through ignorance, opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, receiving the prediction of buddhahood, the mind already purified, hence it is said to be like ghee. When the practitioner's own mind is still raw, the teaching, too, has not yet been transformed; when the practitioner's own mind has ripened, the teaching, too, ripens in step with it.

Question: is it one and the same person who receives all Five Flavors, or five different persons?

Answer: there are cases of a single person receiving a single flavor alone — as with the purely single capacity within the Avataṃsaka assembly, who directly attains ghee, without passing through the Five Flavors at all. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "on the snow mountain there is a grass — if the cow eats it, it then directly produces ghee." There are also cases of a single person passing through all Five Flavors — as with a capacity of the lesser vehicle, for whom the sudden teaching is like milk, the Tripiṭaka is like cream, and so on, up to ghee, only then reaching the ultimate. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "from the cow comes milk, on up to clarified butter producing ghee." There are also cases of a bodhisattva of sharp faculty, a śrāvaka not yet settled in his own stage, who sees buddha-nature already within the Tripiṭaka teaching — this passes through two flavors. There are cases of seeing buddha-nature within the Vaipulya — this passes through three flavors. Seeing buddha-nature within the Perfection of Wisdom passes through four flavors, as with the three hundred monks. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "poison placed within the milk is able to kill a person throughout every one of the Five Flavors" — this is precisely this same sense.

Third, resolving doubts by passing through every teaching: as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the ordinary being is like milk, the śrāvaka is like cream, the bodhisattva is like curdled and clarified butter, the buddha is like ghee." Explaining this simile now: taken as a whole, it illustrates the half-and-full across the Five Periods — the ordinary being, possessing no remedial path at all, is entirely raw, like milk; the śrāvaka, giving rise to the real and penetrating through it, is, throughout, like cream; the bodhisattva of the shared teaching, and the two lesser vehicles as well, are like curdled butter; the distinct teaching is like clarified butter; the perfect teaching is like ghee.

Now, taking each teaching in turn, the Five Flavors are classified within it. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the ordinary being is like milk, the stream-enterer is like cream, the once-returner is like curdled butter, the non-returner is like clarified butter, the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the buddha are like ghee." There are those who leap over intermediate fruits and directly attain ghee; and there are those who enter flavor by flavor in sequence — this is itself the three senses within the Tripiṭaka teaching.

As for the Five Flavors within the shared teaching: the thirty-second fascicle of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "the ordinary being's own buddha-nature is like milk mixed with blood — this blood is precisely ignorance, karmic formations, and every other affliction; this milk is precisely the wholesome five aggregates. For this very reason, I teach that complete awakening is attained from these same afflictions together with the wholesome five aggregates, just as the body of every sentient being is, without exception, brought to completion from semen and blood alike — buddha-nature, too, is exactly the same. The stream-enterer and the once-returner, having cut off a small measure of affliction, are like pure milk; the non-returner is like cream; the arhat is like curdled butter; the pratyekabuddha, up through the bodhisattva of the ten grounds, is like clarified butter; the buddha is like ghee." Leaping over intermediate fruits here is not fixed, and so on.

As for the distinct teaching's own clarification of the Five Flavors: the ninth fascicle says, "sentient beings are like a cow newly giving birth, blood and milk not yet distinguished from each other." The śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha are like cream; the bodhisattva-person is like curdled and clarified butter; the buddhas, the world-honored ones, are like ghee. This, too, is complete with leaping over intermediate fruits, not fixed, and so on.

As for the perfect teaching, it is simply a single flavor alone. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "on the snow mountain there is a grass, named forbearance — if the cow eats it, it then directly produces ghee." Correct, direct, and purely one, hence the Five Flavors are not discussed here at all. If, however, one wishes to draw distinctions within what is itself without distinction, then, in terms of the six identities, from identity in name on up to identity in the ultimate, the Five Flavors' own sequential arising may be classified. From the Buddha comes the twelve divisions of scripture — this is itself the production of milk, as when a newly qualified physician uses milk as a remedy — and this, too, may be discussed in terms of the four wholesome roots, classified into Five Flavors within the process of their own arousal.

Sixth, clarifying the teaching through increasing numbers: first, in terms of the trace; next, in terms of the origin. Now, teaching is originally a matter of meeting capacity, and, since capacities are not one and the same, the traces of teaching are correspondingly numerous — how could there be only the half-and-full and the Five Periods alone? One should know that the kinds of teaching are, in truth, immeasurable; here, for now, the number is simply increased from one up to eight.

First, clarifying opening and combination in terms of a single dharma: "within the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the one-vehicle dharma" — if this dharma is not understood, it remains entirely raw, like milk. If one wishes to open it, one opens the perfect to bring forth the distinct teaching's own one vehicle. If this distinct teaching, too, is not understood, this, too, remains entirely raw, like milk, and one opens, again, the shared teaching's own one vehicle. If this shared teaching, too, is not understood, this, too, remains entirely raw, like milk, and one opens, again, the Tripiṭaka's own one vehicle. Though opened into four in this way, all of them, alike, are named the one great vehicle-dharma, every one of them, alike, seeking the fruit of buddhahood. If understanding is attained with respect to the Tripiṭaka's own one vehicle, milk is thereby changed into cream, on up to entering the fundamental one vehicle itself, and so on.

