Four Teachings, One Reality

The Great Calming and Contemplation, Fascicle Three, Upper Part
Spoken by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai, of the Sui dynasty
Recorded by his disciple Guanding

Topic two, explaining the name of calming-and-contemplation: the broad outline of this has already been given above. By what further sense, then, is the name "calming-and-contemplation" established? There are, in brief, four: first, mutual opposition; second, the absolute, beyond all opposition; third, reconciling different names; fourth, pervading the three virtues. First, mutual opposition: calming and contemplation each have three senses. For calming: the sense of ceasing, the sense of stilling, and the sense of calming as opposed to not-calming. As for the sense of ceasing: every unwholesome discursive thought, every deluded notion and idea, becomes quiescent and comes to rest. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: "What is meant by clinging and pursuing? It means clinging to the three realms. What is meant by ceasing clinging and pursuing? It means the mind attains nothing at all." This takes its name from what is broken through — this is the sense of calming as ceasing. As for the sense of stilling: the mind, taking hold of the truth as its object, fixes its attention directly before it, stilled and unmoving. The Sūtra of Benevolent Kings says: "Entering the prajñā of principle is called abiding." The Larger Sūtra says: "By means of a dharma of non-abiding, one abides within the perfection of wisdom." This takes its name from the subject that does the calming — this is the sense of calming as stilling.

As for calming clarified in opposition to not-calming: though the wording resembles what came before, the sense is, in the end, entirely different. Why is this? The two senses of calming above are opposed to the flowing motion of birth-and-death, discussed in terms of nirvāṇa as ceasing; and opposed to the mind's own activity straying outside principle, discussed in terms of prajñā as stilling. This discusses mutual opposition generally, in terms of wisdom and severance together. Here, mutual opposition is discussed specifically, in terms of the truth of principle itself. Ignorance is itself already the Dharma-nature, and the Dharma-nature is itself already ignorance; ignorance is neither calming nor not-calming, and yet is called "not-calming"; the Dharma-nature is likewise neither calming nor not-calming, and yet is called "calming." This is opposing the "not-calming" of ignorance, and calling the Dharma-nature "calming" on that basis. As the sūtra says: "The Dharma-nature is neither arising nor ceasing, and yet the Dharma-nature is said to be quiescent extinction; the Dharma-nature is neither defiled nor pure, and yet the Dharma-nature is said to be pure." This is calming clarified in opposition to not-calming. Contemplation likewise has three senses: the sense of piercing through, the sense of penetrating understanding, and the sense of contemplation as opposed to not-contemplating. As for the sense of piercing through: wisdom's own sharp function pierces through and extinguishes affliction. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "A sharp hoe breaking the ground, through massive rock and gravel, reaching straight down to the vajra layer beneath." The Lotus Sūtra says: "Digging into a high plateau, one sees only dry, parched earth at first; applying the effort without ceasing, one gradually reaches damp soil." This takes its name from what is broken through — this establishes contemplation as piercing through. As for the sense of penetrating understanding: contemplative wisdom penetrates through and meets suchness itself. The Sūtra of Auspicious Manifestations says: "Stilling the mind and penetrating to its very source — this is why one is called a śramaṇa." The Treatise says: "The pure mind, ever one, is then able to see prajñā." This takes its name from the subject that does the contemplating — hence this establishes contemplation as penetrating understanding.

As for contemplation clarified in opposition to not-contemplating: though the wording resembles what came before, the sense is, in the end, entirely different. The two contemplations above are likewise generally opposed to the dense entanglement of birth-and-death, discussed in terms of piercing through; and opposed to confusion and blind delusion, discussed in terms of penetrating understanding. This discusses mutual opposition generally, in terms of wisdom and severance. Here, in terms of the truth of principle specifically: ignorance is itself already the Dharma-nature, and the Dharma-nature is itself already ignorance; ignorance is neither contemplating nor not-contemplating, and yet is called "not-contemplating"; the Dharma-nature is likewise neither contemplating nor not-contemplating, and yet is called "contemplating." As the sūtra says: "The Dharma-nature is neither bright nor dark, and yet the Dharma-nature is said to be bright." "Ultimate emptiness is neither wise nor foolish, and yet ultimate emptiness is said to be wisdom." This is contemplation clarified in opposition to not-contemplating. Hence calming and contemplation each take their name from three senses.

Second, clarifying calming-and-contemplation as the absolute, beyond all opposition: this breaks through the three kinds of mutually-opposed calming-and-contemplation just given. First a horizontal refutation, then a vertical one. If "calming as ceasing" takes its name from what is broken through: illuminating the object is the primary function, removing delusion the secondary one; since the name is taken from what is departed from, the name is established from the secondary function, and so falls into the nature of "other." If "calming as stilling" takes its name from the subject that does the breaking-through: illuminating the object is the primary function, removing delusion the secondary one; since it is said to illuminate, the name arises from wisdom itself, and so falls into the nature of "self." If calming is named because it is neither the ceasing of deluded thought nor the abiding in principle, but because wisdom and severance come together through causes and conditions, the name arises from their combination, and so falls into the nature of "both together." If calming is spoken of as neither what is broken through nor what does the breaking-through, this falls into the nature of "without cause." Hence Nāgārjuna says: "No dharma arises from itself, nor from another, nor from both together, nor without cause — for this reason it is said that nothing arises at all." How, then, could calming-and-contemplation, itself unborn, ever be named by way of these four alternatives? A name established by way of the four alternatives is a name arisen through mutual dependence — something that can be thought about, something that can be spoken of; it is a name arisen from the very knot of affliction — something that can be broken through, something that can be destroyed. How could the arising and ceasing, flowing motion of such a "birth" ever be called "stilling"? How could the confusion and delusion, the inversion of such a "birth" ever be called "penetrating understanding"?

Again, as for the vertical refutation: if calming-and-contemplation arises through any of the four alternatives, this is "birth born of birth," and not truly calming-and-contemplation at all. If one is able to still the views and habituated afflictions, abiding fixedly in the ultimate truth, this is merely a calming-and-contemplation of "no-birth" spoken of in opposition to "birth born of birth." If, with an empty mind, one enters the provisional, stilling the dust-and-sand afflictions, abiding fixedly in the conventional principle, this is merely a calming-and-contemplation of "birth born of no-birth" spoken of in opposition to that same "no-birth." If one stills ignorance itself, fixing the mind on the principle of the middle, this is merely calming-and-contemplation spoken of in opposition to the two extremes of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, neither yet truly calmed. All of these are still matters of mutual opposition, still something that can be thought about; still a birth arisen from the very knot of affliction, still something that can be broken through and destroyed. Not yet even truly calming — how much less the absolute beyond calming and not-calming? Still not truly contemplation — how much less the absolute beyond contemplating and not-contemplating? Why is this? Because clinging has not been fully dispelled; because the path of language has not been cut off; because karmic result has not been brought to an end. What is now spoken of as "calming-and-contemplation as the absolute" cuts off every opposition, horizontal and vertical alike; cuts off every kind of discursive thought; cuts off every affliction, every karma, every fruit; cuts off every teaching, contemplation, and realization as well. Since none of it arises at all, it is named "calming"; yet even "calming" cannot be found. Contemplation merges with its object exactly as it is; and since the object itself is quiescent extinction, even purity itself has no "purity" left to speak of — how, then, could there be any "contemplation" at all? Since even calming-and-contemplation itself does not exist, how could one, in opposition to "not-calming-and-contemplation," speak of "calming-and-contemplation"; or, in opposition to "calming-and-contemplation," speak of "not-calming-and-contemplation"; or, in opposition to "calming" and "not-calming," speak of "neither calming nor not-calming"? Hence it is known that neither calming nor not-calming can be found; and neither "neither calming nor not-calming" can be found either. Once opposition itself is cut off, this is no longer anything conditioned; it cannot be thought through by way of the four alternatives, and so is neither the path of language nor an object of consciousness. Since it has, then, no name or mark at all, the knot of affliction does not arise; and since it does not arise, there is no birth-and-death; and since there is no birth-and-death, there is nothing that can be broken or destroyed. Extinguished beyond extinction, cut off beyond cutting-off — hence it is named "calming as the absolute"; every inverted notion severed — hence it is named "contemplation as the absolute." This is likewise cutting off every conditioned calming-and-contemplation, on up to cutting off calming-and-contemplation with respect to birth-and-death itself.

Calming-and-contemplation as the absolute cannot, then, be spoken of at all — yet, given the causal conditions of the four siddhāntas, it can indeed be spoken of nonetheless. Given the causal condition of the worldly siddhānta, it is spoken of by way of reconciling different names; given the causal condition of the siddhānta for the individual, it is spoken of by way of pervading the three virtues; given the causal condition of the siddhānta of the antidote, it is spoken of by way of mutual opposition; given the causal condition of the siddhānta of ultimate meaning, it is spoken of by way of the absolute — and, spoken of in any of these ways, it is called "calming-and-contemplation." This very name is not located within, without, or in between; nor does it exist fixedly on its own. This name does not abide, and yet also does not "not abide." This name is not found among the four horizontal alternatives, nor among the four vertical ones — hence it is said not to abide; nor is it found where there is neither horizontal nor vertical — hence it is said also not to "not abide." Because this name can never be found at all, it is called "calming-and-contemplation as the absolute," also called "inconceivable calming-and-contemplation," also called "calming-and-contemplation of no-birth," also called "calming-and-contemplation of the one great matter." Such a great matter as this is not opposed to any lesser matter — just as empty space is not called "great" merely by contrast with some lesser emptiness. Calming-and-contemplation is exactly the same: it is not named "calming-and-contemplation" by contrast with foolish confusion, having nothing at all to be opposed to, the one and only dharma-realm alone — hence it is named "calming-and-contemplation as the absolute." Ordinary people, using every kind of language to explain the sense of "the absolute," never in the end actually attain it. Why is this? The ordinary mind runs after its own notions, constructing and distinguishing in every kind of way — awakened versus unawakened, mind versus no-mind, ordinary being distinguished from sage — and so "the absolute" itself ends up opposed to "the not-absolute," "the inconceivable" opposed to "the conceivable," turning round and round in mutual opposition, with the absolute itself finding nowhere to rest. If one grasps the sense and lets go of the words, the mind's own activity, too, is cut off; following wisdom into wondrous awakening, there is no more discrimination at all — no longer even speaking of "awakened" versus "unawakened," "sage" versus "not-sage," "mind" versus "no-mind," "conceivable" versus "inconceivable." Every kind of deluded notion, every discrimination made in relation to principle, is called "opposition." Once true wisdom opens and unfolds, it cuts off every one of these oppositions; and that very cutting-off is, in turn, itself cut off — like the earlier image of fire and wood — and this is what is named "the absolute, beyond opposition." Hence the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: "No dharma stands in opposition to any other... down to: not even a single thought abides." This is exactly that same sense. If this is so, is "the absolute" then a state belonging only to the sage, with no part for the beginner at all? Viewed now through the six identities, the beginner loses nothing by this, and the sage's own state is in no way diminished either.

Third, reconciling different names: this very calming-and-contemplation as the absolute is also named "inconceivable," also named "the great." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The name 'great' means inconceivable." Every other sūtra and treatise variously names it "departing far," "non-abiding," "non-attachment," "the unconditioned," "quiescent extinction," "non-discrimination," "dhyāna-concentration," "relinquishing," "removing," "letting go," and so forth — every one of these is simply another name for "calming." Since calming itself is already the absolute, great, and inconceivable, "departing far" and every other such name is likewise, absolutely, great and inconceivable. Elsewhere it is variously named "knowledge and vision," "clear discernment," "the eye's own awareness," "wisdom," "illuminating understanding," "discerning penetration," and so forth — every one of these is simply another name for "contemplation." Since contemplation itself is already the absolute, great, and inconceivable, "knowledge and vision" and every other such name is likewise, absolutely, great and inconceivable. Why is this? Prajñā is a single dharma, and the Buddha teaches it under manifold names; liberation is exactly the same, with many names of its own. It is likewise like empty space, possessing nothing, unmoving, unobstructed. One should know that the three virtues are simply a single dharma, given different names according to the different kinds of sentient beings addressed. On hearing of the absolute, take care not to be alarmed or afraid; on hearing of these reconciled names, take care not to fall into doubt and so injure oneself. Again, calming and contemplation reconcile with each other directly: calming is also named contemplation, and also named not-calming; contemplation is also named calming, and also named not-contemplating — exactly the same sense as explaining the name given earlier.

Fourth, pervading the three virtues: if the manifold different names found across the sūtras are all names for calming-and-contemplation, then the names are measureless, and their meanings measureless too — why, then, explain calming-and-contemplation by way of only three senses? This explanation is given specifically in correspondence with the three virtues. Since dharmas are measureless, why match them specifically to the three virtues alone? The Treatise says: "From the very first arising of the resolve, the bodhisattva constantly contemplates nirvāṇa as they walk the path." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Both buddhas and sentient beings are alike placed within the hidden treasury." The hidden treasury is itself nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa is itself the three virtues; the three virtues are themselves calming-and-contemplation. Self and other, beginning and end, can all alike cultivate and enter it — hence it is matched to this scheme specifically. If the two words together are matched to the three virtues jointly: calming is itself severance, and severance corresponds to liberation; contemplation is itself wisdom, and wisdom corresponds to prajñā; calming and contemplation held in equal balance is named "relinquishing marks," and relinquishing marks corresponds to the Dharma-body. Again, calming is śamatha; contemplation is vipaśyanā; and the two held equal is upekṣā. Their correspondence to the three virtues is exactly as above. Question: Calming and contemplation are two distinct dharmas — how could they possibly correspond to the inconceivable three virtues? Answer: It is precisely by means of inconceivable calming-and-contemplation that this correspondence is possible at all.

Again, the Larger Sūtra explains prajñā by way of the eighteen kinds of emptiness, and explains dhyāna by way of the hundred and eight samādhis. Though these are two separate explanations given one after the other, how could dhyāna truly lack prajñā, or prajñā truly lack dhyāna? This is precisely "not two, and yet two; two, and yet not two." The "not two" is itself the Dharma-body; the "two" is concentration and wisdom. These three dharmas have never once been separate from each other. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The buddha-nature has five names — it is named the Śūraṅgama, and it is named prajñā." Here, what is neither calming nor contemplation is nonetheless named calming, and nonetheless named contemplation — this is precisely inconceivable calming-and-contemplation, pervading the inconceivable three virtues. Furthermore, calming and contemplation each pervade the three virtues individually: within calming there is contemplation, and within contemplation there is calming. Thus: calming as ceasing is a wholesome practice of calming, gathered under the gate of concentration, and so corresponds to liberation; calming as stilling is a wholesome practice of conduct, gathered under the gate of contemplation, and so corresponds to prajñā; calming as neither-calming-nor-not is gathered under principle itself, and so corresponds to the Dharma-body — the sense of this is plain to see. Contemplation as piercing through is a wholesome practice of calming, gathered under the gate of concentration, and so corresponds to liberation; contemplation as penetrating understanding is a wholesome practice of conduct, gathered under the gate of contemplation, and so corresponds to prajñā; contemplation as neither-contemplating-nor-not is gathered under principle, and so corresponds to the Dharma-body — the sense of this, too, is plain to see.

Furthermore, calming and contemplation jointly correspond to the three virtues: calming as ceasing and contemplation as piercing through both take their name from what is departed from, and so correspond to liberation; calming as stilling and contemplation as penetrating understanding both take their name from the wisdom that takes hold of the object, and so correspond to prajñā; calming as neither-nor and contemplation as neither-nor are both named the Dharma-nature, and so correspond to the Dharma-body. Furthermore, the three virtues correspond to calming and contemplation from the other direction as well: the three virtues jointly correspond to the two words together; and the three virtues also each correspond to the two words individually. As for the three virtues jointly corresponding: liberation corresponds to calming, prajñā corresponds to contemplation, and the Dharma-body corresponds to neither-calming-nor-contemplating. As for the three virtues each corresponding to calming and contemplation individually: liberation, complete in itself, has three kinds — liberation through the purity of skillful means corresponds to calming as ceasing; liberation through perfect purity corresponds to calming as stilling; liberation through the purity of one's own nature corresponds to calming as neither-nor. Prajñā, complete in itself, likewise has three kinds — the wisdom of the path corresponds to contemplation as piercing through; the wisdom of the seeds of the path corresponds to contemplation as penetrating understanding; the wisdom that knows all things in every mode corresponds to contemplation as neither-nor. The Dharma-body, complete in itself, likewise has three kinds — the physical body corresponds to one calming and one contemplation; the body of dharma-gates corresponds to one calming and one contemplation; the body of the true mark of reality corresponds to one calming and one contemplation. The sense of this is plain to see.

If one believes that the three virtues are the absolute, great, and inconceivable, then, once their correspondence with calming-and-contemplation is made clear, one must likewise believe that calming-and-contemplation is the absolute, great, and inconceivable. If one believes that nirvāṇa's three dharmas, complete together, are named the hidden treasury, one must likewise believe that the three kinds of calming, complete together, are named great quiescent concentration, and named the hidden treasury; and that the three kinds of contemplation, complete together, are named great wisdom, and named the hidden treasury; and that the three dharmas of neither-calming-nor-contemplating, complete together, are named the hidden treasury. If one believes that the three virtues are neither vertically arranged nor horizontally arranged, neither juxtaposed nor separate, like three dots or like three eyes, one must likewise believe that the three kinds of calming and the three kinds of contemplation are neither vertically nor horizontally arranged, neither juxtaposed nor separate. Yet the various sūtras, addressing different occasions, each raise up only one side of it as the leading term. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, for instance, raises up calming's own side specifically; yet calming is already complete with every dharma, lacking nothing at all, and is likewise named the hidden treasury. The Treatise and the Lotus Sūtra raise up contemplation's own side specifically; yet contemplation is likewise already complete with every dharma, lacking nothing at all. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra raises up the three dharmas together, complete as one; yet even this is no more numerous a set of dharmas, and is likewise named the hidden treasury. Calming-and-contemplation is exactly the same: whether opened out into many or gathered into one, the opening-out is no more numerous, and the gathering-in no less complete — each and every one of them is already the dharma-realm itself, gathering in every dharma, all alike named the hidden treasury. If this holds even when only one side is raised up, how much more when the whole is raised up together? Since calming-and-contemplation pervades the three virtues in just this way, it likewise pervades every other name as well — "departing far," "knowledge and vision," and the rest, exactly the same. And it likewise pervades every other threefold name — the three kinds of bodhi, the three buddha-natures, the three jewels, and every other threefold dharma whatsoever, exactly the same.

