第一釋名門者，論名有三：一者十二、二者門、三者論。問：何故不多不小但明十二？答：意乃無窮，略明五義：一者此之十二，無理不通、無累不寂，隨病設藥，一方事圓，故但明十二。二者雖復八萬法藏，略攝但有十二部經。今通釋十二部經，故論亦十二。問：何以知然？答：十二部經但為顯於一理，此十二門亦但為通理。以通理故則識一切教，是故當知釋十二部經明於十二。三者眾生迴流生死有十二因緣，此論亦觀十二因緣畢竟空寂，則十二緣河傾、佛性河滿，故但明十二。問：何以知此論明十二河傾、佛性河滿？答：《涅槃經》云「佛性者名第一義空」，此論觀察因緣，明甚深空義。故云「大分深義所謂空」也。若通達此義即通達大乘，則良證也。問：河有幾種？答：略明其二，一者十二緣河、二佛性河。生死深曠迴流不息，悉能漂沒六道眾生，故名為河。佛性亦爾，深而無底曠而無邊，五十二位大乘賢聖皆在其中，故名為河。但二河傾、滿，凡有四句：一者因緣河滿、佛性河傾；二佛性河滿、因緣河傾；三二河俱傾；四兩河俱滿。妄想若生正觀便滅，謂生死河滿、佛性河傾。正觀若生顛倒則滅，謂生死河傾、佛性河滿。本對邪心故稱正觀，邪想若息正亦不留，故二河俱傾。為眾生故示現生死方便涅槃，故二河俱滿。四句之中初對所破，餘為所申。四者十二是一數之極，如《淨名經》天女答身子云「吾止此室十有二年，求於女相竟不可得。」龍樹亦爾，就十二門求生死戲論本來皆空，故但明十二。五者不應致問。若問是事則一切難生，但應忘指取月，寧復求詮多小。
**Chapter One: Explaining the Name**
The title of this treatise has three parts: "Twelve," "Gate," and "Treatise."
**Question:** Why does it discuss neither more nor less, but specifically twelve?
**Answer:** The underlying meaning is boundless, but we can briefly explain five points:
1. These twelve gates thoroughly penetrate all principles and pacify all afflictions. They prescribe medicine according to the illness, perfectly accomplishing the goal with one method. Therefore, it only discusses twelve. 2. Although the Dharma treasury contains eighty-four thousand teachings, they are briefly summarized into the twelve divisions of scripture. This treatise comprehensively explains the twelve divisions of scripture, so it also has twelve gates. * **Question:** How do we know this? * **Answer:** The twelve divisions of scripture are solely for revealing one truth. These twelve gates are also solely for penetrating that truth. By penetrating the truth, one understands all teachings. Therefore, it should be known that explaining the twelve divisions of scripture clarifies the meaning of these twelve gates. 3. Sentient beings flow and turn in the cycle of birth and death due to the twelve links of dependent origination. This treatise also contemplates the ultimate emptiness and stillness of these twelve links. When the river of the twelve links is emptied, the river of Buddha-nature is filled. Therefore, it only discusses twelve. * **Question:** How do we know this treatise clarifies the emptying of the river of the twelve links and the filling of the river of Buddha-nature? * **Answer:** The *Nirvana Sutra* states, "Buddha-nature is called the supreme meaning of emptiness." This treatise contemplates dependent origination, clarifying the profound meaning of emptiness. Thus it says, "The great and profound meaning is what is called emptiness." If one comprehends this meaning, one comprehends the Great Vehicle. This is clear evidence. * **Question:** How many kinds of rivers are there? * **Answer:** Briefly, there are two: 1) the river of the twelve links, and 2) the river of Buddha-nature. Birth and death are deep, vast, and flow unceasingly, capable of drowning all sentient beings of the six realms; thus it is called a river. Buddha-nature is also like this: deep without bottom, vast without boundaries; all fifty-two stages of Great Vehicle sages and saints are within it; thus it is called a river. * However, concerning the emptying and filling of these two rivers, there are generally four propositions: 1. The river of dependent origination is full; the river of Buddha-nature is emptied. 2. The river of Buddha-nature is full; the river of dependent origination is emptied. 3. Both rivers are emptied. 4. Both rivers are full. * When deluded thoughts arise, correct contemplation ceases. This is called the river of birth and death being full and the river of Buddha-nature being emptied. When correct contemplation arises, inverted views cease. This is called the river of birth and death being emptied and the river of Buddha-nature being full. Correct contemplation is so named in opposition to erroneous mind. If erroneous thoughts cease, the "correct" also does not remain. Therefore, both rivers are emptied. For the sake of sentient beings, [the Buddhas] manifest birth and death and expedient nirvana. Therefore, both rivers are full. Among these four propositions, the first addresses what is to be refuted; the remaining three address what is to be established. 4. Twelve is the ultimate number. As in the *Vimalakirti Sutra*, when the goddess answered Shariputra, saying, "I have dwelled in this room for twelve years, yet ultimately I cannot find any female form." Nagarjuna is also like this; through these twelve gates, he sought the fundamental emptiness of the vain discussions of birth and death. Therefore, it only discusses twelve. 5. One should not persist in such questioning. If one questions this matter, all sorts of difficulties arise. One should merely forget the finger and take the moon; why seek to determine how many explanations are needed?