If none of these four one-vehicles is understood, one further opens, from within the Tripiṭaka itself, the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha teachings. If, cutting off fetters and realizing the fruit, the mind gradually becomes open and at ease, the two lesser vehicles are then set aside, and only the Mahāyāna's own seeking of buddhahood is spoken of, gradually winnowed and refined by means of the Perfection of Wisdom, causing the mind to become tempered and ripe — the one vehicle of skillful means is thereby abolished, and only the perfect and real one vehicle remains. Hence it is said, "just as I originally vowed, so, now, it is already fulfilled — transforming every sentient being, causing all, without exception, to enter the buddha-path. Were I to transform them by means of the lesser vehicle, I would thereby fall into stinginess and greed — this would not be acceptable." For this reason, one begins from the one and opens it into further ones, and, in the end, one returns from these same ones back into the one.

As for discussing opening and combination in terms of two dharmas: in terms of the two teachings, the half and the full — first clarifying the fullness of the Avataṃsaka. If sentient beings lack the capacity for it, next, in terms of the full, the half is opened. Next, the Vaipulya, set against the half, clarifies the full. Next, the Perfection of Wisdom, carrying the half alongside it, clarifies the full. Next, the Lotus, setting aside the half, clarifies the full. At the beginning, then, the half is opened from out of the full; in the end, the half is abolished and returns into the full, and so on.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of three dharmas: this is itself, within the one buddha-vehicle, teaching the three by means of skillful means. Once it is already known that this is merely a resting-place, the phantom city is then dissolved away — this, too, is discussed in terms of the three kinds of wholesome root, the śrāvaka constituting the lowest of these three, and so on.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of four dharmas: this is itself the Four Teachings. In terms of the perfect, the distinct is opened; in terms of the distinct, the shared is opened; next, the Tripiṭaka is opened — proceeding in this same sequence, and, gathering them together, they are combined back into the perfect, and so on. Again, discussing opening and combination in terms of four dharmas: this is in terms of the four gates. Originally, these are the perfect teaching's own four gates; sentient beings, not understanding them, cause the distinct teaching's own four gates to be opened forth, on up to the shared and Tripiṭaka teachings' own four gates — the sharp-minded are able to pass through them one after another in succession, while the dull-minded are tempered and brought in gradually through the Five Flavors.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of five dharmas: this is itself the Five Flavors. From the first twelve divisions of scripture, the sūtra-division is opened, on up through the Mahāparinirvāṇa — each and every teaching, in turn, discusses its own Five Flavors. From the first, overall Five Flavors, every further set of Five Flavors is opened, combining together, finely, bit by bit, gradually, until, at last, they return to the perfectly complete Five Flavors as a whole.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of six dharmas: this is itself the Four Teachings' own Mahāyāna six perfections, together with the seven factors of enlightenment and the eightfold noble path. First, the perfect is opened to bring forth the distinct, on down to the Tripiṭaka; contracting and combining them together in this same way, they return, once more, to the single perfect path, and so on.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of seven dharmas: this refers to the Four Teachings together with the two lesser vehicles and the vehicle of humans and devas. If moving upward, these are combined into the perfect and the distinct; if not, moving downward, they are combined into the vehicle of humans and devas — causing the number seven, in this way, to be fully accounted for in both opening and combination, and so on.

Next, discussing opening and combination in terms of eight dharmas: this is discussed in terms of the eightfold path already mentioned above, and so on.

Once the sense of opening and combination is grasped, one may freely speak of it in any of these ways.

Second, clarifying the teaching's own opening and combination in terms of the origin gate: borrowing the trace to know the origin, the origin, too, is exactly the same. Furthermore, within the origin gate, it is clarified that sometimes one's own body is shown, sometimes another's body is shown; sometimes one's own dharma is taught, sometimes another's dharma is taught. One's own body is the image of the buddha-dharma-realm; another's body is the image of the nine other dharma-realms. One's own dharma is the perfect and sudden buddha's own knowledge and vision; everything falling below this is another's dharma. Though showing every kind of form, the intent is always to bring about deliverance; hence, though teaching every kind of path, in reality, it is all for the sake of the one vehicle alone — this is itself the sense of opening and combination.

Opening and combination understood in this way, the half-and-full and the Five Flavors stand out plainly, without any loss of coherence; the sense of the sequential becomes all the more clear, while the sense of the non-sequential, too, may then be naturally understood — and the indeterminate teaching, in this light, becomes all the easier to see!

Opening the one from the one: "within the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the one-vehicle dharma" — sentient beings, not understanding this, remain entirely raw, like milk. From this perfect one vehicle, the distinct teaching's own one vehicle is opened forth; sentient beings, again, not understanding this, likewise remain entirely raw, like milk. Again, the one vehicle of embodying the dharma is opened forth; sentient beings, again, not understanding this, likewise remain entirely raw, like milk. Again, the one vehicle of analyzing the dharma is opened forth; sentient beings then understand it, and this is milk changed into cream. Next, entering the embodying-the-dharma teaching, cream is changed into curdled butter. Next, entering the distinct teaching's own one vehicle, curdled butter is changed into clarified butter. Next, turning to enter the perfect one vehicle, it is like clarified butter changing into ghee — within this same sequence, the sudden, the gradual, and the indeterminate are all fully present, and so on. This is opening the one by means of the one, and returning to the one by means of the one.

