Answers to the Twenty-Seven Questions from the Japanese National Master (with preface; according to the Stele of Religious Deeds it says twenty questions, yet according to the transmitted manuscript copies, twenty-seven questions are consistently recorded; it is feared that subsequent questions and answers were interpolated into the earlier text. Now we follow the twenty-seven questions. [Zong]xing)

4.15

Questions by the Japanese National Master; Answers by Dharma Master Siming

4.16

In the guimao year, the sixth year of the Xianping reign era of the August Song, the Japanese monk Jashō and others brought twenty-seven points of contradictory questions regarding the Tiantai teachings raised by Chan Master Genshin of Mount Tiantai in that country. Zhili, the śramaṇa of Siming who transmits the teachings, relying on the doctrinal teachings, briefly responded, setting down [his replies] following each question.

4.17

Should the great masters of the various quarters happen to peruse them, may they not spare their correcting axes.

4.18

Twenty-seven points of doubt regarding the Tiantai school are respectfully presented to your chamber, humbly hoping that you will deign to extend compassion and explain and elucidate them one by one. This would be supreme and unfathomable good fortune.

4.19

Presented by Genshin, Court Chaplain and one of the Ten Great Chan Masters, holding the Rank of Dharma Bridge Noble Gentleman, of the Ryōgon-in on Mount Tiantai in Japan.

4.20

Question 1: In the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra, predictions of becoming a buddha are bestowed across the three cycles [of preaching], and so on. Recent doubters say: Is this the buddha of the first abodal stage (prathamacittotpādika)? Or is it the buddha of wondrous awakening (samyaksaṃbodhi)? If it is wondrous awakening, the Great Master constantly said that it is the buddha of the eight aspects at the first abodal stage. If it is the first abodal stage, the perfect and sudden path is swift, so that [buddhahood] can even be consummated across one or two lifetimes; how much more so across countless kalpas?

4.21

Answer: What is conferred across the three cycles is the prediction of the response body that manifests the eight aspects. As for these eight aspects, beginning from the initial abodal stage where the Dharma body is partially revealed, up through wondrous awakening where the Dharma body is consummated, all are capable of manifesting these aspects that benefit sentient beings. Those who attain entry across the three cycles are not limited to the first abodal stage. As the commentary says: Śāriputra, being of superior faculties and sharp wisdom, must have entered in a leaping advance. Yet that it mostly says the first abodal stage is simply indicating its head. Furthermore, that it consistently speaks of passing countless kalpas is for forming connections with sentient beings to serve as the cause for purifying buddha-lands. If there were not numerous capacities to receive conversion, how could one manifest a body and expound the Dharma? If we consider the root of the Dharma body, it is attained right upon the seat; how could it await passing through countless kalpas?

4.22

Question 2: The subcommentary on the chapter 'A Parable' says: When Śāriputra retrogressed at the sixth mind among the ten abodes, it was perhaps that prior to that both view and thought [defilements] had been severed, and by the time of the sixth mind, views were not yet exhausted, so that at the sixth mind he still retrogressed. Recent doubters say: At the first abode of the separate teaching, all view afflictions within the three realms have already been completely severed; how could views not yet be exhausted at the sixth abode, such that he retrogressed to become an ordinary person guilty of heinous offenses?

4.23

Answer: If it is the standard separate teaching, it consistently says that at the first abode views are severed, and one no longer gives rise to major transgressions. Moreover, although the categories of view defilements are many, they are severed all at once at a single stage; thought defilements are only exhausted by passing through various stages. This is the conventional boundary discussed in the separate teaching. Now, the author of the subcommentary, seeing it stated that Śāriputra still retrogressed at the sixth abode and again committed major offenses, sought it through meaning, [suggesting that] perhaps there is a doctrinal teaching wherein view and thought are both severed, yet by the time of the sixth mind thought is not yet exhausted and a remnant of views also remains, which is therefore able to pull one into the evil destinies. These are words of deliberation according to meaning by the author of the subcommentary; they cannot be used as an objection against the standard separate teaching. If we rely on the Awakening of Faith, it only speaks of non-retrogression, strictly determining it with respect to persons of the perfect [teaching]. If we consider the manifestation of traces, one must also manifest their stages and delineate them according to afflictions; only then is there the meaning of retrogression.

4.24

Question 3: The commentary on the chapter 'The Parable of the Conjured City' says: Question: If it required such an immense span of time as the number of dust particles mentioned above, and only now have they attained arhatship, one should know that the forbearance of the unarisen Dharma is by no means easily stepped upon. Answer: One explanation says: The Great Sage, being skillful, expounded this based on the four siddhāntas. As an antidote to those who grow weary of the Path, he speaks of it as short; to those who give rise to thoughts of the Path as light and easy, he speaks of it as long. One should know that stating that they only now attain arhatship after so many kalpas is the Tathāgata's provisional practice of the four siddhāntas, leading those of genuine practice to enter the Path. Recent doubters say: Speaking broadly of the length of the Buddha-Path might indeed be the skillful four siddhāntas. However, the dust-particle kalpas of Mahābhijñā-jñānābhibhū are still an indication of actual facts. If it were not so, why take the trouble to repeatedly grind layer upon layer of lands? Would this not be a futile waste of words? If this matter were not real, it would be difficult to distinguish between the provisional and the real in all that is said. In addition, when the commentary regards the immensely distant past as planting [the seed], the past as ripening, and the recent age as liberation, the subcommentary evaluates them as the original retinue. Why does this say that only now attaining arhatship is the provisional practice of the four siddhāntas?

