止觀輔行傳弘決 5.64

From "Now we should" below, it next clarifies vertical refutation. Because it challenges them with vertical dharmas, it is called "vertical refutation." What is meant by "vertical dharmas" is that there are shallows and depths, beginning from the five stops [of the mind] of the Tripiṭaka [teaching] and culminating in the wondrous awakening of the perfect teaching; the manifestation of these stages is termed "arising." If you speak of arising, what kind of arising is it? Furthermore, this vertical refutation is not the same as the verticality of the gradual three truths: the gradual three truths rely on the truths to refute afflictions, and because the sequence of before and after is different, it is called "vertical." Here, it simply brings vertical dharmas to challenge them, challenging them on forming views; since it is a view, it must be refuted, hence it is called "vertical refutation." Just as when provisionality was explained earlier, it still clarified provisionality in terms of the four teachings of the Buddha-dharma, and all provisionalities must be refuted; now, in clarifying the refutation of provisionality, it still distinguishes stages in terms of the four teachings of the Buddha-dharma to challenge their viewing mind. Since it is entirely absent in all teachings, what could it be if not a view? It definitely belongs to a view of existence and is by no means the arising of a stage. From "Is it the five stops" below, it is arising in the stages of the Tripiṭaka. What is meant by "forbearance of suffering" and so forth refers to the first among the sixteen minds of the outflow-free, up to the sixteenth, which is the subsequent cognition of the path. From "Is it dry wisdom" below, it is arising in the stages of the shared teaching. From "Is it the three worthies" below, it is arising in the stages of the distinctive teaching. From "Is it the iron wheel" below, it is arising in the stages of the perfect teaching. That the faith stages are missing in the distinctive [teaching] and the five ranks are missing in the perfect [teaching] is merely an abbreviation. What is termed "repeated contemplation" means contemplation through deliberation: in the path of seeing, having contemplated the real and already produced the outflow-free, one now contemplates it again, hence it is called "repeated contemplation." What is termed "supernormal powers" and so forth means that the bodhisattva who has entered the stages has clear cognition of the kinds of paths, playfully disporting in supernormal powers to purify Buddha-lands. Fascicle 93 of the Dazhidulun asks, "Why is that which is performed by supernormal powers called playful disporting? The answer is: It is just like a phantom illusionist producing various transformations. The bodhisattva is also like this, therefore it is called playful disporting. Furthermore, among the three samādhis, emptiness is the highest, while all other practices and dharmas are the lower. What is lower is like child's play, therefore it is called playful disporting." Fascicle 7 of the treatise also asks, "The bodhisattva should only generate samādhis; why is there need for playful disporting? The answer is: The bodhisattva's mind has already generated samādhis, and taking delight in entering and exiting them is also called playful disporting." Since this is not the same as the amusements and pleasures of afflictive fetters, taking delight in entering and exiting is precisely entering provisionality. What is termed "vow to support habit-energy" is as the Dapin says: "Leaving behind remaining habit-energy through the power of vows, and supporting the remaining habit-energy to be born in the three realms to benefit and delight sentient beings." From "If one posits" below, it vertically refutes unarising. The opening passage directly refutes in terms of unarising. Next, from "someone" below, it addresses the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise, pointing out their errors to distinguish differences. The first passage raises the inquiry. From "Is it" below, it directly challenges. Therein, first, it clarifies non-arising in terms of the three obstacles. The three including [the afflictions of] view and thought belong to the obstacle of afflictions. From "Is it that practice" below, it refutes in terms of phenomena and principle: to refute the three obstacles, one must rely on practice and principle, and therefore it next clarifies that the exhaustion of practice and the perfection of principle are called non-arising. From "Worldly people" below, it refutes in terms of the three Buddhas. Therein, it first refutes the erroneous explanation of worldly people who say that non-arising is precisely the Dharma Buddha. Although this accords well with principle, if it were only the Dharma Buddha, it would not be universally applicable. However, this "non-arising non-arising" must not be read as a reduplicated term; there must be a pause between them. The upper "non-arising" is the end of the preceding phrase, and the lower "non-arising" is the head of the following phrase. From "Now explained" below, it directly explains; the text presents four explanations. First, it explains in terms of the latency and manifestation of phenomena and principle: the Dharma body is fundamentally existent and is termed latent; the reward and response bodies