禪源諸詮集都序 1.16

The above ten intentions have principles and examples that are abundantly clear. One need only carefully and thoroughly compare the three schools of dhyāna with the three types of doctrinal teachings: like the standard bushel and scale, they suffice to determine what is shallow and what is profound. I shall first narrate the gates of dhyāna, and later corroborate them with the doctrinal teachings.

The three schools of dhyāna are:
1. The school of pacifying delusion and cultivating the mind;
2. The school of absolute extinction and non-reliance;
3. The school of directly revealing the nature of mind.

The three types of doctrinal teachings are:
1. The teaching that relies on the nature to explain phenomenal marks through implicit intent;
2. The teaching that refutes phenomenal marks to reveal the nature through implicit intent;
3. The teaching that explicitly reveals the true mind as the nature.

The three doctrinal teachings on the right, in corresponding order to the preceding three schools, are paired with and corroborate them one by one. Afterwards, they will be synthesized into a single taste. For now, I shall first narrate the schools of Chan.

First, the school of pacifying delusion and cultivating the mind: It says that although sentient beings originally possess the buddhadhātu, beginningless avidyā veils it so that they do not see it, and thus they transmigrate in saṃsāra. The Buddhas have already severed vikalpa and therefore clearly perceive the nature; having transcended saṃsāra, their spiritual powers are unconstrained. One should know that the functions of the ordinary and the holy are not the same; the external objects and the internal mind each have their boundaries. Therefore, one must rely on the spoken instructions of a master to turn away from objects, contemplate the mind, and pacify and extinguish vikalpa. When thoughts are exhausted, one awakens and has nothing that is not known. Just like a mirror darkened with dust, which must be diligently wiped and polished: when the dust is gone, its brightness appears, and there is nothing it does not reflect. Furthermore, one must clearly understand the upāya for entering the realm of dhyāna: staying far away from turmoil and abiding in a quiet place; regulating the body and regulating the breath; sitting cross-legged in silent contemplation; pressing the tongue against the palate; and focusing the mind on a single object. The lineages of Nan Shen, Bei Xiu, Baotang, Xuanshi, and others are all of this kind. As for Niutou, Tiantai, Huichou, and Guṇa[bhadra], their traces in practicing upāya are largely the same, but their understanding is different.

Second, the school of absolute extinction and non-reliance: It says that all phenomena, ordinary and holy alike, are like dreams and illusions, having nothing whatsoever that exists. They are originally empty and quiescent, not merely becoming nonexistent now. Even this wisdom that penetrates nonexistence cannot be attained. In the equal dharmadhātu, there is no Buddha and no sentient beings; even “dharmadhātu” is merely a provisional designation. Since the mind does not exist, who speaks of a dharmadhātu? There is no cultivation and no non-cultivation, no Buddha and no non-Buddha. Even if there were a phenomenon surpassing nirvāṇa, I would say it too is like a dream or an illusion. There is no phenomenon to be bound by, and no Buddha to be made. Anything that is contrived is entirely delusion. Comprehending thus that fundamentally nothing is the matter, the mind has nothing upon which to rely, and only then does one escape inversion; only then is it named vimokṣa. From Shitou and Niutou down to Jingshan, all demonstrate this principle, directly causing mental conduct to accord with this and not allowing the feelings to cling to a single phenomenon. With time and consummate practice, dust-like habits naturally vanish, and then with regard to foes and kin, suffering and joy, one is completely unobstructed in all things. Consequently, there is a class of Daoists, Confucian scholars, and idle monks who superficially delve into Chan principles; they all utter these words, taking them to be the ultimate, unaware that this school does not merely take these words to be the Dharma. The lineages of Heze, Jiangxi, Tiantai, and others also speak of this principle, yet it is not what they take as primary.

