四教義 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by Dhyāna Master Zhiyi of Xiuchansi on Mount Tiantai

Major Section Two: Distinguishing That Which Is Elucidated. Generally speaking, teaching is that which elucidates, and principle is that which is elucidated; thus, because of principle the teaching is established, and by relying on the teaching the principle is revealed. Principle itself is not teaching; teaching itself is not principle. Apart from principle there is no teaching; apart from teaching there is no principle. Therefore the Viśeṣacintābrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra says: 'Within bodhi there are no written words, and within written words there is also no bodhi. Apart from bodhi there are no written words, and apart from written words there is no bodhi.' Because apart from bodhi there are no written words, teaching is set forth based on principle; because apart from written words there is no bodhi, setting forth teaching is capable of revealing principle. This being so, teaching is that which elucidates and principle is that which is elucidated; the intention lies herein. As for what is called 'principle,' it is precisely the truth that is elucidated. Now, explaining principle in terms of truth: principle can give rise to teaching, and teaching can elucidate principle; teaching is that which elucidates, and principle is that which is elucidated. Now in explaining the meaning of that which is elucidated, there are briefly four points: first, explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the principle of the four truths; second, explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the principle of the three truths; third, explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the principle of the two truths; fourth, explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the principle of the one truth.

2.3

First, explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the four truths has three points: first, explaining the principle of the four truths that are elucidated; second, explaining the teaching that elucidates; third, explaining in terms of the sūtras and treatises. First, regarding explaining the principle of the four truths that are elucidated: there are four kinds of four truths: first, the four truths of arising and ceasing; second, the four truths of non-arising; third, the four truths of the immeasurable; fourth, the four truths of non-action. Question: Where in the sūtras and treatises do these four kinds of four truths appear? Answer: If spoken of dispersedly, passages and meanings of this kind are found here and there throughout various sūtras and treatises in accordance with conditions, but they are simply not gathered in a single place. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, in explaining the desire for the holy practice of wisdom in terms of the simile of the five flavors, originally distinguished and explained these four kinds of four truths in sequence. The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra also contains passages on the four kinds of four truths, namely 'the active four truths, the measurable four truths, the non-active four truths, and the immeasurable four truths.' However, the Mahāparinirvāṇa and the Śrīmālādevī differ in their order of presentation and slightly differ in their doctrinal intentions when explaining the immeasurable four truths. Question: It was previously explained that the four truths of arising and ceasing are the meaning of the half-letter of the Tripiṭaka teaching; this is acceptable. Next, regarding the explanation of the immeasurable and the non-action, how are they distinguished? Answer: If the meaning is explained in terms of the full-letter, the three kinds of four truths are all equally the full teaching, and there is no need to distinguish them. If the meaning is explained in terms of the five flavors, the meanings of the three kinds of four truths are then different. As for the four truths of non-arising, although this is Mahāyāna, it is still shared with the two vehicles; the immeasurable four truths are solely the path practiced by bodhisattvas; the non-active four actual truths are indeed the realm of the Buddha. This is the difference. First, regarding explaining that which is elucidated in terms of the principle of the four truths of arising and ceasing: it explains the principle of the truths precisely through the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: 'Formerly in Vārāṇasī, I turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths, separately explaining all dharmas, the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates.' Arising and ceasing is indeed active production; hence the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains 'the active four noble truths.' What are called the four truths are: first, the truth of suffering; second, the truth of the accumulation [of suffering]; third, the truth of cessation; fourth, the truth of the path. What is called 'suffering' has pressing distress as its meaning: the three marks of impermanence press upon matter and mind, hence it is called suffering. Being scrutinized as real and not false, it is called truth. What is called 'accumulation' has beckoning and gathering as its meaning: the combination of defilement and karma is able to beckon and gather the suffering fruits of birth and death, hence it is called accumulation. Being scrutinized as real and not false, it is called truth. What is called 'cessation' has extinguishing into non-existence as its meaning: the absence of the two bondages of seeds and fruits, hence it is called cessation. Being scrutinized as real and not false, it is called truth. What is called 'the path' has being able to lead through as its meaning: morality, concentration, and wisdom are able to lead through to nirvāṇa, hence it is called the path. Being scrutinized as real and not false, it is called truth. These are the four truths of arising and ceasing. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Śrāvakas have suffering and have the truth of suffering; have accumulation and have the truth of accumulation; have cessation and have the truth of cessation; have the path and have the truth of the path.' Question: The path and cessation are the causes practiced and the fruits attained by the noble ones, so they can be called scrutinized and real; but suffering and accumulation are deceptive and false, so how can they be called scrutinized and real? Answer: The deceptive and false causes and fruits of ordinary beings are truly deceptive and false, not non-deceptive; thus tainted and untainted causes and fruits are all completely scrutinized and real, and cannot be conflated. Therefore the Sūtra of the Buddha's Bequeathed Teaching says: 'The sun may be made cold and the moon may be made hot, but the four truths preached by the Buddha cannot be made different.' The explanation of this meaning of the four truths of arising and ceasing is fully discriminated as by the Ābhidharmikas and in the Satyasiddhi-śāstra; it will not be fully explained now.

