English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 386 passages, 226,553 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1861 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 70 parts
2 — 52 parts
3 — 35 parts
4 — 50 parts
5 — 56 parts
6 — 59 parts
7 — 47 parts

Text

First, the general analysis of the teachings, functions, doctrines, essential natures, and names. Within this, they are briefly distinguished through five gates: 1. Differences in the benefit of the teachings; 2. Distinctions in temporal efficacy; 3. Differences in expressed doctrine; 4. Diversity of essential nature; 5. Divergence in acquired names.

1.4

First, differences in the benefit of the teachings. This is again divided into two: first, explaining the benefit of the wheel; later, determining the benefit of meaning. In explaining the benefit of the wheel, it is again divided into two: first, explaining the different theories [of the Nikāya schools]; later, explaining the Mahāyāna. As for explaining the different theories: ten schools—the Bahuśrutīya, Sarvāstivāda, Haimavata, Vātsīputrīya, Dharmottarīya, Bhadrayānīya, Saṃmatīya, Ṣaṇṇagarika, Mahīśāsaka, and Sautrāntika—together state: Not all words of the Buddhas are for benefit; only when they adapt to the capacities of living beings and focus the mind on entering the path are they called beneficial. Only the eightfold noble path is the true dharmacakra, because having hub, rim, and spokes complete, it destroys kleśas, and is therefore called a wheel. Thus Vasumitra said: "Not all words of the Tathāgata turn the wheel of the Dharma; what the World-Honoured One said also contains statements not in accord with fact (arthasaṃhita). Because it expresses the eightfold path and has the eightfold path as its object, it is also called the dharmacakra. Other virtues and other teachings, though called sacred teachings, are not called the dharmacakra. For instance, when asking Ānanda: 'Is it raining?'; or asking the monks: 'Are alms easy for you to obtain? Is your physical strength at ease?'; what benefit is there in this? What turning of the wheel of the Dharma is this? Therefore, although the sūtras narrate the Buddha's words, some are not beneficial and are not the dharmacakra, as in the statement about 'slaying father and mother,' and the like—how must what is said in such a teaching accord with fact? Therefore, the Buddha also has words that do not accord with fact." These ten schools generally state that the sūtras contain words that do not accord with fact and thus speak untruths, and there are those that are not the dharmacakra and lack benefit. Another ten schools—the Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Kaukkuṭika, Prajñaptivāda, Caitika, Aparaśaila, Uttaraśaila, Dharmaguptaka, and Kāśyapīya—together state: All words of the Buddha are for benefit; nothing spoken by the Tathāgata fails to accord with fact; it is not only the eightfold noble path that is the true dharmacakra. All virtues capable of destroying afflictions are equally named the dharmacakra. Hence, all teachings that are causes and objects of the dharmacakra are called the dharmacakra. The *Samayabhedoparacanacakra* says: "All words of the Tathāgata turn the wheel of the Dharma, because crushing and rolling forward are called 'wheel'. When the Buddha's words roll forward into another's person, they crush the ignorance, afflictions, and so forth in that other person; hence they are designated as a 'wheel'. For example, asking Ānanda: 'Is it raining?' is to cause Ānanda to examine the matter carefully. When the Buddha, who is without non-knowledge, still asks about the rain, how much more should those without perfect wisdom examine things carefully? It also eliminates the arrogance of other people: if the Buddha who knows still asks, how much more should those who do not know examine carefully what they have not yet understood! Thus, due to many meanings, he asks about the rain. When the Buddha reveals compassion to cause others to enter the path, asking the monks whether alms are easy to obtain, he causes joyful minds to arise to practice the path with zeal. Rejoicing in his compassionate inquiry, they apply themselves diligently to study and practice; it also causes future [monks] to practice this matter in conformity with saṃvṛti. Furthermore, taking craving as mother, karma as father, consciousness with grasping as king, the two attachments of adherence to precepts and views as the two well-learned ones, the six internal sense bases as citizens, and the six external objects as accompanying beasts—being able to slay and sever these is called purity. Turning worldly harsh words to reveal paramārtha, this is not slaying one's biological mother and father; how must this fail to accord with the words? Therefore, all the three piṭakas spoken by the Buddha turn the wheel of the Dharma, are all beneficial, and all accord with fact without any empty speech." This is the first [part], explaining the different theories.