only become manifest when afflictions are refuted; therefore, the three afflictions are paired with the two bodies. When ignorance is exhausted and ultimate wisdom is perfected, it is termed the reward body. Afflictions numerous as dust and sand obstruct the Dharma gates, and afflictions of view and thought obstruct the ways of conversion; both of these afflictions are obstacles to the response body; thus, the non-arising of these two afflictions is termed the response body. Second, it explains in terms of the antidotes to the three afflictions, thus matching the three bodies against the three afflictions: ignorance obstructs the middle principle, and when the middle manifests, the Dharma body appears; view and thought obstruct the principle of emptiness, and when emptiness manifests, the reward body appears; dust and sand obstruct the conventional principle, and when the conventional manifests, it can bestow conversion. Third, it explains in terms of that which remedies and that which is revealed: karmic practices and the wisdom of the stages are that which remedies, and true suchness and true mark are that which is revealed. Furthermore, by means of karmic practices and the wisdom of the stages, the three afflictions are exhausted; because the afflictions are exhausted, the reward and response [bodies] are accomplished; because the reward and response [bodies] are accomplished, the fundamentally existent principle manifests. Thus the Dharma body is fundamentally existent, while the reward and response [bodies] are perfected through cultivation. Fourth, it explains in terms of distinct pairings with the three causes: both cultivation and nature are like this, hence they are used in pairing. These four explanations have meanings applicable to both the perfect and the distinctive [teachings], but the intention lies solely in the perfect; hence, the first and third explanations support the distinctive in meaning, while the second and fourth explanations support the perfect in meaning, using the distinctive to assist the perfect so that together they accomplish the challenge. Furthermore, the first three explanations are all based on all dharmas not arising while the three Buddhas arise; the fourth explanation is based on all dharmas arising while the three Buddhas arise. From "Three Buddhas" below, it concludes in terms of principle. One should know that the four explanations comprehensively discuss that all dharmas do not arise while the three Buddhas arise; hence it concludes generally: "arising is unarising, unarising is arising." Other explanations confine non-arising solely to the Dharma Buddha, failing even to see that the Dharma Buddha's non-arising is arising; how much less could they see the arising and unarising of the fourfold three Buddhas? However, the intention of the present text is fundamentally to challenge unarising; explaining the meaning of the three Buddhas is done in the course of refuting other explanations, and hence identity is discussed. Therefore, one knows that if the three Buddhas arise, all arise; if there is unarising, all are unarising; for this reason, the meaning of identity must be established. From "If one hears the syllable A" below, it cites testimony. Hearing the single [syllable meaning] unarising, one understands all meanings: just as hearing unarising, one immediately knows that the three Buddhas both arise and are unarising, up to the four explanations of the three Buddhas' unarising; why make only the single explanation of the Dharma body? If it is as explained now, the essence of the three Buddhas is all-pervading, and unarising is also all-pervading. From "Taking the various" below, it concludes with a challenge. It challenges: Your adhering mind does not enter into any of these unarisings; what is it if not a view? From "Someone" below, it broadly distinguishes errors in terms of the meaning by which the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise are refuted. First, it recounts how another person refuted the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise. The treatise masters further interpreted "neither arising nor ceasing"; although they devised multiple senses, they did not clarify the depth and degree of the refutation, and thus they were challenged by the other person in terms of refuting afflictions, which merely amounted to entering emptiness. What is meant by "merely not" is that "not" means refuting or negating. From "The Madhyamaka treatise" below, because the treatise masters did not understand after being refuted by the other, they simply added the word "not" to make it accord with the middle. If so, negating the aforementioned arising of afflictions and negating the aforementioned ceasing of transience seems to reveal the middle way, but how does this differ from seeing the real? From "This explanation" below, it directly refutes. First, it briefly criticises. For now, granting them the aspect of "not non-arising," it therefore says: "This explanation supports the middle"; challenging it for being incomplete, it therefore says: "It damages the text and loses the meaning." From "Why?" below, it explains. First, it explains losing the meaning; next, it explains damaging the text. First, what is termed losing the meaning means losing the meaning of encompassing the shared and containing the distinctive.