Third, the school of directly revealing the nature of mind: It says that all phenomena, whether existent or empty, are solely the true nature. The true nature has no marks and is unconditioned; its substance is not any phenomenon—meaning it is neither ordinary nor holy, neither cause nor effect, neither good nor evil, and so forth. Yet it is the function of this substance that can produce all kinds of things—meaning it can become ordinary or holy, manifest form, manifest marks, and so forth. In pointing out the nature of mind within this, there are further two types:

The first says: That which right now is able to speak, act, give rise to greed and anger, show compassion and patience, generate good and evil, and experience suffering and joy—this is precisely your buddhadhātu. This very thing is fundamentally Buddha; apart from this, there is no other Buddha. Having understood this inherent spontaneity, one must not arouse the mind to cultivate the Way. The Way is precisely the mind; one cannot use the mind to cultivate the mind in return. Evil is also the mind; one cannot use the mind to sever the mind in return. Neither severing nor cultivating, letting things take their natural course in unconstrained freedom—only this is called vimokṣa. The nature is like empty space, neither increasing nor decreasing; why rely on additions or supplements? Simply at all times and in all places put an end to karmic activity and nourish the spirit; the holy embryo will grow, manifesting the natural and divine wonder. This, then, is true awakening, true cultivation, and true realization.

The second says: All phenomena are like a dream—this is spoken in common by all the holy ones. Therefore, vikalpa is fundamentally quiescent, and dust-like objects are fundamentally empty. The empty and quiescent mind possesses numinous awareness that is never obscured. This very empty, quiescent awareness is your true nature. Whether deluded or awakened, the mind is fundamentally aware of itself; it is not born dependent on conditions, nor does it arise due to objects. The single word “awareness” is the gateway of all wonders. Because of beginningless delusion, one falsely grasps body and mind as a self, giving rise to thoughts of greed, anger, and the like. If one obtains the instruction of a good friend, one suddenly awakens to this empty and quiescent awareness. Awareness is moreover without thought and without form; who could be the mark of a self or the mark of another? Awakening to the emptiness of all marks, the mind is naturally free from thoughts. When a thought arises, one immediately becomes aware of it; upon being aware of it, it ceases to exist. The wondrous gateway of cultivation lies solely in this. Therefore, although one fully cultivates the myriad practices, one takes only nirvikalpa as the essential. Once one attains the knowledge and vision of nirvikalpa, love and aversion will naturally become faint; compassion and wisdom will naturally increase and brighten; sinful karma will naturally be severed and eliminated; and meritorious practice will naturally advance. Having understood that all marks are not marks, there is naturally the cultivation of non-cultivation. When afflictions are exhausted, saṃsāra is completely severed. Once arising and ceasing have ceased, quiescent illumination becomes manifest, its responsive function inexhaustible: this is named “Buddha.”

Yet both of these two groups integrate phenomenal marks into the nature, and thus belong to the same school. However, within the three schools above, there are further differences: adhering to teachings or showing disdain for teachings; following phenomenal marks or destroying phenomenal marks; methods of fending off external challenges; skill-in-means for receiving external assemblies; and liturgical models for instructing disciples—various and diverse, these are all gates of practice for the two benefits, each following what is expedient, and nothing is amiss. But the principle that is held as primary must not be dual; hence it is necessary to bring them into harmony on the basis of the Buddha.

Next, the judgment of the Buddhist teachings in general into three types:
1. The teaching that relies on the nature to explain phenomenal marks through implicit intent (The Buddha saw that the three realms and the six destinies are all marks of the true nature. But because sentient beings arise from delusion regarding the nature, having no separate entity of their own, it is said to “rely on the nature.” However, those of dull faculties are hard to awaken abruptly; therefore, accommodating the objective marks that they perceive, he preached the Dharma to save them gradually, and thus it is called “explaining phenomenal marks.” Because it was not yet openly revealed, it is called “through implicit intent”). Within this one teaching, there are naturally three categories:
First, the teaching of cause and effect for humans and devas. It speaks of the retributions of good and evil karma to make them understand that cause and effect do not err, to make them fear the suffering of the three evil destinies and seek the bliss of humans and devas, and to cultivate giving, morality, dhyāna-concentration, and all other good practices, whereby they attain rebirth in the human realm, deva realms, or even the form and formless realms. This is called the teaching of humans and devas.
Second, the teaching of severing delusion to extinguish suffering and attain joy. It states that the three realms are unpeaceful, all having the suffering of a burning house, prompting them to sever the accumulation of karma and delusion and cultivate the Way to realize cessation; because it accommodates their faculties, the dharmas enumerated and explained are exclusively distinct.

