The Three Causes and Three Natures

Next, the essence of buddha-nature is of three kinds, comprehended within the three natures — this should be understood. The three kinds are: the three causes, and the three phases of buddha-nature. The three causes are: first, the cause of what is to be attained; second, the cause of practice; third, the cause of fulfillment. The cause of what is to be attained is the suchness manifested by the twofold emptiness — it is on account of this emptiness that bodhicitta and its subsequent practice, up through the dharmakāya attained at the end of the path, come to be attained; hence it is called "the cause of what is to be attained." The cause of practice is bodhicitta itself — it is by means of this mind that the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, the ten grounds, the ten pāramitās, and the other practices that assist the path are attained, up through the dharmakāya attained at the end of the path; this is called "the cause of practice." The cause of fulfillment is precisely this same practice — it is by means of practice that the fulfillment of the cause and the fulfillment of the fruit are both attained. The fulfillment of the cause refers to the conduct of merit and wisdom; the fulfillment of the fruit refers to the virtues of wisdom, severance, and grace. Of these three causes, the first has the unconditioned, true principle as its essence, while the latter two have the conditioned vow and practice as their essence. As for the three phases of buddha-nature: within the cause of what is to be attained, three natures are present — first, the nature abiding in itself; second, the nature drawn forth; third, the nature fully attained. A note explains: the nature abiding in itself refers to the stage of the ordinary person, prior to the path. The nature drawn forth refers to the range from the arising of bodhicitta up through the entirety of the stages still in training. The nature fully attained refers to the stage beyond training.

Next, as for what is comprehended within the three natures — this refers to the three non-natures and the three self-natures. The three non-natures are: first, the nature of no characteristic; second, the nature of no arising; third, the nature of no reality. These three natures comprehend the whole of the Tathāgata's nature, because they together serve as its essence. The nature of no characteristic: all dharmas are revealed only through names and words, and their self-nature has no characteristic mark of its own. The nature of no arising: all dharmas arise dependent on causes and conditions, and are not able to arise from themselves, since arising from self and from another can neither one be established. The nature of no reality: all dharmas are apart from any true characteristic, and there is no further, separate real nature to be found in them.

Next, as for the three natures in the more familiar sense: first, the imagined; second, the dependent; third, the perfected. Ten distinct topics concerning them should be understood: first, their naming; second, their manner of manifestation; third, their inclusion within five categories; fourth, their essence and characteristics; fifth, whether they should be known; sixth, their role in teachings given for a purpose; seventh, the cognition to which each belongs; eighth, penetration; ninth, the consequences of their absence; tenth, their basis. First, as to naming: the imagined nature is established on account of provisional designation through names and words — if there were no such names and words, it could not be established, so we know this nature is revealed only through names and words, and truly has no essence of its own. The dependent nature is the principle revealed by the twelve links of dependent origination, established as the basis on which the imagined nature depends. The perfected nature is the suchness of all dharmas, the object of the sages' non-discriminating wisdom, established in order to purify the other two natures, to bring about the three kinds of liberation, and to draw forth every virtue.

Second, as to their manner of manifestation: Question — "On what condition does the imagined nature become manifest?" Answer — "It becomes manifest by depending on the correspondence of characteristic and name." Question — "On what condition is the dependent nature established?" Answer — "It becomes manifest by depending on attachment to the imagined nature." Question — "On what condition is the perfected nature established?" Answer — "It becomes manifest precisely because the imagined and dependent natures are, in the final analysis, utterly without existence."

Third, as to their inclusion: there are three natures, and there are five categories of dharma — characteristic, name, discriminating thought, sagely wisdom, and suchness. The first three belong to mundane cognition, sagely wisdom belongs to supramundane cognition, and suchness is the unconditioned object. Question: "Among the five categories, how many comprehend the first nature?" Answer: "None of the five, because it has no real essence." Question: "How many comprehend the second nature?" Answer: "Four categories comprehend it." Question: "How many comprehend the third?" Answer: "Suchness alone." Question: "If the dependent nature is comprehended by sagely wisdom, how can it also be said to depend on the imagined nature?" Answer: "The dependent nature is of two kinds — the defiled dependent nature, established by depending on imagination, and the pure dependent nature, established by depending on suchness."

