大方廣佛華嚴經疏 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

Fourth, among those who establish four teachings, there are briefly four masters: First, Dharma Master Guangzhai of the Liang dynasty, based on the second [chapter] of the Lotus Sūtra, established the teaching of four vehicles. He held that the three carts outside the gate are the three vehicles of the provisional teaching, while the equal granting [of great white ox-carts] at the crossroads is the Great Vehicle of the real teaching. This is because the ox-cart outside the gate, just like the goat and deer [carts], was not obtained at all, nor did any [such cart outside the gate] have actual existence, and because all the sons asked for them; thus one knows that all three were fictitious designations used as expedient means. In this view, the preceding three are the three vehicles and the latter one is the Ekayāna, which does not contradict doctrine or reason. If one were to say that only the Lotus Sūtra is real, this would depreciate all the Prajñāpāramitā and other definitive Mahāyāna sūtras; hence one knows that the Great [Vehicle teachings] of old also had provisional and real aspects. The Lotus Sūtra merely integrates the provisional teachings of old; thus it says that the three [carts outside the gate] were all fictitious designations of the past [teachings], but because past real teachings did not cling to expedient means, it does not integrate them. If one considers it in terms of integrating the provisional into the real, this is integrating the three into the one. If in terms of refuting the Hinayāna to reveal the Mahāyāna, this is integrating the two into the one. If in terms of opening up the provisional to reveal the real, then the three are the one, and there is no separate one besides them. Thus that sūtra states: "What you practice is the bodhisattva path; what was previously brought out and kept within is known by you sons." If one abolishes the provisional to establish the real, in meaning they are described as four—just as gathering three dots forms the single letter 'i' (𑀇): a separate dot is not the 'i', yet the 'i' comprises the three dots. Since the three of old were separate, the real did not include the provisional; now the one fully includes them, so establishing four contains no error. If based on the fact that in the past it was not explicitly taught that all possess the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision, whereas now even those whose faculties were ruined are all declared to achieve it, then the present and past differ; this is grounded in the text and its meaning is extremely well-established. Second, Tiantai [Master] Zhizhe of the Chen and Sui dynasties, succeeding the Great Master Si of Nanyue, established four teachings, stating: 1. The Tripiṭaka Teaching: this teaching clarifies the principle of the four noble truths of the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions; its primary purpose is to teach the Hīnayāna, while secondarily converting bodhisattvas. 2. The Shared Teaching: 'shared' means identical, because the three vehicles receive it alike. This teaching clarifies the principle of the four noble truths of non-arising, [namely that] causes and conditions are identical to emptiness; it is the entry-door to the Mahāyāna, primarily for bodhisattvas and secondarily shared with the two vehicles. The Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "One who wishes to attain the śrāvaka vehicle should train in the prajñāpāramitā," and so forth. However, teaching, principle, wisdom, eradication [of afflictions], practices, stages, causes, and effects are all shared [among the three vehicles], differing in shallowness and depth; regarding the shared Prajñā, they are shared only in its shallow [aspect]. 3. The Distinct Teaching: 'distinct' means unshared, because it is not taught to people of the two vehicles. This teaching primarily clarifies the principle of the immeasurable four noble truths of nominal designations of causes and conditions; it exclusively transforms bodhisattvas and does not concern the two vehicles, which is why the śrāvakas in the assembly were as if deaf and blind. The reason it is not called 'unshared' but 'distinct' is also to distinguish it from the round, because its single cause stands uniquely apart and its single fruit is not merged; since one cultivates through discrete stages, it does not achieve the perfect interpenetration of cause and fruit. 4. The Round Teaching: 'round' takes impartiality as its meaning. This teaching primarily clarifies the middle way of the two truths of inconceivable causes and conditions, where phenomena and noumenon are fully complete, neither biased nor distinct; it transforms only people of the highest and sharpest faculties, hence it is called 'round'. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "Manifesting sovereign power, he expounds the complete sūtra for them; immeasurable sentient beings all receive prediction to bodhi," and so forth. In the Distinct [Teaching], the teaching, principle, etc., are all distinct; in the Round [Teaching], the teaching, etc., are all round. Furthermore, these four teachings arise from the three contemplations: entering emptiness from the provisional, through the difference between analyzing and realizing essence, yields the first two teachings; entering the provisional from emptiness, and entering the middle from the provisional, gives rise to the Distinct Teaching; attaining the three contemplations within a single mind gives rise to the Round Teaching. Moreover, these four teachings are not confined to a single text, for a single text may contain several of them. Furthermore, they are subsumed under four modes of conversion: sudden, gradual, indeterminate, and secret. Sudden and gradual are the same as Master Ji's above; the latter two refer to different understandings from a single voice—if they know of one another, it is called indeterminate; if they do not know of one another, it is called secret. This master's established meaning is completely well-rounded, yet the name and meaning of the 'Tripiṭaka Teaching' seem slightly confounding, because the other three teachings also possess the three [baskets]. The reason it is so is truly because in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa the Hīnayāna is frequently designated as the Tripiṭaka. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra also says of itself: "Because I now wish to speak the true meaning within the Tripiṭaka, at first opposing the old physician's morality, concentration, and wisdom." Establishing these three matters as clearly distinct differs from the latter three teachings: in the Shared Teaching the intent is to harmonize the three; the Distinct Teaching manifests the three based on the one dharmatā; and in the Round Teaching the three and the one are unobstructed. The reason it is not called the Hīnayāna teaching is that this teaching also includes the Mahāyāna, since the bodhisattva of the six perfections cuts off defilements and becomes a true Buddha in thirty-four mental moments. Thus, the meanings of Tripiṭaka, Shared, Distinct, and Round are mutually present across the four teachings, yet when examining their definitive reality, the other three do not hold [in each], holding only according to the meaning within that respective teaching. However, his classifying the Avataṃsaka as combining both the Round and the Distinct—because above entering the stages he took the distributed deployment of assigned positions as the Distinct meaning—is a difference in terminology with an identical meaning, and involves no great error. Third, Dharma Master Wonhyo of the Eastern Sea at the beginning of the Tang also established four teachings: 1. The Distinct Teaching of the Three Vehicles, such as the sūtras on the four truths and pratītyasamutpāda; 2. The Shared Teaching of the Three Vehicles, such as the Prajñā and Sandhinirmocana sūtras; 3. The Partial Teaching of the Ekayāna, such as the Brahmajāla Sūtra; 4. The Complete Teaching of the Ekayāna, such as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Now, that which the three vehicles study together is called the teaching of the three vehicles; within this, that which does not yet clarify the emptiness of phenomena is called the teaching of distinct marks, while that which speaks of the emptiness of all phenomena is the shared teaching. That which is not shared with the two vehicles is called the teaching of the Ekayāna; within this, that which has not yet revealed the universal dharma is called the partial teaching, while that which fully clarifies the universal dharma is called the complete teaching. This is largely identical to Tiantai, merely combining the Distinct and the Round and adding the partial Ekayāna. He himself said: "I have provisionally established four kinds based on the portal of vehicles; this does not mean these four encompass everything entirely," so there is no fault. Fourth, Master Yuangong, a disciple of Xianshou, established four kinds of teachings based on the Ratnagotravibhāga. That treatise says: "There are four kinds of sentient beings who do not recognize the tathāgatagarbha, like people born blind: 1. ordinary beings, 2. śrāvakas, 3. pratyekabuddhas, and 4. bodhisattvas of initial aspiration. As for the four teachings: 1. The teaching of delusion regarding reality and divergent attachments, which corresponds to ordinary beings; 2. The half teaching of a single part of reality, which corresponds to the two vehicles; 3. The full teaching of a single part of reality, which corresponds to bodhisattvas of initial aspiration; 4. The full teaching of the complete parts of reality, which corresponds to those who recognize the tathāgatagarbha." The first teaching means that various non-Buddhists are deluded about the true principle and broadly produce divergent views. The second refers to the Hīnayāna: of the two aspects of tathatā—following conditions and remaining unchanging—it only expounds the principle revealed by the emptiness of the person, hence it is called 'half', like the half-letter in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The third refers to attaining only the unchanging while not attaining following conditions, hence it is called 'a single part'; yet because it clarifies both kinds of emptiness, it is called 'full'. The fourth, because it possesses both meanings of following conditions and remaining unchanging, is called 'complete parts'. This is detailed as he explains it. However, now in classifying the sacred teachings, how could one mix in heterodox doctrines? If one were matching teachings to teachers, one should follow this land in first establishing the three teachings, or like the Western Regions dividing into inner and outer [teachings] and the six masters, and so forth. Furthermore, if based on the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] one establishes 'half' and 'full', since the latter two are already 'full', there should no longer be the expression 'a single part'; if it only attains a single part of the unchanging, how can it be called 'full'? Moreover, does the 'half' and 'full' of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] merely concern the two kinds of emptiness? Does it not speak of wondrous existence and rebuke emptiness? Therefore, what he established is not appropriate.