1.5

Explaining the Mahāyāna: although there is no explicit text stating that all words spoken by the Buddha accord with their meaning and all turn the wheel of the Dharma, yet the true dharmacakra is only the eightfold noble path; the rest, though not the primary, are auxiliary dharmacakras. The *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* says, "Turning the wheel of the Dharma thrice in the great chiliocosm," and so on; the *Lotus Sūtra* also says, "Proceeding straight to Vārāṇasī, he turned the dharmacakra of the four truths"; furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi*, fascicle 95, says, "The Buddha turned the profound dharmacakra of three revolutions and twelve aspects; among the three stages of seeing, cultivation, and the non-learner, he successively demonstrated the characteristics, exhorted cultivation, and realized proof. Contemplating the sphere of the four noble truths, the noble eye of prajñā is born; in each of the past, future, and present, eye, knowledge, vision, and awakening—the anāsrava real knowledge—arise in succession, capable of severing the kleśas that ought to be permanently severed; therefore, the eightfold noble path is the true dharmacakra." Fascicle 5 of the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* says, "The Buddha said to Ānanda: 'In brief, all deportment, movements, enjoyments, and actions of the Buddhas cause the sentient beings to be transformed to be tamed.'" Therefore, all are named Buddha-deeds, because the hub, rim, and spokes are spoken of distinctly. Its true dharmacakra is only the eightfold noble path, while all other virtues are auxiliary dharmacakras, because crushing and rolling forward are the meaning of a wheel. In fascicle 14 of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, it says: "Furthermore, good son! Whatever the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, speak is entirely named turning the wheel of the Dharma. Good son! Just as the wheel treasure possessed by a holy wheel-turning king can cause those who have not yet submitted to submit, and cause those who have already submitted to be at peace, whatever Dharma the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, preach is also like this: of the immeasurable kleśas, those not yet tamed are caused to be tamed, and those already tamed are caused to give rise to wholesome roots," and so on at length. Therefore, whatever movement of the Buddha's body and speech occurs is for benefit; hence we know that the Buddha's words are all called the dharmacakra. In brief, there are five aspects of the dharmacakra: 1. The essential nature of the dharmacakra, namely the eightfold noble path; 2. The objective sphere of the dharmacakra, namely the principle of the four truths and so forth; 3. The retinue of the dharmacakra, namely the other virtues of the five aggregates, and so forth; 4. The cause of the dharmacakra, namely the teaching and the three prajñās, and so forth; 5. The fruit of the dharmacakra, namely bodhi and nirvāṇa. As will naturally be explained at length in the 'Chapter on the Dharmacakra'. All Buddha-words are for benefit, causing other sentient beings, whether near or far, to be able to give rise to real knowledge and crush the enemy, all two hindrances; therefore, all that the Buddha says is called the dharmacakra, because crushing and moving forward are the meaning of a wheel. Because what the Buddha said conforms to reason, no objections can be raised, for it is free from the four faults: 1. Free from inappropriate place; 2. Free from inappropriate time; 3. Free from inappropriate recipient; 4. Free from inappropriate Dharma. 'Place' means the location, the place where benefit should be bestowed. If the teacher and those to be transformed are here and can be benefited, he must enact benefit within this [place]. 'Time' means the period, the season for benefit. If this life, this place, and this time are when benefit should be bestowed, he speaks in accordance with the time and never misses it. 'Recipient' means the capacity, the faculty that is engaged. Speaking in response to the capacity, there is no error. 'Dharma' means the teaching of the Dharma, the dharmas such as morality, samādhi, and prajñā that should confer benefit. If this dharma can benefit, he must engage the capacity with it without alienation or disorder. According to this reasoning, one can infer that the Buddha's words are all for sentient beings to give rise to anāsrava knowledge, whether near or far; therefore, all teachings of the three piṭakas, whether indirect or direct, are called the dharmacakra, all accord with the facts, are all beneficial, and contain no empty speech. Inquiries about rain and the like, as explained earlier, are all beneficial. Coarse words and fine words all return to paramārtha. The above has been the first part, explaining the benefit of the wheel.

1.6

As for determining the benefit of meaning, within this there are also two: first, determining the different theories; later, determining the Mahāyāna. In determining the different theories: ten schools including the Sarvāstivāda together state: Not all sūtras spoken by the Buddha are nītārtha; the Buddha himself said there are neyārtha sūtras. As a sūtra states: "Not having faith, ungrateful, cutting off the secret with no room to receive, constantly eating what humans vomit—such is the supreme man." This is named neyārtha; therefore, among all sūtras there are those that are neyārtha. Ten schools including the Mahāsāṃghika together state: The sūtras spoken by the Buddha are all nītārtha, conforming to reason, because all are the dharmacakra. What nītārtha is there in sūtras of intentional speech? One realizes the truth for oneself and does not believe the words of others. Being able to know perfect quiescence and knowing that it is not a conditioned favor, one is called 'ungrateful'; permanently abandoning future karma is called 'cutting off the secret'; future fruition not arising is 'having no room to receive'; though receiving requisites, treating them as if eating vomit—one who can be like this is named a 'supreme man'. Since this accords with correct reason, how could it not be nītārtha? The meaning of other sūtras should be understood by analogy with this. If so, why do the four reliances teach exhorting all disciples to rely on the nītārtha? It means exhorting them to rely on the nītārtha verbal teaching spoken by the World-Honoured One, not allowing disciples to rely on the neyārtha texts spoken by non-Buddhists; it is not that among the Buddha's sūtras there are neyārtha ones. This is first determining the different theories.

1.7

Determining the Mahāyāna: Fascicle 6 of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says, "The Śrāvakayāna teachings are like seeds newly planted that have not yet yielded fruit; therefore, one should not rely on the Śrāvakayāna—this is called neyārtha. One should rely upon the teachings of the Mahāyāna—this is called nītārtha." If one follows this reasoning, all Mahāyāna sūtras are called nītārtha, while the Śrāvakayāna and so forth are called neyārtha. However, fascicle 45 of the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "How does a bodhisattva cultivate the four correct reliances? Namely, a bodhisattva implants deep, correct faith and deep purity in the Tathāgata, thoroughly clarified, relying solely upon the Tathāgata's nītārtha classical scriptures, not on the neyārtha ones. Because nītārtha scriptures serve as the reliance, in the Dharma and Vinaya spoken by the Buddha, one cannot be led astray," as explained at length there. Therefore, in the Mahāyāna, one should say that among the teachings of the three piṭakas spoken by the Buddha, there are those of neyārtha, because of the exhortation that one should rely on the nītārtha sūtras. If so, why does the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* say that the Mahāyāna scriptures are named nītārtha? This reasoning does not hold. Can it be that all Mahāyāna scriptures are nītārtha? For example, sūtras say that sensual lust is itself the path, or perceiving the impermanent as permanent. They also speak of sūtras with intentional import stating that all dharmas are without arising and without ceasing. Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "Neyārtha teachings are sūtras, geyas, vyākaraṇas, and such sūtras." Could it be that within Mahāyāna sūtras there are no sūtras and so forth? It also says that a bodhisattva who acts greedily like an *upātta* possesses the vinaya, and so forth; therefore, Mahāyāna sūtras are not all nītārtha. Because of such reasoning, although there is no explicit text, we now explain nītārtha and neyārtha through their meaning, which briefly has four layers: 1. The gate of being sealed versus not sealed by Dharma seals; 2. The gate of expressing the permanent versus the impermanent; 3. The gate of explicit versus hidden and esoteric; 4. The gate of brief words versus expansive speech.