4.25

Answer: It is indeed as you have asked, yet there is a reason for it. Why so? If we investigate far into the cause between father and sons, and thoroughly probe the juncture of planting and ripening, the various sūtras have not discussed its beginning, nor has this chapter yet managed to expound it; one must rely on the text of the chapter 'The Span of the Tathāgata's Life' to fully exhaust the power of supernormal faculties. However, if one were to trace the distant planting and definitively point to a vast time, sentient beings would not give rise to a resolute mind nor exert their own strength. Therefore, the commentary and subcommentary now provisionally interpret it as a siddhānta, desiring to cause people to establish practice and redouble their effort; this is the essential point in propagating the sūtra. Therefore, though there is one life, ten grounds, three periods, and six sense faculties, without the latent perfuming of past seeds, how could sharp faculties activate of themselves? Moreover, if this chapter only discussed provisionally showing a distant lifespan, it would also be empty talk; how could it eternally differ from the other sūtras? By what means could the original subtlety be illuminated? Although it is said that the initial mind relies on the teaching, one must still evaluate it oneself by means of meaning. Furthermore, the commentary's indication 'one explanation says' lets it be known that it is not a definitive judgment, and the subcommentary's rebuke of sitting idle and upright is truly an exhortation. Relying on this text, it is not at all contrary to the teaching.

4.26

Question 4: In the chapter 'The Appearance of the Jeweled Stūpa', according to Prabhūtaratna's original vow, the emanated bodies all gather. Doubters say: The Dazhidu lun, explaining Śākyamuni's emanated lands, says: In the silver world there are exclusively pratyekabuddhas; in the gold world there are exclusively arhats. Did all the buddhas of those lands come, or not? If they came, the emanated lands illuminated by the Buddha's light all have crystal for ground, and do not mention silver or gold. Furthermore, the emanated lands have bodhisattvas; when the emanated bodies came, each brought a great bodhisattva, yet those two worlds are not said to have bodhisattvas. If you say they did not come, this contradicts the vow that all return and gather in one place, and also contradicts the text saying that all have already gathered. Those who dispel this objection say: It says 'all gathered' and 'all came' with respect to the majority. Or they say that crystal was the ground and there were bodhisattvas, just as placing mung beans among a pile of black beans is named a pile of black beans by assimilating the few into the many. A further objection says: If it is with respect to the majority, this still invites a tremendous obstacle. The text stating that in the buddha-lands of the ten directions there is only the One Vehicle, and the words that both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas will all attain the Buddha-Path, should also follow the majority. If so, would this not be identical to the intention of the school of five natures?

4.27

Answer: Discrepancies between sūtras and treatises are not few in number; there is no need to harmonize them. Now, if we were to forcefully harmonize them: although this sūtra says that all have crystal for ground, what would prevent the trees and palaces from being purely of gold or silver, such that they could also be called worlds of gold and silver? Moreover, although the lands of their original dwelling had no bodhisattvas, when they were about to gather, in order to be like the other buddhas, they brought transformed bodhisattvas to serve as attendants; there should be no great obstacle in this. Furthermore, that the various lands are said only to be filled with bodhisattvas is spoken with respect to the opening and revelation of the present sūtra: it only transforms bodhisattvas and does not act for the two vehicles, directly taking the two vehicles to be bodhisattvas—what could be objectionable about this?

4.28

Question 5: The subcommentary on the chapter 'Devadatta', in explaining the place from which the dragon girl came, has three meanings. Its second meaning says: Although the oceanic assembly was moved, the dragon palace did not move. The dragons considered it unmoved, yet their dwelling had already transformed. What could be objectionable about coming from a place that is transformed yet untransformed? (and so on). Doubters say: In this, what place is designated as the dwelling? If it is the dragon palace, the text above says it did not move; how can it suddenly say below that it had already transformed? If it is the great ocean, the text above says the dragon palace did not move, not that the great ocean did not move; how can it now, with respect to the great ocean, say that the dragons considered it unmoved? Moreover, what is the meaning of 'transformed yet untransformed'? Recent scholars each hold different views; we request that you deign to give a definitive resolution.

4.29

Answer: The sūtra says that the devas and humans were moved, and the subcommentary says that the oceanic assembly was moved. The sūtra says that the Sahā world transformed into ground of lapis lazuli, with no great oceans, rivers, or streams. This verifies that sentient beings were moved and insentient things were transformed. Among sentient beings, the dragon assembly of Sāgara, because of their affinity, alone was not moved. Since the dragons were not moved, how could the palace in which they dwelt rely upon the jeweled ground? It necessarily had to remain in the great ocean. Thus we know that the assembly at this gathering, transformed by the Buddha's supernormal power, all saw a jeweled land, while the dragon assembly themselves saw their palace in the ocean. Now Mañjuśrī followed their category of perception; therefore, the author of the sūtra says: 'Spontaneously welling up from the palace of the dragon king Sāgara in the great ocean.' 'Transformed yet untransformed' can be understood through contemplating this.