Question: In what sense are these three names arranged vertically or horizontally? In what sense are they neither vertical nor horizontal? Answer: Various Hīnayāna masters say: "Prajñā, as the wisdom of every mode, is already perfect, and yet the bondage of retribution still remains; liberation is not yet complete, and the body still depends on ordinary food; moreover it still carries impermanence with it — one factor superior, two inferior, like a fire running sideways across a river." They also say: "First there is the body with its auspicious marks; next the wisdom of every mode, prajñā, is attained; only afterward, once body and wisdom are both extinguished, is liberation finally complete." Since this involves a sense of higher and lower, earlier and later, it is likened to the vertical arrangement of the three dots of the character for water. On entering the concentration of cessation, there is body but no wisdom; the arhat, dwelling in the formless realm, has wisdom but no body; on entering nirvāṇa without remainder, there is only solitary, self-tamed liberation, and nothing more. On this view, each of these three has nothing to do with the other two: set side by side, they are horizontal; piled one atop another, they are vertical; divided apart, they are different. Various Mahāyāna masters say: "The Dharma-body is the true substance itself, existing of itself whether or not a buddha appears in the world — it is not something that only comes to be now. The illuminating cause, prajñā, and freedom from all encumbrance, liberation — these two are yet to come, separated across lifetimes and spanning different ages, extending through both the pure and the defiled. In this sense, the arrangement of these names is vertical." They also say: "The three virtues have no before or after — one substance, complete in itself; yet, following that substance out into its distinct meanings, three differences arise. This is substance horizontal, but meaning vertical." They also say: "Substance and meaning are, in fact, no different from each other — yet there remains a difference between the hidden and the manifest. If they are truly no different, this hardly escapes being horizontal; if hidden and manifest differ, this hardly escapes being vertical." Given how various these explanations are, how could they possibly accord with the sūtras?

Here it is explained that the three virtues are all alike inconceivable — how, then, could they suddenly be vertical? All alike inconceivable — how, then, could they suddenly be horizontal? All alike inconceivable — how, then, could they suddenly be one? All alike inconceivable — how, then, could they suddenly be different? This is explained in terms of the hidden treasury of principle itself: the body eternal, wisdom perfect, severance complete — every one of these is already the Buddhadharma, with no superior or inferior among them, hence they are not vertical. The three virtues merge into one another, all alike the one and only dharma-realm; outside the dharma-realm, where else could there possibly be any separate dharma? Hence they are not horizontal. They are able to be established in manifold different ways, hence they are not one; they alike return to the same ultimate meaning, hence they are not different. This is explained in terms of the cause of practice. Being one and yet three, they are not horizontal; being three and yet one, they are not vertical. Not being three and yet three, they are not one; not being one and yet one, they are not different. This is explained in terms of how the term itself functions. The true character i has exactly this same sense. Question: What is the relation between the three virtues and the four virtues of nirvāṇa? Answer: Discussed generally, the three virtues each and every one possess permanence, bliss, self, and purity alike. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "What every buddha takes as their own teacher is the Dharma. Because the Dharma is eternal, the buddhas too are eternal." The Dharma here is the Dharma-body; the Buddha is prajñā and liberation — hence this is explained as applying to all three together. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "By means of the extinguishing of this form, an eternal form is obtained; and sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness are exactly the same." Thus the Dharma-body possesses permanence, bliss, self, and purity all together; and the other two virtues are exactly the same. According to one account: transforming form accomplishes the Dharma-body, and the Dharma-body is "permanence" and "bliss"; transforming consciousness and perception accomplishes prajñā, and prajñā is "purity"; transforming sensation and formations accomplishes liberation, and liberation is "self." According to another account, based on the foundations of mindfulness: transforming consciousness accomplishes "permanence"; transforming sensation accomplishes "bliss"; transforming perception and formations accomplishes "self"; transforming form accomplishes "purity." Thus the shared and the distinct teachings each have their own two explanations: following the perfect teaching gives the sudden sense of it; following the distinct teaching gives the gradual sense of it, and so on.

Question: Both the three obstructions and the three paths obstruct the three virtues. The three obstructions have been opened out and traced through to their utmost extent — should not the three paths and the four inversions likewise be opened out and traced through to their utmost extent? Answer: Yes, by the same pattern. Why is this? Karma is of three kinds: contaminated karma, uncontaminated karma, and karma neither contaminated nor uncontaminated. This gives rise to three kinds of retribution: birth-and-death of limited span, of the expedient means, and of true reward. This retribution arises from three kinds of affliction: grasping at marks, the dust-and-sand afflictions, and ignorance. Moreover, in terms of the three kinds of retribution, each in turn opens out into the three paths; and in terms of the three kinds of affliction, each in turn opens out into the four inversions.

Third, explaining the essence and marks of calming-and-contemplation: having already grasped the great intent, thoroughly understood as given above, and the name, ranged over as widely as just shown, one must now come to recognize the essence itself, profound and deep. Its essence is shown here, roughly, by way of four senses: first, the mark of the teaching; second, eyes and wisdom; third, objects; fourth, gain and loss. Principle is made manifest by means of teaching, and since the methods of teaching are many, "mark" is used to show it; the gates by which one enters principle are not all the same, hence "eyes and wisdom" is used to show it; the truth has both the provisional and the real, hence "objects" is used to show it; people differ in how far they attain it, hence "gain and loss" is used to show it. The Lotus Commentary uses the "four ones" to clarify the real; here, these four sections are used to show the essence, and the two schemes may be understood as broadly comparable.

As for showing it by the mark of the teaching: "calming-and-contemplation," as a name for a teaching, is shared in common between the ordinary being and the sage alike; one cannot simply search for the shared name and expect to find, through it, the specific essence — hence "mark" is used to distinguish them. For the ordinary person, the wholesome states that calming works to remedy are the mark of calming; and the wholesome states that contemplative practice gives rise to are the mark of contemplation. Again, the four dhyānas and the four immeasurable minds are the mark of calming; the six practices of renunciation are the mark of contemplation. All of these still fail to escape birth-and-death — their mark is simply the contaminated. Hence the Treatise says: "Apart from Mount Malaya, no sandalwood grows anywhere else; apart from the wisdom of the three vehicles, there is no true wisdom anywhere else." Hence this level is not what is discussed here. As for the two lesser vehicles: the nine contemplations, the ten contemplations, the eight liberations, and the nine sequential concentrations are mostly phenomenal dhyāna, and, taken broadly, are the mark of calming; the wisdom of the constructed Four Noble Truths is the mark of contemplation. Though this calming-and-contemplation does escape birth-and-death, it is the clumsy method, extinguishing form to enter emptiness. This emptiness, too, may be named "calming," and may be named "neither calming nor not-calming" — but it cannot be named "contemplation." Why is this? Because the body is reduced to ash and wisdom itself extinguished, it cannot be named "contemplation." This is merely the analytical method, its mark uncontaminated — and this, too, is not what is discussed here.

The skillful method's calming has three kinds: first, the calming that embodies the real; second, the calming of skillful means that follows conditions; third, the calming that stills discrimination between the two extremes. First, the calming that embodies the real: every dharma arises from conditions, and causes and conditions are themselves empty, without any master. "Stilling the mind and reaching its very source — this is why one is called a śramaṇa." Knowing that causes and conditions are only a provisional combination, their nature illusory and empty, this is why it is called "embodying." The mind's own clinging and pursuing, and its deluded thoughts, once found to be empty, are thereby stilled — this emptiness is itself the real — hence it is called "the calming that embodies the real." Second, the calming of skillful means that follows conditions: if the three vehicles alike, by means of the wordless path, sever affliction and enter the real, that real is then no different between them — the only difference spoken of is whether affliction together with its habituated traces is fully exhausted or not yet exhausted. If the two lesser vehicles embody the real, they have no need of this calming of skillful means; the bodhisattva, entering the provisional, must precisely put it into practice. Knowing that emptiness is not simply empty is why it is called "skillful means"; discriminating between medicine and illness is why it is called "following conditions"; the mind settling upon the conventional truth is why it is named "calming." A sūtra says: "In motion or in stillness, the mind remains ever one" — this too may serve as confirmation of this same sense. Third, the calming that stills discrimination between the two extremes: the flowing motion of birth-and-death and the fixed assurance of nirvāṇa are both alike a partial practice, a partial function, neither meeting the middle way. Here, knowing that the conventional is not simply conventional, the extreme of the conventional is stilled; and also not accepting that it is not-conventional, the extreme of emptiness is stilled — this is named "the calming that stills the two extremes." Though these three names for calming are not themselves found stated in any sūtra or treatise, they are named according to their sense by analogy with the three contemplations to come. The Treatise says: "The bodhisattva, relying on the sūtras' own teaching, coins names for things — this is called the giving of Dharma." There is no fault in coining such names. If one is able to trace them back and find their sense already present in the sūtras, then this naming already tacitly accords with that same sense.

Examining these three closely against the three senses given earlier in explaining the name, the names resemble each other but their marks differ. What is similar: calming as ceasing resembles embodying the real; calming as stilling resembles skillful means following conditions; calming as neither-nor resembles stilling the two extremes. What differs is their own mark — namely, the mark of the three truths themselves. The earlier three general senses together accomplish the next three teaching-specific kinds; and the last of these three contains the first two within it. Why is this? When embodying the real in calming, one penetrates that causes and conditions are but a provisional name, empty and without any master, and the flowing motion of unwholesomeness is thereby stilled — this is the sense of ceasing; the mind settles upon principle, which is precisely penetrating causes and conditions — this is the sense of stilling; this very principle is itself the real, and the real is itself the very source, and the source itself is properly neither calming nor not-calming — this is calming as neither-nor. These three senses together accomplish the mark of calming that embodies the real. In the calming of skillful means, illuminating the provisional freely, scattered confusion and ignorance are thereby stilled — this is the sense of ceasing. The mind settles upon the principle of the provisional, as when Vimalakīrti entered samādhi and observed the bhikṣus' own capacities, discriminating between medicine and illness — this is the sense of stilling. The principle of the provisional itself unmoved is calming as neither-nor. These three senses together accomplish the mark of the calming of skillful means that follows conditions. In stilling the two extremes, the marks of both birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are alike stilled — this is the sense of ceasing. Entering the prajñā of principle is named abiding, the mind taking hold of the middle as its object — this is the sense of stilling. This very principle of the true mark of reality, neither calming nor not-calming, is the sense of calming-not-calming. These three senses together accomplish the mark of the calming that stills the two extremes. Hence these are, in the end, entirely different from what came before, and are also not what is used here in this treatise.

Next, clarifying the mark of contemplation. Contemplation has three kinds: entering emptiness from the provisional, named "the contemplation of the two truths"; entering the provisional from emptiness, named "the contemplation of equality"; and these two contemplations serving as the expedient path by which one enters the middle way, illuminating both truths at once, thought after thought quiescent and extinct, flowing naturally into the ocean of omniscience — named "the contemplation of the middle, the ultimate truth." This naming comes from the Yingluo Sūtra. As for what is meant by "the two truths": contemplating the provisional serves as the expression by which one enters emptiness, and emptiness is met by means of that expression — subject and object discussed together — hence it is called "the contemplation of the two truths." Moreover, on the very day emptiness is met, one does not merely see emptiness alone, but also comes to recognize the provisional as well — like clouds clearing to reveal what had been obscured, above made manifest and below made bright at once. Because both the real and the provisional are thereby made manifest, this may be called the contemplation of the two truths. Now, since it is by means of the provisional that the real is met, why should this not also be called the contemplation of the two truths? Again: the conventional is what is broken through; the real is what is put to use. If named from what is broken through, it should be called "the contemplation of the conventional truth"; if named from what is put to use, it should be called "the contemplation of the real truth." Discussed jointly, as both breaking-through and putting-to-use together, it is hence called "the contemplation of the two truths." Again, this is further distinguished into three: in terms of the teaching, there is the contemplation of the two truths according with sentiment; in terms of practice, there is the contemplation of the two truths according with sentiment-and-wisdom together; in terms of realization, there is the contemplation of the two truths according with wisdom. Though the merit of the first contemplation has not yet met the real directly, it can still be discussed as the contemplation of the two truths, according with the teaching or according with practice. Question: The first contemplation takes its name jointly from breaking-through and putting-to-use; the second contemplation likewise involves breaking-through and putting-to-use — should it not likewise be called "the two truths"? Answer: The former has already received the name "the two truths"; though the latter likewise involves breaking-through and putting-to-use, it instead takes its name, from the more excellent side, as "equality." Question: The third contemplation, too, involves breaking-through and putting-to-use — why is it not likewise named from the more excellent side? Answer: The first two contemplations still involve some residue, and so require further breaking-through and further putting-to-use; the third contemplation has no residue at all, and so takes its name simply from its use alone — it cannot be treated by the same rule.

Question: The first two contemplations both contemplate the two truths — should they not both enter into the two truths equally? Answer: The first contemplates the provisional in order to break through illness, and contemplates the real in order to put it to use — hence both are contemplated. But one is put to use and the other is not, hence they do not both "enter" equally. Question: Both the real and the middle can be called "truth" — but the conventional, whether within or beyond the three realms, is not itself principle — how can it be called "truth"? Answer: The Bodhisattva-bhūmi explains two kinds of dharma-nature: first, the phenomenal dharma-nature, since its nature is differentiated; second, the real dharma-nature, since its nature is truly real. These are simply different names for the two truths. Since both can already be called "dharma-nature," why should they not also both be called "truth"? Question: If this is so, should both then also be called "nirvāṇa"? Answer: The sūtra says: "A poor person obtaining treasure" ... down to "a monkey obtaining wine" — and also, the concentration of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is itself called "worldly nirvāṇa." This is exactly that same sense. Question: If this is so, are both then uncontaminated? Answer: The Treatise says: "worldly right view, world-transcending right view." Question: If this is so, are both then without arising? Answer: The sūtra says: "each distinct mark is, of the other, absent." Question: In entering emptiness from the provisional, must the provisional necessarily be broken through before emptiness is entered? Answer: In the general sense, there should be a fourfold pattern: entering without breaking through, entering by breaking through, breaking through without entering, and neither breaking through nor entering — extending even to thirty-six such patterns, as explained further on.

As for "entering the provisional from emptiness," named "the contemplation of equality": if one has already entered emptiness, there is not even emptiness itself left to possess — what provisional, then, is there left to enter? One should know that this contemplation, for the sake of transforming sentient beings, knows the real as not simply real, and, through skillful means, emerges into the provisional — hence it is said that, from emptiness, one discriminates medicine from illness without error, and this is called "entering the provisional." "Equality" is a name given by comparison with what came before. The earlier contemplation broke through the illness of the provisional, making no use of provisional dharmas, but using only real dharmas — breaking through one side while not breaking through the other, this is not yet "equality." This later contemplation breaks through the illness of emptiness, and, in turn, makes use of provisional dharmas — breaking-through and putting-to-use now being equally balanced, compared across the two different moments — hence it is called "equality." Let this now be illustrated: it is like a blind person whose eyes have just been opened, seeing empty space and seeing form — yet, though seeing form, unable to distinguish the manifold varieties of plants and trees, roots and stems, branches and leaves, medicinal and poisonous kinds. When entering emptiness from the provisional according with wisdom, one likewise sees the two truths but is not yet able to make use of the provisional. Once such a person's eyes have opened further, able to see both emptiness and form, they come to recognize the various kinds, thoroughly understanding causation, coarse and subtle, medicinal and edible, recognizing and making use of all of it, bringing benefit to others. This illustrates entering the provisional from emptiness — the real truly the real, and the conventional truly the conventional, now genuinely put to use through the provisional, for the sake of transforming sentient beings — hence it is named "entering the provisional." It is again called "equality," with the same sense as explained before.

