Master Yin Hai: Huayan Studies (Authored by Kamegawa Kyōshin, Translated by Master Yin Hai)

Huayan Studies

Authored by Kamegawa Kyōshin

Translated by Master Yin Hai

Preface by Master Chengyi

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra, whose full title is the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra (The Great Expansive Buddha Flower Garland Sūtra), is a voluminous scripture. Its length has never deterred readers, though; on the contrary, it is the most widely circulated of all Buddhist scriptures, and the most beloved by the general public for recitation and study.

Three Chinese translations of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra have circulated in China. The first is the Sixty-Volume Avataṃsaka, translated by the Venerable Buddhabhadra of the Jin dynasty, commonly known as the "Jin Sūtra" or "Old Sūtra." The second is the Eighty-Volume Avataṃsaka, translated during the reign of Empress Wu Zetian of the Tang dynasty by the Tripiṭaka Master Śikṣānanda; it is generally referred to as the "New Sūtra." The third is the Forty-Volume Avataṃsaka, translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Prajñā during the reign of Emperor Dezong of the Tang dynasty. It is an expanded translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha Chapter. Of these three editions, the eighty-volume Avataṃsaka Sūtra—known as the "New Sūtra"—is the most widely studied and cherished.

Commentaries and sub-commentaries on these three editions are extensive. The Sixty-Volume Avataṃsaka is commented on in the Venerable Zhixiang’s Record of Investigating the Avataṃsaka Sūtra’s Mysteries, also titled Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra: Outline of the Universal Wisdom Method, and often shortened to the Brief Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Other key works include the Avataṃsaka Table of Contents, the Ten Profound Gates of the Avataṃsaka, and the Fifty Essential Questions and Answers. National Preceptor Fazang Xianshou authored the Record of Investigating the Mystery of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, commonly shortened to the Record of Investigating the Mystery, as well as the Avataṃsaka Treatise on the Five Teachings, the Avataṃsaka Golden Lion Chapter, the Avataṃsaka Aim and Return, the Avataṃsaka Outline of the Eight Assemblies, the Record of Wandering in the Dharma Realm, and the Contemplation of Exhaustion of Delusion and Return to the Source, among others.

Commentaries on the Eighty-Volume Avataṃsaka include National Preceptor Chengguan Qingliang’s Commentary on the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, its accompanying Subcommentary on the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Preliminary Discussions on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Verses on the Seven Places and Nine Assemblies of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and the Avataṃsaka Strategies, among others. The Forty-Volume Avataṃsaka is commented on in National Preceptor Qingliang’s Commentary on the Samantabhadra Practices and Vows Chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and Great Master Zhufeng Zongmi’s Subcommentary on the Commentary on the Samantabhadra Practices and Vows Chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and Avataṃsaka Treatise on the Origin of Man, among others.

Other foundational texts for Huayan contemplative practice and the school’s founding include the Venerable Dushun’s Contemplation of the Huayan Dharma Realm and Five Teachings of Śamatha and Vipaśyanā. Later essential references for studying the Great Avataṃsaka Sūtra include Song dynasty Master Shihui’s Sectional Divisions of the Huayan One-Vehicle Teaching Chapter, Record of Restoring the Ancient, and Record of Burning the Firewood; Master Guanfu’s Record of Breaking the Firewood of the Huayan One-Vehicle Teaching Chapter; Master Daoting’s Garden Commentary on the Huayan One-Vehicle Teaching Chapter; Master Bensong’s Verses Annotating the Contemplation Gate of the Huayan Dharma Realm and Thirty Gates Verses of the Seven-Character Title Contemplation of the Huayan Dharma Realm; Master Jingyuan’s Supplementary Explanations to the Commentary on the Contemplation of Exhaustion of Delusion and Return to the Source of the Avataṃsaka; Master Jiehuan’s Essentials of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra; Ming dynasty Master Peng Jiqing’s Treatise on the Samādhi of Reciting the Buddha’s Name in the Avataṃsaka; Qing dynasty Master Xufa’s Huayan Xianshou Five Teachings Ritual, Sectional Annotations, Stages of Practice and Realization, and Primer for the Beginner; Master Tongli’s Expanded Annotations to the Primer of the Xianshou Five Teachings Ritual; and Republican era Master Aiting’s Collected Explanations of the Huayan One-Vehicle Teaching Chapter.

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra was expounded by Vairocana Buddha across nine assemblies held at seven locations. The first assembly took place at the Bodhi site of the Aranyaka in the kingdom of Magadha. It expounds the dharma gate of the cause and effect of the adornment of Vairocana Tathāgata’s proper and dependent realms, encouraging sentient beings to have faith in the Buddha’s innate fruitional merits and virtues. It includes eleven volumes of sūtra, such as the Chapter on the Adornment of the Lords of the World, which the Great Commentary of Clear and Cool calls the “Section of Bringing Forth Faith by Lifting Up the Fruits to Inspire Joy.”

The second assembly was held at the Palace of Universal Light, where the dharma gate of the Ten Faiths is expounded. It lays out the method for cultivating faith, urging sentient beings to establish ten kinds of pure faith as the foundation for entering the Buddha’s path. It includes six chapters across four volumes, such as the Chapter on the Tathāgata’s Names. The third assembly took place in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, expounding the dharma gate of the Ten Abodes. It instructs sentient beings to bring forth the aspiration to practice the Brahma-conduct and investigate the Buddha’s true dharma. It includes six chapters across three volumes, such as the Chapter on the Trāyastriṃśa Palace.

The fourth assembly was held in the Yāma Heaven, expounding the dharma gate of the Ten Practices. It calls on sentient beings to put the Buddhist teachings they have faith in into practice. It includes four chapters across three volumes, such as the Chapter on Ascending to the Yāma Heaven. The fifth assembly took place in the Tuṣita Heaven, expounding the dharma gate of the Ten Dedications. It teaches that beyond working for their own benefit, sentient beings should generate the aspiration to benefit others. It includes three chapters across twelve volumes, such as the Chapter on Ascending to the Tuṣita Heaven.

The sixth assembly was held in the Paranirmita Vaśavartin Heaven, where the dharma gate of the Ten Grounds is expounded. (The preceding Ten Abodes, Ten Practices, and Ten Dedications belong to the stage of worthy beings; these Ten Grounds belong to the stage of sages. Since there is a distinction between sages and worthy beings, the assembly skips the Nirmāṇarati Heaven and ascends directly to the Paranirmita Vaśavartin Heaven.) It shows bodhisattvas the expedient means of the Ten Perfections, allowing them to directly transcend to the ultimate fruit. It includes the single chapter Ten Grounds, spanning six volumes. The seventh assembly returned to the Palace of Universal Light, expounding the dharma gate of the complete fruition of equal and wondrous enlightenment. It includes eleven chapters across thirteen volumes, such as the Ten Samādhis Chapter. The first six of these chapters explain the completion of causes, while the last five explain the fulfillment of fruits. Additionally, the Ten Samādhis Chapter through the Chapter on the Bodhisattvas’ Abodes expound the dharma of Equal Enlightenment, while the Chapter on the Inconceivable Dharma of the Buddha through the Chapter on the Buddha’s Minor Marks expound the dharma of Wondrous Enlightenment. The Great Commentary of Clear and Cool refers to the content of the second through seventh assemblies as the “Section of Cultivating Causes in Accord with Fruits to Give Rise to Understanding.”

The eighth assembly was held for the third time at the Palace of Universal Light, expounding the dharma gate of the sudden, perfect integration of the six stages of Samantabhadra’s great practices. It includes the single chapter Departure from the World, spanning seven volumes. The Great Commentary of Clear and Cool calls this the “Section of Relying on the Dharma to Cultivate and Accomplish the Practices.” The ninth assembly took place in the Jetavana Grove in the kingdom of Śrāvastī, expounding the dharma gate of entering the Dharma Realm. It includes the single chapter Entering the Dharma Realm, spanning twenty-one volumes. This chapter is further divided into the root and branch assemblies. The root assembly, from the sixtieth volume to the latter half of the sixty-first volume, expounds the dharma gate of the fruition Dharma Realm, called the “Sudden Entry into the Dharma Realm.” From the latter half of the sixty-first volume to the end of the sūtra is the branch assembly, which expounds the dharma gate of the causal Dharma Realm, called the “Gradual Entry into the Dharma Realm.” This is the account of Sudhana’s fifty-three spiritual mentors. The Great Commentary of Clear and Cool calls this chapter the “Section of Relying on Persons to Enter and Accomplish Virtues.”

Summarizing these nine assemblies in terms of what is expounded, they form four sections. In terms of what they signify, the entire sūtra contains five cycles of cause and effect: First, the Cycle of the Cause and Effect of What Is Believed: the six chapters of the first assembly expound the dharma gate of the cause and effect of the adornment of the Tathāgata’s proper and dependent realms. The first five chapters reveal the fruition virtues of Vairocana’s proper and dependent realms, while the last clarifies their fundamental cause, inspiring faith and joy. Second, the Cycle of the Differentiated Cause and Effect: from the second to the seventh assemblies, the differentiated dharma gates of the Ten Faiths, Ten Abodes, Ten Practices, Ten Dedications, Ten Grounds, and Equal Enlightenment are expounded, comprising twenty-nine chapters in total. The first twenty-six chapters distinguish the causes, while the last three clarify the fruits, hence its name. Third, the Cycle of the Equal Cause and Effect: the last two chapters of the seventh assembly expound the dharma gate of equal cause and effect. The Chapter on the Practices of Samantabhadra expounds the equal cause, in which the cause contains the entire sea of fruits. The Chapter on the Appearance of the Tathāgata clarifies the equal fruit, in which the fruit penetrates to the very source of the cause. Causes and fruits interpenetrate perfectly, without duality, hence its name. Fourth, the Cycle of the Cause and Effect of Accomplishing Practice: the eighth assembly expounds the dharma gate of the cause and effect of practices accomplished while transcending the world. The first part distinguishes the causes of the five stages of practice, while the latter reveals the fruits of the eight marks. Since causes and practices give rise to the fruition of practice, this is called the Cycle of the Cause and Effect of Accomplishing Practice. Fifth, the Cycle of the Cause and Effect of Realization and Entry: the ninth assembly expounds the dharma gate of entering and realizing the Dharma Realm. The first part, the root assembly, expounds the great functions of the Buddha’s fruition, while the latter part, the branch assembly, reveals the bodhisattvas’ arising functions and practice of causes. Both the cause and fruit dharma gates are realized and entered simultaneously, hence its name. The content outlined above belongs to the religious dimension of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

Turning to the philosophical dimension of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra: the Great Commentary of Clear and Cool adopts Xianshou’s position that its essential teaching is “the inconceivable principle and reality of dependent origination in the Dharma Realm, and its cause and effect.” That is to say, the philosophical foundation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is built upon this principle and reality of dependent origination in the Dharma Realm, and its cause and effect.

The term “Dharma Realm” breaks down as follows: the character dharma refers to the universal nature of all phenomena, encompassing all things and all principles, including the meaning of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. This single dharma gate also contains within it the operating patterns of all phenomena and their principles, as well as each dharma’s unique, inherent self-nature. The character realm carries three meanings: nature, differentiation, and cause. Nature refers to the inherent self-nature of all dharmas; differentiation to the boundaries and positions of all dharmas; cause to the seed-causes of all dharmas, the source from which all phenomena arise. As the sūtra states: “All flows forth from this Dharma Realm, and all returns to this Dharma Realm.” This is precisely what is meant.

Dependent origination is also called nature-origination: it is the great functioning of all dharmas in accordance with their nature. Principle and reality refers to the totality of the Dharma Realm; cause and effect refers to its phenomenal aspect. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra aims to reveal to sentient beings the perfect causes of the six stages of practice, so they may align with and realize the ultimate fruit of the ten bodies. This principle and reality of dependent origination in the Dharma Realm is identical with ultimate reality in every respect, and every aspect is a manifestation of dependent origination. What is called principle and reality is vast, empty, and still; its true nature is signless. Yet dependent origination displays the full array of myriad virtues, adorning the Dharma Realm. As the sūtra states: “Within the first ultimate meaning, one manifests all manner of actions to be performed.” This is the meaning.

When principle and reality and dependent origination are said to manifest without obstruction, the true and the false interpenetrate, and the Buddha’s mind is visible even in the mind of an ordinary being. When principle and reality and dependent origination perfect each other, blessings and wisdom are cultivated together, and one seeks the Buddha’s true wisdom grounded in fundamental wisdom. Furthermore, when principle and reality is used to harmonize cause and effect, they interpenetrate boundlessly. When the teaching of dependent origination is brought back into the Dharma Realm, they reflect and merge into one another, hidden and inexhaustible. As the saying goes: “Principle follows the transformation of phenomena, giving rise to the boundless dependent origination of the one and the many; phenomena act in harmony with principle, and a thousand distinctions enter without obstruction.” The six characteristics in perfect integration and the ten profound modes of dependent origination are metaphorical expressions of this single philosophical principle. This is the highest philosophical intent of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

Master Yin Hai, a scholar based in the United States, founded a monastery in Monterey Park, Los Angeles, in Southern California, where he teaches the correct dharma. He has also devoted careful study to the Huayan teachings. Recently, he translated the Japanese professor Kamegawa Kyōshin’s book Huayan Studies into Chinese. From the table of contents of the book he sent, one can see that this work is quite substantial. It provides detailed introductions to the emergence, formation, historical transmission, and study of commentaries on the Great Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and stands as the best reference work for contemporary Huayan scholars. The fidelity of his translation and the elegance of his prose are especially admirable. He was kind enough to ask me to write a preface. I think of the Ocean of Vairocana’s Nature: vast and boundless, its meanings profound and subtle, difficult to fathom and hard to know. Though I have twice received the ancestral teachings and labored diligently on the great sūtra, I ultimately find my wisdom shallow and my learning wanting, and what I know is truly little. I can only share a few points based on what I have understood, and submit them for the consideration of those more learned in the ocean of knowledge. I hope to receive your valuable guidance; this is my sincere wish.

Written on October 10, the 76th year of the Republic of China (1987 CE) at the Huayan Lotus Society in Taipei

---

Original Preface

“Huayan Studies” is, by all accounts, a deeply difficult subject to understand and grasp. This is because it contains a vast array of profound principles within it. On one hand, its philosophical structure and logical system are extremely thorough and far-reaching; the structure of the latent thought embedded in its content is deeply subtle and profound. On the other hand, its mode of expression is no different from that of other Buddhist teachings, and to this day it remains bound by conventional, habitual modes of description. Too many biased and dogmatic claims, combined with the listing of specialized terminology that serves little practical use, inevitably hinder modern readers’ understanding.

After deep and careful consideration of the profound principles contained within Huayan studies, and the “difficulty of comprehension” noted above, I have concluded that to establish its place in the modern era in a way that is accessible and relevant, we must engage in deep reflection and methodological rigor. I have kept all the above points in view, and worked to integrate them into my approach. At the same time, I am committed to preserving its profound principles and traditions, and I face Huayan studies with this firm resolve.

This book is not intended to be an easy, popular overview for general readers; at the same time, I have not ignored the “difficulty of comprehension” of the subject, for I would not want to risk disappointing serious students of the material. I have therefore strived to avoid this pitfall as much as possible.

I have therefore fully honored the classical, dignified nature of the tradition, and hold the serious, established teachings of the patriarchs in the deepest respect. At the same time, I have treated this subject as something I myself need to truly understand, following a path of thoughtful inquiry. With a bold and open attitude, I have striven to grasp its core, taking an independent, self-directed approach. The creative nature of the principles at the heart of this teaching must be deepened through critical reflection and careful, sustained inquiry, and I have paid close attention to this at every turn.

I am ashamed of my own ordinariness and slowness. I expect this modest work will no doubt draw sharp criticism, but I felt compelled to devote all my abilities to this effort. First, I was encouraged to take on this work by the earnest urging of Mr. Shimizu Hideo of Hyakkaen and others. Second, as a humble Huayan researcher, I wanted to clarify the so-called “difficulty of comprehension” of Huayan studies. It has long been my wish to make the essential standpoint of Huayan accessible and familiar to people everywhere.

In sum, I am aware the structure of this book may be naive and imperfect, and may invite ridicule from those more learned, which fills me with some trepidation. Still, if this book fulfills even a fraction of the mission I hope it will, I will be deeply glad.

Finally, I earnestly ask you, dear readers, to offer your honest and rigorous feedback without hesitation. I am deeply grateful for your guidance.

Autumn 1948 (Shōwa 23) — Author

Chapter One: Introductory Remarks

1. Grasping the Characteristics of the Teaching

For Buddhist teachings to be recognized in the world for their independent cultural value, they must be acknowledged as having distinct, unique characteristics. If we were to summarize Buddhism as a whole, we can describe these features that set it apart from all other religions, especially from non-religious systems of thought. We must grasp these characteristics from an organizational standpoint; otherwise, Buddhism cannot be meaningfully situated within academic discourse. The same logic applies to the way each distinct teaching exists within Buddhism. Each school of Buddhist thought has evolved from ancient, distant origins, deepened its meaning through the course of history, and organized itself into a unique, coherent system. Of course, this is the natural way to make its unique identity clear.

2. The Philosophy of Symbolism

But viewed fairly, no single feature is necessarily outstanding, and it's certainly not easy to pass final judgment. Rather, these features mark the lofty solitude of the teaching itself, giving it an atypical shape. Judged by Buddhism's own nature and purpose, it might actually seem inferior to other teachings—perhaps even unsuitable material. Yet even so, its subject matter is not necessarily diminished or dismissed in academic value. Why? Because its features belong to itself alone and seem unlike the expression of Buddhism as a whole. Conversely, gather all those features together and you have Buddhist studies. Its own nature carries the meaning of solemn grandeur, and the features of its teaching are the very life of that teaching. More than that, it soon becomes the concrete expression of Buddhist studies and raises the value of Buddhism itself. With its atypical, lofty solitude, long criticized as it has been, Buddhism—being inherently manifold—can still form a powerful presentation; it can never simply be dismissed or ignored.

The content of Huayan studies harbors deeply profound philosophical principles and has truly reached the highest peak of Mahayana Buddhism, finding wide welcome in the broader world of thought. That its profound and lofty one-vehicle teaching draws something close to astonishment, whether viewed from inside or out, is itself a fact. On the other hand, some mistake it for a teaching that conceals the true religious face of Buddhism, dismissing it as a harmful thing to be cast aside—those who hold such views certainly exist. But the Huayan Sutra—the religious experience of the Buddha himself—after long and deep reflection and examination, is by no means a mere branch of learning when viewed as a religious and philosophical teaching. If we recognize that philosophy grounded in religion can only be reached through experience and reflection, then the features of Huayan studies are worthy of attention not only as the organizational form of one school or as a rare subject of inquiry, but perhaps as an indispensable character of Buddhism as a whole, deserving of serious regard.

Following the intent outlined above, the first thing to note about the features of Huayan studies is that any examination of this teaching requires prior preparation, along with broad study of Buddhist doctrine. To grasp its connections with other fields, this is naturally a matter of urgent planning; one can foresee, then, that the features of Huayan studies will also help in the structural composition of Buddhist scholarship as a whole. For instance, when we want to grasp the concept of "person," we can take a familiar acquaintance—someone we know well—as illustration and representation, universalizing what is particular. This is the easiest way to understand. Yet a single, isolated "certain person" may give us a correct concept of that individual; but an organized, systematic "person as such" can never be correctly grasped in this way alone. As a result, even our representation of the full picture of our acquaintance cannot avoid some error. To grasp the true representation of our acquaintance, we must systematically organize and examine "person" from every domain that touches it—psychology, physiology, ethics, philosophy, and beyond. Only then can we grasp the universal concept of "person" from our image of that acquaintance. In short, the features of Huayan studies begin with knowing just one representation of an acquaintance. Even so, we cannot stop there. Anticipating the expansion of the whole framework of this book—on the basis of all mutually interconnected matters, so that we may clearly know what true Huayan studies are—fulfilling this mission can also hint at the full scope of Buddhism. What is presented here is only an introduction; it has not yet fulfilled the mission of presenting the full result. The whole of this book flows from this root, and one should understand that it will never stand isolated or become meaningless. Now we must do all we can to avoid dogmatic judgments about this teaching that would lead us into peril, and concentrate on systematizing the essence of Huayan studies.

Huayan studies is the organized system that "clearly reveals the Buddha's own inner realization," taking the Huayan Sutra as its foundational scripture; and its mode of expression is symbolic. All Buddhist teachings—being the teachings spoken by the Sage (at the very least we must hold them to be the Dharma spoken by the Buddha)—of course belong to a systematization of the content of the Buddha's awakened state. But the Huayan Sutra in particular is less "spoken by the Buddha" than "spoken for the Buddha," so we should call it "the expression of realization itself." If it were organized into a fixed systematic form, it could not actually be composed in the incomplete, binding language that human beings share. Chan calls it "transmitting mind by mind," or "speech and silence are non-dual." "Realization itself" is only "realized and verified" within one's own experience; apart from the one who has experienced it, talking about it only takes us further and further away from realization itself. If we use our relative, conventional intellect to understand the Buddha, supposing we are drawing near to him, we're actually moving farther away. If we truly want to understand the Buddha, then as ordinary people we truly cannot know him; so we should let go as much as possible of everything an ordinary being clings to. Since the Huayan Sutra is not the Buddha preaching but his own direct realization, the sutra's expression only borrows words as a provisional device. On one hand it uses these words; at the same time, once the words are set aside, the realization should be shining in the blank space left behind. On the other hand, because it is a blank, any expression can in fact be reliably displayed there.

Take someone who plunges a finger into boiling water. They do not pause to deliberate or recall and explain, "My finger has entered water at how many degrees Celsius? Because the boiling temperature reaches such-and-such a degree, the skin surface first undergoes a chemical change. Then it penetrates inward, stimulates the nervous system, and the muscles undergo change…". When they truly feel the burning, there is no waiting for a theoretical explanation; they simply say nothing and pull out their finger. They do not give a long explanation not because they feel no burning, but because the true, unreflecting certainty of the burning utters no word at all. In such a moment only a sharp, sudden cry proves the burning to the highest degree.

Burning too intense for words is the "blank"—this is called "the fruit-realm cannot be spoken"; while the "sudden sharp cry," expressing the whole body enveloped in burning, may be called "the cause-realm that can be spoken." Fazang's Essay on the Five Teachings opens with this: "Now I shall briefly set out ten gates to elucidate the one-vehicle teaching of the Thus Come One's ocean-seal samadhi." The first gate is "establishing the one-vehicle." Within this one-vehicle teaching, the division begins with two: the distinct teaching of the one-vehicle, and the shared teaching of the one-vehicle. Within the distinct teaching: "1. The fruit-realm of the nature-sea is the meaning of the unspeakable. Why? Because it does not correspond to [formal] teaching." Then: "2. The cause-realm of dependent origination, which is the ground of Universal Worthy's realm." ① "Note: Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, page 477, upper column." The fruit-realm is unspeakable because it is confined to the realm of one's own realization, and can only be expressed by the one who has personally passed through it. Yet if the Buddha's realization were simply unspeakable and only a silent language, then truth would be forever "buried" methodologically—truth itself could never continuously appear, and its spontaneous effort would be lost. Is truth really like that? Has truth not already been revealed by the Buddha? It is the fact, namely, that the full state of all things is displayed—proven by the Buddha's right awakening. If truth can be manifested through the Buddha's right awakening, then we sentient beings—sharing with the Buddha the same root, the same substance, and no difference—must likewise, without exception, be able to manifest it.

However, there is a qualification, called "the clinging realm of delusion." To be free, only those who have awakened for themselves are permitted to reveal the truth! From here we consider the great practices of the bodhisattvas. The foremost of these representatives is the practice of Universal Worthy (Samantabhadra) Bodhisattva. A bodhisattva, compared with a Buddha whose fruition is complete, is a practitioner still on the causal ground, and at the same time a representative of sentient beings who are to be saved. And at the same time, for sentient beings in the deluded causal realm who set their aim on the Buddha realm, as those who experience patient endurance and diligent practice, their vow must become that of a hero who reveals the truth of the dharmadhatu. Therefore, through the experience of bodhisattvas, the Buddha's awakened realization is realized step by step. That is, from one practice to the next, from one stage to the next, under the name of the bodhisattva's great practice, one can certainly realize the truth. This is why the Essay on the Five Teachings says that the cause-realm of dependent origination "is the realm of Universal Worthy." ② "Note: A bodhisattva of the ten grounds realizes a portion of true suchness at each ground. If one progresses from the first ground to the second, and from the second to the third as a developmental stage of practice, then a ten-ground bodhisattva is of course on the causal stage relative to the Buddha. Can a being on the causal stage realize a portion of the vivid, authentic ocean-nature fruit realm? On this matter, the Huayan school provides the following explanation: The ocean-nature fruit realm is the ultimately perfect, unobstructed method of Vairocana Buddha (the non-duality of wisdom and principle = the unity of phenomena and principle), which is not merely principle, nor can it be limited to the matters and dharmas of the practitioner's realizing wisdom. This explanation is [the dharmas that Vairocana fully understands, knows, and illuminates]. Therefore, if we wish to point to a true context for discussing the ocean-nature fruit realm, it must be the fruit body of Vairocana Buddha. Moreover, true suchness does not only belong to the Buddha's fruition stage; from the perspective that the ten faiths are fully accomplished at the stage of the 'full heart of ten faiths,' one does not need to wait until the ten grounds are ultimately perfected, as the fruit realm is already realized at the initial arising of the bodhicitta. Therefore, the ocean-nature fruit realm is first to be understood as a principle, but its ultimate nature is the perfectly integrated fruit dharma of the unity of principle and phenomenon."