Next, opening the two from the two: originally and fundamentally, this is the tathāgatagarbha; within the tathāgatagarbha, the inconceivable two, the half and the full, are both already fully present. Sentient beings, not understanding this, remain entirely raw, like milk. Again, the full carried alongside the half is opened forth; again not understanding this, they remain entirely raw, like milk. Again, the full that breaks through the half is opened forth; sentient beings, not understanding this, likewise remain entirely raw, like milk. Again, the half alone is taught by itself; sentient beings understand this, and milk is changed into cream. Next, the full that breaks through the half is taught, and cream is changed into curdled butter. Next, the full carried alongside the half is taught, and sentient beings become, as it were, clarified butter. Next, the inconceivable full alone is taught, purely and directly, and sentient beings become like ghee. Within this same sequence, the sudden, the gradual, and the indeterminate are all fully present — this is opening the two by means of the two, and returning to the two by means of the two.

Returning to the three from the three: originally, this is the three of being simultaneously empty, provisional, and the middle. Sentient beings, not understanding this, have opened for them the three of the sequential; again not understanding this, have opened for them the three of embodying the true directly; again not understanding this, have opened for them the three of analyzing the dharma. The person of sharp faculty proceeds from the three of analytical emptiness into the three of embodied emptiness; from the embodying teaching, one enters the sequential; from the sequential, one enters the simultaneous. The person of dull faculty remains fixed within the analytical three, and so is tempered by means of the three of simultaneous emptiness, becoming curdled butter; and is, further, tempered by means of the sequential three, becoming clarified butter — only now, finally, able to enter being simultaneously empty, provisional, and the middle. This is discussing opening and combination in terms of three dharmas.

Opening and combination in terms of four dharmas: for those who are not yet within the perfect teaching's own four gates, sentient beings, not understanding it, have the distinct teaching's own four gates opened for them, on down to the Tripiṭaka's own four gates — passed on, one after another, in succession, causing entry, exactly as before. Discussing opening and combination in terms of five dharmas: this is in terms of the Five Flavors, following the same pattern as before, and so on — and likewise on up through eight as well.

The recorder's own private notes on points of divergence.

Some cite the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom's own "Gathering the Cardinal Doctrine" chapter, which lists ten great sūtras — the Megha Sūtra, the Mahāmegha Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra, and the rest — and says the Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest among them. Again, the "Great Brightness" chapter says, "every other wholesome dharma enters into the Perfection of Wisdom" — meaning that the Lotus Sūtra, too, is itself one such wholesome dharma. The hundredth fascicle says, "the Lotus is a secret teaching; the Perfection of Wisdom is not a secret teaching, since it does not clarify the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood." Yet, elsewhere, it is said that the Perfection of Wisdom and the Lotus are simply different names for the same thing. How are these three claims to be reconciled with one another?

Some reconcile this by saying: every sage, by means of a mind without conceptual fixation, converges upon the markless, just as every stream flows into the sea; and, in transforming beings, takes the markless as its own cardinal doctrine, like empty space encompassing everything within it. The Perfection of Wisdom richly clarifies both of these together, and is, for this reason, the greatest among the ten sūtras. Again, the Perfection of Wisdom clarifies the siddhānta of ultimate meaning, and is, for this reason, the greatest. Again, of its ninety chapters, the first sixty clarify real wisdom, while, from the "Inexhaustible" chapter onward, skillful means is clarified. These two kinds of wisdom are the father and mother of the Dharma-body of every buddha throughout the three time-periods, and it is, for this reason, the greatest of the wholesome teachings. Every other sūtra that clarifies these same two is, without exception, gathered up and included within the Perfection of Wisdom.

Question: since every other sūtra likewise clarifies these same two, the Perfection of Wisdom, too, ought correspondingly to be gathered up and included within every other sūtra.

Answer: the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra is the very first to clarify these two exclusively and directly; no other sūtra does so in the same way. From ancient times, the Perfection of Wisdom has been called the sūtra of attaining the path — one thereby knows it to be the greatest.

It is now said, in reply, that this is still merely the treatise's own particular way of speaking of "greatness" — in what sense, then, can this actually be reconciled? The reconciliation is this: there is a shared Perfection of Wisdom and an unshared Perfection of Wisdom. The unshared Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest; should any other sūtra likewise clarify the unshared, its own meaning would be, in that respect, precisely equal to it, and so on.

Another reconciliation: the Lotus clarifies the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood, and is, therefore, a secret teaching; the Perfection of Wisdom does not clarify the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood, and is, therefore, not a secret teaching. The secret is thereby deep, while the Perfection of Wisdom is thereby shallow. Why is this? The Perfection of Wisdom clarifies that the bodhisattva is the cause of buddhahood — this meaning is easy to understand, and is, therefore, not secret. The two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood runs contrary to every earlier teaching — this meaning is difficult to understand, and is, therefore, secret. The treatise says: using medicine as medicine is an easy matter; using poison as medicine is a difficult matter, and so on.

