The Object of Views

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

Seventh, contemplating the object of views: "not one" is called "manifold"; "heterodox understanding" is termed "view." Further, understanding itself is what the word "view" means — reasoning improperly, yet with one's own partial understanding rendered vividly clear, and forming a fixed, settled interpretation from it, this is named "view." Now, those who study by way of listening recite and acquire names and categories, forming their understanding strictly according to the text — but their own mind's eye remains unopened, entirely without principle-contemplation. One who relies on the text alone lives by it; one without genuine realization dies by it. Those who practice meditation, by contrast, value principle-contemplation alone, the mind dissolving freely wherever it turns — yet they remain in the dark regarding names and categories, unable to recognize even a single phrase. The one who merely recites the text is like the farmer guarding his stump, waiting for another rabbit to run into it; the one whose feeling has genuinely penetrated the matter attains subtle awakening — yet each of these two schools lacks what the other has, and every assessment made by either alone proves deficient. Should one's understanding through view remain unobstructed, and the terminology, too, already familiar, then, questioning another by way of this very understanding, one's own sense proves inexhaustible — like an archer shooting a curved arrow to encircle a bird, so that the bird's own flight loses its way. Should one instead find refuting difficult questions to be a matter of ample skill and surplus effort, this is like shooting an arrow into the vast emptiness of the sky, its flight meeting no obstruction at all. One should understand, then, that this is not something accomplished merely through study — it must instead be the manifestation of a genuine view. This view may manifest either through dhyāna or through hearing — comparable, for instance, to how the arising of the uncontaminated itself relies upon the practitioner of faith's hearing-and-reflection or the practitioner of dharma's own hearing-and-reflection. One in whom it manifests through hearing, though his own listening has not been extensive, is nonetheless able to turn this into broad awakening, his understanding through view clear and distinct, his eloquence sharp in question and answer. One in whom it manifests through dhyāna, at first through a stilled mind, only afterward finds his own contemplation growing correspondingly clear, turning and adapting with complete freedom, as though possessed of subtle penetration. In the south, where few practice meditation, those in whom views manifest are correspondingly rare; in the north, this occurs far more often. Those blind and benighted, failing to recognize this for what it is, suppose they have attained the genuine path itself, suppose they have attained a dhāraṇī — and, remaining in the dark as to how to judge such a person, they elevate him to an exalted rank. At other times, people refuse to believe it at all, dismissing it outright as sheer madness and delusion. Here, it is said that this is neither madness nor sagehood. A person possessed by a spirit is able to speak eloquently — but once the spirit departs, foolishness returns; since this is plainly not the case here, one knows this is not madness. Examining the person's own prior afflictions, greed and anger still remain present in him; and, considering his newly arisen afflictions, they have only increased further still, the eighty-eight proclivities binding him as vastly as ever — hence one knows this is not sagehood either. It is, rather, simply the manifestation of view-based intelligence, nothing more. Discussing the manifestation of views generally, they arise either through hearing or through dhyāna, though for the most part through dhyāna. Sometimes dhyāna manifests first and views manifest afterward; sometimes dhyāna and views manifest together; cases in which views manifest first and dhyāna is only attained afterward are comparatively rare, while the other pattern is far more common. This is comparable, for instance, to how every dhyāna is generally capable of producing the uncontaminated, yet those in whom it is produced at the mere stage of approach are few, while those in whom it is produced at the sixth or ninth ground are many. For this very reason, the object of views is discussed here immediately following the object of meditative states. Should a person in whom a view manifests possess sharp intelligence and mature faculties, able to correct himself, or examine the sūtras and treatises and thereby recognize his own fault — such a person is difficult indeed to find. Should he be unable to correct himself, yet encounter a good friend able to demonstrate clearly what is right and wrong, breaking through his very mind of view — this, too, is difficult indeed to find. Hence it is said: "The genuine Dharma, and one able to expound it, and an audience able to receive it, are all alike difficult to come by." Failing to recognize his own condition, and failing, further, to encounter such a teacher, his heterodoxy grows daily, his cycle of birth-and-death intensifies monthly, like a man dragging a crooked log through a dense thicket — how could he possibly find his way out? Contemplating the object of views is here treated in four parts: first, clarifying the persons and doctrines involved in views; second, clarifying the causes and conditions of their manifestation; third, clarifying the faults they produce; fourth, clarifying calming-and-contemplation.

First, clarifying the persons and doctrines involved in views, treated in two parts: first, the varieties of heterodox person; second, the varieties of doctrine such heterodox persons hold. The varieties of heterodox person are, in turn, threefold: first, outsiders entirely outside the Buddha's own teaching; second, outsiders attached to the Buddha's teaching; third, those who study the Buddha's teaching yet become outsiders through it. First, outsiders entirely outside the teaching: their root sources are three. First, the Kāpila school, whose name translates as "yellow-head," holding that the effect already exists within the cause; second, the Aulūkya-Sāṃkhya school, whose name translates as "owl," holding that the effect does not exist within the cause; third, the Ṛṣabha school, whose name translates as "ascetic practice," holding that the effect both exists and does not exist within the cause. Further, the *Treatise on Entering the Mahāyāna* says: "What Kāpila taught holds a single fault of positing oneness — the agent and the act are one, the mark and that which bears the mark are one, the part and the whole possessing that part are one, and so on — all such positions are termed 'positing oneness.' Aulūkya-Sāṃkhya posits difference; Kakuda Kātyāyana posits both oneness and difference; the son of Jñātṛ posits neither oneness nor difference. Every non-Buddhist school, including the followers of Kāpila, positing difference, never departs from these four positions." From these three or four root schools, branch lineages spread forth, so that, by the time of the Buddha's own appearance, there were six great teachers: Pūraṇa Kāśyapa — Kāśyapa being his clan name — who held that nothing arises and nothing ceases; Maskarin Gośālīputra, who held that sentient beings' suffering and happiness have no cause or condition at all, occurring spontaneously of themselves; Sañjaya Vairaṭīputra, who held that sentient beings attain the path only once their own time has ripened, extending across eighty thousand kalpas until the very count of a ball of thread wound and unwound to its very end; Ajita Keśakambala — kambala meaning "coarse woolen garment" — who held that the suffering of retributive transgression could be substituted for by throwing oneself from a cliff or plucking out one's own hair; Kakuda Kātyāyana, who held both existence and non-existence at once; and Nirgrantha Jñātṛputra, who held that karma, once performed, is fixed and can never be altered. This account derives from Kumārajīva's own commentary — the names agree with those in the Great Sūtra, though the three points of agreement and three of divergence in what each is said to hold may reflect either a translation error or some separate intended sense not yet fully clear here. In their general substance, however, these all trace their lineage back to Kāpila and the rest, and, according to their root sources, may be reckoned as three, or, alternatively, as four — namely, the four views. Second, as for outsiders attached to the Buddha's own teaching: this arises with the Vātsīputrīya and Vaitulya schools, who, relying on their own cleverness, read the Buddha's own scriptures and thereby give rise to a view of their own — arising, as it does, attached to the Buddha's teaching, this school receives this very name. The Vātsīputrīyas, reading the *Śāriputra-abhidharma*, fashioned a separate doctrine of their own, saying: "I exist outside these four propositions, within a fifth, inexpressible category." What are these four propositions? Non-Buddhists hold that form itself is the self, that the self exists apart from form, that the self exists within form, or that form exists within the self — and the remaining four aggregates are treated the same way, yielding twenty views of a self in all. The *Great Treatise* says: "Breaking through these twenty views of a self accomplishes stream-entry" — this carries precisely this same sense. Here, the Vātsīputrīyas' own positing of a self differs from that of the six teachers described above, yet it is likewise not genuine Buddhist teaching either — every treatise alike rejects and refuses to accept it — hence this is precisely a heterodox doctrine attached to the Buddha's teaching. Some instead say the four propositions here concern the three time-periods together with unconditioned dharmas. Further, the Vaitulya adherents, relying on their own cleverness, read the Buddha's ten similes and fashioned a doctrine of their own, saying: "Neither arising nor ceasing, like an illusion, like a transformation — emptiness and illusion are our very core teaching." Nāgārjuna rebuked this, saying: "This is not the Buddha's own teaching!" — what the Vaitulya adherents fashioned is likewise a heterodox doctrine. Third, as for those who study the Buddha's own teaching yet become outsiders through it: clinging to the very gateway of the Buddha's teaching, one gives rise to affliction through it, unable to penetrate to its underlying principle. The *Great Treatise* says: "Should one fail to grasp prajñā's own skillful means, entering the Abhidharma leads one to fall into existence; entering emptiness leads one to fall into non-existence; entering the Kaurilya leads one to fall into both existence and non-existence at once." The *Madhyamaka-śāstra* says: "Clinging to neither-existence-nor-non-existence is named the treatise of utter folly." Inverting one's grasp of the correct teaching in this way likewise results in a heterodox doctrine. Should one study the Mahāyāna's own four gates yet thereby lose the very sense of prajñā, one is burned by this same heterodox fire, likewise becoming a heterodox doctrine. Hence the *Hundred Treatise* directly refutes those entirely outside the teaching. In the present day, certain Mahāyāna treatise-masters fiercely refute the *Abhidharma* and the *Satyasiddhi*, calling them heterodox schools positing existence or non-existence. Yet the *Satyasiddhi* itself says: "The genuine sense within the Tripiṭaka is emptiness itself" — this hardly seems to carry the sense these critics impute to it. It is, further, in agreement with what a hundred schools hold to be correct, and in disagreement with what a hundred schools hold to be mistaken, its own position shifting in and out of view — resembling, at times, the sense of the effect both existing and not existing within the cause, and, at other times, the sense of the Kaurilya school. When this treatise was first composed, everyone who studied it attained the path through it; that people today merely cling to it is a failing of the people themselves — what fault does this reflect upon the teaching itself? This matter ought to be approached with due composure, and not simply lumped together indiscriminately with Kāpila and the rest. Should one use the Mahāyāna to refute the Hīnayāna, as the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* itself does, this is done on the grounds that the Hīnayāna fails to perceive the truth of the middle, making it comparable in this one respect to the non-Buddhist schools — it is not meant to deny the genuine value of its own skillful means.

Second, clarifying the varieties of doctrine-attainment method among heterodox persons: the *Guanzhong Commentary* says: "Each single teacher possesses three kinds of doctrine: first, the doctrine of attaining omniscience; second, the doctrine of attaining spiritual power; third, the doctrine of attaining Vedic learning." As for omniscience: each teacher, with respect to his own particular position, gives rise to a single view, his understanding sharp and clear, and, taking this very view and this very intelligence, applies it universally to every dharma — hence such a one is named "the omniscience-attaining outsider." As for the doctrine of spiritual power: one manifests the five mundane powers, transforming a city into a salt marsh, turning a monk into a sheep, stopping a river within one's own ear, or reaching out to touch the sun and moon — such a one is named "the spiritual-power-attaining outsider." As for the doctrine of Vedic learning: one is able to understand and know worldly writings of every kind — astrology, medicine, military strategy, and commerce — such a one is named "the Vedic-learning-attaining outsider." Each single teacher thus has three distinct ways of attaining his doctrine. The Vātsīputrīya and Vaitulya schools are exactly the same. As for those who cling erroneously to the Buddha's own teaching, treated in terms of the Tripiṭaka teaching's four gates: each single gate has three aspects — first, directly manifesting understanding through principle, one's own intellectual nature giving rise to a view; second, attaining various spiritual powers; third, understanding the very text of the four Āgamas. These four gates thus yield twelve distinct ways of attaining a doctrine in all. Grasping this sense more precisely, within each single gate there are, at the outset, three kinds of foundation of mindfulness: the foundation of mindfulness of nature, the foundation of mindfulness of shared cultivation, and the foundation of mindfulness of the object. "Nature" refers to taking the truth of the principle itself directly as one's object; "shared cultivation" refers to cultivating concrete practice and principle together; "object" refers to taking every object and dharma universally as one's object, this being likewise taking the Tripiṭaka teaching's own doctrine as one's object. Once the fruit is later realized, this accomplishes three kinds of liberation — liberation through wisdom alone, both-liberation, and liberation free of doubt. Hence, at the time the Dharma treasury was first compiled, a thousand men were selected, every one of them possessing liberation free of doubt, thoroughly versed in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist scriptures alike, so as to be prepared to subdue any outside challenger. The *Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā* says: "Liberation from the obstruction of affliction, liberation from the obstruction of meditative concentration, liberation from the obstruction of every dharma." One liberated through wisdom alone attains the first liberation; one both-liberated attains the second liberation; only the Buddha attains the third liberation — together these are all named "liberation free of doubt." Those who cling erroneously to the Mahāyāna's own shared, distinct, and perfect teachings' four gates, thereby losing the true sense of each, likewise have, by the same pattern, thirty-six distinct ways of attaining their doctrine.