[This is] in order to distinguish the heterodox from the orthodox, to discern the ordinary person from the sage, to differentiate aversion from delight, and to clarify cause and effect. It explains that the sentient beings' five aggregates entirely lack a self as master, being merely the physical matter of bodily form and the mind of thought and deliberation. From beginningless time, due to the power of causes and conditions, they arise and cease from moment to moment in unending succession, like trickling water or flickering lamp flames. The body and mind form a provisional combination that resembles oneness and resembles permanence. Fools do not realize this and cling to it as a self. Because they treasure this self, they immediately give rise to the three poisons of greed (coveting fame and profit to aggrandize oneself), anger (hating adverse circumstances for fear of being harmed), and ignorance (confused understanding of situations, calculating against reason). The three poisons assail the mental consciousness, setting body and speech in motion to create all karmas. Once karma is accomplished, it cannot be escaped (like a shadow following form, or an echo answering sound); thus they receive bodies of suffering and pleasure in the five destinies (this is induced by individual karma) and superior or inferior places in the three realms (the places where they reside; this is induced by collective karma). Toward the bodies they receive, they still cling to them as a self; they still give rise to greed and so forth, creating karma and receiving retribution. The body undergoes birth, old age, sickness, and death; having died, it is born again. The realm undergoes formation, abiding, destruction, and voidness; having become void, it is formed again. Kalpa after kalpa, life after life, rebirth continues without cessation, without beginning or end, like a well pulley. All of this stems from failing to understand that this body is fundamentally not oneself. (All the above refers to the causes and effects of the world in the previously mentioned teaching of humans and gods. Previously it only made one loathe the lower and delight in the higher, without explaining that all three realms are to be loathed, nor did it refute the self. Now it fully explains them, which constitutes the two noble truths of suffering and its arising. Below, it refutes the grasping at a self and causes one to cultivate the two noble truths of cessation and the path, clarifying supramundane cause and effect; hence it is named the teaching of the four noble truths.) As for its not being oneself: this body originally takes its characteristic mark from the harmony of form and mind. If one now investigates and analyzes it, form has four classes: earth, water, fire, and wind; mind has four classes: feeling (receiving pleasant and unpleasant events), conception (grasping marks), volitional formations (creating everything), and consciousness (discerning each and every one). (These four together with form are called the five aggregates.) If all are oneself, there would be eight selves. Furthermore, within form there are three hundred and sixty bones, each bone distinct; skin, hair, muscles, flesh, liver, heart, lungs, and kidneys are each not the other (skin is not hair, etc.). The various mental factors are also distinct from one another: seeing is not hearing; joy is not anger. Since there are so many of these things, one does not know which one is definitely to be taken as the self. If all are the self, the self would be hundreds of thousands, with multiple masters in conflict within a single body. Apart from these, there are no other phenomena. Inquiring back and forth into the self, none can be found at all. One then awakens to the fact that these bodily and mental phenomena are all mere marks of a semblance of harmony produced by myriad conditions, originally not a single entity; they resemble the marks of a self and a person, but originally are neither self nor person. For whose sake would there be greed and anger? For whose sake would there be killing and stealing? Who cultivates the precepts and gives alms? Who is born in the realms of humans and gods? (This is knowing suffering and its arising.) One thus ceases clinging in mind to the defiled good and bad of the three realms (this is abandoning the truth of arising), and solely cultivates the contemplative wisdom of selflessness (the truth of the path), thereby severing greed and so forth, putting an end to all karmas, realizing the true suchness of the emptiness of self, attaining the fruit of stream-enterer, and up to completely extinguishing all afflictions and burdens to attain the fruit of an arhat (the truth of cessation), reducing the body to ashes and extinguishing wisdom to permanently depart from all suffering. (The various Āgamas and other sūtras in six hundred and eighteen fascicles, as well as the Vibhāṣā, Kośa, and other treatises in six hundred and ninety-eight fascicles, all exclusively expound this Hīnayāna and the previously mentioned cause and effect of humans and gods. Although the volumes are numerous, their principle does not go beyond this.) Third is the teaching of using consciousness to refute external objects (which explains that the marks of objects described