Thus the Buddha's own realm and Universal Worthy's realm differ as fruit-realm and cause-realm. But the cause-realm is directly known by Universal Worthy as the fruit-realm, so the two in themselves are non-dual—just as water and waves: water is waves at rest, and waves are water in motion. This is what the Essay on the Five Teachings goes on to say: "These two are non-dual; the whole is completely encompassed."

Since the Huayan Sutra is an expression with form arising from what is formless, it can only be called symbolic. Its teaching structure is not merely scientific, nor does it lean toward mysticism; it adopts a clear philosophical form while being grounded in symbolism. When we open the Huayan canon, the chapters and verses that make up the whole text are rich in poetic charm, and their elegant artistic touches give one a sense of dramatic interest. ③ "Note: The artistic spirit of the Huayan Sutra, when viewed and treated as its most superior quality, is recorded in Dr. Masami Kimihira's Philosophy of Action (p. 306)." Compared with other teachings—Yogacara, with its character of Buddhist psychology; Abhidharma studies, with their deep psycho-spiritual coloring; Pure Land teachings, focused on the purely religious; Chan, directed at sudden awakening—Huayan studies stands out for its strongly philosophical character. Moreover, the great fulfillment of its teaching—refined through Buddhism's long history and the development of this teaching itself—has absorbed influences from other schools and gathered them into its inmost depths. It can be said that, while synthesizing and unifying the whole of Buddhist studies, it also returns to Shakyamuni's original intent. By realizing what is called the dependent origination of the dharmadhatu, it brings the doctrine of dependent origination to its grand fulfillment, the utmost flowering of its development!

To say that the Huayan Sutra is the Buddha's own self-declaration is, in fact, to say that truth shows its full scope in silence—and even if spoken for an aeon, it can never be fully told. Even with Buddhas numberless as the sands of the Ganges, with boundless voices and unending time, they could not praise even a fraction of the Buddha's vast virtue. Then what, in the end, is being expressed in the sutra? Each time the Huayan Sutra explains a matter, it ends with the refrain: "Even after spending endless time, it has not been fully told." Language is used to dispel the inadequacy of language; yet without language to convey, nothing could be more expressive. At this point we can only sigh at the contradiction.

Relying on language to express what lies beyond language is certainly no simple metaphor. A metaphor is a convenient tool for understanding the meaning of the Dharma, and Buddhist sutras and treatises have employed it since India, as have later Buddhist scholars gladly done. There are even sutras that consistently use metaphor as their standard mode of discourse—so much so that Buddhism has been considered to occupy a position built on metaphorical literature. Nāgārjuna's Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom, for instance, is celebrated precisely for its use of metaphorical method in explicating the Dharma. Yet the metaphor is strictly limited: the metaphor and the Dharma it points to are two entirely different things.

This is why, though the representations in Huayan teaching may look like metaphors, they are by no means just metaphors. In its doctrinal principle, skillful means and truth become perfectly unified—something quite different in nature from Tiantai's approach, with its "opening the three to reveal the one," and from which Huayan's symbolism arises. Both speak of "phenomena are identical to noumenon, noumenon is identical to phenomena," but Huayan's philosophy of symbolism takes "one is all, all is one" a leap further. It reaches an immanent principle—the symbolic principle of one thing to another—where the relation between the one and the infinite is pushed to its utmost as "one is all." As a result, an individual thing symbolizes individual things; what inherently contains the finite symbolizes the finite. Hence, within the Ten Profound Gates of Dependent Origination, the "Gate of Relying on Phenomena to Reveal the Dharma and Generate Understanding." The Three Vehicles teach that one "relies on distinct phenomenal forms to express distinct principles." The Huayan One Vehicle, by contrast, teaches that "the phenomenal forms relied upon are themselves the very principles revealed, with no difference whatsoever." This way of speaking resonates with ④ "Note: Treatise on the Five Teachings, vol. 4 (Taishō 45, p. 507a): 'Question: The Three Vehicles also have this meaning; how does it differ? Answer…'" Rather than proceeding dialectically, Huayan takes negation as an opposition, revealing the ultimate logic of identity—the ji. The core of its logic is absolute negation, so in whatever sense, there can be no temporal process before or after it. If symbolism is established through such absolute negation, with both sides reaching the ultimate of identity from their respective positions, then the Huayan concepts of "mutual identity and mutual interpenetration" are rightly called a philosophy of symbolism.⑤ "Note: On 'symbolism,' see Tsuchida Kyōson's A Brief Study of Huayan Philosophy and Philosophy of Symbolism, which contain various discussions and have also inspired this book."

What, then, is a symbol? The term is common in philosophy and art. As a religious term, it expresses a contradictory experience and seems connected to mysticism. If mysticism can be discovered through experience by transcending theory, then symbolism, too, can be said to await direct experiential grasp. Huayan uses "cloud" to represent nourishing moisture and "king" to represent sovereign freedom—and these are grounded in common sense. A cloud holds much moisture; its rain nourishes all things, and they receive its benefits. To liken a cloud to nourishment isn't a theoretical pursuit. Likewise, a king can do as he wishes and carry out his will, so using a king as a metaphor for sovereign freedom isn't a matter of reasoning or association. At first glance it may seem to involve logic, but one must go further: a direct, embodied realization that transcends contradiction, aligning self and other within reason, achieving absolute self-identity. This is the symbolism seen in Huayan study. One is simply one, never many; many is simply many, never one. One and many stand in contradictory opposition. Yet if one contains the many and so is one, and many contains the one and so becomes many, then one and many are mediated through contradiction. The many contains the one; the one is contained within the many. The contradiction of one-and-many is overcome, and it becomes: one is many, many is one.

The absolute, or the infinite, cannot in itself be understood from a relative standpoint. To grasp its meaning, we must use finite things as a vehicle for manifestation. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra relies, in the causal stage, on the two bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra to manifest the fruit-stage Buddha—Vairocana's resultant body—which is then understood through manifestation in the Samantabhadra gate. Here, the Sūtra and the Samantabhadra gate are never set apart as the manifested and that which manifests; the manifested is directly none other than that which manifests. When a "pen" is used to represent the literary and a "sword" to symbolize the martial, pen and writing, sword and warfare, must be one body, inseparable. Setting the symbol in opposition to the symbolized—drawing inferences from such analogies—will never yield a true symbol.

There is an old story: a master craftsman wielded his chisel, working on a masterpiece to be finished a day ahead of schedule. That night, in the bitter cold of winter, he embraced his statue and warmed it with his own body heat, as though caring for a living person. After a night of exhaustion, at dawn, before the sun had risen, he froze to death from the cold. In the carving, with every stroke of the chisel, the master poured his life into his work. Only such a creation bears the mark of a true artisan. Though his body had frozen, the true author remained, vividly active in the work. No—the work itself transcends the craftsman's illusory body; it is the true author.

One might think that manifestation is simply revealing the formless and invisible through formed, finite things, and so stays within the bounds of ordinary logical metaphor. But the expression of direct Dharma intuition is not a matter of finding logical pathways in consciousness, of inferring one thing from another. Transcending opposition and contradiction is the ultimate standpoint of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration—the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena. When this is detailed later, its meaning will become clear.

Consider a notebook. It is also paper. The concepts of paper and notebook differ in thought, yet when paper symbolizes notebook, paper is notebook. In the realm of meaning they stand in mutual opposition and contradiction, but at the point of ultimate, perfect transcendence, they achieve the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomena as symbols. To organize this into a discourse: the "Ten Profound Gates of Dependent Origination" and the "Six Characteristics of Perfect Integration."

Compared with other Mahāyāna teachings such as Tiantai, Huayan doctrine is traditionally said to emphasize the idealist standpoint, speaking of the "One Mind Dharma-realm." Taking the position that all dharmas are nothing but the One Mind, unfolding its teachings from there, the result is nothing other than an exposition of symbolism. We are admiring a flower—this is a fact. But aside from the flower, there is also an "I," and I am not merely admiring with the flower as an object. In truth, only when the "I" admiring the flower becomes the flower completely can one say the true "I" is admiring it. When I look at the flower, it is really the flower looking at the flower. "Entering samādhi" is exactly such a state. If even a trace of "I" remains as an opposing entity, one can no longer be truly admiring the flower. The real meaning of "all dharmas are the One Mind" is the symbolism of "I am the flower, the flower is I."

To say "mountains, rivers, and the great earth are the Buddha's body" reflects the pantheistic view of Huayan. It means that mountains, rivers, and the great earth are directly the Dharma-body of Vairocana—not that behind the visible landscape there lies some unseen substance that is the Buddha in a pantheistic sense. What originally is, is as it is, without any added device. If one sees mountains, rivers, and the great earth as symbols of Vairocana, then the sound of water and the call of birds are all originally the Buddha's teaching. The hallmark of Huayan is that it explains the symbolical view of life and the world at its ultimate standpoint. This is something we must first understand.

3. The Practical Study of Cultivating Contemplation

Huayan is the direct realization of truth, the wisdom-study of Buddhism's distinctiveness, and equally a path of practice that deepens the clarity of its very essence. Philosophy underpins all cultural phenomena, probing profound and distant truths. Ethics establishes human conduct, leading to true happiness and a correct view of life and the world. Buddhism—especially Huayan—through its own development, has emphasized its philosophical unfolding while fully manifesting Buddhism's distinctiveness without remainder. Plainly, in the matter of the path of practice, it was already fully equipped from the start. Or rather—Huayan's philosophical structure might, in some respects, appear inferior to Western philosophy. This in no way signals a defect in Huayan's speculative thought; rather, it reveals the particular standpoint of "the unity of learning and practice" and "teaching is contemplation," where philosophy is itself the path of practice. Even within Buddhism, Huayan differs somewhat in nature from Tiantai, which deeply expounds philosophical principle. Tiantai divides into two gates, teaching and contemplation, discussing them as mutually opposed. Huayan's characteristic is that teaching is contemplation, contemplation is teaching—what is viewed as learning is teaching, what is viewed as practice is contemplation. Hence the Ten Profound Gates of Dependent Origination and the Six Characteristics of Perfect Integration. These are results once investigated as doctrinal speculation, representing the standpoint of doctrinal study, yet they are ordinarily taken as practical content of the path, known as the Contemplation of the Ten Profound Gates and the Contemplation of the Six Characteristics. The Four Dharma-realms are likewise taken as gates of contemplative practice, and the theories of dependent origination and nature-origination are applied directly as contemplative practice. Huayan's philosophical doctrine differs entirely in attitude and method from most Western philosophy. Just now we spoke of the philosophy of symbolism as one defining characteristic of Huayan. There is another: it never departs from the doctrine of dependent origination as practical cultivation. Rather, its doctrinal study is directly the study of the path. Please do not overlook this.

Originally, when the Buddha was thinking and observing things, he always began from an empirical standpoint. As recorded in the early sūtras, regarding broad speculative theories of meaning, he declined and "did not answer." Because they "do not accord with meaning," "do not accord with the Dharma," he is said to have avoided answering speculative theories.① "Note: In the Dīrghāgama, vol. 12, Sūtra of Purity (Taishō 1, p. 76a), concerning inquiry into metaphysical questions, it says: 'Such speech is not permitted by the Buddha. Why? Because in these views there are various fetters.' They are dismissed as 'mere false views, nothing but words.' No matter how cleverly put, from the standpoint of self-realization, all such verbal argument falls into 'inappropriate speech' and becomes idle talk. Similar passages are scattered throughout the Āgama corpus." This does not mean that the Buddha's inner realization necessarily lacked a speculative element; it means that the method of cultivation was for the sake of achieving that inner realization—the Buddha's direct pointer and goal. Meanwhile, the speculative development of Buddhist teaching was, in fact, leaping forward rapidly. The reasons: outwardly, the Indian people were rich in religious sentiment, possessed of astonishing philosophical capacity, and at the same time nurtured in an atmosphere of cultural construction as a distinctive feature. Inwardly, the Buddha's teaching, inherently empirical, contained profound philosophical principle. When embraced with a spirit of devoted learning, its inherent organization made the unfolding of dialectic inevitable—a necessity held within itself. Hence, in Buddhism, "study" signifies "understanding" and also "practice."

But consider further: those who delve into the theoretical speculation of the teaching and those who practically carry out its content do not necessarily view these two things in the same way. So within Buddhism we find a distinction between those who emphasize doctrinal study and those who devote themselves to the path of practice. This is unavoidable; yet it cannot be denied that philosophy and the path of practice are closely correlated, and no sect or school has ever denied this. Still, the vast scope of Huayan's logic and the depth of its philosophy dazzle many, so that they cannot see its aspect of practical study and seem to regard Huayan as merely a one-sided, purely theoretical philosophy. Such a misapprehension is a grave error. Since Huayan develops its foundation on the dependent origination of the Dharma-realm, its substance is by no means an abstract law like others. What is ordinarily called the contemplation of dependent origination holds concrete contemplative and practical content. Therefore, when investigating according to the law of dependent origination, if the experiential standpoint is shifted elsewhere, it becomes empty idle talk—naturally departing from the original meaning of dependent origination.② "Please refer to the author's The Structure of Dependent Origination (1–), the standpoint of Buddhist practical study."

That the Buddha attained perfect enlightenment is a fact, plainly indicated in the early sūtras and ancient records of his life—it was entirely accomplished through the contemplation of dependent origination. Such attainment is realizing the fruit. Sitting in meditation beneath the Bodhi tree, the Buddha thoroughly recognized that his previous views were decidedly not in accord with reality; through this recognition, true knowledge in accord with reality was established. In the practical process from a view not in accord with reality to one that is, the famous contemplation of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination was established and accomplished. The wisdom that can be expressed as "in accord with reality" is truly the subjective "knowing"; what is attained through dependent origination is the objective "Dharma." The Dharma in accord with reality manifests its full aspect through knowing in accord with reality, and knowing in accord with reality opens the eye of wisdom through the Dharma in accord with reality. Genuine wisdom, then, is established on the unity of teaching and practice, where subject and object are undifferentiated. The Āgama literature says, "Dependent origination is profoundly deep."③ "Note: Madhyamāgama, vol. 24, Sūtra of the Great Cause (Taishō 1, p. 578b): 'This dependent origination is wonderfully profound, exceedingly deep, and its clarity is also exceedingly deep. Ānanda, because one does not know this dependent origination as it truly is, does not see it in accord with reality, does not awaken to or penetrate it…'" This is not mere words; it should be understood as a hint that the meaning and content of the philosophy of dependent origination are difficult to know and hard to penetrate. To truly practice the Dharma in accord with reality, one must grasp the knowing in accord with reality—otherwise it cannot be easily cultivated.

The true understanding of the Huayan Sūtra is the awakened one's testimony of experience. As a matter of practice and study, it can only be held as self-realization when one stands on the ground of awakening; it cannot be grasped through conceptual or theoretical thinking alone. To indicate that this is the awakened one's experience, the ancient masters described it as "the dharmas manifesting all at once within the Samādhi of the Sea-Image." ④ [Note: Wujiao Zhang (Treatise on the Five Teachings), vol. 1 (Taishō 45, p. 477a); for further on the Samādhi of the Sea-Image, see also Kongmu Zhang, vol. 4 (same, p. 586b), Wangjin Huanyuan Guan (same, p. 637b), and others.] The Samādhi of the Sea-Image is the concentration the Buddha entered when he taught the Huayan Sūtra; put simply and accessibly, it is a state of unified mind. Each Buddhist scripture has its own distinctive samādhi, which reveals the character of the scripture in question. The Huayan Sūtra rests on the Samādhi of the Station of Inexhaustible Meaning; the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras rest on the Samādhi of the King of Samādhi; the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra rests on the Samādhi of Immovability. ⑤ [Note: Recorded in Huayan Jing Suishi Yanyi Chao, vol. 1 (Taishō 36, p. 4b).] Because the Huayan Sūtra was taught by the teaching-master Vairocana Buddha upon entering the Samādhi of the Sea-Image, the text makes clear that across its seven locations and eight assemblies, the speakers at each assembly are the bodhisattvas who entered the respective concentration there. In the eighth assembly, the "Chapter on Entering the Dharma Realm," the Buddha enters the Samādhi of the Lion's Stride; from the first through the seventh assemblies, there's no record of the Buddha himself entering concentration. As for the bodhisattvas: in the first assembly, Samantabhadra enters the Samādhi of the Tathāgata-Store; in the second, the speaker Mañjuśrī does not enter concentration; in the third, Dharmadhātu Bodhisattva enters the Samādhi of Bodhisattva's Inexhaustible Skillful Means; in the fourth, Guṇabhadra Bodhisattva enters the Samādhi of Skillful Taming; in the fifth, Vajramastaka Bodhisattva enters the Samādhi of Bodhisattva's Clear Wisdom; in the sixth, Vajragarbha Bodhisattva enters the Samādhi of the Great Luminous Wisdom; in the seventh, Samantabhadra enters the Samādhi of the Buddha's Flower Garland. The name Samādhi of the Sea-Image appears in the second assembly's "Chapter on Bhadrasimha" ⑥ [Note: Taishō 9, p. 432b.]—where, in explaining the ten great samādhis, this samādhi comes first—and also in the seventh assembly's "Chapter on the Arising of the Tathāgata-Nature" ⑦ [Note: Taishō 9, p. 626b.] and "Chapter on the Ten Grounds," ⑧ [Note: Taishō 9, p. 571b.] where the bodhisattvas' attained samādhis display the name. On this basis, the Samādhi of the Sea-Image is regarded as the overarching determination of the Huayan Sūtra as a whole. By the usual pattern of samādhi, the saints first enter concentration and then preach: they emerge from samādhi and afterward pour out the thoughts they contemplated within it, expounding the teaching. The Huayan Sūtra is different. Unconstrained, it is a scripture expounded directly from within the Samādhi of the Sea-Image, without the speaker's needing to fix or settle the mind. This too is one of its great marks.

The "sea-image" is named through a metaphor. The great sea is the analogy: it contains the depth and breadth of the universe's myriad phenomena, without edge. The "image" is the reflection that appears. When the wind is level and the waves are calm, the sun, moon, stars, and countless scenes reflect their forms upon the tranquil sea, just as they are. The Buddha's perfectly awakened wisdom penetrated and grasped the entire cosmos of the dharma-realm; pervading time and space with universal knowledge, all myriad dharmas manifest at once, displaying their true suchness. This needs no embellishment—the Contemplation on the Exhaustion of Delusion and Return to the Source, without awaiting any further indication. It is genuine, concrete experience, expressing the Buddha's awakened self-realization. The dharma spoken within this samādhi—the very act of speaking—already transcends, as a standpoint of realized experience, the description of the Buddha's own awakening given before the exposition.

So with this Samādhi of the Sea-Image: from the side of the one in whom it appears, it is the Buddha's concentrated mind; from the side of what appears within, it is the bodhisattvas' concentrated mind. More fundamentally, it can also be spoken of as the great functioning of the one-mind original awakening inherently possessed by all human beings. In other words, the myriad dharmas comprehended by the Buddha-fruit's concentrated mind—each and every one—are contents reflected within the Samādhi of the Sea-Image; they are bestowed and exist as meaning. Conversely, viewed from the side of each individual thing, the Samādhi of the Sea-Image of the entire dharma-realm arises through each distinct particular. The whole dharma-realm is unified only through these particulars; the Tathāgata, within things, fully forms each particular, and only then is its manifestation known. What the Buddha's perfect awakening expresses, then, is all sentient beings. When sentient beings engage in contemplative practice as practitioners, each and every act of theirs likewise becomes the Tathāgata's inwardly vast, all-encompassing merit. Handled merely as a theoretical concept, this is hard for us to grasp directly; but carried as the content of practice, there's no difficulty at all. The Tathāgata is directly sentient beings; sentient beings are likewise the Tathāgata—one can verify this in one's own experience. The Huayan Sūtra, expounded by the Tathāgata in this way, is best called the Buddha's own testimony—the un-deceiving self-appearance of the dharma-realm, and at once the original appearance of sentient beings.

Chengguan, among the extant translated scriptures, brought out this profound meaning with particular clarity. The Tang translation of the Huayan Sūtra in eighty fascicles states: "Although the sūtra broadly explains the three trainings, it principally explains concentration. This is because all of it is expounded from the Tathāgata's concentrated mind." ⑨ [Note: Huayan Jing Shuchao Xutan, vol. 2 (Zokuzōkyō 1.8.3, p. 192a).] Chengguan also says: "The forty-two stages shine forth resplendently, all together named 'contemplation and practice.' The causes and fruits of the five periods across the nine assemblies complete the Buddha-way. Therefore, whether phenomena or nature, causes or fruits, all become contemplation, all accord with truth. Practicing in accord with the sūtra, one meets the intention of the sages." The one sūtra, as manifested through contemplation and practice, transmitted its meaning to Japan's Gyōnen, who wrote the Hokkai Gikyō and said: "Now, the Huayan school's separate-teaching One Vehicle practice explains the study of concentration and solely clarifies contemplation of mind. The method of contemplation and practice is found only in this sūtra." ⑩ [Note: Nihon Daizōkyō, Kegon-shū, Shōsho ge, 11-1a.] Particularly in the sūtra's "Chapter on the Accomplishment of the World" and "Chapter on the Flower-Treasury World," the text, following the order of contemplation and practice, minutely describes its profound subtleties: "In all the following assemblies, everything in every chapter is likewise so." Taking the sūtra as a whole, it expounds contemplation and practice throughout, and on this basis the content of contemplation and practice in the Huayan separate-teaching One Vehicle is systematically established.

Is the object of Buddhist scholarship primarily philosophy? Or ought it to be the path of practice? This is a major question. Between these two, one doesn't have to choose either side exclusively—whichever one chooses will shape the distinctive character of one's school. Huayan studies, however, hold philosophy and the path of practice as originally one body, manifesting the fundamental character of Buddhism at its most concentrated as "doctrine as contemplation." The philological and exegetical textual studies generally carried out since ancient times, together with all the purely doctrinal-philosophical endeavors newly arisen out of dissatisfaction with the prevailing state—if these alone were to make up genuine Buddhist scholarship, or from the standpoint of pure Huayan studies, one should recognize this as inevitably lopsided. The patriarchs and pioneers of Huayan, treating their study only as a matter of concentrated-mind practice and wanting to understand what is recorded above, poured themselves entirely into the exegetical-philological side. Regarding the practical aspect, this is precisely what is meant by a lopsided mode. Accordingly, "doctrinal-philosophical study" and "practice-study" must adopt a stance of complete mutual inclusion; only then can one touch upon one of the great features of Huayan studies.

When I took up Huayan studies again, I began by setting forth its distinctive characteristics, and from there the exposition of the teachings unfolds. Yet to expound the matters and principles contained in its content under such a premise may invite a certain dogmatic risk. Rather, once the organization of the teaching is largely established, such a view is reached as the conclusion of an inductive process. If we speak from this standpoint, this introductory exposition should rather be reserved for the end, serving as the conclusion. So rather than offer this tangled critique, what one should do is, within the organization of the teaching, put forward a proposition filled with conviction—such dogmatism is unavoidable. Moreover, I believe one must positively press forward with an attitude toward methodology. Accordingly, in order to make the discussions that follow easy to understand, this dogmatism has shed its dogmatic character; instead of its original posture, it has become a lively compass for the study of the teaching.

Chapter 2: The Basis of the Teaching

1. The Original Character of the Huayan Sūtra

All Buddhist scholarship, if it is to consider itself a direct transmission of Śākyamuni's true intent, should set forth the fundamental scripture (or treatise) upon which it relies. On the other hand, to present the distinctive features and authority of one's own school before other teachings, while maintaining a sense of difference toward the outside, is also necessary. Huayan studies, in India, passed through Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, and others such as Sāramati, Vajrasena, Śāntideva, and particularly the Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda-śāstra (Awakening of Faith) thought of Aśvaghoṣa. Though there are differences of time, from China's Six Dynasties onward through the most flourishing period of Sui-Tang Buddhism, the Huayan school accomplished the great synthesis of its teachings. Yet these masters and pioneers, without exception, revered the Huayan Sūtra and took it as their object of study; relying upon this sūtra, they established the great synthesis of a school. Accordingly, as the basis of Huayan studies, one should first adopt the approach of investigation from the system of the Huayan Sūtra itself. Yet before we address questions concerning the sūtra's period of formation, the process of its compilation, its transmission and translation, and its commentators, from the standpoint of the teaching itself, one ought first to grasp the original character (本相) of the sūtra.