4.30

Question 6: The commentary on the chapter 'The Span of the Tathāgata's Life' says: The bodhimaṇḍa of calm extinction in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and the leaping over the preceding nine kalpas in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra are all expedients. Doubters say: In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, there is only the Youth of the Snowy Mountains leaping over twelve kalpas; why does it say here leaping over nine kalpas?

4.31

Answer: Either it was a slip of the pen by the recorder, or an error in transcription by later people. Moreover, there is no great harm in it; why should one bitterly doubt it?

4.32

Question 7: The commentary on the chapter 'Discrimination of Merits' says: Or perhaps one person has eight turns of increase; or perhaps one life, or eight lives, or countless lives; or one thought, or eight thoughts, or countless thoughts (and so on). Doubters say: The fourth fascicle of the commentary says: The śrāvakas of the three cycles have not yet severed ignorance, and have three faculties of sharpness and dullness. If genuine cultivation and the essence are revealed, then there is no disparity. From the first abode upward, when conditional cultivation is further aroused, there is no longer superiority or inferiority; when genuine cultivation and the essence interfuse, how could there be differences? (and so on). Now why is there a disparity of one thought, eight thoughts, and even countless lives? If so, how can one discuss attaining wondrous awakening in the body born of father and mother? If you accept that it is attained, the sūtra regards the dragon girl as attaining it swiftly, yet the Great Master determined it as the eight aspects at the first abode. Since there is a principle of swift attainment, why did the dragon girl not attain wondrous awakening? Moreover, the Awakening of Faith harmonizes the two accounts of length and brevity across the various sūtras, taking three asaṃkhyeya kalpas alone as the realization of principle; Tiantai must not contradict Aśvaghoṣa. If you do not accept it, since there are eight turns of increase and decrease in a single thought, why not accept forty-two turns in a single lifetime? How must the swift path of the perfect and sudden necessarily pass through so many kalpas?

4.33

Answer: The Commentary to the fourth fascicle states: 'When the three faculties enter the initial stage of abiding, are there still sharp and dull ones?' The Subcommentary states: 'After these same three faculties have entered the stage of abiding, are they still named three?' Now, based on the Subcommentary author's intended question: after entering the stage of abiding, are Śāriputra and the others still superior faculties, while Kāśyapa, Pūrṇa, and the others remain intermediate and inferior? The Commentary answers: 'When the essence of true cultivation is manifested, there is no disparity.' The meaning of this answer is: after the three faculties have realized the principle, even if they give rise to conditioned cultivation, it will never be based on the previous [hierarchy where] superior faculties remain superior and intermediate faculties remain intermediate. Thus we know that it is said that true cultivation has no disparity in order to adapt to faculties seeking certitude. But if one determines for oneself that the Dharmakāya increases the path and decreases rebirth, how could there not be slowness and speed? Hence there are disparities such as one thought-moment, eight thought-moments, three lifetimes, and eight lifetimes. Furthermore, regarding the question about [attaining] wondrous enlightenment in a single lifetime: since the Commentary mentions eight increments in a single thought-moment, and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa also mentions the ten bhūmis in the body of birth, using this to verify that realizing wondrous enlightenment in this very body is not entirely absent. It is only because the passage in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra stating that 'at the initial generating of the mind, one immediately attains right enlightenment' precisely refers to the eight phases of the initial stage of abiding, while worldly people mostly take it to be the Dharmakāya of wondrous enlightenment, thereby entirely missing the cultivation and realization of the forty-one stages. Therefore, whenever our school judges the eight phases, it mostly places them within the stage of the non-arising. Moreover, regarding the text on the dragon girl's cultivation and realization, and the phase of her attaining buddhahood in the southern realm, it is difficult to definitively determine higher or lower, because generating the mind and ultimate [attainment] are not distinct. As explained elsewhere, upon first ascending to the bhūmis and the stages of abiding, the three causes unfold. Having attained the non-arising, one then naturally realizes the subsequent stages. Furthermore, the dragon girl, with the retributive body of an animal, immediately realized this stage and was able to display the eight phases, benefiting beings, which sufficiently reveals swift realization. If one relies on the Awakening of Faith, since it generally expounds the three teachings of the Mahāyāna, the passage that definitively speaks of the number of kalpas is likely the meaning of the pedagogical path of the separate teaching. If it is said that Aśvaghoṣa and Tiantai must not contradict each other: just as when Tiantai judged the predictions of the Origin Section, it entirely refrained from using Vasubandhu's original treatise. If even that original treatise was subject to acceptance and rejection, how much more so a treatise that generally expounds [the teachings]?