Yet secret and openly revealed both run through great and small alike: the fourth fascicle of the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says, "the openly revealed teaching clarifies that the arhat has already cut off delusion and become pure, while the bodhisattva has not yet cut off delusion, and is not yet pure — hence the bodhisattva is listed after him." Within the secret dharma, however, it is clarified that the bodhisattva attains the six spiritual powers, cuts off every affliction, and surpasses the two lesser vehicles entirely — one should thereby know that the openly revealed is shallow, while the secret is deep. Now, both the Perfection of Wisdom and the Lotus clarify that the bodhisattva attains the forbearance of non-arising, complete with the six spiritual powers — both, alike, are secret; both, alike, are deep; both, alike, are great. Discussing further, within the secret itself, whether it is secret or not secret: the Perfection of Wisdom does not clarify the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood, lacking this one item alone — hence it is said to be "not secret," and nothing more than this.

Question: since the Perfection of Wisdom has not yet opened the provisional, it ought to be secret; since the Lotus has already opened the provisional, it ought to be openly revealed.

Answer: if one takes "opening the provisional" as the criterion, then it is exactly as the question states; here, however, "openly revealed" is instead taken to mean what is shallow and easy to understand.

Question: if this is so, then how can what is "not yet fully revealed" still be called "great"?

Answer: it is called deep and great on the basis of its own two kinds of wisdom; it is called "not yet fully revealed" on the basis of its not clarifying the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood.

Question: since it is already said to be deep and great, why, then, does it not teach that the two lesser vehicles are themselves a skillful means, so as to cause them, too, to attain buddhahood? If this meaning is not yet fully revealed, how, then, can it still be called great?

Answer: this is not a reading of my own alone. Master Sengrui, too, likewise says: "the Perfection of Wisdom is illumination; the Lotus is the real. In discussing the exhaustive investigation of principle and the clarification of the nature of every practice, the real is not the equal of illumination; in taking up the great clarification of true transformation and the understanding that there was, fundamentally, never any three at all, illumination is not the equal of the real. For this reason, when praising depth, the Perfection of Wisdom's own merit is weightier; when extolling the real, the Lotus's own function stands the higher."

Question: though Master Sengrui is cited here, this is like grasping at a withered branch for support, not realizing that both the person and the stump will fall down together — this explanation, too, still fails to fully resolve the matter. It is now asked: within the unshared Perfection of Wisdom, when does it ever fail to clarify the two lesser vehicles' own attainment of buddhahood? And, being of equal, great wisdom with the Lotus, in what further respect could it possibly differ from it at all?

Every sūtra and treatise clarifies the teachings differently, not in only one way: as with the Mātṛkā, which has two treasuries — the śrāvaka treasury and the bodhisattva treasury. Again, various sūtras speak of three treasuries: the same two as above, with the addition of a miscellaneous treasury — eleven of the twelve divisions of scripture being the śrāvaka treasury, the Vaipulya division being the bodhisattva treasury, and all twelve together being the miscellaneous treasury. Again, there are four treasuries, further opening a buddha treasury. The Sūtra on the Bodhisattva Dwelling in the Womb speaks of eight treasuries, namely: the womb-transformation treasury, the intermediate-existence treasury, the Mahāyāna Vaipulya treasury, the Vinaya treasury, the ten-abidings treasury, the miscellaneous treasury, the vajra treasury, and the buddha treasury. How are all these various treasuries to be reconciled with one another?

Reconciling the two treasuries: the first corresponds to the śrāvaka treasury, the second to the bodhisattva treasury. Reconciling the three treasuries: the first corresponds to the śrāvaka treasury, the second to the miscellaneous, and the third to the bodhisattva treasury. Reconciling the four treasuries: each corresponds to the other, one by one. Reconciling the eight treasuries: the eight treasuries run from the descent of the spirit onward, while the Four Teachings run from the turning of the Dharma-wheel onward — their respective time-periods thus differ at every point; here, then, the eight treasuries from the turning of the Dharma-wheel onward are reconciled with the Four Teachings.

As for the womb-transformation treasury and the intermediate-existence treasury: before they were taught to Ānanda, they are themselves the secret teaching; once taught to Ānanda, they become the indeterminate teaching. The Mahāyāna and Vaipulya treasury is itself the sudden teaching; from the Vinaya treasury on through the remaining five treasuries is itself the sequential order within the gradual teaching. The Vinaya treasury is itself the Tripiṭaka teaching; the ten-abidings treasury is itself the Vaipulya teaching; the miscellaneous treasury is itself the shared teaching; the vajra treasury is itself the distinct teaching; the buddha treasury is itself the perfect teaching. Yet the Buddha's own intent is difficult to fathom — this reconciliation is offered only as a single, provisional correspondence, and so on.

Question: from which sūtra does the terminology of the Four Teachings derive?

Answer: the Longer Āgama's own "Conduct" chapter says: "the Buddha, at the village of Śiśubhāvat, north of the city of Vaiśālī, taught the four great criteria: hearing directly from the Buddha, hearing from a harmonious assembly or from many monks together, and hearing from a single monk — these are named the four great criteria." The sixth fascicle of the Candrapradīpa Samādhi Sūtra clarifies four kinds of sūtra, namely: conduct, censure, affliction, and purity.