2.4

Second, explaining the four truths of non-arising: as the Viśeṣacintābrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra says: 'Knowing that suffering is unarisen is called the noble truth of suffering; knowing that accumulation has no mark of combining is called the noble truth of accumulation; contemplating with the mark of non-duality is called the noble truth of the path; dharmas are fundamentally unarisen and now have no cessation—this is called the noble truth of cessation.' That is, for the four dharmas of suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path, the names and phenomenal marks are identical, yet the meaning of the truth is different. Previously, the principle of arising and ceasing was taken as the truth; now, the principle of the true emptiness of non-arising and non-ceasing is explained as the truth, also named the four true truths. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas understand that suffering is without suffering, therefore there is no suffering yet there is the true truth. They understand that accumulation is without accumulation, therefore there is no accumulation yet there is the true truth.' There is cessation and there is truth; there is the path and there is truth; hence they are called the four true truths. Contemplated in common by the three vehicles, they attain the paramārtha and realize the two kinds of nirvāṇa; this is also what the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains as the 'measurable four truths.' Question: If it is studied in common by the three vehicles, why does the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explain the truth of cessation as permanence, bliss, self, and purity? Answer: The true truth of non-arising explained in the Vaipulya and Prajñā is seen in common by the three vehicles, yet the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching do not see the Buddha-nature, and do not explain the truth of cessation as permanent abiding. Arriving at the Mahāparinirvāṇa, the Buddha-nature is spoken of equally for the people of the three vehicles; hence the four true truths of non-arising connect with the distinctive and connect with the perfect, and therefore explain the four virtues of the truth of cessation. That this differs from the Vaipulya and the Dàpǐn is precisely because of this intention.

2.5

Third, explaining the immeasurable four noble truths: as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Knowing the suffering of the aggregates is called the truth of suffering. Discriminating the aggregates as having immeasurable marks that are all various sufferings is called the immeasurable truth of suffering.' For the immeasurable accumulation, cessation, and path, the sūtra passages will naturally be fully cited below. Regarding such a principle of the four truths, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'None of it is known by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas'; hence we know that these are all the principle elucidated by the distinctive teaching. Question: These immeasurable four noble truths—what kind of immeasurability of the four truths is this? Answer: Now, explaining that the bodhisattvas elucidated by the four teachings learn the cognition of the aspects of the path, they all obtain the immeasurable four truths, yet these immeasurable four truths precisely belong to the distinctive teaching. Question: If so, when the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains the immeasurable marks of the four truths, how can it be known for certain that they are the immeasurable four truths elucidated by the distinctive teaching? Answer: If immeasurability is spoken of without explaining Buddha-nature, it is the immeasurability elucidated by the previous two teachings. If immeasurable marks are spoken of while explaining Buddha-nature, it spontaneously constitutes the immeasurability explained by the latter two teachings. If the perfect teaching is also called the immeasurable four noble truths, it is an alternate name for the non-active four actual truths.