4.34

Eighth question: Fascicle five, the 'Chapter on Joyful Praise' states that when ten people transmit hearing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra from one to another, the merit obtained from a single thought-moment of joyful praise is boundless and limitless. The Commentary determines that the initial 'Chapter on Joyful Praise' encompasses fifty merits altogether. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on Encouragement [of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra]' states: 'By accomplishing four dharmas, one can attain this sūtra.' The Commentary states: 'The older interpretation said that by being able to practice the four dharmas, one attains this sūtra in hand. We now say this is not so. The preceding text stated that the meaning of the true nature of all dharmas has already been explained for you. It also said: "In order to cause sentient beings to open, display, awaken to, and enter the vision and knowledge of the buddha." Since this is the fundamental essence of the Lotus Sūtra, one who can practice the four dharmas must attain this understanding.' A doubter says: 'The Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "Because their roots of goodness are not yet ripe and their merit is slight, they do not even hear its name, let alone hold it in hand. If one attains it in hand, one will swiftly sit on the bodhimaṇḍa." It also states: "Once it passes through their ears, due to the power of their roots of goodness, they are certain to attain unsurpassed bodhi." From this one knows that although they do not possess the fifty merits and do not understand the true nature, merely hearing its name or holding the sūtra scroll in hand are all of immeasurable merit; one truly must not take an exclusive view here.'

4.35

Answer: Expositions of sūtras have their respective reasons for being shallow or deep. In the present sūtra, joyful praise possesses two kinds: internal understanding and external affairs. External affairs may well be interpreted shallowly, but internal understanding must be made deeply clear. As for the 'Chapter on Encouragement', since Samantabhadra came from afar to request the expounding of the sūtra again, and the Tathāgata based on this briefly expounded the four dharmas, if it did not summarize the whole sūtra with opening, displaying, awakening to, and entering, how could it fulfill his request? Since the rank of the petitioner is high, how could the attained sūtra be shallow? Therefore, it must not be understood merely as holding the sūtra scroll in hand. As for that Prajñā Sūtra, since holding it in hand and hearing it with the ears constitute the seed of bodhi, how could anyone without roots of goodness encounter this? If it constitutes an indestructible seed, then there is an appointed time for liberation; hence there is the statement of swiftly sitting and being certain to attain. How much less should holding it in hand and hearing it with the ears be exclusively understood as shallow affairs? Furthermore, propagating the sūtra is fundamentally for generating goodness; if one does not spur it with the practice of principle, how could that be attained?

4.36

Ninth question: The Commentary on the 'Chapter on the Merit of the Dharma Master' states: 'The Brahmā King, through his retributive heavenly eye, completely sees the great chiliocosm while in his own realm. Outside the great chiliocosm there is a wind wheel that obstructs his eye, so he cannot see outside. If he is in another realm, he does not completely see the great chiliocosm, as it is not what he governs. A great arhat sees a great chiliocosm, and a pratyekabuddha sees a hundred buddha-worlds, without being obstructed by the wind wheel and without the separation of own or other realms.' A doubter says: 'Fascicle five of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "With slight application of mind, a great arhat sees two thousand worlds; with great application of mind, he sees a great chiliocosm. The pratyekabuddha is also like this." Furthermore, fascicle fourteen of the treatise states: "At most, a śrāvaka sees sideways a small chiliocosm, and completely sees above and below as well. Question: The Great Brahmā King can also see a thousand worlds; what difference is there? Answer: The Great Brahmā, standing in the midst of a thousand worlds, sees them completely; if he stands on the edge, he does not see the other places. A śrāvaka is not like this; wherever he abides, he always sees a thousand worlds, and a pratyekabuddha sees a hundred thousand worlds." According to the meaning of the treatise: depending on natural or applied effort of mind, greater or lesser distinctions, the visions of the two vehicles each differ. However, the thousand worlds seen by the Brahmā King should be one small chiliocosm. The hundred thousand worlds seen by the pratyekabuddha should be a hundred small chiliocosms. Furthermore, the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā states: "The supernormal powers of the two vehicles do not exceed a great chiliocosm." Why does it now say that the Brahmā King sees a great chiliocosm and the pratyekabuddha sees a hundred buddha-worlds? (The "hundred buddha-worlds" in the text of the treatise should correspond to a hundred thousand worlds; hence the Si nianchu and the Sijiao yi both state: "When a pratyekabuddha develops the heavenly eye, it goes beyond the three thousand and sees other realms.") Regarding such differing characteristics of phenomena, there must be a definitive conclusion.'

4.37

Answer: The words of the Bodhisattva of Total Retention must accord with the characteristics of dharmas; since he personally lectured on the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it surely could not have been in vain. It is a wondrous understanding of the treatise text, grasping its profound meaning. Why? For instance, the treatise expounds the doctrines of two teachings; whenever the text mentions the two vehicles, it includes both the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings. Just as in what you cited, how could it be a single track? First it says that one with great application of mind sees a great chiliocosm, and next it says that at most one sees a small chiliocosm. Since there are many types of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas cannot be judged uniformly. Since their latent defilements are partially eliminated, what they see should be broader. Since the text says they see a hundred thousand worlds, how can it be definitively restricted to small chiliocosms? It is only because small pratyekabuddhas are not distinct from śrāvakas that it says pratyekabuddhas are also like this. The Brahmā King's functions in the various teachings are also many, but only to yield to the two vehicles is he made inferior by one grade. Yet as the lord of the great chiliocosm, how could his vision of his own realm be incomplete? We hope you will determine the text by means of the doctrinal meaning, and not lose the meaning by clinging strictly to the text.

4.38

Tenth question: The 'Chapter on Sadāparibhūta' states: 'Because of practicing the practice of Sadāparibhūta, one swiftly attains buddhahood' (and so forth). A doubter says: 'Looking from this affair of Sadāparibhūta toward the true attainment in the remote past, is it before or after? If before, it contradicts the statement in the Commentary to the "Lifespan Chapter" that Changbuqing was even closer. If after, who would believe that buddhahood was attained swiftly through the practice of Sadāparibhūta?'

