Four Ming Ren Yue's Collection of Diverse Theories (四明仁嶽異說叢書)

Dharma Wisdom's Posthumous Collection: Treatise Resolving Slanders

Dharma Grandson(Jizhong) Collected

The wise lineage of our school. I have presumptuously lectured for over forty years. Whenever explaining a text or clarifying a meaning, I have never failed to base it on the teachings and contemplations of the sutras. Recently, I compiled my private notes titled *The Wondrous Doctrine*, which explains the *Commentary on the Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life*. Regarding the contemplation of the true Dharma-body, it states: "These forms and appearances are the actual reward-body, manifesting in the mundane realm, also called the majestic and special body, also called the superior response-body." The commentary says: "Dharma-body refers to cultivation as nature, achieving the uncontrived contemplation."

Some scholars, however, hastily composed treatises openly contradicting this view. Beyond the chapter headings, they broadly constructed difficult arguments, establishing the *Avataṃsaka Sutra*'s description of dust-like subtle marks as the majestic and special body, while asserting that the Buddha of Immeasurable Life's eighty thousand marks and the *Lotus Sutra*'s thirty-two marks must be the birth-body. I then cited their objections one by one, offering detailed explanations. Yet they stubbornly clung to their own established views and composed a *Ten Admonitions*, ridiculing me for inconsistency and contradiction, accusing me of violating the meaning and the text, urging me to revise my notes to conform to their views.

However, their *Ten Admonitions* does not follow the proper path of teaching and contemplation but merely takes a large body and numerous marks as the majestic and special body. This already deviates from the perfect meaning and holds nothing worthy of adoption. Now, illuminated by correct principle, their stance constitutes two slanders against our school. How so? They assert that the forms revealed through the sudden contemplation in this sutra are definitely the birth-body, and that the foremost body revealed through the opening of the provisional in the *Lotus Sutra* is definitely the inferior response-body. This is the slander of diminishment. They also claim that the substance of the *Avataṃsaka*, which combines the distinct, is majestic and superior, purely perfect, and that the appearance of the two *ghee* teachings, which contrast and connect, is especially transcendent and supremely wondrous. This is the slander of inflation.

By disparaging this commentary, they have committed these grave errors. If left unresolved, they will often mislead the multitude. Therefore, compelled by necessity, I compose this *Book Resolving Slander*. Fellow wise ones of our school will surely understand my heartfelt dedication to the Way in this manner.

In the *Miao Zong Chao*, it is established that the Lotus Sutra body is the majestic and unique Buddha. Therefore, it cites the *Miao Xuan*, where the elder, though clad in soiled garments, is in truth adorned with jewels, as a sincere proof.

Critics say: The profound meaning of the Lotus Sutra states that beneath the soiled robe, the true body is adorned with jewels. This reveals that the bodies of the Avatamsaka and Lotus Sutras are none other than the single body of Shakyamuni Buddha. In the past, he wore jeweled adornments; now, he dons a worn-out robe. This does not mean that the worn-out robe itself is the jeweled adornment. If it were otherwise, would the body seated on the lotus throne be that of an old monk?