2.3

Fifth, among those who establish five teachings, there are briefly two masters: First, Tripiṭaka Master Prabhā[karamitra] established: 1. The Teaching of the Four Truths, referring to the four Āgamas and so forth; 2. The Teaching of Signlessness, referring to the various Prajñā [sūtras]; 3. The Teaching of Contemplative Practice, referring to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra; 4. The Teaching of Peace and Bliss, referring to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, because it speaks of permanence and bliss; 5. The Teaching of Protection, referring to the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, because it speaks of the matter of protecting the true Dharma. This explanation of names is limited, because contemplative practice and the rest are mutually present [across them]. Second, the five teachings established by Xianshou will be explained below.

2.4

Second, concerning the account of the Western Regions: that is to say, the two traditions of Nature (xing) and Characteristics (xiang) originally arose in that region, hence it is termed the Western Regions. At Nālandā Monastery, there were simultaneously two great virtues: the first was named Śīlabhadra, and the second was named Jñānaprabha. Śīlabhadra remotely succeeded Maitreya and Asaṅga, and recently followed Dharmapāla and Nanda. Relying on sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi, he established a three-period teaching, taking the Mahāyāna of Dharma-characteristics to be definitive; he is precisely the master revered by the Tang Tripiṭaka Master [Xuanzang]. He held that the Buddha first turned the Hīnayāna wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths in the Deer Park, stating that all conditioned phenomena arise from conditions, in order to refute the heterodox teachings on intrinsic nature as cause, and so forth; furthermore, that conditioned arising is selfless, overturning the heterodox notion of a self, yet he did not yet explain the principle of the selflessness of dharmas: this refers to the four Āgamas and the like. In the second period, although he spoke of the intrinsic nature of all dharmas as empty based on the imagined nature (parikalpita) to overturn that Hīnayāna, he had not yet spoken of existence regarding the dependent (paratantra) and the consummate (pariniṣpanna) natures: this refers to the various Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and the like. In the third period, with respect to the correct principle of the Mahāyāna, he fully explained the three natures and three non-natures, only then exhausting the principle: this refers to the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the like. Therefore, among those three periods, the first falls into the extreme of existence, and the next falls into the extreme of emptiness; neither is definitive. The later period fully explains the emptiness of the imagined nature and the existence of the other two, tallying with the middle way, and only then is definitive. This is the classification according to the Saṃdhinirmocana.