As for "the contemplation of the middle, the ultimate truth": the earlier contemplation contemplates the provisional as empty — this empties birth-and-death; the later contemplation contemplates emptiness itself as empty — this empties nirvāṇa; negating both extremes at once, this is named "the twofold contemplation of emptiness," serving as the expedient path by which the middle way is met — hence it is said: "thought after thought quiescent and extinct, flowing into the ocean of omniscience." Moreover, the first contemplation makes use of emptiness, and the second makes use of the provisional — this is the twofold preservation of skillful means; on entering the middle way, one is able to illuminate both truths at once. Hence a sūtra says: "When the mind abides in concentration, it is able to know the marks of arising and ceasing throughout the world." The two contemplations that came before serve as two kinds of expedient means for exactly this reason. Question: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Too much concentration, too much wisdom — either way, one does not see the buddha-nature." What is the sense of this? Answer: Within the sequential three contemplations, the two lesser vehicles and the shared teaching's own bodhisattva possess a portion of the first contemplation — this belongs to too much concentration and too little wisdom, and does not see the buddha-nature. The distinct teaching's own bodhisattva possesses a portion of the second contemplation — this belongs to too much wisdom and too little concentration, and likewise does not see the buddha-nature. The two contemplations serve as expedient means, and, on entering the third contemplation, the buddha-nature is then seen. Question: A sūtra says: "The bodhisattvas of the ten abidings, by means of the eye of wisdom, see it, though not yet with full clarity" — this is not the same as not seeing it at all. The first contemplation is the stage of the eye of wisdom, and the second contemplation is the stage of the Dharma-eye — how, then, can it be said that these two eyes see nothing at all? Answer: Those sequential eyes are each partial, one toward concentration, the other toward wisdom, and are precisely what the Buddha criticizes — one cannot say that they truly "see" at all. What is here called "seeing by means of the eye of wisdom," though the name is the same, in fact refers to the ten abidings of the perfect teaching. Once the three contemplations stand present, entering the principle of the three truths, this is named "abiding"; and this "abiding" is called the eye of wisdom. Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "I vow to attain, like the World-Honored One, the eye of wisdom, foremost in its purity." An eye of wisdom of this kind sees only in part, not yet with full clarity — hence it is said: "like seeing forms at night, like geese flying across the sky." This is not the same name given to the two lesser vehicles' own eye of wisdom. Hence in the Lotus Sūtra: "It is like a person digging into a high plateau, seeing at first only dry earth; applying effort without ceasing, they gradually see damp earth; and so, gradually, reach mud, and afterward finally obtain water." Dry earth is a simile for the first contemplation; damp earth, for the second; mud, for the third; water, for the perfect-and-sudden contemplation. Likewise, as a simile for the teachings: the Tripiṭaka teaching does not expound the middle way, and is like dry earth; the shared teaching is like damp earth; the distinct teaching is like mud; the perfect teaching expounds the middle way, and is like water. What the first two teachings do not expound, what the first two practices do not reach — how could the eye of wisdom, one-sidedly fixed on mere emptiness, ever manage to see the buddha-nature? Were it to see the buddha-nature, this would be an impossibility.

These three contemplations and the earlier three contemplations resemble each other in name, on first approach, but differ in sense and mark. What is similar: the earlier "piercing through," contemplating every falsehood, resembles entering emptiness from the provisional. The earlier "penetrating understanding," penetrating principle so that principle harmonizes, penetrating phenomena so that phenomena harmonize, resembles the contemplation of equality entering the provisional. The earlier "contemplation-that-is-not-contemplation" resembles the middle. What differs in their mark: the earlier ones bear the mark of a single truth; these here bear the mark of the three truths. Moreover, the earlier three general senses together accomplish the latter three teaching-specific contemplations, and the last of the latter three contains the first two within it. Why is this? As when entering emptiness from the provisional, breaking through the massive rock of the four abodes of affliction — is this not precisely the sense of piercing through? The emptiness thereby entered, that emptiness being itself principle, wisdom able to reveal principle — this is precisely the sense of penetrating understanding; and this very principle of emptiness is itself the sense of contemplation-that-is-not-contemplation. These three senses together accomplish the mark of the contemplation that enters emptiness. Entering the provisional from emptiness likewise contains all three senses: why is this? Recognizing the provisional as dharma, breaking through the obstruction of not-knowing — this is the sense of piercing through; illuminating the provisional as principle, discriminating it without error — this is the sense of penetrating understanding; the principle of the provisional, ever thus — this is the sense of contemplation-that-is-not-contemplation. These three senses together accomplish the mark of the provisional contemplation. The contemplation of the middle likewise contains all three senses: emptying both extremes is the sense of piercing through; correctly entering the middle way is the sense of penetrating understanding; the Dharma-nature of the middle itself is the sense of contemplation-that-is-not-contemplation. These three senses together accomplish the mark of the contemplation of the middle. This, based on the Mahāyāna, explains the mark of the three kinds of calming and three kinds of contemplation — following their sense according to their own distinct mark, each clearly separate from the other. If the three contemplations are discussed this way, there is a difference of provisional and real, shallow and deep; if the three wisdoms are discussed this way, there is a difference of superior and inferior, earlier and later; if the three kinds of person are discussed this way, there is a difference of greater and lesser stage. This, then, is the sequential, divided version — and it is not what is used here in this treatise.

As for the mark of the perfect-and-sudden calming-and-contemplation: since calming takes the truth as its object, one truth is thereby three truths; since the truth binds itself to calming, one calming is thereby three kinds of calming. It is like the three marks present within a single thought of mind: though a single thought, it possesses three marks. Calming and truth are exactly the same: the dharma that is calmed, though one, is three; the mind that calms, though three, is one. Since contemplation contemplates its object, one object is thereby three objects; since the object brings forth contemplation, one contemplation is thereby three kinds of contemplation. It is like Maheśvara's three eyes upon his one face: though three eyes, it is a single face. Contemplation and object are exactly the same: contemplated as three, it is yet one; brought forth as one, it is yet three — inconceivable. Neither provisional nor real, neither superior nor inferior, neither earlier nor later, neither juxtaposed nor separate, neither great nor small. Hence the Middle Treatise says: "What arises through causes and conditions is at once empty, at once provisional, and at once the middle." Again, as the Diamond Sūtra says: "It is like a person with eyes: when the sun's light shines brightly, they see every kind of form." If the eye alone could see, it would have no need of the sun; and if there were no form at all, then even with both sun and eye, still nothing would be seen. These three dharmas are never at different times, never separate from one another. The eye is a simile for calming; the sun, for contemplation; form, for the object. These three dharmas, neither earlier nor later, are discussed all at once, as three. Discussed as three within the one, it is exactly the same. Grasping this sense, one thereby understands the mark of the perfect-and-sudden teaching's own calming-and-contemplation.

But why stop at merely three-and-one, one-and-three? Every sense discussed above is, in fact, all contained within a single mind. What is its mark? Embodying ignorance and every inversion as itself the very real of the true mark of reality is named "the calming that embodies the real." This true mark of reality, pervading every place, following conditions through every object encountered, the mind settled and unmoved, is named "the calming of skillful means that follows conditions." Birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, agitation and dispersal, both alike at rest, is named "the calming that stills the two extremes." Embodying every provisional thing as, every one, empty, that emptiness itself the true mark of reality, is named "the contemplation that enters emptiness." Penetrating this emptiness, contemplation merging with the middle way, able to know the marks of arising and ceasing throughout the world, seeing them exactly as they truly are, is named "the contemplation that enters the provisional." This very wisdom of emptiness is itself the middle way, with no two of them, no separateness at all, and is named "the contemplation of the middle." At the moment of embodying the real, the massive rock and gravel of the five abodes of affliction, in a single thought, come to rest — this is named "the sense of ceasing." The mind taking the middle way as its object, entering the wisdom of the true mark of reality, is named "the sense of stilling." The very nature of the true mark of reality is itself "the sense of neither calming nor not-calming." Moreover, this very single thought is able to pierce through the five abodes of affliction, penetrating to the true mark of reality; and the true mark of reality is itself neither contemplation nor not-contemplation. All such senses as these are contained entirely within a single thought of mind, never moving from the very brink of the real, and yet manifesting every kind of distinction. A sūtra says: "Skillfully able to distinguish the marks of every dharma, and yet, with regard to the ultimate meaning, never moving at all." Though there are many names, this is simply "prajñā, a single dharma, which the Buddha teaches under manifold names." Every name is already perfect; every sense is likewise already perfect. Mutual opposition and the absolute, taken together against the essence, are alike inconceivable; and, being inconceivable, they are free of any obstruction; and, being free of obstruction, they are complete and lack nothing. This is how the perfect-and-sudden teaching's own mark reveals the essence of calming-and-contemplation.

Second, clarifying eyes and wisdom: the essence itself is neither knowing nor seeing, neither cause nor fruit; to speak of it is already difficult enough for oneself, let alone to show it to another. Though it cannot be known or seen directly, by means of eyes and wisdom, it can indeed be known and seen; though it is neither cause nor fruit, it is made manifest by means of cause and fruit. Calming-and-contemplation serves as the cause; wisdom and eyes serve as the fruit. The cause is the distant basis for revealing the essence; the fruit is the near basis for revealing the essence. The essence itself is hidden and subtle, beyond all discrimination — hence it is expressed by way of eyes and wisdom, so that the essence may be understood. Here, first, "the sequential eyes and wisdom" are explained: the three kinds of calming and three kinds of contemplation serve as the cause, and the three eyes and three wisdoms thereby obtained serve as the fruit. As for the three kinds of calming: in the calming that embodies the real, deluded affliction does not arise; through this calming, concentration is brought forth, and that concentration gives rise to the uncontaminated; the eye of wisdom thereby opens, seeing ultimate meaning, and the samādhi of the real truth is accomplished. Hence calming is able to accomplish the eye; the eye is able to see the essence; the real essence is thereby attained. In the calming that follows conditions, merging with the real while emerging into the provisional, the mind settles upon the conventional truth; through this calming, dhāraṇī is obtained; dhāraṇī discriminates medicine from illness, the Dharma-eye opens wide, breaking through obstruction and penetrating not-knowing, constantly abiding in samādhi, seeing every buddha-land without any duality of aspect — and the samādhi of the conventional truth is accomplished. Hence calming is able to bring forth the eye; the eye is able to attain the essence; the conventional essence is thereby attained. In the calming that stills the two extremes, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, emptiness and existence, are both alike stilled together; through this calming, the concentration of the middle way is brought forth, the buddha-eye opens wide, illuminating everywhere without exception, and the samādhi of the middle way is accomplished. Hence calming is able to attain the eye; the eye is able to attain the essence; the essence of the middle way is thereby attained.

As for the three kinds of contemplation: in entering emptiness from the provisional, wisdom corresponding to emptiness, one is thereby able to break through the afflictions of views and habituated thought, accomplishing the wisdom that knows all things generally. This wisdom is able to attain the essence — the real essence is thereby attained. In entering the provisional from emptiness, discriminating medicine from illness across every dharma-gate, one thereby breaks through not-knowing, accomplishing the wisdom of the seeds of the path. This wisdom is able to attain the essence — the conventional essence is thereby attained. In negating both extremes at once, serving as the expedient means for entering the middle, one is able to break through ignorance, accomplishing the wisdom that knows all things in every mode. This wisdom is able to attain the essence — the essence of the middle way is thereby attained. Thus the three kinds of calming and three kinds of contemplation together accomplish the three eyes and three wisdoms, each attaining its own essence in turn. This is exactly the sense in which revealing the essence is discussed by way of eyes and wisdom. Question: The eye sees, wisdom knows — do knowing and seeing differ? Answer: This should be distinguished by four alternatives: knowing but not seeing; seeing but not knowing; both knowing and seeing; neither knowing nor seeing. The ordinary being, not yet having realized it, does not see, and, not yet having heard of it, does not know. The two lesser vehicles, having realized it, do see, and, having heard of it, do know. The pratyekabuddha, having realized it, does see, but, not having heard it taught, does not know. The practitioner of the expedient path, having heard of it, does know, but, not yet having realized it, does not see. Furthermore, the practitioner of faith-conduct, through hearing, gains wisdom; through wisdom, brings forth the uncontaminated; and thereby attains the wisdom that knows all things generally. This wisdom, arising through hearing, is called "wisdom-knowing." The practitioner of dharma-conduct, through contemplation, attains concentration; through concentration, brings forth the uncontaminated; and thereby accomplishes the eye of wisdom. This eye, arising through dhyāna, is called "eye-seeing." Yet knowing and seeing both alike realize the real truth — it is only from the basis through which each was reached that the original name is retained, hence they are spoken of as "knowing" and "seeing" respectively. This distinction is made here specifically in terms of the eye of wisdom and the wisdom that knows all things generally; the other two eyes and two wisdoms follow this same pattern. Where eyes and wisdom are of a single mind, however, this distinction does not apply.

As for clarifying "the non-sequential eyes and wisdom of calming-and-contemplation": as explained earlier, calming is itself contemplation, and contemplation is itself calming, with no two of them, no separateness at all. The near basis for attaining the essence is exactly the same: the eye is itself wisdom, and wisdom is itself the eye. Because it is an eye, seeing is spoken of; because it is wisdom, knowing is spoken of — yet knowing is itself seeing, and seeing is itself knowing. The buddha-eye is complete with all five eyes; the buddha's wisdom is complete with all three wisdoms. The king of samādhis, every samādhi enters within it entirely; the Śūraṅgama concentration gathers in every concentration. The Larger Sūtra says: "Wishing to attain the wisdom of the path, the wisdom of the seeds of the path, the wisdom that knows all things generally, and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode, one should study prajñā." Question: The Treatise says: "The three wisdoms are within a single mind." How, then, can it be said, "wishing to attain the wisdom of the path and the rest, one should study prajñā"? Answer: This is indeed so! The three wisdoms are within a single mind — it is only for the sake of addressing people, to make it easier to understand, that it is spoken of in this way. The Diamond Sūtra says: "Does the Tathāgata have the fleshly eye? — Answer: he does" ... down to "Does the Tathāgata have the buddha-eye? — Answer: he does." Though there are five eyes, they are, in fact, not truly divided apart from one another; it is simply that a single eye is complete with all five functions, able to illuminate five different objects. Why is this? The buddha-eye can also illuminate coarse form, seeing as an ordinary person sees, and yet surpassing what an ordinary person sees — this is named the "fleshly eye." It can also illuminate subtle form, seeing as a deva sees, and yet surpassing what a deva sees — this is named the "heavenly eye." Penetrating that both coarse and subtle form are empty, as the two lesser vehicles see — this is named the "eye of wisdom." Penetrating the provisional name without error, as a bodhisattva sees — this is named the "Dharma-eye." Seeing the true mark of reality within every dharma whatsoever — this is named the "buddha-eye." One should know that the buddha-eye illuminates everywhere perfectly, leaving nothing out. Hence a sūtra says: "Complete with the five eyes, one accomplishes bodhi, and becomes forever the father and mother of the three realms." That it is called, singly, the "buddha-eye" alone is like how every stream, flowing into the sea, loses its own original name — not that the other four functions are thereby absent.

The buddha's wisdom illuminating emptiness, as the two lesser vehicles see, is named "the wisdom that knows all things generally"; the buddha's wisdom illuminating the provisional, as a bodhisattva sees, is named "the wisdom of the seeds of the path"; the buddha's wisdom illuminating emptiness, the provisional, and the middle together, seeing the true mark of reality in every case, is named "the wisdom that knows all things in every mode." Hence it is said, "the three wisdoms are attained within a single mind." Hence it is known that the single mind's three kinds of calming accomplish the three eyes, seeing the inconceivable three truths; this seeing is attained through calming, hence it receives the name "eye." The single mind's three kinds of contemplation accomplish the three wisdoms, knowing the inconceivable three objects; this knowing is attained through contemplation, hence it receives the name "wisdom." "Object" and "truth" differ only as left differs from right; "seeing" and "knowing" differ only as "eye" differs from "sight" in name — they should not be discussed as fundamentally separate things. Here, "object" is brought in to reveal wisdom, making the three contemplations easier to understand; and "truth" is used to name the eyes, making the three kinds of calming easier to grasp. Though stated in three different ways, it is, in reality, a single, inconceivable dharma alone. Making use of this single dharma of eyes and wisdom, the essence of the perfect-and-sudden calming-and-contemplation is attained. This explanation is grounded in the contemplation of mind itself — it is not, in truth, simply reading scripture and arranging citations in sequence. It is offered only to avoid arousing others' suspicion, and to strengthen faith, being fortunate enough to accord with the sūtras — hence it is cited here as confirming evidence, and nothing more.

Third, clarifying objects: if one has already grasped the sense within "eyes and wisdom that reveal," there is no need for this further account of "the objects thereby revealed." For those who have not yet fully understood, this one further section is given. Practitioners of faith-conduct still rely on extensive learning, and by means of this discrimination come to meet the perfect and wondrous; practitioners of dharma-conduct take deep contemplation as their guiding principle, and by means of this reflection come to see the correct object directly. This is divided into two: first, clarifying the purpose of discussing objects; second, clarifying the convergence and divergence of the various objects. A sūtra says: "For the sake of sentient beings, the Buddha opens the Buddha's own knowledge and vision." If there were no object corresponding to the middle, wisdom would have nothing to know, and the eye nothing to see — one should know, then, that there must indeed be an object for the buddha-eye. A sūtra says: "Who in the world truly has the heavenly eye? One who sees every buddha-land without any duality of aspect." If there were no conventional object, this eye could not see any buddha-land at all. A sūtra says: "The heavenly eye opens wide; the eye of wisdom sees the real." Hence one should know that there must indeed be an object for the eye of wisdom as well. This principle of the three truths is inconceivable, without any fixed, determinate nature, and, in reality, cannot be spoken of at all. Yet, spoken for the sake of some condition or occasion, it does not exceed three senses: first, spoken according with sentiment, that is, language following another's own intent; second, spoken according with sentiment-and-wisdom together, that is, language following both one's own and another's intent; third, spoken according with wisdom, that is, language following one's own intent alone.