The perfect doctrine of the treatise contains this inclusiveness; how could it be refuted and reduced to lacking the middle path? When you were refuted, it corresponded precisely to the treatise's inclusion of the shared and Tripiṭaka [teachings], which is this opening text. From "If arising or ceasing" downward, it brings out the meaning of the treatise containing the distinctive [teaching]. From "If arising-and-ceasing" downward, it directly reveals the original intention of the treatise's perfect doctrine. When it initially says "refuting the twenty [views of] identity-view" and so forth, this refers to the fruit refuting views. The sutras and treatises list varying numbers: the *Abhidharma* says, "As explained in the *Srotāpanna Parable Sūtra*, cutting off immeasurable afflictions is called becoming a srotāpanna." Why does the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* speak only of cutting off the three fetters? Either it follows the illness or it follows the faculties: for those of dull faculties it speaks of eighty-eight; for those of sharp faculties it speaks of cutting off the three fetters. Now, this passage from the *Dazhidulun* speaks according to an intermediate position, saying it refutes twenty. Furthermore, sometimes for the dull it speaks only of cutting off three. The *Vibhāṣā* states: "For example, once in the past, a son of the Bilizhi went forth into the Buddhist Dharma. At that time, the Buddha had already laid down the two hundred and fifty precepts, enjoining sons of noble families to practice them with joy. Having heard this, that person gave rise to worry and anxiety: 'Who could guard such precepts?' He then went to the Buddha's dwelling, bowed with his head at the Buddha's feet, and addressed the Buddha, saying: 'I am unable to uphold such precepts.' At that time, the World-Honoured One manifested a warm and friendly manner and did not reprimand him, but comforted and instructed him with gentle and soothing words: 'Excellent, excellent! Would you be able to uphold three precepts well or not? Namely: precept, mind, and wisdom.' Having heard this, that person was immediately overjoyed: 'I can uphold these three precepts well.'" Cutting off afflictions is likewise: if the World-Honoured One had said that cutting off eighty-eight proclivities and immeasurable suffering constitutes a srotāpanna, then those being transformed would give rise to worry in their minds: 'How could one uproot eighty-eight trees, cross eighty-eight great rivers, dry up eighty-eight great oceans, crush eighty-eight great mountains, and cultivate eighty-eight antidotes?' If the Buddha speaks only of cutting off the three fetters, then those being transformed give rise to great joy. As for the twenty: each of the five aggregates has four—namely, form is large and the self is small, the self is within form; the self is large and form is small, form is within the self; form is identical to the self; or there is a self separate from form; the [other] four aggregates are also like this. Hence these twenty are called identity-views. The eighty-eight proclivities are fully explained as before. From "Examining the text" downward is the conclusion. "Incorporate two" refers to the shared and Tripiṭaka [teachings]. From "Nāgārjuna" downward attributes the merit to the treatise's author. The explanation originates from me, but the treatise's intention was fundamentally so. How could one propagate the treatise, suffer another's covert refutation, and complacently accept that it lacks the middle? From "If opening the lips" downward explains the injury to the text. "Stuttering" means not being fluent. This borrows a circumstance to reprimand the treatise masters for being like stutterers. That is, in the ninth chapter of the *Analects*, there was the Madman of Chu, Jieyu, who saw Confucius leading his disciples along and sang a song to him: "Phoenix, phoenix! How has your virtue declined!" The *Erya* states: "The male is called *feng*, the female is called *huang*." The intention was to reprimand Confucius as being just like a phoenix that has appeared out of season: the way of the Zhou being like this, to wish to practice ritual and education was also like the phoenix appearing out of season. Therefore Deng Ai used this to mockingly caution the Ruler of Wei. When the Ruler of Wei ordered him to conquer Shu, because Ai was naturally a stutterer, when addressing the Ruler of Wei he frequently said, "Ai, Ai." The Ruler of Wei teased him, saying: "'Ai, Ai'—how many Ais are there?" He replied: "'Phoenix, phoenix' is just a single phoenix." Now, this idea is used to reprimand those treatise masters: it is just like Deng Ai using "Phoenix, phoenix" to respond to the ridicule of stuttering. You should know that adding a "not" under a "not" is like a double-stuttering sound: although one says "not not," it is just a single "not"; even if one wishes to reveal the middle, one loses the treatise's inclusive intention. This, then, reprimands their spoken words for injuring the text. From "Drawing the brush" downward directly reprimands their writings for injuring the text. "Injuring" means damaging. Having already damaged the perfect text, they uselessly add dots and marks. Since they are able to write treatises, drawing the brush from its sheath and dipping the bristles into the inkstone, they cannot broaden and expound its profound purport, yet they add dots and marks under "not"! They merely increase the sound of "not not," but lose the richness of its mutual inclusion. They obtain only the single meaning of the "exclusive middle" of double negation, completely losing the shared and Tripiṭaka [teachings] as well as the treatise's perfect doctrine. From "A hanging wart" downward reprimands them again by analogy. A wart is an excess of flesh. A piece of flesh that grows unnaturally and adheres to the body is an excrescence; and from the excrescence, a wart grows again. Adding a dot to the character "not" is like an excrescence