2.6

Fourth, explaining the four truths of non-action: as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains, "distinguishing the four truths based on the one real truth is precisely the four real truths of non-action"; it explains that the four realities are not made into four, hence they are called "non-action." Contemplating the four, one immediately attains reality, hence they are called the "four real truths." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "What is called suffering has the characteristic of impermanence and is something to be severed; this is the real truth. The nature of the Tathāgata is neither suffering, nor impermanent, nor something to be severed; therefore it is reality. Empty space and the buddha-nature are also like this." The non-active truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path will be cited fully below. This passage from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is precisely an explicit statement of the four real truths of non-action. If one can understand these four truths in accordance with the sūtra, they are identical to the one real truth, which is the principle elucidated by the perfect teaching. The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains the "four truths of non-action" without concluding them as the one reality. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra does not say "non-action," but uses the one reality to conclude each of the four truths. Since their meanings correspond, the names from both sūtras are now combined to establish the term, hence calling them the "four real truths of non-action." Question: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains the immeasurable four noble truths and the four noble truths of non-action, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also has these explanations; are the texts of the two sources identical or different? Answer: There are immeasurable four noble truths which, though based on the storehouse consciousness, are not of non-action. There are also immeasurable four noble truths which, likewise based on the storehouse consciousness, are precisely of non-action. Why is this? If we discuss immeasurability in terms of the numerical items of dharmas in the four truths as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in ignorance, this is the immeasurability elucidated by the distinctive teaching, and is not of non-action. If we explain the immeasurable four truths in terms of the dharmic nature, this is the immeasurability elucidated by the perfect teaching, and immeasurability is itself non-action. In the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra, the answer to Kāśyapa explaining the immeasurable four truths is precisely in terms of the immeasurability of numerical items, which is elucidated by the distinctive teaching; whereas the answer to Mañjuśrī explaining the four truths is an explanation of the four real truths of non-action. Regarding the two kinds of four truths explained in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, identity and difference cannot yet be definitively judged. Question: Why are the immeasurable four truths explained after the four truths of non-action in the Śrīmālādevī? Answer: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says "immeasurable is explained based on non-action," but this basis has three meanings: first, explaining the cause based on the fruit, where the immeasurable cause is the cause of non-action; second, explaining the meaning based on the principle, where the principle of non-action being inconceivable is itself immeasurable; third, explaining the function based on the substance, where the immeasurable is the numerical measure of non-action. If one understands these three meanings, there is no reason to doubt that the immeasurable four truths are explained after non-action. Question: What is the difference between non-arising and non-action? What is the difference between "true" (zhēn) and "real" (shí)? Answer: If one examines names to discuss meaning, those raising difficulties in general always force interpretations to explain it through; yet the Buddha's intent is not lacking in substance, and each name has its own focus.

2.7

Second, explaining the teachings that elucidate: these are the four teachings that are capable of elucidating the principles of the four kinds of four truths, which comprises four points. First, initially, the Tripiṭaka teaching elucidates the principle of the four truths of arising and ceasing. However, the principle of the four truths of arising and ceasing is precisely the meaning of "arising of arising" explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Since the arising of arising cannot be expressed, how can it be said that the Tripiṭaka teaching can elucidate this principle? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Because there are causes and conditions, it can also be expressed," which means that through the skillfulness of the four siddhāntas, it can be elucidated. If it uses these three siddhāntas—mundane, individual adaptation, and counteractive—to teach the four truths of arising and ceasing, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to worldly sentiment. If it uses the ultimate truth siddhānta to teach the four truths of arising and ceasing, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to wisdom. If there is no capacity receptive to worldly sentiment or wisdom, it cannot be expressed. When these two capacities are aroused, one can adapt to the capacity through expedient means and skillfully teach the four truths of arising and ceasing. Thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "The quiescent characteristic of all dharmas / Cannot be declared in words; / Through the power of expedient means / It was preached for the five monks. / This is called turning the wheel of Dharma, / And there came to be the sound of nirvāṇa / And of arhats." Second, the shared teaching elucidates the principle of the four true truths of non-arising. The four true truths of non-arising are precisely the meaning of "arising of non-arising" explained in the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra. Since the arising of non-arising cannot be expressed, how can it be said that the shared teaching can elucidate this principle? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Because there are causes and conditions, it can also be expressed," which means it is expressed using the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas. If the four truths of non-arising are taught because of the three siddhāntas of mundane, individual adaptation, and counteractive, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to worldly sentiment. If the four truths of non-arising are taught using the ultimate truth siddhānta, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to wisdom. If there is no capacity for worldly sentiment or wisdom, it cannot be expressed. If this capacity is aroused, one adapts to the capacity through expedient means and skillfully teaches the three vehicles. When persons heading toward the path hear this teaching, they enter the paramārtha-satya, the path beyond verbal expression, and sever the afflictions of view and thought. Third, the distinctive teaching can elucidate the principle of the immeasurable four truths. The principle of the immeasurable four truths is precisely the meaning of "non-arising of arising" explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Since the non-arising of arising cannot be expressed, how can it be said that the distinctive teaching can elucidate this principle? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Because there are causes and conditions, it can also be expressed," which means it is expressed using the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas. If through the three siddhāntas of mundane, individual adaptation, and counteractive one skillfully and expediently teaches the immeasurable four truths, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to worldly sentiment. If it is taught using the ultimate truth siddhānta, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to wisdom. If the two capacities of worldly sentiment and wisdom are not aroused, it cannot be expressed. If these two capacities are aroused, one can adapt to the capacity through expedient means and preach the distinctive teaching. When bodhisattvas hear this teaching, they enter the ten abodes, the ten practices, and the ten dedications, and ascend to the first stage. Fourth, the perfect teaching is used to elucidate the principle of the four real truths of non-action. The principle of the four real truths of non-action is precisely the meaning of "non-arising of non-arising" explained in the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra. Since the non-arising of non-arising cannot be expressed, how can it be said that the perfect teaching can elucidate this principle? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains, "Because there are causes and conditions, it can also be expressed," which means it is expressed using the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas. If the four real truths of non-action are taught using the three siddhāntas of mundane, individual adaptation, and counteractive, this merely defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to worldly sentiment. If the four real truths of non-action are taught using the ultimate truth siddhānta, this defines the elucidating teaching according to receptivity to wisdom. If there is no capacity of worldly sentiment or wisdom, it is inexpressible. If this capacity is aroused, it can be expressed. When great beings of sharp faculties hear this teaching, they open the Buddha's wisdom and insight, perceive the principle of buddha-nature, and abide in the great nirvāṇa.

