How Sūtra and Treatise Depend on Each Other

Next, making clear how sūtra and treatise depend on each other. The Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says: "Although the road of birth-and-death is long and the nature of sentient beings is manifold, the bodhisattva should correctly recollect thus: the bounds of birth-and-death are like empty space, and the bounds of sentient beings' own nature are likewise like empty space. Within this, there is no coming and going of birth-and-death, and no one who attains liberation either." Since, then, there is neither birth-and-death nor nirvāṇa, it may be known that there is likewise no sentient being and no buddha — how, then, could there possibly be any such thing as sūtra or treatise? For this reason, inside and outside are both stilled together, and the condition contemplated and the contemplating mind are alike quiesced.

And yet, although it is truly neither birth-and-death nor nirvāṇa, it nonetheless comes to constitute birth-and-death for sentient beings. Hence the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra says: "All dharmas, having nothing whatsoever of their own, exist in just this way." Since, then, there are sentient beings, there come to be buddhas; since there are buddhas, there comes to be a teaching-gate; and since there is the buddhas' own teaching-gate, there comes to be the bodhisattvas' own treatise-writing. The buddhas, on account of sentient beings having lost the way, therefore expound sūtras; the bodhisattvas, on account of sentient beings being confused about the sūtras, therefore compose treatises.

Now, sūtra has both a shared and a particular aspect, and the same holds for treatise as well. What is called the shared aspect of sūtra is this: shared in that it brings the inverted views of sentient beings to rest; shared in that it opens up and reveals the gate of the way. What is called the shared aspect of treatise is this: whatever treatise any of the noble disciples composed, it too was shared in bringing to rest the sickness of confusion about the teaching, and in setting forth the correct path clearly. What is called the particular aspect of sūtra is this: responding to the two distinct kinds of receptivity, great and small, by teaching the two distinct teachings, great and small. What is called the particular aspect of treatise is this: in order to refute the two distinct kinds of confusion, great and small, setting forth the two distinct teachings, great and small — hence there come to be the two kinds of treatise, Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

Now, within sūtra and treatise alike, there is fully present the sense of agent and patient. In sūtra, the two kinds of knowledge serve as the agent that speaks, and the two truths serve as the patient that is spoken of. In treatise, the two kinds of wisdom serve as the agent that speaks, and verbal teaching serves as the patient that is spoken of. In this way, sūtra and treatise each have their own agent and their own patient.

Next, making clear how the agent and patient of sūtra and treatise interlace with one another. There are four distinct propositions. First, sūtra's agent becomes treatise's patient. Second, sūtra's patient becomes treatise's agent. Third, treatise's agent becomes sūtra's patient. Fourth, treatise's patient becomes sūtra's agent. As for sūtra's agent becoming treatise's patient: the Tathāgata's own two kinds of knowledge are precisely what the treatise-author takes as his object of realization. Hence the Lotus Sūtra makes clear that both the present and the past teachings alike lead direct-path bodhisattvas, as well as those who turn from the lesser toward the great, all alike to awaken and enter the Buddha's own wisdom. Hence the "Emerging from the Earth" chapter says: "These sentient beings, on first seeing my body and hearing what I teach, straightaway believe and accept it, and enter the Tathāgata's own wisdom." This makes clear that the past teaching leads the direct-path bodhisattva to enter the Buddha's wisdom. It then says: "Excepting those who had previously cultivated and studied the Hīnayāna, I now likewise cause them to hear this sūtra and enter the Buddha's wisdom." This makes clear that the present teaching leads those who turn from the lesser to enter the Buddha's wisdom. Since, then, both the present and past teachings alike make clear that their purpose is entry into the Buddha's wisdom, it may be known that the Buddha's wisdom is precisely what is realized.

Next, making clear how sūtra's patient becomes treatise's agent: sūtra's patient is precisely the two truths, which are able to give rise to the treatise-author's own two kinds of wisdom. On this account, the Buddha's two truths serve as what generates, and the treatise-author's two kinds of wisdom serve as what is generated. Next, making clear how treatise's agent becomes sūtra's patient: the treatise-author's two kinds of wisdom arise by being generated from sūtra. Next, making clear how treatise's patient becomes sūtra's agent: the treatise-author's own verbal teaching is able to set forth the Buddha's two truths. Next, reconciling these four propositions into two: whether agent or patient, sūtra as a whole serves as what supplies; whether agent or patient, treatise as a whole serves as what is supplied. Furthermore, whether agent or patient, treatise as a whole serves as what expounds; whether agent or patient, sūtra as a whole serves as what is expounded. Hence they are brought together into a single agent and a single patient.

Next, dissolving even this single proposition to return to no proposition at all: since what is agent can become patient, agent is thereby not fixed as agent; and since what is patient can become agent, patient is thereby not fixed as patient. Since agent is not fixed as agent, it is thereby not truly agent at all. Since patient is not fixed as patient, it is thereby not truly patient at all. Hence it is neither agent nor patient, neither sūtra nor treatise, neither Buddha nor bodhisattva. Not knowing what else to call it, one names it the true Dharma, or forcibly designates it the reality within the middle.