1.8

As for the gate of being sealed versus not sealed by Dharma seals: there are three Dharma seals: 1. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent; 2. Nirvāṇa is quiescence; 3. All dharmas are without self. Or four udānas are stated, adding 'All sāsrava phenomena are suffering.' If all teachings are sealed by the rational seal of these three kinds, they are called nītārtha; those that contradict the three Dharma seals and so forth are not nītārtha sūtras. By this reasoning, none of the three piṭakas, the two vehicles, and the twelve divisions of teaching are not nītārtha, because they can abandon kleśas, karma, and suffering. The teachings of non-Buddhists are not nītārtha scriptures, because they cannot permanently abandon afflictions, karma, and suffering. Therefore, fascicle 64 of the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "How many refuges are there? For what reason are there only so many refuges? There are three refuges: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṃgha. There are so many refuges due to four conditions: 1. Because the Tathāgata's nature is well-tamed," and so on at length; "because the Buddha is like this, the Dharma and Vinaya spoken by that Buddha can also be taken as refuge." The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* also says: "Whatever can be spoken by all non-Buddhists is entirely false speech; therefore, only the Buddha's teaching is the nītārtha scripture." Because they conform to the three Dharma seals and so forth, they can be taken as refuge; the teachings of non-Buddhists are neyārtha speech because, contradicting the three Dharma seals and so forth, they cannot be taken as refuge. Even if sacred teachings state only that the Buddha's teaching is nītārtha speech while what is spoken by non-Buddhists is called non-nītārtha, this gate resolves it: it is not that within the Buddha's teaching there is only the nītārtha.

1.9

Regarding the approach of explaining permanence and non-permanence: as the sixth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Furthermore, the Śrāvakayāna is called neyārtha; only the unexcelled Mahāyāna is called nītārtha. If it says that the Tathāgata is impermanent and subject to change, it is called neyārtha. If it says that the Tathāgata is eternally abiding and unchanging, it is called nītārtha." The meaning of this sūtra is: if a sūtra states that the Buddha is the dharmakāya, eternally abiding and unchanging, it is called nītārtha; whatever contradicts this is called neyārtha. The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the seventy-sixth fascicle of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi state: "In the past, solely for those embarking on the Śrāvakayāna, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma through the characteristics of the four truths. Although this was marvelous, it was surpassable and was neyārtha." This shows that the Mahāyāna is nītārtha sūtra[s], whereas the teachings of the Śrāvakayāna are called non-nītārtha. Here, provisionally, what is elucidated is called nītārtha on the basis of the vehicle; it is not that among all Mahāyāna texts there are none that are neyārtha, nor that among the Śrāvakayāna sūtras there are none at all that are nītārtha. As such scriptural testimonies will subsequently be cited, it is therefore on the basis of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] that explaining the truly permanent Buddha is called nītārtha, and explaining the non-permanent Buddha is called non-nītārtha.

1.10

Regarding the approach of explicit and implicit: the forty-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Furthermore, bodhisattvas plant deep right faith and deep purity in the Tathāgata, completely serene, and rely solely on the Tathāgata's nītārtha scriptures, not on the neyārtha. Because they take the nītārtha scriptures as their reliance, they cannot be seduced away from the Dharma and Vinaya spoken by the Buddha. For the neyārtha sūtras spoken by the Buddha distinguish the meaning of fundamental nature through various approaches, yet this is not yet definitive and still gives rise to doubt and confusion, because they are not nītārtha." Relying on this text, within the Mahāyāna, explicit teachings are called nītārtha, and implicit teachings are non-nītārtha sūtras. The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī also state: "In the past, during the second period, solely for those embarking on the practice of the Mahāyāna, based on all phenomena being without intrinsic nature, unarisen, and unceasing, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma through an implicit manner. Although even more marvelous, it was also surpassable and was not yet nītārtha." That is to say, the teachings that all intrinsic natures are empty and the teachings on the three non-natures are called non-nītārtha. The ninth fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun states: "Therefore, the Buddha, with implicit intent, stated that all phenomena are without intrinsic nature; it is not that nature is entirely non-existent. Stating that it was spoken with implicit intent reveals that it is non-nītārtha." Therefore, when Mahāyāna sūtras speak of the characteristics of all phenomena, if the expressions are not explicit and what is explained is not ultimate, they are called neyārtha. If the expressions are explicit and what is explained is the ultimate principle, they are called nītārtha sūtras. This is because they are called nītārtha on the basis that the expounding expressions are explicit and unequivocal.