2.8

Third, matching [these teachings] with various sūtras and treatises comprises two points: first, matching with sūtras; second, matching with treatises. First, matching with sūtras: the Avataṃsaka teaching uses the two teachings of distinctive and perfect to elucidate the principles of the immeasurable four truths and the four truths of non-action; the beginning of the gradual teaching of the Hīnayāna Tripiṭaka elucidates only the principle of the four truths of arising and ceasing; the Mahāsaṃnipāta, the Vaipulya, and this sūtra use the four teachings to elucidate the principles of the four kinds of four truths; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā uses three teachings to elucidate the principles of three kinds of four truths; the Lotus Sūtra uses only the perfect teaching to elucidate the principle of the four real truths of non-action; the Mahānirvāṇa generally uses the four teachings to elucidate the principles of the four kinds of four truths. The details are as quoted earlier from the text of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which conveys this meaning. Second, explaining the matching with treatises: matching specific or general sūtras and treatises can be understood by analogy with the sūtras. As for broadly expounding sūtras and treatises, as in the Madhyamaka-śāstra, which refutes all internal and external inverted attachments and external debaters who engage in contentious disputes: An opponent asks, "If everything in the world is empty and non-existent, there should be no arising and no ceasing. Because there is no arising and no ceasing, there would be no four truths, no four fruits of the śramaṇa, and no Three Jewels. If one accepts the doctrine of emptiness, there are such faults as these." The treatise master answers, "You now truly do not know the causes and conditions of emptiness. The buddhas always preach the Dharma for sentient beings based on the two truths. If one does not know the two truths, one does not know the true Dharma. Because there is the meaning of emptiness and non-emptiness, all dharmas can be established. If there were no meaning of emptiness and non-emptiness, all dharmas could not be established." That all dharmas are established means that there are the four truths, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels. Now, explaining these words: once the treatise master has thoroughly refuted attached views, explaining that there are the four truths, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels is precisely expounding the three kinds of four truths, three kinds of four fruits of the śramaṇa, and three kinds of Three Jewels within the Mahāyāna. Question: How is this known? Answer: The treatise master speaks a verse, through which we know they exist. The verse says: "Dharmas born from causes and conditions, / I declare to be identical to emptiness." This verse expounds the Mahāyāna of the shared teaching, elucidating the four truths of non-arising, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels. The verse says, "It is also called a conventional designation," which expounds the Mahāyāna of the distinctive teaching, elucidating the immeasurable four noble truths, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels. The verse says, "It is also the meaning of the middle way," which expounds the Mahāyāna of the perfect teaching, elucidating the four real truths of non-action, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels. In the purpose of refutation and exposition, the three Mahāyāna teachings are also conveyed through a single verse; the ingenuity of composing the treatise lies in this. Next, two chapters are taught subsequently; the first chapter says: "Question: 'Having already understood the Mahāyāna's entry into the ultimate truth, we now wish to hear how the śrāvaka Dharma enters the ultimate truth.' Answer: The treatise master fully explains the twelve links of dependent origination of arising and ceasing, refuting the sixty-two views to enter the ultimate truth; that is, he explains dependent origination for śrāvaka disciples of dull faculties. Dependent origination of arising and ceasing is precisely the four truths of arising and ceasing, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, and the Three Jewels." The Madhyamaka-śāstra earlier expounds the three teachings of shared, distinctive, and perfect of the Mahāyāna—the three kinds of four truths, four fruits of the śramaṇa, and Three Jewels. That the latter two chapters expound the Tripiṭaka's four truths of arising and ceasing, four fruits of the śramaṇa, and Three Jewels is because people in later ages would have increasingly dull faculties and would still need to employ this teaching. Thus, the text of the Madhyamaka-śāstra is concise yet rich in meaning; having clarified the expounding of the Buddha's four teachings, it has already revealed the principle of the four truths, hence it says that there are the four truths. This is indeed a treatise of the wish-fulfilling jewel, not a treatise of spittle and quartz. If one does not understand this meaning, weaving single and multiple provisionalities, one risks wasting effort in vain, and the intent of the four provisionalities penetrating the Buddha's Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras will ultimately be difficult to perceive.