Explaining and reconciling this privately: "conduct" is the dharma born of causes and conditions — this is itself the sense of the Tripiṭaka teaching. "Censure" concerns the essence, knowing one's own faults and transgressions — this is itself the sense of the shared teaching. "Affliction" means: without entering the great ocean, one cannot obtain the jeweled pearl; without affliction, there would likewise be no wisdom — this is itself the sense of the distinct teaching. "Purity" means: simply raising the single name "purity" as representative, spontaneously possessing self, constancy, bliss, and the rest — this is itself the perfect teaching.

Again, each and every teaching, in turn, possesses all four kinds of sūtra within it: conduct is itself the truth of the origin of suffering; the fruit of conduct is itself the truth of suffering; conduct's own counteragent, counteracting affliction, is itself the truth of the path; conduct's own purity is itself the truth of cessation — this is the Tripiṭaka teaching's own possession of all four kinds of sūtra.

Again, censuring conduct is itself the truth of the origin of suffering; censuring every mode of existence is itself the truth of suffering; censuring affliction's own counteragent is itself the truth of the path; censuring purity is itself the truth of cessation — this is the shared teaching's own possession of all four kinds of sūtra.

Again, afflicted conduct is the truth of the origin of suffering; afflicted existence is the truth of suffering; afflicted conduct, once censured, is itself the truth of the path; affliction's own purity is itself the truth of cessation — this is the distinct teaching's own possession of all four kinds of sūtra.

Again, nirvāṇa is itself birth-and-death — this is the purity of the truth of suffering; bodhi is itself affliction — this is the purity of the truth of the origin of suffering; affliction is itself bodhi — this is the purity of the truth of the path; birth-and-death is itself nirvāṇa — this is the purity of the truth of cessation. This is the perfect teaching's own four kinds of sūtra.

That same sūtra further clarifies: four treatises, four dharmas, four states, four gates, four kinds of wisdom that cut off affliction, four kinds of suffering, four kinds of origin, and four kinds of path — all of these, alike, correspond to the Four Teachings, and should be fully understood exactly as that sūtra itself presents them.

The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā's own seventh-ground chapter says, "a single moment of mind possesses the ten perfections, the four means of attraction, the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, and the four houses." It explains these four houses as: "the house of the Perfection of Wisdom, the house of the truth, the house of relinquishing affliction, and the house of the purity of suffering." Explaining this privately: taking the truth of suffering as the very first gate of cultivating the factors of the path, causing suffering to become pure, is itself the sense of the Tripiṭaka teaching. The house of relinquishing affliction means directly embodying and penetrating the absence of marks as the very act of relinquishing — as when form is itself emptiness, using emptiness to relinquish marks; discussing the cultivation of the factors of the path in this way is itself the sense of the shared teaching. The house of the Perfection of Wisdom means: through prajñā's own wisdom-illumination, every dharma becomes clearly understood, penetrating through dharma-gates as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and cultivating the factors of the path by means of this — this is itself the sense of the distinct teaching. The house of the truth means: the truth is itself the principle of the real mark — this is itself the perfect teaching, cultivating the factors of the path on the basis of the real mark itself, fully as that same treatise itself explains, and so on.

Dharmottara, explaining the sense of "the trace of the teaching," says: "teaching" refers to the Buddha's own words directed toward those below him; "trace" refers to a footprint left behind, and ought likewise to include the trace of transformation. It is said that the sage, in laying out his teaching, has, in each case, some following to whom it is directed; yet the various schools' own classifications of the teachings are not all one and the same. One view holds that Śākyamuni's entire teaching career never goes beyond the sudden and the gradual, the gradual itself having seven stages within five periods — this being transmitted in common throughout the world, with no one saying otherwise. Another view says: how, then, can this talk of "five periods" ever be fixed with certainty? It is only that everything before the twin śāla trees is "with remainder," not yet fully revealed, while the proclamation at the Mahāparinirvāṇa is taken as what is fully revealed.

Again, it is said: the Buddha's single voice responds to the ten thousand kinds of beings at once, sentient beings of great and lesser capacity alike receiving it together — how, then, could the sudden and the gradual possibly be fixed with any certainty at all? On this basis, it is judged that there is no sudden and gradual whatsoever.

Examining this now against sūtra and treatise, this is, in every case, nothing but forced, artificial interpretation. Why is this? Some say the Buddha's own teaching never goes beyond the sudden and the gradual, and yet, in reality, the sudden and the gradual together fail to encompass every teaching without remainder — as with the four Āgamas and the five divisions of the Vinaya, whose teaching has not yet exhausted the depths, and so cannot be named "sudden," while their exposition runs continuously from beginning to end, and so likewise cannot be classed as "gradual" in sequence with the great teaching either. This being so, the sudden and the gradual fail to encompass everything — how, then, could it possibly be said that the Buddha's own teaching never goes beyond the sudden and the gradual!