How is it that the three truths are spoken of according with sentiment? It is like a blind person who does not know what milk is, and so asks another: "What does the color of milk resemble?" The other person answers: "Its color is white, like a conch shell, like rice-flour, like snow, like a crane." Though hearing this explanation, the blind person is still unable to understand milk's own true color. Each of these blind people forms their own understanding, competing to hold to "shell" or "rice-flour," and so four disputes arise among them. Ordinary sentiment, clouded by delusion, is exactly the same. Not recognizing the three truths, the Buddha, out of great compassion, employs skillful means and makes distinctions accordingly: sometimes explaining the three truths by way of the gate of being, like the blind person hearing "shell"; sometimes by way of the gate of emptiness, like hearing "rice-flour"; sometimes by way of the gate of both emptiness and being, like hearing "snow"; sometimes by way of the gate of neither emptiness nor being, like hearing "crane." Though hearing these explanations, one has still not reached the truth of principle itself. Every one of these ordinary beings, in the end, is still unable to see the true mark of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Though not yet able to see it, each clings to their own view of emptiness or being, each declaring the other mistaken. This is precisely why, among those who explain the two truths in the ordinary way, there are twenty-three schools, no two schools the same, each holding a different view — every one of them citing sūtras and treatises, with no way to know which is correct. If it is said that all are equally right, then the principle would be endlessly multiplied; if it is said that all are equally wrong, each still has genuine scriptural grounds. For this very reason, clinging to one's own view and rejecting another's, though drinking the ambrosia of the Dharma itself, one's own life is cut short prematurely. The sūtras tell how Mañjuśrī and Maitreya, before their own awakening, once disputed the two truths together, and both fell into hell for it. People of the present age, clinging one-sidedly and rigidly to a single passage of text, though they suppose themselves capable, are likely straying from the Buddha's own actual intent. People of this kind have, every one, failed to recognize the three truths spoken according with sentiment. If one recognizes this sense, then, hearing every kind of differing explanation, one knows that the Tathāgata is simply bending down to accommodate the sentiment of each different capacity; and since capacities and sentiments are so manifold, the explanations given are not all of one kind. This is exactly what is meant by the three truths spoken according with another's own intent.

As for the three truths spoken according with sentiment-and-wisdom together: in terms of sentiment, two are spoken of; in terms of wisdom, one is spoken of. If this is so, does this not fail to account for the "three" under a single "one"? This is discussed from the side of ordinary sentiment: ordinary sentiment is entirely a matter of skillful means, and though it is, in reality, one truth that is three, it is here bundled together as two. Discussed from the side of the sage's own wisdom: the sage's wisdom is entirely a matter of genuine attainment, and though it too is one truth that is three, it is here bundled together as one. Sentiment and wisdom viewed against each other are why "three truths" are spoken of — as with a person of the stage of resemblance, at the point of the six purified faculties, who has not yet brought forth the true seeing of the middle way. Though such a person contemplates the three truths, discussed in terms of their own stage, they have only broken through the four abodes of affliction and the dust-and-sand afflictions, having only realized the expedient path — hence this is bundled together merely as the two truths. Once one enters the first abiding-stage, breaking through ignorance and seeing the buddha-nature, illuminating both truths at once, only then is this properly called "wisdom"; and this, too, is complete with the three truths, yet bundled together as the single "truth of the middle, the ultimate meaning." Sentiment and wisdom discussed jointly together is exactly what is meant by language following both one's own and another's intent. As for the three truths spoken according with wisdom alone: from the first abiding-stage onward, it is not only the middle that is beyond seeing and hearing altogether — the real and the conventional are exactly the same. The three truths, profound and subtle, are illuminated by wisdom alone, unable to be shown, unable to be thought about — those who hear of them are startled and bewildered. Neither internal nor external, neither difficult nor easy, neither a mark nor not a mark, not any worldly dharma at all, possessing no describable appearance whatsoever, every one of the hundred negations swept entirely away, every one of the four alternatives utterly gone — only a buddha, together with another buddha, can fully fathom it; the path of language is cut off, the place where the mind moves extinguished. It cannot be pictured or imagined by ordinary sentiment — whether spoken of as one or as three, both are equally beyond the reach of sentiment. This is not even within the two lesser vehicles' own power to fathom — how much less the ordinary being? It is like milk's own true color: only once the eyes are opened is it seen; words spent on it otherwise are wasted, for the blind, in the end, never come to know it. An explanation given in this way is named the mark of the three truths spoken according with wisdom, which is exactly language following one's own intent alone.

Now, citing further from the sūtras' own passages explaining the two truths, this reveals and completes the account of the three truths. If it is said: "The ordinary person is indeed able to embody and penetrate causes and conditions, giving rise to contemplative understanding" — is this not the conventional spoken of according with sentiment? "Embodying causes and conditions as empty" — is this not the real spoken of according with sentiment? If this is so, this is precisely the two truths spoken according with sentiment. If it is said: "What the ordinary mind sees is named the conventional truth; what the sage's mind sees is named the real truth" — is a statement of this kind not precisely the two truths spoken according with sentiment-and-wisdom together? If it is said: "The ordinary person walks through the world, yet does not know the world's own mark" — since the ordinary person does not even know the conventional truth of the world, how could they know the real? Hence it is known that neither truth is recognized by ordinary sentiment at all. Is a statement of this kind not precisely the two truths spoken according with wisdom alone? Since the two truths already have these three ways of being spoken of, the three truths may be understood by the same pattern. Should a doubter say: "The Buddha always teaches the Dharma by means of the two truths — hence there are these three ways of understanding the two truths" — this too follows the same pattern: the Buddha always favored the middle way as well — his descent into the womb, his birth, his going forth from home, his accomplishment of the path, and his entry into extinction all occurred at the middle of the night. A single color, a single scent — none of it is other than the middle way; if the middle way is spoken of, would this not, too, address different occasions in three ways? And each single instance of teaching, in turn, is complete with the sense of all four siddhāntas.

As for the fourfold sense within "according with sentiment": the truth of principle cannot be spoken of at all, and yet, when spoken, it must rely on words, and words must accord with sentiment, and sentiment must find delight in them. Some, hearing of the real, rejoice; some, hearing of the conventional, rejoice; some, hearing of the middle, rejoice — this is exactly the use, within "according with sentiment," of the worldly siddhānta. Sentient beings' own capacities differ: some, on hearing of non-being, grow in precepts and wisdom; some, on hearing of being, grow in precepts and wisdom; some, on hearing of the middle, grow in precepts and wisdom — this is exactly the use, within "according with sentiment," of the siddhānta for the individual. Practitioners break through evil differently: some, on hearing of the dharma of being, are able to break through drowsiness, discursive thought, and the like; some, on hearing of the dharma of non-being, are able to break through drowsiness, distraction, and the like; some, on hearing of the dharma of the middle, are able to break through drowsiness, distraction, and the like — this is exactly the use, within "according with sentiment," of the antidote siddhānta. Sentient beings enter awakening differently: some, on hearing of non-being, gain understanding; some, on hearing of being, awaken all at once; some, on hearing of the middle, break through completely. This holds equally for contemplating the mind: some describe a contemplation of being, indistinct as a cloud's own shadow; some practice a contemplation of non-being, in which body and mind alike dissolve away; some practice a contemplation of the middle, spirit and wisdom made bright and clear. Given such manifold differences as these, sometimes the truth should rest in the "one" and not the "two"; sometimes it should rest in the "two" and not the "one." Hence it is said: "The Buddha teaches the dharma of birth so that beings may be liberated through the dharma of no-birth; the Buddha teaches the dharma of no-birth so that beings may be liberated through the dharma of birth." This is exactly the use of the siddhānta of ultimate meaning. Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "The Buddha knows sentient beings' manifold desires, manifold conduct, manifold natures, manifold recollections and notions" — this is exactly these same four senses. Why is this? Manifold desires correspond to according with the worldly; manifold natures correspond to generating the good; manifold conduct corresponds to the antidote; manifold recollections and notions correspond to ultimate meaning. Why should "nature" belong to generating the good, and "conduct" belong to the antidote that breaks through evil? Discussed generally, wholesome nature has both a hidden and a manifest aspect, and unwholesome conduct likewise has both a hidden and a manifest aspect. Here, for convenience of meaning, the good is taken as hidden and latent, and evil as manifest and exposed. Thus, before a buddha appears in the world, the wholesome roots of the three vehicles lie hidden and latent, not yet manifest — hence it is said that wholesome nature is "hidden." On hearing the three truths, this wholesomeness is brought forth and generated — hence it is known that "manifold natures" should properly belong to generating the good, matched to the siddhānta for the individual. Again, before a buddha appears in the world, sentient beings' unwholesome conduct lies manifest and exposed, deviance and error and inversion, fault and transgression standing plainly before them; the Buddha, in order to break through this evil, teaches the three truths — hence it is known that "manifold conduct" belongs to breaking through evil, that is, the antidote siddhānta. As for "manifold recollections and notions" corresponding to ultimate meaning: "notion" is a mental factor of discernment, and, when deviant, becomes the inversion of mind and the inversion of view; should one meet a good spiritual friend, this discerning faculty is corrected, and the three non-inversions are thereby accomplished. The Buddha, wishing to correct this discerning faculty, teaches the three truths — this is exactly ultimate meaning.

Since the three truths spoken according with sentiment are already complete with these four senses, the three truths spoken according with sentiment-and-wisdom, and according with wisdom alone, may be understood by this same pattern. This gives three ways multiplied by four senses — twelve kinds in all — of speaking the three truths differently. How, then, could one confine the sage's own teaching within the narrow bounds of ordinary sentiment, supposing there to be only a single correct way of putting it, clinging and disputing to one's own ruin? If one knows that the sage's own teaching has no fixed boundary, one will, in the end, never affirm this and deny that, never give rise to overweening pride, never hold oneself arrogantly aloof. Like an intelligent person who happens to be blind, one should not dispute over the color of milk, but diligently practice skillful means, with shame and a proper sense of humility. By means of the three kinds of calming, realizing the three eyes, seeing the three dharmas, attaining the three wisdoms, knowing the three truths — seeing the middle clearly, illuminating both truths at once, fully understood — it is like clouds clearing away to reveal what had been obscured, above made manifest and below made bright at once. Only then can one truly examine what is right and what is wrong, and only then may one rightly give the lion's roar of certainty. A personal note: "According with sentiment" is wholly granting; "according with sentiment-and-wisdom" is half granting and half withholding; "according with wisdom" is wholly withholding. Why is this? When the sage speaks to the ordinary person, saying: "What your mind now conceives is itself the conventional; being able to embody and penetrate the emptiness of the conventional is itself the real" — is this not the mark of wholly granting? "What you now know, through a hundred thousand constructions and distinctions, is all merely the conventional; only what the sage knows is truly the real" — is this not the mark of half granting and half withholding? As for "the two truths: ordinary people, without exception, fail to recognize them; the sage alone is able to know them" — is this not wholly withholding? This explanation is easy to grasp, and so it is recorded here.

Second, clarifying the convergence and divergence of objects and wisdom: first the object, then the wisdom. The manifold sūtras speak of the truths sometimes as four, sometimes three, sometimes two, sometimes one, converging and diverging differently — this shall now be explained in a general way. The Tripiṭaka teaching is a teaching of expedient means, and explains only the two truths. In the bodhisattva's initial mind, the mind takes hold of the real as its object, subduing the four abodes of affliction, causing the very fat of affliction to melt away; through three incalculable eons cultivating the practice of the six pāramitās, the body of merit is made full; over a hundred kalpas planting the causes for the auspicious marks, the five supernormal powers are obtained, and the Dharma-eye attained, illuminating the conventional truth, discriminating the various capacities and dispositions, ripening sentient beings and carrying out the work of a buddha. In the final mind, seated at the seat of enlightenment, the thirty-four mind-moments sever the afflictions of views and habituated thought completely. These thirty-four mind-moments are the eight forbearances, eight wisdoms, nine unobstructed states, and nine liberations, together making up the thirty-four. A sūtra also says: "A single thought contains six hundred arisings and cessations." The Satyasiddhi masters say: "A single thought contains sixty instants." It is simply within this single thought that, entering emptiness from the provisional, the eye of wisdom is obtained, illuminating the real truth, and buddhahood is thereby attained. Having already illuminated the conventional beforehand, and now illuminating the real as well, the two truths are both made manifest at once, differing here from the disciples. The bodhisattva illuminates only the conventional and not the real; the two lesser vehicles illuminate only the real and not the conventional; the Buddha alone is able to do both together, and, moreover, adds the truth of the middle, the ultimate meaning, on top of them. The Tripiṭaka teaching's two truths are already themselves expedient means; upon these two truths, the middle is further added — expedient means built upon expedient means. Illuminating and seeing this further truth, the buddha-eye is further added; knowing this further truth, the wisdom that knows all things in every mode is further added. Divided apart, there are two; taken together, there are three. This is the mark of the convergence and divergence of the two truths and three truths within the Tripiṭaka teaching's own Dharma.

Next, as for the shared teaching, where the three vehicles alike sever affliction by means of the wordless path: discussing the convergence and divergence of the truths, the conventional truth is the same across the three, but the real truth differs. The Treatise says: "Emptiness is of two kinds: first, mere emptiness; second, not-mere emptiness." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The people of the two lesser vehicles see only emptiness, and do not see the not-empty. The wise see not merely emptiness, but are able to see the not-empty as well; the not-empty is itself the great nirvāṇa." The two lesser vehicles' mere emptiness, their wisdom is like a firefly's glow; the bodhisattva's own wisdom is like the sun. Since the emptiness differs and the wisdom differs, there ought to be a real distinction of two truths — and yet here they are combined together as a single real truth. The two lesser vehicles, embodying the provisional to enter the real, enter only mere emptiness, and are unable to proceed from mere emptiness into the provisional again, lacking any function for transforming others. The bodhisattva, embodying the provisional to enter what is not merely real, is able to proceed from mere emptiness into the provisional, transforming and delivering sentient beings, purifying the buddha-land. The bodhisattva of superior faculties, embodying the provisional to enter the real, first enters mere emptiness, and next enters what is not merely emptiness, thereby breaking through ignorance and seeing the buddha-nature — this is, in the end, entirely distinct from the "real" spoken of before — how, then, could they possibly be treated as one and the same real truth? Long ago, the Zhuangyan masters said: "The buddha-fruit lies outside the two truths." They grasped a fragment of this sense, but their argument did not succeed, since they could not say what distinct object the Buddha's wisdom illuminates, nor what distinct affliction it severs. Grasping the present sense, the argument that it "lies outside" does succeed. The Kaishan masters said: "The buddha-fruit does not lie outside the two truths, and cannot be moved to differ from the two lesser vehicles." Their argument, too, did not succeed. Grasping this present sense, the argument that it does "not lie outside" also succeeds. In earlier times, this was named the "elegant two truths" — the sense lies exactly here. Mere emptiness and not-mere-emptiness, taken together, form simply the one real truth; taken apart, they form two real truths — and this differs from the Tripiṭaka school's own account. In that Tripiṭaka school, the third truth has only the name "the middle," with no separate essence of its own — the eye has no separate seeing of it, and wisdom no separate knowing of it. Here, this is not so: this third truth is also named "the real truth," and is also named "the truth of the middle, the ultimate meaning" — it has its own separate essence, its own separate seeing, its own separate knowing. This is the mark of the convergence and divergence of the two truths and three truths within the shared teaching.

Next, as for the distinct teaching's own account of the two truths, one must seek what differs from what came before. What was, before, the real and the conventional together are, in the distinct teaching's own house, both now simply the conventional. The conventional here means the world's own manifold differentiation. The conventional is being; the real is non-being. The ordinary being is gathered under the conventional truth; the two lesser vehicles are gathered under the real truth. Since there is this distinction of being and non-being between them, both together are called the "conventional." The Śrīmālā Sūtra names the two lesser vehicles "sentient beings confused in mind regarding emptiness." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "When I and Maitreya together discussed the worldly truth, the five hundred śrāvakas present took it to be a discussion of the real truth." If the two truths alone are discussed, the conventional truth is left unopened; if the three truths are constructed, being is opened out as the conventional, and non-being is opened out as the real, opposed to the not-merely-empty taken as the truth of ultimate meaning. This is the mark of convergence and divergence within the distinct teaching. Next, as for the perfect teaching: it explains only the one real truth. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "In reality it is one truth; as an expedient means, it is spoken of as three." Here, too, it follows this same pattern: in reality it is one truth; as an expedient means, it is spoken of as three. The Lotus Sūtra says: "By means of yet other expedient means, this further helps to reveal the ultimate meaning." This is the mark of convergence and divergence among the two truths, three truths, and one truth within the perfect teaching.

Next, clarifying the convergence and divergence of the Four Noble Truths: the three truths, two truths, and one truth discussed above are all discussed vertically; the Four Noble Truths, by contrast, are discussed horizontally. There are, accordingly, four kinds of Four Noble Truths: generation-and-extinction, no generation, the immeasurable, and the unconditioned. The Four Noble Truths of generation-and-extinction are simply the Tripiṭaka teaching's own two truths opened out horizontally. The Four Noble Truths of no generation are simply the shared teaching's own two truths opened out horizontally. The Four Noble Truths of the immeasurable are simply the distinct teaching's own two truths opened out horizontally. The Four Noble Truths of the unconditioned are simply the perfect teaching's own one real truth opened out horizontally. Here, the Middle Treatise is brought in to match these four kinds of Four Noble Truths. The Treatise says: "whatever arises through causes and conditions" — this is the Four Noble Truths of generation-and-extinction; "this I declare to be empty" — this is the Four Noble Truths of no generation; "it is also called a provisional name" — this is the Four Noble Truths of the immeasurable; "it is also the meaning of the middle way" — this is the Four Noble Truths of the unconditioned. Second, clarifying the convergence and divergence of wisdom: the various sūtras sometimes speak of a single wisdom, sometimes two, three, four, on up to eleven kinds of wisdom. If three wisdoms are spoken of, they can be used to contemplate the three truths — but what of when the number increases or decreases? As for a single wisdom: a sūtra says: "Every one of the Tathāgatas shares alike a single Dharma-body; a single mind, a single wisdom, and their powers and fearlessnesses are exactly the same." This one, single buddha-wisdom is itself the wisdom that knows all things in every mode — one mark, the mark of quiescent extinction, and yet knowing every kind of conduct, class, and appearance — this is named "the wisdom that knows all things in every mode." As for how this wisdom contemplates the three truths: when it is said "one mark, the mark of quiescent extinction," this is contemplating the middle way; when it is said "knowing every kind of conduct, class, and appearance," this is illuminating both truths at once. As for two wisdoms: these are the provisional and the real. The provisional is the wisdom that knows all things generally and the wisdom of the seeds of the path, contemplating the two truths of being and non-being. The real is the wisdom that knows all things in every mode, contemplating the truth of the middle. Three wisdoms contemplating the three truths may be understood without further explanation.