2.9

Second, clarifying the principle elucidated by the four teachings in terms of the three truths has three aspects: first, clarifying the principle elucidated [as] the three truths; second, clarifying the four teachings that elucidate [it]; third, referencing the sūtras and treatises. First, clarifying the principle elucidated [as] the three truths: the names and meanings of the three truths are fully set forth in the two sūtras *Yīngluò* and *Rénwáng*. The first is the truth of existence; the second is the truth of non-existence; the third is the middle way paramārtha-satya. Regarding the truth of existence: the twenty-five realms of existence are perceived by the deluded sentiments of worldly sentient beings and are called existence. In accordance with those sentiments and views, it is truly verified and not false, hence termed truth; therefore it is called the truth of existence, also termed conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), and also termed worldly truth. As the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "That which is perceived by the minds of worldly people is termed worldly truth." Second, regarding the truth of non-existence: the true emptiness perceived by the people of the three vehicles who have transcended the world is without name and without mark, hence termed non-existence. Truly verified and not false, it is designated as truth; therefore it is called the truth of non-existence, also termed ultimate truth, and also termed paramārtha-satya. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "That which is perceived by the minds of those who have transcended the world is therefore termed paramārtha-satya." Third, regarding the middle way paramārtha-satya: because it negates the two extremes, it is called the middle way. Saying that it negates the two extremes means: negating ordinary beings' extreme of existence based on attachment and views; negating the extreme of emptiness without name and without mark perceived by the two vehicles; negating the two extremes of conventional truth and ultimate truth; and negating the two extremes of worldly truth and paramārtha-satya. Negating two extremes such as these is termed non-duality. The principle of non-duality is designated as the middle; this principle is open, pervasive, and unobstructed, and is termed the way; supreme and unsurpassed, it is therefore called the supreme meaning (paramārtha); profound and possessing its rationale, it is designated as meaning (artha); verified and realized by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, truly verified and not false, it is termed truth (satya). Therefore it is called the middle way paramārtha-satya; it is also termed the one real truth, and also termed space, Buddha-nature, dharmadhātu, suchness (tathatā), and tathāgatagarbha. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "Ordinary beings cling to existence; the two vehicles cling to non-existence; the Dharma of bodhisattvas is neither existent nor non-existent." This is the meaning of the distinction among the principles of the three truths. These principles are all elucidated by the four teachings; therefore, the elucidated is clarified in terms of the principle of the three truths. Question: Is the so-called principle of the three truths a principle according to sentiment, or a principle according to wisdom? Answer: Clarifying the meaning now in terms of our school, the principles of the truths analyzed have three differences: first, according to sentiment; second, according to sentiment and wisdom; third, according to wisdom. This meaning should be analyzed separately elsewhere; for now we use one approach, determining the principles of the three truths relying on the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*. That is to say, the first is the principle according to sentiment, the second is the principle according to sentiment and wisdom, and the third is the principle according to wisdom. Or it is also said: two are principles according to sentiment and wisdom, and the third is the principle according to wisdom. It is also said: two are principles according to sentiment, and one is the principle according to wisdom. Sentiment and wisdom are explained together to constitute the principle of the three truths.