By the "original character of the scripture," we mean its character as spoken with respect to the notion of its present appearance (現相). The present appearance of the scripture—what we see today with our own eyes, what we touch with our own hands—is the Tripiṭaka itself, with its yellow scrolls and red-tipped cases. The "original character" is the inherent nature contained within the original content of the scripture, as seen in its present form. In the transmitted appearance of the Huayan Sūtra, we see many interpolations and expansions; apart from these, however, by extracting the original character from the pure scripture and examining it, we come to understand the original character. Yet it is also a fact that the character of the pure original scripture is concealed within the expanded portions, and from another angle one can discern something of the content of the original character there. Therefore, entirely disregarding the present appearance of the sūtra in order to grasp the original character would also be ill-considered. ① [Note: The Mahāyāna scriptures were compiled, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, by groups of thinkers four or five centuries later; these were not necessarily brought together into a single scripture at one time. Among the scriptures seen today, many were assembled over long periods through the efforts of numerous gifted individuals of the same lineage. In such cases, each scripture possesses its own distinctive character and value; those later termed "apocryphal sūtras" still preserve their value in their original form. Thus, when all Mahāyāna scriptures are restored to their original character, it becomes possible to discern a certain unified pattern. This is mainly based on the Tripiṭaka lineage inherited through the Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu; with some additions and subtractions, the scriptures are classified by the present-appearance method, and each category carries its own distinct meaning.] Whether or not one grasps the original character through the present appearance—this, of course, ought to be acknowledged.

First, the fundamental character of this sutra is the very fact of the Buddha's awakening—displayed with the utmost solemnity as a non-manifesting manifestation, a sermon without words. Since this sutra is the Buddha's first proclamation immediately after his awakening, all the teachings he subsequently delivered in sequence are considered "branch-wheels," and the sutra that gathers the branches back to the root is called the "root-wheel." When the Buddha spoke this sutra, tradition places it on the second seven days, but in fact the introductory section of the sutra—the chapter "The World's Pure Eye"—records only "At the time of first attaining Buddhahood,"② (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 9, p. 395a. The Tousha Jing (Taishō vol. 10, p. 445a) likewise reads, "When he had first become a Buddha, the light was splendid.") without necessarily indicating "the second seven days." In early Chinese translations, the Púsà Běnyè Jīng rendered by Zhi Qian (222–228 CE) uses the standard opening "Thus have I heard,"③ (Note: Taishō vol. 10, p. 446c.) employing the usual form of a preached sutra, yet still without naming a specific time. Dharmarakṣa's translation (291 or 307 CE) of the Jiànbèi Yīqiè Zhìdé Jīng likewise only says, "At one time the Buddha was staying in the Palace of the Wish-Fulfilling Jewel, the splendid treasure-hall of the Sixth Heaven, the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven,"④ (Note: ibid., p. 458a.) without recording any definite date. Only in Śīladharma's separate translation (753–790 CE) of the Ten Grounds chapter, the Shí Dì Jīng, do we find the explicit statement: "Not long after attaining the Way, on the second seven days,"⑤ (Note: ibid., p. 535a.) clearly indicating a specific time—a fact affirmed in Vasubandhu's Shí Dì Jīng Lùn (Commentary on the Ten Grounds Sutra).⑥ (Note: Taishō vol. 26, p. 123c.) Preached at the supreme place at the very beginning, this points to the exalted nature of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Yet if we attend to the truth the sutra displays through its own self-revelation, we should rather say that it has been manifesting the truth of its own dharma-realm throughout the immeasurable past and will continue through the immeasurable future, never pausing for an instant. This fact itself is the Avataṃsaka Sūtra: a sermon without words, yet within that no-sermon it ceaselessly continues to preach.

Building on this, the Chinese Huayan patriarchs spoke of the "eternal edition" (héngběn) of the sutra.⑦ (Note: Fascicle four of the Kǒngmù Zhāng (Taishō vol. 45, p. 586b) expounds the meaning of adding to or reducing the sections of the Huayan, listing in this passage three editions of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra—the great edition and the inconceivable sutra. The Huáyán Jīng Zhǐ Guī (Taishō vol. 45, p. 592b) and fascicle eight of the Huáyán Jīng Shūchāo Xuántán (Manji Xù vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 315a ff.) list ten categories: the different-recension sutra, the same-recension sutra, the universal-eye sutra, the upper edition, the middle edition, the lower edition, the condensed edition, the lord-and-retinue edition, the retinue edition, and the perfect edition. Fascicle one of the Tànxuán Jì (Taishō vol. 35, p. 122a ff.) lists six editions of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra: the eternal edition, the great edition, the upper edition, the middle edition, the lower edition, and the condensed edition. The Huáyán Jīng Wényì Gāngmù (Taishō vol. 35, p. 493c) and the Huáyán Jīng Zhuànjì (Taishō vol. 51, p. 153a ff.) name three categories—the upper, middle, and lower editions. Apart from the condensed edition, all these various editions are presented, under mystical examination, as indications of the sutra's exalted nature. Among them, the concept of the "eternal edition" is one of the characteristic features of Huayan scriptural thought.) This is reflected in the sutra as currently circulated, which says, "The Buddha himself did not preach; only the great bodhisattvas gathered there extolled and unfolded the content of his awakening."⑧ (Note: In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, when the Buddha does speak directly, as in the "Asaṃkhyeya Chapter" and the "Light and Merits Chapter" of the sixth assembly, it is extremely brief and records no particularly important discourse.) More precisely, one should say that the light of the awakened Buddha streams forth into the manifold phenomena, illuminating his own being and reflecting the joyful fact of his perfect enlightenment. The Tathāgata remains silently within that awakening; the inner reality of this sutra cannot be conveyed in words, and so it goes on preaching, without pause, in that very silence.

The clearest hint of this can be found in the extant Huayan chapter circulated independently as "Names"—Lokakṣema's translation (167–186 CE) of the Tousha Jīng opens with the line, "When he had first become a Buddha, the light was splendid."⑨ (Note: Taishō vol. 10, p. 445a.) This belongs to an extremely ancient stratum of text. Its plain manner of recording, quite unlike that of ordinary Mahāyāna sutras, simply describes the radiance unfolding as the Buddha manifested his realization even before formally attaining it, and corresponds remarkably to the luminous quality of the Buddha's awakening. This is no more than a sketch-like mode of recording. As time went on, Zhi Qian's translation (222–228 CE) of the Púsà Běnyè Jīng, the independent version of the "Pure Conduct" chapter, and Dharmarakṣa's Púsà Shí Zhù Xíngdào Pǐn Jīng (291–), the independent recension of the "Ten Grounds" chapter, adopted the standard form of the Buddha's ordinary preaching. This was likely influenced by other Mahāyāna sutras, which maintain that all such teachings are spoken by the Buddha; using these as a model, the texts were regularized accordingly.

Since the sermon-without-sermon is the direct expression of the Buddha's inner realization and constitutes the essential nature of this sutra, there's no need for any fixed audience; it's enough simply to display the landscape of that inner realization as it is. Yet to give the sutra a discernible outward form, like other sutras with a defined shape and a specific audience in view, it became necessary to introduce great bodhisattvas such as Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra. The role of these two leading bodhisattvas is explained in Chengguan's Gate of the Contemplation of the Perfect Fusion of the Three Holy Ones. From the relative standpoint, they assist the Buddha in spreading his teaching; from the standpoint of perfect interpenetration, they're nothing other than the Buddha's own special qualities. Thus Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra are not presented here in the manner found in other Mahāyāna sutras; rather, they play the role of speakers who, upheld by the Buddha's power, proclaim and extol his virtues.⑩ (Note: The principal speaker of each assembly and its significance are as follows. Second assembly, the assembly at the Hall of Universal Light... Mañjuśrī = Faith (Mañjuśrī embodies the Buddha's wisdom, marking the first step of the bodhisattva path). Third assembly, the assembly at the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven... Dharmamati = Abiding (The arousing of mind on the ten abidings is the true reception of the dharma, a symbol of wisdom). Fourth assembly, the assembly at the Yāma Heaven... Guṇottara / Merit-Forest = Practice (The practices of the ten pāramitās are taught by the Merit-Forest bodhisattva, indicating that practice is the accumulation of merit). Fifth assembly, the assembly at the Tuṣita Heaven... Vajra-keśara / Adamantine Banner = Progress (The great compassion of the ten dedications lies at the heart of the bodhisattva path; symbolically the "banner" is the bodhisattva's name). Sixth assembly, the assembly at the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven... Vajra-garbha = Ground (The wisdom realized on the ten grounds is precisely what is stored in the Tathāgata's awakening, hence Vajra-garbha is the speaker). Thus each assembly's speaker represents the content of that bodhisattva's practice; yet although Vairocana does not appear active on the surface, his empowering presence underlies everything. Whatever this sutra narrates, it invariably says "Sustained by the Buddha's spiritual power"—and so the entire Avataṃsaka Sūtra, throughout, is indeed the Buddha's own word.)

Dharmarakṣa's translation (291 or 307 CE) of the separate "Ten Grounds" text, the Jiànbèi Yīqiè Zhìdé Jīng, lists the audience as "accompanied by innumerable great bodhisattvas"—an enumeration of countless listeners. Buddhabhadra's separate translation (388–408 CE) of the "Entry into the Dharma-Realm" chapter additionally notes five hundred śrāvakas, conforming ever more closely to the standard form of ordinary sutras. Particularly striking is the statement in the "Entry into the Dharma-Realm" chapter that the preaching took place in the multi-storied lecture hall of Jetavana Park—which, from the standpoint of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, seems quite peculiar; yet Jetavana was one of the central locations of the traditional saṅgha, the dwelling of influential disciples such as Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana. Nevertheless, this sutra shows a slightly critical intention toward the Śrāvaka tradition. The fact that a sutra—an assembly for preaching in the manner typical of general Mahāyāna scriptures—clearly runs counter to its own essential nature suggests that this is due to later expansion and editing. Yet the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who appear in the "Entry into the Dharma-Realm" chapter as listeners of inferior capacity are characterized as "like the deaf and the mute"—generally explained as owing to "the depth and sublimity of the teaching being expounded." Still, the discontinuities in the sutra's preaching arise precisely because it's the Buddha's own inner realization made manifest, and so it's in some measure been constrained by this very form.

Thus, with regard to the outward form of the Huayan preaching—placed chronologically immediately after the Buddha's awakening, with the venue fixed at the awakening site in Magadha—these too are limited by the essential character of the sutra as the Buddha's self-manifested inner realization; to shape it into the form of a preached sutra, this method had to be adopted. The Jìn recension lists eight assemblies at seven places, and the Táng recension lists nine assemblies at seven places—in fact, a single location would have sufficed. But to display the splendor of its content, the venue could not be ordinary ground. And to place it entirely beyond the desire realm where we presently abide would also be unsuitable. The setting that ordinary Indian audiences of the time could most readily picture, and yet found supremely splendid, had to be a heavenly realm. As for the earthly venue, according to Fazang's description, the Hall of Universal Light Dharma stands about three li from the awakening site beneath the Bodhi tree, at a bend in the Ganges. The principal reason for choosing it is that this place, apart from the awakening site itself, is unsuitable as a preaching venue. The conclusion "one place encompasses all places," which characterizes the Huayan preaching assemblies, follows from the formal necessity of preaching a sutra: a decision had to be reached, and this is unavoidable. Its essential nature is to be in one place without being confined to one place. In spaceless space, if we don't cling to a single center, any place is the center of space—the very core of the dharma-realm; infinite truth constantly reveals its full aspect everywhere, without exception.

Since the sutra's essential nature is a sermon-without-sermon, it's plain that there's no need to forcibly posit a speaker. Hence the title of this sutra, the Mahāvaipulya-buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra—which the general public understands as "the Avataṃsaka Sutra spoken by the Buddha"—locates its center of gravity in the sutra itself: in other words, "the Avataṃsaka, spoken by the Buddha." Here "Mahāvaipulya" indicates the Buddha's eternity and universality; "Buddha" indicates the Buddha himself. "Avataṃsaka," meaning "flowers in glorious array," is a metaphor for the splendor of the Buddha's virtues; the actual center of the title is "Buddha." That is, it is "a sutra that speaks of the Buddha—the 'Buddha' who, adorned with manifold blossoms, embodies the truth of eternity and universality." Yet in its essential nature it is not really "a sutra spoken by the Buddha." It is only in conformity with the preaching form of ordinary Mahāyāna sutras that it was somewhat arbitrarily decided that Vairocana—who interpenetrates the three worlds and possesses the ten bodies—is the speaker. On examining the words actually spoken, the Buddha who speaks turns out to be the Buddha who is spoken of.

The foregoing repeated examination of the Huayan essence is not in any way intended to disparage the outward form of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as it now circulates. When investigating the basic texts underlying the establishment of Huayan studies, an absolutely solid documentary foundation is naturally required—above all, the various editions of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra preserved in the Tripiṭaka. Yet once one has grasped the original character possessed by the sutra and understood the situation outlined above, one can perceive the very womb from which the sutra emerged. To have truly grasped the background through which Huayan studies developed and were organized, as a preliminary preparation, the task of this section is accomplished.

2. The Formation of This Sutra

The sixty- and eighty-fascicle great recensions of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra that we have today were, according to fascicle one of the Tànxuán Jì (Record of Investigating the Mystery),① (Note: Taishō vol. 35, p. 122c.) not originally a single complete sutra; rather, the smaller chapters each existed independently. Then, by the hand of a great genius, they were assembled with extraordinary skill into a unified whole—so masterfully planned from the outset that, in its final shape now nearly impervious to revision, it has become a settled conclusion of Buddhist scholarship.② (Note: For an examination of the formation history of each assembly and chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the reader may refer to the author's "The Thought-System of the Perfect Fusion of the Three Holy Ones" (Annual Report of the Japanese Association for Buddhist Studies, no. 14, pp. 186ff.). For more recent scholarship, see Hisano Yoshitaka's "The Formation Problem of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra" (Religious Studies, new series 7.2–3), Kondō Takateru's "The Formation Problem of the Great Avataṃsaka Sūtra" (Religious Studies, new series 10.3), and others.)

The first reason is that, before the time when the bulk of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is presumed to have been completed, the separate translations of its chapters had already been undertaken from quite ancient times. Lokakṣema's earliest translation (167–186 CE) of the Tousha Jīng in one fascicle shows that a substantial portion had already been translated by the time of Nāgārjuna or earlier. Portions of these chapters, or entire chapters—whether as single units or combinations of two or three chapters—indicate that they existed prior to any complete translation. Moreover, certain special portions within the complete translation, such as the "Ten Grounds" and "Entry into the Dharma-Realm" chapters, clearly display, in their formal structure, a complete pattern of introduction, main exposition, and concluding section—indistinguishable from independent sutras. Some chapters exist only in the form of an introduction,③ (Note: The Xiánshǒu Pǐn / Bhadra-rāja chapter (Taishō vol. 9, p. 441a).) some were evidently formed under the influence of other chapters, and some speak only of the merits of upholding and reciting.④ (Note: The Lí Shìjiān Pǐn / Departure from the World chapter (Taishō vol. 9, p. 669c).) Whether they originated independently or were fitted into other positions for convenience in the great compilation, the lineage of each can be discerned.

Among these, the collection gathered at the sixth Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven assembly—the Ten Grounds Chapter—became the core of the larger scripture⑤ (Note: The formation of the Ten Grounds Chapter probably did not come later than 150 CE (cf. Ryūzan Shōshin's Japanese translation of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra and its resolution). The Tausā-sūtra is thought to have gathered together the Ten Abodes Chapter (十住品), Ten Practices Chapter (十行品), Ten Dedications Chapter (十回向品), and Ten Grounds Chapter (十地品); by inference its translation date is placed between 147 and 186 CE. Elsewhere, in Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, volume 49 (Taishō vol. 25, p. 411a–), the title Daśabhūmika-sūtra appears, showing that during Nāgārjuna's lifetime the sutra was already circulating; this can presumably be inferred from the translation date of the sutra.). How the chapters before and after connect with one another is a crucial key to understanding how the Avataṃsaka Sūtra took shape.

However, the Chapter of Names from the second Universal Light Dharma Hall assembly centers on the Ten Grounds and takes the shape of an opening section for a certain class of scripture. Compared with what this group produced and the final Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, the single chapter of the eighth Jetavana assembly had already matured into a complete independent scripture⑥ (Note: Taking the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter as the Lokakṣema-sūtra (羅摩伽經), it was translated by Anfaxian (安法賢) between 220 and 264 CE. Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, volume 50 (Taishō vol. 25, p. 419a), presents it under the title Acintya-vimokṣa-sūtra (不思議解脱經). Excerpts from the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter appear throughout other works, from which one infers that an independently circulating text already existed at that time. By the Tang dynasty, Prajñā translated a forty-fascicle version, and the complete recension of the chapter is conspicuously an enlarged text—well known to have circulated as an independent sutra in later generations.), and seems also to anticipate the existence of even earlier chapters.

Furthermore, the two chapters of the first Nirvāṇa Ground assembly at the start of the complete translated sutra—the World-Cleansing-Eye Chapter and the Vairocana Chapter—also incorporate the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter with the sense of an overall introduction, which suggests they were added later.

Moreover, only the Ten Grounds Chapter and the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter still have their Sanskrit originals preserved today, and these provide extraordinarily powerful material for studying the sutra's source texts. Beyond their reference value, they also hint, indirectly, that their status as independent scriptures goes back to the very beginning.⑦ (Note: The Sanskrit text of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra was formed after the Chinese translation of the Ten Grounds Sutra was established, passing through several hands and added to successively; it carries a certain freshness for its era. The Sanskrit text of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, apart from the Ten Grounds Chapter and the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, also has most of the verse portions of the Bhadracarya Chapter (賢首品) and others cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (大乘集菩薩學論).)

So the larger scripture absorbed the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, and by current estimates it was largely formed between roughly 250 and 350 CE⑧ (Note: The magnificent thought and profound design of the large Avataṃsaka Sūtra could certainly not have come together in a day or a night; it was brought to completion through a long process of refinement by thinkers of genius across many generations. Even without waiting for textual evidence, this can be inferred.). The opening section of the whole sutra links the two chapters of the Nirvāṇa Ground assembly into a complete whole. Taking the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter as its model, the sutra incorporates this chapter while keeping its structure coherent from beginning to end, with each constituent chapter placed with intricate care—thereby completing the grand Avataṃsaka Sūtra of magnificent design that we know today.

Clearly, a detailed examination of the sutra's formation would require careful scrutiny of the historical facts behind each chapter's translation, cross-referencing other sutras and treatises, and weighing how each chapter relates to the others. Proper textual materials would be needed to round out the picture. Given the present state of things, arriving at a strictly fair and reasoned order of formation seems impossible—and that is genuinely regrettable. Still, ideas so profound, embodied in a design of such grandeur and made visible in the world, could not have come together overnight. They had to emerge over long stretches of time, refined and distilled by thinkers of considerable caliber.

As for where the sutra was formed, the picture is even hazier than the question of when.

The sutra's formation belongs to the high period of Mahāyāna scripture, a time when historical and geographical constraints largely fell away. So it's not easy to pinpoint a place from its content alone. Its descriptions—a single mote containing the entire Dharma Realm, a single pore encompassing the worlds of the ten directions—reflect the sutra's unique character and make any determination of its place of origin all the harder. If we must point to a location from the sutra itself, it would be the Nirvāṇa Ground in Magadha, also called Jetavana in the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter—but this is better understood as mythologized.

What is distinctive about this sutra is the bodhisattvas' residences: Mount Clear and Cool (清涼山), Gambhoda (甘菩遮), Gandhāra (乾陀羅), and Lummini (流彌尼), Kapilavastu (迦毗羅). Others include China (真旦), Fengchi (風池), and Ox-Head Mountain (牛頭山), as well as the Eastern Immortal-Rising Mountain, the Southern Superior-Tower Mountain, the Western Vajra-Flame Mountain, and the Northern Fragrance-Gathering Mountain. Though these carry a deep aura of mystery, the place names seem to rest on real foundations.

Especially in the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, Sudhana sets out from the city of Dhana⑨ (Note: The city of Dhana, according to the extant Sanskrit, is Dhananjaya; it is recorded in the Great Tang Records on the Western Regions (西域記), volume 10 (Taishō vol. 51, p. 930b), corresponding to the country of Dhanakaṭaka. The great stupa and temple in the Brahmagiri grove east of the city corresponds to the present-day Amaravati Stupa. The Iron Stupa of South India has deep connections with esoteric Buddhism, as is well known. (Cf. Kuno Yoshitaka, "The Problem of the Formation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra—With Special Reference to the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter," etc.)), passes through the country of Surabhi, proceeds step by step southward, and reaches Mount Pugaphala (浮陀洛山) at the southernmost point. This chapter particularly calls attention to its ties with South India. Surveying the places where the Avataṃsaka Sūtra was formed and circulated, it spans nearly all of India—giving us ample evidence of its wide reach, and evoking something close to reverence.

Still, this complete translation has at least deep ties with Khotan. The original on which Buddhabhadra produced the Jin Dynasty Sutra was obtained in Khotan by Zhī Fǎlǐng (支法領), a disciple of Huiyuan of Lushan. At the time, in the southern country of Cakuka (遮拘迦), thirty-six thousand verses of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra were requested and brought back together for translation in the Eastern Jin.⑩ (Note: Chu sanzang jiji (出三藏記集), volume 9 (Taishō vol. 55, p. 61a); Huayan jing zhuanji (華嚴經傳記), volume 1 (Taishō vol. 51, p. 153b); Liang Gaoseng zhuan (梁高僧傳), volume 2 (Taishō vol. 50, pp. 335b, etc.).) This matches the later fact that Śikṣānanda, born in the Khotan region, brought the Sanskrit text of the Tang Dynasty Sutra.

The Lidai sanbao ji recounts the translation of the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra (大集經) in sixty fascicles:⑪ (Note: Volume 12 (Taishō vol. 49, p. 103a).) as Narendrayaśas reported, over two thousand li southeast of Khotan, the king of Cakuka revered the Mahāyāna, and in his palace three great scriptures were kept—the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and the Avataṃsaka—all personally venerated by the king. It is also recorded that in steep mountains some twenty-odd li southeast of this country, twelve scriptures including the Mahāsaṃnipāta and the Avataṃsaka, totaling one hundred thousand verses, were preserved under royal guard. From this we can imagine that Khotan in the Western Regions must have had fairly close ties with the formation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

Then there is the matter of Nāgārjuna's Acintya-vimokṣa-sūtra (大不思議解脱經), said to have been discovered in the Dragon Palace. This was later reported through Paramārtha's transmission, and Fazang recorded it in Huayan jing zhuanji (華嚴經傳記), volume 1;⑫ (Note: Taishō vol. 51, pp. 153a–156c.) he also composed the Treatise on the Great Unthinkable (造大不思議論).

The same account appears in the Biography of Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna,⒀ (Note: Taishō vol. 50, p. 184b.) the Record of the Transmission of the Treasury of the True Dharma (付法藏因緣傳), volume 5,⒁ (Note: Same, p. 318c.) and in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra Prophecy, and elsewhere: "led by the great dragon bodhisattva, he entered the Dragon Palace, where he received the profound sutras of all directions and innumerable wonderful Dharmas, then returned to South India."

Pinpointing where the Dragon Palace stood would go a long way toward locating the source of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra—and scholars have long tried to do just that. But the Biography of Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna simply says "he was taken into the Dragon Palace." Meanwhile, the Saddharma-smṛtyupasthāna-sūtra (正法念處經), volume 68;⒂ (Note: Taishō vol. 17, p. 402c.) the Dīrghāgama (長阿含經), volume 19;⒃ (Note: Taishō vol. 1, p. 127c.) and the Abhidharma-samuccaya (起世經), volume 5,⒄ (Note: Same, p. 332c.) all place the dragon king's palace in the southern sea, which has led some to locate it in Sri Lanka.

But according to the Dīpavaṃsa, until about two hundred years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, Buddhism had not yet been propagated in Sri Lanka, and Aśoka's later missionaries propagated only Hīnayāna there—so the theory of a Sinhalese Dragon Palace is not credible. One should rather attach weight to the clear account of meeting an old bhikṣu in the Snow Mountain stupa, who transmitted Mahāyāna sutras. In the Himalayan mountains there lived a clan of the dragon race who revered and guarded Mahāyāna sutras. Nāgārjuna received the Acintya-vimokṣa-sūtra—that is, the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter—or sutras close to the Ten Grounds, and from there widely circulated them. This is a more fitting explanation.

The Abhidharma-samuccaya (起世經), volume 1, records that the dragon kings dwell at Anavatapta Lake (阿耨達池), and this lake sits at the peak of Snow Mountain.⒅ (Note: Same, p. 312c.) The Mahā-loka-parivarta-sūtra (大樓炭經), volume 1, states that on Snow Mountain there is Anavatapta Lake, in whose waters dwell dragon kings;⒆ (Note: Same, p. 278b.) this accords quite well with the account.

