[A correct understanding of] the causes [of Buddhahood] has three meanings. First, one dharma-realm contains the other nine dharma-realms. This is called being “vast in essence.” Second, the nine dharma-realms [from that of hell to bodhisattva] are integrated with the Buddha realm. This is called “eminence in stages.” Third, the ten dharma-realms [of reality] are simultaneously empty of substantial Being yet conventionally existent.⁹³ This is called “long in function.” Though these [three aspects of reality] are an integrated unity, they are called threefold; though they are threefold, they are called a unity. They are not different,⁹⁴ nor are they [completely and in all ways] the same⁹⁵ nor are they [a monistic] Oneness.⁹⁶ Therefore it [reality] is called “subtle.”

[A correct understanding on the resultant essence [of Buddhahood] has three meanings. First, the essence [of true reality] pervades all places. This is called “vast in essence.” Second, [the Buddha] has already attained Buddhahood for an eternity.⁹⁷ This is called “eminence in stages.” Third, from the beginning [the Buddha] has manifested himself⁹⁸ in the past, present and future in order to benefit sentient beings. This is called “long in function.”

[The Lotus Sūtra] differs from other Sūtras with regard to these six meanings of the causes and result [of Buddhahood], and is therefore “subtle.”⁹⁹

93

A direct translation of this important phrase in T’ien-t’ai philosophy would read, “identically empty, identically conventional, identically middle,” or “empty-as-is, conventional-as-is, Middle-as-is.” It is one way in which Chih-i summarizes his concept of the threefold truth, which is the simultaneous affirmation of the emptiness (non-substantiality) of all dharmas, their conventional or temporary existence, and the identity and synonymous meaning of these two as the Middle Way. Thus, as Chih-i proceeds to outline in the forthcoming sections, the correct understanding of reality (or the “ten dharma realms,” or all phenomena, or the objective world), and it’s “subtleness” is to understand it as simultaneously empty of eternal, unchanging, substantial Being (svabhāba), yet conventionally or provisionally existent. return

94

For they are all fundamentally empty and partake in the same nature of reality. return

95

Lit, “horizontal”. Chih-i sometimes uses the phrase “neither vertical nor horizontal” to mean that there are no vertical levels of superiority or inferiority with regard to reality and to illustrate the concept of “neither one nor different” or “neither unity nor differentiation.” In other words, all of reality is one in that it is empty and partakes in the fundamentally same nature of reality. On the other hand, there are differences of conventional existence, so the “oneness” of reality is not a homogenous, monistic “horizontal” sameness. This is illustrated in various ways, such as with the Sanskrit vowel, or the Siddham which is “neither horizontal nor vertical.” Another analogy utilized is the three eyes of Maheśvara which are arranged in a triangular formation. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, T. 12, 616b11—17, these two analogies are used to illustrate the unity and differentiation of liberation, the Tathagata’s Dharma-body, and prajn͂ā-wisdom. return

96

They are differentiated as conventional existence. return

97

This is the phrase used in the Lotus Sūtra to describe the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment eon’s ago in the incalculable past. See the chapter on “The life-span of the Tathāgata” in the Lotus Sūtra. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 239 has “In this way, since my attainment of Buddhahood it has been a very great interval of time. My life span is incalculable asaṃkhyakalpas, ever enduring, never perishing.” return

98

This phrase can be interpreted in many ways. An alternate paraphrase is “(The historical Buddha) was manifested conventionally on the basis (of his eternal Buddhahood).” means “original” and “basis” as well as “beginning” and refers to the ground or basis of the original, eternal Buddha. Thus in the T’ien-t’ai tradition the last half of the Lotus Sūtra is called the because it deals with the eternal Buddha. The first half , on the other hand, refers to the “trace” or manifestation of the eternal Buddha in this conventional, finite world, and his salvific activity with regard to sentient beings. Thus in the T’ien-t’ai tradition the first half of the Lotus Sūtra is called the for it deals with the activity of the historical Buddha in this world. For a discussion of this issue and its historical background, see Alicia Matsunaga, The Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation, Tokyo: Sophia University, 1969, especially pp. 104—120. return