previously, whether arising or ceasing, not only lack a self, but also lack phenomena such as those above; they are merely the illusory transformations of sensory consciousness; hence it is called using consciousness to refute external objects). It explains that the aforementioned phenomena of arising and ceasing have no bearing on true suchness; they are merely the eight consciousnesses inherently possessed by sentient beings from beginningless time by the nature of things. Among them, the eighth, the ālayavijñāna, is their root, instantaneously transforming into the sense faculties and body, the container world, and seeds. In turn, it gives rise to the seven consciousnesses, each able to transform and manifest its own allotted cognitive object (the eye has form as object, and so forth up to the seventh having the eighth's subjective aspect as object, and the eighth having the sense faculties, seeds, and container world as object). Outside of these eight consciousnesses, there are absolutely no real phenomena. Question: How do they transform? Answer: Due to the perfuming power of discriminating self and dharmas, when the various consciousnesses arise, they transform into semblances of self and dharmas. Because the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are covered by ignorance, they take these as cognitive objects and cling to them as a real self and real dharmas. It is like one who is afflicted with an illness (when illness is severe, the mind is confused and sees strangely colored figures) or dreaming (what is seen in dream marks can be known): due to the power of the illness or dream, the mind appears in the likeness of various external object marks; while dreaming, one clings to them as really existent external objects, but upon waking, one finally knows they were merely transformed by the dream. The marks of this body of ours as well as external objects are also just like this: they are transformed merely by consciousness; because of delusion, one clings to there being a self and various objects. Once awakened to the fact that there are fundamentally no self and dharmas, but only mind and consciousness, one then relies on this wisdom of the two emptinesses to cultivate the contemplation of consciousness-only and practices such as the six pāramitās and the four means of embracing, gradually subduing and severing the two hindrances of affliction and the knowable, realizing the true suchness revealed by the two emptinesses, perfecting the ten stages, and transforming the eight consciousnesses into the bodhi of the four wisdoms; when the hindrances to true suchness are exhausted, one accomplishes the dharmakāya of the nature of phenomena and great nirvāṇa. The principle expounded in the several dozen sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and the several hundred fascicles of treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi and Vijñaptimātratā does not go beyond this. The above three classes collectively constitute the first, the teaching that relies on the nature to explain phenomenal marks through implicit intent. However, only the third, the teaching of using consciousness to refute external objects, accords and coincides with the Chan school's school of pacifying delusion and cultivating the mind. Because it knows that external objects are all empty, it does not cultivate the phenomenal marks of external objects; it solely pacifies delusion and cultivates the mind. Pacifying delusion means pacifying the delusion of self and dharmas; cultivating the mind means cultivating the mind of consciousness-only. Therefore, it is identical with the teaching of consciousness-only. Since it is identical with the Buddha, why disparage others' gradual gate of pacifying delusion, contemplating purity, sweeping away dust from time to time, concentrating the mind, stabilizing the mind, focusing single-mindedly on one object, sitting cross-legged, and regulating the body and regulating the breath? These various upāyas were all encouraged and praised by the Buddha. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: It is not necessary to sit, nor is it necessary not to sit; sitting or not sitting depends on the suitability for the capacity. Concentrating the mind or exercising the mind is each measured according to one's habitual nature. In the reigns of the Great Emperor Gaozong down to Xuanzong, the original school of sudden perfection was not yet practiced in the northern lands; only Chan Master Shenxiu widely propagated the gradual teaching, becoming the master of the Dharma in the two capitals and the imperial teacher of three emperors, fully claiming it to be the school of Bodhidharma without explicitly revealing the purport that [this mind] is itself the Buddha. Caoxi and Heze, fearing that the perfect school would be extinguished, thereupon reproached and condemned things such as stabilizing the mind and subduing the mind; but this was merely removing the sickness, not removing the Dharma. What is more, these upāyas were originally taught by the Great Master the Fifth Patriarch, who certified each of them as masters of a region. Bodhidharma used wall-contemplation to teach people how to pacify the mind: externally halting all conditions, internally the mind has no panting.