As for four wisdoms: such as the Larger Sūtra's own account of the wisdom of the path, the wisdom of the seeds of the path, the wisdom that knows all things generally, and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode. The Treatise explains this in several ways. In one account: within the cause, there is only the substance of principle, named the wisdom of the path and the wisdom of the seeds of the path; upon the fruit, both phenomenon and principle are complete, named the wisdom that knows all things generally and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode. In another account: within the cause there is the provisional and the real, hence "the wisdom of the path" and "the wisdom of the seeds of the path" are spoken of — entering emptiness is the real wisdom, entering the provisional is the provisional wisdom. In another account: upon the fruit there is the provisional and the real, hence "the wisdom that knows all things generally" and "the wisdom that knows all things in every mode" are spoken of — taking the middle way directly as one's object is named "the wisdom that knows all things generally"; illuminating both truths at once is named "the wisdom that knows all things in every mode." In another account: within the cause there is the general and the particular, and upon the fruit there is likewise the general and the particular. In another account: the wisdom of the path and the wisdom of the seeds of the path singly clarify the provisional and the real; the wisdom that knows all things generally and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode doubly clarify the provisional and the real. Explanations of the four wisdoms of this and every such kind are simply illuminating the three truths. Where the sūtras speak of five truths, or six, seven, eight, nine, on up to measureless numbers of truths, one need only grasp this same sense to explain them, bringing them all into the three truths. As for the eleven wisdoms: worldly wisdom and the wisdom that knows others' minds, these two illuminate the conventional truth; the eight wisdoms contemplate the real truth; the wisdom that knows things exactly as they are contemplates the middle way. This is what is meant by "wisdom having its own convergences and divergences, while the three truths themselves remain unmoved." Furthermore, where both wisdom and truth are opened out together, each corresponds to the other according to however many there are — as when the three truths correspond to three wisdoms, and the two truths to two wisdoms — this sense may be understood. And where both wisdom and truth are left unopened, resting simply on one truth and one wisdom, neither increased nor decreased, this too may be understood. Whether wisdom is opened out or gathered together, in the end it is always the same real wisdom, able to reveal the real essence.

Next, discussing truth and wisdom combined together: in the Tripiṭaka teaching, the real truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom; the conventional truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom; the two truths together bring forth one eye and one wisdom. The eye of wisdom and the wisdom that knows all things generally take the real truth as their object; the Dharma-eye and the wisdom of the seeds of the path take the conventional truth as their object; the buddha-eye and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode take both the real and conventional truths together as their object. One cannot say they illuminate both at once — only that they illuminate them together, one after the other. In the shared teaching, the real truth brings forth two eyes and two wisdoms; the conventional truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom. The wisdom that knows all things generally and the wisdom that knows all things in every mode together take the real truth as their object; the wisdom of the seeds of the path takes the conventional truth as its object. If the distinct teaching is used to graft onto the shared teaching, the conventional truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom; the real truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom; and opening the real to reveal the middle brings forth a further one eye and one wisdom. Wisdom taking the truth as its object follows the same pattern. In the distinct teaching's own three truths, each single truth brings forth its own one eye and one wisdom; wisdom taking the truth as its object follows the same pattern. If the distinct teaching is instead constructed as two truths, emptiness within the conventional brings forth one eye and one wisdom; being within the conventional brings forth one eye and one wisdom; the real truth brings forth one eye and one wisdom; wisdom taking the truth as its object follows the same pattern. In the perfect teaching, the one real truth brings forth three eyes and three wisdoms; wisdom taking the truth as its object follows the same pattern. Question: What is meant by "using the distinct teaching to graft onto the shared teaching"? Answer: The first two contemplations, of emptiness and of the provisional, break through every affliction resting upon the real and conventional truths completely, and only then is the middle way heard of at all; one must still further cultivate contemplation to break through ignorance, and thereby be able to accomplish buddhahood through the eight aspects. This buddhahood is the fruit, with the two preceding contemplations serving as its cause — hence this is called "using the distinct teaching to graft onto the shared teaching." This buddha-fruit is not grafted onto the cause of the three incalculable eons and the hundred kalpas of planting the marks, and so it is not grafted onto the Tripiṭaka teaching; nor is this fruit grafted onto the cause of the ten grounds, and so it is not grafted onto the distinct teaching itself; nor is this fruit grafted onto the ten abidings' own severing of ignorance, and so it is not grafted onto the perfect teaching. It can only be that the distinct teaching is grafted onto the shared teaching — the sense of this is exactly as given.

Fourth, clarifying gain and loss: "loss" means what is still conceivable; "gain" means the inconceivable. Suppose one says wisdom arises from mind of itself, illuminating its object spontaneously — like a torch illuminating an object: whether illuminated or not yet illuminated, the object exists there already of itself; whether contemplated or not contemplated, the object stands there of its own natural accord, truth and wisdom depending on nothing at all outside themselves. Or suppose one says wisdom is not wisdom of itself, but is wisdom because of its object; and the object is not the object of itself, but is the object because of wisdom — like "long" and "short," each existing only relative to the other. This is "having existence through mutual dependence." Or suppose one says the object is not the object of itself, nor is it the object because of wisdom, but is the object through the causal conditions of both object and wisdom together; and wisdom, likewise, in exactly the same way. This is "taking a name through combination." Or suppose one says it is none of the above three, but simply so of itself, spontaneously — this is "object and wisdom without any cause." Every one of these four explanations has its own fault. Why is this? Wherever there is grasping at one of these four, there is dependence on something else; wherever there is dependence, there is right-and-wrong; wherever there is right-and-wrong, there is craving and aversion; craving and aversion give rise to every affliction; once affliction arises, idle theorizing and contentious dispute arise; once dispute arises, karmic action of body, speech, and mind arises; once karma arises, one turns in the ocean of suffering, with no time of liberation in sight. One should know that these four kinds of grasping are the very root of birth-and-death — hence Nāgārjuna cuts them down. No dharma arises from itself — how, then, could there be object and wisdom arising from themselves? None arises from another — how, then, could there be object and wisdom arising through mutual dependence? None arises from both together — how, then, could there be object and wisdom arising through causal combination? None arises without cause — how, then, could there be object and wisdom arising spontaneously, without any cause? If one clings to any of these four views, tangled in confusion and delusion, what could this possibly be called "wisdom"? Here, by means of "not arising from itself" and the rest, the four natures are refuted; and once these natures are refuted, there is no dependence at all, down to no karma, no suffering, and the rest — "the pure mind, ever one, is then able to see prajñā." For this reason, object-and-wisdom-from-itself, suffering and its accumulation, do not arise — this is "birth-of-birth, that cannot be spoken of" — hence Śāriputra fell silent. And on to object-and-wisdom-without-cause, suffering and its accumulation likewise do not arise — this is "no-birth-of-no-birth, that cannot be spoken of" — hence Vimalakīrti shut his mouth, the path of language cut off, the place where the mind moves extinguished. Though it cannot be spoken of, given the causal conditions of the four siddhāntas, it can indeed be spoken of nonetheless. Sometimes object-and-wisdom-from-itself is spoken of, and so on down to object-and-wisdom-without-cause being spoken of. Though these four accounts are given, the clinging to any fixed nature has long since been refuted, exactly as before. There is only the name, and the name has no fixed nature; and a name without fixed nature neither abides nor "does not abide" — this is what is meant by the inconceivable. Hence the Sūtra of Golden Light says: "The inconceivable object of wisdom, the inconceivable illumination of wisdom" — this is exactly that same sense.

Refuting the four fixed natures of object and wisdom is named "the real wisdom." Speaking of object and wisdom in these four ways, addressing different occasions by way of the four siddhāntas, is named "the provisional wisdom." As for object and wisdom of this kind: the ordinary being fails on both counts; the two lesser vehicles gain on one count and fail on the other; the bodhisattva gains on both counts. Why is this? The ordinary being holds to the four fixed natures — a failure in practice for oneself; and lacks the four siddhāntas — a failure in transforming others. The two lesser vehicles refute the four fixed natures and enter ultimate meaning — a gain in practice for oneself; yet fail to deliver sentient beings — a failure in transforming others. The bodhisattva is complete in both — hence gaining on both counts. Moreover, the ordinary being's double failure is a conceivable failure; the two lesser vehicles' gain-and-failure are both alike conceivable; the bodhisattva's double gain is, in both respects, inconceivable. This discusses gain and loss in terms of the shared teaching. Viewed from the distinct teaching against the shared: the shared teaching's double gain is, in both respects, still conceivable; the distinct teaching's double gain is, in both respects, inconceivable. Viewed from the perfect teaching against the distinct: the distinct teaching's own double gain, in both its teaching and its path, is, in both respects, still conceivable. Why is this? The teaching's own expedient gateway: sometimes it is said that ignorance gives rise to every dharma; sometimes that the Dharma-nature gives rise to every dharma; sometimes that conditioned cultivation reveals true cultivation; sometimes that the true reveals itself. Clinging to any of these still amounts to the fault of fixed nature, falling back into the conceivable. Only the path of realization itself is inconceivable. In the perfect teaching, both its teaching and its realization are, in both respects, inconceivable. Why is this so? Ultimate principle has nothing to be said of it at all, and is spoken of only for the sake of some occasion, in these four ways; there is only the provisional name, and the name of that provisional name is itself, in its very naming, unborn. Hence both the perfect teaching's teaching and its realization are alike inconceivable. Without thought, without conception, there is no dependence, no idle theorizing, no binding karma; and, without karma, no birth-and-death — this is what is meant by "gain in practice for oneself." Having attained the real essence, one is able, by means of the inexpressible, still to express it, guiding and transforming sentient beings, causing them to escape birth-and-death, they too attaining the real essence — this is "both self and other alike attaining the essence."

Fourth, clarifying the scope of the teachings gathered in: a doubter might say, "The name 'calming-and-contemplation' is brief — the scope of teachings it gathers in cannot be complete." This is not so. Calming-and-contemplation is a total retention, gathering in every dharma without exception. Why is this? Calming is able to still every dharma, like finding the exact point to cauterize an illness, so that every affliction is removed at once; contemplation is able to illuminate principle, like obtaining the king of jewels, so that every treasure is thereby gained, complete with the whole of the Buddhadharma. The Larger Sūtra names one hundred and twenty items, and every dharma besides, all of which it says one should study through prajñā. Prajñā is simply the wisdom of contemplation, and the wisdom of contemplation already gathers in every dharma. Moreover, calming is the king of samādhis, and every samādhi enters entirely within it. Here, the scope of the teachings gathered in is discussed further, at greater length, under six senses: first, gathering in every principle; second, gathering in every affliction; third, gathering in every wisdom; fourth, gathering in every practice; fifth, gathering in every stage; sixth, gathering in every teaching. As for the sequence of these six: whether or not a buddha appears in the world, the nature of principle abides forever; because one is deluded about principle, the affliction of birth-and-death arises; contemplating in accordance with principle, wisdom is thereby discussed; through understanding, practice is established; through practice, stage is realized; once the stage is fulfilled, others are taught. The sequence of phenomenon and principle, understanding and practice, cause and fruit, self and other, is entirely gathered in by calming-and-contemplation.

First, gathering in every principle by means of the three kinds of calming and three kinds of contemplation: principle is the dharma of the truths, opened out and gathered together as explained above, partial and complete differing accordingly; beyond the provisional and the real, there is no other, separate principle at all. Apart from Mount Malaya, no other sandalwood grows; were there any elsewhere, this would simply be a false statement. Since calming-and-contemplation has already been used to reveal the essence, it thereby gathers in every principle. Second, calming-and-contemplation gathering in every affliction: because one is deluded about the truths, the affliction of birth-and-death arises. This delusion is ignorance itself. If one is deluded about the provisional principle, there is ignorance both associated and solitary, within the three realms. That which combines with the afflictions of views and habituated thought is named "associated"; that which does not combine with them is named "solitary." Not knowing this matter, craving arises: not-knowing is "ignorance"; the arising of craving is "formations"; the craver is "consciousness"; consciousness arising together with the four remaining aggregates is "name-and-form"; form stirring the various faculties is "the six sense-bases"; what the six sense-bases become attached to is "contact"; contact following after its sense-object is "sensation"; what sensation delights in is "craving"; craving arising together with entanglement is "grasping"; the creation of karma for a life yet to come is "becoming"; the arising of the aggregates in the future is "birth"; the ripening of the aggregates is "old age"; the relinquishing of the aggregates is "death." These twelve links turn, each in turn cause and effect of the next: affliction leads to karma; karma leads to suffering; suffering leads back to affliction — hence they are named "the three paths." The Satyasiddhi says: "The former link is contained within the latter three; the latter is contained within the first seven. The seven are karma, and are also the path, able to carry one through to the next life; the latter three are not karma, yet are able to carry one through the seven, and so may also be called the path." The sūtras also call this "the twelve interlinked connections," "the twelve wheels." Binding without end, hence named "wheel"; the three periods of time kept apart from each other, hence named "birth-and-death of limited span." Covering over the truth of the real, unable to attain liberation — this is the illness itself. To speak of the illness is already to know the medicine; the medicine is precisely the calming-and-contemplation of entering emptiness from the provisional. To contemplate the medicine is already to know the illness — hence this affliction is gathered in by the calming-and-contemplation that enters emptiness.

If one is deluded about the real principle, there is ignorance both associated and solitary, beyond the three realms. Why is this? Though the associated and solitary ignorance within the three realms is severed, its habituated trace still remains. In the Hīnayāna, this habituated trace is not counted as an active affliction proper; in the Mahāyāna's own true account, this habituated trace is itself a distinct affliction — this is ignorance beyond the three realms. Hence the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "The people of the two lesser vehicles, though they possess antidotes such as impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and no-self, remain, with regard to the Buddha's own Dharma-body, still inverted." This inversion is itself "ignorance," solitary; uncontaminated wisdom-karma is "formations"; the three kinds of mind-made body, also called the five kinds of mind-made body — mind itself is "consciousness"; the body is "name-and-form," "the six sense-bases," "contact," "sensation"; the subtle affliction of ignorance, its idle theorizing not yet ultimately extinguished, is itself "craving" and "grasping"; the defilement of affliction, the defilement of karma, and the defilement of birth, not yet ultimately ended, are "becoming"; the shifting of the three kinds of mental cause is "birth"; the transformation of its fruit is "old age and death." Gathering these twelve together, they are the four obstructions within the uncontaminated realm, namely: condition, mark, generation, and dissolution. Condition is the path of affliction; mark is the path of karma; generation and dissolution are the path of suffering. Hence it is known that the twelve links of dependent origination exist beyond the three realms as well. Why is this? From below the level of the Buddha, ignorance is present in every case; ignorance moistens karma; and once karma is thus moistened, how could suffering fail to follow? Though these twelve wheels do not regress and fall back into the three realms, this does not prevent turning from the wheel of ignorance to old-age-and-death, and from the wheel of old-age-and-death back to ignorance. What obstructs the real principle is precisely this affliction. This affliction is treated by the two contemplations of entering the provisional and entering the middle. Let this be further clarified. Why is this? The three kinds of mind-made body are, in general, of many varieties. If the analytical and embodying two lesser vehicles, and the bodhisattva of the shared teaching, first sever every affliction within the three realms completely, without ever having cultivated the provisional or the middle, and are then born beyond the three realms, the affliction beyond the three realms remains entirely unsubdued, and their own faculties are dull. Should they cultivate contemplation at that point, they must necessarily proceed sequentially, cultivating practice across many kalpas, studying the Buddhadharma numerous as the sands of the Ganges, first breaking through the dust-and-sand afflictions. Though the dust-and-sand afflictions do not themselves moisten karmic birth, they are able to obstruct the path of transforming others, and so must be severed first. Severing this affliction is merely the expedient means of regulating the mind, subduing the affliction beyond the three realms; advancing further, one severs the three paths, both associated and solitary, root and branch alike removed. Hence it is known that the contemplation entering the provisional properly gathers in the dust-and-sand afflictions, and gathers in ignorance as well. If, on the other hand, practitioners of the distinct and perfect teachings first exhaust the afflictions shared with the other vehicles and subdue the distinct affliction as well, then, born within that realm, their spiritual faculties are already sharp; they need only cultivate the contemplation of the middle to treat those same three paths. From the first ground on through the later grounds, each and every ground contains the three paths within it. At each and every ground, ignorance is extinguished portion by portion, karma extinguished, suffering extinguished. As the associated affliction departs at each ground in turn, the solitary affliction departs along with it. At each and every ground, though there is wisdom, that wisdom remains mixed together with ignorance; and, being mixed, it too may be called an obstruction of wisdom, since it obstructs the higher portion of wisdom still to come. Only within the Buddha's own mind is there no ignorance at all — hence the path of affliction is exhausted; the path of affliction being exhausted, karma is exhausted; karma being exhausted, suffering is exhausted. The ultimate end of the three paths lies with the Tathāgata alone. This is why the contemplation of the middle gathers in the affliction beyond the three realms.