次釋門。然自有經為論門、論為經門。經為論門者，即是經資於論。由稟佛經發生二智，然後造論，故經為論門。論為經門者，謂論申於經，以稟教生迷、邪言覆教，破除邪言、佛教申明，故論為經門。問：一切諸論悉是經門以不？答：有所得大小諸論，非但不能通經，翻為翳障，故非經門。四依所作無所得論，能通佛經，乃名為門耳。問：諸大乘論悉能通經，皆是經門。何故此論偏受門名？答：諸大乘論悉明中道，而《中論》受名。今亦然也，雖並通經，而以能通受稱。但門具二義：一者開通無滯、二者遮閉眾非。故《法華經》云「唯有一門而復狹小」。一門序其開通，狹小明乎遮閉。以九十六術不能出苦，唯有一理可以超累，故云一門。又乘無有五，故稱為一。虛通無礙，所以稱門。在家起愛、外道著見，所不能入，故稱狹也。斷常二見有所得菩薩，亦未得遊，目之為小。又不容人天機故狹，不受二乘機故小。又言語道斷故名為狹，念想觀除稱之為小。橫絕百非故名為狹，竪超四句目之為小。問：今釋十二，云何乃引《法華》？答：斯論正解大乘，《法華》唯明一極。經論符會，宜應引之。問：為用理為門、以教為門？答：具含二義。理為門者，凡有三義：一至理虛通，當體稱門；二理能通生觀智，則境為智門；三理能通教，則體為用門。教稱為門亦具三義：一者無礙之教當體虛通，故名為門；二教能通理，教為理門；三因教發觀，則境為智門。問：悟理發觀，云何從教生耶？答：慧有三種，聞慧則藉教而生、思修因理而發，是故教理俱發觀。問：十二稱門，為是理門、為是教門？答：有人言用理為門。今謂不然，後文云「當以十二門入於空義」，理無十二，云何名十二門？又既稱從十二門入於空義，云何從理更入理耶？又就能化之義，從理出教可以理為教門；今正令所化悟入，云何用理為門？今所釋者，以教為門。凡有二義：一者教有十二，名十二門；二者因教入理，故為理門。問：教具幾義能為理門？答：略明三義。一者破除迷倒，謂遮閉眾非；二能顯於正理，則開通無滯；三發生觀解。此之三義，由事言教，是故稱門。問：今言觀因緣門，因緣為是門、為非門？因緣若是門，觀有果無果等亦是門。若爾，云何破其有果無果？因緣若非門，云何論云「初是因緣門」？答：此十二門可具四義。一者所破義，如有果無果等，此是門之遮閉義；二者所申義，謂假名因緣；三者通理義，謂因緣無自性即是寂滅，故以空因緣為因緣空門，故論云「十二入於空義」；四者由此空因緣，顯於因緣空，能通生二智，故因緣名門。問：以空因緣為因緣空門者，為空因緣生二智、為因緣空生二智？答：由空因緣生實慧方便、悟因緣空生方便實慧，即是二諦發生二智。二智是三世佛之父母、二諦為祖父母，是故此論明眾聖之根本也。問：前云十二種言教為門，今復言因緣為門。為因緣與言教為異不異？答：由言教識因緣、由因緣通實相，故離因緣無別教、離教無別因緣。亦不得即因緣是教，亦非教即是因緣，但得名因緣教、教因緣耳。問：今正以何為門？答十二門論師但謂以教為門。今檢論文，具以因緣與教為門。但要由因緣教方識教因緣，然後悟入實相，是故二種合為門。問：此論辨門，與《淨名》入不二法門，有何異耶？答：理無二轍，但約教不同。略有三異：一者此論正以教為門，《淨名》以理為門。一道清淨故稱不二，真極可軌所以云法至妙虛通，因之為門。問：何以知《淨名》用理為門？答：彼稱入不二法門，蓋是悟入理，故目理為門。問：既以理為門，何由悟理？答：藉不二之教，通不二之理，故教為理門。問：若爾，具以理教為門，云何但言以理為門？答：義有傍正，如前釋之。品題入不二法門，非是入不二之教，正是入不二之理，故理是正入。而非不由教，復教為理門。二者此論總以一極之教，用教為理門，則門無階級。彼《淨名》乃就淺深次第，凡有三階：一者諸大士等寄言明不二之理、未辨不二之理無言，所謂淺也。二者文殊明不二之理無言，而由言於無言，以為次也。三者淨名鑒不二無言，而能無言於不二，以為極也。三者經明因緣二即是不二，非破二明不二。論具二種：一者破有所得因緣、二者申假名正因緣義，故與經不同。所以然者，佛在世利根聞因緣二，即悟二無二，故不須破。末法鈍根學正因緣成邪因緣，要須破邪因緣，方得申正因緣，故經論為異。問：破邪因緣是門不？答由破邪因緣，得申正因緣，故破邪因緣是門家之門也。
Next, we explain the term "gate" (doorway). Generally, there are scriptures that serve as gates to treatises, and treatises that serve as gates to scriptures. Scriptures as gates to treatises means that scriptures support treatises. By relying on the Buddha's teachings, two kinds of wisdom arise, and then treatises are composed. Therefore, scriptures are gates to treatises. Treatises as gates to scriptures means that treatises elucidate the scriptures. Because people become confused upon hearing the teachings, and false words obscure the Dharma, false views must be refuted to clarify the Buddha's teachings. Thus, treatises are gates to scriptures.
Question: Are all treatises gates to scriptures?