"When the mind is like a straight wall, one can enter the Way"—is this not precisely the method of sitting dhyāna? Furthermore, the two scrolls of the *Dharmatrāta Dhyāna Sūtra* translated by Master Yuan of Mount Lu together with Buddhabhadra and another Indian monk fully elucidate the progressive stages and upāya for entering the gate of sitting dhyāna, which are no different in drift and purport from those under Tiantai or Xiu. Thus the Fourth Patriarch did not let his ribs touch the mat for several decades. Hence we know that the schools of the definitive and the non-definitive each depend on the depth or shallowness of understanding; one cannot determine doctrinal tenets on the basis of whether one's practice involves harmonization or non-harmonization. The partial and the perfect merely counter and cure in accordance with the ailment; there is no need to praise this one and disparage that one. (This note connects to the preceding narrative: someone raised an objection to me, asking, "Why do you encourage sitting dhyāna?" I now answer with this.) Second is the teaching that refutes phenomenal marks to reveal the nature through implicit intent. (According to the true and definitive meaning, deluded grasping is fundamentally empty, so there is nothing further to refute; all anāsrava dharmas are fundamentally the true nature, whose wondrous function following conditions never ceases, and thus they should not be refuted either. It is only because a certain class of sentient beings grasps illusory marks, which obstructs the true nature and makes profound awakening difficult to attain, that the Buddha—without distinguishing between good and evil, defiled and pure, nature and phenomenal marks—scolds and refutes them all. Because the true nature and its wondrous function are not non-existent, and yet he calls them non-existent, it is called "implicit intent." Moreover, the intent lies in revealing the nature, but the words merely refute phenomenal marks; since the intent is not manifested in the words, it is called "implicit.") It explains that since the objective realms transformed by the preceding teachings are all false and unreal, how could the transforming consciousness alone be real? This is because mind and realm mutually depend on each other, being empty yet appearing as existent. Furthermore, the mind does not arise in isolation; it arises only by relying on the realm. The realm does not arise of itself; it manifests only because of the mind. When the mind is empty, the realm fades away; when the realm is extinguished, the mind is empty. There has never been a mind without a realm, nor has there ever been a realm without a mind. Just as in a dream one sees things, appearing to have the distinction of the capable-of-seeing and the seen, yet in reality they are identically false and unreal, completely non-existent. The various consciousnesses and objective realms are also like this. This is because they all falsely rely on diverse conditions and lack self-nature (svabhāva). There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, there is no dharma that is not empty. Whatever has phenomenal marks is illusory; therefore, within emptiness there is no form, no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no eighteen realms; no twelve links of dependent origination; no four noble truths; no wisdom and no attainment; no karma and no retribution; no cultivation and no realization. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally like an illusion. One takes only non-abiding in anything and freedom from grasping and attachment as the practice of the Way. The more than a thousand fascicles of the various Prajñā texts, as well as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, *Śataka*, *Dvādaśamukha*, *Catuḥśataka*, and so on, all teach this. (The hundred fascicles of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* also teach this principle; however, its author thoroughly penetrated without attachment, and thus it subsumes the phenomenal marks of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, seamlessly according with the final school of the single true nature.) This teaching is completely identical with the school of absolute extinction and non-reliance in the Chan tradition. Since it is identical with what was spoken by the World-Honoured One and propagated by the bodhisattvas, why is it that whenever the Chan masters of the gradual gate and students of doctrinal study hear this teaching, they slander it, saying that it negates cause and effect? The Buddha himself said: "There is no karma and no retribution"—could that be a wrong view? If you say that the Buddha had his own profound meaning in uttering these words, could it be that this statement in the Chan tradition lacks profound meaning? If you say, "I once investigated it and perceived no profound meaning," that is simply because you met people who did not understand. You may blame the person, but how could you reject the Dharma? Although the preceding teaching does not contradict the Buddha's