growing a wart. Having been refuted as lacking the middle, their intention was to supplement it, but it resulted instead in losing the perfect as well as the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]. From "Now I explain" downward concurrently addresses their error to reveal the present correctness, in order to support the inclusion and reveal the retention of fundamental non-arising. In accordance with your addition of "not," there are also multiple kinds of "non-arising of not non-arising." Therefore, I now examine their view-holding mind: what kind of "non-arising of not non-arising" is it? Thus it initially states that it will briefly set forth ten kinds. Within this, it is divided into three intentions: The first and second explain that it is not merely refuting arising and non-arising; non-arising must be refuted, so one further adds "not non-arising." This is using the correct to refute the heterodox. The third to the ninth all use two "nots" to refute the arising of two afflictions; hence it is called "not non-arising." That is, it takes the single word "arising" and contrasts it with the preceding two "nots"; in terms of meaning, it unfolds into two [kinds of] arising. Thus the preceding "non-arising" is one "not" not having the arising of [afflictions of] views; the subsequent "non-arising" is one "not" not having the arising of [afflictions of] thought. When the treatise's concluding phrase in each case merely says "not non-arising," it still preserves brevity. Therefore, because the "not" of the subsequent phrase follows beneath the preceding "not," it says "not not." The subsequent phrases can be understood by following this; hence it says "true and residual," up to "distinctive and perfect." The tenth concerns the stage of wondrous awakening, where wisdom and elimination are forever fulfilled, and both arisings do not arise, which is called "not non-arising." The three explanations here all pertain to wondrous awakening; initially it merely marked ten intentions on this basis. Furthermore, in each passage from the third to the ninth, after explaining the preceding, it gives rise to the subsequent phrase: although the preceding does not arise, looking forward to the subsequent, it still arises. For example, when explaining the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka, after the two non-arisings of [afflictions of] view and [afflictions of] thought, it then generates the subsequent statement that "residual habits still arise." If this were not so, what would the subsequent refute? In the first text, Dīrghanakha forming the fourth proposition and the ineffable: because everything can be refuted, its meaning resembles the double negation; because all words can be altered, its meaning resembles the ineffable. Thus, this single view appears four times, earlier and later: namely, the view of nothingness, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, and the ineffable. Now I judge it overall as resembling a single non-arising; this non-arising is a wrong view, and therefore it must be refuted, being called "not non-arising." From "Like neither-conception" downward, it further cites Subhadra's non-arising of neither-conception; this non-arising must be refuted, being called "not non-arising." The Vātsīputrīyas are an example of this.

Regarding "the fifth, the inexpressible repository": the first fascicle of the Dazhidulun states, "In the Buddha's Dharma there are also the Vātsīputrīya followers of the Way who state that due to the harmonious coming together of the four great elements there is an eye, and due to the harmonious coming together of the five aggregates there is a person." As it is stated in the Vātsīputrīya Abhidharma: "The five aggregates are not separate from the person, and the person is not separate from the five aggregates. The five aggregates are not the person, and the person is not the five aggregates. The person is subsumed within the fifth, the inexpressible repository. Therefore all the Sarvāstivādin followers of the Way state: 'In all modes, at all times, and among all dharma-gates, when sought, [the person] is unattainable; like a turtle's hair or a hare's horn, its substance is permanently non-existent, and the aggregates, realms, and entrances have no self-nature.'" This is one [kind of] non-arising. What the Vātsīputrīyas cling to contradicts even the Hīnayāna; therefore, this non-arising must still be refuted, which is why it says, "non-arising is also non-arising."

In the second meaning, the Tripiṭaka bodhisattvas have not yet attained non-arising, and for this reason they are not discussed. Pratyekabuddhas encroach upon the traces [of defilements], but the traces are not yet completely exhausted; they are not [cases of] not-non-arising, and so they are also not discussed. As for "the essence not [falling into] view and thought [afflictions]," this is what is contemplated by skillful wisdom; therefore it says "the essence not." For bodhisattvas of the shared teaching, emptiness is shared with the two vehicles, and provisionality is shared with the distinctive teaching; thus they are also not spoken of in the present text. For the distinctive person, the two "nots" do not share [with the shared] nor are they the distinctive, yet on the higher stages arising still occurs because the distinctive delusions have not yet been exhausted. The distinctive Buddha is provisionally called "ultimate" according to the teaching. Hence the ninth fascicle of the Dazhidulun states: "Minor causes and conditions can lead to great fruits. How much more so hearing the true mark of prajñāpāramitā: non-arising and non-perishing, neither non-arising nor non-perishing!" "Minor causes and conditions" refers to the likes of slight giving or slight morality; being guided by distant vows, they still bring about great fruits—how much more so hearing the neither non-arising, etc. of the perfect Middle! The third meaning and the concluding reprimand are as in the text.

