觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 1.6

Second, the commentary on the text, in five parts: first, explaining the title, in two parts: first, introducing it; second, from 'All [sūtras]' onward, explaining it, in two parts: first, briefly indicating it with respect to the common, in two parts: first, discussing common and specific with respect to the three locations, in three parts: first, regarding the lifetime teaching, in two parts: first, explaining, in two parts: first, indicating that the titles possess common and specific. Other masters, in explaining sūtra titles, all take the word 'sūtra' as the teaching that expresses, and the remaining words as the meaning that is expressed. Making this division severely violates the Buddha's intention. Moreover, persons, dharmas, and analogies are all names; how could they not be that which expresses? How could they exclusively belong to the meaning that is expressed? The word 'sūtra' cannot exclusively belong to the teaching. As the Wondrous Sūtra says: 'The storehouse of the Dharma Flower Sūtra is deep, solid,幽 distant, and no one can reach it.' It also says: 'Being protected and kept in mind by the buddhas, planting roots of virtue, entering the group of the truly settled, and giving rise to the mind to rescue all sentient beings—accomplishing these four dharmas, one will certainly attain this sūtra.' The commentary explains that these four are opening, displaying, awakening to, and entering the Buddha's knowledge and vision; when knowledge and vision verify the principle, this is called attaining the sūtra. Do not these two passages take principle as the sūtra? The Golden Light says: 'The buddhas of the ten directions are constantly mindful of this sūtra.' Could this cause the buddhas to be mindful only of the teaching? Cases like this are numerous, and cannot all be cited. Thus we know that the various masters, in explaining the titles of the various sūtras through that which expresses and that which is expressed, err greatly with respect to the purport. Our school universally uses the common and the specific to explain titles, and only then is there no fault. Second, from 'The common is' onward, explaining that there are three kinds of common and specific. In our present explanation of the two designations—common and specific—of the various sūtras, both are that which expresses, and both are that which is expressed. This is because the common and the specific each possess the teaching, practice, and principle; do not say that these two designations reside only in the teaching. One must know that the common and specific inherently have names of teaching, names of practice, and names of principle. For instance, in a specific title, 'The Buddha spoke' is the teaching, 'contemplation' is the practice, and 'the Buddha of Immeasurable Life' is the principle—are these not specific teaching, specific practice, and specific principle? Pairing these three specifics with the word 'sūtra', there is the common teaching, common practice, and common principle. Now, among these three, first, explaining the common and specific of teaching, in two parts: first, directly explaining the lifetime teaching. As for the common name, whether spoken suddenly or spoken gradually, whether deploying the provisional or opening the provisional, outside of the Vinaya and treatises they are all named 'sūtra'; hence it is called common. As for the specific name, specific marks are indeed many, but here we follow three kinds: namely, person, dharma, and analogy. The simple three, the compound three, together with the one that is complete, make up the seven specifics. The simple three are: simple person, as in the Amitābha Sūtra, etc.; simple dharma, as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, etc.; simple analogy, as in the Brahmajāla Sūtra, etc. The compound three are: person and dharma, as in the Mañjuśrī's Inquiry on Prajñā Sūtra, etc.; dharma and analogy, as in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra, etc.; person and analogy, as in the Tathāgata's Lion's Roar Sūtra, etc. The one complete in person, dharma, and analogy is, for instance, the Śrīmālā Lion's Roar One Vehicle Great Expedient Extensive Sūtra, etc. By joining these seven specifics with the common, the Buddha's lifetime Dharma is collectively designated. Second, from 'In the present sūtra' onward, specifically pointing to this sūtra. In discussing the lifetime teaching originally, mentioning this sūtra is to clarify that among the seven specifics, this belongs to simple person; hence it is stated. Although it belongs to simple person, the persons are divided into two: the speaker, Śākyamuni, and the spoken of, Amida; using these two persons, they form the specific designation. The sūtra is shared across the lifetime teaching; hence it is called the common name. Given that it has the word 'contemplation', it should