original intent, later students who transmitted it mostly grasped the letter and lost the meaning; either each grasped a single view and negated the other, or both uncritically believed them in a muddled and unenlightened way. Therefore, bodhisattvas such as Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva relied on the teaching of refuting phenomenal marks to broadly explain the meaning of emptiness, refuting their clinging to existence so as to lead them to clearly understand true emptiness. True emptiness is an emptiness that does not contradict existence. Bodhisattvas such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu relied on the Vijñaptimātra teaching to broadly explain names and characteristics, analyzing the differences between nature and phenomenal marks and distinguishing defilement from purity, refuting their clinging to emptiness so as to lead them to clearly understand wondrous existence. Wondrous existence is an existence that does not contradict emptiness. Although each expounded a single aspect, the entire substance was completely possessed, and therefore there is no contradiction. Question: If so, why did later treatise masters like Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla refute each other? Answer: This is in fact mutual fulfillment, not mutual refutation. Why is this? Because the faculties of later students gradually grew dull, and they mutually grasped emptiness and existence. Bhāviveka and others refuted the marks of definite existence so as to thoroughly penetrate to ultimate true emptiness; only then is their wondrous existence of dependent origination established. Dharmapāla and others refuted annihilistic, one-sided emptiness out of an intention to preserve wondrous existence; because wondrous existence is preserved, it is precisely their true emptiness of non-nature. The texts indeed refute each other, but the intent is mutual fulfillment. (The previous doubt concerning the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Chan schools is resolved here.) This is because wondrous existence and true emptiness have two meanings: First, the meaning of extreme contradiction, which means mutually destroying and completely depriving until nothing remains. Second, the meaning of extreme accordance, which means blending into a single mark, with the entire substance completely subsuming [the other]. If they did not completely deprive each other until nothing remained, there would be no means for the entire substance to completely subsume [the other]; therefore, only by being extremely contradictory are they extremely accordant. Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, and others approached it from the gate of extreme accordance, and thus they mutually fulfilled each other. Bhāviveka, Dharmapāla, and others based themselves on the gate of extreme contradiction, and thus they mutually refuted each other. Contradiction and accordance are freely mastered; establishment and refutation are unimpeded; thus regarding all dharmas there is nothing that is not reconciled. How lamentable that later students of the scriptures and treatises of the two schools in this land reject and denounce each other no differently from bitter enemies! When will they ever attain the patience of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattikadharmakṣānti)? The sudden and gradual Chan practitioners of today are also like this. Strive to comprehensively examine this and do not be one-sided or narrow! Question: Since the mutual refutation of the ancient sages in the Western Regions was in fact mutual fulfillment, how could the mutual rejection in this land be merely mutual jealousy? Answer: Like a person drinking water, one knows for oneself whether it is cold or warm. Each person must contemplate their own mind and examine their own thoughts. Medicine is kept to prevent disease, not for healthy people; laws are established to guard against villainy, not for virtuous men. Third is the teaching that explicitly reveals the true mind as the nature. (It directly points to one's own mind as the true nature itself. It is revealed neither with reference to phenomenal matters nor with reference to the marks of the mind; hence it is called "as the nature itself." It is not an implicit intent of upāya; hence it is called "explicitly reveals.") This teaching says that all sentient beings have an empty and quiescent true mind, which has fundamentally from the beginningless [past] been intrinsically pure by nature. (It is not that it becomes pure through severing delusion; hence it is called "pure by nature." The *Ratnagotravibhāga* says: "Purity is of two kinds: first, intrinsic purity; second, purity through separation from defilement." The *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra* says: "The intrinsically pure mind is difficult to understand; that this mind is defiled by afflictions is also difficult to understand." The commentary says: "This mind transcends the principles of the previous two schools of emptiness and existence.")