Second, clarifying the manifestation of views, treated in two parts: first, clarifying the manifestation of views in general; second, the varieties of their specific manifestation. First, clarifying the general manifestation of views: this occurs either through dhyāna or through hearing. Sentient beings, across countless kalpas, have left nothing undone — they have, at some point, already habituated themselves to every kind of view, only to forget it across the interval of rebirth, their transgression obscuring this original understanding, so that the mind does not readily open to it again. Now, should this obstruction prove comparatively slight, one becomes able to manifest the various dhyānas — sometimes dhyāna and view manifesting together, sometimes view manifesting only after dhyāna, or sometimes a view suddenly arising upon hearing another's teaching. It is like a spring of water obstructed by earth and stone — once this blockage is cleared away, the water gushes forth and forms a flowing stream. Once this dark obstruction is thus removed, discriminating understanding steadily departs from confusion, continuing on unbroken for a day, then ten days, each round of difficulty resolving itself in turn — wherever one's own view holds firm, it proves genuine and finds free passage; wherever it does not hold, it proves hollow and collapses of its own accord. Further, one's eloquence flows without hindrance, skillfully expounding one's own doctrine, adorning one's speech — and, should another come to challenge and refute it, one is able to respond and explain with wondrous skill. From where, then, does this very view-intelligence arise? It arises from the sustained-thought branch-factor present within dhyāna. This sustained-thought branch-factor is itself a mental faculty of wisdom, which, left to range unchecked across every dharma, does not of itself know when to stop — like a swift horse already sweating, no longer controllable. Should a mere listener to a lecture, lacking any dhyāna to moisten and nurture his own view, attempt from the outset to engage in such fine discrimination, he will, for the most part, only strain himself to the point of internal injury, and, his very life thereby placed at risk, his view will never come to completion at all. Should the power of concentration instead moisten and nurture this very contemplation, then, though it may still range unchecked and prove difficult to control, it will not lead to such self-injury, and one is, for the most part, able to bring one's view to genuine completion. Proceeding from this sustained-thought branch-factor, one reasons out a certain doctrine, holding that the effect already exists within the cause. This understanding, sharp and penetrating, perceives implications far beyond what other people can perceive, surpassing them entirely. Taking this view to challenge others, they prove unable to refute it, so that he declares them simply mistaken; clinging firmly to his own position, unshaken by anything others say, he takes it to be genuinely true, believing he has attained the very wisdom of the unborn, the subtle mind of true principle itself. Examined carefully, however, this is nothing but the affliction of view. Worldly intelligence and eloquence, however sharp, remain entirely bound up within the net of the eighty-eight proclivities' own inverted delusion — how could this possibly have anything to do with genuine understanding at all? One should recognize this as precisely the manifestation-mark of the Kāpila view.

Further, taking up this same sustained-thought branch-factor, one may instead reason that the effect does not already exist within the cause. This view, too, is clear and distinct, one's understanding sharp and vigorous — however one is challenged in whatever various ways, one is able to answer in equally various ways, adducing equally various proofs, thereby establishing the sense that the effect does not exist within the cause. Using this to refute others, they prove unable to withstand it, and one declares them simply mistaken; should others come to refute this very position in turn, one's own clinging to it only grows more entrenched, taking it to be genuinely true. Whatever is asserted, wherever the discussion turns, it inevitably returns to this same point — that the effect does not exist within the cause. One should recognize this as certainly the manifestation of the Sāṃkhya view. Should one, using this same sustained-thought branch-factor, reflect that the effect both exists and does not exist within the cause, the *Great Treatise* says: "Existence contends against non-existence; non-existence contends against existence" — referring to how the long-nailed Brahmin held that both existed and did not exist at once, thereby contending with proponents of both existence and non-existence alike. Should one enter into this very view, one's capacity for raising difficult questions proves inexhaustible — is this not, then, precisely the manifestation of the Ṛṣabha view? As for these six teachers' own differing positions, one must properly grasp the intent each holds and test one's own manifested view against it — though the details may differ slightly, so long as the general substance corresponds, this is properly the manifestation of one of these six teachers' own views. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, hold that a self necessarily exists, yet locate it neither within the four propositions concerning a self in relation to form nor within the four propositions concerning the three time-periods and unconditioned dharmas, but rather within a fifth, inexpressible category — when this view manifests, one's understanding grows sharp and clear, able both to question and to answer, one's spirit swift and keen, difficult for anyone to match blade for blade, refuting others while establishing one's own position with unshakable resolve. One should recognize this as precisely the manifestation of the Vātsīputrīya view. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, hold that every dharma is illusory transformation, giving rise to the mark of emptiness exhausting all else — this understanding, hollow and void, fails to perceive any distinction between the understanding mind itself and the dharmas it contemplates, treating both alike as mere illusory transformation, holding only this to be correct and declaring everything else simply mistaken. This is precisely the manifestation of the Vaitulya view. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, reason that every dharma is impermanent, arising and ceasing without ever remaining fixed — that self and person, like a tortoise's fur or a hare's horn, are utterly unobtainable, while only real dharma-elements truly exist — and, analyzing these real dharma-elements, whether coarse or subtle, contemplating them all together as impermanent and selfless, taking this to be the genuine truth — the view thereby manifested corresponds entirely with the Abhidharma. Various long-time students of the tradition, though they may already understand the relevant names and categories, find their own mental path still blocked; but should this very view manifest in them, then, however dim their grasp of the text itself may remain, their spiritual understanding grows a hundredfold sharper. Those who fail to recognize this for what it is suppose such a person to be a worthy sage — yet, in truth, he is not. Were he genuinely a worthy person, his resolve for the path would grow correspondingly dense and rich, arising together with this very understanding, able to subdue affliction and attain the stage of expedient means. Here, though he understands impermanence, this only increases contentious dispute in him instead, his resolve for the path sinking away, his affliction blazing up all the more — hence one knows this is precisely the manifestation of the gate of existence. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, suddenly manifest an understanding of emptiness, holding that impermanence, arising, and ceasing, and the threefold provisional, are all hollow and unreal, analyzing every dust-mote element down into emptiness through every manner of skillful method — this view, sharp and clear, its spiritual function swift and keen, proves formidable in raising difficult questions, refuting others while establishing itself as the sole truth and declaring everything else simply mistaken. This is precisely the manifestation of the gate of emptiness. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, hold that every dharma both exists and does not exist at once, and, entering into this very gate, finds one's capacity for raising difficult questions proves inexhaustible — this carries the very sense of the Kaurilya school, a treatise that offers no genuine crossing-over at all, its habituated manifestation carrying no fixed determination whatsoever. This is precisely the manifestation of the gate of both-existence-and-non-existence. The gate of neither-existence-nor-non-existence, and the view corresponding to it, may likewise be understood by the same pattern. One should recognize, then, that these four gates, when penetrated to their genuine underlying principle, constitute correct view; but should one lose sight of their proper function as skillful means, one falls into these four views instead — hence this is named "heterodoxy from within the Buddha's own teaching."

Nor is it only the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates that, when clung to, become heterodox views — across countless kalpas, one may likewise have studied the Mahāyāna's shared, distinct, and perfect teachings without ever penetrating their underlying principle, clinging instead to them as correct in themselves, taking hold of one of these four positions, and being consumed by the very fire of heterodox view all the same. Here, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, one may suddenly manifest an earlier kind of understanding, dreaming of the empty flowers of the sky as though they were illusory yet existent, forming this very understanding of existence, sharp and clear in itself. Or one may form the understanding that illusion is fundamentally unreal, and, being unreal, is therefore empty — this understanding of emptiness likewise sharp and clear. Or one may form the understanding of both-emptiness-and-existence-at-once, comparable to an illusory, transformed object that is seen and yet, properly speaking, cannot truly be seen at all. Or one may form the understanding of neither-emptiness-nor-existence, holding that it is neither illusory existence nor, equally, illusory non-existence. The *Madhyamaka-śāstra*'s "Chapter on Examining Dharmas" says: "Should one say that dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent, this is named the treatise of utter folly." One already oriented toward the path who hears this teaching awakens to it at once, this being named attaining true reality itself; one whose mind clings to it in error, giving rise to frivolous discourse from it instead, is properly judged to fall under this very treatise of utter folly. These are the four views corresponding to the shared teaching's own four gates. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, reflect that the shared teaching's own fourfold understanding is itself merely an illusory dream confined within the three realms — this dream arising from the very dharma of sleep, sleep itself being ignorance — and contemplate ignorance entering into the Dharma-nature, this too admits of four gates: some say the Dharma-nature is like seven jewels resting within a well; some say it is like empty space itself; some say it is like a vessel of fermented wine or curd; some say it is the middle way itself. These four kinds of understanding, sharp and clear, are precisely the four views corresponding to the distinct teaching's own four gates. Should one, using this sustained-thought branch-factor, suddenly understand that ignorance, once transformed, itself becomes light, this light being complete with every dharma — or hold that ignorance, being unobtainable, cannot properly be said to transform into light at all, since how could light itself, in that case, ever be obtained? — this very unobtainability being itself complete with every dharma — or hold that the light of the Dharma-nature is both obtainable and unobtainable, neither obtainable nor unobtainable — one gate being thereby identical with all three others, the three others identical with the one — this understanding, sharp and clear, breaks through everything it opposes and establishes everything it affirms, surpassed by nothing whatsoever, and one thereby comes to suppose oneself to have attained the very forbearance of the unborn. Understanding of this kind constitutes the four views corresponding to the perfect teaching's own four gates. As for how the Mahāyāna's own four gates, in every case, can become views when clung to: true words become empty words, since a view of these very words as fixed and real thereby arises from them; nirvāṇa becomes birth-and-death, since craving-attachment arises toward it in just this way. Excessive indulgence in what should be ambrosia damages one's very life, cutting it short; losing sight of the gate of skillful means, one falls into heterodox clinging — hence this is properly termed "heterodoxy from within." These four views form the very root of every other view, while self-causation and other-causation together form the root of both co-causation and no-causation. Hence, once Nāgārjuna has refuted self-causation and other-causation, he notes that co-causation carries the faults of both together, while no-causation is simply untenable on its own — since self-causation and other-causation are themselves already unreal, how much more so, then, would no-causation be? Refuting the root thereby topples the branches — this is precisely his own intent. Should one instead establish self-causation and other-causation as valid, co-causation and no-causation would, by the same logic, likewise have to be established as valid. Here, the greater and lesser vehicles' own four gates, clung to in error, become views — but only self-causation and other-causation have been explained in full; the remaining two may be understood accordingly. Should the Tripiṭaka teaching hold that the greater and lesser forms of arising both arise entirely from ignorance, not through the arising of the real truth at all, and that, should ignorance be extinguished, every formation is thereby extinguished, this having nothing to do with the extinguishing of the real truth either — clinging to this view constitutes self-nature heterodox view. Should the shared teaching hold that the real truth itself is properly the unborn, and that it is precisely because of this unborn nature that it gives rise to arising, this arising in turn generating every affliction — and that, should this affliction be extinguished, this occurs, once again, through this same unborn nature — clinging in this way constitutes other-nature heterodox view. Within the three realms, affliction is treated as "self" and the real truth as "other," hence this account is given in these terms; beyond the three realms, the Dharma-nature is treated as "self" and ignorance as "other." Should the distinct teeching hold that the ālaya-consciousness gives rise to every affliction, and that, through conditioned cultivation of wisdom, this ignorance is extinguished, both this arising and this extinguishing having nothing to do with the Dharma-nature itself — this clinging constitutes other-nature-generating heterodox view. Should the perfect teaching hold that the Dharma-nature itself gives rise to every dharma, and that the Dharma-nature itself extinguishes every dharma, this constitutes self-nature heterodox view. In the earlier cases, the "ruler" is weak and the "minister" strong; in this latter case, the ruler is strong and the minister weak — the remaining two cases may be understood accordingly.