Answer: Treatises based on attachment, whether from the Great or Small Vehicle, not only fail to elucidate the scriptures but actually obscure them. Therefore, they are not gates. Only treatises composed by the Four Reliances, free from attachment, can elucidate the Buddha's teachings and thus be called gates.
Question: All Mahayana treatises elucidate the scriptures and are gates to them. Why then does this treatise specifically receive the name "gate"?
Answer: All Mahayana treatises clarify the Middle Way, yet the *Madhyamaka Treatise* bears that name. The same applies here. Although all elucidate the scriptures, this one is named for its ability to do so. A gate has two meanings: first, opening without obstruction; second, closing off all errors. Thus, the *Lotus Sutra* says, "There is only one gate, and it is narrow and small." "One gate" refers to its openness, while "narrow and small" indicates its exclusivity. Because the ninety-six non-Buddhist paths cannot lead beyond suffering, and only one principle can transcend bondage, it is called the one gate. Moreover, the vehicle is not fivefold, so it is called one. Being empty and unobstructed, it is called a gate. Householders cling to desire, and non-Buddhists cling to views, so they cannot enter—thus it is called narrow. Those holding extreme views or attached bodhisattvas also cannot enter—thus it is called small. It does not accommodate the capacities of humans and gods, so it is narrow; it does not accept the capacities of the two vehicles, so it is small. Also, where words cease, it is narrow; where thought and examination are removed, it is small. Horizontally cutting off all negations, it is narrow; vertically transcending the four propositions, it is small.
Question: We are now explaining the Twelve Gates. Why cite the *Lotus Sutra*?
Answer: This treatise correctly explains Mahayana, and the *Lotus Sutra* exclusively clarifies the ultimate teaching. Since scripture and treatise align, it is appropriate to cite it.
Question: Is it principle that serves as the gate, or teaching?
Answer: It includes both meanings. Principle as gate has three aspects: first, ultimate principle is empty and penetrating, so it is itself called a gate; second, principle can give rise to contemplative wisdom, so the object is the gate for wisdom; third, principle can give rise to teaching, so the essence is the gate for function. Teaching as gate also has three aspects: first, unobstructed teaching is itself empty and penetrating, so it is called a gate; second, teaching can lead to principle, so teaching is the gate for principle; third, through teaching contemplation arises, so the object is the gate for wisdom.