properly be person and dharma; but the active conforms to the object, and is subsumed under the person, so it is briefly omitted. However, dividing common and specific here is not like the extensive explanation, so it is not yet detailed. Second, from 'As practice' onward, the common and specific of practice. Various sūtras use one kind of practice as the specific name; paired with the common name, 'sūtra' is the common practice. If we discuss specific practices, their number is immeasurable, and it is hard to speak of them exhaustively. Now, presenting them by incremental numbers to practitioners, they seem graspable: one is like the one practice, etc.; two is like the two knowledges, etc.; three is like the threefold contemplation, etc.; four is like the four stations of mindfulness, etc.; five is like the five faculties, etc.; six is like the six wondrous [doors], etc.; seven is like the seven factors of awakening, etc.; eight is like the eightfold correct [path], etc.; nine is like the nine dhyānas, etc.; ten is like the ten pāramitās, etc., and so on up to hundreds, thousands, myriads, kotis, and immeasurable practices. These specific practices all tend toward nirvāṇa and culminate in the four virtues, spoken of briefly as permanence and bliss. Regarding their tending toward nirvāṇa, the specific practices are common; hence it is the sūtra of practice. In that Explication, cause and fruit were used to distinguish the common and specific of practice. One must know that its meaning does not imply that only upon reaching the fruit does the practice become common. If you wish to understand its meaning: based on each cultivating the cause, it is named specific practice; regarding tending toward the one fruit, these specifics are common. This is discussing the common at the time of the specific, and discussing the specific at the time of the common. How could it be so only for practice? Teaching and principle are also like this. For instance, pairing capacity and response with the common and specific of teaching: the Buddha preaches the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind. Their individual understandings are the specific capacity; the single voice is the common response. The individual understandings are not separate from the single voice, and the single voice does not obstruct the individual understandings. Just as the Profound Meaning of the Golden Light takes the expressing characters as the common teaching, and the rationale of that which expresses as the specific teaching—the rationale being the four siddhāntas—each and every siddhānta employs characters, and each and every character is not separate from the siddhāntas. Just as pairing name and reality with the common and specific of principle: many names are not separate from the one reality, and the one reality does not obstruct many names; hence the three commons and specifics are all simultaneous. They are entirely like the notes of wind and string instruments in music: regarding the sound, it is common; regarding the melody, it is specific. The two functions, common and specific, do not obstruct each other. Third, from 'Although principle' onward, the common and specific of principle. Name and reality being paired, name is the door, which manifests the one principle through the four doors; it is also phenomenal specifics paired with the common principle. This is because various sūtras mostly use a single phenomenon to manifest the principle, obtaining the specific name of principle. As in the title of this sūtra, the name 'the Buddha of Immeasurable Life' is taken as the specific principle; paired with the common name, 'sūtra' is the common principle. If, throughout the lifetime teaching, one explains sūtra titles by the common and specific principle, nothing is better than taking the four doors as the specific principle. The four doors are: the door of existence, the door of emptiness, the door of both, and the door of neither. The names of the four doors are common. One must distinguish the four teachings: namely, the Tripiṭaka Teaching, the Common Teaching, the Separate Teaching, and the Perfect Teaching. The four teachings each open four doors such as existence, so four times four becomes sixteen doors; expressing specific principles, they form sixteen principles. Since principle is not even one, how could there be sixteen? Yet principle is unobstructed and can correspond to the various doors, just as space in its substance is truly neither square nor round, neither large nor small, but because it is unobstructed, it can follow those square and round objects to form immeasurable marks. Speaking from the immeasurable, this is the specific principle; its substance being the one emptiness, this is named the common principle. There is no common without the specific, and no specific without the common; the common and the specific joined together form a single title.