Now, manifestation through hearing, for the most part, produces intellectual views, and comparatively rarely produces spiritual power or Vedic learning; manifestation through dhyāna, for the most part, produces spiritual power and Vedic learning, and comparatively rarely produces intellectual views. One in whom an intellectual view manifests overawes fellow students of learning; one in whom spiritual power manifests overawes ordinary laypeople. Ordinary people are drawn to the extraordinary rather than to genuine understanding; students of learning are drawn to genuine understanding rather than to the extraordinary. One in whom Vedic learning manifests overawes both groups at once, and one in whom all three manifest together is best able to overawe both groups together. Manifestation through dhyāna has already been explained above; manifestation through hearing shall now be explained. The practitioner, though he has already attained dhyāna, has not yet had a view manifest in him — he requires, in this case, another person's own teaching to first awaken his mind to it. His mind, already still and keen, suddenly hears the doctrine that the effect exists within the cause, and his mind opens suddenly into awakening, penetrating this heterodox wisdom with complete clarity, its implications, layer upon layer, growing ever deeper and further-reaching, like a spring gushing forth from stone. This is manifesting the Kāpila view through hearing. The remaining three schools are exactly the same. Should one hear of the fifth, inexpressible category, or hear of illusory transformation, this manifests the Vātsīputrīya or Vaitulya view respectively. Should one hear the Tripiṭaka teaching's four gates, and, understanding merely a single phrase of it, one's own mind of view suddenly arises, deeply understanding impermanence, one's contemplative mind surging forward uncontrollably — this is manifesting the view of the gate of existence through hearing. The remaining three gates are exactly the same. Should one hear the Mahāyāna's own twelve gates, and, according to whichever gate one hears, give rise to a corresponding understanding, this understanding sharp and clear, surpassing what one originally heard — though this understanding manifests, it is not yet the great skillful means itself, nor does it enter into the ranks of the lesser worthies, and it is likewise not the heterodox understanding of Kāpila and the rest — hence one knows this is manifesting a view corresponding to one of these twelve gates.

Second, clarifying the varieties of how these doctrines are actually attained: the Kāpila school directly manifests view-understanding alone, this understanding vigorous and forceful, its heterodox wisdom extraordinary, impossible to overcome — this is attaining the doctrine of omniscience. Should one instead directly manifest spiritual power, treading upon water and fire, appearing and vanishing at will, who would fail to take such a person for a sage? The Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha says: "The land of China possesses two kinds of blessing, and so on" — this is attaining the doctrine of spiritual power. Should one directly manifest Vedic learning, knowing worldly writings, perusing every manner of classical text, understanding it the very instant one lays eyes upon it — or should one covertly read the Tripiṭaka and Mahāyāna scriptures, recognizing their content at a mere glance, and then take this very knowledge to embellish one's own doctrine — should this occur, inner and outer teaching become thoroughly confused with one another, virtually impossible to distinguish. In the present age, there are many who, having returned to lay life out of fear and dread of government corvée labor, enter into non-Buddhist orders instead, pilfering the sense of the Buddha's own teaching, secretly absorbing Zhuangzi and Laozi as well, and thereby producing a thoroughly mixed and confused doctrine that misleads beginning students — who, then, is correct, and who is heterodox? This is attaining the doctrine of Vedic learning. Each single school of the outsiders-entirely-outside-the-teaching attains these three doctrines in its own way, yielding, counted per person, seven combinations — namely, each of the three singly, each combined in pairs, and all three together as one — and the remaining two schools of this kind are exactly the same, yielding twenty-one distinct ways of attainment in all. Treated in terms of the six teachers, each teacher likewise has these same three, yielding eighteen in total; counted per person by however many of these are attained, this yields forty-two distinct ways of attainment in all. The Vātsīputrīya and Vaitulya schools' own ways of attainment likewise each yield the same sevenfold pattern — each singly, each combined in pairs, and all three together as one. As for the varieties of attainment among those heterodox from within the Buddha's own teaching: within each single gate, discriminating with precision the very doctrine one holds — is this attaining the view corresponding to the foundation of mindfulness of nature, and is this, correspondingly, liberation through wisdom alone? The remaining gates are exactly the same. Should one, whether exclusively or in combination, manifest spiritual power, soaring and moving freely at will — is this attaining the view corresponding to the foundation of mindfulness of shared cultivation, and is this, correspondingly, both-liberation? Should one possess free and versatile understanding yet be unable to expound the Dharma — whether by searching through the sūtras and treatises, or by listening to another's exposition — one thereby masters the relevant terms and categories; and, extending downward to encompass Vedic learning and upward to encompass the Mahāyāna, one applies one's own view universally to resolve every dharma-gate, while simultaneously embellishing one's own view with every dharma-gate in turn. Each of the four gates thus has these same three aspects, yielding, counted per person, seven combinations for each. Should each of the shared, distinct, and perfect teachings' own four gates likewise directly manifest, in turn, sheer intellectual understanding, mere versatile skill, or mere knowledge of both inner and outer scriptures, each such person supposing his own path to be genuine while others regard him as merely a lofty adherent — here, this is simply judged to be heterodox view all the same. Each single gate thus has seven combinations, yielding eighty-four in total, and so on.

Furthermore, having discussed the general similarities and differences above, each shall now be discussed individually. Though the three outer schools and the six teachers alike manifest omniscience, some possess the view of "existence" underlying their omniscience, others the view of "non-existence" — omniscience of this kind varying in every case, since what each school posits as its foundation differs, and hence the very intelligence underlying this view differs correspondingly. Each holds his own position to be correct, and every other position to be mistaken. The *Lotus Sūtra* says: "The jackal dies first" — this refers to how, when a sharp proclivity manifests, a dull proclivity is thereby submerged, hence it is said to "die first." It further says: "Every great and ferocious beast competes to devour it" — this refers to how the single view one clings to is capable of devouring every other view in turn. A treatise on strength says: "Every teacher alike claims to possess the ultimate path — the deer-headed one foremost among them." One should recognize, then, that "omniscience" differs entirely from school to school. Extending even to the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates' respective omniscience and the Mahāyāna's own four gates' respective omniscience, each clings to its own particular view, mutually devouring one another, each differing from the rest — this may be grasped through careful reflection. Next, as for the varieties of spiritual power: spiritual power is attained through dhyāna, yet the dhyāna through which it is attained is not fixed. The outsiders entirely outside the teaching attain spiritual power strictly through the root dhyānas, whether the first, second, third, or fourth — since the underlying cause differs in each case, the resulting power and function differ correspondingly; those heterodox from within likewise attain it through the root dhyānas, but also through purer dhyānas as well, and, depending on whether this underlying cause is shallow or deep, the resulting power proves correspondingly inferior or superior. The *Great Treatise* says: "Where the underlying cause is present, the resulting power's application is broad; where it is absent, the resulting power's application proves inferior." Yet dhyāna itself is merely a concrete matter, and spiritual power merely its function — both belong properly to the adornment of merit, not to any genuine point of doctrinal contention. Though there is no genuine principle to contend over here, comparing the underlying causes involved, the resulting power and its application differ entirely from case to case. Next, as for the varieties of Vedic learning: the practical, worldly texts that the outsiders entirely outside the teaching manifest and study — governing households, aiding the world — differ in scope and content from school to school. The more one manifests and studies, the broader one's knowledge; the less, the narrower. Arrogance and self-importance in every case trace back to differences in how much of such literature one has actually studied. As for those heterodox from within: should one neither manifest nor study the writings of the outsiders entirely outside the teaching, one's knowledge remains narrow; manifesting and studying them, it grows broad. Should one neither manifest nor study the Tripiṭaka's own texts, one fails to know the terminology proper to within the three realms, and one's own view thereby remains narrow; manifesting and studying them, it grows broad. Should one neither manifest nor study the Mahāyāna scriptures, one fails to know the terminology proper to beyond the three realms, and one's knowledge remains narrow; manifesting and studying them, it grows broad. One should understand, then, that the very dharma of Vedic learning differs, phrase by phrase, from case to case.

Furthermore, judging every school by comparison: both inner and outer heterodox teachers alike display intellectual understanding, spiritual power, and Vedic learning, establishing their own virtue, disciplining their own mind, honoring others while humbling themselves, their reputation stirring the multitude. It is like the mango fruit, whose ripeness is difficult to judge from its outward appearance — throughout the world, even the most excellent of heads cannot always fathom whether a given teaching is heterodox or correct. Here, however, the judgment proves quite easy to make: just as the seven varieties of Kāla-teacher, however they differ, all trace their root, upon examination, back to a heterodox nihilism. Should a school hold that the effect already exists within the cause, it refutes every other position, preserving only this single proposition — manifesting every manner of spiritual power to shake and stir the age, causing people to believe and accept this very doctrine that the effect exists within the cause. Whatever variant texts of Vedic learning it adduces, its names and categories all serve, in the end, merely to embellish this same doctrine that the effect exists within the cause. Whatever practices it establishes, its very lineage and ultimate direction point, in every case, toward this same doctrine that the effect exists within the cause. On account of this very doctrine to which it clings, it stirs body, speech, and mind into action, committing immeasurable transgression, as shall be explained further below. From this one may verify and recognize this as precisely the Kāpila school. The Sāṃkhya and Ṛṣabha schools follow exactly this same pattern. Originally arising from heterodox nihilism, and returning, in the end, to whatever it clings to — the Vātsīputrīya school is exactly the same. The lesser and greater vehicles' own four gates may be understood according to this same principle. Testing a teaching by its very origin, and examining it by what it ultimately returns to as its own doctrine, one may thereby distinguish clear from muddy water flowing in separate streams, beans from wheat as distinct kinds of grain. Why, then, should Zhuangzi and Laozi be so carelessly conflated with the Buddha's own teaching? Once heterodox and correct are thus mixed and confused together, how could one possibly extract the great from the small, or distinguish one from the other? Should one's own practice remain unclear even to oneself, how could one possibly transform others through it? Both teacher and disciple alike would then fall together.

Third, clarifying the faults produced by views, treated in two parts: first, clarifying the faults themselves; second, clarifying the comparative judgment between true and false. First, directly clarifying the faults: should India uphold three such root schools, this land of China carries a comparable sense as well. Zhou Hongzheng, explaining the "three profundities," says: "The *Book of Changes* distinguishes the eight trigrams, yin and yang, fortune and misfortune — this clarifies the profound in terms of 'being'; the *Laozi*'s emptiness and dissolution clarifies the profound in terms of 'non-being'; the *Zhuangzi*'s spontaneous nature clarifies the profound in terms of both 'being' and 'non-being' together." Every other branch and offshoot traces its own root back to these three. Here, this shall be used to clarify their respective merits and faults. As the *Zhuangzi* says: "Noble and base, suffering and joy, right and wrong, gain and loss — all alike are simply nature taking its own spontaneous course." Should this be understood to affirm the very fruit itself, then this is not refuting the fruit; yet its failure to address prior karma is itself a refutation of the cause. The rites establish benevolence and righteousness, protecting the body and securing the state; should these not be practiced and applied, one's clan is destroyed and one's household ruined. Yet this establishes virtue only within the present life, without speaking of any resulting retribution in a life to come — this is refuting the fruit while not refuting the cause. Should it instead be held that such blessing flows onward into future generations, then, taken together with the foregoing, this becomes a position that both affirms and denies the fruit at once. Considered as a single, unified position, this yields, in fact, three distinct modes of conduct: first, holding this view while practicing good; second, holding this view while practicing evil; third, holding this view while remaining morally indeterminate. As it is said: "This is simply how principle divides things by nature — wealth and rank cannot be sought after by scheming, poverty and lowliness cannot be resented or evaded; what joy is there in being born, what need to fear death?" Taking up this very empty-mindedness, one who is noble is thereby kept from arrogance, one who is destitute is thereby kept from despair; the mind of greed and anger is stilled, and one's whole being settles into a single, unified repose. Teaching things through this very principle of spontaneous nature serves as an entry-point drawing one gently toward the truth — this is its merit. This merit, moreover, comes in several distinct varieties. Should it be said: "Constantly free of desire, one contemplates its subtlety" — free of what desire, exactly? Casting aside a jade disc, relinquishing high office, washing one's ears at the very mention of it and returning to tend cattle instead, guarding one's own lofty resolve — this is simply relinquishing desire proper to the desire realm, reaching upward toward a subtlety that transcends it, taking the first dhyāna and the like as this very "subtlety." How can this be known? Duke Zhuang describes the Yellow Emperor questioning the way, contemplating his own spirit and vital energy, perceiving the multitude of things within his own body — taking this to be the way itself, this resembles the very subtlety of the first dhyāna manifested within the penetrating-and-clear contemplation. Should it instead be said: "Every suffering has its cause, and desire is its very root; should one be free of desire, one thereby attains nirvāṇa itself" — this is free of desire proper to the three realms altogether, attaining the very subtlety of cessation, stillness, wonder, and departure. Further, this dharma is named freedom from defilement — should one be defiled by any dharma, this defiles nirvāṇa itself; free of this very defiling desire, one attains a single, subtle path, this subtlety transcending every one of these lesser desires, every one of these lesser subtleties alike absent from it. Yet what, precisely, have you attained? You do not even recognize the desire proper to the desire realm, nor the subtlety of the first dhyāna — how much less, then, the subtlety that lies beyond even these? Were this discussed as a provisional teaching, it would be a gradual leading-on suited to a particular capacity, discussing the subtlety of freedom from desire only obliquely, without openly declaring the full, definitive meaning. But this teaching merely stills the desire to reach and grasp beyond oneself, contemplating the subtlety of spontaneous nature — once perilous, deviant conduct is thereby removed, the very ethos of benevolence and deference remains intact. All of this pertains to holding the view of spontaneous nature while practicing good. There is, further, holding this same view of spontaneous nature while simply following one's own impulses at will, neither actively directing oneself toward good, nor actively engaging in evil either — should one disturb this very spiritual harmony, one thereby fails to accord with nature's own spontaneity. Though such a person makes no active choice between the two, this itself constitutes morally indeterminate conduct — and, this karmic action not yet exhausted, how could receiving its corresponding retribution possibly be in doubt? Should one instead hold this view of spontaneous nature while committing evil, holding that all things follow nature's own spontaneous course, and thereby indulging oneself freely in evil, on the grounds that it, too, ultimately returns to this same nature — this is turning one's back on freedom from desire and indulging desire instead, departing from subtlety to embrace coarseness in its place. It is like Zhuang Zhou's own rebuke of benevolence and righteousness: though this may guard against the petty thief, it fails to anticipate the great thief, who seizes upon benevolence and righteousness themselves as the very means of seizing the state. What was originally meant, through spontaneous nature, to still desire, becomes instead a pretext, through this same spontaneous nature, for committing evil — this sense may readily be understood.