4.39

Answer: If it was before, it was the real cause. If it was after, it was the cause of purifying the buddha-land. Therefore we know that according to the intention of this sūtra, it specifically demonstrates the right cause: practicing the practice of Sadāparibhūta immediately takes the land swiftly and attains buddhahood. Hence it states: 'Upholding this sūtra and expounding it for others, one swiftly attains the buddha way.' This is it.

4.40

Eleventh question: The Commentary on the 'Chapter on Entrustment' states: 'The Buddha, with a single skillful hand of provisional wisdom, rubbed the crowns of real wisdom of all the bodhisattvas filling the emptiness of three thousand three hundred nayutas of lands.' A doubter says: 'What kind of lands are referred to by the name "three thousand three hundred nayutas"? Some say: "Referring to the three transformations of the pure land, where in each of the eight directions another two million nayutas of lands are transformed. If based on this meaning, one can say three thousand three hundred." Is this explanation correct?'

4.41

Answer: In principle, it must refer to the three transformations of the pure land. Here, a land should not be a great chiliocosm; it likely refers to a single set of four continents as one land. Since Sahā is the name of a great chiliocosm, it can make up the three thousand three hundred. However, a great chiliocosm also seems not to reach one hundred million nayutas of four continents; it is likely increased to a great chiliocosm according to the large numbering system. Why? Because in the small numbering system, ten tens make a hundred, a hundred hundreds make a thousand, a thousand thousands make ten thousand, and so forth.

4.42

Twelfth question: The Subcommentary on the 'Chapter on Entrustment' notes that the Zheng fahua mistakenly separated the name Bodhisattva Ratnapāṇi into two, additionally adding Ratnamudrāśīrṣa: 'Pāṇi is already a hand, and adding head-crown further splits it into two persons.' A doubter says: 'That sūtra has Bodhisattva Ratnapāṇi and Bodhisattva Mudrāśīrṣa, but no Bodhisattva Ratnamudrāśīrṣa. What is the meaning of now saying that it "additionally added Ratnamudrāśīrṣa"? Moreover, other sūtras also have these three bodhisattvas; why take the trouble to refute it?'

4.43

Answer: It is because manuscripts often have scribal errors, and presence or omission is difficult to discern. The edition examined by the author of the Subcommentary at that time must have had the names of three bodhisattvas, and it was by no means an unfounded criticism. Although other sūtras have the titles of these three holy ones, since there is no re-translated text, they do not serve as an objection under this precedent.

4.44

Thirteenth question: The Commentary on the 'Chapter on the Universal Gate' states: 'There are naturally many sufferings afflicting one person, many persons suffering one suffering, one person suffering many sufferings, and one person suffering few sufferings.' A doubter says: 'The third phrase should say "many persons suffering many sufferings." If not, it is identical with the first phrase, so why establish an empty phrase?'

4.45

Answer: Judging by the syntax and deducing the meaning, the third phrase should be as corrected. This was simply a scribe of former times who saw the fourth phrase, "one person suffering few sufferings," and wishing to match this phrase, erroneously altered the third phrase to "one person suffering many sufferings," without considering that its meaning was identical to the first phrase above.

4.46

Fourteenth question: The Subcommentary on the 'Chapter on Encouragement' states: 'The tenth bhūmi only cuts off twelve grades completely; it is not the extreme of cutting off and subduing, so we know it is not the meaning of Samantabhadra.' A doubter says: 'The tenth bhūmi only cuts off ten grades; why does it say twelve? If it cuts off twelve grades, it would surpass Samantabhadra, so why say it is not the extreme of cutting off and subduing? Nor can it be said to be the intention of the separate teaching, since Samantabhadra has always been explained only in terms of the perfect stages.'

4.47

Answer: The text of the Subcommentary in that country has a scribal error. According to the edition in the Song land, it states: 'The tenth bhūmi only cuts off forty grades completely; it is not the extreme of cutting off and subduing.'

4.48

Fifteenth question: The first fascicle of the Subcommentary on the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanyi, resolving the explanation of the initial buddha without teaching, states: 'There is ultimately one buddha who in the beginning had no teaching' (and so forth). A doubter says: 'The meaning is still not clear. If one admits there is a buddha without teaching, one falls into the fault of causelessness. If one says he received teachings, one falls into the fault of infinite regress. I wish to hear a single resolution of this.'

4.49

Answer: Although the very first buddha lacked the cause of receiving teachings, he had the cause of internal perfuming and self-awakening. The Subcommentary demonstrates this very clearly; why say that it falls into causelessness?

4.50

Sixteenth question: The Lotus Repentance Ritual by Nanyue states: 'The twenty thousand billion Candrasūryapradīpa Buddhas of the past, and the future Prabhasaṃpanna-guṇakoṭi-vyūha Buddha.' A doubter says: 'In the sūtra there is no character for "billion" (yi) and no character for "adornment" (zhuangyan); why did Nanyue arbitrarily add them?'

4.51

Answer: Although they are not in the sūtra, Nanyue was a person of the stage of resemblance; illuminating with the three penetrations and the five eyes, it was appropriate to have these three characters, and therefore he added them. Later generations should not arbitrarily excise them.