Second, under "This is about...," he concludes that within the five periods, every single sūtra title possesses both general and specific [aspects]. If one does not evaluate it using these three of teaching, practice, and principle, simply dividing into general and specific has no basis whatsoever. Yet, when immeasurable practices converge in the one [truth of] permanence and bliss, and the four teachings and four gates together expound the single principle—if one were restricted to the Vaipulya [period], [listeners] would not have been capable of hearing this; this is taking the intention of the Lotus [Sūtra] in advance to speak across intervals. After the Buddha's passing, when explaining the various sūtras, if one does not base oneself on the Lotus [Sūtra], how could one exhaustively grasp his entire lifetime of teaching? Second, under "Further, regarding...," he discusses a single title. While the two designations of general and specific in the titles of his entire lifetime's teaching possess the three [aspects] of teaching and so forth, because their scope is so broad, reflecting on and cultivating them might be difficult; therefore, taking the sūtra title being explained right now, he makes teaching, practice, and principle clearly evident. These three are all specific; when contrasted with the character "sūtra," they constitute the three generals; hence he says, "spontaneously possessing the meaning of general and specific." He wishes to enable practitioners, through this single title, to understand the teaching in terms of "speaking," to give rise to the practice that contemplates, and to see the true principle of the Buddha. Third, under "Further, regarding...," he discusses a single character. Although a single title is concise, it involves three designations; now, by showing a single character, the three of understanding, practice, and realization are all fully present. This again has two parts: first, explaining through the character "spoken" (shuō) as encompassing [all three]. The character "spoken" in the title is best able to reveal teaching and practice along with principle; hence he cites the phrase from the *Śāstra* (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*), "what one practices is like what one speaks," in order to show that within speaking, practice and principle are contained. "Like" (ruò / rú) means suchness (tathatā / zhēnrú). "Suchness" means non-difference: the one true awakened nature is no different in things or persons, equal across the three times; only by according with this principle of suchness can speech and action of mind and mouth be without difference. Therefore the *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā* says, "How does one explain it to others? Like suchness, unmoved"; and the *Lotus Sūtra* says, "Taking the emptiness of all phenomena as one's seat, resting here one expounds the Dharma." Phenomenal marks understand "suchness" as two things being similar, taking them as not different; noumenal contemplation understands "suchness" as the nature of two things being identical—only then is it called not different. Therefore, in explaining sūtras, it is thus. The Tripiṭaka [Teaching] takes transmitting what the Buddha spoke, like water transferred between vases, and calls it "textual suchness." The Mahāyāna teachings are not like this: the Shared [Teaching] takes the mutual identity of the two truths as suchness; the Separate [Teaching] only hears of the Middle Way as suchness; and the Perfect [Teaching] takes the nature of words being unattached as suchness. Only according to these do the three teachings speak of "textual suchness." The *Śāstra* proceeds in terms of noumenal contemplation: only when mind, mouth, and principle are one can speaking and practicing be suchlike and non-different. This enables the speaker's practice to accord with the principle of suchness. Second, under "Buddha is...," he explains in terms of all characters mutually containing [one another]. Buddha returns to the fundamental source, the ultimate body of awakening, neither quiescent nor illuminating, and thus belongs to the dharmakāya. The character "contemplation" is pure wisdom, quiescent yet ever illuminating, and thus belongs to prajñā. "Amitāyus" (Measureless Life) is unhindered divine power, illuminating yet ever quiescent, and thus belongs to liberation. Now, correlating the various characters with the three virtues has a profound reason. Why is this? Previously, explaining teaching, practice, and principle in terms of a single character, although using the character "spoken" to encompass the three, was still formulated in terms of cultivation and remained common to the preceding teachings; moreover, it had not yet made clear that character by character possesses the three. Therefore, he now specifically uses the three virtues of nirvāṇa to correlate with the characters, thereby revealing that the nature of each character possesses the three, which is not something people of the preceding teachings could conceive or express. Because the nature of the three virtues is fundamentally completely integrated and mutually contains each other, dharmakāya alone is not dharmakāya—dharmakāya necessarily possesses prajñā and liberation; prajñā alone is not prajñā—prajñā necessarily possesses liberation and dharmakāya; liberation alone is not liberation—liberation