Furthermore, with reference to other sources,⒳ (Note: The Avataṃsaka Sūtra circulated in the Khotan region during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period in China; besides the clear records in the Lidai sanbao ji, volume 12 (Taishō vol. 49, p. 103a), and other passages of the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra, the Kaiyuan Records (開元錄), volume 9 (Taishō vol. 55, p. 565c), record that in the first year of Yongchang of Empress Wu Zetian, the Khotan monk Devaprajñā (提雲般若) entered China to translate sutras and treatises. It is known that there were sutras in Khotan that had not been translated up to the Tang dynasty, attesting to the regions where Mahāyāna scriptures were preserved. (Cf. Dr. Hata Ryōtei, "Buddhism in the Western Regions," p. 312.) From North India to Central Asia, advanced Mahāyāna thought flourished there for a time, and it can be inferred without much error that the grand compilation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra was planned in this region.)

3. The Transmission and Translation of This Sutra

At a time when the complete Chinese translation of the voluminous Avatamsaka Sutra now widely circulated had not yet been produced, a substantial number of its partial texts were already translated in the latter half of the second century CE. We find the Tuto Jing (Sutra of the Array of the Tushita Heaven) in 1 scroll translated by Zhi Loujiachen between 147 and 186 CE, the Bodhisattva Primary Karmas Sutra in 1 scroll translated by Zhi Qian between 223 and 253 CE, the Sutra of All Bodhisattvas Seeking the Buddha's Primary Karmas in 1 scroll translated by Nie Daozhen between 280 and 312 CE, and the Bodhisattva Ten Abodes Path Chapter Sutra in 1 scroll translated by Zhu Fahu between 266 and 313 CE. ① (Note: In addition to these, the Western Jin translator Zhu Fahu also produced separate translations of the Manifestation of the Tathagata Chapter and the Ten Patiences Chapter, titled the Tathāgata's Manifestation Sutra in 4 scrolls (291 CE); a separate translation of the Transcending the World Chapter, titled the Sutra of Crossing Over the World in 6 scrolls (291 CE); a separate translation of the Ten Grounds Chapter, titled the Gradual Perfection of All Wisdom and Virtue Sutra in 5 scrolls (297 CE); and a separate translation of the Ten Concentrations Chapter from the Tang edition of the sutra, titled the Sutra Asked by the Bodhisattva Equal Eyes in 1 scroll (265–308 CE), among other important partial texts.) There are also the Bodhisattva Ten Abodes Sutra in 1 scroll translated by Jidumi between 317 and 420 CE, the Ten Abodes Sutra in 4 scrolls translated by Kumārajīva between 402 and 412 CE, the Ramacarya Sutra in 3 scrolls translated by Śāntibhadra between 388 and 407 CE, and others.

Even after the complete translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra was produced, further partial texts were translated: the Mañjuśrī's Vow Sutra in 1 scroll by Buddhabhadra in 420 CE, the Manifestation of the Boundless Merits of Buddha Lands Sutra in 1 scroll by Xuanzang in 654 CE, the Praise of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice and Vows in 1 scroll by Amoghavajra between 746 and 774 CE, the Ten Grounds Sutra in 9 scrolls by Śīladharma in 774 CE, and the Avatamsaka Sūtra's Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter in 1 scroll by Divākaraprabha in 685 CE, among others. Added to this, the Avatamsaka Sūtra's Samantabhadra's Practice and Vows Chapter: Entering the Inconceivable Liberation Realm in 40 scrolls translated by Prajñā between 796 and 798 CE brings the total to no small number. ② (Note: The chronological records in this section are largely based on the General Catalogue of Correspondence of the Taisho Tripiṭaka, Dr. Tokiwa Daijō's Explanation of Buddhist Scriptures, the Preface to the Japanese Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Nanjō Catalogue Index, and other excerpts. Additionally, Dr. Shiio Benkyō's Overview of Buddhist Scriptures (p. 328) notes that after the complete translation of the voluminous Avatamsaka Sutra, more than ten partial texts were either lost or survive only in incomplete form. The Tanxuan Ji (Exploration of the Mysteries) Vol. 1 (Taisho 35, p. 123a) also mentions the Tathāgata's Intrinsic Nature and Manifestation Secret Treasury Sutra in 2 scrolls, indicating that separate translations of the Intrinsic Nature Manifestation Chapter existed at that time. This shows that a considerable number of separate partial texts existed in ancient times. While the study of these separately translated texts may at first glance seem dry and uninviting, they hold strong appeal for researchers of the history of Buddhist scriptural formation in many respects.)

Although these sutras are either compilations of one, two, or three chapters from the voluminous Avatamsaka Sutra, or alternative translations of its parts, their value in translation history gives them significant importance for research on the main sutra, and they should not be dismissed lightly. In particular, the final 40-scroll version translated by Prajñā, commonly known as the Forty Scrolls Avataṃsaka or the Zhenyuan Sutra, is generally considered to stand alongside the complete translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. It accounts for roughly one-third of the full translated sutra in volume, and has long been regarded as possessing doctrinal value surpassing that of other partial texts. However, since the Samantabhadra's Practice and Vows Chapter was appended at the end of the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, when viewed as a whole, although lengthy, it still belongs to the category of partial texts.

The complete translations of the Avatamsaka Sutra comprise two editions: the 60-scroll Jin translation and the 80-scroll Tang translation. The former was translated by Buddhabhadra (Jiaoxian) from northern India during the 14th year of the Yixi era to the 2nd year of the Yuanxi era of the Eastern Jin (418–420 CE), comprising 60 scrolls and 34 chapters, and is known as the old translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. The latter was translated by Śikṣānanda (Xixue) from the Kingdom of Khotan between the 1st year of the Zhengsheng era and the 2nd year of the Shengli era of the Tang (695–699 CE), comprising 80 scrolls and 39 chapters, and is referred to as the new translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra in contrast to the aforementioned Jin edition.

Of these two complete translations, the Tang edition has more scrolls, a more thorough translation, and higher scholarly value. Yet the Jin edition also retains excellent content. Given that more than two hundred years separate the two translations, and that the systematized doctrinal system of the Huayan school was established by Fazang on the basis of the Jin edition, the Jin edition holds a superior position in terms of doctrinal value. Even after the Tang edition was translated, traditional practice still largely relied on the 60-scroll Jin edition. Fazang left behind a 20-scroll commentary on the Jin edition, the Tanxuan Ji, while his disciple Chengguan, who never met Fazang in person, left a 90-scroll commentary on the Tang edition, the Huayan Sutra Commentary and Elaboration of its Meaning, together with a 9-scroll General Discussion of the Commentary and Elaboration. Neither edition shows obvious scholarly flaws, and both are used in practice, but it is undeniable that those who hold to traditional doctrinal positions tend to favor using the Jin edition.

The Jin edition has eight preaching assemblies, while the Tang edition has nine. The latter inserts a Ten Concentrations Chapter after the Ten Grounds Chapter, a chapter absent from the former. Judging from the opening words of this chapter, "at the Puxiang Dharma Hall," Tang edition commentators hold that the Ten Grounds Chapter was preached at the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven Palace Assembly, while all chapters from the Ten Concentrations Chapter down to the Manifestation of the Tathagata Chapter are included in the reconvened Puxiang Dharma Hall Assembly. Comparing this with the third assembly within the Transcending the World Chapter as set against the Puxiang Dharma Hall Assembly, it is reasonable to conclude that the Ten Concentrations Chapter was originally present. The Sanskrit manuscript of the Jin translation either lacked the Ten Concentrations Chapter from the outset, or it was originally present but dropped for reasons unknown; it is difficult to clarify the matter today.

However, the meaning preserved in the introductory section of the Ten Grounds Chapter is already indicated in the Names of Buddhas Chapter, which lists a series of ten items: the ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, ten treasuries, ten grounds, ten vows, ten concentrations, ten freedoms, and ten supreme stages. ③ (Note: Taisho Tripiṭaka, Vol. 9, p. 418 middle.) It is also reasonable to infer that the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter anticipated the presence of the Ten Concentrations Chapter. Hence the omission of this chapter is likely the reason the Jin edition's text is incomplete.

Chapter 3: Tradition and Realization

1. Exegetical Lectures and Commentaries

---

4. Composition of the Sutra

The organizational structure of the Avatamsaka Sutra can be discerned from the surviving editions. The 60-scroll Jin edition records the sutra's teachings as delivered over seven years, across eight preaching assemblies, and divided into 34 chapters. ① (Note: The Jin and Tang editions differ in the breadth and detail of their content, and in the old and new phrasing of their translations, though their fundamental substance is the same. In Chinese scholarship on the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Jin edition occupies a fundamental position, as the Huayan school's systematizer Fazang relied exclusively on it. Thus, even after the 80-scroll Tang edition was translated, it became customary to rely on the Jin edition in many contexts. However, in terms of scholarly rigor, the Tang edition used by Chengguan is widely noted for its greater consistency and reasonableness.)

The first assembly, the Nirvāṇa Practice Ground Assembly, takes place in the human world beneath the Bodhi tree. The World-Purifying Eye Chapter recorded here, together with the following Lokakṣaya Chapter, forms the sutra's introductory section. Through Samantabhadra's praises in the causal section, the text reveals the fruition-aspect of Vairocana, depicting his ever-radiant appearance and the scenery of the buddha state. At the beginning, the sutra lists a great variety of attendees, all symbolizing the virtues of the Buddha's perfect awakening. Thus, although Samantabhadra leads the assembly, this is in fact a direct revelation of Vairocana's fruit-virtues.

The second assembly, the Puxiang Dharma Hall Assembly, is, according to Fazang, a site located not far from the Bodhi tree—in effect, the same Nirvāṇa Practice Ground. The six chapters from the Names of Buddhas Chapter through the Xianshou Chapter are centered on Mañjuśrī and explain the ten faiths.

From the third assembly onward—the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven Assembly—the preaching site shifts from the ground to the heavens. Though every assembly involves ascending "without leaving the seat," and wherever the site moves the Lotus Treasury Lion Throne remains central, this ascent is simply a literary device for unfolding the progressive stages of bodhisattva practice. Specifically, the third Trāyastriṃśa Heaven Assembly contains six chapters—from the Ascending the Summit of Mount Sumeru Chapter through the Clarifying the Dharma Chapter—focused on the ten abodes. The fourth, the Yāma Heaven Palace Assembly, contains four chapters from the Ascending the Yāma Heaven Chapter through the Ten Treasuries Chapter, explaining the ten practices. The fifth, the Tuṣita Heaven Palace Assembly, contains three chapters from the Tuṣita Heaven Chapter through the Ten Dedications Chapter, explaining the ten dedications. The sixth, the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven Palace Assembly, contains eleven chapters from the Ten Grounds Chapter through the Jewel King Tathāgata's Intrinsic Nature Manifestation Chapter, expounding the ten grounds in detail. Each section is led by the bodhisattvas Dharmamati, Guṇdaka, Vajrabhadra, and Vajragarbha, who teach the progressive unfolding of the bodhisattva path.

Thus the third through fifth assemblies form a ladder leading to the sixth assembly's Ten Grounds Chapter, which holds the central position. Yet the latter half of the sixth assembly (from the Buddha's Inconceivable Chapter onward) presents the realm of ultimate buddhahood as set forth in the Ten Grounds Chapter. In the Tang edition, the Ten Grounds Chapter belongs to the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven Palace Assembly, while all chapters from it down through the Manifestation of the Tathagata Chapter are placed in the reconvened Puxiang Dharma Hall Assembly. After the Ten Grounds Chapter, the Ten Concentrations Chapter is inserted—a chapter absent from the Jin edition. Viewed in this way, the Tang edition appears to have been systematically reorganized.

At the seventh, reconvened Puxiang Dharma Hall Assembly, the site returns to the Puxiang Dharma Hall at the Nirvāṇa Practice Ground on earth. Once again Samantabhadra Bodhisattva leads the way, answering two hundred questions posed by the bodhisattva Puhui with two thousand lines of practice. This constitutes a great compendium of bodhisattva conduct. The content of Samantabhadra's practice is reiterated with the utmost thoroughness and earnestness in the Transcending the World Chapter.

The final assembly, the Jetavanīya Assembly, is led in its main part by Samantabhadra, while in the closing section Mañjuśrī takes the lead to explain the reality of entering and realizing the Dharma realm. The Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter here has richly complex content, with Samantabhadra retaining an important position at the end. This final chapter brings the heavenly and human assemblies described above down to earth: the preaching site shifts to the Grand Ornamented Pavilion Lecture Hall in the Jeta Grove of the Anathapiṇḍika Garden in Śrāvastī. It traces the journey of the youth Sudhana as he visits spiritual friends, revisiting the points outlined above. This assembly serves as the introduction to the final section, within which the chapter focusing on Sudhana's encounters with spiritual friends forms the core.

From the standpoint of doctrinal structure, the World-Purifying Eye Chapter of the first assembly is the sutra's introductory section. Then, from the Lokakṣaya Chapter through the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter of the eighth assembly, we have the main doctrinal section. ② (Note: Li Tongxuan treats the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter as the main doctrinal section, but this is a result of his particular scholarly approach. Regarding the question of whether there is a concluding section, the Tanxuan Ji Vol. 2 (Taisho 35, p. 125a) "explains with four meanings" and lists four theories, showing that no definitive conclusion on this matter was reached in ancient times.)

Two views exist on whether a concluding section is present, but Fazang's definitive position is that since this sutra is the fundamental teaching perfectly embodying the nature of reality, it does not require a separate concluding section. ③ (Note: Tanxuan Ji Vol. 2 (Taisho 35, p. 125a).)

Fazang specifically divided the sutra into five parts, establishing the fivefold doctrinal framework and expounding the five cycles of cause and effect. ④ (Note: Tanxuan Ji Vol. 2 (same source, p. 125b middle), Outline of Meaning and Text (same source, p. 501a–), etc. The five-part division is as follows: the introductory section of the sutra is the first part, the causes and conditions for the teaching's arising. The main doctrinal section is analyzed across four aspects: faith, understanding, practice, and realization. The second part reveals the fruit [of buddhahood] to inspire joy and generate faith; this is the Vairocana Chapter, explaining Vairocana Buddha as the object of faith. The third part cultivates causes that accord with the fruit to generate understanding, spanning from the Names of Buddhas Chapter to the Intrinsic Nature Manifestation Chapter, explaining how the causes and practices cultivated in the various chapters accord with Vairocana's fruit to produce realization. The fourth part relies on the Dharma to advance and accomplish practice; this is the single Transcending the World Chapter, explaining the two thousand practices, corresponding directly to the practice aspect. The fifth part relies on persons to enter realization and accomplish virtue; this is the final Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, which takes Sudhana as the seeker of the path and explains the realization of entering the Dharma realm, corresponding directly to the realization aspect.)

Building on these four aspects—faith, understanding, practice, and realization—we can further trace the five cycles of cause and effect. First, the section revealing the fruit to inspire joy and generate faith corresponds to the Vairocana Chapter: its cause is the vows and practices of the youth of universal adornment, and its fruit is Vairocana's buddhahood. This is the first cycle—the cause and effect of what is to be believed. Second, within the section cultivating causes that accord with the fruit to generate understanding, from the Names of Buddhas Chapter through the Buddha's Minor Characteristics Chapter, the cause in each chapter is the distinct virtue of the ten abodes, practices, dedications, and grounds, and the fruit is the distinction of the buddha ground's virtues. This is the second cycle—the cause and effect of cultivation and arising. Third, the Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice Chapter and the Intrinsic Nature Manifestation Chapter have as their cause Samantabhadra's vows and practices, and as their fruit the virtues of intrinsic nature manifestation. This is the third cycle—the cause and effect of cultivation and revelation. Fourth, the section relying on the Dharma to advance and accomplish practice corresponds to the Transcending the World Chapter: its cause is the practice of the five stages beginning with faith, and its fruit is the virtue of the eight phases of a Buddha's career. This is the fourth cycle—the cause and effect of accomplished practice. Finally, the section relying on persons to enter realization and accomplish virtue corresponds to the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter: its cause is the final assembly's gathering around Sudhana, who visits one spiritual friend after another, and its fruit is the realization of the buddha fruit in the main assembly. This is the fifth cycle—the cause and effect of realized entry.

The organizational structure outlined above simply presents Fazang's understanding, which forms the traditional doctrinal framework of the Huayan school. Li Tongxuan, a junior contemporary, proposed five types of cause and effect in his New Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra (vol. 8), ⑤ (Note: Taisho Tripiṭaka, vol. 36, pp. 766b–767a.) and laid out a tenfold doctrinal division. Huiyuan, a disciple of Fazang fond of heterodox formulations and later severely criticized by Chengguan, advanced even more idiosyncratic views in his Kandingji (vol. 2). ⑥ (Note: Manji Zokuzō (Supplement to the Buddhist Canon), vol. 1, fasc. 5, p. 28r.) While these are also doctrinal positions, within Huayan teaching they are regarded as heterodox.

Chapter 3: Tradition and Realization

1. Exegetical Lectures and Commentaries

When we investigate Huayan studies, we should begin with the foundational scripture on which this school's teachings rest—the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Who were the people behind these texts? How were they expounded? And how did this lead to the great achievement of an organized teaching? These questions must be examined historically.

There are three traditional accounts of the founding patriarchs of the Huayan school: the five-patriarch theory, the seven-patriarch theory, and the ten-patriarch theory.① (Note: Wujiao Zhang Tonglu, vol. 1 (in the Japanese Complete Buddhist Canon collection, 5bc); Bazong Gangyao; Huayan Zong Yaoyi (in the Japanese Tripiṭaka, Huayan Zong Zhangshu, xia, 636a).) Judging from tradition and what has been verified, the five-patriarch theory holds that establishing Huayan teachings in China was a great achievement. So beyond the meaning of so-called dharma-transmission patriarchs, the seven-patriarch theory adds two Indian patriarchs—Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna—on top of the Chinese five. Adding Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra Bodhisattvas above these, and then Vasubandhu below Nāgārjuna, yields the ten-patriarch theory. This dharma lineage did not begin in China; its roots should be sought in India.

Rather than chasing historically real persons through their writings and thought, it's better to trace back one further step—to the speakers represented within the Avataṃsaka Sūtra itself. Whatever the historical facts may be, we can regard them as transmitters who embody the ideals of this lineage. In their scriptural commentary activities, we discover a profound relationship to the transmission of teaching; in the history of thought, we find a standard of maintained continuity. Using this as our investigative approach is most fitting.② (Note: Fozu Tongji, vol. 29 (Taishō 49, p. 292b–c) records that the five patriarchs of the Xianshou school, together with three additional masters—Changshui Ziqiong, Huiyin Jingyuan, and Nengren Yishan—are counted as eight patriarchs, with a further mention of Li Chángzhě. Especially concerning Li Tongxuan, it is stated: "He is rebuked by our school." The patriarchs here called successive transmitters are better understood as representatives of a scholarly lineage; what historical records show should be a list of Huayan scholars.)

Tradition generally takes Aśvaghoṣa to be the author of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. This treatise isn't a direct commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra; it refers to sūtras only by the general term "mind-only sūtras" without naming any specific scripture, though it does touch on passages from related texts.③ (Note: Regarding Fazang's treatment, his Qixin Lun Yiji, vol. 1 (Taishō 44, p. 250a) states: "Comprehensively embracing the intent of all Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises.") The Awakening of Faith takes the standpoint of the One Mind, expounding in turn two gates, three great meanings, four faiths, and five practices—points that share common ground with the mind-only, tathāgatagarbha-centered thought of dependent origination in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Especially the central thought of the "Manifestation of Suchness" (Xingqi) chapter, grounded in tathāgatagarbha thought, presents systematic exposition within its framework and made a significant contribution to the formation of later Huayan teaching. So Fazang, the great synthesizer of Huayan teachings, composed the Yiji and Bieji, showing his regard for this treatise.

Yet the author Aśvaghoṣa has generally been accepted, while the Awakening of Faith's ideological content could not have appeared before Nāgārjuna. On the contrary, drawing on Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka background and influenced by Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, the treatise's composition can be pushed considerably later. Indian treatise masters never mention this work. Based on these various textual investigations, some scholars consider it a Chinese composition—a well-known fact.④ (Note: Dr. Mochizuki Shinkō emphasized this in his Research on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, but this should be carefully examined, since it hasn't yet become a generally accepted view in academic circles.) Though we lack the courage to wholly separate the thought of the Awakening of Faith from the rest of Huayan teaching, when reflecting on the important teachings in India, it's better to look to Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu for deeper connections.

First, the definite text related to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra that Nāgārjuna transmitted is the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā Śāstra.⑤ (Note: Pointing out the documentary sources of Nāgārjuna's writings and inferring his deep connection to Huayan thought is certainly a valid method. But don't forget this is an investigation based on his entire ideological standpoint: he centered his thought on prajñā wisdom, considered the infiltration of Huayan thought along the way, and only then established his Madhyamaka philosophy.) Translated by Kumārajīva between 402 and 412 CE, it runs to seventeen juan (or fifteen by another account). It comments on the Huayan's "Ten Grounds" chapter, covering the first through the second ground. It's possible that a complete commentary on the entire "Ten Grounds" chapter once existed; had it been fully transmitted, it would surely have been an even larger work. After all, having completed the great Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, he wouldn't have written only on the first two grounds of "Ten Grounds" and then stopped. His Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra also names the ten grounds—the "Ground of Joy" and so on—and states: "The characteristics of these grounds are extensively explained in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra."⑥ (Note: Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, vol. 49 (Taishō 25, p. 411a).)

The formation of the large Avataṃsaka Sūtra, however, likely came after Nāgārjuna, for this reason: in his works, the large Avataṃsaka Sūtra is indeed not touched upon; yet the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra does mention the title Acintya-vimokṣa Sūtra.⑦ (Note: Same text, vol. 100 (same edition, p. 754b–c, 756b–c).) Though tradition says he composed a Mahā-acintya-vimokṣa Śāstra of 100,000 verses on this basis,⑧ (Note: Huayan Jing Zhuanji, vol. 1 (Taishō 51, p. 156b–c).) this can't of course serve as positive proof that the large Avataṃsaka Sūtra existed.⑨ (Note: The quoted passage from the Acintya-vimokṣa Sūtra—"Five hundred arhats, at the Buddha's side…"—is found in the text of the "Entering the Dharma Realm" chapter. Considering the Lakṣaṇa-gāthā Sūtra as a separate translation of the "Entering the Dharma Realm" chapter, perhaps what Nāgārjuna saw at the time—both the "Entering the Dharma Realm" and "Ten Grounds" chapters—were independently circulating scriptures.)

Calling Nāgārjuna the "Second Śākyamuni" is no idle claim. His appearance held an epoch-making place in the broad history of Buddhist teaching. Buddhism in its wide scope was once unified through him, while at the same time multi-faceted Buddhism took him as its starting point and branched out in diverse directions. From his many writings, nearly all Mahāyāna sūtras come to be known. He centered his thought on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras while also treating the branch scriptures of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as required reading—so his deep connection to Huayan thought cannot be denied. Taking the Acintya-vimokṣa Sūtra as the original form of the "Entering the Dharma Realm" chapter, and from the time when the Daśabhūmika Sūtra took shape, his extremely important role in the transmission of Huayan studies becomes clear.

Next, Vasubandhu provided a verse-by-verse explanation of the Daśabhūmika Sūtra—the Daśabhūmika Sūtra Śāstra, translated by Bodhiruci and others in 508 CE, extant in twelve juan. Xuanzang's Great Tang Records on the Western Regions further records that when Vasubandhu visited his elder brother Asaṅga, at night he heard Asaṅga's disciples reciting the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, and with a feeling of repentance and awakening turned toward the Mahāyāna.⑩ (Note: Vol. 5 (Taishō 51, p. 896b–c).) If this is true, then the Daśabhūmika Sūtra was the karmic condition for his conversion to the Mahāyāna. Among the ten grounds, the sixth—the "Ground of Manifestation"—contains: "The three realms are illusory and false, yet made by the one mind"; "The twelve links of dependent origination depend upon this one mind"—emphasizing mind-only thought. The same can be seen in the opening of his Viṃśatikā-vijñapti-mātratā, which reveals the words "the three realms are only mind." The contents of ādāna-vijñāna and ālaya-vijñāna used in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha became the subject of promotion and research for later generations, occupying a very important position at the center of doctrinal discussion in the Dilun school, the Shelun school, and among Vijñānavāda masters. Daśabhūmika Sūtra Śāstra, vol. 1, opens with an explanation of the six characteristics,⑾ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 26, p. 125a.) which became the source of Fazang's later doctrine of the perfect interpenetration of the six characteristics.

The original Daśabhūmika Sūtra states that this was when "the Buddha first attained enlightenment"—generally phrased as the "second seven days after attaining enlightenment." The sūtra clearly indicates it's a teaching of the second seven days, a point particularly emphasized by Vasubandhu, and this constitutes a decisive statement concerning temporality in Huayan teaching. When the Dilun school later arose in China, it took Vasubandhu's Daśabhūmika Sūtra Śāstra as its fundamental basis. So in establishing the Huayan school, the Dilun school became an important link, and the later flourishing of Huayan likely absorbed elements from it. Vasubandhu's position of "existence" (yǒu) within Huayan teaching can't be lightly dismissed.

