The seven types of two truths are as follows:

First, “real existence” is the mundane, “the extinction of real existence” is the real.

Second, “illusory existence” is the mundane, and “identifying this illusory existence as empty [of substantial Being]” is the real.

Third, “illusory existence” is the mundane, and “identifying illusory existence as both empty and non-empty” is the real.

Fourth, “illusory existence” is the mundane, and “the identity of illusory existence with emptiness and non-emptiness, that all dharmas are empty and non-empty,” is the real.

Fifth, “illusory existence and the identity of illusory existence with emptiness” is all called the mundane, and “neither existence nor emptiness” is the real.

Sixth, “illusory existence and the identity of illusory existence with emptiness” is all called the mundane, and “neither existence nor emptiness, that all reality is included in “neither existence nor emptiness,” is the real.

Seventh, “illusory existence and the identity of illusory existence with emptiness” is the mundane, and that “reality includes existence, includes emptiness, and includes neither existence nor emptiness,” is the real.

Briefly, there are three differences [in the kind of preaching undertaken by the Buddha] called “in accordance with the feelings” [of the listener] ; “in accordance with the feelings [of the listener] and the wisdom” [of the Buddha] ; and “in accordance with the wisdom” [of the Buddha.]⁵³³

The preaching in accordance with the feelings [or capacities of sentient beings] refers to [the teaching of the Buddha which takes into account] the fact that the feelings and natures [of sentient beings] are not the same, so the explanation which is taught in accordance with the feelings is different [for each person]. As it is clarified in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, there are immeasurable varieties of the dharma supreme in the world [laukikāgra-dharmāh].⁵³⁴

It is the same for the real ultimate truth. How much more so for the others. It is like a blind man following his feelings when presented with many different [analogies for the whiteness of] milk.

The blind man, hearing various explanations, argues about the color white. Do they not all refer to [the whiteness of] milk? All the masters have failed to understand this meaning. They each are attached to a certain text, and present their own opinions and argue. They each deny each other’s [opinions], believing one and not believing another. What vigorous bickering! They do not know which side is correct.

533

This is an expansion of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra division of the Buddha’s teachings into that in accordance with the minds of others and that given in accordance with his own mind. return

534

See Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, T. 28, 9b—17a. return

The term “two truths” appears in many Sūtras, but it’s reality is difficult to comprehend. The world is in an uproar and has debated this issue for a long time. In the Miao-shêng-ting ching it says that the Buddha and Mañjuśrī had a dispute over the two truths in the past and they both fell into hell.⁵¹⁷ It was not until the time of the Buddha Kassapa⁵¹⁸ that their doubts were resolved satisfactorily.⁵¹⁹ If these two sages in their causal stages⁵²⁰ were not able to resolve the issue, how can contemporary people with their strong emotional passions attain a resolution?

517

This text, probably an apocryphal Chinese Sūtra, was lost and the Shakusen kōgi says that “this text is missing from the canon.” It was rediscovered, however, among the manuscripts at Tun-huang and published by Sekiguchi Shindai in his Tendai shikan no kenkyū, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1969, 379-402. return

518

Kassapa was the sixth of the so-called “seven past Buddhas” preceding and including Śākyamuni. return

519

The text published by Sekiguchi 1969, 398, says, “The Buddha said to Ānanda, ‘I, in the distant past, studied widely and had a dispute with Mañjuśrī over [the meaning of] the two truths as being yu) or non being (wu). Mañjuśrī supported [the understanding of the two truths as] being; I supported non-being. On account of this dispute we were not able to determine whether the two truths mean being or non-being, and dying we fell into the three evil destinies where we wore hot steel globes for immeasurable kalpas. When I emerged from hell I met Kassapa, who then explained the two truths of being and non-being. The Buddha Kassapa said, ‘All dharmas are without a nature. [The meaning of] being and non-being which you speak of is not consistent with this meaning. Why? Because all myriad dharmas are all empty and quiescent. These two truths are both being and non-being. Your present understanding is merely an understanding of the literal meaning, not an understanding of the profound meaning. Your understanding of this is like the deaf and the dumb; how can you understand the profound meaning?’ I heard this and immediately went into the forest and contemplated it, entered a state of meditation, and for seven days within the four dhyāna states contemplated samādhi, the three contemplations, the three wisdoms, the three emptinesses, great emptiness, and the emptiness of supreme meaning, and finally understood this emptiness, that all the myriad dharmas are empty, are all empty and quiescent. Why? Because all the myriad dharmas are inherently empty by nature’. . .” return

520

The stages of practice wherein a potential Buddha, or bodhisattva, cultivates the practices which will lead to, or cause one to attain, the fruit of Buddhahood. return