[Therefore it is difficult to understand.] It is clearly not obscured and distinctly ever-aware (a saying of the Buddha is cited below); extending to the ultimate limits of the future, it is eternally abiding and imperishable. It is called the buddhadhātu, also called the tathāgatagarbha, and also called the mind-ground (what Bodhidharma transmitted is this mind). From beginningless time, vikalpa has screened it, so that beings do not realize it themselves and are addicted to birth and death. The Great Awakened One, pitying them, appeared in the world to teach that birth and death and other dharmas are all empty, revealing and indicating that this mind is wholly identical to that of all Buddhas. As the "Manifestation Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Sons of the Buddha! There is not a single sentient being that does not fully possess the wisdom of the Tathāgata; it is entirely because of vikalpa and grasping that they do not realize it. If they are freed from vikalpa, all-knowledge, natural wisdom, and unobstructed wisdom will immediately manifest before them. For example, suppose there were a great scripture scroll (a metaphor for the Buddha's wisdom) equal in extent to a trichiliocosm (the substance of wisdom is boundless, vast and encompassing the dharmadhātu), wherein all the affairs in a trichiliocosm are recorded in full (a metaphor for the substance originally possessing sands-of-the-Ganges merits and sands-of-the-Ganges wondrous functions). Although this great scripture scroll is equal in extent to a great trichiliocosm, it rests entirely inside a single atom of dust (a metaphor for the Buddha's wisdom being fully and completely present in the bodies of sentient beings). Just as in a single atom of dust (taking one sentient being as an example), so it is in all atoms of dust. At that time there was a person of luminous and penetrating wisdom (a metaphor for the World-Honoured One) who had fully perfected the pure divine eye. He saw this scripture scroll inside the atom of dust (the power of the divine eye sees form through obstructions; this is a metaphor for the power of the Buddha's eye seeing the Buddha's wisdom through defilements), without bringing the slightest benefit to sentient beings (a metaphor for how in delusion they do not obtain its function at all, which is no different from having none). Thereupon, employing skillful upāya, he broke that atom of dust (a metaphor for expounding the Dharma to eliminate obstructions) and brought out this great scripture scroll, causing all sentient beings to obtain abundant benefit (and so on). The wisdom of the Tathāgata is also just like this: immeasurable and unobstructed, universally able to benefit all sentient beings (corresponding to recording all affairs of the three-thousand worlds), fully present within the bodies of sentient beings (corresponding to within the atom of dust). It is only that ordinary foolish people have vikalpa and grasping, being unaware and unperceiving, and do not obtain benefit. At that time, the Tathāgata, with the unobstructed and pure eye of wisdom, universally gazed upon all sentient beings of the dharmadhātu and said: 'Wonderful! Wonderful! How is it that these sentient beings possess the wisdom of the Tathāgata, yet in foolishness and delusion they are unaware and unseeing? I should instruct them in the noble path, causing them to forever abandon vikalpa and grasping, and in their own bodies to see the Tathāgata's vast wisdom, which is no different from the Buddha's.' He then taught those sentient beings to cultivate the noble path (the ṣaṭpāramitā, the thirty-seven factors of awakening, etc.) to cause them to abandon vikalpa. Having abandoned vikalpa, they realized the immeasurable wisdom of the Tathāgata, benefiting and bringing peace and happiness to all sentient beings."