necessarily possesses dharmakāya and prajñā. The three virtues are just the three of teaching, practice, and principle: prajñā is teaching, because wisdom lies in speaking; liberation is practice, because function accords with conditions; dharmakāya belongs to principle, because it is what is manifested. Since the character "Buddha" is the principle of dharmakāya, it contains the other two virtues as well as teaching and practice. Since the character "contemplation" belongs to the teaching of prajñā, it also contains the other two virtues as well as practice and principle. Since "Amitāyus" is the practice of liberation, it also contains the other two virtues as well as principle and teaching. Were it not so, how could one reach three from one, and reach one from three? Question: Originally a single character was to contain teaching, practice, and principle; how is it that now only three characters—"Amitāyus" (wú liàng shòu)—contain the three? Then it cannot be called "regarding a single character." Answer: Explaining the title's various characters in correlation with the three virtues is wondrous discourse; what is valued is grasping the meaning. He wishes to cause practitioners to know that the nature of the three virtues is omnipresent: in a single character, a single phrase, a single verse, a single chapter, a single work, a single sūtra, a single period, a single lifetime's teaching, and even all environments, primary rewards, forms, and minds. When many, they are the three virtues; when few, they are also the three virtues. In a single dust-mote the three virtues are not small; in oceans of worlds the three virtues are not large. Therefore he cites the *Avataṃsaka*, saying, "In the one, understanding the measureless," and so forth. If one grasps this meaning, one can engage in cultivating the wondrous contemplation of the present [sūtra]. A single mark of the responsive form can illuminate the three bodies; a single dust-mote of the environmental reward is none other than the land of quiescent light; therefore, the sixteen contemplations all illuminate the three truths. Those who do not believe this turn their backs on our Patriarch's establishment of this method! Second, under "In one...," he evaluates [the merit] regarding a single character, in three parts: first, the primary evaluation. Above, he exhausted the wondrous import from broad to narrow; now he evaluates the merit from small to large. If a single character still expounds the principle of great nirvāṇa, how could all sūtras not be perfectly pervasive? Second, under "Therefore the sūtra...," he cites a sūtra as proof. Like the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa* and various Mahāyāna texts, many speak in this way. Third, under "If not...," he concludes with the present achievement. If one does not understand that a single character perfectly possesses the three virtues, what the various sūtras say about the immeasurable and boundless merit of upholding a single phrase or title would become empty words. If one had not entered samādhi in the bodhimaṇḍa and unleashed the revolving dhāraṇī, how could one speak wondrously and with such unhindered freedom like this? Second, under "First explaining...," he elaborates broadly on the specific, setting aside the general to explain the specific. The text has four parts: first, explaining the character "Buddha," in two parts: first, directly regarding the name of the Buddha to show the six identities, in two parts: first, translating the name and indicating it. In Sanskrit it is *buddha*, in Chinese rendered as "awakened one," namely the master of the teaching being spoken. His specific designation is Śākyamuni; of his ten general designations, the ninth is cited here, hence specifying "Buddha." Since this is the ultimate fruition, it is ultimate awakening. The *Treatise on the Awakening of Faith* says: "When the awakened mind first arises, the mind has no initial mark, because it is far removed from subtle thoughts. The mind is ever-abiding, which is called ultimate awakening." This awakening is completely pure and devoid of relativity; sentient beings, Buddhas, environment, and self are melted together and completely encompassed; the ten directions and three times are thoroughly penetrated without exterior; the five entrenchments and two deaths are completely purified without remainder; immeasurably profound, it forever cuts off conceptual thought, and is forcibly named wondrous awakening. This meaning of awakening has six kinds of identity; "identity" (jí) means "is." Now Śākyamuni is precisely this completely pure awakening in its ultimate [sense].