The second, the treatise master Jñānaprabha, remotely succeeded Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna, and recently received the transmission of Āryadeva and Bhāviveka. Relying on sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā and treatises such as the Madhyamaka, he likewise established a three-period teaching, taking the signless Mahāyāna to be the truly definitive. He held that the Buddha first taught the small [vehicle] in the Deer Park, clarifying that both mind and objects exist. Next, in the intermediate period, for the sake of those of middling faculties, he taught the Mahāyāna of Dharma-characteristics with the principle of consciousness-only—that objects are empty while mind exists—because their faculties were still inferior and they were unable to enter fully into the equal, true emptiness. Therefore, later in the third period, for the sake of those of superior faculties, he taught the signless Mahāyāna, expounding that both mind and objects are empty and of an equal, single flavor, taking this to be truly definitive. Furthermore, at first, in order to gradually refute the intrinsic nature of the heterodox and so forth, he stated that dharmas born of causes and conditions are definitively existent; next, in order to gradually refute the Hīnayāna grasping at the real existence of what is conditionally arisen, he stated that the dependent exists as an appearance, guiding them by retaining conventional designations because they feared this true emptiness; only in the later period, with respect to the ultimate, did he state that conditioned arising is itself emptiness, of an equal, single flavor. These three stages are as stated in Treatise Master Jñānaprabha's commentary on the Prajñāpradīpa-śāstra, citing the Mahāyāna-sūkṣmajñāna-sūtra.

However, neither of these two three-period schemas can determine all the teachings of the Buddha's lifetime, because each has its own basis and they contradict one another, each being addressed to a distinct class of capacities. The intention of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra was for the sake of a class of persons fed on Prajñā who, hearing of equal emptiness, repudiated cause and effect and did not understand that emptiness and existence are not two; therefore, in the third period, it analyzed for them the meaning of emptiness and existence with respect to a single dharma. That Sūkṣmajñāna-sūtra, on the other hand, was for a class who, hearing the three natures taught, were confused about consciousness-only and could not forget the mind to contemplate dependent arising, definitively deeming it to exist as an appearance; therefore, it led them to forget mind and objects entirely, seeing that phenomena are themselves the real. If one grasps these intentions, they do not contradict one another.

However, if one wishes to harmonize the two traditions, one must recognize that their established tenets contain many differences, briefly recounted in several points: first, the difference between the One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles; second, the difference between one nature and five natures; third, the difference between true and false in mind-only; fourth, the difference between tathatā following conditions versus remaining immutable; fifth, the difference between whether the three natures are identical to or separate from emptiness and existence; sixth, the difference between whether sentient beings and Buddhas increase or decrease; seventh, the difference between whether the two truths are identical to or separate from emptiness and existence; eighth, the difference between whether the four characteristics are simultaneous or sequential; ninth, the difference between whether the active and the passive in severing and realizing are identical or separate; tenth, the difference between whether the Buddha body is unconditioned or conditioned.

Now, regarding the first two points: because natures are five, being not one and the same, the vehicles are made to be three. Regarding the provisional and the real: according to the Dharma-characteristics tradition, the One Vehicle is provisional and the Three Vehicles are real; thus, among the teachings of the three periods in the Saṃdhinirmocana, in the first period none attain [buddhahood], in the next period all uniformly attain it—which are neither definitive because of either going too far or falling short—and in the third period, those with the nature attain it while those without the nature do not, which alone is definitive; hence it says: 'universally for those who set out upon all vehicles.' Furthermore, in both of the first two fascicles, it says: 'the One Vehicle is an intentional teaching'; hence we know it is provisional. Also, the Śrīmālā-sūtra takes the One Vehicle as an expedient means. In fascicle 593 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, Bodhisattva Śūra speaks: 'We pray only that the Bhagavat have pity on us and fully expound the realm and wisdom of the Tathāgata. If there are sentient beings whose nature is determined for the Śrāvakayāna, having heard this Dharma, they will swiftly be able to realize their own undefiled stage. If they are determined for the Pratyekabuddhayāna, having heard this Dharma, they will swiftly rely on their own vehicle to achieve deliverance. If they are determined for the Unsurpassable Vehicle, having heard this Dharma, they will swiftly realize unsurpassable, complete, perfect bodhi. If there are sentient beings who, though not yet having entered the certitude of ultimate reality, are undetermined in their nature among the three vehicles, having heard this Dharma, they will all generate the mind of unsurpassable, complete, perfect enlightenment.' The general meaning of the second [chapter] of the Saṃdhinirmocana is the same as this. It also says: 'All pudgalas of the gotra of śrāvakas inclined toward tranquility, though the Buddhas establish various heroic applications and expedient means to guide and convert them, can ultimately never be caused to sit upon the bodhimanda and realize anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' Furthermore, fascicle 9 of the Daśacakra-sūtra also states: 'The three vehicles each have determined distinctions, all because the natures are determined as five.' Thus in the Laṅkāvatāra: 'The Buddha told Mahāmati: There are five kinds of gotras: first, the Śrāvakayāna gotra; second, the Pratyekabuddhayāna gotra; third, the Tathāgatayāna gotra; fourth, the undetermined gotra; and fifth, those without gotra.' Both the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and the Yogācārabhūmi share this statement. Although the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Shan jie) and Bodhisattvabhūmi (Dichi) speak of only two gotras—first, having a gotra, and second, lacking a gotra—they also say: 'Because a person without a gotra lacks a gotra, even though they vigorously cultivate energetic effort, they can ultimately never attain unsurpassable bodhi, but are merely matured through the wholesome roots of humans and devas.' The Yogācārabhūmi commentary by Asvabhāva also shares this statement.