1.11

Regarding the approach of abbreviated speech and extensive discourse: the sixty-fourth fascicle of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "A neyārtha sūtra refers to teachings such as sūtras, geyas, and vyākaraṇas, which the World-Honoured One stated in brief, and whose meaning is not yet definitive and should be further explained. A nītārtha teaching is the opposite of this, and its characteristics should be known accordingly." What is meant here is: even in the case of clear and explicit teachings of the Mahāyāna, if they initially only speak in brief, such that the discourse on the principle is not exhaustive and what is clarified is not comprehensive, they are called neyārtha; it is not because what is explained is not the ultimate principle that they are called neyārtha. From this it is clear that the various Śrāvakayāna teachings also have nītārtha: apart from sūtras and the like, the remaining [genres such as] udānas possess extensive discourse and are therefore called nītārtha sūtras. Within the Mahāyāna's clear and explicit teachings, because sūtras and the like speak the Dharma in brief expressions without extensive discourse, there are also neyārtha teachings. This differentiates nītārtha and neyārtha according to whether the words explaining the meaning are extensive or brief, not according to whether the principle explained is ultimate or non-ultimate. Among these [four approaches], the first differentiates nītārtha and neyārtha in order to cause sentient beings to abandon the false and return to the correct: all Buddhist sūtras are called nītārtha, and what is spoken by non-Buddhists is called neyārtha. The second differentiates nītārtha and neyārtha in order to cause them to abandon the lesser and return to the great: all Mahāyāna teachings are called nītārtha, and the various Hīnayāna teachings are called neyārtha. The third differentiates nītārtha and neyārtha in order to cause them to abandon the implicit and return to the explicit: all explicit verbal teachings of the Mahāyāna are called nītārtha, while those that expound the Dharma implicitly, even though Mahāyāna, are called neyārtha. The fourth differentiates nītārtha and neyārtha in order to cause them to know the brevity and extensiveness of the Dharma: verse-recapitulating sūtras are called neyārtha because their words are brief and inexhaustive, while non-verse-recapitulating sūtras are called nītārtha because their words are extensive and exhaustive. By means of these four approaches to nītārtha and neyārtha, the words 'nītārtha' and 'neyārtha' across all teachings are explained. Therefore, although Mahāyāna sūtras are all called nītārtha, one must still make selections among them. When urging disciples to rely on the nītārtha, they should deliberate extensively according to what is appropriate and match it to whatever teaching is being expounded. All the above pertains to differences in the benefits of the teachings.

1.12

Second, the differences regarding time and benefit are further divided into two parts: first, recounting ancient theories; second, explaining the present text. Within recounting ancient theories, there are again two parts: first, recounting ancient theories; second, recounting their flaws.

Regarding recounting ancient theories: In the Later Wei dynasty, there was the Dharma master Bodhiruci (here translated as Jue'ai ["Awakened Love"]), who posited only a single-period teaching. The Buddha attained mastery; he never aroused any intention of speaking or not speaking. It is merely that sentient beings have resonances, and at all times conceive that he preaches all dharmas. For example, just as heavenly music produces diverse sounds according to the thoughts of sentient beings, or just as a maṇi jewel rains diverse treasures according to what is wished for. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "In a single utterance of the Tathāgata, an ocean of boundless sūtras is expounded." The Vimalakīrti-sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice; sentient beings each obtain understanding according to their kinds: some feel dread, some rejoice, some give rise to revulsion, and some cut off doubts." Therefore, no single teaching is definitively sudden or definitively gradual. Furthermore, the Wuliangyi jing says: "Since I attained the path forty-odd years ago, I have constantly spoken of all dharmas as non-arising and non-ceasing, neither going nor coming, without this and without that, without gain and without loss, of a single characteristic which is markless. It is only because sentient beings differ in their awakening and comprehension that the fruits they attain are different." The Lotus Sūtra also says: "A single rain moistens universally, yet the three kinds of grasses and two kinds of trees grow differently." The Upāsaka-sūtra says: "When three beasts cross a river, shallow and deep form distinctions." Hence we know that all teachings are merely collectively of a single period; there are no two, three, or more.

Furthermore, venerable masters of the past established two teachings: sudden and gradual. For bodhisattvas of great faculties and great stems, he spoke such sūtras as the Avataṃsaka, Laṅkāvatāra, Mahāmegha, Mahābherī, and Śrīmālā. Within a single assembly, the principles of the two truths were fully expounded; this was named "sudden." The great did not arise from the small, hence it was named "sudden." From the tree of awakening at the beginning to the twin trees at the end, he preached the Dharma gradually from shallow to deep: teachings on cause and effect, the three refuges, the five precepts, the ten good deeds, and so forth; the teachings of existence of the three vehicles such as the Āgamas; the teachings of emptiness such as the Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣacinti, and Mahāprajñāpāramitā; the one vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra; and the eternal Buddha-nature spoken of in the Nirvāṇa and other sūtras. These are all gradual assemblies that integrate the three vehicles; the great arising from the small was named "gradual."

Moreover, Dharma master Bodhiruci also established a two-period teaching. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "As for gradual and sudden: whether śrāvakas or bodhisattvas, all practice gradually from shallow to deep; this is called 'gradual.' 'Sudden' means that the Tathāgata can expound all dharmas suddenly at one time; this is called 'sudden.'"

There are also two teachings: first, the half-word teaching; second, the full-word teaching. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "How does one understand the meanings of the full letter and the half letter?" It also says: "For the śrāvaka vehicle, he spoke the half letter; for the bodhisattva vehicle, he spoke the full letter." Moreover, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: "There are the four noble truths with action, and the four noble truths without action. Śrāvakas know those with action; the Buddha knows those without action." The Yogācārabhūmi and other texts speak of established truths and non-established truths. Speaking only of the established is named the half teaching; universally speaking of the non-established is named the full teaching.

There are also two teachings: first, the teaching of the emptiness of persons; second, the teaching of the emptiness of dharmas. The Viṃśatikā says: "Relying on this teaching, one can enter the selflessness of pudgalas and the selflessness of grasped dharmas; and through other teachings, one enters again." This explains half and full by means of the two emptinesses and the two hindrances.

There are also two teachings: first, the paramārtha truth; second, the saṃvṛti truth.