Explanation: Our patriarch, the Wise One, descended to this land of China solely to propagate the two profound principles of "accommodation" and "ultimate transcendence." Yet, some scholars of our tradition belittle themselves, saying, "In the past, we wore jeweled ornaments; now we wear tattered robes." They cause the sublime One Vehicle to revert back to the Three Baskets, so that the profound teachings of our school suddenly appear to sink into obscurity. How then can they spread the Dharma to benefit sentient beings? The truth is, beneath the tattered robe, the body is actually adorned with jewels—this precisely reveals the essence of opening expedient means to ultimate transcendence. Therefore, the *Profound Meaning* states: "The essence of this sutra is the expedient and real of transforming others, which is precisely the expedient and real of self-cultivation. It is like the jeweled elder concealed within the tattered robe." The *Explanatory Notes* say: "This means opening the six-foot-tall body clad in a tattered robe. The tattered robe represents the expedient and real teachings of the Lesser Vehicle used to transform others. Now, opening it reveals the same essence—the expedient and real of the jeweled elder." This decisively clarifies that the teachings for voice-hearers are the king of all sutras. Opening the coarse reveals the subtle; outside the subtle, there is no coarse. Hence, it can be called the jeweled elder. The *Commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra* states: "When expounding the Lotus Sutra, only the majestic and supreme form is revealed." It also says: "Gathering kings and ministers, confirming the innate nature of father and child—'You are truly my son, I am truly your father'—this is the Lotus Sutra revealing the majestic body when bestowing predictions upon the voice-hearers." Within the entire teaching, there are four occasions where the majestic body is revealed, and the body in the Lotus Sutra is the foremost among them. Yet, some slanderously claim, "In the past, we wore jeweled ornaments; now we wear tattered robes," as if the tattered robe itself were the jewels. Master Jingxi clearly shows that opening the six-foot-tall body clad in a tattered robe reveals the jewels. The meaning of "opening" is not mere application, nor is it the same as abandonment. Our patriarch's discourse on the subtle lies precisely in "opening." The scriptural text explicitly speaks of "opening," yet you speak of "wearing." This slander is especially severe. If we follow your interpretation, it would mean that in the past it was the expedient and real of the same essence, but now it is the expedient and real of transforming others. To slander and insult such an supremely profound sutra in this way, burying the unique insights of the Wise One—hearing such words is like three hundred spears piercing my heart. How can one turn against the patriarch and violate the tradition to such an extent? How tragic! Moreover, you slander further, saying, "When the dragon girl praised the Buddha's subtle, pure Dharma-body possessing the thirty-two marks, this refers to the Dharma-body endowed with the thirty-two marks of the birth-body. How could this be called the majestic body?" This contradicts your own words. In your explanation of the three bodies and lifespan, you stated, "The response arises from the Dharma, called the response with a basis—it is not the birth-body but must be named the Dharma-body." Now, when the Dharma-body possesses the marks, why do you suddenly claim it is merely the birth-body? This is because the Dharma-body pervades everywhere, while the marks are limited. The body and marks are in conflict—this is not the meaning of non-duality. As the *Gate of Non-Duality* says: "The dust-body and the Dharma-body are equal in measure; the dust-lands and the Land of Eternal Quiescent Light are no different." Thus, every dust-particle land is all lands; every dust-particle body is all bodies. This is the ultimate subtlety of the Lotus Sutra, the true meaning and text of response and resonance. To ruin the perfect teaching and cling to distorted views—if you do not repent immediately, calamity is not far off. Know this! Know this! The dragon girl intended to reveal the subtle marks of opening expedient means, hence she said, "The Dharma-body possesses the thirty-two marks." Each of these marks fully manifests the principle. Because the Dharma-body pervades, the thirty-two marks each pervade everywhere. The Dharma is endowed with myriad virtues, so the marks must also be endowed. Such a sublime body—if it is not called majestic, then what body can be called majestic? Since Shakyamuni entered the treasure stupa of Many Jewels, it is evident that this is not a newly arisen form. Majestic and dignified—this is what is called the majestic body. Simply based on the Middle Way's response and resonance, the six-foot-tall body becomes an ocean of marks. This is opening expedient means, revealing the supreme within the inferior, thus clarifying the majestic body. Therefore, it must be understood: the body seated on the lotus throne is the majestic body of the sudden teaching, because expedient means have not yet been opened, and it still involves conditioned practice. As for the old bhikshu, when opened, he becomes the secret and subtle; outside the subtle, there is no coarse. To regard this as the majestic body permanently dispels the obstacle of wisdom. Whether the teaching involves the shared or the distinct, do not cling to either. How can one comprehend if one is attached to the body and marks, whether applying or opening? To mistakenly judge the majestic body as the birth-body destroys the fundamental teaching and obstructs subtle understanding. This opening and revealing the subtle is precisely our patriarch's grand tradition of teaching and contemplation. If this principle is clear, all the teachings and forms throughout the Buddha's lifetime become as clear as pointing to one's palm. Therefore, I first resolve this slander.