Next, among the various Indian views, the emptiness-view proves the most formidable — here, discussion shall proceed by way of this particular case to clarify merit and fault. This emptiness-view itself divides into three: first, refuting the cause without refuting the fruit, or refuting the fruit without refuting the cause; second, refuting both cause and fruit together, without refuting every other dharma; third, refuting cause, fruit, and every other dharma all at once — "every other dharma" here referring to the three unconditioned dharmas. How, then, does this third position differ from the Buddha's own teaching? The *Great Treatise* clarifies that the greater and lesser vehicles' respective emptiness differ in being reached through embodying versus through analysis. Yet non-Buddhist schools, too, employ both embodying and analysis — how, then, do these differ? Non-Buddhist schools proceed from a heterodox causal condition, or from no causal condition at all, whether by analysis, by embodying, or by ultimate emptiness. The Buddha's own disciples, by contrast, know that this proceeds from the causal condition of craving, whether by analysis, by embodying, or by ultimate emptiness. Some hold: "Mere refutation through words is not the same as embodying." Here, however, it should be noted: the *Madhyamaka-śāstra*, from beginning to end, uses refutation as its very governing method, chapter by chapter — how, then, could such refutation possibly differ from embodying itself? Hence the distinction between heterodox and correct, or between the lesser and greater vehicles, is not properly drawn along these lines at all — rather, following the *Great Treatise*, analysis applied to the correct causal condition differs from the non-Buddhist schools, while embodying applied to the correct causal condition differs from the Hīnayāna. Should an emptiness-view arise from a heterodox causal condition, this too admits of three modes of conduct, though for the most part it results in committing evil. One who genuinely contemplates emptiness knows that it, too, arises from craving as its cause, and, this being so, would not even perform good, let alone evil. One in whom this emptiness-view arises no longer contends over wealth, position, or retributive result — emptiness itself becomes the sole point of contention instead. Those who share his own view of emptiness become his intimate friends, toward whom affection arises; those who praise existence and refute emptiness become his bitter enemies, toward whom anger and vexation arise; and those who fail to understand emptiness at all are treated with contempt, as though mere dirt beneath his feet. His mind, emptied of all fear, retains no regard for propriety whatsoever, indulging his feelings and giving free rein to his desires, destroying correct view, proper deportment, and pure livelihood alike — upon death, such a person inevitably falls into one of the three evil paths. The six teachers themselves say: "Should one retain shame and remorse, one falls into hell; should one be entirely free of shame and remorse, one does not fall into hell at all." Turning his back on the very slaughterhouse's own screen of privacy, urinating even into a well beneath the open sky and thunder, rebelling against his own father and treating his own mother with contempt — conduct far worse than that of a common highway robber — he nonetheless declares himself entirely unobstructed by any of it. Treating intimates and strangers differently in this way is itself hardly true equanimity. Practicing depravity and evil himself, he further uses this very conduct to convert others, so that everyone together commits wrongdoing, losing all propriety like mere beasts — how could the world possibly tolerate such a person? Though he claims to be entirely unobstructed, he nonetheless dares not defy his own ruler or show contempt toward the empress, cherishing his own person all the while — and in this alone, then, he plainly remains obstructed after all. Such a person, having directly manifested this very conviction, finds his view growing ever more intensely entrenched, and never attains genuine dhyāna at all. Should he have already attained dhyāna before this view manifested, the dharma of his dhyāna, for the most part, is thereby lost. Should the view manifest and dhyāna follow afterward, this dhyāna, for the most part, proves to be nothing but demonic dhyāna, demonic spiritual power — able to foretell fortune and misfortune, and to know the minds of others. Further, he searches broadly through Vedic learning, using it to substantiate and confirm this same view, so as to win people's belief and acceptance. Destroying both worldly and supramundane virtue alike, such a person is properly named "the man-devouring dog." Should even a single dharma remain unrefuted, he is not yet satisfied; only once he has refuted every dharma without exception does his very mind of view finally feel sated — and this satiation only intensifies his condition further still. Possessing no genuine practice within, he engages only in hollow contention and calculation, like a beast howling in search of food. Clinging to emptiness, he contends against existence — the mutual clash of emptiness and existence he calls "snarling and biting"; his own self-praise he calls "baying and barking"; refuting another he calls "clawing"; establishing his own position he calls "seizing." Further, unresolved doubt he calls "snarling and biting"; intimidating others he calls "baying and barking" — like a watchdog guarding its house, barking precisely because it wishes to instill fear in others. Such a person's own conduct is, in every case, purely evil.

Converting others admits of four modes: first, being evil oneself while urging others to practice good; second, extolling good conduct in oneself while urging others toward evil; third, urging both oneself and others alike toward evil; fourth, urging both oneself and others alike toward good. As for being evil oneself while urging others toward good, one says: "I myself am able to penetrate the underlying principle, and thus evil poses no obstacle for me; you, however, are still at a shallow stage of practice, and must first cultivate good" — the proper way of converting others, in this view, is to lead them first through goodness. As for being good oneself while urging others toward evil, one says: "I myself am the very master of conversion, and must, in blending my light with the world, remain good; you, however, are merely practicing for your own sake, and ought properly to practice evil instead." Urging both oneself and others toward evil together is done on the grounds that this constitutes the genuine, real path; urging both oneself and others toward good together is done on the grounds that this constitutes the provisional path. Though these four modes differ from one another, all alike take evil as their very root, sinking ever further in accordance with the karma thus accumulated — what path, then, could possibly be followed through any of them? Further, as for emptiness-view combined with the practice of good: holding that emptiness itself is free of good and evil, and yet that good must nonetheless be practiced — for should one fail to practice good, the god Viṣṇu grows angry, and sentient beings suffer affliction as a result; this affliction, in turn, forms karma; this karma, arising in the past, is received as retribution in the present. By upholding the precepts and practicing austerities in the present, one thereby blocks this present evil fruit, and attains the exhaustion of every contaminant. If this is so, then, precisely because goodness is required, one upholds the precepts, restrains the body, reduces desire, remains content, wears coarse clothing, and eats simple fare. Yet, cultivating this very conduct for the sake of emptiness, one gives rise to joy and anger regardless — emptiness itself remaining the very locus of contention, attachment, and calculation. Should one attain dhyāna and then have this view manifest, the dhyāna is thereby dissolved and the view grows correspondingly intense; should the view manifest and dhyāna follow afterward, this dhyāna, for the most part, proves to be nothing but demonic dhyāna, demonic spiritual power. Such an emptiness-view, in its own practice, follows only this single path — while its conversion of others still admits of the same four modes described above. Both one's own practice and the conversion of others alike, in this case, remain simply subject to karma — and rising or sinking according to karma, what does this have to do with the genuine path at all? Next, as for clinging to an emptiness-view without practicing either good or evil, remaining aloof and evenly poised: though this is called "even poise," one still praises what one favors and condemns what one dislikes, taking this very evenness as grounds for self-elevation. One should recognize, then, that this very evenness itself becomes a source of affliction. Should dhyāna be attained and the view manifest, this follows the same pattern as before; and should Vedic learning likewise be mastered, covertly absorbing the Buddha's own teaching to embellish this indeterminate position, snarling and biting, baying and barking, immeasurable fetters arising from this very moral indeterminacy. This person's own practice, again, follows only this single path, while conversion of others still admits of the same four modes. Should dhyāna fail to manifest, karma drags such a person down into an evil path; should dhyāna manifest, he is instead reborn in accordance with this dhyāna. Should this particular karma not yet have ripened, whichever karma from a former life proves strongest draws him onward first. One should recognize, then, that none of these views is yet able to subdue affliction at all — how, then, could affliction possibly be severed through them? The corresponding marks of merit and fault for the remaining position, both-existence-and-non-existence, may be understood according to this same pattern.
The Great Calming and Contemplation, Fascicle Ten, Upper Part, ends here.

The Great Calming and Contemplation, Fascicle Ten, Upper Part, ends here.

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

Next, clarifying the merits and faults among those heterodox from within: the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates are originally meant to lead into the underlying principle itself, yet, clung to in error, become mere frivolous discourse — a view manifests, dhyāna is attained, and Vedic learning, too, is mastered alongside them. Should one cling to this very gate as one's own fixed position, this ought, in itself, merely to generate good — yet, once it becomes bound up with view, it, too, gives rise to these same three modes of conduct. As for practicing good through it: one devotes oneself exclusively to accumulating retributive result within the realm of existence, clinging attachedly to the gate of existence and thereby giving rise to both affection and resentment. The one who prevails falls into a pit of arrogance; the one who is defeated falls into a prison of grief — in either case, one remains within the very locus of affliction, the gate of existence closing itself off once again, so that liberation is never attained. As for practicing evil through it: one clings to existence as correct, and holds everything else to be mistaken — on account of this very gate of existence, there is no evil left uncommitted, a heterodox spirit entering one's own mind, only further multiplying one's own wrongdoing. Among the ninety-six paths, three are said to accord with the Buddha's own teaching, hence there exist an "Abhidharma path" and a "sūtra path" — yet the five hundred arhats themselves attained liberation precisely through this very gate of existence, so how could it possibly be heterodox in itself? It is simply that people today cling to it in a perverse, error-prone way, allowing a demonic spirit to enter their own minds thereby — hence such a person is properly called "the Abhidharma demon." This may occur either through view entering first, or through dhyāna entering first. One's own practice, in this case, follows only a single path, while conversion of others still admits of the same four modes. As this holds for the gate of existence, so too does it hold for the remaining three gates. Should one instead take up the shared, distinct, and perfect teachings' own four gates, each likewise gives rise to a corresponding view, and this single view, too, is complete with the same three modes of conduct. Practicing good through it may be understood accordingly. As for practicing evil through it: one clings to the Mahāyāna's own teaching that "desire itself is the path," that "the three poisons are themselves complete with every buddha-dharma" — teachings of this kind are, in their genuine sense, meant precisely to extinguish affliction, yet, clung to in a perverse, error-prone way, they instead give rise anew to the very fetters of karma, praising and condemning, grieving and craving, deceiving and belittling, snarling and biting, competing for fame and profit. One's own practice, in this case, follows only a single path, while conversion of others admits of the same four modes. Since this is not, in fact, the uncontaminated at all, ignorance nourishes karma, and the power of this karma draws one onward into rebirth — where could this possibly fail to lead? This cannot be explained in full detail here, but may be understood according to the same pattern already given. Views of this kind, running contrary to the noble path, are, moreover, capable of generating and increasing every manner of transgression and fault. Those who fail to recognize this cling to such views, taking them for the very path itself; and even should one come to know that this is merely a view, following it in practice regardless only buries oneself the more deeply within it — how, then, could one possibly cultivate the branches of the path amid this very view, whether moved by it or unmoved? This has explained, in brief outline, the faults produced by the manifestation of views.