All ordinary beings and noble ones are in their entirety nothing but this awakening. Although in entirety they are [it], yet delusion and awakening, cause and effect differ in their characteristics. Therefore, this 'is' is distinguished by six kinds, namely: principle-identity, verbal-identity, contemplation-and-practice-identity, resemblance-identity, partial-realization-identity, and ultimate-identity. However, if one does not know that defilement is of the nature and evil is of the nature, and that all defilement and evil must definitely be severed and destroyed, how could one discuss being [awakening] in one's entire substance? Because one is [it] in entire substance, one avoids falling back in discouragement; because of the six distinctions, one avoids excessive pride. The six are not separated from identity, and identity does not obstruct the six. When the meaning of the six identities is established, the positions of the Perfect [Teaching] can be discerned. Question: As for the statement that ordinary beings and noble ones are in their entire substance identical with the Buddha, does this mean they are identical with the Buddha of their own future fruit, or identical with the Buddha already accomplished by Śākyamuni? Answer: The Buddha of one's own future fruit and the Buddha already accomplished by Śākyamuni do not differ in their ultimate substance; hence the fruit-Buddhas of all [others] are the nature-Buddhas of living beings. When deluded, all are deluded; when seeing, all see. Therefore, with respect to the present form and mind of oneself and other Buddhas, the meaning of the six identities can be discerned in both. Furthermore, one should know that the meaning of the six identities does not pertain exclusively to the Buddha: all provisional and real [existences], the three vehicles, humans, gods, and even down to the form and mind of dung beetles and the hells, must all have their beginning and end discerned through the six identities—namely, the dung beetle of principle, verbal [dung beetle], and so forth up to the ultimate dung beetle. Here, since we are explaining the Lord of the Teaching, we discern it with respect to the Buddha, because all the ten realms are discussed as nature-principle. There is none that is not the dharmadhātu, and each and every one is unalterable; therefore, from verbal [identity] onward, not only is the Buddha revealed, but the nine [realms] are also equally displayed. Reaching the accomplishment of the fruit, all ten are ultimate; hence dung beetles and the rest are all explained through the six identities. Second, from 'Nirvāṇa' onward, extensively explaining with respect to awakening, in six parts: first, principle-identity. The names of the six kinds of identity are all the meaning of the non-duality of the substance of phenomena and noumenon; yet phenomena have adverse and conforming aspects: the five from verbal onward are phenomena of conforming cultivation, whereas principle-nature alone is purely phenomena of adverse cultivation. These adverse and conforming phenomena are both non-dual with the substance of the principle of original awakening. From what are the designations 'adverse' and 'conforming' established? Because of knowing non-duality, phenomena all accord with principle, which is called conforming. For those who do not know, phenomena all contradict principle, hence they are called adverse. The five from verbal onward, whether shallow or deep, all know and all conform. The initial principle-identity is purely deluded and purely adverse; yet deluded and adverse phenomena have never for a moment departed from their awakening-principle, hence it is called identical with the Buddha. Why is this? It is precisely because living beings inherently possess defilement and evil in their nature, which cannot be altered, and this nature is completely bright, which is called the Buddha. Inherent defilement and inherent evil arise and act in their entire substance; cultivated defilement and cultivated evil have no separate substance. Cultivation in its entirety is the nature; therefore, deluded phenomena are nothing other than the Buddha of principle. Relying on this principle, they give rise to afflictions, create karma, and transmigrate through birth and death, yet completely fail to know that phenomena are entirely principle. Employing principle for long kalpas yet unknowing for long kalpas, they are not prevented from being the Buddha of principle merely by not knowing. Because of being entirely [it], it is called the Buddha of principle-identity; because of not knowing, it is not the latter five identities. However, 'the Buddha of principle-identity' is the utmost disparagement, because it entirely lacks the identity of understanding, practice, and realization, having only the principle-nature's self-so identity. Furthermore, 'the Buddha of principle-identity' does not point to principle outside of phenomena as the Buddha; it means that the principle of the three obstacles is entirely the Buddha. Furthermore, one should know that the reason it is not called 'the Buddha of obstacle-identity' but called 'the Buddha of principle-identity' is that it wishes to distinguish [it from] the latter five which possess the 'is' of cultivated virtue, whereas this single position is solely the 'is' of principle-nature. Furthermore, 'the Buddha of obstacle-identity' is still too general a name, because the persons of the latter five [identities] all understand that the three obstacles are themselves the Buddha. Explaining this has three parts: first, citing various sūtras to demonstrate identity. First, citing the Kāśyapa Chapter of the Mahā[parinirvāṇa]-sūtra, which says: 'Living beings are identical with the Buddha. Why? Because apart from living beings, sambodhi cannot be attained.' The Chapter on the Tathāgata-Nature says: 'The self is precisely the meaning of the tathāgatagarbha. That all living beings possess the Buddha-nature is precisely the meaning of the self. This meaning of the self has from the very beginning always been covered by immeasurable afflictions; therefore living beings