Third, calming-and-contemplation gathering in every wisdom: the various convergences and divergences of wisdom have already been explained above; the three contemplations, applied to gather them in, leave nothing whatsoever out. Worldly wisdom, which does not illuminate principle, has already been gathered in among the eleven wisdoms. Were the twenty wisdoms explained at length, these too would be gathered in by the three contemplations. Fourth, calming-and-contemplation gathering in every practice: the wisdom discussed above is understanding, and understanding without practice, in the end, arrives nowhere. Practice is of two kinds: wisdom-practice and auxiliary practice. This holds from the Tripiṭaka teaching's own wisdom-practice and auxiliary practice, on up to the perfect teaching's wisdom-practice and auxiliary practice. Wisdom-practice is the primary practice; auxiliary practice is the supporting practice. Vipaśyanā is able to break through affliction, yet still requires the power of śamatha to assist correct knowledge and vision. The primary and supporting practices turn together, following wisdom, as the feet follow the eyes. In the Tripiṭaka teaching, contemplating impermanence and analysis are the wisdom-practice; contemplating impurity, loving-kindness, and the like are the auxiliary practice — these two practices follow analytical wisdom into emptiness. In the shared teaching, embodying dharmas as like illusion and transformation is the wisdom-practice; going through every dharma with counting the breath, the foundations of mindfulness, and calming-and-contemplation taking phenomena as their object is the auxiliary practice — these two practices follow the wisdom that embodies dharmas into emptiness. For the sake of transforming sentient beings, cultivating the wisdom of the seeds of the path, taking conventional principle as one's object belongs to wisdom-practice; taking conventional phenomena as one's object belongs to auxiliary practice — these two practices follow the wisdom of the seeds of the path into the provisional. If the middle way takes the true mark of reality as its object, the one path pure and undefiled, this is wisdom-practice; going through every dharma-gate, every pāramitā, all of it the Mahāyāna — the twelve links of dependent origination themselves the buddha-nature, the foundations of mindfulness themselves sitting at the seat of enlightenment, and so forth — this is auxiliary practice. These two practices follow the wisdom of the middle into the true mark of reality.

Furthermore: the root four dhyānas, concentration and wisdom equally balanced, are gathered under both. The desire realm, with little concentration and much wisdom, is gathered under contemplation; the intermediate stage likewise. The four formless states, with much concentration and little wisdom, are gathered under calming. Of the four immeasurable minds, the first three are gathered under contemplation, and equanimity under calming. The nine contemplations, eight recollections, and ten contemplations are gathered under contemplation. Of the eight liberations, the first three are gathered under contemplation, and the last five under calming. The nine sequential concentrations, the lion's-sport samādhi, the transcendence samādhi, and the rest are gathered under calming. The four foundations of mindfulness, being of the nature of wisdom, are gathered under contemplation; if spoken of as the four foundations of stopping, mentally noting and recording impurity and the like belongs to calming, though contemplation still remains the governing principle throughout. The four right efforts, serving to accomplish the foundations of mindfulness, are, broadly, gathered under contemplation; where the two unwholesome states are prevented from arising, this is gathered under calming, and where the two wholesome states are made to arise, this is gathered under contemplation. The four bases of supernormal power, attaining concentration through four causal conditions, are named from their fruit, and gathered under calming. Of the five faculties, faith, diligence, and wisdom are gathered under contemplation, and mindfulness and concentration under calming — and faith and mindfulness each belong to both. The five powers are exactly the same. Of the seven factors of enlightenment, investigation of dharmas, joy, and diligence are gathered under contemplation; equanimity, relinquishment, and concentration under calming; mindfulness pertains to both. Of the eightfold path, correct view and correct thought are gathered under contemplation; correct action, correct speech, and correct livelihood, belonging to moral discipline, are gathered under calming; correct mindfulness, correct concentration, and correct diligence are gathered under calming. Of the Four Noble Truths, the three conditioned truths belong to the gate of contemplation; the truth of cessation, the unconditioned truth, belongs to the gate of calming. The sixteen aspects of the truths are all the gate of contemplation. The four universal vows, arising in dependence on the Four Noble Truths, follow the same pattern. Of the eighteen unshared qualities, the three karmic actions, following wisdom in their conduct, are gathered under contemplation; the three freedoms from error are gathered under calming; knowledge of the three times is gathered under contemplation; the rest may be understood accordingly. Of the four fearlessnesses, fearlessness in the wisdom that knows all things is gathered under contemplation; fearlessness in the exhaustion of contamination is gathered under calming; fearlessness regarding the path to that state is gathered under contemplation; fearlessness regarding what obstructs the path is gathered under calming. The three gates of samādhi are gathered under calming; the three gates of liberation are gathered under contemplation. Of the six pāramitās, the first three are matters of merit, gathered under calming; the last three are matters of wisdom, gathered under contemplation. Again, the five pāramitās of merit are gathered under calming, and prajñā under contemplation. Again, all six pāramitās together, as the adornment of merit, are gathered under calming. Even the nine kinds of great dhyāna and the hundred and eight samādhis are all gathered under calming. The eighteen kinds of emptiness, the ten similes, and the five hundred dhāraṇīs are all gathered under contemplation. Every wisdom-practice and auxiliary practice of this and every such kind is, without exception, gathered in by calming-and-contemplation. One should know, then, that though the name "calming-and-contemplation" is brief, the meaning it gathers in is vast.

Fifth, gathering in every stage: some might say, "If the first ground is itself the second ground, and the second ground is itself the third, then, within quiescent extinction and suchness itself, what stages could there possibly be?" — in that sense, there is indeed no sequence of stages at all. And yet, throughout the Mahāyāna sūtras, every kind of stage and ground is spoken of everywhere. This is precisely because, though no-arising and no-ceasing, correct wisdom itself has nothing to be attained, it is nonetheless able to treat affliction, karma, and suffering. Once the three paths are purified, distinctions can indeed still be found even within the unconditioned dharma — what objection, then, could there be to speaking of sequential stages? If, entering emptiness through analysis, the three paths are severed by way of the two gates of being and non-being, as the Abhidharma explains through the seven worthies, seven sages, and four śramaṇa-fruits; and as the Satyasiddhi explains through the twenty-seven worthies and sages — these differentiated stages and marks, on up through the gates of neither-being-nor-non-being, are all gathered in by the contemplation that analyzes into emptiness. If, entering emptiness through embodying dharmas across the four gates, the three paths are severed, as the Larger Sūtra explains the stages shared across the three vehicles, from dry wisdom on up through the eighth ground, all alike gathered in by the calming-and-contemplation that enters emptiness. If one proceeds from emptiness into the provisional, cultivating distinct practices in sequence, and has not yet grasped the deeper sense, this accomplishes the stage of the thirty minds that subdue affliction, gathered in by the two contemplations of emptiness and the provisional together. If one has grasped the deeper sense, able to break through the three paths, this accomplishes the ten grounds, gathered in by the third contemplation. Or, using only the contemplation of the provisional throughout, this too holds across all four gates in the same way. As for the perfect teaching's own faith, understanding, and practice: the phenomenal is itself already the real; proceeding from the stage of contemplative practice into the stage of resemblance, advancing to break through ignorance, opening, showing, awakening to, and entering the Buddha's own knowledge and vision — forty-two stages in all, riding together in the one jeweled vehicle, straight to the seat of enlightenment. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of the fifteenth day of the month, the moon's light growing ever more manifest, as a simile for the virtue of wisdom; and the sixteenth day, the moon's light gradually waning, as a simile for the virtue of severance. Likewise, the fourteenth day is likened to prajñā, the stage of cause; the fifteenth is likened to wondrous enlightenment, the stage of fruit. All of these are gathered in by the contemplation of the middle. This holds across all four gates in the same way.

Question: The Mahāyāna does not explain stages and grounds — how, then, can calming-and-contemplation be said to gather them in? Answer: The Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises do, in fact, all explain stages and grounds. If you fear stages and grounds, and take refuge instead in "no stages and grounds," you still cannot escape bondage — for it is precisely the freedom of the written word's own nature from itself that is liberation. Though stages and grounds are spoken of, this is itself already "no stages and grounds." The Middle Treatise says: "It is like the outsider who refutes the worldly cause and effect, and so is left with no present life and no future life; and refutes the world-transcending cause and effect, and so is left with no Three Jewels, no Four Noble Truths, no fourfold śramaṇa-fruit." What Three Jewels are thereby left absent? Since wrong views are not yet extinguished, there is indeed no Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, or fourfold śramaṇa-fruit as accounted for within the Tripiṭaka teaching — if one cannot even attain the fruit of the clumsy method's own path, how could there possibly be the further three rounds of Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, and fourfold śramaṇa-fruit beyond it? This passage rebukes the non-Buddhist outsider for lacking all four rounds of the Three Jewels entirely. If it instead rebukes the clumsy method, then only the Tripiṭaka teaching's own Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, and fourfold śramaṇa-fruit are present, with no further three rounds of the path's own fruit beyond it. As for what I myself refute here: the Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, and fourfold śramaṇa-fruit are indeed present. Why is this? Analytically breaking through affliction, karma, and suffering within the three realms yields the Tripiṭaka teaching's own Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, and fourfold śramaṇa-fruit; embodying and breaking through them directly yields the further three rounds of Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, and fourfold śramaṇa-fruit. Marking this single point clarifies: treating what lingers within, refuting what is deviant without, removing the deviance and pettiness of both extremes — the correct Three Jewels and Four Noble Truths are thereby established. How, then, could it be said that there is none of it at all? It is only a matter of whether there is a stage or no stage — this cannot be settled without direct realization. Here, one simply trusts the teaching: where the teaching speaks of stages, the sequence of stages stands plainly before us; where the teaching speaks of no stages, this opens out entirely into emptiness and purity alike. "No phrase's own meaning" is itself the bodhisattva's own phrase and meaning — marking emptiness while still discussing stages, the stage itself can never be pinned down, and no dispute should arise over this. Again, by way of the Middle Treatise's own fourfold verse, the sense of stages and grounds may likewise be found. The verse says: "whatever arises through causes and conditions, this I declare to be empty" — this breaks through affliction, karma, and suffering, and thereby yields both the wisdom and the severance of stream-entry, which is the bodhisattva's own forbearance regarding the non-arising of dharmas. The sixth ground is equal to the two lesser vehicles; the seventh ground is the expedient means; the tenth ground is as if buddhahood itself — these stages are self-evidently present; how, then, could it be said there are none? The verse's "it is also called a provisional name" is the gradual, sequential breaking-through of the three paths beyond the three realms, and thereby yields the forty-two stages of worthies and sages — how, then, could it be said there are none? The verse's "it is also the meaning of the middle way" is the perfect breaking-through of the five abodes of affliction, and thereby yields the stages of the six identities — how, then, could it be said there are none? Simply by means of these four clauses, every stage is gathered in; every stage does not exceed these four clauses, and these four clauses do not exceed calming-and-contemplation — hence this is called "gathering in stages."

Sixth, gathering in every teaching: the Vibhāṣā says: "The mind alone is able to give names to every dharma; without mind, there would be no names at all." One should know that every name, whether mundane or world-transcending, arises entirely from mind. If one contemplates the mind wrongly, following the current of ignorance, every kind of evil teaching arises accordingly — such as the Sāṃkhya, the Vaiśeṣika, and the ninety-five kinds of deviant view thereby generated. Various wholesome teachings likewise arise: the five phases and the sexagenary cycle, yin-yang and the eight trigrams, the five classics and the philosophers and historians. Worldly wisdom's own teachings, without the Way, all arise from mind. How, then, do the world-transcending teachings likewise all arise from mind? Sāramati's Ratnagotravibhāga says: "There is a great sūtra-scroll, as vast as the trichiliocosm itself, recording every matter of the trichiliocosm; and, like it, one of middling size, recording the matters of the four continents, the three realms, and every such expanse — every one of these is recorded within a single mote of dust. As this holds for one mote of dust, so it holds for every mote of dust. A person appears in the world, and, with the pure heavenly eye, sees this great sūtra-scroll, and thinks: 'How can this great scroll lie hidden within a mote of dust, and yet fail to benefit sentient beings at all?' And so, by skillful means, breaks open the dust to release this scroll, for the benefit of others." The Tathāgata's own unobstructed wisdom, a sūtra-scroll complete within the very body of every sentient being — covered over by inversion, unbelieved and unseen. The Buddha teaches sentient beings to cultivate the eightfold noble path, breaking through every falsehood, so that they see their own wisdom to be equal to the Tathāgata's own. This, taking the mote of dust as its vehicle, is a simile grounded in what exists. Again, taking emptiness as the vehicle for a simile: the Treatise on Giving Rise to the Bodhi-Mind says: "It is like a person who, seeing the Dharma about to be lost, writes out the Tathāgata's own twelvefold division of the sūtras, facing upward into empty space, complete and entire — and yet no sentient being knows of it at all. After a very long time, another person, wandering through that same emptiness, comes upon the sūtra and cries out in astonishment: 'How can sentient beings neither know of it nor see it?' And so copies it down, showing and guiding sentient beings with it." What is meant by "copying down the sūtra"? It means causing sentient beings to cultivate the eightfold noble path, breaking through falsehood, and so on.

Cultivation is of many kinds. If one contemplates the mind's own causal arising, ceasing, and impermanence, and cultivates the eightfold noble path accordingly, this is copying out the Tripiṭaka teaching's own sūtra. If one contemplates the mind's own causal arising as itself empty, and cultivates the eightfold noble path accordingly, this is copying out the shared teaching's own sūtra. If one contemplates the mind, distinguishing and reckoning out its measureless varieties, beyond what the ordinary being or the two lesser vehicles can fathom, seen only by the bodhisattva of the Dharma-eye, and cultivates the measureless eightfold noble path accordingly, this is copying out the distinct teaching's own sūtra. If one contemplates the mind as itself already the buddha-nature, and cultivates the eightfold noble path perfectly, this is copying out the middle way's own sūtra. This clarifies that every dharma whatsoever issues entirely from mind; mind is itself the Mahāyāna, mind is itself the buddha-nature — one sees, of oneself, one's own wisdom to be equal to the Tathāgata's own. Again: contemplating the mind as at once provisional and at once the middle gathers in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Contemplating the mind's own causally arisen dharmas as generation-and-extinction gathers in the Tripiṭaka teaching's own Four Āgamas, the sūtra of milk. Contemplating the mind as itself empty gathers in the shared Perfection of Wisdom, the sūtra of cream. Fully contemplating the mind's own causally arisen dharmas as at once empty, at once provisional, and at once the middle gathers in the Vaipulya sūtras, the sūtra of curdled butter. Using only "at once empty, at once provisional, and at once the middle" gathers in the Larger Sūtra, the sūtra of clarified butter. Using the contemplation of the mind as at once the middle gathers in the Lotus Sūtra, the great matter of opening the Buddha's own knowledge and vision, the sūtra of pure and direct ghee. Using the fourfold clause of mutual identity to contemplate the mind yields the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, seeing the buddha-nature together, the sūtra of ghee as well.

Again: if one contemplates causation, and also contemplates that causation is itself the buddha-nature, and the buddha-nature is itself the Tathāgata, this is named "killing within milk." If one contemplates analytical emptiness, and also contemplates that analytical emptiness is itself the buddha-nature, and the buddha-nature is itself the Tathāgata, this is named "killing within cream." If one contemplates the truly empty, and also contemplates that the truly empty is itself the buddha-nature, this is named "killing within curdled butter." If one contemplates the provisional name, and also contemplates that the provisional name is itself the buddha-nature, this is "killing within clarified butter." If one contemplates the truly middle, and also contemplates that the truly middle is itself the buddha-nature, this is named "killing within ghee." "Killing," spoken of generally here, means that the two kinds of death are already severed, and the three paths are made pure — this is what is meant by "killing." This is calming-and-contemplation gathering in the indeterminate teaching. This is the scope gathered in briefly, as above; gathered in broadly, every sūtra and teaching whatsoever, without exception, is gathered in by calming-and-contemplation, leaving nothing at all left out. Furthermore, mind gathering in every teaching has, in brief, two senses: first, every sentient being's own mind is already complete with every dharma-gate; the Tathāgata, clearly discerning this, illuminates the dharma within that mind, and, according to that very mind, speaks — so that measureless teachings issue forth from mind itself. Second, the Tathāgata, in ages past, once carried out the gradual and sudden contemplation of mind, partial and perfect both complete within it; relying on this same contemplation of mind, teaching is given for the sake of sentient beings, instructing disciples to learn, as the Tathāgata did, to break open the dust and release the scroll, to write out the sūtra facing into empty space. Hence every sūtra and teaching whatsoever is, without exception, gathered in by the three kinds of calming and three kinds of contemplation. The six senses of gathering in the teachings given above may be understood in their own sequence. Here, using instead a single dharma to gather in every dharma at once: "a single principle" gathers in every principle, every affliction, every wisdom, every practice, every stage, and every teaching. Again, "a single affliction" gathers in every principle, wisdom, practice, stage, and teaching. Again, "a single wisdom" gathers in every principle, affliction, practice, stage, and teaching. Again, "a single practice" gathers in every principle, affliction, wisdom, stage, and teaching. Again, "a single stage" gathers in every principle, affliction, wisdom, practice, and teaching. Again, "a single teaching" gathers in every principle, affliction, wisdom, practice, and stage.