During the Jin dynasty, the hermit Liu Qiu established a five-period teaching. Some say that Tripiṭaka master Paramārtha established a five-period teaching, yet Dharma master Bodhiruci composed separate commentaries refuting it. Paramārtha resided in the Liang dynasty, while Bodhiruci was in the Wei dynasty; hence we know this was not made by Paramārtha and others. The first period: when the Buddha first attained the path, for Trapuṣa, Bhallika, and five hundred merchants, he only expounded the worldly teaching of cause and effect—the three refuges, the five precepts, and the ten good deeds; that is, the Sūtra on the Fundamental Practice of the Five Precepts for Trapuṣa and Others—because they were not yet vessels for supramundane roots of goodness. The second period: within twelve years outside the three seven-day periods after the Buddha attained the path, he expounded only the teachings on practice of existence of the three vehicles, not yet speaking of emptiness for them; that is, the Hīnayāna sūtras such as the Āgamas. The third period: within thirty years after the Buddha attained the path, he spoke the teaching of emptiness practiced in common by those three vehicles; that is, sūtras such as the Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣacinti, and Mahāprajñāpāramitā. The fourth period: within forty years after the Buddha attained the path, he spoke of there being one vehicle, yet he had not clearly expounded Buddha-nature as eternally abiding and substantially existent, still speaking of an impermanent Buddha to reveal the one-vehicle Buddha-fruit as real; that is, the Lotus Sūtra. This is because earlier he had not yet clarified the meaning of the one vehicle, and here he had not yet clearly expounded eternally abiding Buddha-nature. The fifth period: speaking in the twin trees that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, the teaching of an eternally abiding Buddha; that is, sūtras such as the Nirvāṇa-sūtra and the Mahākaruṇā-sūtra. Although this might be so, since there is no authentic text in the sūtras and treatises stating it, it cannot yet be relied upon and trusted. Up to this point has been recounting ancient theories.

Regarding recounting their flaws: Taking first Dharma master Bodhiruci, who established only a single-period teaching: if one sets aside phenomena to talk about principle, and if within one assembly there are faculties of both great and small, it could be as he says. But if an assembly addresses only the great, as in the Śrīmālā-sūtra, or addresses only the small, as in the Yijiao jing; or if at first there is the great without the small, as in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra where only upon reaching the "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" are there śrāvakas; or if at first there is the small without the great—although no text has yet been seen, in principle it must be so. Categories of teachings like these are very numerous. Or there are sūtras with entirely or mostly distinct teachings for the great and the small; to say it was only a single period is extremely reckless. Could it be that there are no assemblies where the minds of the three vehicles are aroused suddenly, and none where one enters the Mahāyāna gradually?

Second, the ancient masters said there were sudden and gradual [teachings]. Although in principle it might be so, definitively classifying various sūtras as sudden or gradual makes the meaning difficult to understand. For instance, in the "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, five hundred śrāvakas were seated in the assembly, with their names listed and virtues praised; furthermore, Śāriputra led six thousand disciples out of his own chamber, and Mañjuśrī expounded ten dharmas for them, whereupon they aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra as well, śrāvakas are listed as seated in the assembly. In the Mahābherī-sūtra, the parable of the impoverished son is spoken, identical to the "Chapter on Faith and Understanding" in the Lotus Sūtra. The Śrīmālā-sūtra speaks of the meaning of the three kinds of mind-made bodies and the one vehicle. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Because of guiding and gathering one class of indeterminate nature," it is not a sudden teaching. Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka were not necessarily expounded from beginning to end to address those of great faculties and practices, so that they could all be named "sudden." As for definitively stating that the sūtras expounded in the five periods were gradual teachings, their flaws will be recounted later.

Third, regarding Dharma master Bodhiruci's establishing the two teachings of sudden and gradual based on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: this too is not correct. That sūtra takes the Buddha's ability to expound the Dharma suddenly, taking the exposition as sudden; and it takes the persons of the three vehicles practicing and learning gradually, naming it gradual. It takes the practice as gradual, not referring to the periods of teaching; hence it also cannot be accepted.

Fourth, regarding establishing the half and full teachings based on the Nirvāṇa-sūtra and so forth: those all determine half and full on the basis of whether the principle explained is exhaustive or unexhaustive; they do not definitively establish half and full based on accommodating faculties via direct progression or roundabout convergence.

Fifth, regarding Liu Qiu's establishing five periods: now, relying provisionally on Dharma master Bodhiruci's repudiation, this meaning is not correct. The Tiwei jing states that when the five hundred merchants were about to receive the five precepts, they first repented their offenses such as the five deadly sins, the ten unwholesome actions, and slandering the Dharma, and attained the fundamental purity of the four great elements, the fundamental purity of the five skandhas, the fundamental purity of the six sense objects, and the fundamental purity of the ego. At that time, Trapuṣa and others attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; three hundred merchants attained compliant acceptance; two hundred merchants attained the fruit of srotāpanna; the Four Heavenly Kings and others attained compliant acceptance; three hundred dragon kings attained acceptance based on faith; the remaining devas and others aroused the resolve for supreme bodhi; and one billion devas and humans all practiced the ten good deeds of a bodhisattva. The elder Trapuṣa eradicated the suffering of the three realms and attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, which is the first ground or the eighth ground. Furthermore, the Lalitavistara states that during the second seven-day period, Trapuṣa and the other five hundred merchants offered roasted flour and honey to the Buddha, and the Buddha bestowed a prophecy upon them: "In a future life you will attain buddhahood, named Qicheng [Evenly Accomplished]." How could one say that the first period contained only worldly teachings? Although this refutation is made, its meaning is also difficult to know: since there were merchants who attained stream-entry and so forth, why is this day not called turning the wheel of the Dharma, and only when it reached the five bhikṣus was the wheel of the Dharma turned? It is because he had not yet clearly expounded the truths commonly contemplated by the three vehicles; therefore, it was not yet named turning the wheel of the Dharma.