Second, clarifying the comparative judgment between true and false: first, judging by what these views themselves give rise to; second, judging by what they respectively depend upon. Here, considered generally, from the non-Buddhist schools' own four propositions all the way to the perfect teaching's four gates — the non-Buddhist view extends through Vedic learning, and the perfect teaching's gate extends through the three foundations of mindfulness and the three liberations — the names and their number are, in each case, comparable, and the very transgression of view thereby given rise to, and the bondage it produces, is likewise no different — comparable to a chain made of gold links compared to one made of iron links. Further, from the non-Buddhist schools' own four propositions all the way to the perfect teaching's own four views, though the names involved may sound elegant and refined, the very substance of the affliction thereby given rise to remains equally polluted — comparable to jade and a rat's carcass, both alike still uncarved, raw material. Further, from the non-Buddhist schools' own four propositions all the way to the perfect teaching's own four views, though both alike undergo refinement through cultivation, one succeeds while the other fails — comparable to cow's milk and donkey's milk, both churned in the same way, yet only one yielding butter. Further, from the non-Buddhist schools' own four views all the way to the perfect teaching's own four views, one proves harmful while the other proves harmless — comparable to the poisonous kāla fruit and the beneficial tinduka fruit. Whatever spiritual self these schools posit is, in every case, itself merely a further binding dharma, not a genuinely free and autonomous self at all. Each clings to his own position as correct, declaring every other position mere falsehood — yet what does this mutual dispute over right and wrong actually have to do with genuine reality? Each supposes his own path to be the true one, imagining he has thereby opened a path toward liberation — yet, in seeking to attain nirvāṇa this way, he only sinks further into birth-and-death instead. Each declares his own position to be correct and fitting, yet it invariably ends in heterodox deviation — affection arising wherever there is fondness, anger arising wherever there is resentment. Though such a person may give rise to what appears to be compassion, it remains merely compassion bound up with view and attachment; though he may calmly endure being cut and wounded, this is merely a forced, strained endurance still bound to arising and ceasing. Though he may claim omniscience, this remains merely worldly speculation; though he may attain spiritual power, this remains merely the transformation proper to the root dhyānas, a contaminated transformation. Whatever Vedic learning he has studied remains merely what worldly intelligence itself has produced, neither the power of a genuine dhāraṇī nor a genuine outflow of the Dharma-realm. Though he may sever a dull proclivity, this is like a measuring-worm inching forward only to be checked by a worldly physician's own treatment — cured for a moment, only to relapse again. The vast ocean formed by the gathering of the eighty-eight proclivities, and the boundless wheel of suffering proper to birth-and-death across the three realms, leave him submerged in contamination with no prospect of escape whatsoever — every one of these views being, in every case, mere illusion and falsehood — how, then, could any of them possibly constitute the genuine, true path?

Second, treated in terms of what each view depends upon: every view depends upon its own particular dharma. The three schools entirely outside the teaching are contaminated persons manifesting contaminated dharmas, their contaminated minds clinging to the very dharmas to which they cling. Both the dharma clung to and the mind that clings are, in their very substance, mere contention — this is not merely a matter of grasping at each other's throats and pulling out each other's hair the very moment such a view first manifests, but of taking this very view, once manifested, to be nirvāṇa itself. As the clinging grows firm, the view grows correspondingly fierce, its poison and its combativeness both intensifying together. Since the dharma depended upon is not genuine, the view thereby manifested is likewise merely false. Though this is a heterodox dharma, should one secretly grasp its underlying sense, one may still enter the correct mark by way of this heterodox mark — as when flying blossoms and stirring leaves, through however slight a causal condition, may still lead one to realize pratyekabuddhahood, how much more so, then, some longstanding worldly dharma? Yet, though the pratyekabuddha's own realization is genuine, the blossoms and leaves themselves are, in the end, never a correct teaching in their own right. The outsiders' own secret awakening, similarly, occurs despite the fact that their own dharma-gate merely happens to admit of every kind of view — it is not, in itself, a correct dharma. All of this stems from a clinging mind clinging to a dharma equally clung to, cause and fruit both alike caught up in contention — this alone should be firmly judged to be a heterodox dharma giving rise to heterodox view. As for the Tripiṭaka teaching's own four gates, these are dharmas attained by supramundane sages who have already transcended the world, their very substance pure, the very locus of affliction's own extinguishing. It is not only the Buddha's own scriptures that constitute the correct teaching — what the five hundred arhats themselves expounded is likewise capable of leading one to the path. The *Sūtra on the Wondrous, Supreme Concentration* says: "One hundred years after the Buddha's passing from the world, one hundred thousand people went forth from household life, of whom ninety thousand attained the path; at two hundred years, one hundred thousand went forth, of whom only ten thousand attained the path." One should understand, then, that it is precisely through a mind free of clinging, not even clinging to this very freedom-from-clinging as a dharma in itself, that one gives rise to a truly genuine resolve, awakening to impermanence. Thought after thought, arising and ceasing, one's very life uncertain even from morning to evening, one resolves to seek the essential way out, without shutting oneself up within any one gate alone, thereby generating defilement and frivolous discourse from it. It is like a person wishing to see the king with all possible speed, so as to receive his reward and be appointed to office — entering through any one of the four gates of the palace, what leisure would he have to linger and dispute over which gate is more attractive than the others? Knowing that every gate alike leads through to the same destination, there is no need to dispute over them at all — just as medicine exists to treat illness, and one ought not fuss over distinguishing between remedies unnecessarily. Swiftly emerging from the burning house, reaching the very limit of every suffering, one attains genuine clarity and thereby realizes the ultimate path, utterly free of contention. Free of contention, there is no karma; free of karma, there is no birth-and-death, but only the path and cessation remaining. The very ground of the mind lies open and untroubled, cause and fruit both alike absent, contention entirely extinguished — only correct view remains, with no heterodox view present at all. Furthermore, though these four gates are themselves a correct dharma, should one cling to them with a clinging mind, heterodox view thereby arises regardless — perceiving the four gates as fundamentally different from one another, one gives rise, in the very course of cultivating the cause, to frequent contention. It is like a person who has dwelt for a long time beside a city gate, distinguishing its tiles and timber, debating their relative thickness and refinement, declaring the south side correct and the north side wrong, the east side skillfully made and the west side crudely made — thereby delaying himself and refusing to proceed onward — yet this is no fault of the gate itself. One who clings in this way is exactly the same: distinguishing names and categories, broadly amassing knowledge of affliction, reciting the branches of the path at great length, all merely to seek fame, gather a following, and peddle himself for advancement. Beating his own great drum, planting the very banner of his own arrogance, boasting before others, mutual contention arises, grasping at each other's throats and pulling out each other's hair. The eighty-eight proclivities' own anger and craving swell vast and unchecked, all stemming from a clinging mind clinging to the very gate of the correct Dharma itself, thereby giving rise to heterodox view. The affliction thus produced is, in the end, no different at all from that of the outsiders entirely outside the teaching — though the actual doctrine each posits differs as vastly as heaven from earth. The Vaipulya scriptures say: "Every manner of 'questioning the bridge' is something the wise reproach." People are exactly the same in this respect: for the sake of studying the path, they cultivate these four gates, yet, after thirty years and more, still fail to fully understand even a single one of them. The very moment their effort has finally taken hold, they find themselves already old, having tasted none of the three genuine flavors at all. Born in vain and dying in vain, an entire lifetime squandered for nothing — like that very "questioning of the bridge," what benefit could this possibly bring? This, too, stems from a clinging mind clinging even to the very dharma of freedom-from-clinging, thereby giving rise to heterodox view.

Next, the shared teaching's own four gates: their very substance is correct dharma, standing near the conjured city on the way toward the ultimate destination. Where the earlier gates were roundabout, this one proceeds directly — though skillful and clumsy in different measure, the point of passage through them is, in the end, no different at all. It is like the heavenly gate opening directly onto splendor while every other gate remains circuitous and cramped — yet, provided one does not become fixed on either gate exclusively, one is able to pass through and advance regardless; whereas, should one instead spend one's time counting tiles and timber, both gates alike become mere sources of delay and obstruction. Should one not linger and become fixed within any single dharma-gate, and remain free of contention and attachment with respect to either cause or fruit, this is properly named "the mind free of clinging" — not even clinging to this very freedom-from-clinging as a dharma in itself — and heterodox view thereby fails to arise. Furthermore, should one cling with a clinging mind even to this direct gate, heterodox view arises here as well — whether for the sake of reputation, for the sake of a following, for the sake of feeling superior, or for the sake of material gain, one distinguishes the marks of the gates from one another, and anger, craving, and the fetter of pride thereby arise from this very distinction. It is like mixing poison into a genuinely good medicine — how could this fail to result in death? Taking up the poison of view and carrying it into the correct Dharma itself, one only increases suffering and its origin thereby — though this is no fault of the Tathāgata's own teaching. A sharp-faculty outsider, entering the correct mark by way of a heterodox mark, is thereby led from clinging into freedom-from-clinging, becoming a genuine disciple of the Buddha; a dull-faculty adherent from within, entering into heterodoxy by way of the correct mark, is thereby led from freedom-from-clinging back into clinging, becoming instead a heterodox disciple — is this not truly lamentable? The distinct and perfect teachings' own four gates, whether skillful or clumsy, sharp or dull, all alike lead through to ultimate nirvāṇa. Where the cause remains free of clinging, the fruit remains free of contention; but should one shut oneself up within a single gate and give rise to view there, affliction arises all the same, no different from the outsider Aulūkya's own school. Considering the matter in this light, it is like a person of clear sight standing at the very confluence of the Jing and Wei rivers — how could such a person possibly mistake the name of one river for the other, or fail to distinguish the clear water from the muddy? In brief outline, the manifestation of views comes to five successive rounds; each round yields four; this yields, in turn, twenty gates; each gate yields seven — together amounting to one hundred and forty distinct ways in which a view may be attained. Discussed in full, these are without measure, each arising through its own particular causes and conditions. It is precisely because calming is cultivated in general that the various dhyānas are able to manifest; and precisely because contemplation is cultivated in general that the various views are able to manifest. The general condition for their cultivation lies in calming-and-contemplation itself, while the specific root cause underlying each must necessarily trace back to some former life — whether one studied among the outsiders entirely outside the teaching, or studied as a disciple of the Buddha within either the greater or lesser vehicle, or once manifested such views through hearing the characteristics of the Dharma, or manifested these very views through the practice of seated meditation. Separated by rebirth, this is forgotten and set aside, and the corresponding understanding fails to manifest again. Now, cultivating a stilled mind, or hearing the sūtras and treatises, one's own habituation from the past is thereby stirred, and the corresponding view or dharma arises once more. What was already ripe in a former life manifests easily now; what remained raw and unripe in a former life manifests only with difficulty now. The more distant the intervening rebirths, the more difficult; the nearer, the easier. Should the outer, heterodox view be both ripe and recent, it manifests first; should the inner view be both ripe and recent, it manifests first instead. Since spiritual power and Vedic learning are themselves concrete, external matters, they are easily forgotten across rebirth, and manifest only with difficulty; view, by contrast, is of the very nature of intelligence itself, difficult to forget, and manifests easily. It is like a person long separated from another, who remembers the other's name yet forgets their face — the relative ease and difficulty between concrete matters and underlying principle is exactly the same. Should there have existed, in a former life, some demonic connection from without, a demon then adds its own influence, manifesting demonic dhyāna and demonic view; should there have existed a sagely connection from without instead, a sage then adds his own influence, manifesting correct dhyāna and correct view.