cannot see it. Just as inside the house of a poor woman there is a cache of real gold, and none of the family members, great or small, knows of it. Then an extraordinary person who is skilled in expedients comes, and so forth, down to excavating and bringing forth the cache of gold right in her house.' It also says: 'Just as in a king's household there is a strongman who has a vajra jewel between his eyebrows, and he wrestles with another strongman. That strongman strikes him with his head, and the jewel on his forehead immediately sinks into his flesh, so that he does not know at all where the jewel is. A wound appears at that spot, and he summons a skilled physician wishing to treat it himself. And so forth, down to the physician holding up a mirror to illuminate his face, whereupon the jewel appears clearly in the mirror,' and so on. As for the ten parables of the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, that sūtra has ten passages: one on the doctrine and nine parables. The one is what is illustrated, and the nine are what illustrate. Subsuming what is illustrated under what illustrates, they are called the ten parables. As for the one doctrine, the sūtra says: 'The Buddha told the Bodhisattva Vajramati: With the Buddha-eye I observe that within the afflictions of greed, anger, and delusion of all living beings, there is the Tathāgata's wisdom, the Tathāgata's eye, and the Tathāgata's body, sitting cross-legged, dignified and unmoving. Good man! Although all living beings are within the bodies of afflictions in the various destinies, they possess the tathāgatagarbha, which is eternally undefiled and complete with virtuous marks, no different from myself.' After this text, it presents nine things to illustrate the doctrine, each having prose and reiterative verses: first, the parable of the Buddha-body in a withered flower; second, the parable of pure honey among crag bees; third, the parable of non-glutinous rice inside husks; fourth, the parable of genuine gold in excrement and filth; fifth, the parable of a treasure store in a poor house; sixth, the parable of the seed inside an āmra fruit; seventh, the parable of a golden statue in tattered rags; eighth, the parable of a noble fetus in a poor woman; ninth, the parable of a cast statue in a scorched mold. As for the tattered silk, the sūtra verse says: 'Just as someone carrying a golden statue / travels to another land, / wraps it in foul and tattered things, / and abandons it in the wilderness. / One with the divine eye who sees it / then informs the crowd, / removes the filth and reveals the true statue, / and all rejoice greatly. / My divine eye is also like this: / observing those kinds of living beings / entangled in evil karma and afflictions, / undergoing adversity and fully endowed with all sufferings. / I also see that in those living beings, / amid the dust and defilement of ignorance, / the Tathāgata-nature is unmoved, / and none can destroy it.' As for the earthen mold, the sūtra verse says: 'Just as a great smelter casts / immeasurable statues of genuine gold; / a fool looking from the outside / sees only scorched, black earth. / The master caster gauges that it has cooled, / opens the mold to let the substance appear, / and once the various impurities are removed, / the marks and signs are strikingly revealed. / With the Buddha-eye I observe / that the kinds of living beings are like this: / in the mire of afflictions, / all possess the Tathāgata-nature.' From 'dark room' onward, it further cites the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, which says: 'Just as with a well and various treasures in a dark room, people know they exist, but because of the darkness they do not see them. There is a skilled expedient: lighting a great, bright lamp illuminates them so they are seen. That person never thinks: "This water and treasures did not exist before and only exist now." Nirvāṇa is also like this: it is inherently self-existent and does not just begin now.'

“the Tathāgata of Great Wisdom, through skillful expedients, lights the lamp of wisdom, causing all the bodhisattvas to see nirvāṇa.” The present text merely cites the dark well possessing treasure to prove the identical in principle, and does not take up passages such as “a person also knows it is there”; all the similes are like this. One must understand that the principle of the similes combines the Separate and the Perfect. If one says that the three obstacles definitely conceal the Buddha-nature, and that it is revealed only when the obstacles are broken, this still belongs to the Separate. If the obstacles are formed entirely of the nature, and the obstacles are themselves the Buddha-nature, and the obstacles are dissipated through inconceivable virtue, then all the similes are Perfect, and only then are they the similes for the identical in principle of the present text. Therefore, the similes of the tathāgatagarbha in the *Mohe zhiguan* reveal the Separate, while the present text reveals the Perfect. Next, Vimalakīrti’s “all are Suchness” still borders on the Common [Teaching] in phrasing; here it must be understood in the Perfect [manner]. Next, in the lower scroll of the *Ratnakāraṇḍa-sūtra*, the Bodhisattva Pradānaśūra speaks a verse to the Buddha: “One’s own realm, the dharmadhātu, and the realm of sentient beings are equal.” One’s own realm