4.52

Seventeenth Question: In the sixth fascicle of the Miaoxuan, regarding whether the suffering and joy of lands are indicated, there are two explanations: one says it is due to sentient beings and not what the Buddha causes, and the other says it is due to the Buddha and has nothing to do with sentient beings, and so forth. A doubter says: Śākyamuni's original vow states: 'In the future I will appear in an impure and evil land, and to benefit [beings in] the pure lands of the ten directions, I will expel sentient beings of evil karma.' From this we know that all suffering matters are merely induced by sentient beings' evil karma; how can it be said to be due to the Buddha and have nothing to do with sentient beings? If it were caused by the Buddha, would that not mean that sentient beings' evil karma is devoid of retribution? How could the Tathāgata run counter to great compassion and skillful means, causing sentient beings to undergo the sufferings of the three wretched realms? Thus, the practices performed by Sadāparibhūta and the assemblies transformed by Mañjuśrī were all skillful employments of means, shortening the long and lightening the heavy; they certainly did not set up causes and conditions for suffering and affliction.

4.53

Answer: If we discuss creating good and evil causes that incur retributions of suffering and joy, that is indeed due to sentient beings and does not concern the Buddha. But if we consider using matters of suffering and joy to subdue and embrace sentient beings, that is manifested by the Buddha and does not concern sentient beings. Truly, because those who should be cured through suffering are only then able to receive transformation, the Buddhas enact it for them. Just as former kings established punishments, was it that they wished to inflict suffering on the common people? It was out of supreme benevolence! The Buddhas are also like this: for the sake of subduing and embracing, they forcefully manifest it. Furthermore, although sentient beings dwell in lands of suffering and joy, they do not attain mastery therein. The Buddhas can transform them in this regard; hence it is said to be due to the Buddha. Moreover, the Buddha is the Buddha of sentient beings, and sentient beings are the sentient beings of the Buddha. Thus it is said that within the minds of sentient beings, the Buddhas thought-moment by thought-moment realize reality; within the minds of the Buddhas, sentient beings afresh and anew create karma. From this we know that if we discuss sentient beings, everything at that moment belongs to sentient beings; if we bring up the Buddha, everything at that moment belongs to the Buddha. By this principle, the sūtra therefore says: 'Now this triple world is entirely my possession, and the sentient beings within it are all my children.'

4.54

Eighteenth Question: In the ninth fascicle of the Miaoxuan, explaining the attainment of benefit in the Origin Section, it says: 'It causes the Dharmakāya Bodhisattvas to gain great benefit; even if a hundred thousand nayutas of lands were reduced to dust, the bodhisattvas of increased stages could not exhaust it.' A recent doubter says: 'The "Chapter on the Discrimination of Merits" only mentions dust particles of a great-thousand world, a medium-thousand world, the four continents, and so forth, which do not even reach a hundred thousand; how can it say a hundred thousand nayutas?'

4.55

Answer: It is only when there are nayutas of small lands in each of the various directions that it is called a great-thousand [world]. When the sūtra speaks of 'dust particles of a great-thousand, etc.', how could it not encompass a hundred thousand? If a single particle of dust still possesses divisions in the ten directions, how much more so a great-thousand world? If one were to say that the entire realms of the ten directions were all reduced to dust, only then would it contradict the sūtra text.

4.56

Nineteenth Question: In the fifth fascicle of the Shiqian, explaining the immovable samādhi, it says: 'Retribution and the three delusions constitute the three immovables; motion subsumes karma, but there are only three truths, because karma and [the delusions of] views and thoughts together enter what is broken by conventional truth.' A recent doubter says: 'In the other samādhis and in various other places, views and thoughts are always broken by ultimate truth. Why here are they broken by conventional truth?'

4.57

Answer: Here, karma together with views and thoughts collectively enter the conventional truth of birth-and-death, and are precisely what is broken by ultimate truth, thereby constituting the samādhi of ultimate truth. In other passages, when karma is broken together with [the delusions of] dust and sand, it constitutes the samādhi of conventional truth; each has its reason. Why? As in the preceding passages on the immaculate [samādhi] and others, scattered goodness is used to break evil karma, and scattered goodness constitutes the contemplation of provisionality. Here, meditative goodness is used to break scattered goodness, which constitutes the contemplation of emptiness; hence it speaks of the renunciations subduing views and thoughts, and so forth. The commentator plumbed the profound depths, hence he provided this reply.

4.58

Twentieth Question: The first fascicle of the Zhiguan says regarding the supernormal powers of the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka Teaching: 'With one mind he performs one thing, and cannot do many.' The Hongjue says: 'When the transformed master speaks, the transformed deed speaks; when the transformed master is silent, the transformed deed is silent. If speech and silence are like this, other matters are also so; hence it is not effortless, genuine transformation.' A recent doubter says: 'According to the Abhidharmakośa, fascicle 27, it says: "The supernormal powers of a śrāvaka perform only one thing with one mind; the supernormal powers of a Tathāgata perform immeasurable things with one mind." As its verse says: "When one transformed master speaks, all the transformations speak. If one transformed master is silent, all the transformations are likewise so. If the transformed body and the transformed master speak, both are necessarily not the Buddha." How does the Zhiguan now contradict that text? Furthermore, the ninth fascicle of the Dazhidulun clarifies the Vaibhāṣika Buddha-meaning, which also contradicts the present commentary's text. We cannot cite them all in detail.'