Miaozong said, "Within our tradition, the distinction between the 'sixteen-foot' and the 'noble and special' forms is not fixed; it is divided based on the number of features. It is precisely determined by the interaction between truth and response in the midst of reality. As explained in the Common Teaching regarding the principle of the combined body: those who perceive only emptiness see only the sixteen-foot form, while those who perceive non-emptiness behold the noble and special form. The earthly body originally responds to those of the Tripiṭaka and Common teachings, while the noble and special body responds to the assemblies of the Distinct and Perfect teachings."

The critics say: In the explanation of the three bodies and their lifespans, the "birth body" was established specifically to manifest for the lesser faculties of the Tripitaka and Shared teachings, while the "honored and special body" was established specifically to manifest for the greater faculties of the Distinct and Perfect teachings. This, then, has already distinguished them based on the true and responsive interactions.

Explanation: You propose that the transformation body responds to the faculties of the Tripitaka and Shared teachings, while the glorified body responds to the faculties of the Distinct and Perfect teachings. How, then, can you truly understand the genuine responsive interaction between sentient beings and Buddhas? If you already knew, why, upon hearing my explanation, did you claim that I invented this view and that it does not accord with the scriptural texts? If you understand that the Perfect faculty receives the Perfect teaching, and that this is the Middle Way responsive interaction, why do you slander it?

Now, consider the Buddha revealed in contemplation. You insist it must be the transformation body. Yet the sutra states: "All Buddhas are the Dharmadhatu body, entering into the mental conceptions of all sentient beings." It is like the sun ascending in the sky, its reflection appearing in all rivers. The entry of the Dharmadhatu body—is this not the Middle Way response? The purification of sentient beings' minds—is this not the Middle Way condition? The Middle Way responsive interaction is explained clearly in the sutras and commentaries, bright as a thousand suns. Why then do you suppress it, calling it merely a response based on ultimate truth?

This scripture first reveals the object of contemplation, enabling the practitioner to use this wondrous contemplation to elicit the Buddha's wondrous response. Therefore, the manifestation of the eighty minor marks reveals the meaning of the glorified body. Your slander that it is merely the transformation body collapses on its own.

The *Miao Zong* specifically distinguishes the two types of response within the Shared teaching's concept of the 'combined body' precisely because this is the point where provisional and ultimate principles intersect, where contemplations of emptiness and the Middle Way diverge, and where the operational and karmic consciousnesses arise and cease. By clarifying the transformation body and the glorified body here, we can dispel misunderstandings and reveal our school's true intent.

If you stubbornly hold that only at the stages of the Ten Abodes or Ten Grounds, relying on the karmic consciousness, can one see the glorified body, then you render those of the three lower faculties, who are being guided from their provisional positions toward the semblances of the stages, utterly incapable of ever beholding the glorified body. If that were the case, then this teaching would have no meaning of a 'combined body' at all.

However, speaking of the Middle Way responsive interaction is easy; understanding it is difficult. Let me now briefly outline it to clarify the Perfect meaning.

The term 'Middle' signifies non-partiality and functions through transcending duality. If there exists a glorified body separate from the sixteen-foot transformation body, then there is a blazing duality, and the meaning of the 'Middle' is lost. It is the same for sentient beings. If, outside the mindful condition of the practitioner, there is yet another dharma to correspond to, it is not a Middle Way condition. If there is not even a duality of response outside the condition, how could they be split apart? If one truly understands the name 'Middle', one will certainly not cling to distinctions. Master Jingxi explained this extensively—how could I not rely on his authority?