Question: "Since agent is not fixed as agent, it is thereby not truly agent at all; since patient is not fixed as patient, it is thereby not truly patient at all" — from what text does this come? Answer: The chapter examining the burning and the burnable in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "If a dharma is established through mutual dependence, that very dharma, in turn, comes to constitute the ground for a further dependence. But here there is no dependence to serve as cause, and likewise no dharma that is thereby established." This is exactly the proof of it.

Next, making clear in particular the origin of treatise-composition. As to why treatises came to be composed, it is as already explained above: the Tathāgata, on account of beings losing the way, therefore expounded sūtras; the treatise-author, on account of beings being confused about the sūtra, therefore composed treatises. Expounding sūtras on account of the loss of the way — this is the root loss. Composing treatises on account of confusion about the sūtra — this is the branch loss. Moreover, the Buddha's expounding sūtras for those who have lost the way addresses a loss that may be called a single, straightforward loss. The treatise-author's composing treatises on account of confusion about the sūtra addresses a loss that is, in fact, a further loss arising within an original loss. The reason is this: losing the way is, in itself, a single loss; the Tathāgata expounds the sūtra so as to bring one into the way, and yet if one becomes confused about the sūtra as well, this is a loss within a loss. The single, straightforward loss describes those of sharp faculty, who awaken the very moment they hear the sūtra. The loss within a loss describes those of dull faculty.

Question: Who, exactly, are these people confused about the sūtra? Answer: They are precisely the various schools with their divergent doctrines. As for these various schools with divergent doctrines, they are counted variously as two schools, or five schools, or eighteen schools, or twenty schools, or five hundred schools.

As for what is meant by "two schools": the Tathāgata entered parinirvāṇa on the fifteenth day of the second month, and the noble disciples compiled the Three Baskets at Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain in Rājagṛha on the fifteenth day of the fourth month. At that time there arose the names of two schools. The first is the Sthavira, "the Elders." Kāśyapa is reckoned as the elder, ranking above Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya by a single rains-retreat in seniority; the Buddha entrusted the Dharma specifically to Kāśyapa, and this is why it is named the Sthavira school. The group Kāśyapa led numbered only five hundred; according to the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, however, it numbered a thousand.

The second is the Mahāsāṃghika, "the Great Assembly" — that is, the great assembly gathered outside the boundary line, numbering in the tens of thousands, with the arhat Vāṣpa as its leader. His name translates as "one who sheds tears," since he was forever grieving in compassion for suffering sentient beings and shedding tears over them; he was one of the group of five original disciples, and being senior in age even to Kāśyapa, he took charge of instructing the great assembly gathered outside the boundary. This is why there came to be two separate assemblies. Kāśyapa had five hundred arhats who entered within the boundary first to compile the Three Baskets; afterward, a great many more people arrived wishing to join the compilation, but Kāśyapa did not permit them to do so, for two reasons: first, because the five hundred were all men of penetrating intelligence; second, because the formal proceeding had already been completed. According to the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, King Ajātaśatru had prepared food for only a thousand people, and this is why the remaining arrivals could not be accommodated. From that time onward, up to the hundred and sixteenth year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there existed only the two names of these two schools, with no divergent doctrines between them as yet.

Beyond the hundred and sixteenth year, there was the son of a ship's captain named Mahādeva — handsome and intelligent, who committed three of the five heinous crimes, and only afterward entered the Buddhist path. His activity within the tradition consisted, in all, of two things. First, he took the meaning found within various Mahāyāna sūtras and used it to interpret passages within the Three Baskets; this very meaning had already been deliberately excluded at the time the arhats compiled the Dharma treasury, yet the Mahāsāṃghika now adopted this meaning while the Sthavira did not, and it was on this account that a dispute arose which finally hardened into two separate schools. Second, Mahādeva himself composed a verse, saying: "Others may soil his robe; there is ignorance; there is doubt; one is led across by another; the noble path is manifest through speech — these are the true teachings of all the buddhas." He placed this single verse directly after the recitation of the precepts, so that whenever the precepts were chanted at the poṣadha ceremony, this verse too came to be recited immediately afterward.

This verse contains five separate matters. First, "others may soil his robe": Mahādeva, having experienced a nocturnal emission that soiled his robe, deceived his disciples by claiming, "I am an arhat; in reality there was no impurity at all — it was only that a heavenly demon-maiden soiled an arhat's robe with impurity," and this is why the verse says "others may soil his robe." Now, this one statement contains both falsehood and truth. In actual fact, Mahādeva was simply an ordinary, unenlightened person who deceived his disciples with the account just described — this much is false. Yet it is true that a demon-maiden really is capable of soiling an arhat's robe with impurity in just this way — this much is true. His followers disputed over which parts of his statement were false and which were true, and it was on this account that the school split into two.