Fourth, as to their essence and characteristics: there are two aspects, the general and the particular. As to the general: these three natures, taken together, are able to establish every other truth spoken of elsewhere — the two, three, four, or seven kinds of truth, and so on — so no system of truths falls outside the three natures. As to the particular essence: within each of the three natures there is its own real point. First, the imagined nature's essence is, in every case, utterly without existence — yet this very fact is, within its own domain, not itself unreal, since there is no error in the mere designation by names and words as such. Second, the dependent nature's essence exists, yet is not ultimately real — it exists because it arises from confused consciousness meeting sense-faculty and sense-object, yet it is not real because it is not identical with suchness, there being no error in the principle of dependent arising as such. Set against the imagined nature, it is called "existent"; but set against the true nature that follows it, it is not truly existent — hence "existent but not truly real." Third, the perfected nature's essence is true whether spoken of as existent or as non-existent, since the essence of suchness is neither existent nor non-existent.

Question: "What is the true characteristic of each of the three natures?" Answer: "The true characteristic of the imagined nature concerns the attachments of superimposition and denial with respect to person and dharma — by understanding this nature, these attachments do not arise. This 'person and dharma' is precisely what imagination itself constructs. Viewed from the ultimate, to take this person and dharma to exist is superimposition; viewed from the conventional, to take them as non-existent is denial. To penetrate this nature is for neither attachment to arise — this is the true characteristic of the imagined nature."

Next, the true characteristic of the dependent nature concerns the attachments of superimposition and denial with respect to the grasping subject and the grasped object. Viewed from the ultimate as truly existing, this is superimposition, the view of permanence; viewed from the conventional as definitely non-existent, this is denial, the view of annihilation. Penetrating both natures, neither view arises. Since there is only consciousness appearing as though there were sense-objects, there is, in truth, no ultimately real subject or object, and so no superimposition; yet since consciousness does appear as though there were sense-objects, there is no denial either. Next, the true characteristic of the perfected nature concerns the attachments of existence and non-existence, of superimposition and denial. To attach to emptiness as though it were a positive existent is the slander of superimposition; to attach to it as mere non-existence is the slander of denial. To penetrate this nature is for neither attachment to arise.

Fifth, as to whether they should be known: Question — "How many of the three natures should be known?" Answer — "All three, because knowing them lets one penetrate the three gates of liberation and remove three obstructions. Knowing the imagined nature, one penetrates the gate of liberation through emptiness, removing the coarsest, 'flesh' level of affliction. Knowing the dependent nature, one penetrates the gate of liberation through wishlessness, removing the 'skin' level. Knowing the perfected nature, one penetrates the gate of liberation through signlessness, removing the 'mind' level — corresponding, in sequence, to the obstruction to liberation, then to meditative concentration, then to omniscience." Question: "How many of the three natures cannot be eliminated, and how many can?" Answer: "Two cannot be eliminated, one can. The imagined nature is, from the start, non-existent, and so cannot be eliminated. The perfected nature is, from the start, true, and so cannot be eliminated. The dependent nature, though it exists, is not truly real, and so can be eliminated."

Sixth, as to their role in teachings given for a purpose: the Buddha's teachings are of two kinds — sūtras of definitive meaning, and sūtras of provisional meaning. It is precisely on account of the three natures that the Buddha taught sūtras of provisional meaning. It is like knowing there is an object in the dark by depending on a lamp — only afterward, by means of the lamp, is the object hidden in the darkness clearly revealed. The Tathāgata is exactly the same: because there are those still attached to a misunderstanding of the three natures, he taught sūtras of provisional meaning. For one who has already penetrated the three natures, the truth is naturally revealed of itself — this is what is called a sūtra of definitive meaning. As the sūtra says: "One who has already attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas will never retreat." Question: "How is this established?" Answer: "Precisely by means of the three natures. The Tathāgata, with reference to the imagined nature, speaks of 'the forbearance of fundamental non-arising'; with reference to the dependent nature, 'the forbearance of self-natured non-arising'; and with reference to the perfected nature, 'the forbearance of the fundamental non-arising of afflictive defilement and suffering.'" Question: "With reference to which nature does the Tathāgata teach that all dharmas are without arising and ceasing, originally still, and inherently in nirvāṇa?" Answer: "The nature of no characteristic." Question: "With reference to which does he teach that all dharmas are like magical illusions?" Answer: "The nature of no arising." Question: "With reference to which does he teach that all dharmas are like empty space?" Answer: "The perfected nature." It is for this reason that, on account of the three natures, the Buddha's teachings include both those of definitive and those of provisional meaning.