Therefore, in the *Ten Non-Dual Gates*, from the gate of Defilement and Purity being non-dual, all the way to the gate of Receiving Moisture being non-dual, all are established for the sake of the wondrous Middle Way responsive interaction. The gate of Environment and Beings states: > Each single dust-mote land contains all lands, > Each single dust-mote body contains all bodies. > Vast and narrow, superior and inferior, are inconceivable; > Pure and impure, directions and locations, are inexhaustible. > If not for the three thousand [realms] being empty, provisional, and Middle, > How could such autonomous function be accomplished?

Thus we know that sentient beings and Buddhas are equal, self and other interpenetrate. The gate of Self and Others states: "Sentient beings, because they inherently possess the principle of the three thousand, are able to condition. All Buddhas, because the three thousand are perfected in fruition, are able to respond. The response is all-pervasive, the conditions are all-pervasive; joyfully they approach without discrepancy." Furthermore, the gate of Receiving Moisture states: "When the condition of beings and the response meet, body and land are without bias. They are identical to the Eternal Still Light, the uncreated Dharmadhatu. The substance of the four elements is the same; the benefits of provisional and ultimate are equal."

As for the Perfect Middle responsive interaction in the *Lotus Sutra*, because it opens and reveals according to the times, there is no condition it does not reach. The teachings of fresh milk and the two kinds of curds—the three [provisional] teachings do not know it; only those of the Perfect teaching understand it. The appearance of its Middle Way responsive interaction is roughly thus. How can you slander, saying the Buddha-body in the *Lotus Sutra* is definitely an inferior response? And how can you claim the Buddha-mark revealed by the sudden contemplation in this sutra is definitely the transformation body?

Moreover, you yourself established that the glorified body responds to the faculties of the Distinct and Perfect teachings. Since Master Zhiyi's classification of teachings places this sutra within the Perfect and Sudden category, it is precisely fitting that one would see the Buddha of the glorified body. Even if there are events of birth and cessation involving a Buddha in a retribution body, these perfectly resemble the *Avatamsaka Sutra*'s response to beings without distinction. How can you suddenly utter the extreme slander that they are as different as heaven and earth? That one receives the denigration of being a transformation body, while the other bears the praise of being a glorified body?

Furthermore, you yourself stated: "The transformation body in the Mahayana has a meaning identical to the Dharma-body. The Dharma-body in the Hinayana has a meaning identical to the transformation body." Is the sudden teaching of this sutra then a Hinayana teaching? If it is Mahayana, it should correspond to the Dharma-body. If it corresponds to the Dharma-body, is it not then the glorified body? To grant your argument provisionally: Illusory existence is identical to emptiness. To refute it conclusively: Your view falls into the annihilationism of non-Buddhist paths.

The critics say: The Contemplation of Amitayus Sutra states that the Buddha there has eighty-four thousand marks and rays of light. But in the Avatamsaka Sutra, the chapter "The Ocean of Marks of the Tathagata" and the chapter "The Light of the Excellent Marks," it is said that Vairocana possesses as many marks and excellent features as the atoms in ten lotus treasury world systems. The two sutras differ as greatly as heaven and earth. Therefore, it is known that Amitabha, in his manifested body, possesses not only the eighty-four thousand marks but also the countless subtle marks of his supreme body. Here, we are only referring to his manifested body, judging it as measurable. Although his life span is as immeasurable as the mountains and the drops in the ocean, it is still shown to be subject to birth and death within a limited lifespan.(This passage is from the critics' explanation of the three bodies and life spans.)

The commentary explains: Those who study the Tiantai school but do not rely on its teachings and contemplations, merely judging based on the number of marks—few marks indicating a mundane body, many marks indicating a sublime body—speak in vague terms, lacking any meaningful depth. The concept of "marks as numerous as dust motes" is found in the *Avatamsaka Sutra*, in the chapter "The Ocean of Marks of the Tathagata's Ten Bodies." Now, among the ten bodies described in the *Avatamsaka Sutra*, which ten bodies' marks are being referred to? Yet, when speaking of the "ocean of marks," there is no doubt it refers to the sublime body. To claim that the Amitayus Buddha, with his eighty thousand marks, is definitely a mundane body is entirely baseless, as it contradicts both the text and its meaning.

