Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises (三論玄義)

The Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises

A Treatise by the Monk Jizang of the Huiri Monastery, by Imperial Command

General Introduction and Core Principles. This is divided into two main sections: first, a broad overview of the essential teachings; second, a detailed explanation of each specific chapter. The first section has two parts: first, refuting erroneous views; second, revealing the correct understanding.

The methods of guiding beings are not fixed; the ways of teaching and persuasion are not uniform. Examining the sage's intent, we find that its primary aim is to pacify afflictions. Surveying the meaning of the teachings, we see that their essential purpose is to penetrate the truth. However, the ninety-six heterodox paths dwell in the burning house, considering it the pure way. The five hundred divergent schools are entangled in the net of views, taking it for Nirvana. Consequently, the Deer Park has become desolate, and Vulture Peak is overgrown with thorns. The Well-Gone One weeps over this; the Bodhisattva is moved to great compassion. It is for this reason that the Four Reliances arise, and the Three Treatises are composed.

Although there are three treatises, their meaning follows only two tracks: the first is to reveal the correct, and the second is to refute the erroneous. Refuting the erroneous saves those sinking below; revealing the correct uplifts and propagates the great Dharma. Therefore, in grasping the essential outline, the principle lies solely in these two.

However, erroneous and false views are numerous and tangled; it is difficult to detail them all. The Three Treatises refute them, broadly distinguishing four schools: first, to crush external paths; second, to refute the Abhidharma; third, to reject the Satyasiddhi; fourth, to reproach the adherents of the Great Vehicle.

Question: For what reason does it refute all these teachers? Answer: The author of the treatises exhaustively investigates their source and fully plumbs their principles. If the source is not investigated, frivolous debate does not cease. If the subtlest principle is not exhausted, the supreme way is not made clear. Only by investigating all sources do the various heterodoxies subside. Only by exhausting all principles does the profound way become accessible. Therefore, this text refutes all these various doctrines.

Question: Since it investigates all dharmas and exhausts all statements, it should refute all heterodox views. Why then does it only refute these four schools? Answer: The first is external; the latter three are internal. Thus, both internal and external are encompassed. The Abhidharma clarifies existence; the Satyasiddhi discriminates emptiness. Thus, both existence and emptiness are included. These two belong to the Small Vehicle; the Vaipulya is called the Great Vehicle. Thus, both small and great are covered. By broadly cleansing these four delusions, all entanglements are completely eradicated.

Question: What is the relative standing of these four attachments? Answer: External paths do not comprehend the two emptinesses (of self and dharmas) and wrongly cling to the existence of person and dharmas. The Abhidharma has attained the understanding of no-self but still clings to dharmas as having inherent nature. Harivarman fully distinguishes the two emptinesses, yet his illumination is still not complete. The Great Vehicle speaks of ultimate realization, but due to attachment, it becomes delusion. From shallow to deep, these are the four levels of schools.

Question: The perverse words of external paths can indeed be called refutable. But the others are internal teachings; why are they also refuted? Answer: Speaking generally of refutation and revelation, there are four approaches: first, refute but do not accept; second, accept but do not refute; third, both refute and accept; fourth, neither refute nor accept. Statements that do not accord with the Way are refuted but not accepted. Teachings that necessarily accord with the principle are accepted but not refuted. When studying teachings gives rise to delusion, they are both refuted and accepted—refuting the deluded mind that grasps, while accepting the teaching that was misunderstood. Regarding the true reality of all dharmas, words are forgotten and thoughts cease. Truly, there is nothing to refute and nothing to accept. The above three approaches dissolve, returning to the one mark. Illuminating these four propositions, refutation and establishment become perfectly clear.(Up to this point, the general explanation of presenting refutations has been given. From here onward, the specific refutation of the four schools begins.)

The term "refuting external paths" refers to the following: The ultimate, wondrous, and empty nature that pervades all is called the Way. When the mind wanders outside this Way, it is called an external path. There are many types of external paths, but here I will briefly present two: first, the various heterodox views of India; second, the numerous schools of China. In general, the Western regions have ninety-six such doctrines. To outline their main tenets, four erroneous views prevail:

1. The view of erroneous cause and erroneous effect. 2. The view of no cause but an effect. 3. The view of a cause but no effect. 4. The view of no cause and no effect.

**Question:** What is meant by "erroneous cause and erroneous effect"? **Answer:** Some external paths claim that the Great Lord of Heaven creates all things. When all things perish, they return to this original heaven. Hence, it is called "self-existent." If this heaven is angry, all beings in the four modes of birth suffer. If the Lord is pleased, all beings in the six realms experience joy. However, heaven is not the cause of things, nor are things the effect of heaven. This is merely a fabrication of misguided minds, hence it is called erroneous cause and erroneous effect.

**Objection:** Good actions bring pleasant results, and evil actions bring painful results. This is the realm of mutual interaction, the field of karmic retribution. It is due to a failure to understand the true principles that such fallacies arise. Moreover, humans give birth to humans, and creatures give birth to creatures. When humans give birth to humans, the offspring resemble humans. When creatures give birth to creatures, the offspring resemble creatures. This is the principle of mutual generation. To claim that a single heavenly cause produces the myriad kinds of effects—is this not absurd?

**Question:** What is meant by "no cause but an effect"? **Answer:** There are other external paths that exhaustively search for the origin of all things but find no basis. Thus, they claim there is no cause. Yet, observing all phenomena, they conclude there must be an effect. For example, Zhuangzi's story of the shadow being questioned by the phantom: the shadow exists because of the form, the form exists due to natural creation, and natural creation has no origin. Since the root is self-existent, the branches do not depend on anything else. Therefore, there is an effect without a cause.

**Question:** How does "no cause" differ from "spontaneous existence"? **Answer:** "No cause" emphasizes the absence of a cause, while "spontaneous existence" clarifies that the effect exists. Though the emphasis differs, they are essentially the same erroneous view.

**Objection:** Cause and effect give rise to each other, just as long and short define each other. If there is an effect, how can there be no cause? If there is no cause, how can there be an effect alone? If there truly were effects without causes, then good deeds would lead to hell, and evil deeds would lead to heaven.

**Question:** Some say that spontaneous existence may have a cause or may not; the myriad transformations are all spontaneously existent. Thus, the previous fallacy does not apply. **Answer:** This arises from a lack of thorough examination. If one investigates carefully, this principle cannot hold. To speak of "self-existence" means it is not produced by another. If it depends on another, it is not self-existent. Therefore, what is self-existent does not depend on causes, and what depends on causes is not self-existent. To speak of something as both caused and self-existent is a contradiction.

**Question:** What is meant by "a cause but no effect"? **Answer:** Those who hold the view of annihilation believe only in the present life and deny future lives. They compare beings to grass and trees, which perish completely in one lifetime.

**Objection:** The subtlety of the spiritual path is profound and often confuses people. Its meaning remains unclear even after extensive study; its principles are obscure even at dawn. Only the Buddhist teachings fully elucidate it. The sutra says: "Like a sparrow in a bottle, covered by a gauze cloth. When the gauze is pierced, the sparrow flies away; when the body perishes, the spirit departs." Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu explained: "Just as fire passes from one piece of wood to another, so the spirit passes from one body to another. As fire passes to different wood, so the spirit passes to different bodies. The former wood is not the latter wood—thus we understand the subtlety of the continuity. The former body is not the latter body—thus we realize the depth of emotional connections." We must not see the body decay in one lifetime and assume that consciousness perishes altogether, just as we should not see fire extinguish on one piece of wood and declare that all ends.

Later scholars cite the words of the Yellow Emperor: "Though the form decays, the spirit does not change; it rides on transformation, ever-changing and endless." Though this does not explicitly speak of the three periods of time, it implies that the future is continuous.

**Question:** What is meant by "no cause and no effect"? **Answer:** This view denies both future karmic results and present causes. The six teachers say: "There is no black karma, no retribution for black karma; there is no white karma, no retribution for white karma." Among the four erroneous views, this is the most harmful. It cuts off goodness in the present life and leads to evil destinies in future lives.

**Question:** When did such confusions and errors arise? **Answer:** They flourished in India before the rise of Shakyamuni. After the Compassionate One appeared, he refuted these fallacies. After the Buddha's parinirvana, these branches proliferated again, but Nagarjuna later arose and cut them down once more.

Next, we rank the teachers of China. First, we examine their teachings; second, we evaluate the individuals themselves.

Question: The four arts of India are considered external teachings, so should the Three Mysteries of China be regarded as internal teachings?

Answer: The monk Shi Sengzhao once said, “Whenever I read the books of Laozi and Zhuangzi, I sigh and say, ‘They are beautiful indeed, yet the methods for settling the spirit and freeing oneself from burdens are not fully expressed.’ Later, when I saw the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, I joyfully revered it and said to my friends and relatives, ‘Now I know where my ultimate destination lies.’” He then abandoned worldly life to become a monk. Kumārajīva once heard that the Three Mysteries were considered equal to the nine divisions of Buddhist scriptures and that Laozi was regarded as a rival to the Buddha. He sighed deeply and said, “Laozi and Zhuangzi delve into the profound, so they easily confuse the ears and eyes. They speak with the wisdom of ordinary people and reckless words. Their words seem to reach the ultimate, yet they have never truly arrived. They appear to exhaust all reasoning, yet they have not reached the ultimate destination.” He then briefly presented six principles to clarify their superiority and inferiority:

1. Externally, they only distinguish one form; internally, they illuminate the three periods of time. 2. Externally, the five senses are not fully understood; internally, they speak of the six supernatural powers penetrating the subtle. 3. Externally, they do not equate all phenomena with the great void; internally, they teach without destroying conventional names while expounding the true reality. 4. Externally, they are unable to dwell in non-action while roaming among all phenomena; internally, they teach abiding in the true reality while establishing all dharmas. 5. Externally, they maintain the gate of gain and loss; internally, they merge the two extremes in the principle of transcending words. 6. Externally, subject and object are not yet merged; internally, both conditions and contemplation are utterly tranquil.

Considering this in detail, the difference is greater than that between short feathers and the wings of a great roc, or between a well in a pit and the heavenly pond. It is beyond comparison. Since the people of Qin already doubt the ultimate, what more can I say?

Question: Laozi’s Way is called the Great Void, while the Buddha’s Way is called the Formless. Since the source of the principle is one, all streams should be the same. Why do Kumārajīva and Sengzhao praise one and贬低 the other? Is this not flattering Buddhism?(This follows Wang Bi’s old commentary, which takes non-being as the substance of the Way.)

Answer: Laozi’s Way points to emptiness and non-being, while the Buddha’s Way transcends the four propositions. Since their depth differs vastly, how can their substance be the same? It is you who flatters the Way, not I who flatter Buddhism.

Question: The Buddha’s Way is considered the ultimate truth, transcending all negations. Laozi’s Way is called the obscure and dark, transcending the four propositions. This further proves their substance is one—how can there be any difference in depth?(This is Emperor Wu of Liang’s new interpretation, using Buddhist scriptures to take true emptiness as the substance of the Way.)

Answer: The nine schools of thought are encompassed, and the seven summaries are included, yet they only distinguish being and non-being, without clarifying the transcendence of the four propositions. If it is said that Laozi’s teaching also discusses the negation of both, it is like mixing sand with gold—akin to the theory of stealing an ox.(Zhou Hongzheng and Zhang Ji both criticized Laozi for having the meaning of negating both.)

The second point examines the person. The question states: The Buddha is called the Great Enlightened One, while Laozi is called the Heavenly Venerable One. Both are supreme sages among humans, and their teachings are equally profound and ultimate. If one insists on distinguishing them, wouldn’t that block the gate of non-dual mystery and harm the deep source of oneness?

(This is based on the arguments from Daoist scriptures such as the *Three Caverns* and *Lingbao* texts.)

The answer: Siddhartha, while still in the palace, was destined to become a golden-wheel-turning sage-king; after renouncing the world, he became the Dharma King of the Three Realms. Laozi served as the Archivist of the Zhou dynasty, and his teachings of clarity and emptiness belong to one of the nine schools of thought. If you insist on equating their teachings and persons, isn’t that like claiming a mound is as high as Mount Sumeru, or a firefly’s glow is as bright as the sun and moon?

The question argues: What makes people the same are the five emotions; what makes them different is their spiritual clarity. Though Laozi appeared as an archivist, his true nature is that of a Heavenly Venerable. Based on reality, they should be regarded as one and the same.

The answer: The *History of the Han Dynasty* also classifies Laozi as a worthy, not a sage. Scholars like He Yan and Wang Bi acknowledged that Laozi did not reach the level of a sage. Even if Confucius were considered a youthful Confucian and Laozi a Kāśyapa—though both manifested as sages—their sagehood is not the same.

The Buddha responds universally to the ten directions, manifests the eight phases, and accomplishes Buddhahood. He is called the Great Enlightened One, and his teaching is known as “transcending the world.” Its lesser benefit brings human and heavenly blessings; its greater benefit leads to the three vehicles of sages and worthies. Such is the supreme manifestation.

As for Confucius, called the “Uncrowned King,” he taught renowned Confucianism; Laozi, as an archivist, spoke of non-being and called it the Dao. Their discourses bring no benefit of attaining sagehood; their illumination remains confined to the worldly realm. Such are the secondary manifestations.

The Second Discussion on Abhidharma. One: Establishing the Doctrine. Two: Refuting Objections. There was a Sramana who introduced his doctrine, saying: "Abhidharma is called the incomparable Dharma. The root of uncontaminated wisdom comprehends truth and transcends the ordinary. Its merit is supreme, hence it is called incomparable. It surpasses the four attachments and transcends the three realms. It is praised by all sages and revered by beings of the six destinies. Should there be any who oppose it, they will be subdued by reason."

Question: To establish a doctrine, one must first clarify its origins. How many kinds of Abhidharma are there? Answer: There are many divisions and types, but broadly speaking, there are six. First, the Abhidharma of Dharma-characteristics spoken by the Tathagata himself, which flourished in India but was not transmitted to China. Second, the Abhidharma composed by Shariputra, who was second only to the supreme sage, to explain the Buddha's teachings. It consists of twenty volumes and was transmitted to this land. Third, more than three hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana, the great arhat Kātyāyana, possessing the three insights and six supernatural powers, composed the Eight Prakaranas in twenty volumes, which were transmitted to this land. The eight are: 1. Miscellaneous, 2. Afflictions, 3. Wisdom, 4. Karma, 5. Great Elements, 6. Faculties, 7. Concentration, 8. Views. "Prakarana" translates as "collection," as each of these eight topics is grouped into its own category. Fourth, around six hundred years later, five hundred arhats, disciples of Kātyāyana, jointly composed the Vibhasha in North India to explain the Eight Prakaranas. "Vibhasha" means "extensive explanation." It was translated in Xiliangzhou, originally in one hundred volumes, but was damaged by war and fire, with only sixty volumes remaining, explaining only three Prakaranas. Fifth, more than seven hundred years later, the arhat Dharmashri, finding the Vibhasha too extensive, condensed its essential meaning into two hundred and fifty verses, called the Abhidharmahrdaya, in four volumes, which was also transmitted to this land. Sixth, around a thousand years later, Dharmatrata, considering the Vibhasha too extensive and the four-volume work too brief, composed an additional three hundred and fifty verses, combining them into six hundred verses, called the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya. Additionally, there is the Six-Part Abhidharma, which, according to the commentary, was jointly composed by Maudgalyayana, Vasumitra, and other masters, but was not transmitted to this land. Only the Sangitiparyaya, one of the six, exists here. There is also the Amritarasabhidharma in two volumes, whose author is unknown, and it was transmitted to this land. Although the Abhidharma has different divisions and types, its main doctrine teaches that insight into existence leads to the attainment of the path.

