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

[I] will clarify in detail [the meaning of] the dharma of the Buddha.

How can there be any dharma [reality] distinct from the Buddha? [There cannot be any.] All of the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses are the objective realm of the Buddha.²⁴³ This reality is ultimately understood only by Buddhas. It is analogous to the fact that a large box must have a correspondingly large cover.²⁴⁴ This vast and great Buddhahood and objective realm²⁴⁵ is illuminated by means of unlimited Buddha-wisdom. For [the Buddha] to reach to the own basis mind” [of this reality] is called “the dharma in accordance with his own mind.”²⁴⁶ If one is illuminated concerning the nature and characteristics of the nine [other] realms from beginning to end without omitting a thread or mustard seed, this is called “the dharma in accordance with other minds.²⁴⁷ On the basis of these two dharmas²⁴⁸ the phenomenal traces [of the Buddha] “hang down”; “sometimes to manifest his [the Buddha’s] own body, sometimes to manifest another body, sometimes to preach his own words, sometimes to preach the words of another.”²⁴⁹

[The Buddha’s] “own mind”²⁵⁰ and the “mind of others”²⁵¹ are beyond conceptual understanding. [The Buddha’s] “own body”²⁵² and the “bodies of others”²⁵³ are extremely subtle and ultimately quiescent. [Ultimately] all of them are neither tentative nor real,²⁵⁴ yet one can propose a [tentative] correspondence of the nine realms as tentative and the one [Buddha] realm as real. However, within the dharma of the Buddha there is no loss nor decrease.²⁵⁵ The dharma of all Buddhas is truly subtle!

These matters should be known [as explained above], so I will not go into a troublesome and detailed explanation. The chapter on “Expedient Means” [in the Lotus Sūtra] clarifies this matter further.

243

Another famous phrase of Chih-i which succinctly expresses his concept of the integrated nature of reality. return

244

In other words, the vastness of reality, of the objective realm, is such that only a vast and comprehensive wisdom can comprehend it. return

245

Or “vast and great realm of the Buddha.” Since the two (Buddha and objective realm) are integrated, either phrase ultimately means the same thing. return

246

In other words, for the Buddha to penetrate to the basis of reality is for him to completely understand all Buddha-wisdom, exhaustively know the underlying principle of reality, which is the Buddha-realm. return

247

This terminology is borrowed from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, T. 12, 820b2ff, where the Buddha explains that he has preached the twelvefold Sūtras at times directly on the basis of his own “mind” or understanding, at times in accord with the “mind” or understanding of his listeners, and at times a combination of these two. (See Yamamoto Ill, 868ff) Here Chih-i’s point is somewhat different. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is speaking of different methods of teaching; Chih-i is tentatively making a distinction between the two kinds of wisdom: the wisdom which knows the Buddha realm (real wisdom ) and the wisdom which knows the other nine realms, the world of objective reality (tentative wisdom ). Of course, as Chih-i has just pointed out, the first nine realms are included in the Buddha realm and all of them together are the constituent parts of an integrated reality. return

248

That in accordance with the Buddha’s own mind and that in accordance with the mind of others (in the other nine realms); or, real and tentative wisdom. return

249

A paraphrase of a section in the chapter on “The Lifespan of the Tathāgata” in the Lotus Sūtra. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 239 translates: “O good men! The scriptural canon preached by the Thus Come One is all for the purpose of conveying living beings to deliverance. At times he speaks of his own body, at times of another’s body, at times he shows his own body, at times another’s body, at times his own affairs, at times another’s affairs. Everything he says is true , not vanity.” return

250

This tentatively corresponds to the “real.” return

251

This tentatively corresponds to the “tentative.” return

252

This tentatively corresponds to the “real.” return

253

This tentatively corresponds to the “tentative.” return

254

They ultimately correspond to the middle, which is beyond the duality of tentative and real. return

255

Nothing is “taken away” from the Buddha or the Buddha realm by conventionally “separating” the nine other realms from the realm of the Buddha. return