Question: Understanding principle and giving rise to contemplation—how does this come from teaching?
Answer: Wisdom is of three kinds: wisdom from hearing arises from teaching; wisdom from reflection and cultivation arises from principle. Thus, both teaching and principle give rise to contemplation.
Question: The Twelve Gates—are they gates of principle or gates of teaching?
Answer: Some say principle is the gate. We say this is not so. The text later says, "One should use the twelve gates to enter the meaning of emptiness." Principle does not have twelve aspects, so how can it be called twelve gates? Moreover, since it says "enter the meaning of emptiness through the twelve gates," how can one enter principle through principle? Also, from the perspective of the teacher, principle gives rise to teaching, so principle can be the gate for teaching. But here we are enabling the learner to enter awakening, so how can principle be the gate? What we explain is that teaching is the gate. There are two reasons: first, there are twelve teachings, so they are called twelve gates; second, through teaching one enters principle, so they are gates to principle.
Question: How many aspects does teaching have to be a gate to principle?
Answer: Briefly, three. First, it refutes erroneous views, which is closing off errors; second, it reveals correct principle, which is opening without obstruction; third, it gives rise to contemplative understanding. Because these three functions depend on verbal teaching, it is called a gate.
Question: Now we speak of contemplating the gate of dependent arising. Is dependent arising itself the gate or not? If dependent arising is the gate, then contemplating existence, nonexistence, etc., are also gates. If so, how do we refute existence and nonexistence? If dependent arising is not the gate, why does the treatise say, "The first is the gate of dependent arising"?
Answer: These twelve gates encompass four meanings. First, the meaning of what is refuted, such as existence, nonexistence, etc.—this is the gate's function of closing off. Second, the meaning of what is elucidated, namely, conventionally designated dependent arising. Third, the meaning of penetrating principle, meaning dependent arising lacks inherent nature and is thus quiescent—therefore, empty dependent arising is the gate to dependent arising's emptiness. Thus the treatise says, "Twelve gates enter the meaning of emptiness." Fourth, through this empty dependent arising, dependent arising's emptiness is revealed, giving rise to two wisdoms. Therefore, dependent arising is called a gate.
Question: When empty dependent arising is the gate to dependent arising's emptiness, does empty dependent arising give rise to the two wisdoms, or does dependent arising's emptiness give rise to them?
Answer: Through empty dependent arising, wisdom of reality and skillful means arise; through realizing dependent arising's emptiness, skillful means and wisdom of reality arise. This is the two truths giving rise to the two wisdoms. The two wisdoms are the parents of all Buddhas of the three times; the two truths are the grandparents. Therefore, this treatise clarifies the root of all sages.
Question: Earlier it was said that twelve kinds of verbal teaching are the gate. Now it is said that dependent arising is the gate. Are dependent arising and verbal teaching different or not?
Answer: Through verbal teaching one recognizes dependent arising; through dependent arising one penetrates true reality. Thus, apart from dependent arising there is no separate teaching; apart from teaching there is no separate dependent arising. Yet dependent arising is not identical to teaching, nor is teaching identical to dependent arising. They can only be called "dependent arising teaching" and "teaching dependent arising."
Question: What exactly is the gate here?
Answer: The master of the *Twelve Gates Treatise* only considered teaching as the gate. Examining the treatise, both dependent arising and teaching serve as gates. However, one must rely on dependent arising teaching to recognize teaching dependent arising, and then realize true reality. Therefore, the two together form the gate.
Question: How does this treatise's explanation of gates differ from the *Vimalakirti Sutra*'s "entering the gate of nonduality"?
Answer: The principle is the same, but the teachings differ. Briefly, there are three differences. First, this treatise takes teaching as the gate, while the *Vimalakirti Sutra* takes principle as the gate. The one path is pure, so it is called nondual; the ultimate reality can be followed, so it is called Dharma; being supremely empty and penetrating, it is taken as the gate.
Question: How do we know the *Vimalakirti Sutra* uses principle as the gate?
Answer: It speaks of "entering the gate of nonduality," which means realizing and entering principle, so principle is called the gate.
Question: If principle is the gate, how does one realize principle?
Answer: Through the teaching of nonduality, one penetrates the principle of nonduality. Thus, teaching is the gate to principle.
Question: If so, both principle and teaching are gates. Why say only principle is the gate?