Seventh, as to the cognition to which each belongs: Question — "Of what wisdom is each nature the object?" Answer — "The imagined nature is the object only of the ordinary, deluded mind, not of sagely wisdom, because it has no real essence at all. The dependent nature is the object of both sagely and ordinary conventional cognition, since it exists conventionally. The perfected nature is the object only of non-discriminating sagely wisdom, being both fully comprehensive and free from error."

Eighth, as to penetration: Question — "When a practitioner penetrates the imagined nature, should this be described as still operating within the mark of attachment, or not?" Answer — "Through conventional, discriminating cognition, it may be said to still operate within that mark; through supramundane, non-discriminating wisdom, it may be said to no longer operate within it. For this reason the dependent and imagined natures share, in the end, the same mark of no characteristic — and the perfected is related to them in just the same way." Question: "When a practitioner enters the imagined nature by way of true principle, what nature does this illuminate?" Answer: "The perfected nature." Question: "When a practitioner enters the perfected nature by way of true principle, what does this illuminate?" Answer: "It is by illuminating the dependent nature that one then attains the perfected nature."

Ninth, as to the consequences of their absence: Question — "If the imagined nature did not exist, what fault would follow?" Answer — "Names and words could not be established, and so neither could the dependent nature, nor, indeed, either the pure or impure aspect of anything at all." Question: "If the dependent nature did not exist, what fault?" Answer: "All afflictions would have to cease of themselves without any effort — in which case the pure aspect could not be established either." Question: "If the perfected nature did not exist, what fault?" Answer: "Neither the 'universal' nor the 'every kind' of pure object could be established — 'universal' comprehending the true and conventional taken separately, 'every kind' comprehending them together." Question: "Is the perfected nature to be established as pure, or impure?" Answer: "It cannot be said to be fixedly either. If fixedly pure, all sentient beings would attain liberation of themselves, without practice; if fixedly impure, no one's practice could ever bear fruit. If fixedly pure, there could be no ordinary person; if fixedly impure, no sage — because both pure and impure aspects are rooted in suchness itself, which does not differ between the two states, and so is neither pure nor impure. This is meant to show that suchness differs both from the sense-faculties, which are impure from the start because their cause is karma subject to outflow, and from a state such as meditative concentration, which is inherently pure yet turns impure once consumed by the four afflictions. Suchness, being inherently pure from the start, is never sullied even while dwelling, as it were, within the shell of ignorance." Question: "Among the three natures, how many, lacking substance, are able to give rise to something that has substance?" Answer: "Only the imagined nature, giving rise to the substance of the dependent nature." Question: "How many, having substance, give rise to something with substance?" Answer: "Only the dependent nature, its unreal substance giving rise to further dependent substance, just as ignorance gives rise to karmic formations." Question: "How many, having substance, give rise to something without substance?" Answer: "Only the perfected nature, which is able to eliminate the dependent nature, causing it to become without substance."

Tenth, as to their basis: Question — "On what does the imagined nature depend for its establishment?" Answer — "On three factors — characteristic, name, and discriminating thought." Question: "On what does the dependent nature depend?" Answer: "On four factors — characteristic, name, discrimination, and sagely wisdom." Question: "On what does the perfected nature depend?" Answer: "This nature has no abode and no attachment; it has no basis at all to depend on, and its object involves no discrimination whatsoever."