Yet it is not that the sudden is entirely absent, and it cannot be entirely refuted either. Why is this? Whenever the sudden and the gradual are discussed at all, this is always relative to whom the teaching is directed. As for the Tathāgata himself, in reality, the great and the lesser are set forth together at once, with no before or after in time whatsoever; it is simply that the persons to whom the teaching is directed differ in their own awakening and understanding — some, of themselves, receive it suddenly; others enter by way of the gradual — and, according to whatever each has heard, this is what was compiled into the canon. How, then, could it be said that there is no sudden at all? It is simply that its own time and season cannot be fixed with certainty, nor can its own relative depth be so easily compared.

Some say that, within the gradual teaching, there are seven stages across five periods, saying that the Buddha, upon first attaining the path, taught the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds, the dharma-gate of humans and devas, for the sake of Trapuṣa and Bhallika. Yet the Buddha, according to what is fitting for each sentient being to hear, teaches accordingly — how, then, could it possibly be confined only to the first period, teaching the five precepts for the sake of these two persons alone? Again, within the Sūtra of the Five Precepts, these two elders attain the forbearance of the dharma of non-arising, three hundred persons attain the forbearance of faith, and two hundred persons attain the fruit of stream-entry. Within the Lalitavistara, the Buddha bestows a prediction upon these same two elders, naming them the Tathāgata Guhyasiddhi. If this is so, then on what basis, exactly, can it still be claimed that, at the very first period, the dharma-gate of humans and devas was taught for the sake of these two persons alone? Again, these two elders, having seen the Buddha and heard the Dharma, paid their respects and departed, never once proceeding to the Deer Park at all. At the time the five precepts were first taught, Kauṇḍinya had not yet even been converted — with whom, then, could this teaching possibly connect in sequence, that it should be named "gradual" at all?

Some say that, in the second period, throughout twelve years, the three vehicles' own particular teachings were taught. If this is so, then, once these twelve years have passed, should there not still be those for whom it is fitting to hear the four noble truths, dependent origination, and the six perfections — how, then, could these possibly go untaught? If they are indeed taught, then the three vehicles' own particular teachings are by no means confined to these twelve years alone. If they are not taught, and this entire portion is left for those, later, for whom it would be fitting to hear it — could the Buddha possibly fail to transform them? There is certainly no such logic as this. The sūtra itself says: the four noble truths are taught for the śrāvaka, on up to teaching the six perfections; this is by no means confined to twelve years alone, but rather, throughout the whole of his teaching career, taught to whomever it was fitting to hear it, whenever this was so. As with the four Āgamas and the five divisions of the Vinaya: these were taught for the śrāvaka's own sake, continuing right up to the sage's own extinction — this is precisely the case in point. Hence the Ekottarika Āgama says, "Śākyamuni, throughout twelve years, only briefly taught the precepts; only afterward, once flaws and faults had arisen, were they broadly formulated in detail." The Longer Āgama's own "Wandering" chapter says, "on up until the very moment of his nirvāṇa" — how, then, could it possibly be said that the lesser vehicle's own teaching was entirely confined to these twelve years alone?

Some say that, in the third period, throughout thirty years, the doctrine of emptiness — the Perfection of Wisdom, the Vimalakīrti, the Sūtra of Contemplating the Mind Ground — was taught. On the basis of what textual passage can this figure of thirty years be known at all?

It is said that, after forty years, the Lotus's own one vehicle was taught, since, within the Lotus Sūtra, Maitreya says that only just over forty years have passed since the Buddha's own attainment of the path — yet it cannot, on this basis, be said with certainty that the Lotus comes definitely after the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra. Why is this? The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: Subhūti, within the Lotus, having heard it taught that even raising a hand or bowing the head suffices for one to attain buddhahood, is, on this very basis, now asking about the sense of retrogression. If this is so, then how, exactly, can the sequence of the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra and the Lotus, one before the other, be fixed with any certainty at all?

Yet the relative depth among these three teachings — the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, the Lotus, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa — is difficult to state with any certainty at all. Why is this? The Mahāparinirvāṇa's own buddha-nature is also named prajñā, and also named the one vehicle; the one vehicle is itself the Lotus's own cardinal doctrine, while prajñā is itself what the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra teaches — this is itself already a clarification of buddha-nature. What, then, remains "not yet fully revealed" about it at all? Within the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, the emptiness of ultimate meaning is taught, and this is no different from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's own clarification of emptiness — both, alike, say that form is empty, on up to saying that even the great nirvāṇa is likewise empty. Again, the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says, "nirvāṇa is not a mere transformation," while the Vimalakīrti says that the buddha-body is free from the five kinds of impermanence — in clarifying constancy alongside the Mahāparinirvāṇa's own teaching that nirvāṇa is not empty, what difference is there at all, that one should arbitrarily draw a distinction, saying that the Vimalakīrti alone speaks of constancy while the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra speaks, throughout, only of emptiness?