In India, regarding commentaries on the Daśabhūmika Śāstra, tradition says Bhāṣya (Jianhui) composed a Brief Explanation, while Vajrasena (Jingangjun) composed an Explanation Treatise of 12,000 verses.⑿ (Huayan Jing Zhuanji, vol. 1 (Taishō 51, p. 156b–c).) If translated, this Explanation Treatise would run to more than thirty juan. The original was discovered in the kingdom of Khotan but never reached China, so the content of its explanations is entirely unknown. Yet in Bhāṣya's compositions—the Ratnagotravibhāga (Jiujing Yicheng Baoxing Lun) and Dhātu-advaya-nirdhāti (Fajie Wuchabie Lun)—tathāgatagarbha thought appears throughout, and we can see they provided a major foundation for Huayan teaching.⒀ (Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 44, p. 61a.) In India, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra could serve as a representative of Mahāyāna scriptural thought, maintaining direct and indirect mutual influences with other Mahāyāna scriptures. So although there was great interest among treatise masters, no one is seen to have established a systematic doctrinal framework in their teachings—unlike in China, where an independent school took shape.

2. The Transmission of the Five Chinese Patriarchs

The traditional establishment of the five-patriarch succession theory in China's Huayan school has its historical origins traceable to sources like the following: according to an imperial decree response recorded by Jingyuan (1011–1088 CE), a disciple of Chengqian in the Song dynasty.① (Note: The text previously mentioned in Wujiao Zhang Tonglu Ji, vol. 1.) One must trace upward to find the basis for this. Chengguan, in his commentary on the Fajie Xuanjing (Profound Mirror of the Dharma Realm) and the Fajie Guanmen (Gates of Dharma Realm Contemplation) composed by Fazang's predecessor Dushun, first esteemed Dushun, placing him alongside Zhiyan and Fazang, and vigorously opposed Fazang's disciple Huiyuan for violating his teacher's intentions. According to this order, Dushun and Zhiyan are the first two patriarchs, though there's no explicit traditional statement of succession. At that time, the implication was already present. Then the disciple Zongmi, in his Notes on the Gates of Dharma Realm Contemplation, clearly established the succession of the first three patriarchs.② (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 45, p. 684b–c.) This is also clearly stated in the Song Gaoseng Zhuan.③ (Note: Song Gaoseng Zhuan, vol. 6 (Taishō 50, p. 732a): "Formerly, Dushun of Dunhuang transmitted the Huayan dharma-realm contemplation to his disciple Zhiyan, who lectured on this Jin-translated text. Zhiyan transmitted it to Zang [Fazang], and Zang expounded the New Avataṃsaka Sūtra for Empress Wu.")

Fazang's successor was precisely Chengguan. From this, it's implicitly suggested that he was chosen as the fourth patriarch, hinting that Zongmi himself was the fifth. Based on these circumstances, Chengqian, in his preface to the Jin Shizi Zhang Zhusu, listed the five patriarchs together.④ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 45, p. 667a.) Jingyuan directly inherited this position and answered in accordance with the five-patriarch succession theory.⑤ (Note: Shishi Jigu Lüe, vol. 3 (Taishō 49, p. 821a) gives the names of the Xianshou school five-patriarch lineage. The Qing-dynasty Xufa's Fajie Zong Wuzu Lüeji (Xuzangjing, 2nd collection, section 7, vol. 3, pp. 277a–b) particularly mentions the five patriarchs.) Some modern scholars have raised objections to the five-patriarch succession theory.⑥ (Note: In Japan's Tokugawa period, the Huayan scholar Hotan's disciple Kakushū, in his Dai Nippon Kegon Shunjū, denied that the succession began with Dushun as the Huayan lineage. Furthermore, Hotan and Kakushū's later follower Fujaku, on the contrary, supported Chengguan and Zongmi as belonging to the Tiantai school, expelling Fazang from the orthodox lineage. Particularly recently in Japan's Buddhist academic world, this matter has become a special topic. Through extensive textual examination, a back-and-forth debate on the theory of Dushun as the first patriarch has unfolded. Dr. Sakaino, in "Lectures on the History of Chinese Buddhism," regarding the Chinese Huayan tradition, denied Dushun as the first patriarch and clearly maintained that the transmission from Zhiyan should be Zhizheng. This contradicted Dr. Tokiwa Daitei's discussion of "The Chinese Huayan Tradition" in the Tōhō Gakuhō (Tokyo, vol. 3), which determined the question of Dushun's Fajie Guanmen's actual authorship. In his careful textual examination and clearly stated logical grounds, he supported the traditional view. Dr. Sakaino further opposed this. In the Ōsaki Gakuhō, he explained that Dushun was not the first patriarch of the Huayan school, generally reiterating his earlier position. However, Dr. Suzuki Sō advocated the theory of Zhiyan as the first patriarch regarding the Huayan school tradition (Tetsugaku Zasshi 563–4–5), doubting Sakaino's view and strongly rejecting the traditional view advocated by Tokiwa. He emphasized Zhiyan as the first patriarch, because Dushun's Fajie Guanmen was extracted from a portion of Fazang's writings—Chengguan deliberately composed a commentary to establish the Huayan tradition, and Zongmi followed suit by composing his own notes. "Research on Original Huayan Philosophy" was written based on this premise. Reviewing the various theories, Dr. Tokiwa again in the Tōhō Gakuhō (Tokyo, vol. 5), using the Song edition Huayan Sanmei Zhang, the manuscript of the Song edition Qingliang Shu derived from it, and new materials in the Song edition Fazang Heshang Zhuan, more strongly reinforced and extended his previous arguments. His discussions are collected in Research on Chinese Buddhism. After this, Tokiwa did not publish further rebuttal papers. The current grounds for rejecting Dushun as the first patriarch in the traditional account are unavoidably relatively weak.) However, no definitive conclusion has been reached. Regarding the transmission of teaching, the five-patriarch succession theory should presently still be set aside and not treated as an established tradition.

First, the first patriarch Fashun (558–640 CE), commonly called Master Dushun, with the posthumous title Venerable Di-xin.⁷ (Note: Biographies of him appear in The Comprehensive Chronicle of the Buddhas and Patriarchs Through the Ages, vol. 11 (Taishō 49, p. 570c); Essentials of Buddhist Antiquities, vol. 3 (same, p. 821a); Biographies of Divine Monks, vol. 6 (Taishō 50, p. 984c); Biographies of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 3, "Biography of Zhīyǎn" (Taishō 51, p. 163b), and vol. 4, "Biography of Fán Xuánzhì" (same, p. 166c); and Brief Records of the Five Patriarchs of the Dharmadhātu (Manji Zoku, fasc. 2, no. 7, pt. 3), among others.) No record survives of his earlier teacher. His contemporaries widely took him to be an incarnation of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva, and he became famous as a divine monk known for many miraculous signs. His writings, mostly focused on contemplative practice, are numerous. The Five Teachings: Cessation and Contemplation (1 fascicle)⁸ (Note: In Yūki Reikun's essay "On the Authorship of the Huayan Five Teachings: Cessation and Contemplation," he denies that Dushun authored the text (in New Series of Religious Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 73–93), and Dr. Sōshū Suzuki likewise entertains doubts. There is no final agreement on the primary work in question, but here we follow the traditional attribution.) presents the contemplative gates of the five teachings and stands as the source of the fivefold scheme of doctrinal classification. Gates of Contemplation on the Dharmadhātu (1 fascicle) sets out the threefold contemplative gate and forms the foundation of the Huayan school's own doctrinal system, providing the basis for the teaching of the ten profound dharmas of unimpeded, mutually arising events.

The second patriarch Zhīyǎn (602–668 CE), known as Master Zhìxiàng, with the alternate title Venerable Yúnhuá.⁹ (Note: Biographies appear in Biographies of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 3 (Taishō 51, p. 163b); Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, vol. 25 (same, p. 654a); Dharma Mirror of the Dharmadhātu, lower fascicle (collected in Appended Avataṃsaka Treatises of the Dainihon-zō, p. 615b); and elsewhere.) He began as a disciple of Fashun, then went on to study Huayan under Master Zúdá, the Yogācāra teachings under Fǎcháng, and the Treatise on the Ten Grounds (Dilun) school under Zhìzhèng. Later, a divine monk instructed him in the meaning of the six characteristics, and through this he came to realize the profound meaning of Huayan. Among his scriptural commentaries is The Avataṃsaka Sūtra: A Comprehensive Guide to the Search for Hidden Meanings and the Ordering of Teachings (commonly called the Sōuxuán jì, 5 fascicles). In his later years he also wrote A Catalogue of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (4 fascicles) and Fifty Essential Questions and Answers on the Avataṃsaka (2 fascicles). There is also The Gate of the Ten Profound Dharmas of the Single Vehicle (1 fascicle), which originates with Dushun and was recorded by Zhìxiàng. Whereas Dushun's position emphasized the contemplative practice of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Zhīyǎn brought a slightly more systematic doctrinal organization to the teachings. From the perspective of the lineage, this marks a gradual shift from the practice gate to the doctrinal gate, setting the shape for the next generation under Fǎzàng and making the distinction clearer. He fixed the names and categories of the ten profound contingent arising, built its logical framework, and clarified the meaning of the shared and distinct teachings within the Avataṃsaka. On the establishment of contingent arising, he drew the six meanings of conditions into the six meanings of seeds and laid the foundation for understanding the six characteristics as a perfect whole, securing the school's doctrinal organization on firm ground. His prominent disciples include those recognized as dharma heirs: Fǎzàng, the layman Fán Xuánzhì, and the monks Bóchén, Dàochéng, and the Korean Uicheon. The Biography of Master Fǎzàng¹⁰ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 50, p. 281a.) records that on his deathbed he entrusted his hopes to the young Fǎzàng and committed the senior disciples Bóchén and Dàochéng to his care — a clear sign that Fǎzàng had long been intended as the lineage's successor.

The third patriarch Fǎzàng (643–712 CE), known as Master Xiānshǒu, with the further title National Preceptor Yī.¹¹ (Note: His biographies are found in Biography of Master Fǎzàng (Taishō 50, pp. 280b–); Brief Records of the Five Patriarchs (Manji Zoku, fasc. 2, no. 7, pt. 3, p. 273 right); Song Biographies of Eminent Monks, vol. 5 (Taishō 50, pp. 732a–b); and elsewhere.) In his twenties he entered Zhīyǎn's circle; within a few years his teacher had passed away. He later took ordination at Tàiyuán Temple, where Empress Wǔ Zétiān held him in high esteem, received the three refuges from him, and heard his lectures on the Avataṃsaka more than thirty times. At the age of thirty-eight, when the Tripiṭaka Master Rizhao brought the Sanskrit original of the Avataṃsaka, Fǎzàng collated and corrected the deficiencies of the existing Jìn-dynasty translation, completing the sixty-fascicle version that has come down to us. At fifty-three he joined the translation team for the Táng-dynasty translation of the sūtra, serving in the crucial roles of proofreader and scribe. At the Fóshòu-jì Temple, where he lectured on the Táng translation of the Avataṃsaka, miraculous signs reportedly appeared throughout his teaching periods. His written output was vast. The Five Teachings Chapter (4 fascicles, though some sources say 3) is revered as the school's representative doctrinal text, clearly establishing the scheme of doctrinal classification and giving careful organization to its teachings. The Record of the Investigation of Mysteries (20 fascicles) is a verse-by-verse commentary on the Jìn translation and remains the standard reference work. Record of the Mind Roaming in the Dharmadhātu (1 fascicle), Observation on the Exhaustion of Delusion and Return to the Source (1 fascicle), and similar works were composed specifically as guides to contemplative practice. His Commentary on the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith (3 fascicles) is a systematic annotation of the Awakening of Faith, the most highly regarded treatise on that text since antiquity. His Biographies of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (5 fascicles) is, of course, a well-known historical work. In total, nearly forty writings flowed from his brush, completing the formation of the Huayan school as a distinct lineage. Confronting the flourishing Consciousness-Only (Fǎxiàng) school of Xuánzàng and Kuījī, Fǎzàng established the one-vehicle teaching and built an orderly, coherent framework for the doctrinal classification and structure of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a whole, with a clear overarching purpose. In doctrinal classification he fixed the five teachings, the ten schools, and the shared and distinct teachings as foundational categories. At the doctrinal level, he brought together the teachings on the similarities and differences of the three natures, the six meanings of contingent arising as conditions, and the meaning of the unobstructed gate of the ten profound contingent arising, fashioning a comprehensive, integrated system. Through his various writings he also organized the content of contemplative practice, solidly completing the school's doctrinal architecture. The two great currents of Indian philosophical thought — emptiness and existence — he skillfully reconciled into a single resolution of existence and emptiness as one, and in this way fixed the contingent arising of the dharmadhātu at the heart of Huayan teaching. In his dealings with the Fǎxiàng school, he took his stand on the integration of principle and phenomena, deftly drawing on and surpassing other schools, and placed Huayan on a stable and unshakable foundation.

He had a great many disciples; among the most distinguished were Hóngguān, Wénchāo, Zhìguāng, Zōngyī, Huìyuàn, and Huìyīng — the six sages of his school, all recognized as outstanding talents. The first to lecture on Huayan in Japan, as well as the Sillan monk Simsang, also sat at his feet and received the full teaching. Yet Huìyuàn, in his Kanding ji (15 fascicles), though it displayed the sharpness of his exceptional ability, proposed a doctrinal vision utterly at odds with his teacher's. He sought to establish his own system regarding the sutra's divisions, its doctrinal classification, the school's doctrinal center, and the organization of the ten profound contingent arising. Later generations regarded his views as heterodox and did not adopt them. Chéngguān was later to attack him vigorously, considering him a disciple who had betrayed his teacher and set up his own school.¹² (Note: Huìyuàn's exceptional talent and the strong influence of his Kanding ji on later generations is evident, for example, in the fact that Zhǐshì jì by Shōryō — the oldest Japanese Huayan scholar, working in the early Nara period — cites the Kanding ji without any criticism. Modern scholarship on early Huayan sometimes treats the three patriarchs as Zhīyǎn, Fǎzàng, and Huìyuàn together (see Dr. Sōshū Suzuki's Research on Early Huayan Philosophy).)

Almost a younger contemporary of Fǎzàng was Lǐ Tōngxuán (635–730 CE), who produced The New Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (40 fascicles), Treatise Resolving Doubts (4 fascicles), Concise Explanation (1 fascicle), and several other works. His view of the sutra's structure diverges from traditional interpretations, and he reads the entire text through the lens of the path of practice, with his whole doctrinal stance weighted toward practical application. This bent exerted a deep, unspoken influence on the later thought of Chéngguān and Zōngmì. His interpretations, however, were too original; a vast gulf separates them from the traditional doctrinal stance, and as a result later generations generally treated his works only as reference material.

The fourth patriarch Chéngguān (738–839 CE), honored as Master Qīngliáng.¹³ (Note: His biographies are found in Song Biographies of Eminent Monks, vol. 5 (Taishō 50, p. 737a); Comprehensive Chronicle of the Buddhist Patriarchal Lineage, vol. 29 (Taishō 49, pp. 293a–b); and elsewhere. There are minor discrepancies in his dates: if, following Song Biographies of Eminent Monks, he died in the first year of Yuánhé at over seventy years of age, he was born before 738 CE and died around 800 CE.) He was born twenty-seven years after Fǎzàng's death and was therefore a disciple who never met his teacher in person, a contemporary of Zhànrǎn, who contributed to the revival of the Tiantai school. He also lived through the rapid rise of Chan Buddhism, and his teachings show that influence considerably. But by the time he inherited Fǎzàng's work, Huayan had already reached its mature form; the power of the Fǎxiàng school had by then somewhat declined, and his stance on the relationship between principle and phenomena was therefore especially pointed. His doctrinal position rested largely on the Táng translation of the Avataṃsaka — he lectured on the sutra more than fifty times — and so his emphasis differs from Fǎzàng's, who based his work on the Jìn translation. The difference lies only in the underlying translated text; in doctrinal substance there is no divergence. He also took part in the translation of the forty-fascicle Avataṃsaka (795–798 CE) led by the Tripiṭaka Master Prajñā.

He was enormously prolific: Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (60 fascicles), Sub-commentary Elucidating the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Commentary (90 fascicles), Concise Outline of the Avataṃsaka (1 fascicle), and others — commentaries and outlines on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. The Profound Discourse on the Commentary and Sub-commentary of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (9 fascicles) that he compiled became the most widely studied work of later generations. He also wrote The Gate of the Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Holy Ones, The Mirror of the Dharmadhātu, each in one fascicle, and others. Such varied output shows a scholar of remarkably broad ability. Because the orthodox Huayan lineage had passed through Fǎ Shēn (Huìyuàn's disciple), and Chéngguān received the teaching through other channels, he inherited influences from many predecessors, and his teachings accordingly contain a great deal of varied content. As already noted, he was quietly influenced by Lǐ Tōngxuán's understanding of practice-based teaching, and it is clear that he built his own useful position on that foundation. This trait shows up particularly in his contemplative works. For example, in The Gate of the Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Holy Ones, citing his teacher Fǎzàng's Record of the Investigation of Mysteries, vol. 18¹⁴ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 35, p. 457b.), regarding the two holy ones Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra in the "Entering the Dharmadhātu" chapter: they ultimately merge into the dharmadhātu of Vairocana. These two holy ones and the Buddha Vairocana are inseparable as cause and effect, as principle and wisdom. Fǎzàng vigorously proclaims the interpenetration of cause and effect, the non-duality of principle and wisdom, taking his stand within the unimpeded interpenetration of all events amid Vairocana's adornments, and he does not treat the subject primarily as a matter of doctrinal exposition. Chéngguān addresses the same question in his Sub-commentary Elucidating the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Commentary, vol. 85¹⁵ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 36, p. 663a.). On the perfect interpenetration of the three holy ones, Fǎzàng treats the fruit aspect as the gate of principle and the cause aspect as the gate of events, standing within the unobstructed interpenetration of principle and events. The contemplation of the unobstructed mutual arising of all events, however, is in effect a contemplation of principle, and Chéngguān emphasizes the characteristic of the contemplation of the arising of nature, which holds that Buddhahood is realized directly in one's own mind. In these and similar ways, the direct guidance of The Gate of the Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Holy Ones plainly shows the considerable influence of Lǐ Tōngxuán.

Looking at Lǐ Tōngxuán's New Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra,¹⁶ (Note: vol. 3 (Taishō 36, p. 738a), vol. 4 (same, p. 745a), vol. 7 (same, p. 761b), and elsewhere.) we find him constantly using the symbolic representation of the three holy ones as the framework running through the whole sutra, treating everything through contemplative practice. When Chéngguān organized his commentary on the new Táng translation, one cannot suppose he had never read Lǐ Tōngxuán's work; he must certainly have been aware of Lǐ's thinking on the perfect interpenetration of the three holy ones.¹⁷ (Note: See the author's "The System of Thought of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Holy Ones," Annual Bulletin of the Japanese Association for Buddhist Studies, no. 14, p. 212.) The only reason he never explicitly acknowledged receiving Lǐ Tōngxuán's thought in his writings is that he consistently placed special weight on the traditional position. Because of this, when he criticized Huìyuàn, Fǎzàng's direct disciple, he did his utmost to refute him. On the level of scriptural interpretation, it is easy to imagine him silently setting aside Lǐ Tōngxuán as well, whose views diverged from Fǎzàng's, in effect excluding him from the Huayan tradition. Yet Chéngguān, with the conscience of a scholar, did acknowledge that he had received something from Lǐ Tōngxuán. For example, in vol. 20 of the New Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra,¹⁸ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 36, p. 858a.) his explanation of the ten pāramitās in terms of the preceding vows is exactly an inheritance of Lǐ's interpretation. As he writes: "The assignment of the ten pāramitās to the preceding vows follows the explanation of Elder Lǐ of the capital."¹⁹ (Note: Sub-commentary Elucidating the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Commentary, vol. 47 (Taishō 36, p. 367b).) The fact that Chéngguān, who held the position that practice is the foundation, shared Lǐ Tōngxuán's stance and held an inner respect for the Elder is not hard to imagine. If this inference is right, and we look carefully at Chéngguān's writings again, we find not just these two or three places where his thought responds to Lǐ Tōngxuán's influence.

However that may be, later, when Jìngyuán presented a memorial to the Song emperor, the doctrine of the five patriarchs' succession was formally established, and Chéngguān was positioned as the heir to the three preceding patriarchs. At the same time, Chéngguān regarded himself as standing in a direct teacher-disciple relationship with Fǎzàng, understood his own teaching tradition as coming from Fǎzàng, and accordingly took Fǎzàng as the great synthesizer of Huayan teaching, skillfully grasping his profound intent. Even though the spirit of the times and many other influences shaped him, he thoroughly examined and clarified Fǎzàng's insistence that the unimpeded interpenetration of all events is identical with the unimpeded interpenetration of principle and events, reinforced the new organizational structure within the four-dharmadhātu system, and established within the unimpeded interpenetration of principle and events the unimpeded interpenetration of all events. At the same time, regarding Fǎzàng's framing of contingent arising, Chéngguān emphasized even more entry through the arising of nature. Since his treatment of the causal gate of the teachings leaned yet further toward holding practice as the foundation, one can see in him the cutting edge of the fusion of doctrinal teaching and Chan. He identified the Huayan one-mind with the luminous, undeluded one-mind of Heze Chan. Moreover, regarding the teaching that the Tathāgata does not cut off inherent evil and that icchantikas do not cut off inherent good — that the substance of defiled and pure contingent arising is not different — this view seems either to have originated from Tiānrú's teaching on inherent evil or to have come into contact with it, which is why he took the position he did. Later Japanese Huayan scholars Hōtan and Fuqi (Shōjaku?) carelessly dismissed this as heretical, but it is undeniable that there was some tendency in this direction in him. Yet since he had already criticized Huìyuàn for straying from Fǎzàng's teaching, a careful examination of how he himself transmitted Fǎzàng's doctrines, if any conflict with the school's foundational principles is found, only serves to demonstrate the sharpness of his intellect. Still, to claim that he broke away from the Huayan tradition would be unfair.

Among his disciples, one hundred received dharma transmission, a thousand were students, and thirty-eight became teachers. Among them, Zongmi and Sengrui were the most renowned recipients of the dharma.

The Fifth Patriarch Zongmi (780–841 CE), known as Shifeng Chan Master and respectfully called Dinghui Chan Master. ⒇(Biographical sources: Song Gaoseng Zhuan (Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Song), vol. 6 (Taishō 50, p. 741b–); Fozu Tongji (Comprehensive Chronicle of the Buddhas and Patriarchs), vol. 29 (Taishō 49, p. 293b–); Jingde Chuandenglu (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp of the Jingde Era), vol. 13 (Taishō 51, p. 305b–), etc.) Initially he studied the Southern Chan of Heze under Daoyuan, but later, upon reading Chengguan's Huayan Jing Shu (Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), he was moved and became Chengguan's disciple. The letters they exchanged still survive today. 21(Yuanjue Jing Lüeshu Zhu, vol. 2 (Taishō 39, p. 576b–), "Letter Sent from Afar by Chan Master Shifeng Dinghui to National Master Qingliang.") In it, Chengguan wrote: "What you understand is just like my own mind." For the first two years of his discipleship, Zongmi remained at Chengguan's side day and night, receiving instruction. He authored more than two hundred works, which still circulate. Among them are Yuanjue Jing Xiaoshu (Brief Commentary on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment), 12 fascicles; Da Shuchao (Great Commentary and Subcommentary), 26 fascicles; and Lüeshu (Brief Commentary), 4 fascicles. Chanyuan Zhuquanji Jiaoxu (Preface to the Collection of Source Explanations of Chan), 4 fascicles, is a surviving remnant of the 100-fascicle Chanyuan Zhuquanji (Shifeng Lanra Chanzang [Shifeng Hermitage Chan Treasury]), but it conveys the essential features of Zongmi's teaching quite fully. Other works known to belong to his teaching include Zhu Fajie Guanmen (Commentary on the Contemplation Gateway of the Dharma Realm), 1 fascicle; Puxian Xingyuan Biexing Shuchao (Separate Subcommentary on the Practices and Vows of Samantabhadra), 6 fascicles; Xingyuan Shu Ke (Outline of the Commentary on the Practices and Vows), 1 fascicle, and so on. From these works the full scope of his teaching can be known. In addition, there is Yuanren Lun (Treatise on the Origin of Humanity), 1 fascicle, which broadly surveys Confucianism and Daoism, starting from these two traditions to illuminate the deep wellspring of Buddhism.

His hallmark was the unity of doctrinal teaching and Chan practice, clearly inherited from the classification of the Five Teachings. At times he held that the Final and the Sudden were identical, and he also said that the Sudden and Perfect interpenetrate. His doctrine of entry through nature-arising (xingqi), with its standpoint rooted in the practice gate, is entirely the same as Chengguan's. His disciples included Chuan'ao, Shifeng Wen, Taigong, and Taixi, among others, but no particularly outstanding Huayan scholar appeared among them.