Fifth, clarifying partial and complete: the practitioner, having already come to know that calming-and-contemplation gathers in every dharma without exception, and that the dharmas thereby gathered in are so numerous, must now come to recognize great and small, shared and unshared, provisional and real, conceivable and inconceivable — hence partial and complete are distinguished here. This is divided into five: first, clarifying great and small; second, clarifying half and full; third, clarifying partial and perfect; fourth, clarifying gradual and sudden; fifth, clarifying the provisional and the real. Ultimate principle itself is neither great nor small, nor even provisional nor real — great, small, provisional, and real cannot, any of them, truly be spoken of at all. Yet, given the right causal conditions, great, small, and the rest can indeed all be spoken of. By the power of a lesser expedient means, the small was taught to the five bhikṣus; by the power of a greater expedient means, the great was taught to the bodhisattvas. Though great and small are both alike expedient means, one must still recognize the reason for each — hence these five paired distinctions are used, so that nothing is confused or conflated.

"Small" means the Hīnayāna. Its wisdom-power is weak, and it is capable only of cultivating the analytical calming-and-contemplation, analyzing form and mind apart. As the Treatise, explaining the pāramitā of giving, refutes the non-Buddhist doctrine of the atom, says: "Is this mote of dust existent, or non-existent? If there is an ultimate, indivisible particle of form, it must have parts facing all ten directions; if there is no such ultimate particle, then it has no parts facing any direction at all." If the ultimate particle of form is not analyzed all the way through, this yields the view of permanence, the view of being; if the ultimate particle is analyzed all the way through, this yields the view of annihilation, the view of non-being. This is the non-Buddhist's own analysis of form. The analysis of mind is exactly the same: reckoning either that mind exists or that mind does not exist, both alike fall into annihilation or permanence. All of this is the non-Buddhist outsider's own analysis of form and mind. The Treatise's text, however, goes on to explain the Tripiṭaka teaching's own analytical contemplation, saying: "Form, whether coarse or subtle, taken together and contemplated as a whole, is impermanent, without any self." Why is this? Coarse and subtle form alike arise from ignorance; ignorance is unreal, and so both coarse and subtle form are alike provisional. Being provisional, they are impermanent and without fixed nature, and emptiness is thereby entered. Again, the very slightest arising of mind necessarily relies on faculty and sense-object; there is not a single dharma that does not arise from conditions. What arises from conditions is, without exception, impermanent. Some say "a single thought of mind contains sixty instants"; some say "three hundred billion instants" — an instant never abides, thought after thought impermanent. Impermanent, without any master, affliction is thereby broken at its very root; without karma, without suffering, birth-and-death extinguished — this is named nirvāṇa. This is what is meant by "the intent of the contemplation that analyzes form and mind." This term "analysis" has its origin with the non-Buddhist outsiders, and correct analysis is here explained specifically in opposition to their own deviant analysis. But it is not only outsider deviance that requires this correct analysis — should even the Buddha's own disciples cling to the Buddha's own teaching-gate and give rise to attachment through view, this too requires correct analysis. Namely: the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates give rise to their own fourfold attached view, on up even to the perfect teaching's own four gates giving rise to their own fourfold attached view — idle theorizing and contentious dispute, affirming oneself and denying others, every one of them drinking the ambrosia of the Dharma and yet cutting their own life short by it, binding themselves in golden chains and turning in birth-and-death — all of this requires correct analysis. Hence the Treatise says: "To refute nirvāṇa does not mean refuting the nirvāṇa the sage has actually attained; it means only that, for students who have not yet attained nirvāṇa but cling to it, turning it into idle theorizing, it is therefore said that nirvāṇa is refuted." If this is so, the expedient means of analysis is used throughout to refute such clinging. There are, in general, four gates, and within each single gate, ten factors are complete: recognizing correct causation, down to not giving rise to attachment even to the Dharma itself, one is able, within any of these gates, to see the ultimate meaning. Hence it is known that the Tripiṭaka teaching's own fourfold-gated analytical calming-and-contemplation is, decisively and without doubt, the Hīnayāna.

Next, clarifying the great: this is the Mahāyāna. Its wisdom is deep and sharp, cultivating the calming-and-contemplation that embodies dharmas as neither arising nor ceasing. This is what a great person practices — hence it is named the "Great Vehicle." When the Middle Treatise explains "at once empty," it extends the Mahāyāna's own teaching; the Mahāyāna is itself the great. Within that Vehicle it is said, "Wishing to attain śrāvaka-hood, one should study prajñā" — this is, at root, a bodhisattva's own dharma; the great is able to embrace the small as well, incidentally including the śrāvaka within it. It is like the Vermilion Bird Gate, established by the imperial household, properly for the passage of royal affairs, and yet not preventing the common crowd from also passing through it. Though it is passed through by common people, it remains, in the end, the emperor's own gate. The Mahāyāna is exactly the same: properly intended for the bodhisattva who embodies dharmas to enter emptiness, though the Hīnayāna, too, is present within it, it remains, in the end, named the great. This is exactly like the Tripiṭaka teaching's own analytical method: though the Buddha and bodhisattvas, too, are present within it, it remains, in the end, the Hīnayāna. What is meant by the Mahāyāna's own contemplation that embodies dharmas differs from the Tripiṭaka teaching's own. In the Tripiṭaka teaching, the name is provisional but the dharma is real, and the real is analyzed away to reach emptiness — like breaking apart a pillar to make it empty space. In the Mahāyāna's own embodying approach, both name and dharma are alike provisional; their very own mark is already emptiness, void and quiescent from the very start. It is like the pillar reflected in a mirror, which was never truly a pillar to begin with, needing no destruction of any actual pillar to become empty — the very sky, as its own reflection, is already empty, neither arising nor ceasing, quite unlike a real pillar. Again, the Treatise, explaining the Mahāyāna practitioner's own contemplation that embodies dharmas, cites the Buddha, standing upon a single square of wood, telling the bhikṣus: "It is like a bhikṣu who, having attained dhyāna-concentration, transforms earth into gold, and transforms gold into earth — in reality, neither gold nor earth, simply a transformation brought about." Form and mind are exactly the same: neither arising nor ceasing, simply the transformations of ignorance. Never, from the very start, truly arisen — how, then, could they now be truly extinguished? Again, the Treatise cites contemplating a single length of cotton cloth as already complete with the eighteen kinds of emptiness — this is what is named "the contemplation that embodies dharmas."

Furthermore: the Tripiṭaka teaching's own analysis is named "contemplating form and mind according with sentiment" — the contemplation that analyzes being is likewise a phenomenal contemplation. The real thereby entered is not truly the buddha-nature, and does not meet the real principle — it is merely "the real" according with sentiment alone. The Mahāyāna's own embodying of dharmas is named "contemplating form and mind according with principle" — like tracing an illusion back to find the illusionist, and tracing the illusionist back to find the very art of illusion; or like tracing a dream back to find sleep, and tracing sleep back to find the mind itself. Tracing illusory form and mind back, one finds ignorance; tracing ignorance back, one finds the buddha-nature. Embodying dharmas penetrates through to principle — hence it is named "contemplation according with principle." The calming-and-contemplation that embodies dharmas has, in general, four gates, and within each single gate, all ten factors are complete, forming the contemplation. This contemplation not only embodies the form and mind of the non-Buddhist outsider's own karmic retribution, but touches every kind of clinging whatsoever — reckoning that whoever has not yet entered through the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates, on up even to the perfect teaching's own four gates, and clings to their gate, thereby forming a view, is, every one, embodied as like an illusion. This is, decisively and without doubt, what is named "Mahāyāna calming-and-contemplation." If one grasps the intent of this contemplation as used here, then even attachment arising within any of the Mahāyāna's own gates must still be emptied and refuted. This is never the same as those worldly Dharma-masters and Chan-masters who claim that Laozi's own "Way and Virtue" or Zhuangzi's own "Free and Easy Wandering" are equal to the Buddhadharma — this claim does not hold. Even attachment arising within the perfect teaching's own gate is still refuted by the Tripiṭaka teaching's own initial gate, and does not even reach the level of the Hīnayāna — how much less, then, the ordinary, base view of the mind untrained at all? A firefly and the sun are worlds apart; a mountain and a single hair's tip are utterly incomparable — those who declare their own way to be the true one, disparaging the Buddha himself, how could they possibly escape refutation?

Second, clarifying half and full. "Half" refers to the nine-part division of the teachings; "full" refers to the twelve-part division. It is commonly transmitted that only the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's own eternal abiding is truly "full," and everything else is merely "half." Bodhiruci says: "The Tripiṭaka is 'half'; everything from the Perfection of Wisdom onward is 'full.'" Here, the language of half and full is explained as simply supporting and completing the distinction of great and small already given. Just as analysis and embodying were used earlier to judge great and small, so too are analysis and embodying used here to judge half and full, exactly as explained before, and so on. Third, clarifying partial and perfect: "partial" means one-sided and skewed; "perfect" means round and complete. In the general, broad sense, calling the small "partial" is unobjectionable — but distinguished in the particular sense, this will not do. The two names "half" and "small" are fixed and confined to a narrow scope, unable to be extended any further; the sense of "partial," by contrast, runs through the whole range, from the small all the way to the great. It is like the half-moon, aligned exactly with the first or last quarter; the waxing moon, by contrast, is not so fixed — from the very first crescent all the way to the fourteenth night, every phase is called "gradual," and only the fifteenth night alone is called the full, perfect moon. Small and half are exactly the same: fixed at the point of analysis, the word "half" names the Hīnayāna, and cannot be called "great." The sense of "partial," by contrast, extends much further: from the very first, the Tripiṭaka teaching's own analytical calming-and-contemplation on upward, through the distinct teaching's own calming-and-contemplation departing from the extreme to enter the middle, and short of that — all of this is named "partial." Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Before this point, we were all, every one of us, called people of wrong view." Only this perfect teaching's own calming-and-contemplation — the one mind, the three truths, language following one's own intent — alone deserves the name "perfect."

Fourth, clarifying gradual and sudden: "gradual" names what proceeds in sequence, relying on the shallow to reach the deep; "sudden" names what is complete all at once, reaching the utmost immediately. This, too, has no separate sense of its own — it, too, supports and completes the distinction of partial and perfect. The three teachings' own calming-and-contemplation are, every one, gradual; the perfect teaching's own calming-and-contemplation alone is named sudden. This much follows directly from the names themselves, and the sense is already plain. Here, this shall be further clarified at greater length, so that nothing is left unresolved. The first two teachings' own calming-and-contemplation are gradual and not sudden, their power unable to reach far, meeting only the partial real. The perfect teaching's own calming-and-contemplation is sudden and not gradual, walking the great, direct path, taking the very extreme itself as the middle. The distinct teaching's own calming-and-contemplation is both gradual and sudden at once. Why is this? At the very first mind, it already knows the middle — hence it is called sudden as well; yet it proceeds by way of expedient means to enter it — hence it is called gradual as well. Furthermore: in the first two teachings, contemplation, teaching, practice, and realization are all, every one, named gradual. In the distinct teaching, the teaching, contemplation, and practice are all named gradual; the path of realization alone is sudden. In the perfect teaching, teaching, contemplation, practice, and realization are all, every one, named sudden. Why is this? The first two teachings' own contemplations are spoken by way of expedient means — a thatched hut, a winding path — and so all four aspects, teaching and contemplation alike, are gradual together. The distinct teaching's own contemplation carries expedient means within its own speaking: relying on this expedient practice, it first breaks through the shared affliction, and so these three aspects are all gradual; only afterward, breaking through ignorance and seeing the buddha-nature, is the path of realization itself sudden. The perfect teaching's own contemplation "directly and without deviation, setting aside all expedient means, teaches only the unsurpassed path"; "this alone, this one matter, is real; the other two are then not truly real"; "teaches the most real matter of all" — this is named "the real of the teaching." "Practicing the Tathāgata's own practice," "entering the Tathāgata's own room, robe, and seat," and the rest, "and there being, moreover, a single practice that is the Tathāgata's own practice" — this is named "the real of practice." The middle way thereby seen is itself the one and only ultimate, identical with the very Dharma-body the Tathāgata himself has attained, with no difference, no separateness at all — this is named "the real of realization."

In the first two teachings, within the cause, there is teaching, practice, realization, and a person; but upon the fruit, there is only the teaching, with no practice, realization, or person. Why is this? The person within the cause reduces the body to ash and enters quiescent stillness, sunk in emptiness and utterly extinguished, unable to accomplish the buddhahood at the very head of the fruit — this is simply the speaking of expedient means, and so there is the teaching, but no practice, realization, or person. Within the cause of the distinct teaching, there is teaching, practice, realization, and a person; but with regard to the fruit, there is only the teaching, with no practice, realization, or person. Why is this? Should one break through ignorance and ascend to the first ground, this is already the perfect teaching's own first abiding-stage, and no longer the distinct teaching's own first-ground stage at all. If the first ground is already this way, how much more the later grounds and the later fruit? Hence it is known that the person within the cause never actually reaches the fruit — hence it is said, "no person at the very head of the fruit." In the perfect teaching, teaching, practice, realization, and person within the cause all proceed, every one, from cause through to fruit, all alike genuinely real — hence it is said, "there is truly a person there." Furthermore: before the first three teachings' own teaching, practice, realization, and person have been brought into convergence, one still does not even know the perfect teaching — how much less enter it? Should the Buddha bring the essential teaching into convergence, opening the gradual to reveal the sudden, every one of them is thereby brought through and entered. Though this is not the sudden as such, it is "gradual-and-sudden." Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "What you have practiced is itself already the bodhisattva path." "Each riding the jeweled carriage, matching exactly what was, from the very start, their own original wish." "Definitively clarifying the śrāvaka's own dharma, this is the king of all sūtras." Opening and bringing through the gradual dharma, causing every one of them to enter, grafting them onto it by means of the distinct principle. Hence, within the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, those who have attained the fruit of the two lesser vehicles' own path are not thereby cut off from the perfect, eternal teaching; cultivating and studying by means of this very attainment, all of them shall become buddhas in the end. This is precisely entering the perfect teaching from the gradual, and is likewise called the sense of "opening the gradual to reveal the sudden."

Furthermore: entry into the perfect teaching by way of the four kinds of calming-and-contemplation does not necessarily wait for all four practices to be completed together before entering the perfect; nor does it necessarily wait for the gradual to be opened and the sudden revealed together before entering — such entry is, in fact, indeterminate. Why is this? Every sentient being's own mind-nature, as the proper cause, may be likened to milk; hearing the illuminating cause's own dharma may be likened to placing poison within it. The proper cause is never severed, just as milk's own four subtle elements remain — though the five flavors change in succession, these four elements are ever present. Hence the poison follows these four elements, and, at every one of the five flavors in turn, still kills. Sentient beings' own mind-nature is exactly the same: the proper cause never destroyed, the poison of the illuminating cause, following the pace, quick or slow, of the proper cause itself, can be triggered anywhere, at any point. Sometimes triggered through principle, sometimes through teaching, sometimes through practice, and coming to fruition through realization. It is like the pratyekabuddha, of sharp wisdom and ripened wholesome roots, appearing in an age without a buddha, and awakening entirely of their own accord — triggering through principle is exactly the same: wholesome roots long ago planted, though in this present life the perfect teaching is not even heard, the poison of the illuminating cause is triggered spontaneously, of its own accord — this is triggering through principle. Should one hear the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the sun shining first upon the high mountains, and thereby attain awakening, this is triggering through teaching. Having heard it, one reflects, and, through reflection, awakens — this is triggering through the stage of contemplative practice. If it is at the stage of the six purified faculties, advancing to break through ignorance, this is triggering through the stage of resemblance-realization. If one further increases the path and diminishes rebirth, this too is triggering through realization. This discusses indeterminate entry from within the perfect teaching's own house. If a practitioner of the first three teachings is triggered while still at the ordinary being's own stage, this is triggering through principle. If triggered on hearing the teaching, this is triggering through teaching. If triggered through cultivating the expedient means, this is triggering through the stage of contemplative practice. If triggered within the stage of a worthy or sage, this is triggering through realization. This discusses indeterminate entry from within the three other houses. There is, furthermore, an indeterminate triggering that is not truly "killing" — as when, while cultivating the uncontaminated, the contaminated is triggered spontaneously without being sought at all, severing neither of the two kinds of death entirely. If, cultivating the middle way, the uncontaminated is triggered and attained, one is thereby separated forever from the ocean-wheel of suffering of the three realms — this is severing only one of the two kinds of death, not both — and this, too, is called indeterminate.

Furthermore: each of the four teachings' own calming-and-contemplation is, within its own scope, both perfect and gradual. Within the Tripiṭaka teaching, there is a path from the very first mind's own expedient means through to entering the real stage — this is named gradual. The thirty-four mind-moments severing every fetter and accomplishing the fruit — is this not, in its own way, named perfect? Within the shared and distinct teachings, from the first mind through to the final mind — is there not likewise gradual and perfect within each? Within the perfect teaching, considered in its own essence, principle at its very utmost is called perfect; and yet there is also the first mind through to the forty-first ground — is this not likewise gradual? Wondrous enlightenment, the ultimate — is this not likewise perfect? The "perfect" within "perfect" is not the same as the "perfect" within "gradual"; the "gradual" within "perfect" is not the same as the "gradual" within "gradual." Hence it is known that, within its own proper scope, each teaching is complete with both senses. This should be explained at greater length in the Lotus Commentary. Yet the "gradual" within "gradual" is not the "gradual" within "perfect," though it can come to accomplish the "gradual" within "perfect"; the "gradual" within "perfect" is not the "perfect" within "perfect," and can never come to accomplish the "perfect" within "perfect." Why is this? The Lotus Sūtra says: "What you have practiced is itself already the bodhisattva path" — hence the "gradual" within "gradual" comes to accomplish the "gradual" within "perfect." The "gradual" within "perfect" is the fruit provisionally established by the three lesser teachings, and can never come to accomplish the buddha of wondrous enlightenment itself. By analogy: the "small" within "small" is not the "small" within "great," though it can come to accomplish the "small" within "great"; the "great" within "small" is not the "great" within "great," and can never come to accomplish the "great" within "great." The "provisional" within "provisional" is not the "real" within "provisional," though it can come to accomplish the "real" within "provisional"; the "real" within "provisional" is not the "real" within "real," and can never come to accomplish the "real" within "real." Why is this? At the very head of the fruit of the three lesser teachings, there is teaching but no person — hence the provisional and the real can never come to accomplish the "real" within "real." Half and full, gradual and sudden, should each be distinguished following this same pattern, and need not be belabored further in writing.