Answer: The meaning has primary and secondary aspects, as explained earlier. The chapter title "Entering the Gate of Nonduality" does not mean entering the teaching of nonduality but entering the principle of nonduality. Thus, principle is the primary entry. Yet it is not without teaching; teaching is again the gate to principle.
Second, this treatise generally takes the ultimate teaching as the gate, using teaching as the gate to principle, so the gate has no stages. The *Vimalakirti Sutra*, however, establishes shallow and deep stages in three levels: first, the great beings provisionally use words to clarify the principle of nonduality, without yet explaining that the principle of nonduality is wordless—this is shallow. Second, Manjushri clarifies that the principle of nonduality is wordless, yet uses words to point to wordlessness—this is intermediate. Third, Vimalakirti realizes nonduality is wordless and can be wordless regarding nonduality—this is the ultimate.
Third, the sutra clarifies that dual dependent arising is itself nondual; it does not refute duality to clarify nonduality. The treatise includes both: refuting attached dependent arising and elucidating the correct meaning of conventionally designated dependent arising. Thus, it differs from the sutra. The reason: when the Buddha was in the world, those with sharp faculties heard "dependent arising is dual" and immediately realized "duality is nonduality," so refutation was unnecessary. In the latter age, those with dull faculties learn correct dependent arising but turn it into erroneous dependent arising. Therefore, erroneous dependent arising must be refuted to elucidate correct dependent arising. Hence, sutra and treatise differ.
Question: Is refuting erroneous dependent arising a gate?
Answer: By refuting erroneous dependent arising, correct dependent arising is elucidated. Thus, refuting erroneous dependent arising is the gate within the gate.
次明觀義。所言觀者，正觀也，是照達之名。略有三義：一者檢有所得邪因緣不可得，故名觀因緣。此是所破義也。二者照達假名正因緣，故名觀因緣。此明所申義。三者觀因緣無自性即是實相，故名觀。前二義即是實慧方便，後一是方便實慧，故所觀即二諦、能觀名二智。問：此應是論因緣，云何名觀因緣耶？答：觀辨於心、論宣於口，故稱論為觀。此是吐論主觀心以示於物名觀也。又論主不欲直口言說諸法是空，若口說空者此是口為說空、行在有中，今觀悟因緣空，故言觀因緣耳。又此是正觀，審諦了達因緣畢竟空，簡異邪見闡提撥於因果，故言觀因緣也。
Next, let's clarify the meaning of "contemplation." The term "contemplation" here refers to correct contemplation, which is the name for illuminating and penetrating reality. Briefly, it has three meanings:
First, it examines and finds that there is no obtainable false cause or condition to be grasped—hence it is called contemplating causes and conditions. This is the meaning of refutation.
Second, it illuminates and penetrates the provisional names of correct causes and conditions—hence it is called contemplating causes and conditions. This clarifies the meaning of affirmation.
Third, it contemplates that causes and conditions have no inherent nature, which is precisely true reality—hence it is called contemplation. The first two meanings represent the skillful means of true wisdom, while the last one is the true wisdom of skillful means. Therefore, what is contemplated are the two truths, and what contemplates is called the two wisdoms.
Question: This should be a discussion of causes and conditions—why is it called contemplating causes and conditions?
Answer: Contemplation is performed in the mind, while discussion is expressed through speech. Hence, the discussion is referred to as contemplation. This means the author of the treatise expresses his contemplative insight to others, calling it contemplation. Moreover, the author does not wish to merely speak about the emptiness of all phenomena. If one only speaks of emptiness with words, this is merely verbal emptiness while actions remain in the realm of existence. Here, through contemplation, one awakens to the emptiness of causes and conditions—hence it is called contemplating causes and conditions. Furthermore, this is correct contemplation, thoroughly and clearly penetrating the ultimate emptiness of causes and conditions, distinguishing it from the wrong views of those who deny causality. Therefore, it is called contemplating causes and conditions.