According to the Dharma-nature tradition, the three vehicles are provisional and the One Vehicle is real. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'In the Buddha lands of the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle, neither two nor three, except for the Buddha's expedient explanations.' It also says: 'At first I guided sentient beings with the three vehicles, and later I deliver them only with the Great Vehicle.' Because the nature is only one, it says: 'The Buddhas, the most honored among two-legged beings, know that dharmas are ever devoid of nature.' Furthermore, the third fascicle says: 'A single characteristic and a single flavor, ultimate nirvāṇa, the mark of constant extinction.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also says: 'Buddha-nature is named the One Vehicle. The lion's roar is called the definitive teaching, definitively declaring that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. All who possess a mind will definitively attain buddhahood.' Fascicle 33 also says: 'All sentient beings equally possess Buddha-nature, all share the same One Vehicle, the same single liberation, the same single cause and single fruit, the same single ambrosia; all shall attain the permanent, bliss, self, and purity: this is called the single flavor.' Furthermore, the third fascicle of the Lotus Sūtra says: 'After my extinction, there will be disciples who do not hear this sūtra, who neither know nor perceive the practices of a bodhisattva, and who, generating the notion of extinction with regard to the merits they have attained, will enter nirvāṇa. When I become a Buddha in another land with a different name, though these people generate the notion of extinction and enter nirvāṇa, they will seek the Buddha's wisdom in that land, succeed in hearing this sūtra, and attain extinction solely by means of the Buddha Vehicle,' and so on. Fascicle 95 of the Dazhidulun also shares this statement, making it clear that those inclined toward tranquility definitively turn their minds. Among the four kinds of śrāvakas in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, regarding the determined ones and those of overweening pride, because these two faculties are not yet mature, the bodhisattva confers prophecies and expediently causes them to generate the mind. Since it says they are 'not yet mature,' it is clear they must become mature in the future. Expediently causing them to generate it refers to the bodhicitta. One must not judge the treatise to be mistaken merely because it does not accord with one's own school. Fascicles 2, 4, and 7 of the Laṅkāvatāra all uniformly state that the two vehicles have no real nirvāṇa, but merely abide by the power of samādhi, and will definitely attain unsurpassable bodhi later. The intent in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa is also the same: all are conventional designations of nirvāṇa, hence referred to as samādhi. The Śrīmālā-sūtra also says: 'That which is said about the two vehicles attaining nirvāṇa is the Buddha's expedient means.' Furthermore, the Anunatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-sūtra, the Ratnagotravibhāga, and the Buddhagotranirdeśa all state: the two vehicles that enter extinction take on transformation bodies beyond the triple world. In the Ghanavyūha-sūtra: 'The two vehicles are completely devoid of [real attainment], and are by ash-reduction forever extinguished.' Such sūtras and treatises are not few in text; it is completely clear that there are definitively no śrāvakas in eternal tranquility. In fascicle 9 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the 'Bodhisattva Chapter,' it extensively clarifies that icchantikas sever wholesome roots and cannot generate the mind. The text itself states: 'Although that icchantika has the Buddha-nature, being bound by immeasurable defilements of sin, he cannot escape, like a silkworm in a cocoon.' This shows it is existent, not non-existent. It also says: 'There is a Buddha-nature that an icchantika has and a person with wholesome roots lacks,' and so forth; thus we know there is no person who lacks the nature. Moreover, the five natures of the Laṅkāvatāra cited earlier have been misunderstood in their own text. Regarding the fifth nature, that sūtra states: 'Fifth is the lack of nature, which refers to an icchantika. Of this there are two kinds: first, one who incinerates all wholesome roots, namely one who slanders the bodhisattva piṭaka. Second, one who has compassion for all realms of sentient beings, who is a bodhisattva. [Vowing:] If there are sentient beings who do not enter nirvāṇa, I also will not enter. Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: Which of these two eternally does not enter nirvāṇa? The Buddha said: The bodhisattva eternally does not enter nirvāṇa, not the one who incinerates all wholesome roots, because he knows that all dharmas are originally nirvāṇa and does not abandon all sentient beings.' This intent clarifies that the bodhisattva enters and yet does not enter. Since it says the bodhisattva eternally does not enter, and not the icchantika, it clearly shows that the icchantika will definitely enter later. How much more so when the sūtra itself says: 'Furthermore, by the supernatural power of the Tathāgata, sometimes wholesome roots will arise'!