99

In short, the Lotus Sūtra deserves to called subtle it teaches the integrated unity and simultaneous emptiness and conventional existence of all reality, and especially of the eternality of the Buddha. return

Of all the present and past interpretations [of miao and the Lotus Sūtra, that of Fa-yün is the best. If we consider the interpretation of Mahāyāna in southern China, many have followed [the interpretations of] Seng-chao and Kumārajīva. Seng-chao and Kumārajīva often follow the interpretations of the Shared Teaching. Fa-yün’s interpretation of miao is much more advanced. Now I will first criticize Fa-yün, and the rest will be swept away by the blast.⁵⁹

Here are four criticisms concerning [Fa-yün’s comments on] the vastness and narrowness of [teachings concerning] the essence of the causes [of Buddhahood]:

If one says that the past [teachings concerning] the essence of the causes [of Buddhahood] were narrow and thus “crude,” then what does one mean by “past”? If one means the Tripiṭaka teachings, this criticism is just, but if by the past one refers to all teachings previous to that of the Lotus Sūtra, then this criticism is inappropriate. Why?

Because the Prajn͂āpāramitā [Sūtras] teach that “All dharmas are included in the Mahāyāna.”⁶⁰ Therefore there is no need for other vehicles. The Viśeṣacinta-brahmanpariprcchā Sūtra clarifies that “The universal practice of all bodhisattvas is to understand the dharmamarks [the characteristics of reality].⁶¹ In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra one enters the dharmadhātu without moving from the Jeta Grove.⁶² The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says, “To know all dharmas in a single thought: this is to sit on the seat of enlightenment [bodhimaṇḍa].⁶³

Such are the past [teachings concerning the] causes [of Buddhahood]. There is nothing they leave out. How can one call them narrow? If [Fa-yün] says that this present [teaching of the Lotus Sūtra] is vast in [it’s teaching concerning] essence, then how can he say that [the Lotus Sūtra] is complete in it’s clarification of causes and conditions [for attaining Buddhahood], but incomplete in it’s lack of clarification of the complete cause [for attaining buddhahood]?⁶⁴

How, also, can [Fa-yün] say that [the Lotus Sūtra teaches] a finite Buddha⁶⁵ when [the Lotus Sūtra says] that [the Buddha’s life] previously exceeded [in length of years the number of the sands of the Ganges River, and his next life is twice the above number.⁶⁶ If one is already endowed with the causes of transiency, then how can one attain the result of eternity? If both the causes and results are those of transiency, then how can these transient people perceive their [eternal] Buddha-nature?

Since [Fa-yün’s interpretation is that] this [Lotus Sūtra] does not contain the complete meaning [nirvāṇa], therefore [Fa-yün’s interpretation of the] essence [of Buddhahood] does not include [the perfect teaching of] the Oneness of Practice. Since [Fa-yün says that the words of the Lotus Sūtra] are not completely perfect words, [Fayün’s interpretation of] essence does not include [the perfect teaching of] the Oneness of Teaching. Since [Fa-yün says that the Lotus Sūtra] does not [teach the doctrine of] eternal abiding, [Fa-yün’s interpretation of] essence does not include [the perfect teaching of] the Oneness of Persons. Since [Fa-yün says that in the Lotus Sūtra] the Buddha-nature is not perceived, [Fa-yün’s interpretation of] essence does not include [the perfect teaching of] the Oneness of Reality. ⁶⁷

One should know that this [interpretation of] causes [by Fa-yün] is narrow even among the narrow. To be narrow means that it is crude. [The teaching concerning] the essence [of Buddhahood] in the past was already vast; it is actually the past [teachings]⁶⁸ which are subtle. Through this single criticism one can already know [the difference between] crude and subtle [interpretations]; step by step I will make further criticisms.