Contradicting the text means: First, it contradicts the sutra itself, which states that Amitayus Buddha's body is immeasurable, beyond the reach of ordinary minds. Because it is immeasurable, it is the measure of a reward body. The *Awakening of Faith* says: "As it is manifested, it is without boundaries." Second, it contradicts the supporting texts. The commentary cites the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise* to prove the immeasurability of the body, saying: "To increase the Buddha-remembrance samadhi of bodhisattvas, the *Prajnaparamita Sutra* is taught. Now, when teaching the *Prajnaparamita*, the sublime body's marks, light, and colors appear everywhere throughout the ten directions. This is the contemplation." Using this extraordinary body as evidence shows that the Buddha seen here is the sublime body. Increasing Buddha-remembrance contemplation corresponds to the stages of similarity and partial realization, where bodhisattvas cultivate Buddha-remembrance samadhi. To contradict this explicit text and claim it is a mundane body is wrong. Third, it contradicts the commentary. The sutra speaks of the body's measure and eighty thousand marks, which in the realm of shared existence manifest as the reward body's appearance. Thus, this body is both reward and response. The commentary specifically states: "Contemplate the true Dharma body to understand that the cultivation of reward and response bodies reveals their nature. Now, the reward Buddha differs from conditioned cultivation; this is the subtle and sublime mark of the perfect teaching." To contradict this commentary and call it a mundane body is incorrect. Fourth, it contradicts the *Ten Doubts Treatise*, which says: "When focusing on Amitabha Buddha, whether as Dharma body or reward body, etc., his golden-colored light, eighty-four thousand marks, each mark with eighty-four thousand excellent features, each feature emitting eighty-four thousand rays of light, constantly illuminates the Dharma realm and gathers in beings who practice Buddha-remembrance(that text)." Since it mentions both Dharma and reward bodies, and speaks of marks and light illuminating the Dharma realm, this is a single thought instantly illuminating the three bodies, with the three and one perfectly fused. This aligns with the meaning of the current sutra's title. The commentary's contemplation of form and marks is called the Dharma body, showing that our school's understanding of the sublime body is consistent across all texts.

Contradicting the meaning means: It completely disregards the basis for the reward and response bodies. What is this basis? It is the wondrous function of true suchness, manifested based on two types of consciousness. As the *Awakening of Faith* says: "The function has two kinds. First, based on the consciousness of things, what ordinary beings and those of the two vehicles see is called the response body. Because they do not understand the transformation of consciousness, they perceive it as coming from outside, grasping forms within limits, unable to fully comprehend. Second, based on karmic consciousness, what bodhisattvas from the initial resolve up to the ultimate stage of bodhisattvahood see is called the reward body. The body has immeasurable colors, each color has immeasurable marks, each mark has immeasurable excellent features. The lands they dwell in are also immeasurable, with various adornments. As they are manifested, they are without boundaries, free from limited characteristics. According to what is appropriate, they constantly abide and endure, never decaying or lost. Such virtues are all achieved through the perfuming of paramita practices and inconceivable perfuming, endowed with immeasurable blissful marks, hence called the reward body." It also says: "They only appear based on the mind, not separate from true suchness(that text)." The key point in distinguishing these two lies in whether they are mind-only or perceived as external. This precisely clarifies the origins of the reward and response bodies.

Now, this sutra repeatedly shows that Buddha marks appear from the mind. The sutra says: "The Buddha's Dharma realm body enters the mental conceptions of all beings. Therefore, when you conceive of the Buddha, this mind is the thirty-two marks, etc." It also says: "This mind creates the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha. The ocean of the Buddhas' perfect knowledge arises from mental conception." Since the sutra clearly shows that the Buddha appears from the mind alone, it is forever different from the consciousness of things perceiving it as external. Since the Buddha is mind-only, and the nature of mind is all-pervading, the Buddha's form is boundless, free from limited characteristics. The Buddha shows practitioners the mind-only contemplation method, enabling them to see the sublime and wondrous body. For what reason would one insist that the ocean of eighty thousand marks must be a mundane body?

