**On the Meaning of the One Vehicle's Arising from Conditions and Its Intrinsic Dharma-Realm**

This teaching is different from the arising from conditions taught in the Mahayana or the Two Vehicles. Those teachings primarily focus on overcoming the faults of clinging to extremes like permanence or annihilation. This principle is not like that. Here, the one *is* the many; no fault is separate, and no dharma is different.

Now, let us take this *Avatamsaka Sutra* as the basis to comprehensively clarify the arising from conditions within the Dharma-realm. It essentially revolves around the intrinsic cause and effect.

**What is meant by the cause?** It refers to the skillful means, the cultivation of conditions, the exhaustive fulfillment of the stages. This is Samantabhadra.

**What is meant by the effect?** It refers to the ultimate, quiescent, perfectly accomplished fruit of the intrinsic nature—the realm of the Ten Buddhas, where one is all. This is explained in the sections on the Ten Buddha World-Oceans and "Leaving the World."

**Question:** Manjushri is also a cause-figure. Why then is only Samantabhadra spoken of as the cause-person? **Answer:** Although the initial arising stems from wondrous wisdom (Manjushri), its perfect fulfillment lies in all-encompassing practice (Samantabhadra). Therefore, Manjushri is implied, while Samantabhadra is explicitly named. Alternatively, Manjushri and Samantabhadra can be understood as representing the beginning and end, together clarifying the process of conditioned arising.

Now, in distinguishing these two gates of cause and effect: the perfect fruit transcends all characteristics of speech, so it cannot be explained through words. The cause, however, clarifies the skillful means and conditioned cultivation, and thus can be briefly discussed.

**Question:** Chapters like "The Inconceivable Qualities" also explain the qualities of the fruit. Why then are they spoken of within the gate of cause? **Answer:** Although these are qualities of the fruit, they are explained in relation to conditions. They are not the ultimate, perfectly quiescent fruit itself. Therefore, they are spoken of in the same assembly as the cause.

Now, based on the teaching and the intrinsic characteristics, to clarify conditioned arising, there are two approaches: 1. Using analogies to establish the principle. 2. Clarifying the principle to harmonize with the dharma.

**1. Using Analogies** As stated in the "Assembly of Bodhisattvas" chapter of the Suyama Heaven assembly: "It is like counting numbers from one to ten, increasing to infinity. All are fundamentally the original number, differentiated by wisdom."

Using this analogy of the ten numbers, there are again two aspects: A. The Aspect of Distinct Entities B. The Aspect of Identity

**A. The Aspect of Distinct Entities** has two points: i. **The One in the Many, the Many in the One.** As the sutra says: "In one, understand the infinite; in the infinite, understand one. They sequentially produce each other, yet are not real. The wise one is fearless." This is explained from the perspective of characteristics. ii. **The One *is* the Many, the Many *is* the One.** As the sutra on the seventh *bhumi* (stage) says: "One is precisely the many; the many is precisely one. Their meaning and flavor are quiescent and utterly equal. Free from the inverted views of identity and difference, this is called the Bodhisattva's Irreversible Abode." This is explained from the perspective of the principle.

Now, using the ten numbers to clarify "the one in the many, the many in the one": - Counting forward from one to ten is going upward. - Counting backward from ten to one is going downward. - Take "one": Because it arises from conditions, within this "one" there is "ten." Precisely because this "one" is established, if there were no "ten," this "one" could not be established. Because it is established without a fixed nature, within "one" there is "ten." Therefore, because "one" is established, "two," "three," "four," and all others are also established. - If "one" clung to its own independent nature, "ten" would not be established. If "ten" were not established, "one" would also not be established.

**Question:** Since each lacks its own nature, how can they establish each other as one and many? **Answer:** This is due to the power and function of conditioned arising based on the true virtue of the Dharma-realm, corresponding to Samantabhadra's sphere. Therefore, the one and the many are constantly established, neither increasing nor decreasing. As the *Vimalakirti Sutra* says: "All dharmas are established based on the root of non-abiding." Also, a treatise states: "Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas can be established."

**Question:** Does this aspect encompass the entire Dharma-realm, or not? **Answer:** It has both the meaning of being exhaustive and the meaning of being inexhaustible. Why? "Ten in one" represents the exhaustive meaning. "One containing ten" spoken of fully represents the inexhaustible meaning. Furthermore, understand that within "one," etc., all contain both the exhaustive and inexhaustible meanings.

**Next, clarifying "the one *is* the many, the many *is* the one":** This is similar to the previous aspect's going upward and downward. - For example, "one *is* ten" because they arise from conditions. If "one" were not "ten," then "ten" would not be established. - Going downward from above is the same: "ten *is* one" because they arise from conditions. If "ten" were not "one," then "one" would not be established.

**Question:** Why is it that not only does "one" not establish itself, but "ten" also does not? **Answer:** It is like a pillar and a house. If there were no pillar, there would be no house at that time. If there is a house, there is also a pillar. Precisely because the pillar *is* the house, there is both a house and a pillar. Because one *is* ten and ten *is* one, both the one and the ten are established.

**Question:** If one *is* ten, then there isn't really a "ten." How can you speak of "one" and "ten," saying they are established precisely because of this "is"? **Answer:** When we say "one *is* ten," this "one" is not the "one" conceived by ordinary thinking. It is the "one" established by conditions. This "one established by conditions" is not the "one" conceived by ordinary thinking. Therefore, the sutra says: "One is also not one; it is spoken to break all numerical concepts. Those of shallow wisdom cling to dharmas, seeing one as one."

**Question:** Earlier, "one containing ten" was explained. Here, "one *is* ten" is explained. What is the difference? **Answer:** The earlier explanation of "one containing ten" means: apart from one there is no ten, yet the ten are not identical to the one. The present explanation of "one *is* ten" means: apart from one there is no ten, and the ten *are* the one, because they are established by conditions.