Next, regarding the second period, wherein for twelve years only the teaching of existence was spoken, Jue'ai refuted this, saying: "This too is not so. In the fifth year after attaining the path, he spoke the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, directly clarifying true reality. In the seventh year, for eight bodhisattvas, he spoke the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra, directly clarifying that the five aggregates of sentient beings are fundamentally empty. In the ninth year he spoke the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra, and in the tenth year he spoke the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, both clarifying the profound principle of nirvāṇa and Buddha-nature. Moreover, sūtras such as the Tiwei jing and Lalitavistara all clarify bodhisattva practice. Furthermore, he bestowed a prophecy of buddhahood upon the merchants, making clear that when he first attained the path he had already expounded the Mahāyāna. In addition, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: When the Buddha turned the wheel of the four truths in the Deer Park, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of a śrāvaka, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of a pratyekabuddha, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and practiced the six pāramitās, immeasurable bodhisattvas attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and dwelt on the first ground, second ground, third ground, up to the tenth ground, and immeasurable bodhisattvas bound to one more birth simultaneously attained buddhahood. Furthermore, on the second seven-day period after attaining the path, he spoke the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. How could one say that within the twelve years he only spoke the teaching of existence and did not speak the Mahāyāna?"

Consider also the Lotus Sūtra, which says: "During three seven-day periods I constantly contemplated this matter," meaning that during the three seven-day periods after attaining the path, he did not preach the Dharma. The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says: "Upon first attaining the path, he remained in samādhi for seven days." The Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: "For seven days he did not preach the Dharma, to demonstrate that he personally enjoyed the bliss of the Dharma, and to cause sentient beings to increase love and respect toward the Tathāgata." However, the Vinaya and the Sarvāstivāda biographies state: After six seven-day periods passed, Brahmā came to request [it], and only then did he preach the Dharma, initially delivering the five persons; that is, only after forty-two days did he preach the Dharma. The Shi'eryou jing says: "After attaining the path, he did not preach the Dharma for one year; and after twelve years passed, he delivered the five persons." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "For fifty-seven days after first attaining the path, the Buddha did not preach the Dharma." Someone explained: "This means fifty [times] seven days, which is the same as the Shi'eryou jing's statement that he did not preach the Dharma for one year." As these sūtras and accounts already differ regarding the days after attaining the Buddha path during which he did not preach the Dharma, how could one rely on one's own fabricated opinion to say that for twelve years he only spoke the teaching of existence?

Furthermore, if before and after he delivered only a single capacity, it could be as they say; but since capacities are of a thousand sorts, how could there be a single standard? Now, following the ancient explanations, I have briefly refuted the first two; the remaining three periods are refuted at length as found in Dharma master Bodhiruci's separate account. This is the distinct refutation of establishing different teachings. However, although what they establish may seem plausible in principle, since there is no textual authority, it cannot be relied upon, and it contradicts the periods spoken of in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. Up to this point has been recounting their flaws. Together with the preceding, both constitute recounting ancient theories.

1.13

In stating the present view, there are again two parts: first, stating the present text; second, briefly setting forth the teachings. As for stating the present text: according to the first fascicle of the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra* and fascicle seventy-six of the *Yogācārabhūmi* (*Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī*), the World-Honoured One, for the sake of the Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata, extensively taught the characterlessness of marks based on the absence of intrinsic characteristics in the imagined nature; based on the absence of self-nature arising naturally upon the dependent nature, he taught the characterlessness of arising; and, relying precisely upon this, he taught that one portion of the ultimate characterlessness is without the imagined nature, and based on the ultimate reality's being free from the imagined nature, he also taught the other portion of the ultimate characterlessness. Having explained that the three kinds of characterlessness are all based on the imagined nature, Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata gained deep comprehension, and after extensively setting forth the various worldly similes of the universal antidote (*viśva-bhaiṣajya*), the painting surface, clarified butter, and empty space, the World-Honoured One praised him for well understanding what was taught. Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata addressed the Buddha again, saying: 'Formerly, at one time, in the Deer Park at the place where the sages fell in Vārāṇasī, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma with the marks of the four truths solely for the sake of those setting out in the śrāvaka vehicle. Although this was most marvelous and most wondrous, something that none among all worldly devas and humans had ever before been able to turn in accordance with the Dharma, yet the wheel of the Dharma turned at that time was surpassable, had room for improvement, was of neyārtha meaning, and was a lodging place for disputes. Formerly, in the second period, solely for those setting out to practice the Mahāyāna, relying on the fact that all phenomena are without self-nature, unarisen, unceasing, fundamentally tranquil, and naturally in nirvāṇa, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma with hidden marks. Although this was even more marvelous and even more wondrous, yet the wheel of the Dharma turned at that time was also surpassable, admitted of further development, was still of neyārtha meaning, and was a lodging place for disputes. Now, in this third period, universally for those setting out in all vehicles, relying on the fact that all phenomena are without self-nature, unarisen, unceasing, fundamentally tranquil, and that their nature is nirvāṇa without self-nature, the World-Honoured One has turned the wheel of the true Dharma with explicit marks, which is supremely marvelous and most wondrous of all. Now the wheel of the Dharma turned by the World-Honoured One is unsurpassed, leaves nothing unsaid, is truly nītārtha, and is not a lodging place for disputes.' At that time, the World-Honoured One said to Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata: 'Paramārthasamudgata! If a good son or good daughter, having heard the sutras of neyārtha meaning, believes and understands, copies, protects and upholds, makes offerings to, disseminates, recites, reviews, and properly reflects upon them, initiating preparations by the marks of their cultivation—compared with the merit accumulated by hearing, believing, understanding, and up to extensively explaining the teachings of nītārtha meaning and initiating preparations by the marks of their cultivation, it does not equal one hundredth part, nor even one upaniṣad part. The merit produced by this can hardly be known through similes; I shall now explain it briefly. It is like the soil on a fingernail compared to the soil of the great earth, or like the water in a cow's footprint compared to the waters of the four great oceans: it does not equal one hundredth part, nor even one upaniṣad part.' When this sutra was spoken, six hundred thousand sentient beings gave rise to the bodhicitta, three hundred thousand śrāvakas removed dust and left behind defilement to attain the purity of the Dharma-eye, one hundred and fifty thousand śrāvakas forever extinguished all outflows and attained mental liberation, and seventy-five thousand bodhisattvas attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas. The *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra* also speaks of three periods, namely: turning, illuminating, and upholding. The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says that at first it causes all to drink milk, next teaches total cessation of milk, and later teaches that some should drink while others should not; this shares the same meaning as what is stated in the *Saṃdhinirmocana*. In the *Yogācāra* commentary, these three periods differ slightly, but the doctrinal intent has no distinction. Relying on this authentic proof, if categorized by the stages according to partial or complete capacities, the teachings are only of three periods, neither one nor five. All the above states the present text.