3. Doctrinal Exposition Outside the Line of the Five Patriarchs

With the traditional succession of the Five Patriarchs brought to a close, and the rise and fall of Huayan doctrinal study in China now surveyed to this point, the discussion moves on to the transmission of the teaching in Japan. This is, in a sense, a search for fresh terrain—though in China itself doctrinal exposition did not entirely cease. From the Song through the Yuan, Ming, and Qing, however, one can trace the continued waning of the teaching, marked by cycles of rise and decline, until its gradual disappearance into the present.

First, shortly after the deaths of Chengguan and Zongmi, Emperor Wuzong of Tang—who had succeeded Emperor Wenzong—issued an edict in the fifth year of Huichang (845 CE) that destroyed 4,600 Buddhist temples, forced 260,000 monks and nuns to return to lay life, and smashed Buddha images together with bells and gongs to be cast into copper coins and farm implements. This violent campaign is known as the Huichang Persecution. ①(Fozu Tongji, vol. 42 (Taishō 49, p. 385b); Fozu Lidai Tongzai, vol. 16 (same, p. 637a), etc., together with the earlier upheaval in the third year of Huichang.) Prompted by the entreaties of Daoist Guizhen and others, it became known as one of the "Three Wu and One Zong Persecutions," the third great persecution. The damage to temples and sacred images was severe; sūtras and treatises were almost entirely destroyed, and doctrinal study collapsed in an instant. Not long after, Wuzong died and Emperor Xuanzong ascended the throne. Although the opportunity to revive the dharma briefly returned, apart from the Chan school there were no scriptures left to speak of. Later still, at the close of the Five Dynasties, Emperor Shizong of the Later Zhou, in the second year of Xiande (955 CE), issued an edict restricting unauthorized ordinations and ordering the closure of temples in excess of the permitted number—more than 3,300 in total. He also smashed Buddha images and bells to cast Zhoutong coinage. As a result, Buddhism was reduced to the depths of decline. Buddhist texts were nearly all scattered and lost, and Huayan doctrinal study vanished without a trace.

With the rise of the Song, however, Buddhism was supported by the court and flourished once more. Eminent monks and great scholars emerged in succession, and the prosperity of Song Buddhism became unmistakable. Within Huayan, Ziqiong (965–1038 CE) stands as the foremost scholar. He authored several works, including Qixins Lun Bixiao Ji (Notes on the Abridgement and Editing of the Awakening of Faith), 6 fascicles, and Kewen (Outline), 1 fascicle, principally continuing the lineage of Zongmi. Although his own teacher is unknown, he appears to have been deeply influenced by the writings of Chuan'ao, Zongmi's disciple.

Ziqiong's disciple Jingyuan (1011–1088 CE), who inherited the Huayan studies of Chengqian of Wutai, produced such works as Yuanren Lun Fawei Lu (Record of Subtleties Elucidating the Treatise on the Origin of Humanity), 3 fascicles; Wanjin Huanyuan Guan Chao Bujie (Supplementary Explanations of the Commentary on Returning to the Source After Exhausting Delusion), 1 fascicle; Jin Shizi Zhang Yunjian Leijie (Classified Explanations from Yunjian of the Jinshizi Chapter), and many others, earning him the title "Restorer of Huayan." At that time, Yitian, who had come to Song from Goryeo (Korea), became Jingyuan's disciple. Many of the Huayan texts lost in China were brought back by Yitian, greatly aiding Jingyuan's lecturing and research—an act of immense importance. Yitian of Goryeo (1009–1101 CE) himself also authored Yuanzong Wenlei (Classified Writings on the Perfect Teachings), 22 fascicles, and Xinbian Zhujiao Zonglu (Newly Compiled Comprehensive Records of Various Teachings), 2 fascicles. After returning home, he presented ②(Fozu Tongji, vol. 29 (Taishō 49, p. 294a); Fozu Lidai Tongzai, vol. 19 (same, p. 672b)) to Jingyuan gold-script copies of all three translations of the Huayan Jing, 180 fascicles in all—an act of generosity that should not be overlooked.

In the Song, four great commentators on the Wujiao Zhang (Essay on the Five Teachings) deserve special mention. These are Daoting's Wujiao Zhang Yiyuan (Garden of Meaning on the Essay on the Five Teachings), 10 fascicles; Guanfu's Wujiao Zhang Zhexin Ji (Record of Kindling Chips on the Essay on the Five Teachings), 5 fascicles ③(This book has long been lost; it is cited in Gyōnen's Wujiao Zhang Tonglu Ji, from which only fragments survive.); Shihui's Wujiao Zhang Fugu Ji (Record of Returning to the Ancient on the Essay on the Five Teachings), 6 fascicles; and Xidi's Wujiao Zhang Jicheng Ji (Record of Compilation on the Essay on the Five Teachings), 6 fascicles. They bear witness to the vigor of Wujiao Zhang lecturing at the time and to the wider currents of Huayan scholarship. Yet Daoting relied entirely on Chengguan's guidance and never engaged with the Souxun Ji or the Tanxuan Ji—a regrettable gap. Guanfu took issue with certain aspects of Daoting's reading, but judging from the citations that survive, he still drew heavily on the explanations of Chengguan and Zongmi. Shihui, in particular, sharply resented what he saw as the dismissive attitude toward Zhiyan and Fazang shown by Chengguan and Zongmi, who stood in their lineage; he criticized them for slighting their own doctrinal forebears and sought to undercut the very roots of Zhiyan's teaching. In addition to the Fugu Ji, he composed Fensin (Burning the Firewood), in 2 fascicles, to criticize Guanfu. His treatment of the Common and Distinct teachings contains distinctive insights, and the philological exegesis of his text is well worth examining. But it cannot be denied that, with respect to the consistent doctrinal position of the Five Patriarchs, his work is somewhat lacking. Xidi devoted himself wholeheartedly to following Shihui's lectures and held him in deep admiration.

Also in the Song, Chan practitioners who turned to Huayan included masters such as Bensong Guangzhi, Daotong, and Fu'an, each of whom separately authored works such as Huayan Qizi Jing Ti Fajie Guan Sanshi Men Song (Verses on the Thirty Gates of the Contemplation of the Dharma Realm in Seven-Character Huayan Verse), 2 fascicles; Huayan Tunhai Ji (The Huayan's Ocean-Swallowing Collection), 3 fascicles; Huayan Jing Lun Guan (Thread of Meaning of the Huayan Sūtra), 1 fascicle, and others. Yihe composed Wujin Deng (The Inexhaustible Lamp) in an attempt to link Huayan with Pure Land teaching. We also know of Xianyan's Huayan Jing Xuan Tan Jueze (Discerning Choices on the Mysterious Treatise of the Huayan Sūtra) ④(This work had long been missing, so its contents could not be determined; recently, however, a complete copy was discovered in the Kanazawa Bunko, and a study on "The Doctrinal Basis of the Huayan Jing Xuan Tan Jueze" was published—Ryūkoku Gakuhō no. 311; see also the same appendix.), 6 fascicles; Jiehuan's Huayan Jing Yaojie (Essential Explanation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), 1 fascicle; and Shanxi's Ping Jingang Bi (Critical Examination of the Diamond Stele), 1 fascicle, among others.

Entering the Yuan dynasty, Wencai produced Zhao Lun Xinshu (New Commentary on the Zhao Lun), 3 fascicles; Purui authored Huayan Xuantan Huixuan Ji (Record of Gathering Mysteries on the Huayan Mysterious Treatise), 40 fascicles; and Yuanjue wrote Yuanren Lun Jie (Explanation of the Treatise on the Origin of Humanity), 5 fascicles. By this point, however, there is already a sense of their work drifting away from a focus on doctrinal substance, as if settling into a final stage.

By the Ming dynasty, Zhuhong, while fusing Chan with nianfo practice, kept Huayan studies alive and authored Huayan Jing Ganying Lüji (Brief Record of the Responsive Powers of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), 6 fascicles. Deqin, who venerated Chengguan's Huayan Xuantan, produced Huayan Gangyao (Essentials of Huayan) in 80 fascicles along with numerous other works. Zhixu, who advocated the doctrine of the merging of nature and characteristics, left behind Qixins Lun Liewang Shu (Commentary Tearing Open the Net on the Awakening of Faith), 6 fascicles, and several other works.

In the Qing dynasty, Xufa, recognizing that the two gates of doctrinal teaching and contemplation are indispensable, stressed that doctrinal study must necessarily include the gate of contemplation. He authored Huayan Wujiao Yi (Ritual Manual of the Five Teachings of Huayan), 6 fascicles; Xianshou Wujiao Yi Kaimeng (Opening the Beginner to the Ritual Manual of the Five Teachings of Xianshou), 1 fascicle; Wujiao Yi Kezhu (Outline and Commentary on the Ritual Manual of the Five Teachings), 20 fascicles; and Fajie Wuzu Lüji (Brief Records of the Five Patriarchs of the Dharma Realm), 1 fascicle, among others. Peng Jiqing, too, at first devoted to Confucian learning, later came to integrate Confucianism and Buddhism; he explored the nianfo samādhi within Huayan thought and authored Yicheng Jueyi Lun (Treatise Resolving Doubts about the One Vehicle), 1 fascicle, and Huayan Nianfo Sanmei Lun (Treatise on the Huayan Nianfo Samādhi), 1 fascicle, among others. There were of course other scholars connected with Huayan, but from the Yuan and Ming onward the various schools of Buddhism entered a state of integration, and to the present day no scholar has emerged who steadfastly upholds a strictly rigorous doctrinal system. ⑤(For a detailed account of the transmission of Huayan doctrinal studies in China after the Song, see Takamine Ryōshū's Kegon Shisōshi [History of Huayan Thought], pp. 317–63.)

As for developments in Huayan studies in Korea, the Goryeo figure Yitian, as noted above, was able to unify and revitalize the Huayan school upon his return from China. Before him, scholars were limited to figures such as Wonhyo (617–?) and Uisang (625–702 CE); no others of note appeared. Moreover, the transmission amounted essentially to the transplantation of Chinese Huayan scholarship, without any new development. Wonhyo entered Tang China together with Uisang, intending to study under Xuanzang and Kuiji, but midway he changed course and stayed on in China, where he studied dozens of works on his own with tireless diligence and produced many writings, particularly in the area of Huayan. Wonhyo's works include Huayan Jing Shu (Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), 10 fascicles; Huayan Gangmu (Outline of the Huayan), 1 fascicle; and Shimen Hezheng Lun (Treatise Resolving the Ten Types of Dispute), 1 fascicle—of which our knowledge comes from citations scattered through other texts. Uisang entered Tang China and studied under Zhiyan for seven years; afterward he returned to Silla and lectured widely, disseminating his teaching. Tradition attributes to him Fajie Tushuyin (Seal of the Diagram of the Dharma Realm) and Lüeshu (Brief Commentary), each 1 fascicle. He is said to have exchanged letters with Fazang and to have received the Tanxuan Ji and other works as gifts. ⑥(Fazang Heshang Zhuan [Biography of the Reverend Fazang] (Taishō 50, p. 285a); Samguk Yusa [Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms], vol. 4 (Taishō 49, p. 1007a); see also the records under Uisang.)

4. The Vicissitudes of Transmission in Japan

As to the initial transmission of Huayan doctrinal studies to Japan, Gyōnen's Fajie Yijing ①(From the Huayan section of the Japanese Buddhist Canon, Commentaries and Treatises, part 2, p. 617.) and Hasshū Yōryō state: "The initial transmission of the commentaries owes its achievement to Dōshō." "The spread in Japan has Dōshō as its founder. The Vinaya master Kyōshō received the dharma from him and transmitted it to the Vinaya master Rōben, the Archbishop (Sōjō)." Furthermore, according to the Sankoku Buppō Dentō Engi Setsu, in the eighth year of Tenpyō under Emperor Shōmu (736 CE), the Huayan Jing was transmitted. ②(Middle fascicle, p. 10 right.) There are, however, serious doubts about Dōshō's close connection with Fazang and his reception of the dharma from him. ③(The chronology: Fazang entered nirvana in the first year of Xiantian under Emperor Ruizong of Tang (712 CE), corresponding to the fifth year of Wadō under Emperor Genmei of Japan. If Dōshō sailed for Japan in the eighth year of Tenpyō (736 CE), he was thirty-five years old, which means Fazang had only been dead some ten years earlier—Dōshō could have been no more than a small child when Fazang passed away. Even granting that Fazang in his later years gathered many talented disciples around him, it strains belief that a child of ten could have penetrated the depths of Xianshou's teaching. That Rōben faithfully carries the teaching as its transmitter poses no difficulty; what is questionable is the claim that Dōshō single-handedly brought a substantial body of commentaries and made such decisive contributions to Huayan in Japan. The exaggeration makes it untenable to call him the first patriarch.) It is more accurate, following the Dentō Engi Setsu, to regard Shinshō as the first patriarch and Rōben as the second. ④(Middle fascicle, p. 9 right.) Yet it remains a fact that the initial transmission of the Huayan scriptures to Japan was carried out by Dōshō. In the twelfth year of Tenpyō, the Silla monk Shinshō gave the first lecture on the Sixty-Fascicle Huayan at the Kinshū (Golden Bell) Hall; he had studied directly under Fazang in Tang China and inherited his teacher's aspiration. Jishū, Kyōnin, and Enshō served as assistant lecturers. Lecturing on the Tanxuan Ji, they covered twenty fascicles in a single year, and the Jin version of the sūtra was completed in three. Yanzhi and Zhijing of Gangōji also lectured on the Jin version and, in addition, lectured on the Kantei Ki for the Tang version of the sūtra. ⑤(Before Shinshō began lecturing on the Jin version at Kinshū Hall, Rōben had a dream one night in which he earnestly besought Genchi of Gangōji to lecture on the sūtra. Taking this as a sign, he went to invite Genchi, but the latter humbly declined and reportedly recommended that the invitation be extended to Shinshō of Daianji. The fact that Rōben made this earnest appeal to Genchi in his dream suggests that Genchi himself already had a corresponding grasp of Huayan studies at the time. Genchi's deference to Shinshō implies that Shinshō possessed an even deeper command of the subject, and the episode testifies to the flourishing of Huayan studies at both Gangōji and Daianji in that period.)

Rōben studied Huayan under Jikun and went on to study Yogācāra (Fa-xiang) doctrine under Giyuan, becoming one of his seven foremost disciples. As the head of Tōdaiji, he stands as a figure of immense accomplishment in the history of doctrinal exposition. Rōben's foremost disciple was Jurin ⑥(On Jurin's Huayan studies, see Shimaji Mokurai, "On the Huayan Studies of Jurin of Kantō Tōdaiji" (Tetsugaku Zasshi, vol. 38, no. 432); amid the thin biographical record on Jurin, this study offers a particularly suggestive glimpse. The Zhishi Ji draws on Huiyuan's Kantei Ki; later, when Chengguan's Yanyi Chao was brought to Japan, it became clear that the Kantei Ki was a heterodox commentary, revealing the depth of the lecturing of that time.), who authored Wujiao Zhang Zhishi Ji (Record of Pointing to the Meaning on the Essay on the Five Teachings), 6 fascicles. In an age lacking other reference materials, the compilation of such profound doctrinal study is an achievement worthy of a chapter in its own right. The fundamental seat of his teaching was the great Buddha at Tōdaiji, established by imperial decree in the fifteenth year of Tenpyō under Emperor Shōmu (743 CE). After eight successive recastings, the great work was completed in the first year of Tenpyō Shōhō (749 CE). With the establishment of the full scale of Tōdaiji, this site took its place as the enduring center, a position it long maintained.

The Huayan Buddhism of Nara flourished through the Kōnin era and the Fujiwara period, then gradually declined. Not long afterward, in the time of Jōtei (800 CE), a figure honored by Emperor Kanmu, with Tōdai-ji as his head temple, studied Huayan at the Sainji in Kawachi, and later, serving as head of Tōdai-ji, managed to revive the fortunes of the school to some degree. Being on intimate terms with Kūkai, he was known as a celebrated scholar; what he learned came down from Jitchū, a disciple of Ryōben. Later, Ensō (878–979 CE) established the Sonshō-in at Tōdai-ji, designating it as a dedicated training hall for Huayan studies. In managing the affairs of the institute while also conducting Buddhist research, he made considerable contributions.

With the arrival of the Kamakura period, however, aided by the Buddhist doctrinal revival movement, Huayan studies reached their highest peak in the history of doctrinal learning. The Tōdai-ji lineage of doctrinal studies can be broadly divided into three systems:

The first is the Ensha branch, centered on the Kaidan-in, devoted to Huayan studies. His Huayan learning came from Shūshō and Ryōchū, and he broadly studied the Tendai, Hossō, and Ritsu schools. After entering the Kaidan-in, he came to be known outside as the restorer of the precepts, and his disciples gathered around him like clouds.

The second is the Shōbō branch, centered on the Tōnan-in, which had originally been the seat of the Sanron school attached to Tōdai-ji. Shōbō came from Daigo-ji, bringing with him the teachings of esoteric Buddhism, and so Huayan acquired a strongly esoteric doctrinal coloring. For example, Kōbyō later fused Huayan with esoteric teachings and established a distinctive doctrine; the influence of his thought was considerable.

The third centers on Shūshō and his disciple Gyōnen. The Sonshō-in branch was one of the pure Huayan revival schools, and in the work Dentsū Engi it claimed to be the orthodox lineage. Thereafter, Tōdai-ji became the permanent center of power for Huayan studies.

Shūshō (1202–1292 CE), apart from Huayan studies, specialized in the Abhidharma-kośa, Buddhist logic, and Hossō learning. He also had deep insight into historical and biographical scholarship; his hand-copied manuscripts numbered more than a thousand fascicles. The surviving copies and fragments preserved today at Tōdai-ji—some two hundred items in all—show that he authored works including the Huayan-shū Kōkunshō in seven fascicles, the Tangenki Sanjūkō, and others. Among his disciples were Shūken, Kōgyō, Jitsukō, and Jissō, of whom Gyōnen was the most renowned.

Gyōnen (1240–1321 CE) first took the tonsure under Ensha of Tōji, received the precepts under Shōgen and Jōin, studied esoteric Buddhism under Shōshu, and further entered the Butsushin-shū. He also mastered the teachings of Confucius, Laozi, and the various schools of thought, as historical sources clearly record. Above all, he inherited Huayan studies from Shūshō,⁷ (Note: Gyōnen studied under Shūshō and benefited immensely. Shūshō entered nirvana in the fifth year of Shōō under Emperor Fushimi, at the age of ninety-one; in that year Gyōnen was fifty-three. Most of Gyōnen's Huayan works were produced after he turned fifty. Attending his master's lectures in his final years, he received the direct specialized guidance of his teacher.) and his literary output was extraordinarily prolific: the Tangenki Tōyūshō in 120 fascicles, the Gokyōshō Tsūroki in 52 fascicles, the Kōmokushō Hotsugoki in 23 fascicles, the Huayan Hokkai Gikyō in 2 fascicles, the Hasshū Yōryō in 2 fascicles, the Sangoku Buppō Dentsū Enki in 3 fascicles, the Jōdo Genryūshō in 1 fascicle, and others—altogether more than 120 works in over 1,000 fascicles. Regrettably, owing to the disaster of the Eiroku fires at Tōdai-ji, the greater part was reduced to nothing. He holds an immortal place in the flourishing of Huayan studies. Among his disciples emerged distinguished scholars such as Zenji (1253–1325 CE), Tanne (1271–1345 CE), and Jōyo (1273–1362 CE). Subsequently, the Tōdai-ji doctrinal tradition, in contrast to the Kōbyō lineage of the Kozan-ji, came to be known as the Head Temple School (Honji-ha);⁸ (Note: Japanese Huayan studies are divided into the Head Temple and Branch Temple schools. From Kōchi downward, Matsuhashi and Kanjin are considered divergent points, but it was actually Kōbyō, a sixth-generation disciple of Kanjin, who manifested the distinctive features of a separate school. Looking backward, the division was evidently made for the sake of convenience. Kōbyō had studied at Tōdai-ji; his disciple Dōchō taught Shūshō, Gyōnen's master. Moreover, Keiga, Kōbyō's teacher, was the rebuilder of the Kaidan-in at Tōdai-ji; at that time there was no distinction between the Head Temple and Branch Temple schools. Therefore, even if the two were divided into separate schools, this was a later development; though the two stood opposed, there is no evidence of mutual doctrinal disputation.) this was primarily due to the contributions of Gyōnen's scholarly revival.

The Nantō branch of Huayan studies, meanwhile, later advanced into the Kantō region, and in Kamakura and Kanazawa the teachings of this school flourished for a time, with East and West responding to each other in a scene of great prosperity. This came about because, while inheriting the Huayan learning of Tōdai-ji, it was driven by a fresh local vitality. Gyōnen's disciple Tanne traveled to Kantō, took up residence at Jōkōmyō-ji in Kamakura, and made repeated journeys between that temple and Ku-ō-ji in Musashi Province. He also benefited from the broad dissemination work of Zenji. In his later years he devoted himself to lecturing and copying scriptures. In modern times, along with the revival of the Kanazawa Bunko, many of his hand-copied manuscripts preserved in that collection have come to light—the most notable being the Gokyōshō Sanjaku in 39 fascicles, the Engishō Sanjaku in 38 fascicles, and the Kishin-kyō Kyōrishō in 19 fascicles.⁹ (See "Lost Huayan Texts in the Kanazawa Bunko" by Kamekawa, Takamine, and Takano, Ryūkoku Gakuhō No. 309, regarding the various Huayan-related works preserved in that collection.)

The Tōdai-ji branch of Huayan studies, however, though it expanded the scope of its doctrinal exposition without limit, remained confined to transmitting the teachings that had flowed in from China. Directly influenced by Song dynasty doctrinal studies, it was unable to develop any distinctive features of its own.

By contrast, the teachings of Kōbyō (1173–1232 CE), who resided at Kozan-ji in Yamashiro, set against the Tōdai-ji Head Temple school of Gyōnen and came to be called the Branch Temple School (Matsuji-ha), emphasized innovative characteristics and gave them expression. He inherited the creative spirit nurtured by Keiga and Shōsen of the Head Temple school. While the Head Temple school's academic style concentrated exclusively on doctrinal classification—attending to the relations between the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle, the meaning of the Same and Different Teachings, and the developmental connection between the Fundamental and Derivative Teachings as its themes—and devoted itself to scriptural commentary, Kōbyō was not satisfied with this and demanded a systematic, practical Huayan learning. He authored the Huayan Bukkōkan Hōmon in 1 fascicle, the Nyū Gedatsumon Gi in 2 fascicles, the Huayan Bukkōmai Kannon Hihōzō in 2 fascicles, the Sanji Sanpōrai in 1 fascicle, and the Shinshu Gi in 1 fascicle. These works are almost all contemplative manuals (kammon-sho). A practitioner of contemplation in daily life, he manifested the true face of a religious cultivator and was quite close in spirit to the Chinese figure Li Tongxuan. On the other hand, in opposition to Pure Land teachings, he sharply articulated his own position while engaging in contemplation. Furthermore, going beyond the foundations of his training, the school whose goal was the theoretical study of doctrine connected the two dimensions of esoteric ritual and Huayan practice, striving to give expression to what is called the Branch Temple School's distinctive character. That is to say, taking Kūkai's esoteric classification of the Ten Stages of Mind and considering it from the Huayan standpoint, he sought to explain the point that the Vairocana Buddha of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is identical with the Honjibutsu (Original Buddha) of the Mahāvairocana Tantra. As is evident from his many writings, in which he repeatedly joined esoteric teachings with Huayan, the message becomes clear.¹⁰ (Note: Among the works listed in the Japanese Tripiṭaka Huayan Section: Treatises and Commentaries, Volume Two, the opening entries—the Huayan Shūzenkan Nyū Gedatsumon Gi in 2 fascicles and the Huayan Bukkō Zanmai Kannon Hihōzō in 2 fascicles—are mostly records of Kōbyō's distinctive works. Additionally, regarding the conjunction of esoteric teachings with Huayan, Ishii Kyōdō authored "Kōbyō, Founder of the Gon and Mitsumon Traditions" (Taishō Daigaku Kiyō, No. 3).) Among his strictly commentarial works, the most renowned is the Konjishi-shō Kōkenshō in 2 fascicles, in which his emphatic articulation of the meaning of cutting delusion and realizing principle reflects his academic style. When one examines his biography, his ardent longing for Śākyamuni becomes evident, and he devoted himself wholeheartedly to the actual practice of Huayan. Among his disciples were many outstanding figures such as Kikai, Kōshin, and Shōjō; under Kikai there was Jōkai. From Kōshin's lineage emerged Junkō. Though each engaged in lecturing, they were unable to preserve the enduring spiritual life of the Kozan-ji lineage, and thereafter the doctrinal influence came to belong exclusively to the Tōdai-ji branch.

In the Tokugawa period, the most renowned figures were Hōtan and Fūjaku. Hōtan (1657–1738 CE) was the architect of a revival of Huayan studies; he dared to engage in dispute with other schools without restraint. Though his unbending, unyielding scholarly attitude was disliked by the world, as a scholar he deserves reverence. His Huayan position relied solely upon the Upper Three Patriarchs while rejecting the Lower Two, and the views he generally expressed were often eccentric. The Gokyōshō Kyōshinshō in 5 fascicles frequently displays the cutting edge of his heterodox stance and his interpretive novelties; modern readers find it deeply thought-provoking.