Contemplating the mind and reasoning it through, the mark of the Dharma should indeed be exactly this — and yet people mostly do not believe it. Here, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's own five similes are used to confirm this sense. The sixth fascicle 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." The Treatise says: "Within the śrāvaka scriptures, the arhat is named 'the stage of buddhahood.'" Hence all three — arhat, pratyekabuddha, and Buddha — are alike named ghee. Does this simile not explain the five flavors within the Tripiṭaka teaching itself? The sense of "gradual within perfect" can be established by analogy with this. The thirty-second fascicle says: "Sentient beings are like milk mixed with blood; the stream-enterer and once-returner are like pure milk; the non-returner is like cream; the arhat is like curdled butter; the pratyekabuddha and the bodhisattva are like clarified butter; the Buddha is like ghee." Does this simile not explain the five flavors within the shared teaching itself? The pratyekabuddha, having encroached upon habituated traces, is slightly superior to the śrāvaka, and so is grouped together with the bodhisattva as clarified butter alike; the Buddha, both the affliction proper and its habituated trace exhausted, is named ghee. Borrowing this to illustrate the shared teaching's own proper scope, the sense of "gradual within perfect" is thereby made manifest. The ninth fascicle says: "Sentient beings are like a newborn calf, blood and milk not yet distinguished; the śrāvaka is like milk; the pratyekabuddha is like cream; the bodhisattva is like curdled and clarified butter; the Buddha is like ghee." Is this simile not the sense of the five flavors within the distinct teaching itself? The beginning and middle of the ten abidings, able to sever completely the views and habituated thought shared with the other vehicles, is named milk, likened generally to the śrāvaka. The latter mind of the ten abidings, slightly deeper, is likened to the pratyekabuddha, cream. The ten practices and ten dedications are like curdled and clarified butter. The very first of the ten grounds is already named buddhahood, and so is like ghee. Borrowing this passage reveals the distinct teaching's own contemplation, within its proper scope, as complete with the sense of "gradual within perfect." The twenty-seventh fascicle says: "On the Snow Mountains there grows a grass called forbearance; should a cow eat it, it becomes ghee directly." The grass is a simile for the correct path; if one is able to cultivate the correct path, the buddha-nature is seen directly. Is this simile not the very sense of the perfect teaching? Without passing through the four intervening flavors, ghee is accomplished directly. Borrowing this passage, the stages of "gradual within perfect" and the rest are shown by analogy. The eighth fascicle says: "Place poison in milk, and it pervades every one of the five flavors, each alike able to kill." Is this simile not precisely the simile for the indeterminate? This is exactly how the four kinds of triggering — through principle, teaching, practice, and realization — come to enter the perfect teaching. This clarification has now been made in terms of gradual and sudden; the first three sections, and this final one, should likewise be understood the same way. It is only that great-and-small, half-and-full, are each fixed to their own precise, narrow scope, and cannot be treated identically.

Fifth, clarifying the provisional and the real: the provisional is a provisional stratagem, used for a time and then set aside; the real is the true record, where everything ultimately leads. Establishing the provisional serves, in brief, three purposes: first, establishing the provisional for the sake of the real; second, opening the provisional to reveal the real; third, setting aside the provisional to reveal the real. This is like the Lotus Sūtra's own three similes of the lotus flower. Every buddha appears in the world for the sake of the one great matter, originally intending the perfect-and-sudden, one real calming-and-contemplation — and yet bestows the three provisional kinds of calming-and-contemplation instead. The provisional was never the original intent, yet that intent does not lie outside the provisional either; it is simply that the three provisional kinds of calming-and-contemplation are opened up, and thereby the perfect-and-sudden, one real calming-and-contemplation is revealed. Establishing the provisional for the sake of the real: the real is now, thereby, established. Opening the provisional to reveal the real: the provisional is itself the real, with no provisional left to speak of at all — hence, setting aside the provisional reveals the real, the provisional set aside and the real alone remaining. Used for a time to explain the name, this sense holds true. Question: For what reason is this scheme of the provisional and the real employed at all? Answer: The Buddha knows sentient beings' manifold natures and desires, and ripens them by means of the four siddhāntas. If a person wishes to hear of correct causation, the Tripiṭaka teaching is taught for them; if they wish to hear that causation is itself empty, the shared teaching's own contemplation is taught; if they wish to hear of cultivation practiced across many kalpas, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is taught; if they wish to hear of the middle directly, the perfect teaching's own contemplation is taught. This is named according with the worldly siddhānta, and also named according with "what is enjoyed" — establishing the provisional for the sake of the real, teaching the provisional-and-real calming-and-contemplation. To generate the phenomenal wholesomeness that supports the real, the Tripiṭaka teaching's own contemplation is taught; to generate the principled wholesomeness that supports the real, the shared teaching's own contemplation is taught; to generate the phenomenal wholesomeness that supports the middle, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is taught; to generate the principled wholesomeness that supports the middle, the perfect teaching's own contemplation is taught. This is named according with the siddhānta for the individual, and also named according with "what is fitting," teaching the provisional-and-real calming-and-contemplation. To break through deviant causation and causeless views, the Tripiṭaka teaching's own contemplation is taught; to break through the clumsy method, the shared teaching's own contemplation is taught; to break through what is shared in common with other vehicles, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is taught; to break through what still carries expedient means, the perfect teaching's own contemplation is taught. This is teaching the provisional-and-real calming-and-contemplation by way of the antidote siddhānta. For the conceivable dull faculty, the clumsy method causing entry into the real truth, the Tripiṭaka teaching's own contemplation is taught; for the conceivable sharp faculty, the skillful method causing entry into the real truth, the shared teaching's own contemplation is taught; for the inconceivable dull faculty, the clumsy method causing entry into seeing the middle, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is taught; for the inconceivable sharp faculty, the skillful method causing entry into seeing the middle, the perfect teaching's own contemplation is taught. This is what is meant by bestowing three provisional teachings for the sake of the one real. Provisional and real set against each other yield the four kinds of calming-and-contemplation. Establishing the provisional for the sake of the real has exactly this same intent.

The provisional and real thus arising is precisely on account of the siddhāntas; and the provisional and real thus being set aside is likewise on account of the siddhāntas. Why is this? When sentient beings' own afflictions and fetters lie thick, and their sharp wisdom and wholesome roots lie thin, the first contemplation is raised up, generating their phenomenal wholesomeness; once that phenomenal wholesomeness is generated, and their afflictions subdued and thinned, the Tripiṭaka teaching's own contemplation is set aside. To generate their principled wholesomeness, the shared teaching's own contemplation is raised up; once that principled wholesomeness is generated, the shared teaching's own contemplation is set aside. To generate their phenomenal wholesomeness beyond the three realms, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is raised up; once that phenomenal wholesomeness beyond the three realms is generated, the distinct teaching's own contemplation is set aside. To generate their principled wholesomeness beyond the three realms, the perfect teaching's own contemplation is raised up. This is the causal condition of raising up and setting aside — hence the provisional-and-real calming-and-contemplation is spoken of in this way. The raising up and setting aside of the remaining three siddhāntas may be understood by the same pattern. If raising up and setting aside are discussed in terms of the five-flavor teaching periods: the Avataṃsaka, taught for great practitioners, sets aside two of the provisional teachings, raising up one provisional and the one real; the Tripiṭaka period sets aside two provisional and the one real, raising up only the one remaining provisional; the Vaipulya period raises up all four together; the Perfection of Wisdom period sets aside one provisional, raising up two provisional and the one real; the Lotus sets aside all three provisional, raising up the one real alone; the Nirvāṇa Sūtra raises up all four once again, every one of them entering the buddha-nature, with nothing left set apart at all. This is precisely why the Tathāgata skillfully employs the siddhāntas, raising up and setting aside according to the occasion, acting in accordance with capacity, every one of them benefiting sentient beings. This is why the Tathāgata never teaches the Dharma emptily — for the sake of delivering beings, raising up and setting aside are each done exactly as fitting. Setting the one real against the three provisional, the real remaining and the provisional set aside, has already been explained above. Here, this shall be further clarified. All four kinds of calming-and-contemplation are alike real, not false. Why is this? Without this opening and resolving, there would be no entry into principle at all. Here, definitively clarifying the śrāvaka's own dharma, this is the king of every sūtra, opening the gate of expedient means and showing the true mark of reality; each and every one of the four kinds of calming-and-contemplation is thereby able to enter the perfect. As a swift horse, seeing merely the shadow of the whip, arrives at once on the correct road. Hence all four are alike real. And yet all four are also alike provisional. Why is this? All four principles are, in themselves, inexpressible. Since the provisional cannot truly be spoken of, it is not truly "provisional"; since the real cannot truly be spoken of, it is not truly "real." What is not truly provisional is nonetheless forcibly called "provisional"; what is not truly real is nonetheless forcibly called "real." Since both are equally forced descriptions, why should the provisional not also be named "real"? Because both are, in fact, spoken of at all, both are, in that very sense, provisional. Moreover, this provisional and this real are, both alike, neither provisional nor real. Why is this? Because both are, in truth, inexpressible. This "neither provisional nor real" is no different from the "real" spoken of just before. Earlier, seeing principle directly was called "real"; and this "real" is simply "neither provisional nor real" — the sense is not actually different. Were it different, there would have to be some separate wisdom, illuminating some separate principle — but since principle and delusion are already the same, they cannot be made to differ here. Speaking of "the real" in opposition to "the provisional," and speaking of "principle" in setting aside "the teaching," is why it is said to be "neither provisional nor real." The teaching is itself already principle; the provisional and the real are themselves already neither provisional nor real, with no two of them, no separateness at all, neither combined nor separate. Neither provisional nor real, the nature of principle ever quiescent, is named "calming"; that same quiescence, ever illuminating, at once provisional and at once real, is named "contemplation." Because it illuminates, it is called "wisdom," called "prajñā"; because it is calm, it is called "the eye," called "the Śūraṅgama." Names of this kind are not two, not separate, neither combined nor apart — this is precisely the inconceivable calming-and-contemplation itself. This is not only true of opening the real as itself neither provisional nor real; opening the provisional, too, is itself neither provisional nor real, still belonging to the very sense of "opening the provisional to reveal the real."

Question: For the sake of the one real, three provisional teachings are bestowed — this yields exactly four kinds of calming-and-contemplation. If the distinct teaching is used to graft onto the shared teaching's own calming-and-contemplation, is this provisional, or is it real? And why is it not counted among the four to begin with? Why is it said only that the distinct grafts onto the shared? At what stage is the grafting done, and into what stage does it enter? Answer: Where the grafting reaches into the teaching, this belongs to the provisional; where the grafting reaches into realization, this belongs to the real. Discussing the Four Teachings from beginning to end, the grafting occurs only at the end, never at the beginning — hence it is not counted among the four. Should every teaching be grafted onto in this way, this ought to hold generally as well — yet this scheme is not applied elsewhere, because it is specifically the shared teaching, explaining principle within the three realms, and the distinct teaching, explaining principle beyond the three realms, that meet exactly at the boundary between the two, requiring a single graft to be set there — hence it is only the distinct teaching grafted onto the shared. Speaking strictly in terms of the shared teaching alone, without yet discussing the breaking through of ignorance, the eighth ground is named the pratyekabuddha's own ground; from this point, one is grafted on, and comes to know that the middle way exists. The ninth ground subdues ignorance; the tenth ground breaks through ignorance, and is thereupon named buddhahood. But breaking through only a single portion of ignorance — how could this possibly be the ultimate? Hence it is known that the grafting enters the distinct teaching. Viewed against the distinct teaching itself, this corresponds to entering the practice of its own first ground. If the grafting is discussed in terms of the truths themselves: in the shared teaching's own real truth, emptiness and the middle are discussed together; from the very first, only the emptiness within the real-and-middle is contemplated. Once the afflictions of views and habituated thought are broken through completely, reaching the eighth ground, only then is the middle within the real actually taught. Hence it is said: "The wise see both emptiness and the not-empty." Only once grafted on does one come to hear of this; having heard it, one sees principle — this is precisely entering the distinct teaching's own stage. The Tripiṭaka teaching's own bodhisattva, in explaining its stages, does not work this way, and so grafting is not discussed there. The distinct and perfect teachings, from the very arising of the resolve, already know the middle way — what further grafting, then, could be applied to them? Hence it is known that grafting occurs only within the shared teaching.

Question: Do all three provisional teachings come to know the real? Answer: The distinct teaching knows it from the beginning; the shared teaching knows it only at the end; the Tripiṭaka teaching, neither at the beginning nor at the end, never knows it at all. Question: If they do know it, why are they still called "provisional"? And if they do not know it, this would seem to contradict itself across the two sūtras. Answer: Though the distinct teaching knows it from the beginning, this knowledge still comes wrapped in expedient means — the teaching remains, even so, provisional. Though the shared teaching knows it only at the end, it is only those capable of being grafted on who come to know it at all — the teaching remains, in the end, provisional as well. The sense of this may be seen clearly enough. As for the claim that the Tripiṭaka teaching does not know it at all, seeming to contradict the two sūtras: the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "The arhat, not knowing that the Three Jewels abide forever, unchanging, is also incomplete in every precept and restraint, and cannot attain the śrāvaka's own path." This sense should now be reconciled: left to the arhat's own power alone, they ought not to know or see the eternal at all. It is like the heavenly eye not yet opened, unable to see beyond any obstruction; and, not hearing another speak of it, likewise unable to know it. The arhat's own buddha-eye is not yet opened, and, moreover, has not heard the Buddha teach it directly — how, then, could they know the eternal by themselves? Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "Toward the merit they themselves have already attained, they form the notion of final extinction; should they then encounter another buddha, they thereupon come to understand it definitively." It also says: "Even the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the non-retrogressing bodhisattva are, likewise, unable to know it." One should know, then, that not hearing it means not knowing it. Where the sūtra speaks of "knowing," this means knowing only so far as their own principle extends. The real truth, unconditioned, is indeed itself a form of the eternal, one mark without change — yet if a person distinguishes the real truth as having two shifting marks, they cannot bring forth the real at all; they must contemplate emptiness before they can enter the uncontaminated. As Subhūti contemplated emptiness, and Kauṇḍinya realized the wisdom of no-arising. As for the claim that their moral restraint is incomplete: if one is able to contemplate emptiness and thereby attain the precept conascent with the path, this is itself already the complete precept. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "The true nature and mark of every dharma abides forever, unchanging — the two lesser vehicles, too, attain this alike, and yet are not thereby named buddhas." Hence it is known that the language of "eternal abiding" is used generally, and this explanation may indeed be given.

Were this explanation not given, since the Tripiṭaka teaching itself never speaks of the Mahāyāna's own eternal abiding, how could the śrāvaka possibly be complete in the śrāvaka's own path and complete in its own precepts and restraints at all? Given this explanation, the precept conascent with the path suffers no defect, and its own excellence is only further enhanced. Again, citing a further example to clarify: as the Larger Sūtra says, "Lustful desire obstructs rebirth in the Brahmā heavens — how much more, then, bodhi itself?" To be reborn in the Brahmā heavens, desire must be severed; to attain bodhi, desire toward both extremes must be severed. Though the word "desire" is the same in both cases, the sense differs. This present matter is exactly the same: to enter the real truth, one must know the unconditioned as eternal, unchanging; to enter the true mark of reality, one likewise must know the eternal abiding of the one mark, unchanging. The language of "knowing the eternal" is the same in both cases, yet the lesser and the great differ. Hence the Tripiṭaka teaching's own calming-and-contemplation, not knowing the perfect and the real, does not thereby contradict the sūtras. The Śrīmālā Sūtra says: "If one does not know the eternal abiding, none of the three refuges can be truly accomplished." How is this to be reconciled? Tracing this back to its very root: the three vehicles' own beginning practice is not, in fact, foolish with regard to the Dharma. If the hearing-wisdom of the four foundations of mindfulness is taken as the beginning, this beginning already knows the real truth's own eternal abiding, and does not give rise to any of the sixty-two views; with a mind free of any dependence or attachment, the accomplishment of worthy and sage alike is achieved. This explanation accords with the sense given before. As for those who, in ancient times, were at the very beginning of practice: they first gave rise to the bodhi-mind, and thereby already knew the eternal abiding early on; but, fearing birth-and-death, they retreated from the great and took up the small instead. Prince Dharmatiḥ, and the retrogressing bodhisattvas spoken of in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, from the very first, took refuge in the single essence of the Three Jewels, cultivating and perfuming precepts and goodness. There is a dharma of receiving, but no dharma of relinquishing it; since the mind itself is inexhaustible, the precepts, too, are inexhaustible; every wholesome precept is perfumed by this same mind. It is like the great earth, imperceptibly nourishing trees, so that their sprouts and shoots all come to accomplishment. The Hīnayāna's own refuge and precepts are never truly apart from the bodhisattva's own precepts — the bodhisattva precept's own power is able to bring them to accomplishment as well — this is exactly that same sense. Were one not to grant that the beginning of practice already knows the eternal, then the Tripiṭaka teaching's own refuge, precepts, and formal ordination procedures would, every one, fail to be truly accomplished at all. Granting this explanation, the sense of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras is left without any contradiction between them.