2.10

Second, clarifying the four teachings that elucidate the principle of the three truths has four points: First, the Tripiṭaka teaching only elucidates the principle of the two truths; therefore, those who receive this teaching do not hear of the eternal Buddha-nature of nirvāṇa, and the three vehicles still preserve the fruit of extinction into ash. Second, the shared teaching also only elucidates the principle of the two truths; therefore, those who receive this teaching also do not hear of the eternal Buddha-nature of nirvāṇa, and the three vehicles still preserve the fruit of extinction into ash. Third, the distinctive teaching distinctly elucidates the principle of the three truths; therefore, for those who receive this teaching, the thirty stages of mind merely accomplish the expedient path of the wisdom of the two contemplations, and only upon ascending the grounds do they behold the Buddha-nature and enter the flow of the Dharma. Fourth, the perfect teaching perfectly elucidates the principle of the three truths; therefore, for those who receive this teaching, with the initial mind they immediately open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, naturally flowing into the ocean of sarvajñā.

2.11

Third, referencing the sūtras and treatises: The *Avataṃsaka* only elucidates provisional-name conventional truth and the middle way; or it is said that the Avataṃsaka teaching elucidates the three truths of distinct marks and the three truths in one mind. The gradual teaching of the Tripiṭaka elucidates the two truths, ultimate and conventional. The teachings of the Vaipulya Mahāyāna elucidate the three truths, broadly the same as the *Avataṃsaka*. The *Mahāprajñā[pāramitā]* also fully elucidates the three truths, broadly the same as the *Avataṃsaka*. The *Lotus [Sūtra]* only elucidates the three truths in one mind. The *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* fully elucidates the three truths, broadly also the same as the *Avataṃsaka*. The treatises follow the sūtras, and by analogy can be known. The verse in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: "Dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, / I explain as being identical to emptiness"—this elucidates the ultimate truth; "and also called provisional names"—this elucidates the conventional truth; "and also the meaning of the middle way"—this elucidates the middle way paramārtha[-satya]. This verse thus sets forth the principle of the three truths elucidated in the Mahāyāna. As for the subsequent two chapters that clarify the śrāvaka sūtras entering the paramārtha, these distinctly set forth the principle of the two truths elucidated in the Tripiṭaka teaching.

2.12

Third, clarifying the principle elucidated in terms of the two truths also has three aspects: first, properly clarifying the principle elucidated; second, clarifying the teachings that elucidate [it]; third, referencing the sūtras and treatises. First, clarifying the principle elucidated: this is the principle of the two truths. There are two kinds of two truths: first, the two truths outside the principle; second, the two truths within the principle. If the ultimate truth is not the Buddha-nature, these are the two truths outside the principle. If the ultimate truth is identical to the Buddha-nature, these are the two truths within the principle. 1. The two truths outside the principle are of two kinds: first, the non-identical two truths, which are the two truths of arising and ceasing; second, the mutually identical two truths, which are the two truths of non-arising. Thus the *Dàpǐn jīng* states: "Form is emptiness itself, not that the destruction of form is emptiness." Only upon the destruction of form being empty is the non-identical two truths; form being emptiness itself is the mutually identical two truths. 2. Clarifying the two truths within the principle also has two kinds: first, the non-identical two truths; second, the mutually identical two truths. The first, the non-identical two truths, are the immeasurable two truths. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "Discerning the worldly truth has immeasurable marks, and paramārtha-satya also has immeasurable marks, which cannot be known by any of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." The second, the mutually identical two truths, are the uncreated two truths. The uncreated suffering, origin, cessation, and path are termed worldly truth; being identical to the one real truth, they are therefore termed paramārtha-satya.

2.13

Second, clarifying the four teachings that elucidate: the Tripiṭaka teaching elucidates the non-identical two truths outside the principle; the shared teaching elucidates the mutually identical two truths outside the principle; the distinctive teaching elucidates the non-identical two truths within the principle; and the perfect teaching elucidates the mutually identical two truths within the principle.