4.59

Answer: Even if the transformed master and the transformed deed appear at the same time, yet their speech and silence are not concurrent; this is because with one mind he makes one speech, and with one mind he makes one silence. Therefore it is said: "performed with one mind." How could this compare to sitting in peaceful meditation with joined palms, praising the Dharma Kings with tens of thousands of verses, responding and transforming without moving, where transformation is boundless? The other contradictions can be understood through their meaning; there is certainly no major hindrance.

4.60

Twenty-first Question: The third fascicle of the Zhiguan says regarding the Distinct [Teaching] connecting the Common [Teaching] person: 'Initially cultivating the two contemplations of emptiness and provisionality, exhausts and breaks the delusions of ultimate and conventional [truths], and only then does he hear the middle way. He must still cultivate contemplation to break ignorance, and be able to manifest the eight phases of becoming a Buddha.' This means ascending to the ten stages in the very body. A recent doubter says: 'Even for a person of the Distinct Teaching, there is no one who ascends to the ten stages in a physical body; how could someone coming from an inferior teaching be able to transcend and ascend?'

4.61

Answer: Based on his completion of the merit of the two contemplations and the exhaustion of the delusions of the two truths, he still cultivates the middle contemplation to deeply subdue ignorance; this must surely traverse lives and pass through many kalpas. We do not know where it is definitively said to be in the very body! The statement that one should presently hear the middle [way] can be said to occur in this very world, but the statement about cultivating contemplation does not have to be within a single life. Furthermore, after hearing the middle [way], one is not confined to present realization, but must return to the subsequent teaching.

4.62

Twenty-second Question: The sixth fascicle of the Zhiguan says: 'If one transcends and severs up to the fifth grade, it is called clan-to-clan (kulaṃkula).' A recent doubter says: 'The Hongjue states that what the Great Master used was entirely based on the old Vibhāṣā; if one wishes to know, check that text again. Now, checking the Vibhāṣā, one who severs three or four grades and [takes] three or two rebirths is called clan-to-clan; there is no distinction between transcendent and sequential, nor is there any case of severing five grades being called clan-to-clan. Why does it say that transcending and severing five grades is called clan-to-clan? Although the Hongjue explains it, it still does not resolve this meaning. The Zhiguan also says: "Next, severing all six grades is called the sakṛdāgāmin fruit; transcending and severing up to all six grades is called one-returner." Yet sakṛdāgāmin translates as "one-returner"; why does a single name divide into different designations for transcendent and sequential? The Zhiguan also says: "Next, severing the seventh up to the eighth grade is called candidate for anāgāmin; transcending and severing the eighth grade is called one-seed (ekavīcika)." This is also said based on that treatise's account of severing. In all these cases, we do not know the source of the meaning of transcendence.'

4.63

Answer: As for the new and old Vibhāṣā, I have not had the leisure to examine them.

4.64

Twenty-third Question: The intention of the Zhiguan and other works is: the beginningless storehouse consciousness inherently possesses the dharmas of the ten realms and the ten thusnesses, and this is also the case up to the Buddha fruit. The Hongjue says: 'The icchantika severs cultivated goodness completely, but inherent goodness remains. The Tathāgata severs cultivated evil completely, but inherent evil remains.' A recent doubter says: 'The Awakening of Faith, under the section on remedying erroneous attachments, says: "Hearing the sūtras explain that all defiled dharmas of worldly birth-and-death exist relying on the tathāgatagarbha, and that all dharmas are not separate from suchness, due to lack of understanding, they say that the self-nature of the tathāgatagarbha inherently possesses all worldly dharmas of birth-and-death and so forth. How is this remedied? (Question.) Because from the beginning, the tathāgatagarbha only possesses pure merits that surpass the sands of the Ganges, which are not separated, not severed, and not different from the meaning of suchness; and because the defiled dharmas of afflictions that surpass the sands of the Ganges are merely false existence, inherently non-existent by nature, and from beginningless realms have never corresponded with the tathāgatagarbha. If the nature of the tathāgatagarbha possessed false dharmas, and one were to cause realization to eternally cease falsity, that would be impossible (Answer)." The treatise states that by nature they are inherently non-existent; why does this completely contradict the inherent possession expounded by Tiantai?'

4.65

Answer: The hundred realms and thousand thusnesses, inherent goodness and inherent evil, are all wondrous Dharma-gates and pure merits inherently possessed by the essence. They are precisely the pure merits surpassing the sands of the Ganges in the Awakening of Faith, which are not separated and not severed, because they are all suchness. If all worldly afflictions and defiled falsities of birth-and-death are cultivated evil, although arising entirely from nature, they oppose nature, and therefore must be eternally extinguished. If cultivated in accord with the principle, the merits of the myriad practices are all cultivated goodness; they also arise entirely from nature and accord with nature, thus identical with the permanently abiding. Therefore it is said: 'Because the image is real, it is inherently existent in accord with the principle; because it is empty space, delusion turns and becomes the nature.' Consequently, at the time of realization, although cultivated evil is exhausted, inherent evil permanently remains. Regarding the meaning of stimulus and response explained by various schools, because they do not understand the Dharma-gate of inherent evil, when they manifest bodies of the evil destinies after attaining the fruit, they must always transform and manifest them through supernormal power; therefore our school censures this as identical to non-Buddhist divine transformations. Thus it is said: 'Realizing the fundamental, true source, one still allows sentient beings' transformed consciousness to manifest.' If one does not discuss the inherent possession of the ten realms by the essence, that is also the meaning of the Distinct Teaching. If one grasps this meaning, the tenets of our school are like seeing [something] in one's palm, and are not in the least different from the various sūtras and treatises.