In fascicle 5 of the Sūtrālaṃkāra, the lack of nature is also of two kinds: first, temporal; second, ultimate. 'Temporal' refers to temporary absence, which is the aforementioned icchantika; 'ultimate' refers to eternal absence, which is the bodhisattva of great compassion. Hence we know that the texts previously cited from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, Saṃdhinirmocana, and other sūtras all belong to the period prior to the preaching of the Lotus Sūtra; speaking of determined natures and lack of nature with respect to a vast duration of time, they did not mean eternally determined or eternally lacking. The treatises established this in accordance with the Buddha's expedient means, hence they merely spoke of 'definitively lacking.' Therefore, treatises such as the Ratnagotravibhāga and Buddhagotranirdeśa all state: based on an icchantika's slandering of the cause of the Great Vehicle, with reliance on an immeasurable time it is said they lack Buddha-nature, not meaning that they ultimately lack the pure nature. If one asserts that the Lotus Sūtra is a teaching of the second period, and that to guide undetermined adherents of the two vehicles it spoke of all attaining buddhahood while not yet stating that those of determined nature do not attain it—hence calling it an intentional teaching and not definitive—why do they themselves classify the Lotus Sūtra as a teaching of the third period? Who would dare classify the Lotus Sūtra as non-definitive? In the Sūkṣmajñāna-sūtra and in the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha's establishment of the true Dharma, both place the One Vehicle after the three vehicles; thus Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha's Commentary on the Nikāyabheda says: 'After thirty-eight years, he preached the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra,' and so forth. The Anantanirdeśa-sūtra says: 'After forty years, he preached the Lotus Sūtra,' making it clear that the Lotus Sūtra comes after, hence the sūtra says: 'When near the time of death.' If one does not believe that the Lotus Sūtra comes after, the Mahāparinirvāṇa at the brink of death is readily credible: does it not also refute the three [vehicles] and five [natures] with the one vehicle and one nature? If one takes the Prajñāpāramitā as the second period and the Lotus Sūtra as the third period, it is logically consistent. Yet they contradict the Saṃdhinirmocana's third period of 'universally for those who set out upon all vehicles,' because the Lotus Sūtra refutes the three. It is clear that the three periods of the Saṃdhinirmocana cannot definitively determine all sacred teachings, because it did not come last; it only distinguished three periods to highlight a specific class of meaning, as explained above. If viewed from the perspective of the Lotus Sūtra, there should be four periods, because the teaching of the One Vehicle refutes the preceding three vehicles.

If one asserts that Buddha-nature is of two kinds—first, the nature of noumenon; second, the nature of practice—where the nature of noumenon is definitively existent while the nature of practice may be absent: these words are plausible. Thus the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'There is a Buddha-nature that a person of wholesome roots has and an icchantika lacks,' which is the nature of practice; 'There is a Buddha-nature that both persons possess,' which is the nature of noumenon. However, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra explains their equal possession based on the nature of noumenon, hence saying: 'All who possess a mind will definitively attain buddhahood'; it does not say that all who possess practice will definitively attain buddhahood. If one asserts that the nature of noumenon is definitively existent yet allows that those inclined toward tranquility do not attain buddhahood, this contradicts both doctrine and reason. We know that an icchantika does not attain buddhahood only because, upon attaining buddhahood, one is no longer an icchantika; this was merely a temporary censure and praise. If one asserts that those who believe in the One Vehicle after entering extinction in the Lotus Sūtra are transformed, provisional śrāvakas, the provisional must transform the real—if there is no real, whom would they transform? Furthermore, would this not mislead a class of timid sentient beings who delight in extinction? We know that the concept of those inclined toward tranquility represents the intent prior to the Lotus Sūtra.

Furthermore, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: 'If the Tathāgata expediently teaches in accordance with what they desire, that is the One Vehicle, and there are no two vehicles; the two vehicles enter into the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is the Supreme Vehicle.' The intent here clarifies that when he expediently taught the two vehicles in accordance with their desires, this was clearly known to be the One Vehicle itself, and there were no two. Not understanding this intention, some read the word 'expedient' above in continuity with 'One Vehicle' below, hastily judging the One Vehicle to be an expedient means: this is an extreme delusion! Moreover, that sūtra extensively refutes the two vehicles, stating that they have no nirvāṇa, and says: 'This sūtra cuts off all doubts; it is definitively definitive, entering the path of the One Vehicle.' How could it say that the One Vehicle is an expedient means? Even if there were words of expedient means, they would still precede the Lotus Sūtra, so how much less when there are none! The Lotus Sūtra says: 'This sūtra is difficult to believe and difficult to understand; even when the Buddha was present in the world there was much enmity and jealousy, how much more after his extinction!' How true are these words! If one faithfully grasps the three vehicles and five natures, and disbelieves the One Vehicle and single nature, it is deeply lamentable. Thus, in the second fascicle of the Śatāvadāna-sūtra, the parable of the king changing a settlement of five yojanas to three yojanas is used as a metaphor for expediently speaking of three based on the one. That later people only believe in the three and do not believe in the one is precisely this state of affairs.