Vertically refuting the third and fourth lemmas is as explained above in the section on the mind of bodhi. In the first fascicle, under "Arousing the Great Mind": not having the nine bondages, hence not existent; not having the one liberation, hence not non-existent. If so, what is the third lemma? Answer: Double negation is the fourth, and double illumination is the third. If one traces this through the inferences of principle up to generating faults and hearing the Dharma to open the four [gates], there are then fifty-six layers of double negation and double illumination; adding the four universal vows and the six identities, there are then sixty-six layers of double negation and double illumination. How much more so from the eighth stage of the shared teaching on up, and from the stages and abodes of the distinctive and perfect on up, where in each and every position there is none that is not double negation and double illumination! I now take all these third and fourth lemmas to examine your clinging mind: which kind of third and fourth are you?

"Explaining names and the absolute": first, refuting that within the horizontal and vertical there are each third and fourth lemmas, as well as the absolute and the absolute essence; the essence is the lemma of double negation and double illumination. Although this is pointed to briefly, it is further explained in detail through each teaching. The two texts each have three parts: first, raising the question; second, explaining directly; third, concluding. "Dust-like wonders do not arise, while universally functional arising occurs": refuting each and every delusion immediately yields immeasurable worldly-truth samādhis, benefiting living beings with sovereignty; this is called "universally functional arising."

"Internal and external karmic retributions": this is simply discussing internal and external with respect to the realms. "Analyzing [away] annihilation and permanence": the two vehicles also attain this, so it is not called double negation. The meaning of double negation is detailed in the third fascicle. The three vehicles of the shared teaching also depart from annihilation and permanence, their intent being like that of the Tripiṭaka. For bodhisattvas of the shared teaching on the eighth stage and above: "path" means the path of conversion; "contemplation" means the contemplation of emptiness; bringing emptiness along while emerging into provisionality, it is therefore called "dual flowing." Entering emptiness, it is not existent; entering provisionality, it is not empty; therefore it is called double negation. The abodes and stages of the distinctive and perfect are the double negation of the subtle Middle. From the first bhūmi on belongs to the distinctive; in the text, the character *de* (得) should be superfluous. The phrasing of "double cessation" accords with the fourth lemma; the principle does not occur at a different time.

Next, vertically refuting the absolute: first, listing the six absolutes such as the external-external to rebuke them. "The brahmins who accept the practice of muteness": among those non-Buddhists, there are those who cling to the practice of muteness, considering the absence of speech to be the ultimate path. From "Tripiṭaka" onward, it again rebukes them using the many absolutes of the Buddha's Dharma. First, the direct rebuke. The four teachings all penetrate principle by means of four gates; only when attaining principle is there the absolute. "Stopping": as explained before. From "The inexpressibles are numerous" onward is the rebuke by comparison. From "Due to this" onward explains the faults. From "Furthermore, repeatedly" onward rebukes them using the ten kinds of [being] outside the four lemmas. First, indicating. From "The ten kinds" onward lists the lemmas. From "Directly" onward explains them. Directly positing four lemmas is called "directly." Four on top of four is therefore called "endless." As with the four views before, upon each and every view one further refutes it with the three kinds of provisionality and the four lemmas: each view having twelve yields forty-eight. Views further giving rise to views, up to compound, having, non-verbal, and other views, are all refuted with the four lemmas and three kinds of provisionality; hence it is called "endless."

Attaining awakening through a gate, because the gates are four, is called the "four lemmas of attaining awakening." As for "subsumption": just as the four gates are all called existent and so forth, depending on what dharma a person cultivates to enter—whether the true or the Middle—subsuming the gates by means of the dharma, the gates belong to the dharma. Question: What is the difference between subsumption (*sheshu*) and folding together (*zhexie*)? Answer: Folding together subsumes the dharmas into the lemmas, while subsumption subsumes the lemmas into the dharmas. "Provisional and real": provisional and real each have four; outside of which kind of four lemmas are you? "Opening and revealing": all is real; are you outside of these real four lemmas? Whether real or opened, there are no dharmas outside the lemmas; how can you speak of going outside? The entirety of the Buddha's lifetime teachings concludes with the Lotus; hence it says "limited to this." Now, relying on the Lotus, we are also limited only to this. Generating disputes after [the Buddha's] passing is therefore "losing the meaning." Composing treatises to penetrate the sūtras is therefore called "getting the meaning."