is the mental phenomena; the dharmadhātu is the Buddha-phenomena, because the Buddha takes the dharmadhātu as body; facing the realm of sentient beings, these make the three dharmas. Mind and sentient beings are in cause; the Buddha-phenomena are in fruit; the three are without distinction. Hence it says, “A single realm is without separate realms.” Second, from “This is” onward explains the Buddha in terms of original awakening. Although the previously cited sūtras say they are identical with Buddha, they have not yet specifically shown the marks of awakening and comprehension, and have only pointed out that the essence of the three obstacles is entirely the principle; now this principle is shown. Right here it illuminates, which is called “original awakening,” and the meaning of “Buddha” is established. This itself is divided into two: first, directly showing it. Saying “This is” refers to the sentient beings being identical with Buddha in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* above. The precious things in the various similes, Vimalakīrti’s “all are Suchness,” and the *Ratnakāraṇḍa-sūtra*’s “dharmadhātu”—all of these are the original nature's perfect wisdom. If the three prajñās were not subtly and fusionally identical, wisdom could not be called “perfect.” Knowing that all dharmas each contain and receive all dharmas, the whole dharma is wisdom and the whole wisdom is the dharma; relative opposites are severed: this is called perfectly awakening to all dharmas. “All dharmas” are the environment and self of sentient beings and Buddhas; these times and places across the three times and ten directions are entirely wisdom—how could there be a single place, a single object, or a single dust-mote whose essence is not clear and luminous? Yet this luminosity is not something the mind, intellect, or consciousness can reach. Therefore, regarding the meaning of original awakening, the *Awakening of Faith* says: “The essence of mind is free from thought, with nowhere it does not pervade, equaling the realm of space, inherently clear and luminous.” Since it is free from thought, how could one seek it with sentimental consciousness? It is what is called inconceivable wisdom-illumination and so forth. Do not mistake the defiled mind of the six destinies or the realized wisdom of the three vehicles for the marks of clarity and luminosity of original awakening; only the awakening of wondrous awakening is the Buddha of principle. “Full cultivation resides in the nature”—does it not refer to this? Second, from “Although the five” onward wards off deluded feelings. Those holding to deluded attachments say: “Since there are all the karmic bonds and the darkness of ignorance and delusion, how can one say sentient beings are identical with Buddha?” Hence, it wards this off, saying: although karma reaches the Avīci [Hell], right in their very essence they are the three liberations. Although [the delusions of] views and thoughts are dark and inverted, the principle of original awakening has never ceased to exist. Delusion and karma are entirely the conditions and causes of the Buddha-nature as inherent virtue; how could they destroy the Buddha of principle? Because a blade does not cut itself. Second, from “This” onward discriminates principle in contrast with four matters. “The worldly realm is eternally abiding” means that the thirty worldly realms of the ten dharmadhātus each abide in the dharma-position of Suchness; because the dharma-position is eternal, the worldly marks are also eternal. Now, although the world is originally alternation and decay, speaking of it as “eternal” is because all dharmas are the true nature itself; because the nature does not alter, it is named “eternal.” If one says that flux cannot be called eternal, this is a deluded view. Truly, because arising dharmas are identical with the nature, they are eternal; abiding, changing, and ceasing dharmas are identical with the nature, and thus are eternal. The eternity of being identical with the nature is neither eternal nor impermanent; it is inconceivable. The words are biased, but the intent is perfect. Therefore, one can say that a single arising and a single ceasing are nothing other than the Middle Way, being exclusively arising, exclusively abiding, exclusively changing, and exclusively ceasing. The *Lotus Sūtra*’s trace gate, in revealing what was realized, says: “The worldly marks are eternally abiding, having known this at the place of the Way”; the origin gate then says: “The Tathāgata truly sees and knows the marks of the triple world as neither such nor different.” Thus we know that the worldly realm is the eternal abiding of the triple world; how could it run contrary to “neither such nor different”? Although the origin and the trace are distinct, the inconceivable is one. Because this principle is secret and wondrous, and the Buddha is able to clearly see it, it is said to be “luminous.” Now our Zhizhe accomplished the secret, wondrous contemplation; although his are fleshy eyes, they are named the Buddha-eye, and being able to see the secret treasury is also called “luminous.” Therefore *Miaole* says: “Being unveiled and brightly manifested is called the true secret; the principle of the true secret is the eternity of worldly marks; because worldly marks are eternal, sentient beings are identical with Buddha, because this