1.14

As for briefly setting forth the teachings: the four Āgamas and so forth are the teachings of the first period; the various sutras teaching emptiness are the teachings of the second period, because they generally declare all phenomena to be without self-nature with hidden words; the *Avataṃsaka*, *Saṃdhinirmocana*, and *Vijñaptimātratā* teachings are the third period, because they explicitly declare the Middle Way teaching of the three non-natures, neither empty nor existent. Because all ordinary beings, arising from beginningless time, errantly grasp at the existence of a self without understanding the self's nonexistence, sinking into the river of craving and reincarnating in the ocean of delusion, the Buddha first taught the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths to make them understand that the self is empty and only phenomena exist. Kauṇḍinya and the others initially attained the path; having heard that phenomena exist and realizing that the self is entirely empty, they then grasped phenomena as truly existent, clinging to the small fruit and not seeking the great stage. As an expedient means, the Buddha then taught the emptiness of phenomena to break down the clinging to existence; therefore, in the next period he taught the *Prajñāpāramitā* and so forth, stating that all phenomena are fundamentally nonexistent in their nature. Subhūti and others turned their minds toward the Mahāyāna; having heard the hidden verbal teachings on the emptiness of phenomena, they then rejected the nature and marks of all phenomena as entirely nonexistent, [asking]: what is there to cultivate? What is there to abandon? To eliminate this, the Buddha further taught the doctrine of *Vijñaptimātratā* and the three natures; Paramārthasamudgata and others believed, understood, cultivated, and studied them. The imagined nature is nonexistent, knowing that both phenomena and self are dispelled; the dependent and perfected natures are existent, illuminating that both the ultimate and the conventional are preserved. It is called nonexistent because of the nonexistence of what is nonexistent, and called existent because of the existence of what is existent. What is stated to be existent while existent may also be called nonexistent, because the imagined nature is nonexistent in both the ultimate and conventional; what is stated to be nonexistent while nonexistent may also be called existent, because the two types, self and phenomena, appear before the deluded mind. Causing the grasped self and phenomena to be eliminated makes them nonexistent; leaving behind grasping and lodging them in linguistic designation makes the ultimate and conventional called existent. Falsely designating self and phenomena is neither nonexistent nor not nonexistent: they appear existent before the mind, but based on substance they are nonexistent; falsely designating the ultimate and conventional is neither existent nor not existent: they do not accord with deluded feelings, yet their substance is not nonexistent. Because self and phenomena are nonexistent, all grasping is dispelled; because the ultimate and conventional are existent, all states free of grasping are preserved. Hence one should say: for the deluded mind, all four propositions are wrong; for the enlightened mind, all four propositions are right. Teaching that the objective realm of self and phenomena is empty refutes the initial clinging to existence; teaching that the mind's ultimate and conventional exist refutes the subsequent clinging to emptiness. Those with one-sided views, upon first hearing the teaching of existence, are immediately delighted and slander emptiness; later, upon hearing the teaching of emptiness, they are again pleased and slander existence. Now, what is termed the Middle Way teaching of neither empty nor existent is the third period. In terms of principle and capacity, for those who enter the path gradually, where the great arises from the small, there are the three periods of teachings in sequential order, which is the consciousness-only taught in the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra*. If one does not enter the path gradually, where the great does not arise from the small, then there are no before and after among the three periods of teachings. In terms of the majority, this refers to the teaching of mind-only in the *Avataṃsaka* and others at the initial attainment of the path. For the most part, sudden and gradual have no distinct teaching gates, as benefit is conferred according to what is appropriate in a single assembly: the *Avataṃsaka* states that śrāvakas were in the assembly; the *Saṃdhinirmocana* also has śrāvakas generating the aspiration [for bodhi]; the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* also speaks of the One Vehicle, mind-made bodies, and so forth; the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states that the One Vehicle is taught for indeterminate persons; and the 'Discrimination of Merits' chapter in the *Lotus Sūtra* says: 'When the Buddha preached the chapter on the Life Span of the Tathāgata, sentient beings numerous as the dust motes of eight worlds generated the bodhicitta.' Such passages are found repeatedly above and below; hence we know that the *Lotus Sūtra* also accommodates those of sudden awakening, and the *Avataṃsaka* also has persons of gradual awakening. If one adheres to Bodhiruci's view that there is definitively only one period without gradual stages, this contradicts the *Saṃdhinirmocana*'s teaching of three periods. If one adheres to Liu Qiu's view that there are definitively five periods in sequential order, this again lacks textual support. However, as they contradict the three periods, we do not follow them now. If based on the capacities of sentient beings and on principle, there can be teachings of sudden and gradual, but this differs from the old interpretations. If one does not determine a sutra as sudden or gradual based on capacity and principle, and increases or decreases the periods, then sudden and gradual are not established; hence the *Triṃśikā* says: 'I do not explain it to fools,' which does not exclude the indeterminate and determinate natures, this being based on the realization of the fruit. If one considers humans and devas, then there would be four periods; since practitioners of the two vehicles study the Dharma through expedients, that is their initial learning, so it is omitted here. Now, relying on the master's instruction, I have briefly related the past and present differences in periods and benefits; let those with wisdom accept or reject them at will.