Fūjaku (1707–1781 CE), from middle age onward, devoted himself to Huayan and enrolled in Hōtan's lecture hall; however, because of disagreements, he later criticized and attacked his teacher. Nevertheless, he traveled widely to consult renowned teachers of philosophy, listened attentively to their teachings, and made the practical gate his primary focus. Although he opened up a distinct field of his own learning, his interpretation of the Same and Different Teachings departed far from the traditional explanation. His literary output was extremely prolific, including the Gokyōshō Enpihishō in 5 fascicles and the Tangenki Hakkishō in 10 fascicles—works worthy of notice that have been widely read.

Beyond these two masters, there were also Kan'ō (1700 CE), author of a Gokyōshō with interlinear notes in 10 fascicles; Shushin (1735 CE), who authored the Gokyōshō Betskai in 4 fascicles, refuting Hōtan; Kaijō (1805 CE), author of the Gokyōshō Chō Hiroku in 5 fascicles; and Shūzon (1788–1860 CE), author of the Gokyōshō Kōgi in 6 fascicles, among others. Numerous doctrinal treasures, with the Gokyōshō Kōgi as the principal scholarly work, have come into the world, and the pulse of Huayan studies has continued without interruption, its spiritual life preserved down to the present day. New directions of development may also be seen beginning to sprout; this is nothing other than the result of the deep, sustained efforts of transmission and preservation made by successive scholars.

Chapter Four: Doctrinal Classification and Critique

1. The Character of the Huayan Classification of Teachings

Whatever the many divergences of Buddhism may be, all developed and branched off from the single source of Śākyamuni. Originally, the Buddha's methods of teaching employed a policy of individual-oriented education, adapting his discourse to the capacities of those he addressed—the so-called "giving medicine according to the illness" style of preaching. Even during the Buddha's lifetime, matters were already complex and multifaceted, which is not difficult to imagine. During Śākyamuni's lifetime, however varied his explanations may have been, his disciples felt directly the unifying and guiding personality of the Buddha himself, so subjectively they entertained not the slightest contradiction or doubt. Naturally, they received all teachings with a pure heart of absolute devotion. After the Buddha's passing, though, with the central personality gone, the community gradually fell into division, and there was no recourse other than the sacred task of compiling the scriptures. The splitting of the Hīnayāna into twenty factions, and the subsequent emergence of five hundred heterodox doctrines, all developed naturally out of these circumstances. With the later development of Mahāyāna thought and the formation of Mahāyāna scriptures flourishing day by day, the magnificent compilation of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna scriptures that we now see was the result. Consequently, as regards the history of doctrinal classification, such teaching was already transmitted in India.¹ (Note: Already visible in the scriptures as examples of doctrinal classification: in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Jin translation), volume 34, the "Jewel King Tathāgata Emerging Chapter" (T.9, p. 616b), the simile of the three illuminations; in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, volume 2, the "Simile Chapter" (T.9, p. 12b–), the parable of the burning house and three carts; in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, volume 2, the "No-Self-Nature Chapter" (T.16, p. 693c–), the teaching of the three periods of existence, emptiness, and the middle; in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Southern recension), volume 13, the "Holy Conduct Chapter" (T.12, p. 690c–), the simile of the five flavors—all carrying a strong coloring of doctrinal classification. Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, volume 4 (T.25, p. 86a), contains the teaching of the Two Vehicles (Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna); Maitreya's Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, volume 76 (T.30, p. 718a–), suggests the three-period teaching of existence, emptiness, and the middle; and Fazang's Tangenki, volume 1, transmits the teachings of Jñānātapā and others (T.35, p. 111b–); Śīlabhadra's three-period teaching is also recorded in various treatises.)

What is more distinctive is that when Buddhism reached China, it evolved into a great variety of divergent forms. This was the natural result of the historical currents of the times, but it was also due to the Chinese national character. Such complex and disorderly Buddhism, if not given organization and integration, would inevitably have been difficult to transmit and maintain. Out of this unavoidable necessity arose the demand to achieve a unified organization—and this is why doctrinal classification became one of the great distinguishing features of Chinese Buddhism.² (Note: Among the various Chinese schools' classifications of teachings: Zhiyi's Lotus Sutra Profound Meaning, volume 10 (T.33, p. 801a), which speaks of the Southern Three and Northern Seven masters of doctrinal classification; Jizang's Da-pan-jing Youyi (T.33, p. 66b) and Lotus Sutra Profound Treatise, volume 3 (T.34, p. 382b); other doctrines include the Southern and Northern teachings of the Three Teachings, Five Periods, and Four Schools; Kuiji's Da-sheng Fa Yuan Yi Lin Zhang, volume 1 (T.45, p. 247a), which presents the Four Teachings of Definitive and Provisional Meaning; Fazang's classification of the ancient and modern Ten Schools; and numerous others too many to enumerate. (See Kugimiya Takeo's "Practicing Buddhist Studies," pp. 24–34.))

As for the history and process of the formation of doctrinal classification, at the outset the sūtras and treatises translated year by year were compared and coordinated, with objective work predominating. Thereafter, the patriarchs of each school, expending the full force of their lives, selected and upheld, on the basis of firm conviction and centered upon a particular scripture, a clear expression of the uniqueness and superiority of the teaching they maintained. On the one hand, this served to subjectively clarify the complete picture of those scriptures. Those who engaged in doctrinal classification, of course, had to undergo hardship, pouring out their heart's blood and devoting themselves utterly to their learning. The patriarchs thus invested their vital energies, with their conviction forming a deep foundation. Viewed from the surface, this may appear as merely a means of critiquing Buddhist logic and systematizing it; such an objective standpoint of comprehensive critique might be considered a secondary level—the primary, fundamental ideal was the subjective conviction that lay hidden within.

Chinese Buddhism's magnificent and broadly inclusive approach to classifying teachings may be called the finest of all. The two most renowned are Tiantai's "Five Periods and Eight Teachings" and Huayan's "Five Teachings and Ten Schools." Zhiyi, the formulator of the former, was influenced by the so-called "Three Masters of the South and Seven Masters of the North," toward whom he took a critical stance. Though his classification of teachings by substance kept the teaching itself at the center, both the Five-Period scheme and the Four-Teachings-of-Manner scheme leaned toward the outward and the pedagogical—toward guiding the listener—and in form possessed a vast inclusiveness, achieving the integrated system sketched above. The Huayan "Five Teachings and Ten Schools" scheme, drawn from the Essay on the Five Teachings③ (Note: Essay on the Five Teachings, vol. 1 [Taishō 45, p. 480b–].) and the Record of Exploring the Mystery④ (Note: Record of Exploring the Mystery, vol. 1 [Taishō 35, p. 110b–].), takes as its model the classificatory methods of ten ancient and contemporary masters presented earlier. Here, within a Dharma-centered discourse, inclusiveness is stressed and the classification of teachings treated as the supreme principle—an attitude worn openly on the surface. It appears as a comprehensive, critical synthesis of Buddhism, and it carries deeper significance in upholding the dignity of the teaching itself. Its religious aim is pointed, making the settling of the heart and the establishing of one's life-direction the final emphasis. In fundamental character, both are inclusive classificatory schemes. Yet Tiantai, adopting a pedagogical standpoint, builds upon an objective, tolerant foundation; Huayan, by contrast, is built upon the standpoint of attainment of the way, with breadth of method as its special feature. Both rest on a profound grasp of the Buddhist Dharma and share a philosophical cast of organization.⑤ (Note: Among the ten schools enumerated by Fazang as ancient and contemporary models for establishing teachings, the seventh—Nanyue Master Simha and Tiantai Master Zhiyi—established four teachings, presenting only the four substance-teachings of Tripitaka, Common, Distinct, and Perfect, without regard to the Five-Period classification. Moreover, the four manner-teachings classification is a character of Huayan doctrinal classification. Placing greater emphasis on the outward modes of teaching than on the inner substance of the teaching itself can be cited as incidental evidence.)

Next, the classifications actually presented by the Huayan patriarchs are, as commonly seen, manifold in kind—far from limited to one or two. Each reflects the distinctive features of its doctrinal approach, attempting to display its special character from multiple angles. From an absolute standpoint, all teachings are regarded as a single dazzling manifestation of the Dharma within the samādhi of the ocean-imprint; the division into "same" and "distinct" teachings seen within the One Vehicle Perfect Teaching should be called an absolute classification, separating them into fundamental and derivative teachings. From a relative standpoint, the division of teachings may be called a relative classification. Among these, the doctrinal standpoint centered on Huayan establishes—as particular-school classification and Five-Teachings classification—fundamental and derivative two-teaching classifications. Taking the fundamental scripture of Huayan as its foothold and adopting a transcendent standpoint, the scheme broadly penetrates other sūtras and treatises to determine their doctrinal status; this is termed the universal-school classification and the provisional-and-real two-teaching classification. Furthermore, rather than proceeding from the standpoint of the teaching that expresses, it directly joins the principle that is expressed with the capacities to which it is addressed, settling into place—regarding the school to be venerated—through the practitioner's engagement with those capacities. As for the school venerated, there is the particular-school ten-schools classification; as for the universal-school classification, the four-schools classification is established. Although there are thus various distinctions among classificatory schemes, those particularly developed and rich in doctrinal significance are the Five-Teachings and Ten-Schools classification and the same-and-distinct two-teachings classification. The latter, especially, simultaneously opens onto a contrasting judgment between the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle, providing excellent material for the complex and refined construction and examination of doctrine.⑥ (Note: In the fundamental-and-derivative two-teachings classification, the Avataṃsaka is called the fundamental teaching of the Dharma itself, while other scriptures of the Buddha's entire lifetime are designated derivative teachings adapted to capacities. This is the doctrine of different aspects in the establishment of teaching prior to and following the arising of teaching, as expressed in the Essay on the Five Teachings. The four-schools classification appears in the Commentary on the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith, vol. 1 [Taishō 44, p. 243b], the Commentary on the Treatise on the Non-Distinction of the Dharma Realm [Taishō 44, p. 61b], and the Profound Meaning of the Heart of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra [Taishō 39, p. 426b]. It is basically a relative distinction between the standpoint of emptiness and that of existence, the former teaching first, the latter later. Yet, having established an independent position for the Tathāgatagarbha–dependent-arising principle, they are: 1. the school of attachment to characteristics according to conditions (Hīnayāna teaching), 2. the school of ultimate emptiness and absence of characteristics (precisely the Three-Treatise school, indicating Prajñā and Madhyamaka), 3. the school of mere ideation and characteristic marks (precisely the Dharmadhātu-Characteristics school, namely Asaṅga and Vasubandhu's theory of consciousness-only), and 4. the school of Tathāgatagarbha–dependent arising (such sūtras as the Laṅkāvatāra and Ghanavyūha, and such treatises as the Awakening of Faith and Ratnagotravibhāga, which expound dependent arising in terms of the Tathāgatagarbha). Further, in the provisional-and-real two-teachings classification, within ordinary Mahāyāna teachings the relative superiority and depth of each is determined. Among these, works such as the Brief Commentary on the Heart Sūtra and the Notes on the Doctrinal Substance of the Twelve-Gate Treatise place the beginning-teaching standpoint as provisional and the final-teaching standpoint as real, possessing the meaning of a definitive judgment between nature and characteristics. Works such as the Profound Meaning of the Heart of the Laṅkāvatāra and the Commentary on the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna state in general that the latter three teachings are real teachings, grounded in the meaning of the convergence of nature and characteristics.)

2. The Five-Teachings Classification and the Ten-Schools Classification

The Five-Teachings classification should be regarded as Fazang's great consummation of the tradition. The surface rationale is the systematization of its organizational structure, but actually, on the basis of the theory in which he believed, and in order to clarify the entire Buddhist hierarchy, traces of his efforts can be seen throughout works such as the Essay on the Five Teachings, vol. 1① (Note: Essay on the Five Teachings, vol. 1 [Taishō 45, p. 481c–].), and the Record of Exploring the Mystery, vol. 1② (Note: Record of Exploring the Mystery, vol. 1 [Taishō 35, p. 116a–b], and the like. The former especially served as his model. First, the ten masters' theories of establishing teaching, ancient and contemporary, are enumerated; then his own is set forth, revealing traces of his personal character and the thoroughness of his intent in establishing the teaching.).

This, however, requires one to locate the original sources. The Five Teachings of Calm and Insight attributed to the First Patriarch Fazhun clearly indicates its immediate purpose to be the ordering of the gates of contemplation. Fazang's Five-Teachings classification accordingly takes this as the theoretical foundation and grounds itself in a content centered on the doctrine of attaining Buddhahood.③ (Note: The Five Teachings of Calm and Insight [Taishō 45, p. 509a] begins with the enumeration of: 1. the gate of existence-of-dharma but non-existence-of-self (Hīnayāna teaching), 2. the gate of birth being immediately non-birth (Mahāyāna beginning teaching), 3. the gate of thorough interpenetration of phenomenon and principle (Mahāyāna final teaching), 4. the gate in which both words and contemplation are cut off (Mahāyāna sudden teaching), and 5. the gate of the Avataṃsaka samādhi (One-Vehicle perfect teaching). However, in modern times a segment of Buddhist scholarship has cast doubt upon the attribution of the Five Teachings of Calm and Insight to Fazhun, suggesting it to be an uncorrected portion of Fazang's Notes on Roaming in the Dharma Realm. If this view is correct, then the tracing back to Fazhun as the source of the Five-Teachings doctrinal classification should provisionally remain unconfirmed. For now, the present discussion follows the traditional attribution.) According to the findings of research, however, receiving the whole work uncritically would be unsatisfactory. It is more helpful to consider the Second Patriarch Zhiyan, though the names of the Five Teachings themselves cannot be fully clarified there either. The only relevant passage is in the Kongmu Zhang, vol. 3, the "Ten Grounds Chapter," which speaks of the five vehicles of contemplation: "What is meant by the five vehicles is this. Humans and celestial beings together constitute one, namely the human and small vehicle. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas together constitute one, namely the small vehicle. That which is the purview of the gradual teaching constitutes one, namely the gradual-awakening vehicle. That which is the purview of the sudden teaching constitutes one, namely the sudden-awakening vehicle. The One Vehicle constitutes one, namely the consummate vehicle."④ ("Ten Grounds Chapter" [Taishō 45, p. 560b].) This is an explanation of the gradations in depth of the stages of practical cultivation. Since Fazang began to explicate this himself after presenting the classifications of ancient and contemporary establishments of teaching, clearly citing the various masters' establishments of teaching as he saw them, the bulk of it is Huiguang's three teachings of gradual, sudden, and perfect: to those whose faculties are not yet ripe, impermanence is taught first, and thereafter the doctrine of permanence; what first teaches emptiness and later teaches non-emptiness, in which profound and subtle teachings are expounded gradually, is the gradual teaching; for those whose faculties are fully ripened, within a single Dharma-gate all dharmas are expounded at once—this is the sudden teaching; for those of the highest faculty, within a portion of the Buddha-fruit's realm, the unfettered perfection of the Tathāgata's fruit-virtues is expounded—this is the perfect teaching. This is the method of the three-teachings classification. Within the gradual teaching the beginning and final teachings are set up; with the introductory Hīnayāna teaching added, the five teachings result. It is conjectured that this consideration was greatly influenced by the thought contained in his Commentary on the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith. That is to say, in the Awakening of Faith, regarding tathatā there is the understanding of "transcending verbal expression" and "dependent upon verbal expression," and from this the two teachings of sudden and gradual were conceived. Within the tathatā dependent upon verbal expression, with the meaning of emptiness and non-emptiness, the final teaching and beginning teaching are distinguished; and adding the Hīnayāna and perfect teachings, this is what is implicitly known.⑤ (Note: After the explanation of the Five Teachings in the Essay on the Five Teachings, it is also clearly expounded in accordance with the Awakening of Faith that the beginning, final, and sudden teachings are established. This point is particularly noted in Zhan Rui's Commentary on the Five Teachings Memoir, vol. 12 (Nihon Bukkyō Zensho edition, p. 233a). Furthermore, the closing portion of Jōrei's Notes Pointing to the Meaning of the Five Teachings Memoir, upper scroll (Nihon Bukkyō Zensho edition, p. 47b–), lists two theories regarding the doctrinal basis of the Five-Teachings classification: the first holds that there is no doctrinal basis in any single sense, the second that it is based upon such sūtras as the Saṃdhinirmocana, Laṅkāvatāra, and Lotus Sūtra. The first position's grounds are too weak, while the second position suffers from being excessively one-sided.)

Therefore, when one further analyzes and critiques Fazang's attitude, regarding the doctrine of attaining Buddhahood as seen from Zhiyan's practical standpoint: because he understood that the entirety of Buddhism, through the Tathāgata's one great skillful means, gathers and guides sentient beings, unfolding stage by stage, for this consideration there are at least four fundamental oppositions within it: the opposition of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the opposition of the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle, the opposition of gradual and sudden, and the opposition of becoming-and-not-becoming (that is, whether all attain Buddhahood or only a portion do). He first gazes upon the entirety of Buddhism from a common Buddhist conception, perceiving the opposition of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; further, within Mahāyāna, he perceives the opposition between the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle. Within the Three Vehicles he distinguishes again between the gradual teaching and the sudden teaching. Within the gradual teaching he again finds the position that all become Buddhas and the position that only a portion do not. Moreover, his most fundamental intention is, while embracing all Buddhism within the inexhaustible One Vehicle of Huayan (the standpoint of the same teaching), to make it further serve as the highest standard for everything (the standpoint of the distinct teaching). Although the result, relying on an inductive method, displays a self-consistent approach, at its center stands, with the inexhaustibly layered dependent-arising of the Dharma Realm, a deductive critical attitude that becomes visible.

First, the Hīnayāna teaching: in sūtras and treatises such as the Āgamas, Vibhāṣā, and Abhidharmakośa, the emptiness of the person is vigorously explained. From a theoretical standpoint, the Abhidharma school of dharmic characteristics establishes only seventy-five dharmas and goes no further than explaining consciousness up to the sixth. From a practical standpoint, regarding the fundamental awakening of the Buddha, it is plain that within lived experience it has not yet been digested; it establishes a real nature of permanence for external objects and explains the six consciousnesses merely through various cognitions, failing to grasp the unified content of the practical enactment of the one mind in the principle of object and consciousness. Their eighteen schools, or those split into twenty, wrangled over empty disputation; thus arose the scholastic sectarian Buddhism of excessive complexity.

The second, the Mahāyāna beginning teaching: this means the elementary gate within Mahāyāna. Based on the dharmic characteristics set forth in such works as the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and the Consciousness-Only Treatise, it widely explains one hundred dharmas and establishes eight consciousnesses, yet still fails to exhaust the source of dharmas. Therefore, on the basis of self-awareness, it establishes the doctrine that the five natures are each distinct; this is called its practical foundation. Precisely because of this, it establishes that a portion of sentient beings cannot attain Buddhahood, and the three natures differ from one another in characteristics. Because phenomena and principle are set apart, the relationship between tathatā and the phenomenal world is disjoined; tathatā is regarded as inertly fixed, does not produce the various dharmas, and its thorough interrelatedness is not understood. In its lived experience, on the metaphysical original-one-principle of phenomenal dharmas, it has not yet attained close connection—an abiding regret. When Fazang classifies such a dharmic-characteristics teaching as the beginning teaching, the emptiness-beginning teaching refers to the teaching-characteristic of ultimate emptiness and absence of characteristics as expounded in Prajñā and Madhyamaka sūtras and treatises—the Three-Treatise school, for instance, is the emptiness-beginning teaching. There are these two cases, and in terms of the doctrine of attaining Buddhahood, the characteristic-beginning teaching and the emptiness-beginning teaching are arranged in order of shallower and deeper. Concerning the question of emptiness and non-emptiness, the relative order of shallowness and depth between the two is not necessarily fixed. Chenguan, who continued Fazang's synthesis of the nature and characteristic teachings, put forward the definitive judgment of nature and characteristic, decisively placing the emptiness-beginning teaching above the characteristic-beginning teaching.

The third, the final teaching: this means the ultimate meaning of Mahāyāna; it is also called the mature teaching. Taking the Tathatā–dependent-conditions Dharma-Gate as expounded in sūtras such as the Śrīmālādevī, Mahāparinirvāṇa, and Ghanavyūha, and in treatises such as the Awakening of Faith and Ratnagotravibhāga, the three natures are at one boundary, and it is taught that principle and phenomenon are not two. It speaks little of the distinguishing features of dharmic characteristics, teaches that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, and emphasizes that all sentient beings may attain Buddhahood. However, this standpoint transcends the actual to realize its ideal; the standpoint of its lived experience translates into a transcendence of the actual, where enlightenment is understood as the grasping of ideal meaning. Cutting through afflictions and realizing bodhi, departing from saṃsāra to enter nirvāṇa—since in the non-sentient (apravṛtti) there is no capacity for awakening, the position of the operational Buddha-nature is posited, while the noumenal Buddha-nature is set as the conclusion. Here too is a point not yet fully penetrated; an issue concerning the ultimate of theory is left behind—an unavoidable difficulty whose boundary cannot be discerned.

The fourth, the sudden teaching: it is named from "sudden consummation" and "sudden speed" being taught regarding the result of doctrinal principle. It corresponds to the sudden-mirror-appearance doctrine in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (in which the first ground is non-gradationally identical with the eighth), the teaching of silent non-duality in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, the teaching that sentient beings are originally Buddhas in the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, and the like. It unfolds the true face in which affliction is itself bodhi and saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa, and the actual and the ideal are just as they are, in such a still state, requiring one to cast off the dualistic view—an unspoken and deeply felt matter.

Furthermore, regarding the sudden teaching, Fazang's disciple Huiyuan, in the Definitive Commentary, vol. 1⑥ (Note: Definitive Commentary, vol. 1 [Manji Zokuzōkyō 1.5.1, p. 12b].), contrasting the sudden teaching with Fazang's Five-Teachings classification through the standpoint of his own four-teachings classification, criticized it, maintaining that to abandon verbal expression in order to reveal the principle would render the teaching that expresses it unable to be established as the sudden teaching. He also raised the criticism that even though the final and perfect teachings, which depart from words without obstructing verbal instruction, should likewise be called the sudden teaching. Later, Chenguan attempted a vigorous refutation. Conversely, relying on his own reasoning to rebut, he rendered the standpoint of the sudden teaching yet more lucid in accordance with his own independent view. Namely, in the Prolegomenon to the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 5⑦ (Note: Prolegomenon to the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 5 [Manji Zokuzōkyō 1.8.3, p. 251a].), in the sudden teaching, what is expressed is of course "principle"; when this is explained as "sudden," there cannot be lacking that which expresses it. The teaching that expresses it is established on the basis of the principle that is expressed. If, in accordance with its expression, the Three Vehicles are the gradual teaching, then the expression in which matter and matter are unobstructed is the perfect teaching. If so, then since what is expressed is the principle, one should not deny that there is a teaching that expresses it. Furthermore, if the teaching departs from verbal expression and is identical to the principle, and is not a teaching set apart, then the final and perfect teachings should also be called the sudden teaching. If so, then the distinction of the Five Teachings cannot be established. If this is the case, then it is as though the figure has entered the chamber yet the wisdom cannot ascend to the hall; the sharp commentary laments that this is precisely because the profound purport of true Chan has not yet been penetrated, and thus the meaning of the sudden teaching has not been reached.

Furthermore, Chengguan notes that the Tiantai school does not set apart a sudden teaching within its fourfold doctrinal scheme — for each of the four already contains a wordless truth. Fazang, by contrast, deliberately opens a sudden teaching for those of a particular capacity: "this simply follows the Chan tradition," as he says. Bodhidharma's mind-to-mind transmission belongs precisely to this category — truth beyond words, conveyed through what might be called a wordless speech. In making this move, Fazang shows that the sudden teaching does not stand outside the Northern and Southern schools of Chan, but marks out a fresh standpoint for Chan itself. On the surface, however, he never quite spells this out; the explicit linking of the sudden teaching with Chan begins with Chengguan. Later, Zongmi inherited the fivefold classification and wove the final and sudden teachings together, then equated the sudden with the perfect, thereby articulating the unity of doctrine and Chan. Chengguan's identification of Chan with the sudden teaching, together with Zongmi's contribution, laid the foundation for this school that integrates doctrine and Chan.

The fifth is the perfect teaching. So named because the Huayan Sūtra is called the "complete sūtra," its doctrine speaks of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, the unhindered interfusion of thing with thing, and the inexhaustible ten mysteries of dependent origination — the supreme teaching of the One Vehicle. It also contains both the shared and the distinct teachings; whatever lies outside the Huayan Sūtra cannot be included. Sūtras outside the root sūtra of Huayan that share its essential meaning are called the "shared teaching"; they are not called the perfect teaching itself. Its lived content breaks free of the theoretical view that places enlightenment apart from affliction and nirvana apart from samsara across different times. In direct self-verification, experience itself is the mutual identity of all phenomena. Delusion and awakening are not confined to a static view; they are realized in every dynamic movement, since the dharma-realm is wholly the fruition-body of Vairocana.