Furthermore, should one not yet have recognized the harm views produce, one might grow fearful at the mere manifestation of a view and rush to sever it in haste; but now, having recognized its heterodox mark, one ought to take care never to sever it too abruptly — allowing it instead to reach its own full development, and using it as an auxiliary support to the path, will bring immense benefit. It is like a tapeworm dwelling in the belly, which one ought first to nurture and allow to grow, only later purging it out entirely, whole and intact, like a string of pearls. Why is this so? The foolish people of this world, obtuse as cattle or horses, gain no benefit at all even from thunderous proclamations of the Dharma or lavish displays of embroidered brocade — hearing and seeing such things leaves them entirely unmoved. Their indulgent attachment to the five desires is like one afflicted with a tapeworm; and should views then manifest in them, these views' own devouring of dull proclivities may be likened to this same tapeworm. Yet the wisdom of view stands close beside correct contemplation itself — hearing the Dharma taught, such a person awakens easily, like that very tapeworm dissolved by a broth of ground pearl. For this very reason, one must nurture the view and refine the mind through it, letting it serve as a vanguard opening the way toward genuine understanding. Should one thereby enter the two lesser vehicles, the branches of the path are cultivated by moving through this very view; should one enter the Mahāyāna instead, the branches of the path are cultivated without being moved by this view at all. Only once the invading bandit has been confronted and defeated is the true achievement accomplished. This is nurturing an outer view so as to make of it one's own attendant. Should the Tripiṭaka teaching's own clumsy four-gate view manifest, or the shared teaching's own skillful four-gate view, though the view itself remains an obstruction, its assistance to the path proves correspondingly deep. As for meritorious dharmas generally, ascending to the heavens through them is quite easy, while attaining the path through them proves difficult; view, by contrast, being of the very nature of intelligence, one may sink through it just as easily, yet awaken to the path through it with equal speed. The *Great Treatise* says: "Even the three evil paths contain those who attain the path — it is simply that, being so few, this is not commonly spoken of. A white person with a single black mole is still not, on that account, called a black person." Once one recognizes this as merely a view, delusion is thereby prevented from arising further, and one may allow it free rein to develop and discriminate. It is like the various outsiders who already possessed a mind of view before being converted by the Buddha — the very instant they glimpsed the shadow of his whip, like swift horses, they attained awakening at once. Were there no such view present at all, ten thousand blows of the axe could not break through to them — it would be like preaching the Dharma to cattle or horses, who could never comprehend it at all; a savage tribesman who understands not a word of the language — how could one possibly discuss profound matters with him? Hence the Buddha does not even appear in the world for such a person, but instead divides his own form and scatters his substance, becoming teacher and friend alike, guiding such a person by way of whatever view he already holds. The very instant the Buddha's own sun first rises, the provisional serves to draw one toward the real — hearing the Dharma, one awakens at once. The *Lotus Sūtra*'s own phrase, "secretly dispatching two men," refers, in terms of doctrine, to the two provisional teachings serving as skillful means; in terms of persons, it refers to provisional manifestations equal in status to the two lesser vehicles. If even the assembled sages, in all their own circuitous skillful means, still teach by way of a person's existing view, how, then, could one possibly rush to eliminate a view the very moment it manifests? Should one, in a former life, have already cultivated the distinct and perfect teachings' own eight gates without yet having severed the shared afflictions, and should such a view now manifest, its fault would be comparable to that of the three outer schools; should one, in a former life, have already broken through the shared afflictions without yet having awakened to the distinct teaching's own principle, this might instead be comparable to the two lesser vehicles. If even these earlier views are still to be nurtured, how much more so this present one? The *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* takes up the two lesser vehicles' own faulty aspect and assigns it to the category of the outsiders; yet it also takes up their auxiliary aspect and employs it as an attendant. One must understand this both ways, advancing and withdrawing in turn, not fixing upon a single interpretation exclusively. Should the mind of view manifest in the course of one's present practice of the path, genuine principle may then be anticipated in due course; should no view manifest at all, the domain of the sages remains difficult indeed to encounter.

Fourth, cultivating calming-and-contemplation by way of views: as discussed generally above, the varieties of view attainable come, in all, to one hundred and forty; treated specifically in terms of those heterodox from within alone, there are one hundred and twelve. Were one to establish these as distinct schools of doctrine and set forth their respective teachings, how many such schools would there properly be? The Daśabhūmika, Mādhyamika, Saṃgraha, and Sāṃkhya-adjacent treatises, and the rest, each distinguish the marks of view in their own way — are these the same, or different? How great a gap separates the heterodox path from the correct one? Should one grasp this very sense, one recognizes that these questions have, in the end, no real bearing on the matter at hand; but for one who fails to grasp it, what is to be done? The Buddha's own teaching, in fact, proceeds by two methods: gathering-in, and cutting-off. As in the "Course of Ease and Bliss" chapter, where one refrains from pointing out others' strengths or weaknesses — this is the sense of gathering-in; as in the Great Sūtra, where one takes up sword and staff, even to the point of beheading — this is the sense of cutting-off. Though "granting" and "denying" proceed along different paths, both alike serve to bring benefit. Should views continue to flow onward in transmigration, they must be severed entirely; should they instead assist in refining one's own spiritual clarity, turning the mind toward the correct path, they may equally be gathered in and accepted. Considered across the many different kinds of person, no single person ever manifests every one of the views described above all at once. Even were one to manifest all of them together, they would inevitably devour one another in mutual contention, leaving only a single, genuine reality remaining. Were one to construct a distinct dharma-gate for each and every individual view, skillfully demonstrating the proper method for each in turn, this would require ninety days for each one. Yet gathering each and every view into a single, unified gate of contemplation, complete with every dharma at once, could never be exhausted either way — whether treated as many or as one, one remains free to proceed as suits the case. Here, then, the discussion shall proceed chiefly in terms of a single view, though the same holds true for the many as well. Among all these views, emptiness alone is capable of destroying every other view, while no other view is capable of destroying emptiness in turn — hence it proves most effective in leading a person onward. Here, then, emptiness-view shall be contemplated first, treated according to the same pattern, in ten parts.

As for the discursible object: emptiness-view generates the dharmas of all ten realms. A bitter cucumber is not itself hot, and yet it is able to serve as the cause of feverish illness; emptiness itself is not any of the ten realms, and yet it is able to serve as their very cause and condition. The *Satyasiddhi* says: "The very instant a partial view arises in the mind, this is already unwholesome." The *Abhidharma*, by contrast, clarifies that the instantaneous arising of a partial view in the mind is not, in itself, either wholesome or unwholesome, and is named "morally indeterminate." Yet it is precisely from this initiating mind that every wholesome and unwholesome state subsequently arises. Here, this emptiness-view likewise carries both senses at once. Contemplated specifically, it is precisely from this initiating mind that the ten dharma-realms themselves arise. Why is this so? Formerly, before this emptiness-view had arisen, no corresponding conduct had yet occurred; now that emptiness-view has manifested, three distinct modes of conduct immediately follow, exactly as explained above. As for committing evil on account of emptiness: practicing a doctrine of no obstruction whatsoever, one no longer perceives, above, the reverent field of the sūtras and the Buddha as worthy of honor, nor, below, the very virtue of one's parents' kindness; habituating oneself to conduct fit for a naked beast, one thereby annihilates every wholesome quality, both worldly and supramundane alike. Even the icchantika, evil as he is, still retains some residue of compassionate, loving good within him — emptiness-view, by contrast, retains none whatsoever, its evil purely of the highest three grades. Rebellion, murder, and injury constitute the hell-realm; utter shamelessness and lack of remorse constitute the animal realm; stinginess, greed, breaking of the fast, and living by impure means constitute the hungry-ghost realm — breaking the fast brings constant hunger, and impurity brings the devouring of filth. As for practicing good on account of emptiness: upholding the precepts, practicing austerities, adorning oneself with the ten wholesome deeds, the three karmic actions thereby growing pure and mature, this constitutes the three wholesome paths; and, further manifesting the root dhyānas, this constitutes the form realm. Further, as for the śrāvaka realm arising on account of emptiness: one who merely speaks of "emptiness" in this way, in truth, fails to recognize the Four Noble Truths as they exist within genuine emptiness at all. Why is this so? Should one realize the Dharma-nature itself, this is both emptiness and purity together; but this illusory, false emptiness-view necessarily still depends upon a retributive result, and this retributive result is itself defiled, polluted form. The *Larger Prajñāpāramitā* says: "Whether form is held to be permanent or impermanent, both positions alike still depend upon form itself — receiving this into oneself as 'emptiness' is precisely what is meant here, and nothing else." Grasping at the mere appearance of emptiness, distinguishing it from the dharma of existence, taking emptiness as one's object and giving rise to the three modes of conduct described above, discriminating this very mind of emptiness as superior to every other dharma — this itself is precisely "the five aggregates." Emptiness taken as an object corresponding to the mental faculty constitutes the second of the sense-fields; adding mental consciousness to this yields the three realms in miniature. The elements, sense-fields, and aggregates thus constituted are themselves precisely the truth of suffering. Emptiness-view becomes, in turn, the very locus of anger, of craving, and of pride. Should one whose view of existence proves comparatively weak encounter this emptiness-view, it claws apart his dharma of existence and drags his own reasoning over into emptiness, so that doubt is prevented from arising at all in him; but should this clawing fail to break through, and this dragging-over fail to succeed, snarling contention gives rise to doubt instead. And, further, even where no doubt is present now, great doubt is bound to arise later. Why is this so? Should emptiness genuinely be the underlying truth itself, it ought properly to be equal to the sages' own realization — and, since it plainly is not equal to it, how could doubt possibly fail to arise eventually? Who, then, is it that conceives of emptiness in this way? It is the self that conceives of it. Yet the self is, in reality, not emptiness, and emptiness, in turn, is not the self — and yet, on the basis of this very emptiness, a self is nonetheless generated: "my own practice," "my own understanding," praising oneself, condemning oneself. Clinging to this very extreme of emptiness, one finds oneself unable to relinquish it. Holding that this very path of emptiness leads through to nirvāṇa, one takes emptiness itself as one's moral precept, distinct from the precepts against killing, theft, and the rest observed by ordinary people. Positing a cause where none exists, this is grasping after precepts and rituals as a cause where none belongs; conceiving of emptiness as "emptiness" in this fixed way is, in truth, not genuine, principled emptiness at all — positing a fruit where none exists, this is grasping after view as a fruit where none belongs. Emptiness-view, thus skewed and one-sided, is itself precisely wrong view. From this very emptiness-view arise these ten proclivities in the following distribution: beneath the truth of suffering in the desire realm, all ten are present in full; beneath the truth of origin, seven are present, excluding the view of self, the extreme views, and the grasping at precepts and rituals; beneath the truth of the path, eight are present, excluding the view of self and the extreme views; beneath the truth of cessation, seven are present, excluding the view of self, the extreme views, and the grasping at precepts and rituals — thirty-two in total within the desire realm. In the form and formless realms, each excludes the four instances of anger as well, yielding twenty-eight in each — together amounting to the full eighty-eight proclivities. This is named "the truth of origin."

This truth of origin, deluded regarding suffering, gives rise to suffering, and suffering, in turn, arises from origin — suffering and origin thus flowing onward together in transmigration, something the long-nailed Brahmin himself never recognized. There is, further, a story of a ghost with fire blazing atop its head — even reaching all the way up to the peak of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one still cannot escape this fate; how, then, could one possibly fail to recognize suffering and its origin merely on account of clinging to emptiness? Should one recognize the suffering and origin present within this very emptiness-view, one recognizes that suffering and origin both alike depend upon form — every form-dharma being named "body." The body's own form, being polluted, and pollution being itself impurity, is something the wise abhor, breaking through the inversion of taking it for pure — this is named "the foundation of mindfulness of the body." As for the feeling proper to emptiness-view, this is a feeling that is, properly speaking, neither straightforwardly a feeling nor entirely without feeling, occupying the second of these two propositions. Compliance with emptiness produces pleasant feeling; opposition to it produces painful feeling; neither compliance nor opposition produces feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant. These three feelings are themselves the three forms of suffering — taking suffering to be pleasure is itself precisely an inversion. Recognizing that there is, in truth, no pleasure here at all breaks through this inversion of pleasure — this is named "the foundation of mindfulness of feeling." Emptiness, taken as an object corresponding to the mind, gives rise to mental consciousness. This very mind arises and ceases, ever freshly flowing onward — arising when there is an object to think upon, not arising when there is none. Taking this arising and ceasing, impermanent as it is, to be permanent is itself precisely an inversion. Recognizing consciousness as itself impermanent breaks through this inversion of permanence — this is named "the foundation of mindfulness of mind." Grasping at the mere appearance of emptiness while engaging in good or evil conduct, one conceives of a self within this very conduct. Were this conduct itself the self, then, since conduct admits of good and bad, of arising and ceasing, the self, too, would have to admit of the same. Yet formations are themselves without measure — were the self to pervade them all, the self, too, would be without measure; were it not to pervade them all, then any single formation would be without self, and every formation, taken together, would likewise be without self. Forcibly conceiving of a self under these conditions is itself precisely an inversion. Recognizing that there is no self breaks through this inversion with respect to perception and formation — this is named "the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas." Now, with respect to the aggregates generally, all four inversions apply throughout — yet, with respect to perception and formation specifically, the conception of self predominates; with respect to form, the conception of purity predominates; with respect to mind, the conception of permanence predominates; with respect to feeling, the conception of pleasure predominates — this distinction is named "the particular foundations of mindfulness," as distinct from "the general foundation of mindfulness," where this distinction does not apply. This, then, is emptiness-view giving rise to the contemplation of the foundations of mindfulness. Diligently breaking through this inverted view through contemplation is itself "right diligence"; cultivated within a settled mind, it is named "the bases of supernormal power"; the five wholesome roots thereby generated are named "the faculties"; breaking through the five kinds of affliction is named "the powers"; the secure and settled function of the path is named "the seven factors of enlightenment"; and conduct proceeding along this secure and settled path is named "the eightfold noble path." This is emptiness-view giving rise to the truth of the path. Because the four inversions are thereby removed, folly is extinguished; folly extinguished, craving is extinguished; craving extinguished, anger is extinguished; anger extinguished, one recognizes that emptiness is not itself the true path, and, bowing one's head in shame and remorse, pride, too, is thereby extinguished; with nothing further left to cling to, doubt, too, is extinguished. Since this emptiness-view already contains suffering and origin within it, and suffering and origin are not, in fact, ultimate emptiness at all, once the very mind clinging to emptiness is broken through, the self one sought is found to be entirely unobtainable. Since the self proves unobtainable, the view of self is thereby broken through; the view of self broken through, the very conceit of "I" is thereby broken through; the conceit of "I" broken through, extreme views are broken through; recognizing that emptiness is not itself the path, grasping at precepts and rituals is broken through; recognizing that emptiness is not itself nirvāṇa, grasping at views is broken through; recognizing that emptiness does not, in fact, correspond to the true principle, wrong view itself is broken through. These ten proclivities thus broken through, the full eighty-eight proclivities are broken through; the eighty-eight proclivities broken through, the bondage of the seed is broken through; the bondage of the seed broken through, one is thereby able to manifest the first fruit and advance to the stage beyond further training; the bondage of the fruit then broken through, one enters nirvāṇa without remainder. This is emptiness-view giving rise to the truth of cessation — this being precisely the dharma-realm of the śrāvaka. Should one, by way of emptiness-view, come to a clear understanding of the Four Noble Truths, one thereby knows the genuine path that exhausts suffering; this genuine path, subduing and severing affliction, brings one to the accomplishment of noble sagehood. Extending even to all one hundred and forty kinds of view — single, compound, complete, or beyond-words — every one of them, in this same way, may come to recognize the genuine path; within these very views themselves, one is able both to be moved by them and to escape through them. Should this not occur, one fails to perceive the Four Noble Truths at all, and thus continues to flow onward, for a long time, within the great sea of suffering that is birth-and-death. Should one be able to perceive the Four Noble Truths, one thereby attains the severing of birth-and-death — the very existence one is born into now already exhausted, one no longer receives any further mode of existence at all. This carries precisely this same sense.