4.66

Twenty-fourth Question: In the first fascicle of the Sijiaoyi, explaining the differences of sudden, gradual, and other teachings, it says: 'How could the texts of the Deer Park and Crane Forest, and the teachings of the seven places and eight assemblies, be without the difference of sudden and gradual, or the distinction of indeterminate and esoteric?' A doubter says: 'Here it should say "How could there not be", why does it have the word "without"?'

4.67

Answer: If we rely on the edition of this region, it says: 'not the difference of sudden and gradual.' Examining it through the meaning now, we know that the editions in both places are corrupt. In that edition, under the character 'fei' (not), the character 'wu' (without) must be removed; in the edition of this region, above the character 'fei' (not), a character 'qi' (how) must be added. Then the text and meaning in both places will be complete.

4.68

Twenty-fifth Question: The third fascicle of the Sijiaoyi says: 'When a bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka practices the bodhisattva path, two asaṃkhyeya kalpas are the stage of the heat dharma, and the third asaṃkhyeya is the stage of the summit dharma,' and so forth. A recent doubter says: 'In the Vibhāṣā-śāstra, a bodhisattva in his final body sits under the Bodhi tree, only then begins cultivating the four wholesome roots, and in a single sitting achieves correct awakening. The doctrines of the Tripiṭaka Teaching mostly rely on the Vibhāṣā; why does this text contradict it?'

4.69

Answer: Although the bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka uses the contemplation methods of heat and summit during the second and third asaṃkhyeyas, it is specifically to subdue delusions while practicing various phenomenal deeds. When he reaches beneath the tree, because his practice is genuine, he again uses the four dharmas as preliminary application to sever delusions. Just as through the three asaṃkhyeyas he long subdues the delusions of thought of the triple world, yet under the tree he still employs the thirty-four mental moments. Verifying it by this, we know there is no great discrepancy.

4.70

Twenty-sixth Question: The sūtras and treatises cited by the doctrinal divisions of our school's Perfect Teaching, as well as the commentaries authored by ancient masters, often contradict the original texts. I wonder why this is so?

4.71

Answer: Whenever this mountain school establishes doctrine and quotes various texts, it mostly grasps their meaning and does not exclusively copy the text. What at first glance seems contradictory is not actually contradictory; it can be accepted if understood through its underlying meaning.

4.72

Twenty-seventh Question: Under the title of the Wubaiwen lun, it says: 'Composed by Great Master Miaole.' A doubter says: 'This treatise seems to have many errors; let us raise one or two. For example, regarding Ānanda and Rāhula, the treatise does not mention the number of Buddhas they made offerings to; and in refuting other masters' explanations of the seven stages such as gotra, it resembles the ten stages such as Pramuditā. If it was composed by the Great Master, it must be resolved.'

4.73

Answer: In the Song region there is a lack of copies of this treatise, so it cannot be evaluated here.

4.74

Record from the Thatched Hut: Inquiries by the National Master of Japan.

4.75

A Japanese National Preceptor once sent his disciples across the sea to deliver twenty questions to Fazhi. Fazhi answered them, and all were profound in their principles. Later, when Guangzhi succeeded to the Dharma seat, he again sent two of his disciples, Shaoliang and another, bearing a golden-lettered *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra* as an introductory offering. Weeping with sorrow, they paid homage and requested to study under his wheel [of Dharma]. In three years, their understanding of the Way was grandly perfected, and they returned to their country to greatly propagate the Tiantai teachings. Duke Zeng Lu recorded this in full on his stupa stele.

4.76

Answering Again the Ten Questions from Japan

4.77

(It is not known which master from that country posed these ten questions; tradition simply says: "Questions from Japan, answered by Dharma Master Siming.")

4.78

Question 1: Doubt concerning whether śrāvakas of definite nature attain Buddhahood or not. The *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* states: "For śrāvakas who have attained the foremost destination, even if all Buddhas strive with all their might to teach and transform them, they cannot make them sit in the bodhimaṇḍa and attain unexcelled bodhi; I declare them to be 'śrāvakas of quiescent extinction'." The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Śāstra* states: "When śrāvakas of definite nature enter nirvāṇa without remainder, their body and wisdom are both extinguished, just like empty space; they are no longer counted among sentient beings, and will never again give rise to the mind [of bodhi]." Since the sūtras and treatises are like this, how does the Tiantai school interpret the passages of the *Saṃdhinirmocana* and *Vijñapti[mātratā]* to demonstrate the principle that śrāvakas of definite nature attain Buddhahood?

First 78 of 147 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

四明尊者教行錄 — Classical Chinese