The above represents mutual contradiction when viewed from what the two schools separately rely upon. But if harmonized and explained, they do not contradict each other either: with respect to capacities there are three, while with respect to Dharma there is one; in terms of newly perfumed there are five, while originally existent there are not two. If entering noumenon with both swept away, then both three and one are extinguished; if based on the Buddha's pedagogical form, then he can be three and can be one. Therefore, while people contend and cling to right and wrong, when one penetrates [the truth] there is no dispute. The five divisions of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, though different, do not depart from the dharmadhātu; in the Mahāparinirvāṇa, when each explains the cause of the body, the Buddha affirms that none is not a correct teaching. The remaining points will be harmonized below. The section on ancient and modern agreements and disagreements is concluded.

2.5

Third, in establishing the teachings and opening up the tenets, there are two parts: first, dividing the teachings according to meaning; second, dividing the tenets on the basis of the teachings. First, dividing the teachings according to meaning: There are five classes of teachings, which were established by Xianshou and are extensively discussed in a separate essay. They are largely the same as Tiantai's, merely adding the Sudden Teaching. Here we use them first and subsequently integrate and harmonize them all, slightly amending whatever is unsatisfactory. As for these five teachings: 1. the Hīnayāna Teaching; 2. the Initial Teaching of the Mahāyāna; 3. the Final Teaching; 4. the Sudden Teaching; 5. the Perfect Teaching. The first is Tiantai's Tripiṭaka Teaching. Second, the Initial Teaching is also called the Fractional Teaching; because the teachings of the second and third periods in the Saṃdhinirmocana both allow that those of the two vehicles with fixed natures will never become Buddhas, we now combine them into a single teaching. Since this does not yet exhaust the doctrinal principles of the Mahāyāna, it is established as the Initial [Teaching]. Because there are those who do not become Buddhas, it is called Fractional. Third, the Final Teaching is also called the Real Teaching. Those of the two vehicles with fixed natures and icchantikas lacking nature will all become Buddhas; only here are the Mahāyāna's utmost explanations exhausted, and so it is established as Final. Because it accords with real principle, it is called Real. The above two teachings both cultivate toward realization gradually according to stages, and so are collectively named the Gradual. Fourth, the Sudden Teaching: when not even a single thought arises, that itself is called a Buddha, which is not spoken of in terms of the succession of stages, and so it is established as Sudden. As the Viseṣacintā says: 'One who attains the correct nature of all dharmas does not go from one stage to another.' The Laṅkāvatāra says: 'The first stage is itself the eighth, up to having no existence whatsoever—what succession could there be?' and so forth. It differs from the earlier gradual cultivation through stages, and it differs from the subsequent perfect interpenetration endowed with virtues; therefore, it is established with the name Sudden. Because it abruptly expresses this principle, it is called the Sudden Teaching. The reason Tiantai did not establish it is that within each of its four teachings there is an aspect beyond words. Now we open it because, by abruptly revealing what is beyond words, it is specifically for a class of capacities free from thought; that is, it accords with the Chan lineage. Fifth, the Perfect Teaching: it clarifies that one station is all stations, and all stations are one station; therefore, with the fulfillment of the mind in the ten faiths, one subsumes the five stations and accomplishes sambodhi, and so forth. Based on the Padmagarbha and Indrajāla of Samantabhadra's dharmadhātu, multi-layered and complete with host and retinue, it is called the Perfect Teaching, as spoken of in this sūtra and others. If we take it in terms of the characteristics of dharmas that are taught: First, in the Hīnayāna, it only teaches seventy-five dharmas and only teaches the emptiness of the person; even if it slightly teaches the emptiness of dharmas, it is still not clear. It establishes the roots of defilement and purity solely based on the six consciousnesses and three poisons; thus the Āgama says: 'Greed, anger, and delusion are the root of the world,' and so forth. Since it does not exhaust the source of dharmas, there is much dispute and sectarian adherence differs. Second, in the Initial Teaching, it extensively teaches dharma-characteristics and rarely teaches dharmatā. The dharmatā it teaches is counted among the dharma-characteristics; it teaches that there are one hundred dharmas with decisive and distinct analysis, and so there is little dispute. It teaches that there are eight consciousnesses which are purely arising and ceasing; based on the arising-and-ceasing consciousness, it establishes the causes of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. The presence or absence of natural seeds is forever distinct, and therefore the five natures are definitively different. Since the consciousness it establishes is produced solely by karma and affliction, the tathatā it establishes is eternal and unchanging, not allowing for accord with conditions. The other-dependent nature is seemingly existent and not non-existent, not being identical with the non-natured, true emptiness of the fully perfected. When it explains the meaning of emptiness in the sūtras, it is only with reference to the imagined. Since it says the three natures and five natures are different, it says that one portion of sentient beings will definitively never become Buddhas, which is called the non-decrease of the realm of sentient beings. The two truths of ultimate and conventional are distinctly different; neither cut off nor eternal, the effect arises as the cause ceases, and of the four simultaneous marks, cessation indicates subsequent non-existence. The fundamental and subsequently attained [wisdoms], in taking objects as conditions and severing afflictions, are conventionally said to observe both while definitively illuminating distinctly; by means of conditioned wisdom one realizes unconditioned noumenon, conventionally said not to be different yet in reality not one. Since supermundane wisdom relies on the seeds of the arising-and-ceasing consciousness, the mental states of the four wisdoms are shifted by marks, and the Buddha-fruit's saṃbhogakāya is conditioned and undefiled. Categories of meaning such as these are extensively numerous, just as fully explained in the Yogācārabhūmi, Abhidharmasamuccaya, and so forth. Third, in the Final Teaching, it rarely teaches dharma-characteristics and mostly teaches dharmatā; the dharma-characteristics it teaches also resolve back into the nature. The eight consciousnesses it establishes are fully integrated with the tathāgatagarbha and established in accord with conditions: the non-arising-and-ceasing harmonizes with the arising-and-ceasing to form neither one nor different; all sentient beings are of one equal nature, merely tathatā established in accord with conditions. The lack of nature in the other-dependent is itself the fully perfected; the one noumenon is uniformly even, and so it says the realm of sentient beings and the realm of Buddhas neither increase nor decrease. The emptiness of paramārtha extends throughout the real and the deluded; the real is not outside the conventional, and by being identical to the conventional it is real; therefore, though empty, it is not cut off, and though existent, it is not eternal; the four marks are simultaneous, and their essential nature is itself cessation. In taking objects as conditions and severing afflictions, they are two without being two; having that which severs and that which is severed, they are not two though two, which is spoken of as inner realization. Illuminating afflictions as having no basis is itself the essence of wisdom; illuminating the essence as lacking an own-being is itself the realization of tathatā. It is not that tathatā outside of wisdom is realized by wisdom; nor is it that wisdom outside of tathatā is able to realize tathatā. Mundane and supermundane wisdom rely on the tathāgatagarbha; the initial and the fundamental are not two, and thus the conditioned and unconditioned are neither one nor different. Therefore, the Buddha's nirmāṇakāya is itself eternal and itself the Dharma, not falling into any numbers—how much more so for the saṃbhoga essence! Wisdom identical with the essence is not shifted by marks. Categories of meaning such as these are also numerous, corresponding in order to the above, as in sūtras like the Laṅkāvatāra and treatises like the Awakening of Faith. If one harmonizes the above two traditions, it is extensively as explained elsewhere. Fourth, in the Sudden Teaching, it does not teach dharma-characteristics at all; it solely elucidates the true nature, and there are also no differentiated marks of the eight consciousnesses. All that exists is merely false conceptualization; all dharmadhātus are solely beyond words. The five dharmas and three own-natures are both empty; the eight consciousnesses and two kinds of selflessness are both discarded. It chastises the teachings and encourages leaving them behind; it destroys marks and obliterates the mind. To give rise to mind is delusion; not giving rise is Buddha. Nor is there Buddha or non-Buddha, arising or non-arising; like Vimalakīrti's silent dwelling revealing non-duality, such is its purport. Fifth, in the Perfect Teaching, what is taught is solely the inexhaustible dharmadhātu: the ocean of nature in perfect interpenetration, pratītyasamutpāda unobstructed, mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, like Indrajāla multi-layered and boundless, the minute mutually containing, host and retinue inexhaustible, each of the tenfold dharma-gates subsuming the dharmadhātu. In the section on the delimiters of meaning, this will be fully expounded.