第三釋論。通而言之，佛及弟子有所作述並得稱經，亦俱名為論。故《地持》云「佛大小乘經稱為內論，以有所言說皆是論辨法實，故皆名論也。」又以盡言秤論，佛之所說窮法源底，名為真論。《付法藏》云「提婆菩薩造百偈，故百論文皆稱經本。」《智度論》云「迦旃延子造《發智經》。」外國稱修多羅，此間正翻為綖。綖能持物，物則得成。以教詮理，理方得顯。但綖語非便，故用此間至聖所說經字擬之。而有涌泉、顯示、出生、繩墨及以結鬘，此皆是經之義用，非正相翻。今欲示師資不同，故師說名經、資言稱論。以師所說可則可常、能顯至道，故稱為經；資之所作但論佛語，更無異製，故稱為論。問：經論何異？答：略明五種。一者佛多隨緣次第，論多隨義詮緒。二佛經散說，論則集之。三佛經廣明，論則略說。四佛經略說，論則廣之。五佛經直說，聞便得解；論則前破邪迷、後申釋佛教。問：云何名論？答：直語秤說，交言曰論。但論有二種：一者盡言、二者不盡言。如小乘論等，雖復破邪，邪猶未窮；雖復顯正，正猶未極。言既有餘，不能以盡，言釋論。若隨分稱盡者，義亦可然。至如方等諸論，無邪不窮、無正不顯，言既暢盡，故以盡言釋論。又小乘之論雖顯至理無言，未知言則寂滅，故不得以盡言釋論。大乘之論，非但妙顯無言，而即言寂滅，故是盡言為論。具此二種盡言，故云盡言釋論。
Third, an explanation of the term "treatise" (śāstra). Generally speaking, any works composed by the Buddha or his disciples can be called sūtras, and they can also be called treatises. Therefore, the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states: "The Buddha's sūtras of the Great and Small Vehicles are called internal treatises, because all his teachings are discussions that clarify the true nature of reality, and thus all are called treatises." Furthermore, "treatise" is defined as "exhaustive discourse." The Buddha's teachings thoroughly penetrate the source and depths of the Dharma, and thus are called true treatises. The *Aśokarājāvadāna* says: "The bodhisattva Āryadeva composed one hundred verses; therefore, all one hundred treatises are called the basis of the sūtras." The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* states: "Kātyāyanīputra composed the *Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra*." In foreign lands, sūtra is called *sūtra*; here, it is correctly translated as "thread." A thread can hold things together, and thus things are formed. Through teaching, the principle is elucidated, and the principle thereby becomes manifest. However, the term "thread" is not convenient in common usage, so we use the word "sūtra," spoken by the supreme sage in this land, to represent it. Terms like "gushing spring," "revealing," "giving birth," "carpenter's line," and "garland" are all meanings and functions of a sūtra, not direct translations. Now, to show the difference between teacher and disciple, the teacher's words are called sūtra, while the disciple's words are called treatise. The teacher's words can serve as a standard and are eternal, capable of revealing the ultimate truth, and thus are called sūtra. The disciple's works merely discuss the Buddha's words, with no other creation, and thus are called treatise.
Question: What is the difference between sūtra and treatise? Answer: Briefly, there are five distinctions. First, the Buddha's teachings mostly follow circumstances and sequence, while treatises mostly follow principles and systematic exposition. Second, the Buddha's sūtras are spoken in a scattered manner, while treatises collect and organize them. Third, the Buddha's sūtras explain broadly, while treatises summarize. Fourth, the Buddha's sūtras speak briefly, while treatises expand upon them. Fifth, the Buddha's sūtras speak directly, and hearing them brings understanding; treatises first refute erroneous views and delusions, then explain and interpret the Buddha's teachings.
Question: What is meant by "treatise"? Answer: Direct speech is called "discourse"; interactive discussion is called "treatise." However, there are two types of treatises: exhaustive discourse and non-exhaustive discourse. For example, treatises of the Small Vehicle, though they refute erroneous views, do not exhaust them; though they reveal the truth, they do not reach its ultimate depth. Since their words are incomplete, they cannot be called exhaustive discourse treatises. If they are considered exhaustive to a certain extent, this is acceptable in meaning. As for the treatises of the Great Vehicle, they leave no erroneous view unrefuted and no truth unrevealed. Their words are thorough and complete, and thus they are called exhaustive discourse treatises. Furthermore, treatises of the Small Vehicle, though they reveal the ultimate truth of non-speech, do not understand that speech itself is quiescent and extinguished, and thus cannot be called exhaustive discourse treatises. Treatises of the Great Vehicle not only wonderfully reveal non-speech but also show that speech itself is quiescent and extinguished, and thus are exhaustive discourse treatises. Possessing both these aspects of exhaustive discourse, they are called exhaustive discourse treatises.