The commentary explains "the Buddha's Dharma realm body enters the mental conceptions" in two ways. First: "The reward Buddha's Dharma nature body enters—this means it enters the receptive mind. The Buddha is originally nonexistent; because the mind is pure, he appears." Second: "The Dharma realm is the Buddha's body, all-pervading. Taking the Dharma realm as the essence, 'enters' means principle entering the contemplative mind." Moreover, the reward Buddha's Dharma nature and the Buddha's Dharma realm, as essence, are all-pervading. This is the hundred realms and three thousand, empty, provisional, and middle. Such a wondrous essence, entering Buddha-remembrance samadhi, manifests as appropriate—whether thirty-two marks or eighty-four thousand marks—how could any single mark not embody the three thousand, empty, provisional, and middle? If these marks are not sublime and extraordinary, what other marks could be called sublime? To contradict this meaning and claim this Buddha's marks are definitely a mundane body is to suppress this sutra's purely perfect marks and elevate the mixed and distinct bodies of other teachings. It is like taking the foot for the head, giving rise to grave slander. The wondrous contemplation of cultivating the mind reveals the perfect true mark. The essence and function of the school are established, yet one ends up seeing the mundane body of the provisional teaching's limited existence. Such颠倒 talk should not be heard or seen.

Critics say: To explain the meaning, one must first correct the terminology. If the terminology is not correct, the meaning will be distorted. For instance, when speaking of the "sixteen-foot noble and distinctive" — is sixteen feet not small? Is noble and distinctive not great? If you claim otherwise, then consider: Is the noble and distinctive established from principle, or from phenomena? If it is established from phenomena, is it not the appearance of reverence and exceptional excellence? Though the words are many, the intent is rigid. Principle is certainly one, but the body definitely differs. They even say: If it does not manifest as great, then it is noble and distinctive. If so, then those of the Distinct and Perfect teachings would see monkeys, deer, and horses as nothing other than the retribution of others' enjoyment, for all are the responsive manifestations of the Middle Way.

Explanation: To correctly name and clarify the meaning, the reasoning must align accordingly. The terms and names must be established based on the Four Reliances. In the *Fahua Wenju*, the thirty-two marks are all described as an ocean of marks. In the *Mohe Zhiguan*, the Buddha's three categories of marks are all called an ocean. How can one not rely on the perfect and true teachings to correctly name the ocean of marks and explain the meaning of supreme reverence and uniqueness? How can one slander the *Lotus Sutra* and assert that the perfect and wondrous marks in this sutra are merely the inferior, conditioned body of a sentient being? Such erroneous and inverted views—to whom shall they be attributed?

If the Middle Way’s responsive manifestation is called "supreme and unique," this name is mostly applied to the Buddha. Sometimes, a tall and majestic body is manifested to show the mark of supreme uniqueness. Other times, it is simply the ordinary body that reveals boundlessness, serving as the mark of supreme uniqueness. When manifesting the varied forms of the nine realms, the title of "supreme and unique" may not be explicitly established. Even if the name is not applied, the meaning is not absent. As the *Avatamsaka Sutra* explains the ten bodies of Shakyamuni, does the karmic retribution body not include forms such as monkeys, deer, and horses? Since it is called Shakyamuni, which means "pure and perfect," being both pure and perfect, how can it not be supreme and unique? This is as stated in the *Awakening of Faith*: according to what is manifested, there is no limit; it transcends measurable characteristics. According to what is appropriate, it constantly abides and endures, never destroyed or lost. All this is achieved through the perfuming of the paramitas and uncontaminated practices, hence it is called the retribution body. Since it is called the retribution body, how can it not embody the meaning of supreme uniqueness?