Next, clarifying emptiness-view giving rise to the pratyekabuddha realm: emptiness-view is not genuine emptiness at all, but is mistakenly supposed to be so — this inverted discrimination is itself precisely ignorance. Because of this ignorance, one grasps and clings to emptiness-view; yet, should one recognize this as ignorance, what would there be left to grasp and cling to? Should one recognize this ignorance, one no longer gives rise to grasping and existence, and, this cycle exhausted, produces nothing new; producing nothing new, no longer giving rise to grasping and existence, and this cycle exhausted, ignorance itself no longer arises; and, ignorance being absent, wisdom's own light is thereby accomplished. Hence, at the moment wisdom is present, affliction is absent; affliction being absent, ignorance is thereby extinguished; ignorance extinguished, every formation is thereby extinguished, extending all the way through to the extinguishing of old age and death. The *Madhyamaka-śāstra* asks: "How does the śrāvaka contemplate the sense of the twelve links of dependent origination?" — and yet proceeds to speak of the sixty-two views concerning permanence, impermanence, and the rest, so that question and answer seem almost entirely unrelated. Here, however, it should be noted: this is, in fact, precisely the answer. Views of permanence, impermanence, and the rest are all, themselves, ignorance; recognizing this ignorance, and no longer giving rise to grasping and existence, is precisely the contemplation of the twelve links of dependent origination within the śrāvaka's own teaching. The *Lotus Sūtra* says: "Delighting in solitary quiescence, seeking spontaneous wisdom" — this very wisdom being the quiescence of these same sixty-two views. Further, contemplating this instantaneous emptiness-view as already complete with the Four Noble Truths — is this mind of emptiness-view itself existent, or non-existent? Since this instantaneous mind arises already complete with the five aggregates, how could it possibly be called non-existent? This, then, is precisely the link of "existence." Existence, in turn, contains its own fruit within it — this being likewise the sense of the effect already existing within the cause; were one instead to hold that it contains no fruit, then, existence already possessing its cause, this causal sense being already complete, from where, then, would existence itself have arisen? Were there no grasping present, existence itself would fail to arise at all. Grasping is itself these five views: clinging to emptiness as an extreme, conceiving of a self within emptiness, holding emptiness to be the path, to be nirvāṇa, to be correct — this constitutes the link of "grasping." Grasping arises, in turn, from craving — delighting in what accords with it, resenting what opposes it, disdaining one thing, doubting another — this is named the link of "craving." Craving arises, in turn, from feeling, since it is on account of feeling that craving arises — as when, receiving a single dharma into oneself, one savors it with craving and pursues it further. One recognizes that this feeling arises, in turn, from contact — since it is through the presence of the mental faculty and the object of emptiness together that contact comes to be. The sūtra says: "Through the causal condition of contact, every feeling arises." Contact arises, in turn, from the sense-fields, since it is through objects coming into contact with the faculties that the sense-fields themselves come to be. The sense-fields arise, in turn, from name-and-form — the three constituent factors of the *kalala* stage: form possessing its five nascent protuberances, life-force sustaining and connecting them, and consciousness bearing the name of the four mental aggregates. And these same three factors constitute name-and-form: arising from the very first consciousness taking rebirth in the womb, consciousness arising, in turn, from past karma, karma arising, in turn, from ignorance. This ignorance is precisely the inverted view carried over from the past, positing existence, positing non-existence, and every other view besides — and it is precisely this that is able to bring about the very physical body of the present life. The sūtra says: "The seed of consciousness, the field of karma, and the water of craving — all obscured over by ignorance — thereby give rise to the very sprout of name-and-form." Here, once again, inverted, deluded by this same emptiness-view, one gives rise to good and evil conduct, thereby planting the very sprout of name-and-form for a future life. Inversion upon inversion, ignorance upon ignorance, this mutual dependency continuing on without any end whatsoever. Should one recognize this ignorance as itself an inversion, there is no need to calculate further whether it is existent or non-existent — one need only penetrate to its own underlying nature, recognizing that it was, from the very start, never genuinely real at all, arising only through the coincidence of causes and conditions bound up with delusive thought. Once this inversion is thus recognized, ignorance itself is thereby put to rest; and, being put to rest, every formation, and old age and death as well, are all likewise put to rest. Emptiness-view's own ignorance, old age, and death being thus put to rest, the ignorance, old age, and death belonging to all one hundred and forty kinds of view are, in this same way, likewise put to rest. Being thus put to rest, this breaks through the twenty-five modes of existence, and removes even their underlying habituation — this is named "emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma-realm of the pratyekabuddha." Should one, within emptiness-view itself, recognize this as ignorance, this very ignorance becomes capable of extinguishing; should one fail to recognize it as such, one fails even to escape emptiness-view itself. Producing karma through this very view is like a silkworm spinning its own cocoon around itself — how, then, could one possibly attain pratyekabuddhahood through it? Meditation masters closed off from proper guidance who manifest this emptiness-view for the most part fall into its very net, unable to extricate themselves; and lecture-masters given to scattered discursiveness, though they may skillfully distinguish every proclivity in theory, likewise fail to recognize the harm of emptiness-view in their own case. Darkly realized, like an ordinary tortoise, or a blind dog barking at nothing — both their own practice and their conversion of others alike are entirely devoid of the very spirit of the path. As for emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma of the bodhisattva of the six pāramitās: having already recognized the truth and the causal condition underlying emptiness-view, this is itself precisely knowing the illness and identifying the remedy. Knowing the remedy, one rejoices in oneself; knowing the illness, one feels compassion for others, wishing to join with every sentient being in departing from suffering and seeking happiness together. Emptiness-view's own aggregates and elements are suffering; its ten proclivities and the rest are origin; its foundations of mindfulness and the rest are the path; the breaking-through of its four inversions is cessation — and it is on the basis of these very four truths that the vow is given rise to. Consider a single instance of emptiness-view: within a single day and night, how many hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of millions, of aggregates does it give rise to — each single set of five aggregates being itself a sentient being? Since this holds even within a single day and night, how much more so across an entire lifetime — how much more so, further, across immeasurable lifetimes? As this holds for emptiness-view, so too does it hold for every other view. Since the views capable of generating such aggregates are themselves so numerous, the aggregates thereby generated are utterly beyond counting — and if this holds even for a single person, how much more so for the multitude of all persons together? This is precisely "sentient beings are numberless, I vow to deliver them all." As a single instance of emptiness-view carries, thought after thought, the full eighty-eight proclivities, so too do the remaining three views, and the sixty-two views, and the rest, each likewise carry these same eighty-eight proclivities — and if this holds even for a single person, how much more so for the multitude? This is named "afflictions are inexhaustible, I vow to sever them all." As a single instance of emptiness-view cultivates the branches of the path through the foundations of mindfulness, so too does every other view generate its own immeasurable, boundless path of direct and auxiliary practice — and if this holds even for a single person, so too does it hold for the multitude. This is precisely "the dharma-gates are boundless, I vow to master them all." As a single instance of emptiness-view has its affliction extinguished, so too do the immeasurable views have their immeasurable afflictions likewise extinguished — and if this holds even for a single person, so too does it hold for every person alike. This is named "the supreme Buddha-path, I vow to accomplish it." Were the suffering and origin of sentient beings possessed of some fixed, inherent reality, they could never be delivered at all — but since suffering and origin arise entirely through causes and conditions, possessing no inherent nature of their own, the very sea of suffering can be dried up, the very source of origin easily exhausted — hence one properly speaks of "delivering" them at all. Contemplating emptiness and thereby giving rise to the vow proceeds exactly as described above. As for giving rise to actual conduct on the basis of emptiness: should one cling to emptiness-view while practicing generosity, this is nothing but demonic generosity; recognizing the faults of impermanence, selflessness, and the rest present within the truth and causal condition of this very emptiness-view, one relinquishes emptiness-view instead, and, further, feels compassion for others, urging them likewise to relinquish emptiness-view and practice generosity in its place. Should one cling to emptiness-view while upholding the precepts, how would this differ from a dog or a chicken observing its own peculiar restrictions? Recognizing the faults of impermanence and the rest present within emptiness-view, one is no longer harmed by it, and, with compassion for others, guards them against it as well. Should one cling to emptiness-view as the very locus of anger and craving, forcing oneself merely to endure it, this is a case of insufficient inner strength, enduring only out of fear of others' judgment. Here, by contrast, recognizing the immeasurable faults of emptiness-view, one is able to subdue emptiness-view together with all sixty-two related views, and further urges others toward this same genuine forbearance with respect to emptiness-view. Should one fail to remove emptiness-view while claiming to practice diligence, this is a diligence adulterated by view, not genuine diligence at all — retreating into the three lower paths is no genuine advance either. Here, by contrast, recognizing emptiness-view for what it is, preventing emptiness-view from arising at all is properly named "refined diligence"; and the karma of emptiness-view, once broken through, allowing one to rise up and escape it entirely, is properly named "advancing diligence" — and one further urges others to cultivate this same diligence. Should one attain dhyāna without having broken through emptiness-view, this dhyāna, for the most part, proves to be demonic dharma. Here, by contrast, recognizing the fault of emptiness, one remains unmoved by emptiness-view, thereby accomplishing genuine dhyāna and genuine spiritual power, free of flattery, arrogance, or self-interested gain — and, by means of this very spiritual power, one exhorts and converts sentient beings, leading them to relinquish view and enter into dhyāna instead. Should one cling to emptiness-view while cultivating wisdom, this remains merely foolish, worldly intelligence. Here, by contrast, recognizing the truth and causal condition underlying emptiness-view, one uses the wolf of impermanence to frighten off the very sheep of emptiness-view, so that the fat of affliction melts away; broadly giving rise to vows and practice, the very body of one's merit thereby grows correspondingly full — with compassion for sentient beings, one leads them likewise to remove this fat and grow genuine flesh in its place. Should the conditions and capacity prove ripe, one thereupon sits in the very place of enlightenment, severs every fetter, and accomplishes buddhahood itself. This is named "emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma-realm of the six pāramitās."