Some argue that, since Ānanda and the other śrāvakas were present at the assembly of the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, and then passed through the assembly of the Lotus, finally arriving at the assembly of the Mahāparinirvāṇa, one thereby knows that the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, the Lotus, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa must possess differing degrees of depth, in this same sequence. This reasoning, however, does not necessarily hold. Why is this? Consider Ānanda and Kāśyapa: had they passed through the assembly of the Lotus without yet hearing constancy taught there, and yet these same two persons were not present at the assembly of the Mahāparinirvāṇa — by what means, then, could they possibly have come to possess the understanding of constancy needed to propagate the Mahāparinirvāṇa itself? Furthermore, Śāriputra entered extinction seven days before the Buddha's own nirvāṇa; Mahāmaudgalyāyana, struck down by a club-wielding non-Buddhist ascetic, likewise entered extinction before the Buddha — neither of them was present at the assembly beneath the twin śāla trees at all. Could it possibly be said, then, that they failed to attain the understanding of constancy? One thereby knows that, already within the Lotus itself, they had already fully awakened to constancy, with no need to hear it taught yet again.

Again, Śāriputra and the other śrāvakas are all, alike, the Tathāgata's own responsive echoes — as the Lotus Sūtra itself says, "knowing that the multitude delighted in the lesser dharma and yet feared the great wisdom, the bodhisattvas, for this very reason, took on the form of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, too, likewise says, "the eldest son of my own dharma is named Mahākāśyapa; Ānanda, of vast learning, is able to cut through every doubt, spontaneously able to understand and comprehend both constancy and impermanence." One thereby knows that these responsive echoes, present within the great, are themselves great, and present within the lesser, are themselves lesser — how, then, could one possibly fix a sequence of gradual stages on the basis of these same persons alone? Again, as for those who, after the Lotus, then enter the Mahāparinirvāṇa: the Lotus Sūtra has already clarified that the royal palace was by no means his true beginning, and that his own attainment of buddhahood dates from long, long ago — by what means, then, could the Mahāparinirvāṇa still cite the Bodhi-tree, taking his attainment there as the first and only real event, and treat this as still a matter of doubt? One thereby knows that, for one continuous group of sentient beings, those who hear constancy last of all do so within the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra; those who have already heard the Lotus have no further need to hear the Mahāparinirvāṇa at all.

Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra possesses great benefit, just as, within the Lotus, the eight thousand śrāvakas receive their own prediction, ripening into a great fruit. If the benefit of the Mahāparinirvāṇa is verified by means of the Lotus's own bestowal of prediction, then the principle involved is one and the same, and it is thereby clear that there is no difference in depth between the two teachings at all. Again, within the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa, it is clarified that the Lotus Sūtra's own principle is perfect, its teaching reaching its own utmost limit, lacking nothing whatsoever. Nāgārjuna, within the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, praises the Lotus as the most profound of all. Why, then, is every other sūtra entrusted to Ānanda, while the Lotus alone is entrusted only to the bodhisattvas? One thereby knows that the Lotus is ultimately complete and fulfilled in full, and there is no need to raise any further doubt about this.

One should further know that every Mahāyāna sūtra's own ultimate destination does not differ — it is simply that, according to what is fitting, their expressions differ. As with the Avataṃsaka, the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, and the Lotus, all, alike, being names of samādhis; the Perfection of Wisdom being great wisdom itself; the Vimalakīrti's own "inconceivable liberation" being liberation itself; the great nirvāṇa being ultimate cessation itself; and Mañjuśrī's questioning of bodhi being the path fulfilled in full — every one of these, alike, is the Buddha's own dharma. The dharma itself has no superiority or inferiority: within it, the fruit that is clarified is, in every case, the fruit of buddhahood; the cause that is clarified is, in every case, the practice of the bodhisattva grounds; the principle that is clarified is, in every case, the dharma-nature itself; and those for whose sake it is taught are, in every case, the bodhisattvas — their ultimate destination ought not to differ at all. Why, then, do people insist on forcing a judgment of superior and inferior upon them? If this is so, then when Elder Dan says that everything before the twin śāla trees, including the Lotus Sūtra, is entirely "not yet fully revealed" — is this not itself a false accusation? Since human sentiment is already inclined this way, what, then, do the sūtras and treatises themselves actually say?

The Mātṛkā teaches that, of the twelve divisions of scripture, only the Vaipulya division is the bodhisattva treasury, the remaining eleven divisions being the śrāvaka treasury. Again, the Buddha, teaching the path out of suffering for the sake of both the śrāvaka and the bodhisattva, those who compiled the sūtras took what was taught for the bodhisattva's sake as the bodhisattva treasury, and what was taught for the śrāvaka's sake as the śrāvaka treasury. Nāgārjuna, too, within the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, likewise says, "Mahākāśyapa and Ānanda, at Mount Gandhamādana, compiled the Tripiṭaka as the śrāvaka treasury; Mañjuśrī and Ānanda compiled the Mahāyāna sūtras as the bodhisattva treasury." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, too, likewise says, "the eleven divisions of scripture are upheld by the two lesser vehicles; the Vaipulya division is upheld by the bodhisattva." For this reason, relying on sūtra and treatise alike, there are, in brief, simply two kinds: the śrāvaka treasury and the bodhisattva treasury.