1.15

Third, the tenets expounded by the respective schools differ. A 'tenet' (zong) means that which is revered, honoured, and taken as primary. That which the sacred teachings revere, honour, and take as primary is called a 'tenet'. For instance, non-Buddhists and Buddhists, the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna, each have differences in the teachings they revere, honour, and take as primary, which are described as distinctions among tenets. Ancient masters of great virtue generally established four schools: first, the school that posits nature, such as the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*; second, the school that refutes nature, such as the *Tattvasiddhi*; third, the school that refutes characteristics, such as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and *Śata-śāstra*; fourth, the school that reveals the real, such as the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. Now we do not do so, but divide this into two parts: first, setting forth other schools; second, listing our own master [teachings]. Within setting forth other schools, there are again two parts: first, setting forth the non-Buddhists; second, setting forth the Hīnayāna. As for setting forth the non-Buddhists, although there are ninety-five varieties of non-Buddhists, their general imports do not exceed the sixteen divergent doctrines, as expounded in detail in fascicles six and seven of the *Yogācārabhūmi* and fascicles nine and ten of the *Xianyang shengjiao lun*. Those treatises both state: 'Asserting that an effect exists within the cause, manifestation, the existence of past and future, self, eternity, past deeds as cause, Īśvara and the like, killing as Dharma, the finite and infinite, amarāvikkhepa, views of causelessness, annihilation, voidness, claiming superiority, purification, and auspiciousness are called the sixteen divergent doctrines.' 1. The school asserting that the effect exists within the cause: that is, the Varṣagaṇya non-Buddhists assert that in the causes of phenomena there is always the nature of the effect. For example, grain takes paddy as its cause; when one seeks grain, one sows only paddy; grain must arise from paddy and not from wheat; hence we know that in the cause of the paddy the nature of the grain already exists beforehand. If it were not so, all things should arise from all phenomena. 2. The school of manifestation from conditions: that is, the Sāṃkhyas and the Śabdavādins. The Sāṃkhya masters assert: the intrinsic nature of all phenomena's entities originally exists; it is manifested through multiple conditions, not produced by conditions. If it were not manifested by conditions, the effect would previously exist, and for it to arise again from the cause would not be logical. The Śabdavādins say: the entity of sound is eternal and its characteristics originally exist, without arising or ceasing; but it is manifested through repeated vocal utterance. 3. The school asserting that the past and future are real existents: that is, the Vaiśeṣika non-Buddhists, those who assert time, and others also make this assertion: the past and future periods exist, just like the present; they are real existents and not nominal. Although this is shared with the Hīnayāna, here we take the non-Buddhists. 4. The school asserting the real existence of a self: that is, the Pāśupatas and all other non-Buddhists all make this assertion: there is a self (ātman), a sentient being (sattva), a soul (jīva), a living creature (jantu), and the like. Because of the arising of the five awarenesses, one knows there is a self, which means that when seeing form, the awareness of a sattva, etc., arises. 5. The school asserting that all phenomena are eternal: that is, the Aiṣīkas assert that the self and the world are both eternal; this includes the assertions of universal eternity, partial eternity, and so on. Asserting that subtle atoms are eternal is also subsumed under this. 6. The school asserting that all causes are past deeds: that is, the Nirgrantha-jñātiputras, also called shameless non-Buddhists. They assert that the suffering currently experienced all has past deeds as its cause; if one makes present effort, one will cast off old karma. Because of being destroyed by not creating causes, in this way afterward there will be no more outflows. 7. The school asserting Īśvara and the like as the cause: that is, those who assert an unequal cause; they take their name according to what they worship, such as Maheśvara. Or they assert that all phenomena are transformations of Maheśvara, or transformations of Puruṣa, or transformations of Mahābrahmā, or have time, space, the self, and so on as their cause. 8. The school asserting that killing is correct Dharma: that is, when the age of strife arose, the brahmins falsely conceived this assertion out of a desire to eat meat. If killing living beings is preceded by sacrifice and incantations, the sacrificer, the victim killed, and the assistants will all obtain birth in heaven. 9. The school of the finite and infinite: that is, the finite and infinite non-Buddhists who attain mundane dhyāna and dwell in the ideation of existence and non-existence, asserting that the world is finite, infinite, both, or neither. 10. The school of amarāvikkhepa: that is, the non-Buddhists of amarāvikkhepa. 11. The school asserting that all phenomena are causeless: that is, the causeless non-Buddhists, asserting that the self and the world arise without a cause. 12. The school of seven-point annihilation: that is, the annihilationist non-Buddhists, asserting seven-point annihilation. 13. The school asserting that cause and effect are entirely void: non-Buddhists with false views assert that there is no nurturing, etc.; seeing that those who do good instead take rebirth in bad destinies, and seeing that those who do evil instead take rebirth in good destinies, they then claim it to be void. Or they generally negate everything as completely void. 14. The school falsely asserting superiority: that is, in the age of strife, the brahmins asserted: 'Brahmins are the supreme class, the sons of Brahmā, born from his belly and mouth; other classes are inferior and not sons of Brahmā.' 15. The school falsely asserting purification: that is, the non-Buddhists of nirvāṇa in the present life, and the non-Buddhists of purification by water and the like. They assert that tenaciously clinging to and enjoying the subtle five desires among the heavens is called attaining nirvāṇa in the present life, and so on up to extensive explanations; observing the cattle and dog vows is also like this. 16. The school falsely asserting auspiciousness: that is, the astrological non-Buddhists. If the sun and moon undergo eclipses, or the constellations lose their courses, etc., or if one follows the sun and moon then all desires are accomplished, one should diligently make offerings to the sun, moon, and stars, up to what is expounded in detail in that treatise. The above is the first part, setting forth the non-Buddhists.

First 15 of 398 passages. Read on