**Refuting the Second [Misconception]**

There are ten points in this refutation. First, it diverges from the ultimate path. Second, it supports distorted views. Third, it contradicts the Great Vehicle teachings. Fourth, it clings to inferior expedients. Fifth, it confuses its own tradition. Sixth, it lacks fundamental faith. Seventh, it is marked by one-sided attachment. Eighth, it is not a proper basis for study. Ninth, it obscures the true teaching. Tenth, it destroys the complete meaning.

The name of this [school] may be grand, but the principles it explains are inadequate. Not only does it stray far from the Great Vehicle, it also misunderstands the Three Treasuries. Let me briefly present these ten points to reveal its true nature.

**First, diverging from the ultimate path.** The ultimate path, in its true nature, transcends all conceptual categories and goes beyond all linguistic formulations. Those who speak of it miss its reality; those who claim to know it remain in ignorance. Those who assert it exists violate its essence; those who deny it exists injure its substance. Thus, even the seven types of discernment fall silent, and the five kinds of vision see through direct illumination. Shakyamuni covered his mouth, and Vimalakirti remained silent. How could one possibly regard "existence" as the path?

**Second, supporting distorted views.** Since the path is truly not "existence," claiming that one attains the path by seeing existence is seeing existence—not seeing the path. As the Vimalakirti Sutra says, "The Dharma is called undefiled. If one becomes attached to the Dharma, that is attachment, not seeking the Dharma." Furthermore, seeing existence is called "the view of existence," which is not seeing the path. The Lotus Sutra says, "Entering the dense forest of wrong views—whether holding views of existence or non-existence—one relies on these views and fulfills the sixty-two [heretical views]."

Question: If one clings to existence or non-existence, what is the fault? Answer: The Treatise on Right Contemplation says, "Those with shallow wisdom see all phenomena as existent or non-existent. Such people cannot see cessation or the peaceful Dharma." Therein lies a great fault.

**Third, contradicting the Great Vehicle teachings.** The Sutra of Supreme Wisdom says, "In the future, there will be evil monks who say one can attain sagehood by practicing with conceptual characteristics." The Buddha gave this admonition as a warning for the future. Since such people are called "evil," their teaching is by definition wrong. It contradicts the Great Vehicle and should be refuted.

**Fourth, clinging to inferior expedients.** For those who do not know the source, one points to the stream, allowing them to trace the stream back to the source. For those who have not seen the moon, one points to the finger, allowing them to use the finger to see the moon. Tracing the stream to its end reveals a single source; forgetting the finger reveals only the moon. This is the intent behind the Tathāgata's lesser teachings. Yet the Abhidharma practitioners stubbornly cling to their lesser tradition and do not advance toward the Great Path. They grasp the expedient and lose the substance—hence this treatise was composed to refute them.

**Fifth, confusing their own tradition.** The noble disciples' compositions were originally meant to illuminate the sutras. The Āgama texts themselves explicitly teach signlessness. Subhūti, by contemplating the emptiness of phenomena, awakened to the path. Śāriputra entered the emptiness concentration and was praised by the Buddha. But the Abhidharma school only explains seeing existence, thus confusing its own foundational tradition.

**Sixth, lacking fundamental faith.** The Mañjuśrī Sūtra says, "The eighteen [schools] and the two roots all emerge from the Great Vehicle. There is no 'this' or 'not this'—I speak of what arises in the future." The "eighteen" refers to the eighteen dissenting schools. The "two roots" refers to the two fundamental schools: the Mahāsāṅghika and the Sthavira. Abhidharma belongs to the Sarvāstivāda, one of the eighteen schools, which emerged from the Great Vehicle—meaning the Great Vehicle is the root of the lesser. Yet those who cling to the lesser hear of the Great Vehicle and do not believe it. Hence the refutation.

Question: How do we know that those clinging to the lesser do not believe in the Great Dharma? Answer: The Treatise on Great Wisdom says that Kātyāyana's disciples told Nāgārjuna, "When I hear the Great Vehicle, my mind does not believe it at all." Thus, in foreign lands, those clinging to the lesser and those studying the Great Vehicle divided a river between themselves to drink from separate sides.

**Seventh, one-sided attachment.** The Great Collection Sutra says that although there are five schools, none obstruct the Tathāgata's Dharma realm or Great Nirvana. Yet the Abhidharma people stubbornly defend their own school and reject others' teachings, thereby opposing the Dharma realm and resisting Great Nirvana. Their obstacles run deep—this warrants lamentation.

**Eighth, not a proper basis for study.** The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says, "If you wish to understand the four conditions, you should study Prajñā." Outsiders asked Nāgārjuna, "If one wishes to study the four conditions, should one not study Abhidharma? Why study Prajñā?" The treatise master replied, "At first, studying Abhidharma seems understandable. But the longer one investigates, the more it becomes wrong views."

Question: How does studying Abhidharma lead to wrong views? Answer: If one says the four conditions produce all phenomena, then what produces the four conditions themselves? If the four conditions are produced by something else, then that something is produced by something else again—an infinite regress. If the four conditions arise naturally without being produced by anything else, then all things should likewise not depend on the four conditions, falling into the error of no cause. Thus, following the chain leads to infinity; reaching infinity leads to no cause. Through these two paths, one ends up disbelieving in cause and effect. Hence, prolonged study of Abhidharma results in wrong views.

**Ninth, obscuring the true teaching.** The Great Collection Sutra says, "The profound meaning cannot be spoken. The ultimate truth has no words or letters." The Nirvana Sutra says, "Kaundinya attained true insight into all phenomena." The Origination Sutra says, "The monk Aśvajit—one of the first five—told Śāriputra this verse: 'All phenomena are originally empty of self, arising from causes and conditions. One who stills the mind and realizes the source is called a renunciant.' Hearing this, Śāriputra attained the first fruit." Examining both the greater and lesser sutras, all teach that seeing emptiness leads to sagehood. Yet Abhidharma claims that seeing existence attains the path. Thus, it obscures the true teaching.

**Tenth, destroying the complete meaning.** The Nirvana Sutra says, "To make sentient beings deeply understand the ultimate truth, the Tathāgata teaches the conventional truth. If beings could understand the ultimate without the conventional, the Buddhas and Tathāgatas would never teach the conventional." The Abhidharma school, though it knows conventional existence, does not realize ultimate emptiness. Being deluded about emptiness, it also misunderstands conventional existence. Thus, both ultimate and conventional truths are lost together.

The third section discusses the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra*. It has two parts: establishing its tenets and refuting them. A disciple of Harivarman, a master of the text, introduces its lineage: The *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* was composed by Harivarman (also known as Simha-varman, "Lion Armor") within nine hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana. He was originally a disciple of Kumāralāta of the Sarvāstivāda school. Discontented with the interpretations that clung too closely to names and forms, he shifted his studies to the Mahāsāṅghika, learning both the greater and lesser vehicles. He delved into the nine scriptures, refined the teachings of the five schools, dispelled heretical mists, and once again let the sun of wisdom shine. Thus, his teachings flourished in Kashmir and his reputation spread throughout China. "Satyasiddhi" means "establishing truth": "siddhi" refers to the text that establishes, and "satyā" refers to the truth that is established. The text comprises 202 sections in 16 scrolls, structured around the Four Noble Truths and clarifying meaning through five categories. Its teachings are exquisite and profound, attracting followers like a forest.

Question: Since Harivarman criticized the eight *kāṇḍas* and refined the five schools, upon which tenets did he properly base the *Satyasiddhi* school? Answer: Some say he selected the good and followed it, recording all that was capable, abandoning the shortcomings of various teachers and adopting the strengths of different schools. Some say that although he refuted various divergent views, he primarily employed the tenets of the Dharmaguptaka school. Some say he specifically criticized the *Abhidharma* and aligned exclusively with the Dārṣṭāntika school. The Tripitaka Master Paramārtha said he used the tenets of the Sautrāntika school. Examining the *Abhidharmakośa*, the tenets of the Sautrāntika school largely align with those of the *Satyasiddhi*.

Second, refutation. Question: Is the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* a treatise of the Lesser Vehicle, the Greater Vehicle, or does it contain both? Answer: Some say it is of the Greater Vehicle. Some say it is of the Lesser Vehicle. Some say it explores the intent of the Greater Vehicle to explain the Lesser Vehicle, thus containing both. Now, the quality of jade, whether fine or coarse, is something the eyes and ears can perceive, yet there are still differences in clarity of vision. How much more so with the subtle truth, where words cease and conceptualization ends—how easy is it to recognize? Now, using ten points of evidence, it is clear that it is of the Lesser Vehicle, not the Greater Vehicle. 1. Evidence from the old preface. 2. Examination based on the treatise itself. 3. Absence of Greater Vehicle texts. 4. Existence of principles. 5. Confusion about its fundamental school. 6. Distinction between greater and lesser. 7. Grading superiority and inferiority. 8. Absence of mutual identity. 9. Harm to understanding and practice. 10. Examination of worldly people.

1. Evidence from the old preface. In the past, after the Dharma Master Kumārajīva finished translating the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra*, he ordered Sēngruì to lecture on it. After Kumārajīva passed away, Sēngruì recorded his final words and composed a preface to the treatise, which states: "The *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* was composed by Harivarman, the superior disciple of Kumāralāta, a master of the Lesser Vehicle scholars of Kashmir, 890 years after the Buddha's parinirvana. His treatise says: 'Form, sensation, perception, and volition are real; earth, water, fire, and wind are provisional.' It is exquisite and profound, yet insufficient in clarifying reality. Investigating it thoroughly, it is merely the 'reality' within the Lesser Vehicle. Compared to the Greater Vehicle, it is not even enough to compare a dragon's candle to a firefly's glow. Some say this treatise clarifies the truth of cessation, achieving parity with the Greater Vehicle. Kumārajīva, hearing this, sighed: 'How can the people of Qin lack such deep insight? I often suspect that those who universally believe in the Greater Vehicle should know that awakening does not come from within, and thus delusion can be recognized.'" The *Satyasiddhi* was translated by Kumārajīva, and Sēngruì was the first to lecture on it. Later learners should not betray these former masters.

2. Examination based on the treatise itself. The text of the *Satyasiddhi* states: "The various bhikkhus have different theories in many ways; the Buddha permitted them all. I wish to correctly discuss the true meaning within the Three Baskets." Harivarman himself says he is correctly discussing the Three Baskets. Therefore, it is known that the principle of the *Satyasiddhi* is that of the Lesser Vehicle. If one says this treatise also clarifies the Greater Vehicle, the fault lies with the disciples, not with Harivarman. Question: How do we know the Three Baskets are of the Lesser Vehicle? Answer: The *Lotus Sutra* says: "Also, do not associate with scholars of the Lesser Vehicle Three Baskets," fearing that the great illumination is not yet complete and one might be stained by lesser teachings. Wisdom and form should be separated; conduct and dwelling should not be shared. It admonishes the great beings not to associate with lesser people. Thus, it is known that the Three Baskets are not of the Greater Vehicle. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* says: "Kāśyapa and Ānanda compiled the Three Baskets; Mañjuśrī and Maitreya compiled the Greater Vehicle canon." An outsider asks: "Why were the Greater Vehicle scriptures not compiled within the Three Baskets?" The author of the treatise replies: "The Lesser Vehicle does not accept the Greater; the Greater should not be compiled within the Lesser." From this, it is inferred that it is only the Lesser Vehicle.

3. Absence of Greater Vehicle texts. Originally, composing treatises involves quoting the Buddha's words. For example, Nāgārjuna, explaining the Greater Vehicle, quotes Greater Vehicle sutras. Harivarman, explaining the Lesser Vehicle, only uses Lesser Vehicle proofs. All 202 sections draw from the four Āgamas; the 16 scrolls contain no Vaipulya sutras. Considering this in detail, one can know.

4. Existence of principles. Question: If the *Satyasiddhi* explains the Lesser Vehicle and is not allowed to also clarify the Greater, then the Three Treatises explaining the Greater should also not clarify the Lesser. Answer: Principles have their categories and should not be confused. The Buddha's sutras are of two kinds: first, the Lesser Vehicle; second, the Vaipulya. If clarifying the Greater Vehicle, it necessarily includes distinguishing the Lesser. If distinguishing the Lesser Vehicle, it does not include clarifying the Greater. Therefore, at the beginning of Greater Vehicle sutras, there are assemblies of the Lesser Vehicle, but at the beginning of Lesser Vehicle sutras, there are no bodhisattva saṅghas. This shows that the greater can encompass the lesser, but the lesser cannot contain the greater. Since the Buddha's sutras are like this, treatises follow the same principle. Treatises of the Greater Vehicle also clarify the Lesser Vehicle; treatises of the Lesser Vehicle do not clarify the Greater. If a disciple's treatise explores the Greater to explain the Lesser, then the Tathāgata's sutras should also be like that. Then, the great and small would mutually contain each other; what would be the meaning of 'greater' and 'lesser'?

5. Confusion about its fundamental school. Question: The *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* extensively discusses the emptiness of persons and dharmas, which is no different from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra*'s explanation of the equality of the Four Noble Truths. Since the meaning is identical, it should be exploring the Greater to explain the Lesser. Answer: Within the teachings of the four Āgamas, there is the emptiness of persons and dharmas. The treatise clarifying the two emptinesses is thus still explaining the Three Baskets. How can one say it explores the Greater to explain the Lesser? Furthermore, Śāriputra's *Abhidharma* also discusses the two emptinesses, yet it is of the Lesser, not the Greater. Harivarman's treatise should be the same in principle. Question: Śāriputra's *Abhidharma* also explores the Greater to explain the Lesser, similar to the *Satyasiddhi*. Since that explores the Greater, then this is not exclusively Lesser. Answer: Śāriputra's composition still explains the Buddha's *Abhidharma*. Since the Buddha's teaching is of the Lesser Vehicle, how can that treatise be said to explore the Greater?

6. Distinction between greater and lesser. Question: The Lesser clarifies one emptiness, the Greater clarifies two emptinesses—there can be a difference. Since both clarify the two emptinesses, what distinguishes greater and lesser? Answer: Although both clarify the two emptinesses, the emptinesses are not the same. Briefly stated, there are four points: First, the Lesser Vehicle analyzes dharmas to clarify emptiness; the Greater Vehicle's nature is originally empty and tranquil. Second, the Lesser Vehicle only clarifies the emptiness of persons and dharmas within the three realms, so its meaning of emptiness is limited. The Greater Vehicle clarifies the emptiness of persons and dharmas both within and beyond the three realms, so its meaning of emptiness is extensive. Third, the Lesser Vehicle only clarifies emptiness and does not speak of non-emptiness. The Greater Vehicle clarifies emptiness and also distinguishes non-emptiness. Therefore, the *Nirvāṇa Sutra* says: "Śrāvakas only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness. The wise see emptiness and also non-emptiness. Emptiness is all birth and death; non-emptiness is the great nirvāṇa." Fourth, the Lesser Vehicle is called 'mere emptiness,' meaning they dwell only in emptiness. Bodhisattvas are called 'emptiness of the unobtainable,' where emptiness is also unobtainable. Therefore, although both clarify the two emptinesses, the meaning of emptiness differs, hence the distinction between greater and lesser.