2.6

Second, in opening up the tenets based on the teachings, there are ten tenets, as distinguished in [the chapter on] the tenets of the sūtra.

2.7

Fourth, in the general harmonization and integration, it is divided into two: first, generally harmonizing the various teachings; second, harmonizing the sequence of the methods of conversion. First, the former: the various masters, in establishing teachings, each had their basis. Although five are established now, we also harmonize and adopt the various explanations, which has roughly five tiers: 1. They are collectively taken as one: that is, it is solely the one great skillful means of the Tathāgata for gathering beings, expounded in a single voice. Then the previous two masters who established the single voice do not lose the correct principle. 2. They are opened into two, which further has three [aspects]: First, contrasting the Hinayāna to reveal the Mahāyāna: the first is the half-word, and the latter four are all the full [word]; then there is no contradiction with the statements of the two piṭakas. Second, contrasting the provisional to reveal the real: the first two are the Triyāna, and the latter three are the Ekayāna; then there is no contradiction with the Lotus Sūtra's four vehicles. Third, although the third and fourth teachings obliterate the two [vehicles] unlike the earlier ones, they adapt to capacities with intricate skill by contrasting the three to reveal the one; the last one directly reveals the fundamental Dharma, completely unshared, as expounded in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa; this is the same as Master Yin's 'level path and winding path.' 3. They are divided into three: the first one is the Hīnayāna, the next one is the Triyāna, and the latter three are the Ekayāna. Or only the last one is the unshared Ekayāna—the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa points to this as unshared, because sūtras like the Pañcaviṃśati are expounded in common with the two vehicles. These three also accord with the four vehicles. Furthermore, the eighth fascicle of the Liang Treatise states: 'There are three kinds in the Tathāgata's establishing the correct Dharma: 1. establishing the Hīnayāna; 2. establishing the Triyāna; 3. establishing the Ekayāna. The third is the most supreme, hence called well-established.' This is also the same as the Jñānavaipulyasūtra. The second fascicle of Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha's Commentary on the Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyāna also shares this explanation. 4. They are divided into four, which also has two approaches: First, for the middle three teachings, by distinguishing between preserving the three and obliterating the two, they are opened into four: 1. the distinct teaching of the Hīnayāna, like the four Āgamas and so forth; 2. the shared teaching of the Triyāna, like the Saṃdhinirmocana and so forth; 3. the shared teaching of the Ekayāna, like the Lotus Sūtra and so forth; 4. the distinct teaching of the Ekayāna, like the Buddhāvataṃsaka-mahāvaipulya-sūtra. Second, in terms of passing through stages or having no stages, opening the gradual and sudden, they are thus divided into four: combining the second and third together to make the gradual teaching, with the remainder named as before. 5. They are divided into five, as established earlier; because within the gradual there are the initial and final, taking the majority and pointing briefly to several sūtras is not a restrictive determination, since a single sūtra may contain multiple teachings.