From "If not" onward is the concluding rebuke. "Compliant" means subdued. "Previously horizontally refuting," etc., evaluates the horizontal and vertical texts, fully as detailed before concerning the external-external, adhering to the Buddha's Dharma, up to the Buddha's Dharma, directly making ten. Since it goes from the external-external to after the Buddha's passing, it is called vertical.

From "Nowadays there are many" onward reproaches falsehood and resolves doubts. First, evil people and evil teachings, where evil and correct are confused with each other. First, explaining in terms of persons, using the correct to confuse with the evil. As for "demon-monks": this refers to those who once went forth into the monastic life, then returned to household life, broke the precepts, and again became Daoists to destroy the Buddha's Dharma. Moreover, why should it only be monks who cross over [the line] that are called evil demons? As in the sixteenth fascicle of the Dapin, the heavenly demon Pāpīyān also assumed the form of a monk and preached a semblance path to bodhisattvas—the so-called skeleton contemplation—and even preached the arhat's Dharma. He said to the bodhisattva: "You should exhaust suffering with this path; why undergo all kinds of suffering in samsāra? Even this present body of four great elements one does not wish to endure, how much less a future body?"

Furthermore, the ninth [fascicle] of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "There is an icchantika who takes the form of an arhat, dwelling in a vacant place and slandering the Vaipulya [sūtras]. Worldly people see him and take him for a true arhat." Such are those who take the form of monks to destroy the Buddhadharma. If they renounce the precepts and return to secular life, like Wei Yuansong and others, then they destroy the Buddhadharma in the form of laypeople. As for "transgressing and crossing over" (yueji), the sixth [fascicle] of the Sūtra on Repaying Kindness states: "Those who dwell as thieves, who transgress and cross over, who have severed good roots, or who have committed the five heinous crimes, cannot receive the precepts." This precisely refers to destroying both internal and external paths, which is called "transgressing and crossing over." "Crossing over" (ji) means the path; "transgressing" (yue) means violating, which corresponds to the meaning of destroying. Having previously destroyed an external path, he came to take refuge and go forth; midway he turned his back on this and reverted again to the deviant tradition. If he returns yet again, it forms an obstacle preventing reception of the precepts. The present text does not discuss returning again to form an obstacle; rather, because both this and that are destroyed, it is called "transgressing and crossing over." This person steals the correct teaching to augment and supplement deviant texts. The Huainanzi states: "The thief is the greatest bandit under Heaven." "Compel" (yao; archaic pronunciation liao) means to force or to intercept. Unable to aim for superiority, he merely seeks equality. Regarding "pressing down the high" and so forth: a piece of wood for leveling a grain-measure is called a leveling stick (gai). Taking the mind of a Daoist as the leveling stick for the two teachings, so that the deviant and the correct are made equal, is unreasonable. Having once entered the Buddhadharma and stolen the correct to support the deviant, he presses down the height of the eighty thousand [teachings] and twelve [divisions] to place them below the Five Thousand [Words] in two parts, using them to interpret the deviant and lowly teachings of those classics; this is called "bringing down the venerable into the base." As Master Dao'an wrote in the Treatise on the Two Teachings, citing Ban Gu's nine schools: the Daoist teaching is just one among the nine, namely the Daoist school. If the Daoist school is established as a single teaching, then the other eight schools naturally diverge in source. If those nine schools are combined into one Confucianism, then when compared and contrasted there remain only two teachings; it is not even fitting to stand alone as a founder of a teaching, let alone turn around and desire to confound and unify them. Since antiquity, former sages have long distinguished the true from the false; yet eminent and virtuous figures of recent times are still bewildered by right and wrong, falling short of Confucian secular scholars who still distinguish the clear from the turbid, as in Li Sishen's Ten Differences and other writings. Furthermore, Mouzi says: "Yao served Yin Shou; Shun served Wu Cheng; Confucius studied under Lao Dan; Dan (Duke of Zhou) took Lü Wang as his teacher. Although these four masters were sages, compared to the Buddha they are like white deer compared to the qilin. Comparing their teachings, it is like crows and magpies compared to phoenixes. Comparing their bodily forms, it is like anthills (die, ant mounds) compared to Mounts Hua and Heng." He was further asked: "There are generally ninety-six scattered and remnant paths; in quietude and non-action, none surpasses the Buddha. Yet I consider the arts of divine immortals supreme; are they perhaps not inferior to the Buddhadharma?" Mouzi said: "Pointing south as north, one claims not to be deluded; citing east as west, one claims not to be confused. What you say is like an owl mocking a phoenix, or holding a gecko to ridicule tortoises and dragons. Indeed, there are people in the world who turn their backs on the sun and moon to face a lamp or candle, or consider ditches and gutters deep while considering the Great River and River shallow. Is this not an error? Your turning your back on the