7. Grading superiority and inferiority. Nāgārjuna, explaining the *Prajñāpāramitā*'s chapter on accumulating teachings, says: "Subhūti contemplated the emptiness of persons and dharmas, wishing to compare it to the bodhisattva's two emptinesses. It is like comparing the emptiness of a pore to the emptiness of the ten directions." That is, the lesser emptiness is shallow, the greater emptiness is deep. What the *Satyasiddhi* clarifies is only the emptiness of śrāvakas, not that attained by great beings.

8. Absence of mutual identity. The *Lotus Sutra*'s chapter on Faith and Understanding states: "The four great śrāvakas described their attainment of emptiness, saying: 'For a long night, we practiced the dharma of emptiness—no birth, no cessation, no small, no great, no outflow, no conditioned—and did not give rise to greed for the Buddha's wisdom.'" What the *Satyasiddhi* discusses is entirely the same as this. Therefore, it is known not to be of the Greater Vehicle. Question: How is this known? Answer: The text of the *Lotus Sutra* distinguishes that śrāvakas realizing emptiness cannot, within emptiness, contemplate existence, nor within existence, contemplate emptiness. Therefore, there is no mutual identity. What the *Satyasiddhi* discusses also lacks mutual identity. If it clarified mutual identity, it should simultaneously contemplate emptiness and existence. If it simultaneously contemplated emptiness and existence, how would it differ from the Greater Vehicle? Question: How is it known that the tenets of the Lesser Vehicle lack mutual identity? Answer: The explanatory treatise says: "Within the Lesser Vehicle, it is not clarified that birth and death are identical to ultimate emptiness. Only the Greater Vehicle explains this." Therefore, it is known.

9. Harm to understanding and practice. The *Nirvāṇa Sutra* says: "If, with the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, one says there is no giving, this is called breaking precepts and holding wrong views." When people of the Lesser Vehicle enter the contemplation of emptiness and do not see giving, they break the practices of the Greater Vehicle; hence, it is called breaking precepts. They break the understanding of the Greater Vehicle; hence, it is called wrong views. Yet the *Satyasiddhi* clarifies that not seeing giving is the emptiness of real dharmas, taking this as its ultimate principle. If one wishes to practice the Greater Vehicle, one must not give rise to the lesser mind.

10. Examination of worldly people. In the seventh year of the Hongshi era of Qin, a Kṣatriya from India crossed the sea to Chang'an. Hearing that Kumārajīva studied the Greater Vehicle, he questioned and tested him with texts like the *Madhyamaka Śāstra*. Kumārajīva explained and refuted for him. The Kṣatriya received it with utmost admiration, unable to stop himself, and said to Kumārajīva: "You should use this illumination to shine in India. Why is this jewel hidden in a borderland? In India, I heard various treatise masters deeply criticizing Kumāralāta, a Lesser Vehicle scholar of Kashmir, who called himself the illumination of the bright moon—his partial wisdom and minor talent are not fit for this metaphor. Harivarman lamented his teacher, wounded by his own talent, afflicted by his own wisdom. Therefore, he composed this treatise to discern the reality of existent dharmas and clarify the provisional based on the real. Hence, it is named *Satyasiddhi*." Using the words of the Indian Kṣatriya to verify, both Harivarman and his teacher were scholars of the Lesser Vehicle.

Up to the time of Prince Wenxuan of Qi, who sincerely believed in the Three Jewels and often experienced auspicious signs, in the tenth year of the Yongming era of Qi, in the tenth month, he invited over five hundred renowned virtuous ones to expound the teachings at Puhong Temple. Prince Wenxuan always regarded the Greater Vehicle sutras and treatises as the ford to the path and the essential key to the true dharma. However, later generations abandoned the root and revered the branches. He then requested various Dharma masters to compile this *Satyasiddhi* into nine scrolls, ordering Zhou Yong to write a preface, fearing that exclusively promoting this lesser treatise would neglect the practice of the Greater Vehicle. From then on, up to Emperor Wu of Liang, the Greater Vehicle was greatly promoted, and masters refuting the *Satyasiddhi* are too numerous to record fully.

Question: If these ten points of evidence prove the *Satyasiddhi* is of the Lesser Vehicle, how does it compare to the *Abhidharma* in terms of superiority and inferiority? Answer: The verse left by Guṇavarman says: "Various treatises have different starting points, but the principle of practice is not two. Partial attachment creates right and wrong; the wise have no conflict." Also, the explanatory treatise says: "There are four gates: first, the *Abhidharma* gate; second, the emptiness gate; third, the *Piṭaka* gate (this means 'treasury'); fourth, the gate of neither emptiness nor existence. Without the wisdom of prajñā and skillful means, studying the *Abhidharma* gate leads to falling into the view of existence; studying the emptiness gate leads to falling into the view of emptiness; studying the *Piṭaka* gate leads to falling into the view of both emptiness and existence; studying the gate of neither emptiness nor existence leads to falling into foolish theories. If one attains prajñā, the mind is without defilement or attachment, adapting to opportunities, penetrating the path, benefiting people, without mutual contradiction." Yet the *Satyasiddhi* and *Abhidharma* each cling to emptiness or existence, mutually refuting, obstructing the path, increasing views, both missing the Buddha's intent.

Question: Only by realizing emptiness and severing bonds can one attain the path. How can a mind perceiving existence transcend the ordinary? Therefore, it is known that the *Abhidharma* contradicts the principle, while the *Satyasiddhi* attains the principle. Answer: If one says seeing emptiness makes one a sage, and existence does not hinder the ordinary, then the teachings of the Three Baskets should have no way to attain the path. Śākyamuni's Lesser Vehicle teachings throughout his lifetime would be in vain, only becoming greatly beneficial after the rise of the *Satyasiddhi*. How could this be so?

Question: The *Abhidharma* only clarifies the emptiness of persons, while the *Satyasiddhi* fully clarifies the two emptinesses. How can the two treatises have no superiority or inferiority? Answer: Within the Lesser Vehicle, there are three grades: First, those who do not attain either emptiness, like the Vātsīputrīya school, which says: "The four great elements combined have the eye-dharma; the five aggregates combined separately have the person-dharma." These are people of inferior capacity. Second, those like the Sarvāstivādins, who only attain the emptiness of persons, not the emptiness of dharmas. These are people of medium capacity. Third, those like the Dārṣṭāntika and Harivarman, who fully attain the two emptinesses. These are people of superior capacity. Considering the depth of the meaning of emptiness, the *Abhidharma* is inferior within the Lesser Vehicle, and the *Satyasiddhi* is superior within the Lesser Vehicle.

Question: The explanatory treatise says: "After the Buddha's parinirvana, it divided into two parts: first, those who only believe in the emptiness of persons and not the emptiness of dharmas; second, those who believe in both the emptiness of persons and dharmas." There should only be two; why divide into three? Answer: When the Vātsīputrīya enter true contemplation, they see the emptiness of self. Emerging into conventional truth, they posit a separate person-entity. Nāgārjuna, considering their entry into contemplation, thus only divides into two.

Question: The Three Treatises refute non-Buddhist paths and the *Abhidharma*—this is acceptable. But Nāgārjuna arose earlier, and Harivarman came later; they are separated by time. How can they refute each other? Answer: If one clings to attachment, they are refuted regardless of time. Why discuss before and after? If earlier treatises did not refute later delusions, then ancient prescriptions should not cure modern illnesses, and Bian Que's medical arts would be of no benefit in later ages.

Question: If Dharmaśreṣṭhin and Harivarman composed lesser treatises to explain the Three Baskets, and Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna composed greater teachings to propagate the Vaipulya, with the great and small flowing separately, why wait to refute each other? Answer: The Buddha taught the Lesser Vehicle originally to elucidate the Greater. Those stuck in darkness cling to the finger and forget the moon. The sutras themselves refute this; therefore, the treatise masters follow the Buddha.

Question: Some say the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* explores the Greater to explain the Lesser. What fault is there in this? Answer: This has been clarified above. If there is still this confusion, it shall be further explained now. Exploring the

**Refuting Major Attachments, Part Four**

First, the opponent establishes their position, then we refute it.

**A proponent of the Mahayana says:** "The four [non-Buddhist] disciplines and the three [metaphysical] mysteries are all external teachings. The Abhidharma and Satyasiddhi schools are merely the Lesser Vehicle (Hinayana). They do not fully elucidate the truth, and their texts are insufficient. Since they obstruct the Great Vehicle (Mahayana), they should rightly be refuted. Our own tradition, the comprehensive teachings of the Mahayana, is the path trodden by all sages. Its teaching is called the 'complete word,' its principle is called 'nothing lacking.' To have faith in it brings boundless merit; to slander it incurs immense transgression. One should only receive its sweet dew and uphold it as the bridge of Dharma. It should not be refuted."

**Question:** If it is truly a night-shining pearl, one should indeed receive it upon one's head. But I fear it may be mixed with many false gems and must be sifted. If you claim it is flawless, please state its essentials.

**Answer:** The Mahayana is vast and profound; it cannot be fully explained. Grasping its key points, I will briefly indicate two main ideas. First, for distinguishing teachings, nothing surpasses the Five Periods. Second, for separating from the ordinary, the doctrine is based on the Two Truths.

**Regarding the Five Periods:** In the past, when the Nirvana Sutra first crossed the river to the south, the monk Huiguan of the Daochang Temple in the Song dynasty composed a preface to the sutra, broadly classifying the Buddha's teaching into two categories. First, the Sudden Teaching, such as the Avatamsaka Sutra, which fully reveals the principle solely for bodhisattvas. Second, the Gradual Teaching, which spans from the Deer Park to the Sala Grove, proceeding from shallow to deep. Within the Gradual Teaching, he opened it into Five Periods: 1. **The Distinct Teaching for the Three Vehicles:** For śrāvakas, it expounds the Four Noble Truths; for pratyekabuddhas, it explains the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination; for Mahayana followers, it clarifies the Six Perfections. As the practices and causes differ for each, the fruits attained are different. This is called the Distinct Teaching for the Three Vehicles. 2. **The Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom) teaching universally transforms the three spiritual capacities.** This is called the Common Teaching for the Three Vehicles. 3. **The Vimalakīrti and Śrīmālā sutras praise and promote bodhisattvas while restraining and criticizing śrāvakas.** This is called the Restraining-and-Promoting Teaching. 4. **The Lotus Sutra brings together those Three Vehicles, returning them to the One Ultimate.** This is called the Teaching of Common Return. 5. **The Nirvana Sutra is called the Teaching of Permanence.**

Although there have been modifications since the establishment of these Five Periods, they all fall within this framework. Although the teachings are divided into Five Periods, they do not go beyond the Two Truths. The threefold provisional [existence] is the Conventional Truth; the fourfold forgetting [of characteristics] is the Ultimate Truth. By realizing that fourfold forgetting, the sages and saints of the Three Vehicles are attained.

**Second, Refuting Attachments:** First, we challenge the Five Periods; next, we question the Two Truths.

**Question:** Since there are Five Periods, how does one distinguish the Greater from the Lesser Vehicle? **Answer:** The first period is the Lesser; the latter four are the Greater.

**Question:** In principle, does the Greater Vehicle exist or not? If it exists, that is the view of existence. If you say it does not exist, then what is being established? Furthermore, if you say the Greater is different from the Lesser, then since the Lesser is different from the Greater, this is called a dualistic view. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Where there is duality, there is no path, no fruit." The Nirvana Sutra says: "Brightness and darkness, the foolish call two." Also, if the Greater Vehicle truly exists, that is called having attainment. Those who have attainment belong to the retinue of Māra, not to the Buddha's disciples. Furthermore, those who have attainment do not move, do not emerge; there is no meaning of a 'vehicle,' it cannot be called a vehicle. Also, the doctrine of the Greater Vehicle permanently severs birth and death; this is called the view of annihilation. Nirvana is permanent; this is the view of eternalism. It thus involves annihilation and eternalism. What greatness is there in that?

**Next, Challenging the Five Periods:** First a general challenge, then specific objections.

**The challenge:** One should only establish the two teachings of Greater and Lesser Vehicles; one should not formulate the Five Periods. Briefly, I cite three sutras and three treatises as proof. 1. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "The heavenly beings exclaimed: 'In Jambudvīpa we see a second turning of the Dharma wheel.'" Nāgārjuna explains: "In the Deer Park, the small wheel was turned; now the great Dharma wheel is turned again." 2. The Lotus Sutra says: "In the past at Varanasi, I turned the wheel of the Four Truths; now at Vulture Peak, I preach the One Vehicle." 3. The Nirvana Sutra says: "In the past, in the Deer Grove, I turned the small; now, between the twin trees, I preach the great." Therefore, we know the teaching has only two gates, not five periods. 4. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra says: "The Buddha's Dharma has two parts: first, the Tripiṭaka; second, the Mahāyāna Piṭaka." 5. The Bodhisattvabhūmi Śāstra says: "The eleven divisions of scripture are called the Śrāvaka Piṭaka; the Vaipulya Mahāyāna scriptures are called the Bodhisattva Piṭaka." 6. The Madhyamaka Śāstra says: "First, for śrāvakas, he taught the dharma of arising and ceasing; next, for bodhisattvas, he taught the dharma of non-arising and non-ceasing." Examining through sutras and treatises, there are only two collections, not five periods.

**Question:** If they all belong to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, how do these four—the Avatamsaka, Prajñāpāramitā, Lotus, and Nirvana—differ? **Answer:** One must understand four propositions, and the various sutras become clear. 1. **Teaching only bodhisattvas, not transforming śrāvakas:** This refers to the Avatamsaka Sutra. 2. **Transforming only śrāvakas, not teaching bodhisattvas:** This refers to the Tripiṭaka teaching. 3. **Explicitly teaching bodhisattvas, implicitly transforming the two vehicles:** This refers to the various Mahayana teachings from the Prajñāpāramitā upwards, before the Lotus Sutra. Commanding those of the Lesser Vehicle to preach the Great Dharma is the explicit teaching of bodhisattvas. Secretly indicating this Dharma as their own responsibility, like entrusting wealth to a poor son, is the implicit transformation of śrāvakas. 4. **Explicitly teaching śrāvakas, explicitly teaching bodhisattvas:** This is the Lotus Sutra teaching. "Hearing this Dharma, the bodhisattvas' nets of doubt were all removed"—this transforms bodhisattvas. "The twelve hundred arhats shall all attain Buddhahood"—this transforms the two vehicles. Among these four propositions, the first three meanings are subdivisions within the Bodhisattva Piṭaka. Only the teaching that transforms the two vehicles constitutes the Tripiṭaka teaching.