Contemplating emptiness-view as itself precisely ignorance, and ignorance as itself precisely emptiness, one recognizes that every instance of suffering and its origin arising from this ignorance proves, in every case, entirely unobtainable. Why is this so? The four inversions are themselves mere arbitrary conception — how could they possibly possess any fixed, inherent reality? The very inversion to be corrected is not truly existent, so how could the corrective foundations of mindfulness themselves possibly be obtained either? Extending even to the path of enlightenment itself, nothing whatsoever genuinely arises, and hence nothing is ultimately obtainable at all. Hence the *Larger Prajñāpāramitā* says: "One should train oneself in suffering as itself emptiness," and so on. The two lesser vehicles, recognizing this very emptiness, sever suffering and enter cessation; the bodhisattva, recognizing this same emptiness, gives rise to compassion, vows, and practice instead, vowing to deliver every sentient being. Though he delivers sentient beings, this is like delivering empty space itself; though he extinguishes affliction, this is like contending against emptiness itself; though he generates dharma-gates, this is like empty space itself generating them; though he brings sentient beings to extinction, there is, in truth, no sentient being whatsoever who is actually brought to extinction. This very wisdom, this very severance, is precisely the bodhisattva's own forbearance of the unborn. This is named "emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma-realm of the bodhisattva of the shared teaching." Contemplating this same emptiness-view as possessing immeasurable aspects — namely, the Four Noble Truths, whose distinctions and calculations prove utterly inexhaustible. This very inexhaustibility arises from emptiness-view; emptiness-view, in turn, arises from ignorance. What is thereby generated is immeasurable, and what generates it is likewise immeasurable. Since what generates it is itself but a provisional designation, what is thereby generated is likewise but a provisional designation. Tracing this ignorance back further still, one finds it arises from the Dharma-nature itself — comparable to searching within a dream, only to recognize that it arises, in truth, from sleep. Contemplating this very emptiness-view, one comes to recognize true reality itself, true reality being precisely the treasury of the Tathāgata. Immeasurable adventitious dust obscures this very treasury-principle — cultivating dharma-gates as numerous as the sands of the Ganges reveals its own pure nature in turn. This is named "emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma of the distinct teaching." Emptiness-view giving rise to the dharma of the perfect teaching follows the same pattern as what has already been explained, both before and after this point.

Furthermore, the affliction of view is vast and turbulent, like a body of water forty miles across; the residual force of habituated thought, by comparison, is like a single drop of water. The various preliminary expedients discussed earlier all treat the affliction of view together — once this affliction is entirely exhausted, this is named "entering the stream," proceeding thereafter spontaneously without ever retreating. Yet the affliction of view proves difficult to remove, and skillful means are required for it. The *Satyasiddhi* says: "Emptiness is used to treat affliction." Should this treatment through emptiness prove effective, no further method is needed; but should it fail to prove effective, what further treatment could one possibly apply? It is like trying to kindle fire within water itself — water alone could never extinguish it; and, similarly, should emptiness-view itself give rise to fault, how could emptiness alone possibly serve to treat it? Here, one must first recognize the illness of suffering and origin present within emptiness-view itself, and only then apply the wisdom of the truths to treat it properly. The Tripiṭaka teaching's wisdom of impermanence, and the shared teaching's wisdom of emptiness-as-such, both alike remove view first, as a preliminary step. The distinct teaching, likewise, first removes view and enters emptiness, and only afterward skillfully emerges into the provisional, like planting a tree within empty space itself. The perfect teaching, though it makes no deliberate effort to remove view as such, finds view removed of its own accord beforehand regardless. Removing a firmly entrenched view thus requires every manner of differing treatment — how, then, could one simply declare that emptiness alone suffices to treat it in every case? And how, indeed, could every one of these different treatments possibly treat one and the same view identically? It is like treating a cold affliction with four different medicines: taking ginger and cinnamon removes the illness and restores strength; taking the five minerals removes the illness and enhances one's complexion; taking heavy asparagus root extends one's lifespan and grants the ability to fly; taking the golden elixir accomplishes the state of a great immortal. The illness is one and the same in every case, yet the medicine and method applied differ, and the resulting benefit differs correspondingly. As the Four Teachings treat view, so too does view, once exhausted, yield a correspondingly different understanding in each case — and as this holds for treating view, so too does it hold for treating every other affliction. These four treatments are themselves precisely the four foundations of mindfulness. The Buddha's own bequeathed teaching instructs disciples to rely upon the four foundations of mindfulness in cultivating the path, so as to escape the burning house. Why is this so? A single instance of emptiness-view's own mind is itself already the three realms in their entirety — "the three realms possess no separate dharma of their own; they are, in every case, simply the fabrication of a single mind." Emptiness-view generates the karma of the six paths, receiving thereby a body within one of the six paths, dwelling within one of their respective domains. This very domain is the burning house itself; the body dwelling within it is the very instrument of its suffering; and the karma involved is itself the very demon or spirit driving it onward. Contending and pushing against one another, the three carts move of their own accord, and it is only by way of them that one is finally able to escape. These three carts are precisely the three vehicles' own foundations of mindfulness within the Tripiṭaka teaching; they are likewise the single, shared foundation of mindfulness held in common by the three kinds of persons within the shared teaching; they are, further, the three kinds of foundation of mindfulness found within the distinct teaching's own preliminary expedients, together with its single, genuine foundation of mindfulness; and they are, further still, the perfect teaching's own single, real foundation of mindfulness. Stated briefly, this yields nine kinds of the fourfold foundation of mindfulness; stated at middling length, nine kinds of the branches of the path; stated at length, nine kinds of the Four Noble Truths. Every one of these foundations of mindfulness is able to treat view, and thereby bring one to escape the burning house — this is precisely the sense contained within the Buddha's own bequeathed instruction. When Śākyamuni first appeared in the world, he first demonstrated to the three kinds of persons, each in turn, their own respective use of the four foundations of mindfulness — this is comparable to the *Lotus Sūtra*'s own goat-cart, deer-cart, and ox-cart, each escaping the burning house separately. He next taught these same three kinds of persons to cultivate a single, shared foundation of mindfulness together — this is comparable to the *Larger Prajñāpāramitā*'s own teaching that "this very vehicle emerges from the three realms, and arrives to abide within the very ocean of omniscience." It is likewise comparable to the *Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra*'s own teaching that "practitioners of the three vehicles alike sever affliction by means of the very path beyond all verbal expression." He next taught the bodhisattva to cultivate the sequential foundations of mindfulness — this is comparable to the *Larger Prajñāpāramitā*'s own "prajñā not shared with the two lesser vehicles," where the various vehicles proper to the foundations of mindfulness remain distinct, not yet unified together. Finally, he taught that every being, lesser and greater vehicle alike, shares this same single foundation of mindfulness in common — this is comparable to the *Lotus Sūtra*'s own teaching of "riding together upon the great cart, directly to the very place of enlightenment." Treated in terms of this very emptiness-view, clarifying every affliction and clarifying every treatment for it in this way, one finds this in no way at odds with any of the sūtras or treatises elsewhere — "within a single mote of dust there exists the entire canon of the great chiliocosm's own scriptures" carries precisely this same sense.

Next, clarifying the inconceivable object: a single thought-moment of emptiness-view is already complete with all ten dharma-realms — this being precisely the Dharma-nature itself; and the Dharma-nature is, moreover, no distant thing at all, but precisely this very mind of emptiness-view. The *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* says: "The liberation of every buddha is to be sought precisely within the mental activity of sentient beings — to be sought precisely within these sixty-two views themselves." These three dharmas are, in fact, not different from one another, and hence mutually point toward one another in turn. Every sentient being is itself already bodhi, never again to be attained anew — this is the perfect, pure liberation; the five aggregates are themselves already nirvāṇa, never again to be extinguished anew — this is the expedient-means, pure liberation; sentient beings' own suchness is itself the Buddha's own suchness — this is the nature-pure liberation. The Buddha's own liberation is precisely this fivefold nirvāṇa of form-liberation and the rest. The very mind of emptiness-view is precisely the polluted five aggregates; the five aggregates already imply sentient beings, and sentient beings already imply the five aggregates — name-and-form and sentient being thus mutually binding one another, unable to be separated from each other at all. Contemplating these very five aggregates as themselves already nirvāṇa, never again to be extinguished — originally free of any binding whatsoever, this is itself already liberation. This inherent liberation gathers in every dharma without exception — hence it is said, "liberation is to be sought precisely within this very mind." Further, contemplating the very mind and five aggregates of view as themselves the Dharma-nature, there ceases to be any further mind and five aggregates of view left to speak of at all. Through the very extinguishing of this form, one attains the constant form and the rest belonging to the Dharma-nature's own five aggregates; through the very extinguishing of sentient being, one attains the constantly abiding sentient being belonging to the Dharma-nature. One is thereby able to hold a single form as every form, a single consciousness as every consciousness, a single sentient being as every sentient being, without any of these obstructing one another in the slightest — like a bright, clear mirror manifesting every kind of image at once — this is named "nature-purity." These three kinds of liberation cannot be separated from one another, neither sequential nor separate, inconceivable, perfectly complete in every respect, sought precisely within emptiness-view itself — this is named "the inconceivable object." Within this very object, ignorance and the Dharma-nature are both, in fact, already fully present together — one has merely been overcome by one's own confusion until now, only now beginning to awaken and recognize this fact; and every sentient being, without exception, is exactly the same. Since this is already the Dharma-nature itself, how could loving-kindness fail to arise from it? Since this is already ignorance itself, how could compassion fail to arise from it as well? Contemplating this very emptiness-view as, in its own fundamental nature, empty and quiescent, pure as empty space itself — one skillfully pacifies the mind, refining these two very dharmas together. The aggregates as viewed, and the provisional as viewed, through the fourfold proposition, prove unborn — in every single one of these propositions, whether taken singly or in combination, there is present, at once, both the blockage of suffering, origin, and ignorance, and the passage of the path, cessation, and the rest. Contemplating emptiness-view in this way, a single aggregate is every aggregate, the three truths remaining unmoved — this alone is truly understanding "the Dharma-body." Contemplating these unmoved aggregates as neither pure nor impure, and so on, the very nirvāṇa beneath the twin trees is itself already the place of enlightenment — this very contemplation is named "prajñā." The eight inversions thereby broken through is named "liberation." Within a single foundation of mindfulness, every other foundation of mindfulness thereby arises, subduing and taming sentient beings accordingly. These three dharmas are, in fact, neither cause nor fruit — being, without being a cause, nonetheless a cause, the foundation of mindfulness is itself the very place of enlightenment; being, without being a fruit, nonetheless a fruit, one enters nirvāṇa precisely between the twin trees. With respect to this very emptiness-view, remaining unmoved, one cultivates the inconceivable thirty-seven factors of enlightenment. Breaking through in this comprehensive way, failing to obtain emptiness-view as a fixed object at all is named "the samādhi of emptiness"; failing to perceive any mark of emptiness at all is named "the samādhi of marklessness"; and this very samādhi, not arising from any genuine, fixed causal condition, is named "the samādhi of non-fabrication."

Should one still fail to enter through this very gate, one should give rise to the great vow: inwardly relinquishing one's own clinging to view, outwardly relinquishing even one's own life and wealth. Since emptiness-view runs contrary to true principle, and the precepts thereby remain impure, one vows that emptiness-view shall never again transgress against the Dharma-body, guarding the seven branches of bodily and verbal conduct so as never to disturb any sentient being. Should emptiness-view stir up clamor and disturbance, the forbearance one holds within remains incomplete — here, then, one vows to pacify the mind with respect to emptiness-view through the utmost, earnest effort, as though gathering one's entire being together like a bridge spanning the very earth and sea, the mind remaining, in the end, entirely unmoved. Should emptiness-view intrude and intermix itself among one's practice, one vows to remain pure and single-minded, wholly devoted, each successive thought flowing steadily onward into this very practice. And should emptiness-view stir up disturbance such that one cannot settle into unity at all, one repents with utmost sincerity, bringing both forms of grasping-at-objects to rest. Should the wisdom of all modes still fail to open forth, this is because ignorance has not yet been broken through — one vows, then, to contemplate emptiness-view until the Dharma-nature itself manifests directly before one, advancing with firm resolve and courage, never resting until this is genuinely realized. Applying this antidote in this way assists in opening the very gate of nirvāṇa. Deeply recognizing one's own stage, one does not falsely presume upon a higher one; inner and outer winds of disturbance prove unable to destroy this resolve. Attachment to mere compliance with the path fails to arise, and hence there is no falling away at the very summit either. Thought after thought growing ever more quiescent, one flows naturally into the very ocean of omniscience itself; riding upon this single, great cart, one travels through all four directions, arriving directly at the very place of enlightenment, and thereby accomplishes true and perfect enlightenment. The rest is as already explained above.
The Great Calming and Contemplation, Fascicle Ten, Lower Part, ends here.