2.14

Third, referencing the sūtras and treatises: The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* elucidates the two kinds of two truths within the principle; the Tripiṭaka teaching elucidates the non-identical two truths outside the principle; the Vaipulya Mahāyāna elucidates the four kinds of two truths outside the principle; the *Mahāprajñā[pāramitā]* elucidates the mutually identical two truths outside the principle and the two kinds of two truths within the principle; the *Lotus Sūtra* only elucidates the mutually identical two truths within the principle; the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* comprehensively elucidates the four kinds of two truths within and outside the principle. The treatises correspond to the sūtras and can be understood by analogy. The verse in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: "Dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, / I explain as being identical to emptiness"—this sets forth the mutually identical two truths outside the principle; "and also called provisional names, / and also the meaning of the middle way"—this sets forth the mutually identical and non-identical two truths within the principle. The latter two chapters clarify the śrāvaka entering the paramārtha, which sets forth the non-identical two truths outside the principle of the Tripiṭaka teaching.

2.15

Fourth, clarifying the elucidated by distinguishing the principle of the one truth also has three aspects: first, properly clarifying the principle elucidated; second, clarifying the teachings that elucidate [it]; third, referencing the sūtras and treatises. First, clarifying the principle elucidated: this is the principle of the one truth. What is named the one truth? 'Truth' means truly verified. Dharmas that are truly verified are non-dual; how could there be three truths or two truths? All are called truly verified. Now, clarifying ultimate and conventional as being spoken of as truths is merely an expedient, not genuinely truths. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "What are called the two truths are in fact one. The Tathāgata merely uses expedients to transform sentient beings, and therefore speaks of them as two. For example, the sun and moon do not revolve, but a drunk person sees them revolving. You should know that there is only the non-revolving sun, seen alike by those who are not drunk; how could there separately be a revolving sun? If there were truly a revolving sun, those who are not drunk should also see it together." The one truth is like the true sun; the two truths are like the revolving sun. The true sun is truly verified, and may be called the one truth. The revolving sun is unreal; how could there be two truths? Speaking expediently of two does not constitute genuine meaning; hence they are not truths. Here, the one real truth is taken as the principle elucidated.

2.16

Second, clarifying the teachings that elucidate: the Tripiṭaka teaching and the shared teaching are precisely when the evil wine of defilements has not yet been vomited out; they solely elucidate the revolving sun and speak of there being two truths, unable to elucidate the one real truth. The distinctive teaching elucidates the one real truth like departing from the revolving sun. The perfect teaching elucidates the one real truth [where] the revolving sun is precisely the non-revolving sun.

2.17

Third, referencing the sūtras and treatises: The Avataṃsaka teaching elucidates the one real truth, carrying along the expedient of the non-identity of the worldly truth within the principle. The Tripiṭaka teaching wholly does not elucidate the one real truth. The Vaipulya teaching elucidates the one real truth the same as the *Avataṃsaka*, having the expedient of converging the biased ultimate toward the one real truth. The Mahāprajñā teaching elucidates the one real truth also the same as the *Avataṃsaka*, also carrying along the expedient of converging the biased ultimate toward the one real truth. Thus the *Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings* states: "For more than forty years since the Buddha achieved enlightenment, he has not yet revealed the real truth." Now I say: how could he not speak of the real truth? It was only that according with circumstances at certain times, it was covered by the expedients of opening the two truths and three truths that are not identical to the one truth. The Lotus teaching elucidates the one real truth without the covering expedient of non-identity, solely elucidating all as identical to the one real truth. Thus the *Lotus Sūtra* states: "The twenty thousand Candrasūryapradīpa Buddhas all stated: 'The meaning of the true mark of all dharmas has already been spoken for you. Now the Buddha emits light to assist in revealing the meaning of the true mark. After a long time, the Dharma of the Buddhas must surely speak the real, directly casting aside expedients and only speaking the unsurpassed path.'" The *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* is the same as the *Vaipulya*, with the difference being that it comprehensively explains entry into the Buddha-nature. The treatises follow the sūtras and can be understood by analogy. As the verse in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: "and also the meaning of the middle way"—this sets forth the teaching of the one real truth. Thus Qingmu's commentary states: "Because it negates the two extremes, it is named the middle way"—that is, negating the extreme of causes-and-conditions emptiness and the extreme of the provisional. Negating these two extremes is none other than negating the two truths of ultimate and conventional to be called the one real truth. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: "The one real truth has no two." It also states: "The nature of non-duality is the real nature; the nature of non-duality is the entry into the Dharma gate of non-duality." Furthermore, the one real truth is non-arising and non-arising. Because non-arising and non-arising cannot be spoken, the layman Vimalakīrti kept silent and closed his mouth, praised by Mañjuśrī; the intent lies right here.

2.18

Meaning of the Four Teachings, Fascicle Two

Linked texts (1)

四教義 — Classical Chinese