**Next, Specific Objections to the Five Periods:** **Question:** If one establishes the Five Periods, what fault is there? **Answer:** The theory of the Five Periods not only lacks textual basis, it also harms the principle. 1. If you say the first is called the Distinct Teaching for the Three Vehicles, this is not right. According to the Abhidharma school, the Three Vehicles equally see the Four Truths and then attain the path. According to the Satyasiddhi school, they only realize the one cessation and then become saints. Based on the Mahayana school, they equally realize non-arising and then separate from the ordinary. Thus, the initial teaching is also common. Why call it distinct? 2. Next, saying the Mahāprajñāpāramitā is the Common Teaching for the Three Vehicles is also not right. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra says: "Prajñāpāramitā does not belong to the two vehicles, it belongs only to bodhisattvas." If the Mahāprajñāpāramitā were the Common Teaching for the Three Vehicles, it should commonly belong to all. Why does it not belong to the two vehicles? **Question:** If, according to the Śāstra, Prajñāpāramitā belongs only to bodhisattvas, why does the sutra urge the Three Vehicles to study Prajñāpāramitā together? **Answer:** Prajñāpāramitā is of two kinds. First, Mahāprajñāpāramitā, meaning 'Great Wisdom,' is what bodhisattvas attain; therefore it does not belong to the two vehicles. Second, if one takes the realm of true reality (dharmatā) as called Prajñāpāramitā, then the Three Vehicles contemplate it together; therefore they are urged to study it together. The sutra masters, not comprehending this twofold explanation, then say Prajñāpāramitā is the Common Teaching for the Three Vehicles. 3. Next, saying the Vimalakīrti is the Restraining-and-Promoting Teaching is also not right. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā rebukes the two vehicles as 'foolish dogs'; the Vimalakīrti贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬低贬

**Chapter Two: Clarifying the Correct View**

Previously, we refuted the views of non-Buddhist schools, the Abhidharma, the Satyasiddhi, and certain Mahayana teachings. From this point forward, we will address the four main schools discussed earlier and critique the views of the three treatises. Therefore, we will address their erroneous objections to clarify the correct principle.

Having thoroughly refuted these four schools, numerous doubts and objections immediately arose. People all suspected that Nagarjuna was not a true master and that the treatises he composed must be wrong. Therefore, this chapter follows to clarify the correct meaning.

Although there are many aspects to the correct meaning, we will briefly outline two: first, clarifying the correctness of the person; next, revealing the correctness of the Dharma.

**Regarding the Correctness of the Person:** In the *Lankavatara Sutra*, the bodhisattva Mahamati asked the World-Honored One, "After the Tathagata's parinirvana, who will uphold this Dharma?" The Buddha replied in verse: > "After my parinirvana, > In the great southern land, > There will be a bhikshu of great virtue, > Named the bodhisattva Nagarjuna. > Abiding on the First Joyful Ground, > He will preach the Mahayana for people, > Able to refute the views of existence and non-existence, > And will be reborn in the Land of Peace and Bliss."

Furthermore, the *Maya Sutra* states: Maya asked Ananda, "After the Buddha's parinirvana, who will uphold the Dharma?" Ananda replied: "The true Dharma of the Tathagata will last five hundred years. In the first hundred years, Upagupta will teach and propagate, upholding the true Dharma. In the next two hundred years, the bhikshu Shilananda will liberate one billion people in Jambudvipa. In the third hundred years, the bhikshu Blue Lotus Eyes will teach and liberate half a billion people. In the fourth hundred years, the bhikshu Ox-Mouth will expound the essential Dharma and liberate ten thousand people. In the fifth hundred years, the bhikshu Precious Heaven will liberate twenty thousand people, and eighty thousand beings will arouse the bodhi mind. Then the true Dharma will cease. In the sixth hundred years, ninety-six kinds of wrong views will compete and flourish, destroying the Buddha-Dharma. The bhikshu Ashvaghosha will crush these non-Buddhist views. In the seventh hundred years, there will be a bhikshu named Nagarjuna, skilled in expounding the Dharma, who will light the torch of the true Dharma and extinguish the banner of wrong views."

Examining the sutras of both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles, we find direct prophecies about Nagarjuna refuting the wrong and revealing the right. Now that we have refuted both internal and external [wrong views] and criticized both the Greater and Lesser [biased attachments], what doubt can remain? Moreover, concerning Ashvaghosha and Nagarjuna, the Buddha gave clear prophecies. If one still harbors doubts about them, then what of Dharmottara and Harivarman, who lack such scriptural endorsement? How can one readily accept them?

**Objection:** "We have not seen a clear text regarding Dharmottara, but there is clear evidence for Harivarman. The *Agama Sutra* says, 'The truth is the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, bhikshus, you should realize the Four Truths.' The Buddha gave this instruction, foreseeing what was to come. Reaching this degenerate age, it truly belongs to Harivarman. To realize this Dharma, he composed this treatise. Since its guiding principle is thus, how can it be a fabrication?"

**Reply:** That was a general reference to the degenerate age; it did not specifically designate Harivarman. Therefore, it is not valid evidence.

**Clarifying the Correctness of the Dharma, Part Two:**

**Question:** Nagarjuna's writings are very numerous. The Three Treatises seem to emphasize emptiness alone, which appears incomplete.

**Answer:** Sengrui, who was the head of translation under Kumarajiva, stated in his preface to the treatise: "When a magnificent hall with a hundred beams is constructed, the lowliness of a thatched hut becomes apparent. Upon seeing the profound breadth of this treatise, one understands the inferiority of partial awakening." Therefore, those biased toward the Lesser Vehicle find their true refuge in this treatise. Also, as stated before: In India, the sixteen great kingdoms spanning eight thousand *li*, all having the potential for conversion, sincerely regarded Nagarjuna as the Formless Buddha. Among those who venture into learning, none fail to savor this treatise, considering it essential. If it were merely biased toward emptiness, how could it be so esteemed by these kingdoms? Furthermore, Kumarajiva originally held the Lesser Vehicle view but turned to the correct view because of this treatise. Subsequently, many masters relied on this text to awaken from confusion. Considering this, it is clearly the ultimate, complete teaching.

**Question:** If you refute both internal and external [views] and criticize both Greater and Lesser [attachments], on what basis does the principle of this treatise rest?

**Answer:** If the mind dwells on internal and external, or is attached to Greater and Lesser, one falls into biased and wrong views, losing the correct principle. Once the correct principle is lost, correct contemplation cannot arise. If correct contemplation does not arise, the views of annihilation and permanence are not extinguished. If the views of annihilation and permanence are not extinguished, the wheel of suffering constantly turns. Only when both internal and external are silenced, and both Greater and Lesser are pacified, can it be called the correct principle. Awakening to this correct principle gives rise to correct contemplation. When correct contemplation arises, all frivolous debate ceases. When frivolous debate ceases, the wheel of suffering is destroyed. This is the main intent of the Three Treatises. It encompasses the essential meaning of all teachings and unifies the spiritual source of all sages. Should not those who seek the true flavor rely upon this purport?

**Question:** If both internal and external are eliminated, and both Greater and Lesser are refuted, isn't that the view of annihilation? How can it be called the correct teaching?

**Answer:** Since both internal and external are silenced, annihilation and permanence are thereby extinguished. When both extremes are abandoned, how can it not be the correct teaching?

**Objection:** Having annihilation and having permanence is called 'existence.' Having no annihilation and no permanence is called 'non-existence.' Since it is non-existence, how can it avoid being annihilation?

**Answer:** Since annihilation and permanence are extinguished, both existence and non-existence, etc., are transcended. One should not then again become attached to non-existence.

**Objection:** Although there is this explanation, the difficulty remains. Having 'existence' and having 'non-existence' is called 'having.' Not having 'existence' and not having 'non-existence' is ultimately great 'non-having.' Since one falls into 'non-having,' how can one avoid annihilation?

**Answer:** Originally, non-existence was spoken in opposition to the disease of existence. If the disease of existence disappears, the medicine of emptiness is also discarded. Thus, one knows the holy path has never had existence or non-existence. What is there to cling to?

**Objection:** Affirming existence and affirming non-existence is called 'dual affirmation.' Denying existence and denying non-existence is called 'dual denial.' Since one falls into affirmation and denial, isn't that the same as the Confucians and Mohists?

**Answer:** Originally, it was not dual affirmation; therefore, there is dual denial. When dual affirmation ceases, dual denial also ceases. Thus, one knows it is not affirmation, nor is it denial.

**Objection:** 'Not affirmation, not denial' still falls into dual denial. How can one avoid denial?

**Answer:** Dual affirmation arises from dreaming of a tiger; dual denial is still seeing flowers in the sky. Thus, one knows originally there was nothing affirmed, and now there is nothing denied.

**Objection:** If there is no affirmation and no denial, then there is also no wrong and no right. Why then establish chapters titled 'Refuting the Wrong and Revealing the Right'?

**Answer:** Having wrong and having right—this is wrong. Having no right and having no wrong—this is called right. Therefore, the chapters are designated to discuss refuting the wrong and revealing the right.

**Objection:** Since there is wrong to refute and right to reveal, then the mind has acceptance and rejection. How can it be called non-reliance?

**Answer:** To cease the wrong, it is provisionally called 'right.' Once the wrong is ceased, the 'right' also does not remain. Therefore, the mind has nothing to cling to.

**Objection:** If both wrong and right are silenced, isn't that the view of emptiness?

**Answer:** The *Madhyamaka-karika* (*Treatise on the Middle Way*) states: "The great sage taught the Dharma of emptiness to rid [beings] of all views. If one again sees emptiness, even the Buddhas cannot transform them." It is like water being able to extinguish fire, but if the water itself catches fire, what can extinguish it? Annihilation and permanence are the fire; emptiness can extinguish them. But if one then clings to emptiness, there is no medicine left to extinguish it.

**Objection:** Since there is the disease of clinging to emptiness, why not administer the medicine of existence instead of speaking of cessation and transformation?

**Answer:** If one uses existence to transform, one again stagnates in existence. Even up to abandoning words, one then clings to annihilation. How can such people be transformed?

**Question:** What is the fault if the mind has some attachment?

**Answer:** If there is attachment, there is bondage. One cannot attain liberation from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, and distress. Therefore, the *Lotus Sutra* says: "With countless skillful means, I guide and instruct sentient beings, enabling them to leave all attachments." The *Vimalakirti Sutra* says: "Not attached to the world like a lotus flower; constantly well-entered into the practice of emptiness and stillness; penetrating the marks of all dharmas without obstruction; paying homage like space, having nothing to rely upon." The Buddhas of the three periods appear in the world to preach sutras because sentient beings in the six paths have attachments in their minds. The Four Reliables, the great beings, appear in the world to compose treatises because learners of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles have reliance in their minds. Therefore, having reliance and attainment is the root of birth and death. Having no abode and no attachment is the great principle of the sutras and treatises.

**Objection:** If both internal and external are silenced, why did the Buddha's sutras teach the two teachings of Greater and Lesser Vehicles?

**Answer:** The *Lotus Sutra* says: "This Dharma is inexpressible; the sphere of words and speech is extinguished." The Tathagata, within the nameless and markless, forcibly uses names and marks to speak. Therefore, there are the teaching gates of Greater and Lesser Vehicles, wanting sentient beings to use these names and marks to awaken to the nameless and markless. But those attached to the teachings, hearing of Greater and Lesser, give rise to further clinging. Therefore, treatises are composed to refute this clinging sentiment, enabling them to realize the original stillness and extinction. Thus, the appearance of the Four Reliables is like the Buddha appearing.

**Question:** This treatise is named *Correct Contemplation*. How many kinds of 'correct' are there?

**Answer:** The sky does not have two suns; a land does not have two kings. Though teachings have many gates, the principle is uniquely one 'correct.' Therefore, above we refuted the four schools. The *Avatamsaka Sutra* says: "Manjushri, the Dharma is always thus; the Dharma King has only one Dharma. All fearless people attain liberation from birth and death through the one path." It is only because sentient beings in their confusion, regarding the nameless and markless Dharma, forcibly use names and marks to speak, enabling those who receive the teaching to thereby attain awakening. Therefore, two kinds of 'correct' are opened: first, the 'correct essence'; second, the 'correct function.' Neither ultimate nor conventional is called the 'correct essence.' The ultimate and the conventional are called the 'correct function.'

The reason is this: The true reality of all dharmas is where words perish and thought is cut off. It has never been ultimate or conventional; therefore, it is called the 'essence.' Transcending all biases and wrongs, it is designated as 'correct'; hence, 'correct essence.' As for the 'correct function': Since the essence transcends names, beings have no means to awaken. Although it is not existence or non-existence, the ultimate and conventional are forcibly spoken. Therefore, it is called 'function.' This ultimate and conventional are also not biased or wrong; designated as 'correct,' hence 'correct function.'

**Question:** Since you speak of ultimate and conventional, which are two extremes, how can it be called 'correct'?

**Answer:** For example, conditioned, provisional existence is called 'conventional.' However, provisional existence cannot be said to be fixed existence; provisional existence cannot be said to be fixed non-existence. This provisional existence is far removed from both extremes; therefore, it is called 'correct.' Conventional existence is like this; ultimate non-existence is also like this. Provisional non-existence cannot be fixed as non-existence; provisional non-existence cannot be fixed as existence. Far removed from both extremes, it is designated as 'correct.'

**Question:** Why distinguish between the two 'corrects' of essence and function?

**Answer:** In the degenerate age, those with dull faculties mostly fall into bias and wrong views. The Four Reliables appear in the world to rectify the Buddha-Dharma. Therefore, they clarify the 'correct function.' Once one recognizes the correct teaching, one awakens to the correct principle, which is the 'correct essence.'

However, there are three kinds of 'correct': 1. In opposition to biased sickness, it is designated as 'correct'—called 'correct in opposition to bias.' 2. Completely purifying bias is called 'correct'—called 'correct that exhausts bias.' 3. Once the biased sickness is gone, the 'correct' also does not remain. It is neither biased nor correct. Not knowing how to praise it, it is forcibly praised as 'correct'—called 'the correct transcending relativity.'

Since it is so with 'correct,' it is also so with contemplation and treatises. Based on the 'correct essence,' correct contemplation arises—called 'contemplation of essence.' Relying on the function of the Two Truths, contemplation of the Two Truths arises—called 'contemplation of function.' Therefore, contemplation possesses these two.

Contemplation is discerned within the mind. For the sake of sentient beings, the essence is spoken according to reality—called 'treatise on essence.' If the function is spoken—called 'treatise on function.' Therefore, the treatise possesses these two.

Since 'correct' has the three aspects of opposing bias, exhausting bias, and transcending relativity, contemplation and treatises are likewise. This can be understood by analogy with the foregoing.

Next, clarify how scriptures and commentaries support each other.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Though the path of birth and death is long, and the nature of sentient beings is vast, a bodhisattva should contemplate thus: the end of birth and death is like empty space, and the end of sentient beings’ nature is also like empty space. Here, there is no coming and going through birth and death, nor is there anyone attaining liberation."

Since there is neither birth and death nor nirvana, we understand there are also no sentient beings or buddhas—how much less scriptures and commentaries? Therefore, both inner and outer are merged; conditions and views are both stilled.

Yet, though there is no birth and death or nirvana, for sentient beings, birth and death arise. Thus, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "All phenomena are without inherent existence, yet appear as they are." Since there are sentient beings, there are buddhas. Since there are buddhas, there are teachings. Since there are the teachings of the buddhas, there are the commentaries of the bodhisattvas.

Buddhas expound scriptures because sentient beings have lost the path. Bodhisattvas compose commentaries because sentient beings are confused about the scriptures.

Now, scriptures have both general and specific aspects, and so do commentaries. What is meant by "general scriptures"? They universally pacify the delusions of sentient beings and universally reveal the gate to the Way. What is meant by "general commentaries"? All the holy disciples compose various commentaries, also universally to pacify the sickness of misunderstanding the teachings and to clarify the true path.

What is meant by "specific scriptures"? They respond to the conditions of the two vehicles—the greater and the lesser—and teach the two teachings accordingly. What is meant by "specific commentaries"? They are composed to refute the two kinds of delusion regarding the greater and lesser vehicles and to elucidate the two teachings. Hence, there are two kinds of commentaries—greater and lesser.