Buddhadharma to venerate divine immortals is just like this." From "the Dao that can be spoken of" downward, he refutes its confusing the deviant with the correct. As the new commentary says: "If it is called the true and constant Dao, it is not the path walked by ordinary people." The old commentary says: "A Dao that can be spoken of is not the true and constant Dao. The name that can be named can be understood by analogy." Although there are two interpretations, when looking at the principle, delusions, wisdom, practice, stages, causes, and effects, nothing can compare to the Dao of constancy and bliss, the four virtues of the distinctive and perfect [teachings]; hence it says that it cannot "equal the inconceivable of the Buddhadharma," and so forth. From "Why so?" downward, he cites analogies to conclude with a rebuke. From "All phenomena" downward, he re-expounds and explains the marks of inequality. For instance, the Daoist Li Zhongqing wrote the Treatise on Ten Differences, and Dharma Master Falin established the Treatise on Ten Similes using similes to illustrate their differences, showing how they differ from each other. "Simile" (yu) means to awaken or clarify, clarifying their delusion. Looking from the present text to that [treatise], it resembles its seven differences. Adding to this the inequalities of deportment and lineage, they combine into nine differences. First, the fundamental principles are not equal, which also refers to the teachings that were previously confounded. If one compares "the Dao that can be spoken of" and so forth with the permanently abiding dharma of suchness, how could they be equal? Although Dan had words about non-action and desirelessness, beneath the words there was no ultimate meaning; although he spoke of the constant name and the constant Dao, what he spoke had no ultimate resort. If one says "constantly without desire, contemplate its subtlety," subtle principles are manifold, and desires are not of one single kind; what kind of subtle desire would this be? Therefore, the name of the constant Dao cannot be equaled to the true mark. From "aspects of the teaching" downward, second, he explains that the aspects of the teaching are not equal. The present text merely mentions briefly the words "not equal." However, the Five Thousand Words merely cast away luxury and excess, restrain oneself in thrift, keep to the female and the weak, and treat wisdom and the body as afflictions; therefore, Dan's conversion takes nothingness as fundamental and serene quietude as primary. How could this compare with the eighty thousand dharma treasuries and the twelve divisions of teachings, suited to the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna, whether partial or perfect, the four Siddhāntas responding to capacities, the five vehicles receiving beings, hidden benefits and manifest benefits, conversion through adversity and conversion through favor? If one seeks to compare their superiority and inferiority, how could they ever be identical? From "how much more" downward, third, he illustrates this by the inequality of suffering and origin. Although Laozi treated the body as an affliction and eliminated desires, he did not penetrate the source of affliction; he disdained wisdom and wearied the body without getting to the bottom of the root of defect, so suffering and origin increased, leading him ever farther from the Path. How could this be identical to renouncing the bonds of the three realms and leaving the fruits of the six destinies? How much more so with the three delusions, two kinds of death, four wisdoms, and five eyes—those [texts] do not even have the names, so how could they know their meanings? Suffering and origin are manifestly exposed, fully as described before. From "how much more taking" downward, fourth, he illustrates this by the inequality of path and cessation. Thus the thirty-seven aids to awakening are unnamed in those classics, and the nirvāṇa of the four virtues belongs solely to the Śākya teaching. Vainly deploying the discourse of treating the body as an affliction, it genuinely lacks [contemplation of] impurity; since the initial gate of mindfulness of the body is absent, where are the aids to the path? The aids to the path of arising and cessation are already separated [from them] by heaven and earth, how much more so the Great Vehicle, of which they do not possess a single shred! From "since the origin" downward, fifth, he shows that the traces are not equal. The principle of cessation is the origin; responsive transformation is the trace. Secularly, thirty years make one generation; here, we merely take the previous kings and later kings as one generation; dwelling in the midst of the Five Indies, it is therefore called "central." Tianzhu, Shendu, and Yindu are all lighter or heavier Sanskrit phonetic variants. The Buddhas of the three periods all descend in Kapilavastu; therefore it is called central. As for the "wheel-turning king with a golden wheel," he rules over the four continents. Thus the Kośa verse says: "Gold, silver, copper, and iron wheels / [rule over] one, two, three, and four continents." In the Vinaya, successively inherited since the beginning of the kalpa, among eighty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-two emperors, there were ten wheel-turning kings; the rest were mere "millet-scattered" kings. All ruled over India, and Siddhārtha was born there in the palace of King Śuddhodana, corresponding to the jiayin year of King Zhao of the Zhou dynasty. Had he not gone forth, he would have become a wheel-turning king. Not inheriting the royal throne, at midnight he leaped over the city wall to seek the Great Path with determined aspiration.