Second, "there is ignorance": an arhat is indeed without the ignorance that leads to rebirth within the three realms, and yet he still retains the ignorance of habitual tendencies born of not-knowing — hence the verse says "there is ignorance." At the time, some in the assembly said an arhat has this ignorance, and others said he has no ignorance at all; a dispute arose on this account, and the school split into two. Third, "there is doubt": one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry is indeed without doubt regarding the three gates of liberation, and yet he may still have doubt regarding external matters — hence the verse says "there is doubt." Fourth, "one is led across by another": a person of dull faculty who has attained the first fruit does not know by himself that he has attained it; he must ask a good spiritual friend, who then tells him — being without doubt regarding the Three Jewels and the four truths is the mark of the first fruit — and only through this process of self-examination does he come to know he has attained the first fruit; hence this is called "being led across by another." Fifth, "the noble path is manifest through speech": at the very moment one attains the noble path, this attainment may indeed be made manifest through an utterance of speech — as when Śāriputra attained the first fruit at the very moment a verse was being recited aloud; hence the verse says "manifest through speech." The assembly at the time disputed over these five points, some holding them right and others holding them wrong, and it was on this account that the two schools came to be fully formed.

Question: In what doctrine do these two schools actually differ from one another? Answer: The doctrinal differences are, in fact, numerous; let one be briefly set forth here. The Mahāsāṃghika holds that birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are both merely provisional names, while the Sthavira holds that birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are both truly, really existent. By the two-hundredth year, three further schools emerged out of the Mahāsāṃghika. At that time, the Mahāsāṃghika, through Mahādeva's own private ordaining activity, came to dwell in the country of Aṅkuḍa, located north of Rājagṛha. This group took sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka and the Perfection of Wisdom and expounded them intermixed with the Three Baskets. Some people of the time believed this was legitimate, and others did not — and on this account the group split into two.

Those who did not believe held that only the Three Baskets as recited by Ānanda and the two other masters could be trusted, and that every Mahāyāna sūtra beyond the Three Baskets could not be trusted at all. Those who did believe in the Mahāyāna, on the other hand, did so for three reasons. First, because at that time there were still those living who had personally heard the Buddha teach the Mahāyāna Dharma — and so it could be trusted. Second, because, reasoning the matter through for themselves, they concluded that there ought, by principle, to exist a Mahāyāna — and so it could be trusted. Third, because they trusted their own teacher — and so it could be trusted.

As for these three schools: the first is the Ekavyavahārika, "the school of a single designation." This school holds that birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are both merely provisional names — hence it is called "a single designation." The second is the Lokottaravāda, "the school of world-transcending teaching." This school holds that worldly dharmas arise from inverted views, which give rise to karma, which in turn gives rise to its fruit — and are therefore not real; whereas world-transcending dharmas do not arise from inverted views, and are therefore truly real. The third is the Kaukkuṭika, "the school dwelling on Ash Mountain." The first two schools took their names from the doctrines they held; this third school, by contrast, takes its name from where it dwelt. (This mountain contains stone suitable for making into ash; this school dwelt on that mountain to practice the path, and so it was named accordingly.)

This school holds that the Abhidharma is the real, definitive teaching, while the sūtras and the Vinaya are merely provisional, expedient teaching. They cite a scriptural verse in support, saying: "Cover the body as is fitting; take food as is fitting; dwell as is fitting; swiftly cut off the afflictions." As for "cover the body as is fitting": the Buddha permits the three robes, and he permits going without the three robes as well. As for "take food as is fitting": he permits eating at the proper time, and he permits eating outside the proper time as well. As for "dwell as is fitting": he permits dwelling within a bounded monastic zone, and he permits dwelling without such a zone as well. As for "swiftly cut off the afflictions": the Buddha's own intent was simply that the afflictions be cut off swiftly, by whatever fitting means answers the case. This school is far more diligent in its practice than any of the others.

Within the same two-hundredth year, a further school split off from within the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Bahuśrutīya, "the widely learned school." The Mahāsāṃghika, by this point, propagated only the shallow meaning of the teaching and had set aside its profound meaning. Now, while the Buddha was still in the world, there was a sage who, on encountering the Buddha, attained arhatship, and who thereafter constantly followed the Buddha to other regions and to the heavens themselves to listen to the Dharma there. At the time of the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, this person was nowhere to be found, having gone instead to sit in meditation among the Himalayan snow mountains. It was only within the two-hundredth year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa that he finally emerged from the snow mountains in search of his former fellow practitioners — and on finding that the Mahāsāṃghika now propagated only the shallow meaning and no longer knew the profound teaching, he, being able to recite both the shallow and the profound meaning in full, and with Mahāyāna meaning contained within that profound teaching — it is exactly from this same school that the Satyasiddhi-śāstra later emerged. People of the time who believed what he taught formed, on this account, a separate school, named the Bahuśrutīya.

Also within the two-hundredth year, yet another school split off from the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Prajñaptivāda, "the school of designation." While the Buddha was still in the world, the great Kātyāyana had composed a treatise explaining the Buddha's own Āgama sūtras. By the two-hundredth year, this same great Kātyāyana emerged from Lake Anavatapta and further distinguished the meaning contained within the Bahuśrutīya school just described. People of the time who believed what he taught named this school, accordingly, the Prajñaptivāda.