Moreover, within scriptures and commentaries, there exists the relationship of "capability" and "object." Scriptures take the two wisdoms as the capable means of teaching and the two truths as the object taught. Commentaries take the two insights as the capable means of teaching and verbal instruction as the object taught. Thus, both scriptures and commentaries each possess their own capability and object.

Next, we clarify the interweaving of the sutras and treatises as "that which enables" and "that which is enabled." There are four distinct relationships:

1. The sutra as the enabler, the treatise as the enabled. 2. The sutra as the enabled, the treatise as the enabler. 3. The treatise as the enabler, the sutra as the enabled. 4. The treatise as the enabled, the sutra as the enabler.

**The sutra as the enabler, the treatise as the enabled:** The Buddha's twofold wisdom is what the treatise's author realizes. As the *Lotus Sutra* explains, both the earlier and later teachings are for the sake of bodhisattvas who proceed directly and for those who turn from the lesser vehicle to the great, enabling them all to awaken to the Buddha's wisdom. The "Emerging from the Earth" chapter states: "These beings, upon first seeing my body and hearing my teaching, immediately believe and accept it, entering the Buddha's wisdom." This shows how the earlier teaching enables bodhisattvas who proceed directly to enter the Buddha's wisdom. It further says: "As for those who previously practiced and studied the lesser vehicle, I now also enable them to hear this sutra and enter the Buddha's wisdom." This shows how the later teaching enables those who turn from the lesser vehicle to enter the Buddha's wisdom. Thus, both teachings equally aim at entering the Buddha's wisdom, making it clear that the Buddha's wisdom is what is to be realized.

**The sutra as the enabled, the treatise as the enabler:** What the sutra presents—the twofold truth—gives rise to the treatise author's twofold wisdom. Thus, the Buddha's twofold truth is the enabling cause, and the treatise author's twofold wisdom is what is enabled.

**The treatise as the enabler, the sutra as the enabled:** The treatise author's twofold wisdom arises from the sutra.

**The treatise as the enabled, the sutra as the enabler:** The treatise author's words and teachings elucidate the Buddha's twofold truth.

Next, these four relationships are condensed into two: Whether as enabler or enabled, the sutra always serves as the supporting resource. Whether as enabler or enabled, the treatise always represents what is supported. Furthermore, whether as enabler or enabled, the treatise always functions to elucidate. Whether as enabler or enabled, the sutra is always what is elucidated. Thus, they merge into a single pair: one enabler, one enabled.

Finally, even this single pair dissolves into no pair at all: When the enabler is taken as the enabled, the enabler is not fixed as an enabler. When the enabled is taken as the enabler, the enabled is not fixed as the enabled. Since the enabler is not fixed, it is "not an enabler." Since the enabled is not fixed, it is "not the enabled." Thus, there is neither enabler nor enabled, neither sutra nor treatise, neither Buddha nor bodhisattva. It cannot be named—it is merely called the true Dharma, forcibly labeled as the Middle Way's reality.

**Question:** The statement "the enabler is not fixed, thus it is not an enabler; the enabled is not fixed, thus it is not the enabled"—where does this come from? **Answer:** The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, in the chapter "The Burnable and the Burning," says: "If a thing exists through dependence, that thing in turn becomes dependence. Now, there is neither dependence nor any thing that depends." This is the proof.

Now, let us explain in detail the reason for composing this treatise. As mentioned above, the reason for composing the treatise is this: The Tathagata preached the sutras for those who had lost the Path; the author of this treatise composed the treatise for those who were confused about the sutras. The Tathagata preached the sutras for those who had lost the Path—this is the fundamental loss. The author of this treatise composed the treatise for those who were confused about the sutras—this is a secondary loss. Moreover, the Buddha preached the sutras for those who had lost the Path—this loss refers to a single, direct loss. The author of this treatise composed the treatise for those who were confused about the sutras—this loss is a loss arising from within a loss. Why is this so? Because losing the Path is one loss. The Tathagata preached the sutras to guide people into the Path, but if they then become confused about the sutras, that is a loss within a loss. The single, direct loss refers to people of sharp faculties who, upon hearing the sutras, immediately attain awakening. The loss within a loss refers to people of dull faculties.

Question: Who are the people confused about the sutras? Answer: They are the various schools holding different views. By "various schools holding different views," we mean either two schools, or five schools, or eighteen schools, or twenty schools, or five hundred schools.

Speaking of two schools: On the fifteenth day of the second month, the Tathagata entered Nirvana. On the fifteenth day of the fourth month, the holy disciples gathered at Mount Grdhrakuta in Rajagriha to compile the Tripitaka. At that time, there were already the names of two schools: 1) The Sthaviravada (Elders' School), with Mahakasyapa as the elder. Mahakasyapa was senior, having been ordained one rainy season before the Buddha. The Buddha entrusted the Dharma to Kasyapa, hence the name Sthaviravada. The followers led by Kasyapa numbered only five hundred, but according to the *Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra*, there were a thousand. 2) The Mahasanghika (Great Assembly School), which was the assembly outside the boundary, numbering ten thousand. The elder Varsakara (also called "Tear-shedder," as he constantly shed tears grieving for suffering beings), one of the first five bhikkhus and older than Mahakasyapa, instructed the great assembly outside the boundary. Thus, there were two assemblies. Kasyapa, with five hundred Arhats, first entered the boundary to compile the Tripitaka. Later, many others came to participate in the compilation, but Kasyapa did not permit them, for two reasons: 1) The five hundred were all wise men. 2) The formal act (*karma*) had already been completed. According to the *Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra*, King Ajatasatru only provided food for a thousand people, so the others could not attend. From then until 116 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, there were only the names of the two schools, but no divergent views.

After 116 years, there was a shipmaster's son named Mahadeva, handsome and intelligent, who committed three grave offenses. Later, he entered the Buddhist order. Generally, there were two incidents: 1) He incorporated various Mahayana sutras into the Tripitaka and interpreted them. When the Arhats compiled the Dharma treasury, they had already excluded these doctrines. The Mahasanghika adopted these doctrines, but the Sthaviravada did not. Because of this, disputes arose, leading to the formation of two schools. 2) Mahadeva himself composed a verse: "Others soil the robes, Ignorance, doubt, another's guidance, The holy path revealed by speech, This is the true teaching of the Buddhas." He placed this verse after the precepts. When reciting the precepts during the Uposatha, this verse was also recited. This verse contains five points: 1) "Others soil the robes": Mahadeva had an impure emission that soiled his robes, but he deceived his disciples, saying, "I am an Arhat. There is truly no impurity. It is just that a heavenly demon's daughter used impurity to soil an Arhat's robes." Hence, "others soil the robes." However, this statement contains both falsehood and truth. The falsehood is that he was actually an ordinary person deceiving his disciples with the above story. The truth is that demon daughters can indeed use impurity to soil an Arhat's robes. The assembly disputed whether his statement was false or true, thus dividing into two schools. 2) "Ignorance": Arhats have no ignorance leading to rebirth in the three realms, but they have the residual ignorance of habitual tendencies. Hence, "ignorance." At that time, some in the assembly said Arhats have ignorance, others said they do not. Disputes arose over this, leading to division. 3) "Doubt": Srotapannas have no doubt regarding the three gates of liberation, but they may have doubt regarding external matters. Hence, "doubt." 4) "Another's guidance": A dull-facultied Srotapanna may not know he has attained the fruit. He asks a wise friend, who explains that having no doubt about the Three Jewels and Four Noble Truths is the mark of a Srotapanna. Observing himself, he then knows he has attained the fruit. Hence, "another's guidance." 5) "The holy path revealed by speech": When attaining the holy path, it can also be revealed through speech. For example, when Shariputra orally recited a verse, he immediately attained the fruit of Srotapanna. Hence, "revealed by speech." The assembly disputed these five points, some affirming, some denying, thus forming two schools.

Question: On what doctrines did these two schools differ? Answer: There were many differences. Here, we briefly explain one: The Mahasanghika held that both samsara and nirvana are mere designations. The Sthaviravada held that both samsara and nirvana are real.

Around 200 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, three more schools emerged from the Mahasanghika. At that time, the Mahasanghika, because of Mahadeva's private ordinations, resided in the country of Anguttarapatha, north of Rajagriha. This school mixed Mahayana sutras like the Avatamsaka and Prajnaparamita into the Tripitaka when expounding it. Some people believed this, others did not, thus forming two schools. Those who did not believe said only the Tripitaka recited by Ananda and the other two teachers was credible; all Mahayana sutras outside the Tripitaka were not credible. Those who believed in the Mahayana had three reasons: 1) At that time, there were still those who had personally heard the Buddha teach the Mahayana Dharma, so it was credible. 2) Upon reflection, it was reasonable that there should be a Mahayana, so it was credible. 3) They trusted their teacher, so it was credible.

The three schools are: 1) Ekavyavaharika (One Utterance School): This school held that both samsara and nirvana are mere designations, hence "One Utterance." 2) Lokottaravada (Transcendentalist School): This school said worldly dharmas arise from inverted views, karma produces results, therefore they are unreal. Transcendental dharmas do not arise from inverted views, therefore they are real. 3) Gokulika (Ash-Mountain Dwellers School): The first two are named after their tenets; this one is named after their dwelling place. (This mountain had stones suitable for making ash. This school practiced the Path in that mountain, hence the name.) They held that the Abhidharma is the true teaching, while the Sutras and Vinaya are expedient teachings. They cited a verse from the sutras: "Cover the body as appropriate, eat and drink as appropriate, dwell as appropriate, swiftly cut off afflictions." "Cover the body as appropriate" means the Buddha permitted both having the three robes and not having them. "Eat and drink as appropriate" means the Buddha permitted both eating at the proper time and not at the proper time. "Dwell as appropriate" means the Buddha permitted both dwelling within a boundary and not within a boundary. "Swiftly cut off afflictions" means the Buddha's intention was simply to have afflictions swiftly cut off. This school was extremely diligent, surpassing others.

Around 200 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Mahasanghika, called the Bahusrutiya (Much-Hearing School). The Mahasanghika only propagated superficial meanings, abandoning the profound meanings. During the Buddha's lifetime, there was a rishi who met the Buddha and attained Arhatship. He constantly followed the Buddha to other realms and heavens to listen to the Dharma. When the Buddha entered Nirvana, this person was not present, as he was practicing meditation in the Snow Mountains. Around 200 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, he emerged from the Snow Mountains seeking his former companions. He saw that the Mahasanghika only propagated superficial meanings and did not know the profound Dharma. This person had fully mastered both superficial and profound meanings; within the profound meanings were Mahayana doctrines. The *Satyasiddhi Sastra* (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth) emerged from this school. Some people at the time believed his teachings, so a separate school was formed, called the Bahusrutiya.

Around 200 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, yet another school emerged from the Mahasanghika, called the Prajnaptivada (Designationist School). During the Buddha's lifetime, Mahakatyayana composed a treatise explaining the Buddha's Agama sutras. Around 200 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, Mahakatyayana emerged from Lake Anavatapta and further analyzed the doctrines of the earlier Bahusrutiya school. Some people at the time believed his teachings, hence it was called the Prajnaptivada.

At the end of the 200-year period, there was a non-Buddhist named Mahadeva. At that time in Magadha, there was a lay devotee who greatly propagated the Buddha-Dharma. Non-Buddhists, for the sake of gain, all shaved their heads and became monks. Thus, there were "thief-monks" (*corabhikkhu*). Mahadeva was the leader of these thief-monks. Mahadeva himself became a monk, and his disciples took ordination and received precepts under Mahadeva's assembly. At that time, people disputed this matter. The Sthaviravada said: If the preceptor (*upadhyaya*) has no precepts or has broken precepts, but the teacher (*acarya*) has precepts and the assembly also has precepts, then ordination is valid. The precepts are obtained from the assembly. If the assembly knows the preceptor has no precepts yet participates in the ordination with him, the assembly commits a *dukkata* offense. Question: If the precepts are not obtained from the preceptor, why is he called preceptor? Answer: It is so that after receiving the precepts, the preceptor will guide and instruct the disciple. The Sarvastivadins used this explanation. Other schools said: If the preceptor has no precepts or has broken precepts, even if the assembly has precepts, one does not obtain the precepts, because the precepts are obtained from the preceptor. Because of this dispute, they did not accept Mahadeva. His followers therefore dwelt separately in the mountains. In these mountains, they held different tenets, hence the Caityaka (Shrine) School and the Uttara (Northern) School. Places where the Buddha attained enlightenment and turned the Dharma wheel, and places of great assemblies, are called *caitya* (shrines). There was a mountain called Caityaka Mountain. North of that mountain was another mountain, called the Uttara (Northern) Mountain School.

Counting the Mahasanghika and its offshoots, there were either five, seven, or eight schools. Speaking of five schools: First, the Ekavyavaharika; second, the Lokottaravada; third, the Gokulika—these first three divisions make three. Next, the Bahusrutiya; then the Prajnaptivada—thus making five schools. Speaking of seven schools: Because of the division caused by non-Buddhists, two schools emerged: the Caityaka and the Uttara schools. The first five arose from internal doctrinal disputes; the latter two arose from non-Buddhists, thus making seven schools. Speaking of eight schools: This includes counting the root Mahasanghika itself.

Next, the Sthaviravada disciples: After the Buddha's Parinirvana, Kasyapa entrusted the Tripitaka to three teachers: He entrusted the Sutras to Ananda, the Abhidharma to Purna, and the Vinaya to Upali. After Ananda passed away, he entrusted the Sutras to Madhyantika. Madhyantika entrusted them to Sanavasa. Sanavasa entrusted them to Upagupta. Upagupta entrusted them to Purna. Purna entrusted them to Micchaka. Micchaka entrusted them to Katyayaniputra. From Kasyapa to Micchaka, for about 200 years, there were no different schools. At the beginning of the 300-year period, after Katyayaniputra passed away, they split into two schools: 1) The Sthaviravada disciples, and 2) The Sarvastivada. The reason for splitting into two schools was: The Sthaviravada disciples only propagated the Sutras, considering them primary. The Vinaya's allowances and prohibitions were not fixed. The Abhidharma merely explained the Sutras, sometimes exceeding or falling short of the original text, so they did not propagate it as primary, nor did they abandon the other two collections. The Sarvastivadins, however, considered the Abhidharma supreme, so they propagated it exclusively. From Kasyapa to Upagupta, they properly propagated the Sutras. From Purna onward, they gradually abandoned the root (Sutras) and propagated the branches (Abhidharma), thus properly propagating the Abhidharma. By Katyayaniputra's time, the Abhidharma flourished greatly. The Sthaviravada disciples, seeing them abandon the root for the branches, repeatedly proclaimed edicts urging them to change their school. They stubbornly maintained their school and did not change. The Sthaviravada disciples then moved to the Snow Mountains to avoid them, hence the name Haimavata (Snow Mountain Dwellers) School.

Around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, a school emerged from the Sarvastivada, called the Kaukutika (or Vatsiputriya) disciples. This is the old Vatsiputriya (Pudgalavada) school. The name Kaukutika disciples: There was a rishi named Kaukuta. A woman was of this rishi's lineage, hence called Kaukuti (daughter of Kaukuta). There was an Arhat who was the son of this Kaukuti woman, hence called Kaukutika (son of Kaukuti). This school consisted of this Arhat's disciples, hence called Kaukutika disciples. Shariputra was Rahula's preceptor. Rahula was Kaukutika's preceptor. This school, in turn, were Kaukutika's disciples. Shariputra explained the Buddha's nine-part Abhidharma, called the Dharma-laksana Abhidharma. Rahula propagated Shariputra's Abhidharma. Kaukutika propagated what Rahula taught. This school, in turn, propagated what Kaukutika taught.