principle is wondrous.” Having a Buddha’s teaching and conversion does not add a single hair; passing in vain without a Buddha does not subtract a single hair; obtaining it in the five identities is hardly worthy of being exalted; losing it in the identity in principle has never for a moment been lowered. In contrast to these four matters, the Buddha of principle is shown. Second, from “Like this” onward is the identity in verbal expression. From this up to the ultimate are all cultivated virtues, and must be discussed in terms of loss, gain, high, and low. Saying “identical with Buddha in verbal expression” is the beginning of cultivated virtue: hearing the names capable of expressing the aforementioned principle and nature. Yet there are inclusion and exclusion: under inclusion, when the Dharma sound passes through the ears, regardless of whether one is clear or dull, as long as it differs from not hearing at all, all are in this position; under exclusion, if one has not attained the Perfect hearing, even up to the internal ordinary ranks of the Separate [Teaching], one still belongs to the identical in principle, because with the seven expedients one has not understood the wondrous name, so how could one know that one is identical with Buddha? This itself is divided into two: first, showing the verbal expression along with a simile, in two: first, the loss of not hearing. Although the principle is Buddha, its entire essence is in delusion; when a Buddha appears, one does not hear, and the names of the sūtras are never heard: this then points back to the loss of mere principle. Second, from “If a Buddha” onward is the gain of hearing the name, discriminating the Buddha through the six identities. Therefore, verbal expression here is exclusively about the Three Jewels and the ten epithets. In the long night of ignorance, a Buddha appears to bring dawn; expounding the sun of inherent wisdom, one comes to recognize the light of the Three Jewels illuminating the world. At the great gate of birth and death, without a Buddha, it is locked forever; the Buddha is able to open the gate of nectar here, causing one to know that the ten epithets are the flavor of eternal abiding. This light and this flavor flow forth from the mental nature of sentient beings, and again cause sentient beings to understand that this light and flavor are the Buddha of original nature. “Because of explaining,” etc., points back to the simile of the poor woman's house possessing treasure. At first, not knowing there was a treasure trove in her house, she only suffered poverty and distress. When it was pointed out to her, she came to know of it; although the treasure was not yet dug up, joy arose beforehand. These doctrines and similes all show that in the name there is the meaning of knowing and discerning; the capable knower and the known are the Buddha in verbal expression. Second, from “Therefore, Sudatta” onward cites a person to clarify being identical with Buddha. In Sanskrit it is Sudatta, which is translated here as Good Giver, also called Anāthapiṇḍada. Chapter twenty-seven of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: “In Śrāvastī there was an elder named Sudatta. To find a wife for his son, he went to Rājagṛha and lodged in the house of Śaṇḍhāna. He saw that elder rise at midnight and adorn his house. He then asked: ‘Will you be inviting the King of Magadha?’ He answered: ‘I will be inviting the Buddha.’ When Sudatta first heard this, the hairs on his body all stood on end.

He asked again: ‘Where is he now?’ He answered: ‘At the Kalandaka monastery.’ Sudatta thought of wishing to see him, and at that moment he suddenly saw a radiance like daylight. Following the road he went forth; the city gate opened on its own. Seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, he realized the fruit of srotāpanna.” The commentary says “great gate,” which is the city gate. Now clarifying “hairs standing on end” is the awakening of astonishment. Hearing the name and giving rise to awakening is the Buddha of original nature. If one considers the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, it was recounting past events only after which he realized the first fruit, proving that when he heard the name, he had not yet been able to understand that awakening is original nature, and the Three Jewels and ten epithets in the preceding section also bordered on the Hīnayāna. Now, speaking in terms of leaping over periods and drawing out the underlying intent, the physical marks, names, preaching of Dharma, and saving of beings manifested during the five periods, down to a single thought of slight understanding in the listener—each and every one is the total nature giving rise to cultivation, and right where it is, there is nothing that is not the Buddha-dharma of original nature. Just as in the earlier whole teaching of a lifetime, the various incrementally numbered practices all merge into the perfect and eternal, and the four teachings and four gates only express a single principle. If one does not proceed from leaping over periods, how could one interpret that passage? Moreover, since the passage comes from the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, where the divisions have already been opened and reconciled, it therefore explains the Buddha in verbal expression in terms of the awakening of astonishment.