In the *Miaozong Liaojian* it is said: The basis from which the Buddha-bodies of the four teachings arise is twofold: provisional and ultimate truth, the contemplation of emptiness and the contemplation of conventional existence, and the two kinds of consciousness—that of worldly activity and that of ultimate reality. If we distinguish them according to these, then the distinction between the birth body and the majestic, adorned body becomes as clear as pointing to the palm of one's hand.

The critics say: The origin of the manifested form is indeed based on principle. How can the origin and the manifestation be confused? Now, when discussing the Buddha's body, we are specifically referring to the manifested form. Why turn away from the form and discuss principle alone?

We respond: If we speak of the Buddha's essence, then form is distant and principle is close. If we speak of the Buddha's manifestation, then principle is distant and form is close. The profound teaching we establish reverses this perspective.

The Dharmakāya is formless; form belongs to the manifestation. The manifestation can be provisional or true, and its forms can be superior or inferior. In the impure and pure lands shared by ordinary beings, the birth body is used. In the expedient and reward lands, the majestic and special body is used.

Those who have attained perfect understanding know that there is only one Dharma essence, which gives rise to two kinds of manifestation. Since the manifestation is the essence, no single form can be grasped. Since the essence is the manifestation, all forms appear vividly.

Explanation: This arises from not adhering to the fundamental principles of one's own tradition when discussing doctrine, leading to a stark separation between the Buddha's appearance and the ultimate truth. Why is this? Now, to clarify the perfect principle, it inherently encompasses the three thousand realms. Whether it pertains to principle or fruition, essence or function, it has never been lacking even for a moment. As for the three thousand dharmas, if they are presented as the Buddha's appearance for the sake of ordinary beings and those of the Tripitaka and Shared teachings, appearing from the outside, they are definitely limited in scope. Therefore, they are called "responsive manifestations." If they are presented as the Buddha's appearance for those of the Distinct teaching, although arising from the mind and based on the true nature, they still require conditioned cultivation and are not yet fully identical with nature. Thus, they are only called "reward bodies." Only in the Perfect and Sudden teaching is the Buddha's body revealed, where every mark is identical with nature. The true reality of all dharmas is completely realized by the Buddha, and the whole essence gives rise to function, with each aspect mutually interpenetrating. Therefore, the Buddha's appearance in the *Flower Garland Sutra* still involves distinct cultivation, while the fruition attainment in the *Consciousness-Only* tradition is entirely based on doctrinal teaching. Hence, the *Miaole* states: "Only when we come to this sutra do we understand what was pointed to in the past. Only the Buddha fully realizes it." This statement has its basis. Thus, we know that fully realizing the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses is precisely what is meant by "one attainment is all attainments." Discussing the perfection of marks in relation to Buddhahood reaches its ultimate marvel here. Among the various teachings, many extensively discuss multiple appearances and reveal the great body, yet these are still termed "grasping through practice." The *Lotus Sutra* fully realizes the true reality of all dharmas, and thus is called "the detailed accounting." Therefore, although both the Distinct and Perfect teachings' Buddhas are majestic and supreme, the Distinct requires conditioned cultivation and is thus called the "reward body." The Perfect is identical with nature, so it is designated based on the Dharma. Hence, one body is all bodies, one land is all lands. The principle inherently possesses these marks; when contemplation is perfected, the marks arise. We should distinguish closeness and distance within these two teachings: the Distinct is close in marks but distant in principle, while the Perfect is close in principle but distant in marks. To slander the Buddha's appearance in the Perfect teaching as distant from principle is an immense error. Therefore, in this sutra, the ocean of eighty thousand marks, though majestic and supreme, is called the "Dharma body." Although not yet fully revealed, the teaching already belongs to the Sudden. Those of the Perfect teaching in the past all kept the four secrets profound. Since marks are identical with principle, how can they be rigidly divided into large or small, many or few? If the body and marks in the *Lotus Sutra* were definitively few and small, how could they be called majestic and supreme?