Next, around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, four more schools emerged from the Vatsiputriya school. Dissatisfied with the inadequacy of Shariputra's Abhidharma, they each composed treatises, taking meanings from the sutras to supplement it. Because their tenets differed, they formed four schools: 1) The Dharmottariya, which is the old Dharmaguptaka school. 2) The Bhadrayaniya. 3) The Sammatiya disciples. There was a great Sammatiya Arhat; his disciples formed this school, hence the name Sammatiya disciples. These three are named after persons. 4) The Samagarika, named after their dwelling place.

Around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Sarvastivada, called the Mahisasaka. There was a Brahmin who was a royal teacher, named Mahisaka. He was well-versed in the four Vedas. He left home and attained Arhatship. He took fine phrases from the four Vedas to adorn the Buddhist sutras. His tenets also differed. Some people believed his teachings, so a separate school was formed.

Around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Mahisasaka, called the Dharmaguptaka. Originally a disciple of Maudgalyayana, he attained Arhatship and constantly followed Maudgalyayana to the realm of form, able to memorize all teachings spoken there. He himself compiled five collections: the three collections as usual, plus a Dharani collection and a Bodhisattva collection. Some believed his teachings, so a separate school was formed.

Around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Sarvastivada, called the Kasyapiya. Kalodayin was his father, and many bhikkhunis were his mother. He attained Arhatship at age seven. He heard the Dharma directly from the Buddha and could memorize it all. He compiled the Buddha's words, arranging them in corresponding order: refuting non-Buddhists as one category, countering sentient beings' afflictions as another category. Some believed his teachings, so a separate school was formed.

Around 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Sarvastivada, called the Sankrantivada (Transference School). They taught that the five aggregates transfer from this life to the next life and are extinguished only upon attaining the Path of cultivation. Also called the Sautrantika (Sutra School), they considered only the Sutra collection as primary, the other two being subordinate to the Sutras.

From the Sthaviravada, altogether there were eleven schools. From the Mahasanghika, there were seven schools. Combined, they make eighteen schools. Adding the two root schools makes twenty schools.

According to Sarvastivada tradition, there were five teachers of different eras and five teachers of the same era. The five teachers of different eras: 1) Kasyapa, 2) Ananda, 3) Madhyantika, 4) Sanavasa, 5) Upagupta. These five upheld the Buddha-Dharma treasury, each for over twenty years, successively entrusting it to the next, hence "different eras." The five teachers of the same era: During Upagupta's time, they split into five schools, arising simultaneously, hence "same era five teachers": 1) Dharmaguptaka, 2) Mahasanghika, 3) Mahisasaka, 4) Kasyapiya, 5) Vatsiputriya. Also, the *Mahasamnipata Sutra* mentions five schools. The *Manjusri-pariprccha Sutra*, the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra Sastra* (Treatise on the Wheel of Divisions of Schools), and Kumarajiva's treatise on the divisions of schools—these three all discuss twenty schools. The reason for sometimes speaking of five schools and sometimes twenty is: Considering the ultimate divergent

Next, we clarify the general and specific meanings across various schools. There are two types of treatises: general treatises and specific treatises.

If a treatise broadly refutes the delusions of both Mahayana and Hinayana, and broadly expounds the teachings of both, it is called a general treatise. The *Madhyamaka-śāstra* (Treatise on the Middle Way) is an example. Thus, its first twenty-five chapters refute Mahayana delusions and expound Mahayana teachings, while the last two chapters refute Hinayana delusions and expound Hinayana teachings.

Specific treatises, on the other hand, separately refute the delusions of Mahayana or Hinayana and separately expound their respective teachings. Examples include the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha-śāstra* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra*, which are general Mahayana treatises. The *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* and the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* are specific Mahayana treatises. The *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* broadly expounds the three baskets (Tripiṭaka) and is thus a general Hinayana treatise.

The Venerable Aśvaghoṣa’s teacher, known as Bhikṣu Parśva, composed the *Four Āgama Upadeśas*, which specifically explain the Sūtra Piṭaka. The *Samantapāsādikā* specifically explains the Vinaya Piṭaka. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* states that there are eighty divisions of the Vinaya and eighty divisions of the *Vibhāṣā* that explain them. The *Samantapāsādikā* specifically explains the essentials of the Lion Country (Sri Lanka), using the *Ten Recitations Vinaya*. Shariputra specifically explained the Buddha’s nine divisions of the Abhidharma. Since these works separately explain the three baskets, they are specific Hinayana treatises.

Within the three baskets, there are also general and specific distinctions. If a work comprehensively explains one basket, it is a general treatise; if it specifically explains one part within a basket, it is a specific treatise.

Question: Since the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* explains both Mahayana and Hinayana, should it not be called a general treatise for both, rather than a Mahayana treatise?

Answer: Although it explains both, its purpose is to reveal the Mahayana; therefore, it is a Mahayana treatise. The reason is that the initial sections clarify Mahayana, the middle sections clarify Hinayana, and the final sections return to clarifying Mahayana. For this reason, it is called a Mahayana treatise.

Question: What kind of treatise is the *Twelve Gates Treatise*?

Answer: It is a general Mahayana treatise, as it consistently refutes Mahayana delusions and broadly expounds Mahayana teachings, without specifically refuting Hinayana delusions or expounding Hinayana teachings.

Question: What about the *Śata-śāstra* (Hundred Treatise)?

Answer: The *Śata-śāstra* broadly refutes obstacles and wrong views that hinder both Mahayana and Hinayana, and broadly expounds the correct teachings of the Tathāgata for both. Thus, it is a general treatise for both. However, since its aim throughout is to clarify the Mahayana, it belongs to the category of general Mahayana treatises.

Next, clarify the various ways different treatises establish their names. There are generally three ways treatises establish their names. First, named after the Dharma, such as the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth). "Truth" refers to the principle of the Four Noble Truths, and "establishment" refers to the text that accomplishes this. Thus, it is said, "To establish this Dharma, this treatise was composed." This is an example of naming after the Dharma. Second, named after a person, such as the *Śāriputra Abhidharma*. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* states, "The Vātsīputrīya practitioners uphold this Abhidharma, so it is also called the Vātsīputrīya Abhidharma." Third, named after a metaphor, such as the *Amṛtarasa Abhidharma* (Abhidharma of Nectar Taste), or like the *Sūryodaya Śāstra* (Treatise on the Rising Sun) composed by the master Harivarman and Kumāralāta.

The four treatises are all named after the Dharma, not after a person or a metaphor. Among them, they are further divided into four types. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* is named after the sutra it explains: "Mahā" means great, "prajñā" means wisdom, and "pāramitā" means perfection. Since the treatise explains the sutra's title, it is named after what it explains. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) is named after the principle of reality. The *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* (Treatise on the Twelve Gates) is named after its teachings. The *Śata Śāstra* (Hundred Verses Treatise) is named after its verses.

Generally speaking, all four treatises elucidate the principle of the Middle Way reality, so they could all be named after the principle. All four contain teachings that elucidate reality, so they could all be named after the teachings. All four contain verses, so they could all be named after the verses. However, to distinguish them from one another, they are divided into four distinct works. This is why their names are established differently.

Now, let us clarify the main purpose of the various treatises. Generally speaking, both the Mahayana and Hinayana sutras illuminate the same Path. Therefore, they all take the correct insight of non-attainment as their fundamental principle. However, in the Hinayana teachings, the correct insight is still distant. Thus, they take the teaching of the Four Noble Truths as their principle. The Mahayana teachings directly illuminate the correct insight. Therefore, all Mahayana sutras take the non-dual correct insight as their principle. However, due to differences in skillful means, there are distinctions among the various schools. For example, explaining what should and should not be taught, and the opening and reconciling of past and present teachings, is called the Lotus Sutra. Refuting the eight perverse views and clarifying permanence and impermanence is called the Nirvana Sutra. Ultimately, regarding the non-dual true Path, there is no other difference. This is so for the sutras, and likewise for the treatises. Although the various schools have differences, they all use the non-dual correct insight as their principle. Furthermore, sutras and treatises share the same principle. The Buddha's exposition of correct insight constitutes the sutras; treatises elucidate that correct insight, constituting the treatises. Sutras and treatises differ in their function, but the correct insight itself is not different. Therefore, the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra says: "It is like using water to wash away filth—the principle is the same, but it differs based on whether it is from a well or a pond." From past to present, all teachings equally treat the illness of clinging to permanence or annihilation, and equally reveal the true Path. They only differ in the application of teachings for past and present. Now, the four treatises differ in their application, hence we distinguish their four principles.

The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* primarily explains the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra*. Nāgārjuna divided the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* into two paths: first explaining the path of prajñā (wisdom), then explaining the path of upāya (skillful means). These two paths are the parents of the Dharma-body. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* takes true wisdom and skillful wisdom as its principle. The treatise elucidates these two wisdoms from the sutra, and thus also takes these two wisdoms as its principle. It is like the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* elucidating the Two Truths and taking them as its principle.

**Question:** Why does the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* first explain prajñā and then upāya? **Answer:** Prajñā and upāya actually have no sequence. However, they are explained sequentially because prajñā is the essence and upāya is the function. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* says: "It is like gold being the essence, and the exquisite craftsmanship upon the gold being the function." Therefore, the essence is explained first, then the function. Furthermore, "It is neither the practice of ordinary people, nor the practice of sages; it is the practice of bodhisattvas." Prajñā transcends the ordinary, upāya surpasses the sagely. One must first transcend the ordinary before surpassing the sagely. Therefore, prajñā is explained first, then upāya. Also, sentient beings give rise to views in two main ways: first, the view of existence; second, the view of non-existence. Prajñā refutes the view of existence, upāya refutes the view of non-existence. Therefore, prajñā is explained first, then upāya.

Regarding sequence: The Tripiṭaka teachings mostly speak of existence to refute non-Buddhist paths. However, [some] became attached to the existence taught in the Tripiṭaka. Therefore, prajñā subsequently taught emptiness. Those confused then became attached to the emptiness of prajñā. Therefore, upāya was subsequently taught to help them depart from emptiness. Hence, the preface to the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* states: "Knowing that false illnesses arise by themselves, the Āgamas were composed. Because clinging to existence is a fault, prajñā illuminates it." This is the meaning.

In terms of stages, prajñā corresponds to the sixth bhūmi, so it is explained first. Upāya resides in the seventh bhūmi, so it is explained later.

**Question:** Previous [commentators] also clarified that the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* takes the two wisdoms as its principle. How does this differ from the present explanation? **Answer:** We clarify that the sage's mind has never been dualistic. For the sake of sentient beings, the non-dual is spoken of as dual, intending for them to realize the non-dual through the dual. Therefore, it differs from previous explanations. Furthermore, although we clarify the two wisdoms, it also differs from previous explanations. The old meaning held that true wisdom only illuminated emptiness without penetrating existence, and that skillful means only illuminated existence without penetrating emptiness. This limited the sage's mind and created dualistic views. We clarify that the ultimate person embodies the unobstructed Path, therefore having unobstructed function. Since prajñā illuminates emptiness, it can also discern existence. Since upāya involves existence, it can also discern emptiness. This is fully explained in the section on the two wisdoms.

Next, we clarify that the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* takes the Two Truths as its principle. The reason for using the Two Truths as the principle is that the Two Truths are the foundation of the Buddha's teachings. The Tathāgata's own practice and his teaching of others both rely on the Two Truths.

* **Self-practice relies on the Two Truths:** As in the "Chapter on the Buddha's Mother" in the *Sūtra of the Adornments of the Buddha*, it states that the Two Truths can give birth to the Buddha; the Two Truths are the Buddha's mother. This takes the two wisdoms as the Buddha; the Two Truths can give birth to the two wisdoms, therefore the Two Truths are the mother. This means the Tathāgata's own virtue is perfected due to the Two Truths. * **Teaching others relies on the Two Truths:** When the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma to teach sentient beings, he always relies on the Two Truths. Therefore, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says: "All Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to preach the Dharma for sentient beings."

**Question:** How do we know that both self-benefit and benefiting others rely on the Two Truths? **Answer:** The *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* says: "By understanding the Two Truths, one attains benefit for oneself, benefit for others, and mutual benefit." This is the matter. Because the Two Truths are the basis for self-practice and teaching others, elucidating the Two Truths is taken as the treatise's principle, thereby enabling all sentient beings to fully attain both self-benefit and benefiting others.

**Question:** Who is confused about the Two Truths, such that the treatise's author refutes confusion and elucidates the Two Truths? **Answer:** There are three types of people confused about the Two Truths: 1. **The five hundred Hinayana schools:** Each clung to the notion that all dharmas possess determinate nature. Hearing about ultimate emptiness was like a knife wounding their hearts. These people lose the ultimate truth. However, having lost the ultimate truth, they also lose the conventional truth. Why? Because emptiness is precisely existence; therefore, having existence alongside emptiness constitutes the conventional truth. Since they have lost emptiness, they are also confused about existence, thus losing the conventional truth. Therefore, the five hundred schools' attachments fall outside the Tathāgata's Two Truths. 2. **The Extremists (方廣道人):** They claim all dharmas are like turtle hair or rabbit horns; there is no retribution for good or evil. These people lose the conventional truth. However, existence is precisely emptiness; therefore, emptiness alongside existence. Having lost existence-with-emptiness, they also lose emptiness-with-existence. Such people also lose the Two Truths. 3. **Various non-Buddhists** also lose the Two Truths. For example, non-Buddhists holding the view of existence are confused about the ultimate truth; non-Buddhists holding the view of emptiness are confused about the conventional truth. Also, ordinary people, clinging to existence, are confused about the ultimate truth; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, stagnating in emptiness, are confused about the conventional truth.

Furthermore, a third type of person has the name of the Two Truths but loses their meaning. There are many such attachments. Here, we briefly present two: some say the Two Truths are one essence; others say the Two Truths are different essences. Both fail to grasp the meaning of the Two Truths, as fully explained at the beginning of the commentary. Now, refuting these errors and elucidating the Two Truths, we therefore use the Two Truths as the principle.

**Question:** How can we know this treatise uses the Two Truths as its principle? **Answer:** Briefly, there are three reasons: 1. The "Chapter on the Buddha's Mother" in the *Sūtra of the Adornments of the Buddha* explains that the Two Truths are neither produced nor destroyed... neither coming nor going. This treatise precisely explains the Eight Negations. Therefore, we know it is clarifying the Two Truths, hence taking them as the principle. 2. In the preface by *Qingmu* (Pingala), explaining the treatise's intent, it states that non-Buddhists lose the Two Truths, and Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna composed this *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* for them. Thus, we know it refutes the errors of non-Buddhists and elucidates the Two Truths, hence taking them as the principle. 3. Tan Ying's preface to the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* from within the Pass states: "Although this treatise exhausts all principles and leaves no word unexpressed, summarizing its essential purpose, it converges on and penetrates the Two Truths." Now, following this old explanation, we know the Two Truths are the principle.

**Question:** Since it is named *Treatise on the Middle (中論)*, why not use the Middle Way as the principle, but instead use the Two Truths? **Answer:** The Two Truths *are* the Middle Way. Since we take the Two Truths as the principle, it is taking the Middle Way as the principle. Why? Because we still rely on the Two Truths to clarify the Middle Way. Therefore, there is the Middle Way of the conventional truth, the Middle Way of the ultimate truth, and the Middle Way that is neither ultimate nor conventional. However, now wishing to name both the principle and the title, we mention them alternately. Therefore, the principle mentions the "Truths" and the title mentions the "Middle." If we used the Middle Way as the name and also as the principle, we would only get the meaning of non-duality and lose the meaning of duality.