Yet a teaching must always correspond to some particular person, and persons, in each case, divide into two kinds: within the śrāvaka treasury, there is the decisively-fixed śrāvaka and the śrāvaka who has regressed from the mind of awakening; within the bodhisattva treasury, there is the great being who suddenly awakens and the bodhisattva who gradually enters. Among the śrāvaka treasury's own decisively-fixed śrāvakas: these have long cultivated a distinct and separate kind of wholesome root, their minds small and narrow, inferior, accomplishing only a lesser nature, delighting solely and exclusively in the lesser; the Buddha, for their sake, teaches the lesser, and, once they have ultimately realized its fruit, they are unable to proceed toward the great. As for the śrāvaka who has regressed from the mind of awakening: this is a person who, formerly, before an earlier buddha or among the bodhisattvas, once gave rise to the mind of awakening, but, passing through birth after birth, death after death, forgot this original intent, and thereupon gave rise to a lesser mind, aspiring only to the lesser; the Buddha, for their sake, teaches the lesser, ultimately causing them to proceed toward the great once more. Thus the decisively-fixed śrāvaka abides in the lesser exclusively, while the śrāvaka who has regressed from the mind of awakening is later able to proceed toward the great. Though one departs and the other remains, at the moment of receiving the lesser teaching, both, alike, are one and the same — hence, corresponding to these same two kinds of persons, what is taught for them is named the śrāvaka treasury.

Within the bodhisattva treasury, there is the one able to suddenly awaken: as with the sentient beings addressed by the Avataṃsaka and similar sūtras, who, not having come by way of the lesser at all, enter the great directly, all at once — hence this is named the sudden. As for the one who enters by way of the gradual: this is precisely the śrāvaka who regressed from the mind of awakening spoken of above, who later becomes able to enter the great, this great being reached by way of the lesser — hence this is named the gradual. Though the sudden and the gradual differ from each other, at the point of receiving the great teaching, both, alike, are one and the same — hence, corresponding to these same two kinds of persons, what is taught for them is named the bodhisattva treasury.

Yet these same two treasuries, in each case, are named according to whom the teaching is directed and what is taught — within the śrāvaka treasury, there are bodhisattvas present as responsive echoes, and yet, since these are not the ones for whose sake the teaching is directed, one cannot, on the basis of these same bodhisattvas' own presence, call it a Mahāyāna sūtra. Likewise, within the bodhisattva treasury, there are śrāvaka persons present as well, and yet, since these are not the correct object of the teaching's own cardinal doctrine, and since śrāvaka dharma is not taught there, one cannot, on this basis, name it a lesser-vehicle dharma. Matching the person to the fixed dharma, each is named differently accordingly — for this reason, gathering them together under what is essential, there are, in brief, simply these same two kinds alone.

Question: the Buddha teaches three kinds of teaching for the sake of persons of the three vehicles — why, then, is the classification of treasuries only twofold?

Answer: the Buddha teaches the dharma of the three vehicles for the sake of those who seek the three vehicles; yet those who hear the twelve links of dependent origination taught are themselves already śrāvakas. The pratyekabuddha appears only in an age without a buddha, manifesting spiritual powers alone, silently, without any teaching spoken at all — hence those who compiled the sūtras gathered them together into only two treasuries. Classifying the teachings on the basis of the sūtras themselves, this is precisely the reasoning behind it.

How, then, are the present Four Teachings to be reconciled with Dharmottara's own two treasuries? He himself says that, gathering them together under what is essential, there are, in brief, simply two kinds. Opening and dividing this now, they are classified into the Four Teachings: the śrāvaka treasury is itself the Tripiṭaka teaching; the bodhisattva treasury is itself the shared, distinct, and perfect teachings together. For the decisively-fixed śrāvaka, the Tripiṭaka teaching is taught; for the śrāvaka who regressed from the great, the shared teaching is taught; for the bodhisattva who gradually awakens, the distinct teaching is taught; for the bodhisattva who suddenly awakens, the perfect teaching is taught. It is not merely that the names and numbers are easily reconciled with each other — their very meaning and intent converge profoundly, ancient and present in perfect accord, one and the same, with no second reading at all. It is simply that the text itself is terse while its meaning is broad, the teaching itself singular while covering everything else within it. If one wishes to draw out what is hidden so as to make it manifest, one must compose a great deal of further discussion and argument — like hunting and fishing across rivers and marshes, laying down net after net and trap after trap: could the hunter or fisherman possibly delight in doing so much of this for its own sake? It is only because there is no other choice that so much is done.

The Master says: by means of these five Sections, I have briefly discussed the profound meaning — this is by no means able to fully express the wonder that lies beyond the words themselves; it is only a rough account of what I have had in mind, and I have constantly regretted that words are unable to fully convey one's own intent, how much less, then, could a written record ever exhaust what could be said! And yet, if one is able to follow through the sevenfold sense, next penetrate the ten wondrous aspects, and investigate the seven headings of Clarifying the Essence — the remaining Sections, too, interlocking and inherited one from the next, vivid and intricate as embroidery — citing the sūtra to confirm and fix each point, phrase after phrase interlocking in a single ring — this does not merely encompass every name and teaching, but takes in the half and the full entirely, and nothing beyond this remains to be said! Moreover, taking each concrete matter itself and turning it into contemplation, one digs through the ordinary being's own dry earth and finds the wet clay of the sage's own dharma beneath it. The path of perfect penetration is, in this very way, penetrated through! The universal brightness of illumination is, in this very way, made manifest! This much has now been prepared and set out beforehand; the text itself will be further explicated afterward.