Having attained the Path, he manifested superior and inferior responses to preach the provisional and real teachings, up until his entering cessation, with boundless benefit. Laozi, in the years of King Huan, was born of an illicit union in the pastures of his mother, dwelling in the village of Quren, Li township, Ku county, Chen prefecture; his courtesy name was Boyang, and posthumous title Lao Dan; he was an archivist of the stone pillars, holding the post of a minor official. Zhuangzi served as a garden keeper of lacquer trees; his virtue and station can be recognized. As for "marginal lands": compared to those Five Indies, this place is situated in a marginal land. This is just like the debate on the center and the margin between Dharma Master Yan Guan and He Chengtian, fully detailed in the Shiqian. From "the Buddha with" downward, sixth, the physical marks and characteristics are not equal. The Tathāgata's color of gathered sunlight and molten gold already manifests a rare sign; the wonders of the svastika and the thousand-spoked wheels truly mark the characteristics of a sage. How much more so his dividing his body into hundreds of millions, his light illuminating the ten directions, his transformation reaching Avīci, and his voice shaking Akaniṣṭha! The form of Mr. Li was common, vulgar, ugly, and mean; his hands bore [lines of] ten writings and his feet stepped on two fives; to speak of them as equals is utterly impossible. From "the Buddha preached" downward, seventh, the realms of conversion are not equal. First Laozi, then Zhuangzi. Laozi spoke secretly; the word "spoke" (shuo) is pronounced shui, meaning to narrate or to declare one's intent. That which is not private is called "public." "Clear" (zhuo) means bright. Secretly and privately he spoke only to Yin Xi alone; therefore it was not a clear and manifest public path. The Liezhuan says: "Xi was a grand master of Zhou, skilled in astrology. Because he saw an extraordinary aura, he went east to welcome it, and indeed found Laozi. He requested him to write a book of five thousand words; Xi also wrote nine chapters of his own, titled Guanlingzi." According to the Huahujing: when Laozi crossed to the west of the pass, Xi wished to follow Dan and depart. Dan said: "If you wish with determined mind to depart, you must bring the heads of seven people, including your parents; only then may you depart." Xi followed his instruction, and the seven heads all turned into pig heads. Yet secular classics of filial piety and Confucianism still revere wooden statues, while Lao Dan in establishing his conversion commanded Xi to harm his parents! The Tathāgata's teaching gate takes great compassion as fundamental; how could Laozi take the contrary as the origin of conversion? From "Furthermore, [the master of] Lacquer Garden" downward, he relates Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi was a man of Meng, named Zhou, a fellow student of King Hui of Liang. He wrote a book of more than one hundred thousand words, all of which were parables. Today, north of Song prefecture, the ancient city of Meng is the place; there is currently a Lacquer Garden, the township where he wrote. Correcting and amending phrases, dipping his brush and inscribing wooden tablets—how could this be identical to the council compilation of the multitude of sages? Labored and sluggish as if dragging, how could it be identical to the perfect voice of the Brahmā sound? Plotting for his own prominence, how could it be identical to unconditioned great compassion? Lacking hearing and lacking attainment, how could it be identical to receiving prediction throughout dust-mote realms? "Labored and sluggish" (zaza) is the sound of a carriage, a slow appearance. From "Furthermore" downward, eighth, the bodily deportment is not equal. Ninth, the lineage and status are not equal. "Respectfully looking up" (yongyong) means looking upward. The Erya says: "'Yongyong ang'ang' is the virtue of a ruler." The Book of Odes says: "The ten thousand people look up respectfully." From "a blind person" downward, he concludes with a rebuke. From "Furthermore" downward, he solely clarifies the confounding of teachings, first distinguishing identity and difference. Previously he already clarified many kinds of terminating speech; prior to terminating speech there should be many kinds of four phrases. In the Madhyamaka-śāstra, "neither arising nor ceasing" is the fourth phrase of the distinctive and perfect [teachings], which is the true Middle Way directly terminating speech. Therefore, beyond the phrase that directly terminates speech there are no dharmas; how could one use an external termination of speech from outside [Buddhism] to refute the perfect and distinctive teachings of others? That which is external to the external is refuted even by the Tripiṭaka; how could this view rashly refute the Great Vehicle?