**Question:** Why do the sutras establish the Two Truths? **Answer:** There are two meanings: 1. To show that the Buddha's Dharma is the Middle Way. Because there is conventional truth, there is no annihilation. Because there is ultimate truth, there is no permanence. Therefore, the Two Truths are established. 2. The two wisdoms are the parents of the Dharma-body of Buddhas throughout the three times. Because there is the ultimate truth, prajñā is born. Because there is conventional truth, upāya is born. Possessing true wisdom and skillful wisdom, there are Buddhas of the ten directions and three times. Therefore, the Two Truths are established. 3. Knowing the ultimate truth is self-benefit. Knowing the conventional truth enables benefiting others. Fully knowing both truths leads to mutual benefit. Therefore, the Two Truths are established. 4. Because of the Two Truths, all the Buddha's words are true. Due to conventional truth, speaking of existence is true. Due to ultimate truth, speaking of emptiness is true. 5. The Buddha's Dharma gradually deepens. First, conventional truth cause and effect are taught. Later, the ultimate truth is taught. 6. For those with the capacity to attain the wisdom of the Path, the ultimate truth is spoken; there is no need to speak conventional truth. 7. If one does not first speak of conventional truth cause and effect but directly speaks the ultimate truth, then the view of annihilation arises. Therefore, both truths are fully clarified.

Next, clarifying the principle of the *Śata Śāstra*: The *Śata Śāstra* refutes falsehoods and elucidates the Two Truths, as fully explained at the end of the chapter on emptiness. It should also take the Two Truths as its principle. However, now wishing to distinguish it from the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* takes the Two Truths as its principle, while the *Śata Śāstra* uses the two wisdoms as its principle. This is to show that truth and wisdom mutually complete each other.

**Question:** Why does the *Śata Śāstra* use the two wisdoms as its principle? **Answer:** Āryadeva engaged in direct debate with non-Buddhists, employing temporary skillful wisdom. However, Āryadeva's skillful wisdom was adept at refuting falsehoods and adept at revealing truth, yet ultimately there was nothing refuted and nothing revealed. This is called true wisdom. The entire treatise, from beginning to end, clarifies these two wisdoms, therefore taking them as the principle. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* does not engage in internal debate or temporary skillfulness; it only debates the gains and losses of the Two Truths with fellow students of the Two Truths. Therefore, it takes the Two Truths as its principle. Thus, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* uses what is elucidated as its principle; the *Śata Śāstra* uses what does the elucidating as its principle. This is to show that the Buddha and the bodhisattvas, the elucidator and the elucidated, mutually complete each other.

Next, clarifying the principle of the *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra*: This treatise also refutes internal confusion and elucidates the Two Truths, also taking the Two Truths as its principle. However, now wishing to show the difference among the three treatises, it is appropriate to take object and wisdom as its principle. By "object and wisdom," the treatise says: "The great, profound meaning is what is called emptiness. If one penetrates this meaning, one penetrates the Mahayana, fully possesses the six pāramitās, and is unobstructed." The great, profound meaning refers to the object of true reality. From the object of true reality, prajñā arises. Due to prajñā, all practices are accomplished. This is the meaning of object and wisdom. Therefore, it uses object and wisdom as its principle.

Now, let us clarify the distinctions in the approaches of refutation and affirmation among the Four Treatises. Regarding "refutation and affirmation," there are generally three meanings.

First, refuting the misunderstandings of non-Buddhists regarding the teachings is called "refutation," while affirming the Buddha's teachings on the Two Truths is called "affirmation."

Second, by affirming the Buddha's correct teachings, erroneous views naturally collapse; thus, it is called "affirmation through refutation."

Third, the treatise master clarifies the Buddha's refutations, hence it is called "affirming the refutation." The Mahayana sutras refute the delusions of sentient beings to reveal the single path. However, beings of dull faculties in the latter age fail to comprehend the Buddha's intent in refuting errors to reveal the truth. The Four Reliances Bodhisattvas thus elucidate the Buddha's refutations, which is why it is called "affirming the refutation." This does not mean the sutras establish their own doctrines or the treatises independently formulate refutations.

Question: How do we know that Nagarjuna affirms the Buddha's refutations? Answer: In the final chapter on Wrong Views, it states: "The Great Sage, the Gautama, out of compassion, taught this Dharma, cutting off all views. I now bow in reverence." Thus, we know the treatise master clarifies the Buddha's refutations and does not create refutations of his own.

Question: The sutras contain both affirmations and refutations. Why does the treatise master exclusively focus on refutation? Answer: Beings of dull faculties in the latter age misunderstand both the Buddha's affirmations and refutations, turning them into obstacles. Therefore, the treatise master must refute both, after which he can fully elucidate the Buddha's affirmations and refutations.

Question: If the treatise master affirms the Buddha's refutations, can this be called the treatise master's refutation? Similarly, if he affirms the Buddha's affirmations, should it be called the treatise master's affirmation? Answer: Yes, that is acceptable.

Question: How do the Four Treatises compare in their approaches to refutation and affirmation? Answer: The Three Treatises broadly refute all delusions and broadly affirm all teachings. The *Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra* specifically refutes misunderstandings of the Prajnaparamita and specifically affirms the Prajnaparamita teachings.

Among the Three Treatises, they are further divided into two categories. The *Shataka Shastra* primarily refutes non-Buddhist views while also refuting internal deviations. The other two treatises primarily refute internal deviations while also refuting non-Buddhist views.

The reason the Three Treatises refute both internal and external errors is that all afflictions fall into two types: first, the delusions arising from non-Buddhist distorted views; second, the misunderstandings of Buddhists who misinterpret the teachings. By refuting these two, all afflictions are eliminated.

Question: The *Shataka Shastra* refutes non-Buddhist views—this is clearly stated. But where does it refute internal deviations? Answer: In the chapter refuting material elements, non-Buddhists cite internal Buddhist doctrines as evidence, and the treatise master refutes their citations. This is explained in detail there.

Question: Why is it permissible to refute internal deviations? Answer: There are three reasons. First, as explained earlier, when non-Buddhists fail to establish their arguments and cite internal doctrines as proof, it becomes necessary to refute those internal doctrines. Second, when Buddhists establish doctrines identical to those of non-Buddhists—such as asserting the permanence and omnipresence of space, or even claiming that in Nirvana both body and wisdom are extinguished—these align with non-Buddhist views and must be refuted. Third, when non-Buddhists establish doctrines identical to those of Buddhists, they must also be refuted. For example, in the chapter refuting the absence of effects in causes, non-Buddhists assert that the three characteristics arise sequentially, which aligns with the Sautrantika school, or that the three characteristics arise simultaneously, which aligns with the Sarvastivada school. Hence, internal deviations must be refuted. As Master Sengzhao said, "Heterodox arguments approach the truth, yet they confuse the correct path."

Question: Why does the *Madhyamaka Shastra* also refute non-Buddhist views? Answer: There are four reasons. First, to demonstrate that Madhyamaka exhaustively investigates all dharmas and leaves no teaching unaddressed. If even one dharma is not fully examined or one teaching not completely expressed, then frivolous debates will not cease, and the Middle Way will not arise. Therefore, both internal and external views are refuted. Second, when Buddhists establish doctrines identical to those of non-Buddhists, non-Buddhist views must be refuted. Third, when non-Buddhists establish doctrines identical to those of Buddhists, non-Buddhist views must be refuted. Fourth, to reveal that the true Middle Way is neither internal nor external, neither correct nor erroneous, non-Buddhist views must be refuted.

Question: Does the *Shataka Shastra* also incorporate elements from non-Buddhist teachings while refuting them? Answer: There are four approaches. First, refuting without incorporating: this applies to non-Buddhist erroneous statements that obstruct the Middle Way, confuse insight, and are harmful rather than beneficial. Second, incorporating without refuting: when non-Buddhists appropriate remnants of the Buddha's wholesome teachings, these are accepted. An analogy is a thief stealing a cow. Additionally, when non-Buddhists, through misguided reasoning, inadvertently arrive at insights aligned with Buddhist teachings—like an insect gnawing on wood that accidentally forms characters—these are also incorporated without refutation. Third, both refuting and incorporating: when non-Buddhists appropriate Buddhist teachings but misunderstand their intent, their misunderstanding is refuted while the teachings they misinterpret are retained. Fourth, neither refuting nor incorporating: this reveals that the gate to truth has never been divided into internal or external.

Now, let's clarify the separate explanation of the Three Treatises. A question arises: Since there are four treatises, why are they commonly referred to as the Three Treatises? The answer can be summarized in eight points:

First, each treatise individually embodies three meanings: 1. Refuting false views. 2. Revealing the true teaching. 3. Expressing the doctrine through words. Because they all share these three meanings, they are collectively called the Three Treatises.

Second, the three treatises together fully encompass these three meanings: - The *Madhyamaka-śāstra* clarifies the principle to be revealed. - The *Śata-śāstra* refutes erroneous attachments. - The *Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra* is called the expression of the doctrine. Since these three meanings complement one another, they are named the Three Treatises.

Third, the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* is the extensive treatise, the *Śata-śāstra* is the intermediate treatise, and the *Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra* is the concise treatise. These three works represent the upper, middle, and lower levels, hence the name Three Treatises.

Fourth, all scriptures and treatises generally fall into three categories: 1. Treatises composed solely in verse, such as the *Madhyamaka-śāstra*. 2. Treatises composed solely in prose, such as the *Śata-śāstra*. 3. Treatises composed in both prose and verse, such as the *Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra*. These three works complement one another by differing in form yet supporting the same purpose.

Fifth, these three works are all Mahayana general treatises, hence the name Three Treatises.

Sixth, these three works all reveal the non-dual true reality, hence the name Three Treatises.

Seventh, they were all composed by bodhisattvas who serve as the four reliances.

Eighth, they were all produced during the period of the semblance and decline of the Dharma, with the sole intention of upholding the great teaching.

Now, let us discuss the general and specific aspects of the three treatises. When comparing the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* with the three treatises, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* is considered the specific treatise, while the three treatises are considered the general treatises. Among the three treatises themselves, there are three distinct categories, which can be classified as follows: the *Śata Śāstra* is the most comprehensive among the general treatises, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* is the next in comprehensiveness, and the *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* is the most concise among the general treatises.

The reason for this classification is as follows: the *Śata Śāstra* broadly refutes all erroneous views that obstruct both worldly and transcendental teachings and extensively establishes all correct principles of both worldly and transcendental teachings. Therefore, it is considered the most comprehensive among the general treatises. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, on the other hand, refutes only the delusions of the two vehicles (Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna) and establishes the teachings of both vehicles. It does not refute worldly delusions or establish worldly teachings, so it is considered the next in comprehensiveness among the general treatises. The *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* refutes only the delusions of clinging to the Mahāyāna and establishes the teachings of the Mahāyāna, making it the most concise among the general treatises.

Question: Why is this so? Answer: The rise of heterodox views obstructs all teachings, both worldly and transcendental, as well as the teachings of both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. Therefore, Āryadeva extensively refuted all heterodox views and thoroughly established all teachings. Thus, the treatise begins with the Three Refuges and concludes with the Two Truths, establishing all teachings and refuting all errors. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* was composed to address the attachment of practitioners of the two vehicles to their respective teachings, so it refutes only the delusions of the two vehicles and establishes only the teachings of the two vehicles. This is why the treatise includes discussions on both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. The *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* clarifies the essence of meditation practice and elucidates the fundamental principles of the Mahāyāna. Therefore, it primarily refutes the delusions of the Mahāyāna and exclusively establishes the teachings of the Mahāyāna. This is why the treatise states in its introduction that it provides a concise explanation of the meaning of the Mahāyāna.

Question: The *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra* also refutes the Hīnayāna and heterodox views. Why then is it said to refute only the delusions of the Mahāyāna and establish only the teachings of the Mahāyāna? Answer: Although it refutes various errors, its primary purpose is to establish the Mahāyāna. Therefore, the treatise first provides a concise explanation of the Mahāyāna and then states that beings in the degenerate age, with little merit and dull faculties, may study the scriptures but fail to fully comprehend them. This indicates that they misunderstand the Mahāyāna. Since the Hīnayāna and heterodox views obstruct the Mahāyāna, they must be refuted. Moreover, to enable practitioners of the Hīnayāna and heterodox views to enter the Mahāyāna, they must be refuted.

Question: How does the *Śata Śāstra* differ from the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* in establishing the teachings of both vehicles? Answer: The *Śata Śāstra* establishes the teachings of both vehicles in a general manner, while the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* establishes them separately. Furthermore, the *Śata Śāstra* progresses from the shallow to the profound, while the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* progresses from the profound to the shallow.

Question: Why is this so? Answer: The *Śata Śāstra* is intended to guide those who are turning from heterodox views to the correct path, particularly beginners. It begins with the Three Refuges and leads into the profound teachings of the Mahāyāna, thus progressing from the shallow to the profound. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, on the other hand, reveals the fundamental and derivative meanings of the Buddha’s teachings, with the Mahāyāna as the fundamental teaching and the Hīnayāna as the derivative teaching. Therefore, it progresses from the profound to the shallow.

Next, let's clarify the four distinct ways in which provisional teachings are employed. Although all phenomena are provisional, their essential applications can be summarized into four categories: 1. The provisional teaching of dependent arising. 2. The provisional teaching of adapting to conditions. 3. The provisional teaching of counteracting conditions. 4. The provisional teaching of deconstructing conditions.

**1. The provisional teaching of dependent arising** This is illustrated by the two truths of emptiness and conventional existence. Conventional existence does not exist independently—it arises dependent on emptiness. Emptiness is not empty in itself—it is empty because of conventional existence. Thus, emptiness and conventional existence exemplify the provisional teaching of dependent arising.

**2. The provisional teaching of adapting to conditions** This refers to teaching the three vehicles according to the capacities and dispositions of practitioners.

**3. The provisional teaching of counteracting conditions** For example, to counter the attachment to permanence, the teaching of impermanence is given. To counter the attachment to impermanence, the teaching of permanence is given.

**4. The provisional teaching of deconstructing conditions** When outsiders cling to the reality of phenomena, Buddhas and bodhisattvas deconstruct their views by examining and ultimately finding nothing substantial. This is called the provisional teaching of deconstructing conditions.

These four types of provisional teachings encompass all the teachings found in the twelve divisions of the scriptures and the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures. Although all four treatises employ these four methods, the *Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom* primarily uses the provisional teaching of dependent arising to interpret sutras and establish doctrinal principles. The *Treatise on the Middle Way* and the *Twelve Gates Treatise* mainly employ the provisional teaching of deconstructing conditions. The *Hundred Verse Treatise* predominantly uses the provisional teaching of counteracting conditions.

Next, we clarify the different approaches of the four treatises in responding to circumstances. Regarding the four treatises, we briefly explain two types. Āryadeva Bodhisattva sounded the drum of debate in the royal court. Ninety-six masters gathered like clouds at once, each establishing their own doctrines and setting forth boundless arguments. Āryadeva refuted the heretical masters face-to-face, then returned to the quiet forest, compiling the discussions of that time into the *Śataśāstra*. Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, hidden behind curtains, took up his brush, probed the views of outsiders, exposed their faults, and elucidated the scriptures, thus composing the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*.