Question: Above it was said that the nature is of itself distinctly ever-aware; why then is there need for all Buddhas to reveal and indicate it?

Answer: What is called "awareness" here is not realized awareness. The meaning is that the true nature is not like empty space, wood, or stone, hence it is called "awareness." It is not like consciousness that cognizes through sensory objects, nor is it like wisdom that illumines the substance and comprehends it; it is simply that the one nature of tathatā is naturally and ever-aware. Therefore Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa says: "Tathatā is in its own substance real consciousness-awareness." The "Dedication Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka also says: "Tathatā has illumination as its nature." Moreover, based on what is said in the "Chapter on Asking for Clarification," awareness (zhi) differs from wisdom (jñāna): wisdom is confined to sages and does not extend to ordinary people; awareness is possessed by both ordinary people and sages, extending through both principle and wisdom. Therefore Bodhisattva Jñānaprabha and the other nine bodhisattvas asked Mañjuśrī: "What is the wisdom of the Buddha's realm (wisdom of realization)? What is the awareness of the Buddha's realm (the originally inherent true mind)?" Mañjuśrī answered regarding wisdom: "The wisdom of all Buddhas is sovereign and unobstructed throughout the three times (it comprehends all affairs of past, future, and present, hence it is sovereign and unobstructed)." He answered regarding awareness: "It cannot be cognized by consciousness (that which cannot be cognized by consciousness is because consciousness pertains to discrimination; discrimination is not true awareness; true awareness is seen only in nirvikalpa); nor is it an object-realm of the mind (it cannot be known by wisdom: that is, if one realizes it by means of wisdom, it would pertain to the object-realm realized; true awareness is not an object-realm, hence it cannot be realized by wisdom; if an illumining mind suddenly arises, that is not true awareness. Therefore a sūtra says: 'One's own mind grasping one's own mind—what is not an illusion becomes an illusory dharma.' A treatise says: 'Mind does not see mind.' Master Heze says: 'To deliberate in mind is already an error.' Therefore the Northern School's contemplation of the mind loses the true purport: if the mind could be contemplated, it would be an object-realm; hence it is said here, 'nor is it an object-realm of the mind'); its nature is originally pure (it does not wait to be freed from the defilement of afflictions to be pure; it does not wait to sever the turbidity of doubts to be clean; hence it is called 'originally pure.' In the Ratnagotravibhāga, this selects not the purity freed from defilements, but that purity of nature; hence it says: 'its nature is originally pure'); to reveal and indicate it to all living beings (since it is said to be 'originally pure without waiting to sever obstructions,' one knows that living beings originally all possess it; it is only because it is screened by delusion that they do not realize it themselves; therefore the Buddha reveals and indicates it to cause them all to awaken and enter it; this is precisely the revealing, indicating, awakening to, and entering the Buddha's vision and awareness in the Lotus Sūtra; as cited above, the Buddha originally appeared in the world solely for this matter. What that text calls 'causing them to attain purity' refers to the purity freed from defilement in the Ratnagotravibhāga. Although this mind is in its self-nature pure, one must ultimately awaken and cultivate in order to attain the complete purity of both nature and marks. Therefore tens of sūtras and treatises all speak of two kinds of purity and two kinds of vimokṣa. Nowadays people of shallow learning either only know the purity freed from defilement and the vimokṣa of purity freed from defilement, hence reviling Chan's 'mind itself is Buddha'; or they only know the purity of self-nature and the vimokṣa of purity of nature, hence slighting doctrinal marks and repudiating the upholding of the vinaya, seated dhyāna, subduing the passions, and other practices. They do not know that one must have sudden awakening to the purity of self-nature and the self-liberation of nature, and gradual cultivation to attain the purity freed from defilement and the vimokṣa freed from obstructions, perfecting complete purity and ultimate vimokṣa, so that neither body nor mind is obstructed in any way, identical to Śākyamuni Buddha).