2.8

Second, regarding the sequence of the teaching methods: now, in explaining the Tathāgata's teachings throughout his lifetime, ten gates are briefly opened: 1. the gate of the distinction between root and branches; 2. the gate of giving rise to branches based on the root; 3. the gate of gathering the branches to return to the root; 4. the gate of the non-obstruction of root and branches; 5. the gate of being indeterminate according to capacities; 6. the gate of the simultaneity of the manifest and the secret; 7. the gate of sudden exposition at one time; 8. the gate of silence without words; 9. the gate of pervasive penetration throughout the three times; 10. the gate of layer upon layer without end. In the first gate, root and branches are simultaneous, each form remaining of one kind from beginning to end, without differing expositions. However, there are three positions: First, if in the Hīnayāna, he initially converted Ājñātakauṇḍinya and at the end converted Subhadra, and in the interim he spoke only Hīnayāna to benefit [those of] Hīnayāna [capacities], as in the four Āgama Sūtras and the Vinayas of the five divisions. Second, if concerning the Three Vehicles, from beginning to end he taught the three, universally benefiting the three capacities, as in the Guhyakādhipatinirdeśa-sūtra and others. Third, if concerning the Ekayāna, from beginning to end he taught only the ultimate perfection for capacities of the round [teaching], as in the Avataṃsaka and others. Therein, Hīnayāna is not included; furthermore, it gathers the nine times, encompassing before and after, without differing expositions. However, these three types are based on those whose faculties and natures in this world are fixed, who constantly hear a single kind of teaching as above; hence, that which the Buddha expounds each penetrates from beginning to end without sequence. 2. In the gate of giving rise to branches based on the root, there are five types: first, he expounded the Mahāyāna for bodhisattvas; second, for pratyekabuddhas; third, for śrāvakas; fourth, for sentient beings with kuśala-mūla; and fifth, for those of wrong certitude. As in the analogies of the sun shining on the high mountains and the [three thousandfold world in the] 'Manifestation Chapter' when first attaining [sambodhi], where the marks are extensively explained, all make clear [the sequence of] Mahāyāna first and Hīnayāna later. In terms of doctrine, it is named 'giving rise to branches from the root,' because within the One Buddha-yāna he differentially expounded the three, and because the eighteen [schools] and the two [branches] all arose from the Mahāyāna. In terms of capacities, each is a distinct class of capacity, not [a single person's] single capacity experiencing Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna in sequence. 3. Regarding the gate of gathering the branches to return to the root: according to the Anantanirdeśa-sūtra, at the initial time he taught the small, next he taught the middle vehicle, and at the final time he taught the great. Hence the Lotus Sūtra also says: 'Initially I turned the [wheel of the] Four Truths.' The Sandhinirmocana and the Vimalamati-sūtra, although different regarding the two periods or three periods, both have Hīnayāna first and Mahāyāna later. 4. Regarding the gate of the non-obstruction of root and branches: the initial presentation of the supreme exposition that illuminates the king of mountains makes clear that without the root, there is no means to extend the branches; the subsequent revelation of the diverse streams returning to the great sea makes clear that without the branches, there is no means to return to the root. Thus root and branches reflect each other, granting and depriving aiding each other, which only then constitutes the skill-in-means for gathering sentient beings. Therefore, to speak generally, there are five positions in all: first, the fundamental Ekayāna, as in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra; second, the intentional Hīnayāna; third, the intentional Mahāyāna; fourth, the explicit Three Vehicles—the above three being as in the Sandhinirmocana; fifth, the Ekayāna that refutes differences, as in the Lotus Sūtra. The above four gates are completely interpenetrating and unobstructed; this means that sequence is precisely no sequence, and non-sequence is precisely sequence. 5. Regarding the gate of being indeterminate according to capacities: among the four gates above, the first gate explains that the three types of capacities are constantly fixed from beginning to end; the second gate explains that the five types of capacities are constantly fixed at different times; the third gate explains that one type of capacity progresses from the shallow to the deep; the fourth gate explains two types of capacities—the initial capacity hears the sudden, while the subsequent capacity progresses from shallow to deep. Furthermore, there is a class of indeterminate capacities: some go from the Hīnayāna, next enter the Three Vehicles, and then enter the Ekayāna; some directly enter the Ekayāna from the Hīnayāna; or multiple kinds of capacities, upon hearing a single phrase, form different and distinct understandings. 6. In the simultaneity of the manifest and the secret: if hearing differently they are mutually aware, it is the manifest indeterminate; if they are mutually unaware, it is the secret. The secret and the manifest are simultaneous, also without before and after. 7. The above gates are suddenly expounded at one time. 8. From first attaining the Way up to nirvāṇa, he did not utter a single word. 9. The above gates completely penetrate the three times. 10. The above nine gates are, according to place and time, layer upon layer without end, all without before and after. The latter two gates are precisely the realm of the Avataṃsaka; they integrate the former eight, yet do not depart from the Avataṃsaka's function.

First 8 of 15 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經疏 — Classical Chinese