Question: Why was it done this way? Answer: Nāgārjuna’s reputation spread throughout the world; outsiders and followers of the Lesser Vehicle did not dare to engage him in debate. Therefore, he worked in seclusion, writing to create his treatise. Āryadeva, being a disciple, was not feared by others, so he engaged in direct debate, later compiling the discussions into a treatise.

Next, we clarify that the circumstances addressed by the three treatises differ in terms of sharpness and dullness. Here, we briefly illustrate, using the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and the *Śataśāstra*, how sentient beings attain awakening in different ways. There are generally four types:

1. Some, due to their inherent capacities, hear the *Śataśāstra* and initially abandon notions of sin and merit, ultimately breaking through attachment to emptiness and existence. Right then, in that very moment, they realize the unborn nature. 2. Some outsiders, although they heard Āryadeva’s refutations at the time and were defeated in both argument and principle, still did not attain awakening. Only later, after leaving home, studying the Buddhist scriptures, did they then attain awakening. These are people of middling capacity. 3. Some outsiders, upon hearing Āryadeva’s words, did not comprehend them and, upon seeking the scriptures, became even more confused. They were then awakened through the refutations of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*. These are people of lesser capacity. 4. Some outsiders, initially receiving Āryadeva’s teachings, and even after studying the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, still did not gain understanding. Only later, through contemplating the profound and concise teachings of the *Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra*, did they finally attain awakening.

**Explaining the Title of the Treatise in Detail**

This treatise's title can be explained in both a broad and a narrow sense.

**The Narrow Sense** The narrow sense refers to just calling it *Zhong Lun* (The Treatise on the Middle). As Master Sengrui's preface states: "The *Zhong Lun* consists of five hundred verses, composed by the Bodhisattva Nagarjuna." Later commentators only explained the two characters "Zhong Lun," hence it's called the narrow sense.

*Question:* Why is it called just *Zhong Lun* and not *Guan* (Observation)? *Answer:* "Zhong" (Middle) refers to the ultimate principle (*li*) being discussed, and "Lun" (Treatise) refers to the teaching (*jiao*) that discusses it. By clarifying both principle and teaching, the meaning is fully encompassed.

**The Broad Sense** The broad sense adds the character "Guan" (Observation). As Master Sengying's preface to the *Zhong Lun* states: "Quieting all extremes is called 'Middle' (Zhong). Questioning, answering, and analytical investigation is called 'Treatise' (Lun)." It further says: "'Observation' (Guan) directly refers to discerning observation with the mind, while 'Treatise' refers to its verbal expression."

*Question:* Why are all three characters used in the full title? *Answer:* From the Middle arises Observation, and from Observation the Treatise is proclaimed. These three elements are necessary for the meaning to be complete.

**The Order of the Characters**

*Question:* What is the sequence of these three characters? *Answer:* There are two kinds of sequence: 1) The sequence from the perspective of the one who transforms (the teacher), and 2) The sequence from the perspective of the one being transformed (the student).

1. **The Teacher's Sequence:** "Zhong" refers to the Path practiced by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the three times and ten directions, so it is stated first. Based on this Path, the correct Observation (*zheng guan*) of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas arises, hence "Guan" comes next. Because they internally possess correct Observation, the Buddha proclaims it verbally, which is called a Sutra (*jing*). The Four Reliance Bodhisattvas proclaim it verbally, which is designated as a Treatise (*lun*). 2. **The Student's Sequence (for understanding and entry):** Disciples, relying on the teaching, recognize the Middle through the Treatise, and from the Middle give rise to Observation. From the Buddha's perspective, it is through the teaching that one recognizes the principle, and from the principle that Observation arises.

**The Reason for Establishing Three Characters**

Why are exactly three characters explained, no more, no less? Briefly, there are three reasons: 1. All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas possess two virtues: self-practice and transforming others. "Zhong" and "Guan" refer to self-practice. The character "Lun" refers to transforming others. Self-practice and transforming others encompass all meaning, hence only these three characters are highlighted. 2. To transform sentient beings, three things are essential: a) the principle to be realized, b) giving rise to Observation based on that principle, and c) proclaiming the Treatise based on that Observation. Therefore, only these three are explained. 3. Pairing "Zhong" with "Guan" gives the names of object and wisdom. Pairing "Guan" with "Lun" gives the designations of practice and exposition. Because Observation arises from the Middle, "Zhong" is the object (realm) and "Guan" is the wisdom. Practicing as taught is "Guan"; teaching as practiced is "Lun." Since the meaning is confined to these four aspects, the names are only these three.

**General and Specific Aspects of the Treatise**

Speaking generally, all three characters are "Zhong," all are "Guan," and all are "Lun." * **All are "Zhong":** The principle is not one-sided, so the principle is called "Zhong." Based on the principle of the Middle, Observation arises; this Observation is not one-sided, so Observation is also called "Zhong." Based on the Observation of the Middle, the Treatise is proclaimed; this Treatise is not one-sided, so the Treatise is also called "Zhong." * **All are "Guan":** "Zhong" is Observation of the meaning's aspect. "Guan" is Observation as mental activity. "Lun" is Observation as name and words. This is also like the three kinds of Prajna: "Zhong" is the Prajna of True Reality (*shixiang*), "Guan" is the Prajna of Contemplative Illumination (*guanzhao*), and "Lun" is the Prajna of Letters (*wenzi*). * **All are "Lun":** "Lun" is that which can discuss, hence it is called "Treatise." The other two are what is discussed, so they are also called "Treatise."

Speaking specifically: The non-one-sided principle is given the name "Zhong." Wisdom, which is penetrating illumination, corresponds to the designation "Guan." "Lun" is verbal teaching, hence it is called "Treatise."

**Mutual Arising and Exhaustion**

This involves: The Middle giving rise to Observation; Observation giving rise to the Middle; objects (*yuan*) being exhausted in Observation; Observation being exhausted in objects. * **The Middle giving rise to Observation:** As the *Nirvana Sutra* says: "The twelve links of dependent origination, being neither produced nor extinguished, can give rise to the wisdom of observation. It is like cucumbers being able to induce a feverish illness." * **Observation giving rise to the Middle:** Sentient beings originally think dependent origination involves production and extinction, not knowing it is the Middle. Only when correct Observation examines and finds no obtainable production or extinction do they realize dependent origination is the Middle. This is giving rise to the Middle through Observation. * **Objects being exhausted in Observation:** The objects of ordinary people, the two vehicles, and those with attachments to one-sided or erroneous views are all exhausted within the Bodhisattva's correct Observation. Hence, "objects are exhausted in Observation." * **Observation being exhausted in objects:** Since erroneous objects are exhausted, correct Observation also ceases. Hence, "Observation is exhausted in objects." Because objects are exhausted in Observation, it is not an object. Because Observation is exhausted in objects, it is not observation. Not an object, not observation—one doesn't know what to praise it as, so it is forcibly named "correct Observation."

*Question:* Since we have "objects exhausted in Observation" and "Observation exhausted in objects," can we also say "the Middle exhausted in Observation" and "Observation exhausted in the Middle"? *Answer:* Yes, that is also possible. The Middle is the object of wisdom; Observation is the wisdom of the object. The object is not an object by itself; it becomes an object because of wisdom. Wisdom is not wisdom by itself; it becomes wisdom because of the object. Because of wisdom, there is an object—the object is not an object by itself. Because of the object, there is wisdom—wisdom is not wisdom by itself. Not being wisdom by itself means it is not wisdom. Not being an object by itself means it is not an object. Therefore, it is the object being exhausted in wisdom, and wisdom being exhausted in the object.

*Question:* Can we also say "objects giving rise to Observation" and "Observation giving rise to objects"? *Answer:* Because of erroneous objects, correct Observation is revealed—this is objects giving rise to Observation. Because of correct Observation, objects are revealed as erroneous—this is Observation giving rise to objects.

**Separate Explanation of the Three Characters**

In general, explaining the meaning has four methods: 1) Explanation based on the name, 2) Explanation based on principle and teaching, 3) Explanation based on mutual relationship, 4) Unrestricted explanation.

1. **Explanation based on the name:** * "Zhong" means "real" (*shi*). As the *Nirvana Sutra* explains the verse "Originally existing, now non-existing": "I originally lacked the real meaning of the Middle Way, therefore now I have boundless afflictions." Master Sengrui's preface to the *Zhong Lun* says: "Using 'Middle' as the name illuminates its reality." "Illuminates" means to reveal. Establishing the name "Middle" is to reveal the reality of all dharmas. * "Zhong" means "correct" (*zheng*). The *Avatamsaka Sutra* says: "The nature of the correct Dharma is far removed from all paths of speech, all courses and non-courses are entirely of a quiescent character." This correct Dharma is the Middle Way. Departing from one-sidedness is called "Middle"; opposing the erroneous is called "correct." Master Sengzhao's *Treatise on the Non-Abiding of Things* says: "The *Zheng Guan Lun* (Treatise on Correct Observation) states: 'Observing the direction, one knows it went there; the one going does not reach the direction.'" Therefore, we know "Zhong" has the meaning of "correct."

2. **Explanation based on principle and teaching:** "Zhong" takes "not-Zhong" as its meaning. Why? The true reality of all dharmas is neither "Zhong" nor "not-Zhong." For the sake of sentient beings, a nameless, markless Dharma is forcibly given a name and marks. The intention is to have people use this name to realize the nameless. Therefore, "Zhong" is spoken to reveal "not-Zhong." * *Question:* Where is it stated that "Zhong" takes "not-Zhong" as its meaning? * *Answer:* The *Avatamsaka Sutra* says: "All existent and non-existent dharmas are thoroughly understood as neither existent nor non-existent." If so, "all Middle and one-sided dharmas are thoroughly understood as neither Middle nor one-sided"—this is the idea.

3. **Explanation based on mutual relationship:** "Zhong" takes "one-sided" (*pian*) as its meaning, and "one-sided" takes "Zhong" as its meaning. Why? "Middle" and "one-sided" are meanings of dependent origination. Therefore, one speaks of the one-sided to lead to realization of the Middle, and speaks of the Middle to lead to recognition of the one-sided. As the sutra says: "Speak the worldly truth to lead to recognition of the ultimate truth; speak the ultimate truth to lead to recognition of the worldly truth."

4. **Unrestricted explanation:** "Zhong" takes form (*se*) as its meaning; "Zhong" takes mind (*xin*) as its meaning. Therefore, the *Avatamsaka Sutra* says: "In one, understand the immeasurable; in the immeasurable, understand one." Thus, one dharma can take all dharmas as its meaning, and all dharmas can take one dharma as its meaning.

*Question:* How many kinds of "Middle" are there? *Answer:* Since it is called "Middle," it is neither many nor one. According to the meaning and in relation to conditions, one can speak of many or one. * Speaking of **One Middle:** The one path is pure, there is no second path. This one path is the one Middle Way. * Speaking of **Two Middles:** This distinguishes the Middle based on the Two Truths: the Middle of the worldly truth and the Middle of the ultimate truth. Because the worldly truth is not one-sided, it is called "Middle." Because the ultimate truth is not one-sided, it is called the "Middle of the ultimate truth." * Speaking of **Three Middles:** The Middle of the Two Truths, and the Middle that is neither ultimate nor conventional. * Speaking of **Four Middles:** 1) The Middle that counters one-sidedness, 2) The Middle that exhausts one-sidedness, 3) The Absolute Middle, 4) The Middle that establishes the conventional. 1. **The Middle that counters one-sidedness:** It counters the one-sided diseases of annihilationism and eternalism held by learners of the Great and Small Vehicles, therefore it is called the Middle that counters one-sidedness. 2. **The Middle that exhausts one-sidedness:** Learners of the Great and Small Vehicles, having the one-sided diseases of annihilationism and eternalism, do not achieve the Middle. If the one-sided diseases are exhausted, it is called the Middle. Therefore, the sutra says: "When sentient beings give rise to views, there are generally two kinds: one is annihilationism, the other is eternalism. Such two views are not called the Middle Way. Neither eternal nor annihilated is called the Middle Way." Hence, it is called the Middle that exhausts one-sidedness. 3. **The Absolute Middle:** Originally, because there is the one-sided disease, there is the Middle. Once the one-sided disease is removed, the Middle is also not established. It is neither Middle nor one-sided. For the sake of sentient beings in the world, it is forcibly named "Middle," called the Absolute Middle. Therefore, this treatise says: "If there is no beginning or end, how could there be a middle?" The sutra also says: "Far removed from the two extremes, not clinging to the Middle Way." This is the idea. 4. **The Middle that establishes the conventional:** Existence and non-existence are the conventional. Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle. Because of neither existence nor non-existence, existence and non-existence are spoken. This kind of Middle is for establishing the conventional, hence called the Middle that establishes the conventional. Why? Truly, because the true Path has never had existence or non-existence. For transforming sentient beings, existence and non-existence are provisionally spoken. Therefore, neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle, and existence and non-existence are the conventional. Within the Middle that establishes the conventional, there are meanings of singular, compound, loose, tight, horizontal, vertical, etc., as fully explained in the *Meaning of Middle and Conventional*. For example, speaking of "existence" is a singular conventional; "non-existence" is a singular Middle. The meaning for "non-existence" is the same. "Existence and non-existence" is a compound conventional; "neither existence nor non-existence" is a compound Middle. "Existence and non-existence" is a loose conventional; "neither existence nor non-existence" is a loose Middle. "Not-existing existence" is a tight conventional; "existing non-existence" is a tight Middle. "Loose" corresponds to horizontal; "tight" corresponds to vertical.

**Different Explanations of "Middle"**

There are four kinds: 1) The "Middle" explained by non-Buddhists, 2) The "Middle" explained by the Abhidharma (*Pi Tan*), 3) The "Middle" explained by the *Satyasiddhi* (*Cheng Shi*), 4) The "Middle" explained by Mahayana followers.

1. **Non-Buddhists explaining "Middle":** * The Samkhya say: "A lump of clay is not a vase and not a non-vase"—this is the meaning of "Middle." * The Vaisheshika say: "Sound is not called large and not called small." * The Lokayata say: "Light is not darkness and not brightness." These three teachers all take "twofold negation" as the Middle, but they do not know the reason for it being the Middle.

2. **The Abhidharma explanation of "Middle":** There is a "Middle" of phenomena and a "Middle" of principle. * The Middle of phenomena: The king of the uncontaminated (*wulou*) does not reside in the border regions, meaning not in the desire realm and not in the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. * The Middle of principle: It refers to the principle of suffering and its origin being neither eternal nor annihilated.

3. **The *Satyasiddhi* explanation of the Middle Way:** The treatise directly states that departing from existence and departing from non-existence is called the Holy Middle Way. However, treatise masters say the Middle Way has three aspects: 1) The Middle Way of the worldly truth, 2) The Middle Way of the ultimate truth, 3) The Middle Way that is neither ultimate nor conventional.

4. **Mahayana followers explaining "Middle":** * As the masters of the *Mahayana-samgraha* explain: The non-established truth, not abiding in samsara and not dwelling in nirvana, is called the "Middle." * The *Yiben* (Basis of Meaning) takes non-abiding as the essence of the Middle. This is the unifying aspect. Within this essence, it opens into two functions: the ultimate and the conventional. This is the functional Middle, which is the differentiating aspect. * Also, the *Zhongjia* (Middle-Conventional) masters say: Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle, while both existence and non-existence are the conventional.

Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises

At that time, on the seventh day of the third month in the eighth year of the Kenchō era(corresponding to the year Ding Si), by the monk Shōshu.