**Question:** If the one and the many necessarily depend on conditions to be established, is this simultaneous or sequential? **Answer:** Because they are established by conditions, they are always simultaneous yet have sequence. Why is this? Because one *is* ten and ten *is* one, they are always simultaneous. Yet, because of the process of going upward and downward, there is sequence.

**Question:** Since there is clearly sequence and the coming and going of numbers, doesn't that imply increase and decrease? How can it be called the unmoving fundamental characteristic? **Answer:** Although there is sequence and coming/going, it is always unmoving. As the sutra says: "[They] come without the characteristic of coming." For example, one *is* many, yet the characteristic of "one" is unmoved. This characteristic of "one" is also not the "one" conceived by ordinary thinking. The same applies to "many": although many *is* one, the characteristic of "many" is not destroyed, nor is it the "many" conceived by ordinary thinking.

**Question:** Since this one and many are established by conditions and differ from ordinary conceptions, are they fundamentally existent, or do they have a beginning? **Answer:** Regarding whether they are fundamentally existent or not: Do you want to clarify fundamental existence based on wisdom, or based on the intrinsic nature of the one and many themselves? If you discuss it based solely on the intrinsic nature of the one and many, without considering wisdom, then the substance itself silences all discursive paths, being identical to the ultimate perfect fruit which transcends characteristics of speech. Now, if we clarify the one and many, it is explained relative to wisdom. As the sutra says: "Because of the differentiation of wisdom," and also "The wise one is fearless." Therefore, the one and many are explained relative to wisdom.

**Question:** If, relative to wisdom, they are fundamentally existent, is it because wisdom illuminates them that they are fundamentally existent? **Answer:** It is like the space inside a room. When you open the door and see it, this space is fundamentally existent. As the *Nirvana Sutra* says: "Once the Buddha-nature is seen, it is not included within the three times." **Question:** Can it also be said to have a beginning? **Answer:** When it is seen, we speak of it as "existent." When it is not seen, we do not speak of it as "existent." Therefore, it can also be called "having a beginning."

**Question:** If the substance of the one and many, due to being illuminated by wisdom, encompasses both fundamental existence and fundamental non-existence, does this wisdom, when illuminating, also encompass both illumination and non-illumination? **Answer:** Because it is fundamentally existent, wisdom is not illumination in an active sense. Because it is fundamentally non-existent (from the perspective of conception), it is due to wisdom that illumination occurs. Understand that it also encompasses both illumination and non-illumination. All dharmas are analogous to this.

The second is the Gate of Identity in Substance. As in the previous gate, it similarly explains that within the one there is the many, and within the many there is the one. The one is the many, and the many is the one. Now, speaking from the perspective of the one, it explains going upward and coming downward. Within this, both the forward and reverse sequences each contain ten gates. Here, we will briefly mention the beginning and end, speaking in terms of the one and the ten. For example, the one is formed by the conditions of the ten. Without the ten, the one would not exist; the same applies to the two, the three, and so on. The ten being the one is also like this.

Question: What is the difference between this Gate of Identity and the previous Gate of Difference? Answer: In the previous Gate of Difference, when we say "within the one there is the ten," it means the one is considered in relation to the subsequent nine, hence "within the one there is the ten." In this gate, when we say "within the one there is the ten," it means the one inherently contains the nine, hence "within the one there is the ten."

Question: If the one inherently contains the nine, how is this different from the previous Gate of Difference's statement that "the one is the ten"? Answer: Here, saying the one contains the nine means it possesses nine aspects within its own substance, yet the one is not the nine. In the previous Gate of Difference, it is said that the one is the ten of that different substance, yet the ten does not exist apart from the one.

Question: If the one inherently contains the nine, should it not be considered as formed by conditions? Answer: If it were not formed by conditions, how could it contain the nine? Question: How can a single substance contain nine? Answer: Without the nine, there would be no one.

Next, explaining that within the Gate of Identity, the one is the ten: We say the one is formed by conditions, hence the one is the ten. Why? Because if the ten were not the one, the one would not exist. Since the one is the ten, the one is also the two, the three, and so on. The same applies to the ten gates in both forward and reverse sequences.

Question: Here, saying the one's own substance is the ten—how is this different from the previous statement in the Gate of Identity that "within the one there is the ten"? Answer: Previously, it was explained that within identity, there is the ten, but the one is not the ten. Here, it is explained that the one is the ten, meaning the one is identical to the ten. This is the difference.

Question: Does this explanation that the one is the ten encompass all dharmas or not? Answer: Depending on the level of wisdom, it both encompasses and does not encompass. Why? For example, if the one encompasses the ten, it is called encompassing. If explained in full, it is inexhaustible.

Question: Is it inexhaustible only within its own gate, or does it also encompass other gates inexhaustibly? Answer: The one is inexhaustible, and others are also inexhaustible. If others are not exhausted, the one is also not exhausted. If the one is established, all are established. If the one is not established, all are not established. Therefore, this encompassing of dharmas is inexhaustible. Furthermore, the principle of the one becoming inexhaustible is like empty space in its three or four aspects. It is both exhaustive and does not encompass others, hence it is called inexhaustible. Thus, it both encompasses and does not encompass.

Question: Since it is said the one encompasses all, does it only encompass the ten within itself, or does it also encompass the ten in other places? Answer: Encompassing the ten in other places also has the meaning of both encompassing and not encompassing. Why? Because without others, there is no self. The one encompassing others is inexhaustible and becomes the principle of the one. The meaning of the ten in other places is like empty space, hence it is encompassing. The above explanation using the analogy of the number ten is now complete.

Next, we will clarify the principles through the Dharma, divided into ten sections.