58

Since the Shared Teaching emphasizes emptiness, Chih-i is here criticizing Seng-chao and Kumārajīva, and indirectly the Sanlun scholars, for a single-minded emphasis on the emptiness doctrine. return

59

Since Fa-yün is the most eminent interpreter of the Lotus Sūtra, Chih-i concentrates on him and considers a thorough criticism of Fa-yün to include all other interpreters of the Lotus Sūtra. return

60

I could not locate the exact quote, but see the Ta Chih tu lun, T. 25, 389c16, “By riding on the Great Vehicle one attains all wisdom and turns the Dharma-wheel.” At this point Chih-i is introducing the Four Categories of Oneness, that teaching, practice, persons, and reality are all one integrated unity. This first quote supports the category of “The Oneness of Teachings.” return

61

The Viśeṣacinta-brahmanpariprcchā Sūtra, T. 15, 33-62, is a Mahāyāna text translated by Kumārajīva in A.D. 402. It emphasizes the non-duality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the unity of all dharmas, and the positive aspects of reality. This quote is found among ten verses on the “universal practice” of the bodhisattvas. The closest verse to the phrase quoted by Chih-i is: “To clearly understand all dharmas, without doubting that there is no differentiation between the Path and the anti-path, and the mind of passion; this is the universal practice of the Boddhisattva.” This quote by Chih-i illustrates the second category of the “Oneness of Practice.” return

62

The Shakusen kōgi refers to the forty-fifth chuan of the old translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, see T. 9, 683c19-684. This is the early section of the famous “Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu” where it is emphasized that one does not physically, or any other way, actually go some other place in order to enter the dharmadhātu, that it is not necessary to leave the Jeta grove where Śākyamuni is preaching to reach the realm of perfection, that the realm of the Buddha and the realm of ordinary man, nirvāṇa and saṃsāra, are one. This illustrates the third category of the “Oneness of Persons.” return

63

This is the last phrase in “Vimalakirti’s Homily on the Seat of Enlightenment.” The original passage in Kumarajiva’s translation, T. 14, 543a4-5, is slightly different, which Boin, 98, translates as follows: “It is the seat of the complete penetration of all dharmas in a single instant of thought because it fully achieves omniscience” This quote illustrates the fourth category of the “Oneness of Reality.” return

64

The Buddha-nature. Chih-i classifies the Buddha-nature into three categories, or three types of causes for attaining Buddhahood: the “direct cause,” that all beings are inherently endowed with the principle or nature of the Tathāgata. This corresponds to the role of the objective realm in the attainment of Buddhahood. The “complete cause,” the wisdom which illumines or realizes the inherent Buddha-nature. This corresponds to the role of wisdom in the attainment of Buddhahood. The “conditional causes,” the conditions, the practice of the Buddhist path, which bring about the realization of wisdom. This corresponds to the role of practice in the attainment of Buddhahood. In other words, Chih-i criticizes Fa-yün for inconsistency in claiming that the teachings of the Lotus Sūtra are “vast.” Fa-yün classifies the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which clearly teaches the doctrine of the universal Buddha-nature, as superior to the Lotus Sūtra, which does not clearly teach the Buddha-nature as such. How, then, can he say that the teaching of the cause of Buddhahood in the Lotus Sūtra is “vast”? To be consistent, Chih-i is pointing out, Fa-yün must then admit that the teaching of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is “more vast” and thus superior to that of the Lotus Sūtra. return

65

“Causes for transiency, or finitude.” return

66

See the chapter on “The Life-span of the Tathāgata” in the Lotus Sūtra. The phrase “twice the above number” appears. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 239, translates the context as follows: “In this way, since my attainment of Buddhahood it has been a very great interval of time. My life-span is incalculable asaṃkhyakalpas, ever enduring, never perishing. O good men! The life-span I achieved in my former treading of the bodhisattva path even now is not exhausted, for it is twice the above number.” return

67

Chih-i’s presentation of Fa-yün’s position does not exactly match Fayün’s actual presentation in the Fa hua i chi.  return

68

Exemplified by the texts Chih-i has quoted above such as the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajn͂āpāramitā Sūtra, Viśeṣacinta-brahmanpariprcchā Sūtra, Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. return