What one sees on the surface of this fivefold classification is the outward appearance of ritual forms; underneath lies a discrimination of principles. In the end, it is constructed from the standpoint of a practical theory of Buddhahood.

The tenfold classification of schools takes the fivefold classification as its starting point: "teachings are divided according to dharma, and there are five kinds of teaching"; correspondingly, "schools are opened according to principle, and there are ten schools"⑧. The difference is only one of intent — dividing by teaching on the one hand, by school on the other — while the underlying rationale remains unchanged. The distinction lies in honoring the actual practice appropriate to each capacity. More deeply, it signals that if the standpoint of doctrine is principle, the standpoint of practice must be method. Hence even the Hīnayāna teaching is divided into as many as six schools.

The ten schools are arranged according to the Five Teachings Chapter, which surveys the doctrinal schemes of ancient and modern masters: Tan Yin (Master Dayan) with four teachings⑨, Zi Gui (Master Hushen) with five teachings⑩, An Lin (Master Qishe) with six teachings⑪, and so on. The division of Hīnayāna into six schools follows the first six of the eight schools established in Kuiji's Profound Praise of the Lotus Sūtra, vol. 1⑫ and Forest of Meanings in the Dharma Garden, vol. 1⑬. In that scheme, the eighth school, "True Virtue Is Not Empty," assigns the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra to the highest rank, treating it as the final-teaching stage from the standpoint of unifying nature and characteristics — presumably after consulting the views of the masters mentioned above, the tenfold classification was settled. The seventh school, "All Is Empty," places teachings like the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras at the entry to the Mahāyāna, not within the characteristics school of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. The next school, True Virtue Is Not Empty, is elevated to the final-teaching rank. Because Chengguan's tenfold classification uses the order of the four dharma-realms⑭, one can see, in the arrangement of the four Mahāyāna teachings that follows, an intent toward a decisive judgment of nature and characteristics. A comparison will be made shortly.

The first of the ten schools is the school of "I and dharma both exist." This teaches the five precepts and ten virtues, containing the worldly dharma of the human-and-heavenly vehicle. It subsumes the Vātsīputrīya, Dharmottarīya, Bhadrayānīya, Saṃmitīya, and Mahīśāsaka schools within Hīnayāna. The Vātsīputrīya establishes three aggregates of dharmas: the conditioned aggregate, the unconditioned aggregate, and the neither-two aggregate. The first two are dharma; the last is "I." It also posits five "treasuries" — past, future, present, unconditioned, and inexpressible — of which the first four are dharma and the last is "I." Since both I and dharma are present in this way, the school takes the name "I and dharma both exist." But the "I" here is not the self either identical with or separate from the aggregates posited by non-Buddhist schools; it is an "I" that is neither identical with nor separate from the aggregates, established with reference to the subtle continuity of the dharma-body. In substance it should be subsumed under dharma; only nominally is it set up as "I-and-dharma-both-exist."

The second, "Dharma exists, I does not," includes the Sarvāstivāda, Haimavata, Bahuśrutīya, and the later reckoning of the Mahīśāsaka, among others. These classify all dharmas into seventy-five, grouping them under five universal categories. They hold that the three times truly exist and that the dharma-nature is permanent; hence "dharma exists, I does not."

The third, "Dharma has no coming and going," includes the Mahāsaṃghika, Kukkuṭika, Caitika, Aparaśaila, Uttaraśaila, Dharmaguptaka, and Kāśyapīya schools. Within dharma, the present and the unconditioned have substantial existence, but the past and future have neither substance nor function.

The fourth, "The present is provisionally real," belongs to the Prajñaptivāda. Within present dharmas, there is existence; the five aggregates have real substance, while the twelve sense-bases and eighteen elements are provisionally established with respect to the five aggregates.

The fifth, "The worldly is false, the true is real," is the position of the Lokottaravāda. The defiled worldly dharma — the causes and effects of the two truths of suffering and origination — is false and provisional; only the undefiled supramundane dharma, the causes and effects of the two truths of cessation and the path, is real.

The sixth, "All dharmas are merely names," is the position of the Ekavyañjanaka. All dharmas — worldly, supramundane, defiled, undefiled — are merely provisional names; everything is empty of substantial existence. But the emptiness here differs from the "dharma-nature emptiness" later taught in the Mahāyāna. This is analytic emptiness: dharmas are analyzed and resolved into emptiness alone. These six schools all belong to Hīnayāna within the fivefold classification; their meaning proceeds from shallow to deep, and according to the depth at which each school is honored, six divisions are distinguished.

The seventh, "All is empty," is the initial gate of the Mahāyāna, corresponding to the emptiness taught in the Prajñāpāramitā.

The eighth, "True virtue is not empty," is the final teaching within the fivefold classification. It teaches that suchness, following conditions, is not empty; suchness in its own nature is pure and originally endowed with qualities of virtue as countless as the grains of sand in the Ganges.

The ninth, "Both characteristics and thought are cut off," cuts off both objective appearance and subjective thought; the principle of cutting off words is, precisely, the sudden teaching.

The tenth, "Perfect brightness, complete virtue," is the One Vehicle of the distinct teaching of Huayan. In every single dharma, all is complete; all virtues are fully present; lord and retinue are at ease; the one and the many are mutually identified; thing interpenetrates thing without obstruction⑮.

The content of these ten schools, taken as the doctrinal basis shared with the five teachings, shows the classification centered on principle. In theory nothing exceeds the fivefold organization. The ten schools are set out additionally so that, from the standpoint of where beings incline, the classification becomes complete — particularly as Fazang intended the meaning of unifying nature and characteristics.

3. Classification of Shared and Distinct Teachings

The Huayan classification determines the place of every sūtra and treatise within the entire scriptural canon. Its essential aim is not to weigh the depth or shallowness of a school's doctrinal rank, though to some extent it includes such judgments; viewed from that angle alone, it would be little more than a peripheral departmental observation. To grasp the character of the Huayan classification, one must examine the underlying logical principles more deeply and broadly. The rationale of the fivefold classification, just discussed, concerns dharma-characteristics and suchness — the standpoint of characteristics and the reasoning of nature — arrived at through investigation of sūtras and treatises. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, for example, is classified as the initial teaching from the standpoint of characteristics; from the standpoint of nature, its non-emptiness teaching draws it into the final teaching. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is at first placed in the final teaching, but when set alongside the Ratnagotravibhāga and the like, it is placed on a level with the Vimalakīrti Sūtra as a sudden-teaching stage — showing a classificatory attitude of inclusiveness. All of this takes the unification of nature and characteristics as its logical foundation, as seen in the arrangement of teachings and schools in the tenfold classification; the teaching of Xianshou [Fazang] too is grounded in this same logic.

Yet, from the standpoint of inclusiveness through unification of nature and characteristics that runs through the whole doctrinal tradition, the strict and discriminating attitude of separating nature and characteristics is not entirely set aside. As seen in the twofold classification of expedient and real, and in the fourfold classification of schools, a general classification serves as the standard, while particular classifications treat the fivefold and tenfold as relative. The shared-and-distinct classification, taken as an absolute judgment, especially brings out the distinctive character of Huayan teaching. In particular, within the Huayan Sūtra, the Buddha's samādhi of the ocean-seal is indicated, in which all dharmas shine forth at once①. For the bodhisattva of the distinct One Vehicle — the great bodhisattva Samantabhadra — the teachings, wisdom and severance, practice and stage, cause and effect to be cultivated are all inexhaustible. Within the perfect teaching, there are also beings of middling and lesser capacity who cannot complete the inexhaustible practice in a single sitting; therefore a portion of the Three Vehicle must be shown to dwell provisionally in a shared position. Otherwise, within the inexhaustible, the differences among some Three-Vehicle beings should not be stuck in a single isolated gate. The result is that the shared and distinct teachings belong to the two gates of difference and equality within the ocean-seal samādhi; the shared teaching is not the gate of difference manifested before the wisdom gained upon emerging from samādhi. These two teachings are divided thus, and in the end, with shared-and-distinct unobstructed, they are together regarded as the One Vehicle perfect teaching②.

The shared-and-distinct classification is based on Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, vol. 100, which speaks of two kinds of prajñāpāramitā: one taught in common with the śrāvakas, and one taught only for bodhisattvas dwelling in the ten stages throughout the ten directions③. The distinction between shared and unshared prajñāpāramitā had already served as a partial foreshadowing, but it was only when Huayan teaching took it up as its own thought — based on Zhiyan's Kongmu Chapter, vol. 4, "Chapter on Unification"④ — that it acquired this shape. Yet what one sees at this point is only an incomplete sketch of a classification; a full systematic exposition is not yet at hand. A complete and integrated organization had to wait for Fazang's account of establishing the One Vehicle in Five Teachings Chapter, vol. 1⑤.

According to Fazang's thought of the distinct One Vehicle of Huayan, established over against the One-Aspect expedient of the Three Vehicle and the like, the doctrinal standpoint is made clear within the framework of shared and distinct. The distinct teaching is for those of superior capacity within the One Vehicle, directly revealing the fundamental meaning of the Buddha's awakening. The shared teaching is for those of the Three Vehicle, who cannot immediately fathom the depths of the Great Dharma; so the Three-Vehicle teachings are explained as provisionally lodged within the One Vehicle — a means of gradually leading them into the One Vehicle. Therefore, "distinct" in the distinct teaching, from the standpoint of the relative gate, should be understood in the sense of difference and is interpreted as the gate of dividing characteristics. From the standpoint of the absolute gate, it should be interpreted in an unshared sense, and so it stands as the gate of inclusion. The former, when comparing the Three-Vehicle teachings to display their superiority, allows one to penetrate the scope of understanding. The latter, interpreting the distinct teaching as including the whole of Buddhism, presents it as the sole absolute and unshared perfect teaching. But one must recognize that the meaning the distinct teaching originally carries is that of the relative gate's "different." As for "shared" in the shared teaching, it carries the sense of common and not-different — the basic meaning that Three Vehicle and One Vehicle are harmonized as one. Thus, viewed from the standpoint of the One Vehicle, or understood through the Three Vehicle, two meanings are considered: branching out from the root, or gathering the branches back into the root. As understood above, when the shared and distinct teachings are considered together, the meaning of the Huayan doctrine's being called the perfect teaching differs from the perfect teaching as named in the Tiantai school's fourfold scheme. The Tiantai perfect teaching is the absolutely inconceivable wonderful Dharma, but it maintains only the side of discriminating the Three Vehicle. The Huayan perfect teaching, however, fully embraces both shared and distinct. Thus, the complete sūtra of Huayan, on the one hand, differs from the One-Aspect isolated gate of the Three Vehicle; at the same time, it includes the Three Vehicle and other teachings to manifest the inexhaustible dependent origination of the distinct One Vehicle. Within its one perfect teaching, through the perfect Three Vehicle as a medium, the possibility of those of Three-Vehicle capacity not losing their share becomes the shared One Vehicle. Indeed, all the Tathāgata's teachings appear within the ocean-seal samādhi, and this must be said to be because of the shared One Vehicle. In other words, when the differentiated branches of teaching are explained as the whole span of teachings according to the diverse capacities of beings, the root dharma sought in the ocean-seal samādhi is the shared One Vehicle.

4. The Problem of the Three Vehicles in Opposition to the One Vehicle

The way the distinct teaching (biéjiào) interprets its name and meaning is entirely different from how the shared teaching (tóngjiào) does, but the shared one-vehicle is not the distinct one-vehicle—it is a skillful means that accommodates the three vehicles rather than reducing them to a single, uniform form. It's precisely through this shared one-vehicle that we can grasp the infinitely complex character of the distinct one-vehicle's essence and significance, and the reasoning behind what has been said above can be inferred from this.

Next, if at their deepest root the three vehicles and other Dharma gates belong to the shared teaching, then doesn't the foundational meaning of all the Buddha's lifetime of teachings ultimately resolve into emptiness? From the standpoint of the shared one-vehicle, all the innumerable Dharma gates are originally skillful means that flow forth from, are pointed to by, and are subsumed within the one-vehicle. They should therefore be located in the shared one-vehicle, not in the three vehicles and the like. Yet sentient beings have immeasurable differences in capacity; some cling to the three-vehicle and other teachings as their own conviction, following them as ultimate truth. For those who hold such views, the three vehicles are not the one vehicle, and it would be hard to call them the same shared one-vehicle.⑥ As a result, anyone who stubbornly treats the three-vehicle teaching as thoroughly real will find it hard to say that their holding of it counts as the shared one-vehicle.

What is originally a three-vehicle Dharma, once seen clearly, turns out to be nothing other than the perfectly unified distinct teaching—the one-vehicle in its absolute wholeness. From this standpoint, one can critique the framework the shared one-vehicle establishes, which sets up the relative perspective of the three vehicles alongside the distinct one-vehicle while also treating the three vehicles as equivalent to the distinct teaching. This is because both the three vehicles and the distinct teaching share the shared teaching as their common essence.

Chengguan holds that the shared one-vehicle is shared with the sudden and shared with the perfect teaching, while the distinct one-vehicle alone possesses the fully integrated, all-encompassing virtue. This is meant to bring out the meaning of the word "distinct" (bié)—namely, "not shared [with the three vehicles]."⑦ The unimpeded interpenetration of principle and phenomena is the same as in the final teaching, hence "shared with the perfect." The meaning that transcends all conceptual thought is the same as in the sudden teaching, hence the shared one-vehicle. The distinct teaching is not shared with the three vehicles, the sudden, or the perfect teaching. This explains that Tiantai occupies the ground of the final and sudden teachings: in terms of capacities, "opening the three and revealing the one" and "gathering the three into the one" are gradual; in terms of the Dharma, the manifestation of unimpeded perfect integration is sudden. In this way, the Lotus Sūtra and the Huayan Sūtra relate to each other through the distinction between shared and distinct one-vehicle. On one hand, this declares the Huayan school's position vis-à-vis Tiantai; on the other, grounded in the practice-ground, it is a great skillful means for leading practitioners to awaken to the Huayan Dharma realm.

Later, Zongmi, in the first volume of his Subcommentary on the Universal Worthy's Conduct and Vows⑧, took the Chan teaching of sudden awakening in a single thought as a Huayan nature-arising Dharma gate. Practice-and-entry into nature-arising differs from all other teachings, and he assigned the "all-exclusive" (全簡) method to the distinct teaching. The dependent-origination Dharma gate, which pervades the one-vehicle for the final teaching and those above it (the latter three teachings), received the "all-inclusive" (全收) method, assigned to the shared teaching. Likewise, the standpoint grounded in practice sees it as the ultimate point of entry; the claim of the perfect teaching of the nature-arising gate matched the spiritual climate of the times and broke with traditional explanations—which is why it naturally drew criticism.⑨

---

The fivefold classification of teachings moves freely between opening and integrating. The first of these is the teaching for the unenlightened two-vehicle; the last is the perfect teaching. The three teachings in between—initial, final, and sudden—are collectively called the three vehicles.① Within the perfect teaching, the shared and distinct teachings are distinguished. By examining the relationship and interweaving of the three vehicles with the one vehicle, we determine what place the one-vehicle doctrine occupies within the overall teaching system.

Buddhist history does show the three vehicles and the one vehicle standing in opposition. In ancient India and after Buddhism reached China, this opposition flared up sharply at times. Once the question of Hīnayāna versus Mahāyāna shifted, the three-vehicles-versus-one-vehicle debate within Mahāyāna became a new focal point of contention. Whether all sentient beings can attain Buddhahood became a tangled issue and turned into a central concern of doctrinal study in Chinese Buddhism after the Sui and Tang. In Huayan teaching especially, the classification of shared and distinct teachings is bound up with the Huayan one-vehicle, and to trace the one-vehicle's place in the overall system, the three-vehicles-versus-one-vehicle question serves as essential material. It was first briefly indicated by Zhiyan, then elaborated most rigorously and boldly by Fazang into a full system, as discussed in earlier sections.

True, the shared and distinct teachings are a doctrinal classification within the Huayan school, but they go beyond the meaning of a simple classification. The fundamental meaning of Huayan one-vehicle doctrine offers profound philosophical content over against the remaining three-vehicle teachings, and its characteristic features express an important viewpoint—particularly in the shared one-vehicle. On one hand, it seeks to gather the three vehicles, Hīnayāna, and other teachings into the one vehicle, showing an inclusive stance; on the other, it hints at the difference between Huayan's distinct one-vehicle and Tiantai's Lotus Sūtra one-vehicle. The Lotus Sūtra maintains that there is no one-vehicle apart from the three vehicles—"opening the three and revealing the one" and "gathering the three into the one." In fact, the three-vehicle teachings it refers to are nothing other than those subsumed within the shared one-vehicle, and this confirms Tiantai's established position.

The term "three vehicles" refers to three kinds of teachings: the śrāvaka vehicle, the pratyekabuddha vehicle, and the bodhisattva vehicle, taught by the Buddha in sequence in response to the three different capacities of sentient beings—sharp, medium, and dull. The śrāvaka vehicle is the Dharma gate of the Four Noble Truths; the pratyekabuddha vehicle is the Dharma gate of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination; the bodhisattva vehicle is the Dharma gate of the Six Perfections. Among these, the bodhisattva vehicle, through the practice of benefiting both self and others, leads to the attainment of Buddhahood, so it is also called the Buddha vehicle.②

The term "three vehicles" appears often in the ancient Ekottara Āgama. The term "bodhisattva" is rare in the Āgama collection outside the Ekottara Āgama; it appears in the Dīrgha Āgama only in the section recounting the seven Buddhas of the past, where they are called bodhisattvas before attaining Buddhahood.③ In its earliest usage, however, "three vehicles" was not the later notion of three vehicles weighed against each other for their relative merits—it was simply a general way of grouping the Buddha's teachings. Later, as Mahāyāna thought developed and Mahāyāna scriptures were compiled on a large scale, attitudes denigrating Hīnayāna and uplifting Mahāyāna took shape; the opposition between the two became explicit, and hierarchies of praise and blame naturally arose. Then, moving from the Small Perfection of Wisdom period to the Large Perfection of Wisdom period, we see increasing clarity in the one-vehicle bodhisattva thought, and a deeper, more explicit distinction between the one vehicle and the three vehicles in the Lotus Sūtra and the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra.④

The Huayan Sūtra exalts the Samantabhadra Dharma gate and dismisses the two vehicles of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas as deaf and mute, as recorded in the <Entering the Dharma Realm> chapter. This represents the high point of Mahāyāna superiority claims. In the <Establishment of the One Vehicle> chapter of the Five Teachings Chapter—composed when Chinese Buddhism had reached the peak of its scriptural influence—Fazang quotes the passage on the three carts in the fire-house analogy from the Lotus Sūtra, volume 2, <Analogy>, and uses it as a crucial turning point. The three carts outside the door are used to lure the children out of the burning house, so they represent the three vehicles; the great white ox cart bestowed outside the boundary in the open ground represents the one Buddha vehicle, said to be the only true [vehicle]. He also explains the distinction between the gate of the cause aspect of dependent origination and the Samantabhadra Dharma gate.⑤

Because of the differences between the three vehicles and the one vehicle, it's actually easier and more fitting to compare the Huayan Sūtra—which directly displays the endless meaning of the distinct teaching—with the Lotus Sūtra, which presents the one vehicle in the same form as the three vehicles. In one-vehicle teaching aimed at doctrinal classification, if the two categories of shared and distinct one-vehicle are to be established, both must belong to the realm of one-vehicle teaching, and there must be a corresponding three-vehicle teaching set over against them. Yet the root Huayan sūtra does not present the three-vehicle teaching in its debates. To find further clarification, one must turn to the Lotus Sūtra, which sets forth the three vehicles and the one vehicle in direct opposition. The Lotus Sūtra "opens the three vehicles and gathers them into the one vehicle," while the Huayan Sūtra takes an absolute stance that wholly negates the three vehicles yet still allows their benefits. The Lotus Sūtra, which flourished so widely in Sui and Tang China, takes up the three-carts-versus-white-ox-cart issue as a living part of its doctrinal system.

Nevertheless, the Huayan perfect teaching, from its standpoint, takes the oppositional thought of one vehicle versus three vehicles and digests it with the broadest, most inclusive attitude. Within Fazang's system, the first volume of his Five Teachings Chapter, in the <Establishment of the One Vehicle> chapter, proposes the shared-and-distinct one-vehicle classification, as already explained. The shared one-vehicle takes the one-vehicle standpoint and considers two aspects: "issuing from the root to the branches" and "subsuming the branches back into the root." In "issuing from the root to the branches," the one vehicle is the agent of sharing and the three vehicles are what is shared; the three vehicles are branches flowing from the root of the one vehicle—this is what is meant by "flowing from, being designated by." "Subsuming the branches back into the root" is merely a provisional skillful means for returning the three vehicles to the one vehicle. From this perspective, the three vehicles become the agent of sharing and the one vehicle becomes what is shared—this is the meaning of "subsuming as skillful means." The three vehicles are thus things that flow forth, are designated by, and are subsumed as skillful means by the one vehicle; their independent meaning as separate three vehicles is determined and overridden by the one vehicle. The Five Teachings Chapter further divides this shared one-vehicle into two types: "distinguishing the various vehicles" and "integrating the root and branches." Its content is clear and penetrating: "distinguishing the various vehicles" reveals the essence of the shared one-vehicle, while "integrating the root and branches" shows that, although the various vehicles differ in essence, they belong to the same category and are thus merged within the shared teaching.

The distinct teaching is divided into the "gate of distinguishing characteristics" and the "gate of universal inclusion." The gate of distinguishing characteristics takes the absolute standpoint of the one vehicle against the relative standpoint of the three vehicles, seeking to establish their distinction based on doctrinal content in order to clearly show the differences in subtlety, profundity, and depth between the two. To express the essence proper to the distinct teaching, the Five Teachings Chapter draws on scriptures such as the Lotus Sūtra, the Huayan Sūtra, and the Sūtra on the Equality of Mahāyāna and presents ten categories of distinction:

1. Distinction between provisional and true
2. Distinction between teaching and meaning
3. Distinction in the goal sought
4. Distinction in meritorious qualities and capacity
5. Distinction based on the positions [of practice] to which they are assigned
6. Distinction in the entrusted mission
7. Distinction in the capacities and conditions of the recipients
8. Distinction between what is hard to believe and what is easy to believe
9. Distinction in revealing the principle according to capacities
10. Distinction in the opening and integration of root and branches

In a later passage of the Five Teachings Chapter on the "differences in the arrangement of teachings,"⑥ it explains the differing positions of the two sūtras—the Huayan and the Lotus—regarding the root and branches of the teaching. And in the passage on the "distinction of what is explained," regarding the Dharma characteristics that are their subject matter,⑦ it both has the character of a general Buddhist overview and explicitly lays out the doctrinal content of the one-vehicle and three-vehicle teachings. From this we can arrive at the doctrinal content of the distinct one-vehicle, defined by the boundaries of its principles. The ten differences in the arrangement of teachings are:

1. Difference in time
2. Difference in place
3. Difference in the teacher
4. Difference in the assembly
5. Difference in the basis [of teaching]
6. Difference in the discourse
7. Difference in the stages [of practice]
8. Difference in the practice
9. Difference in the Dharma gates
10. Difference in the events [or concrete phenomena]

Furthermore, based on the gate of universal inclusion, the three vehicles and one vehicle that were once distinguished by the gate of distinguishing characteristics are reduced back to the logical relation of both "not different" and "not one." The three vehicles, in their original nature, are the absolute expression of the one vehicle; they are not merely "distinguished in characteristics" but also "universally included." There is no separate vehicle existing in isolation outside the three vehicles. Although the one vehicle displays a lofty, exclusive character at first, it ends up encompassing and including all [teachings], forming a single part of the broader Buddhist tradition. Does this mean, then, that the one-vehicle perfect teaching is ultimately just one sect within Buddhism? No. The distinct one-vehicle should instead be understood as the center of Buddhism—its perfect, unimpeded integration and the oneness of all phenomena—and it is certainly the totality that encompasses the whole of Buddhism.

Then what is the difference between the comprehensive-inclusion gate of the Special Teaching and the harmonization of root and branch of the Common Teaching in their results? Furthermore, one must ask how the distinguishing-characteristics gate of the Special Teaching differs from the distinguishing of various vehicles of the Common Teaching. First, the Common Teaching's distinguishing of various vehicles is set up by descending from the One Vehicle above, through the Three Vehicles, down to the Small Vehicle and the Innumerable Vehicles, differentiating into countless vehicles. However, as noted earlier, this gate of distinguishing various vehicles is established precisely because it points to the substance of the Common Teaching on one hand while ultimately allowing the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle to be harmonized and united. If the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle are said to be common, then since they are equal from the start, one might say there's no need to single out a shared one-nature. Thus the point of distinguishing the various vehicles is, in the end, to clarify the meaning of the Three and the One being united.

The meaning of the Special Teaching's distinguishing-characteristics gate is entirely different. It argues that, wholly transcending the Three Vehicles, there is another, superior One Vehicle, in order to mark off a distinctive difference between the Special Teaching's One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles. In their fundamental stance, the two take entirely different positions, and they cast each other into relief through opposition. Further, the Common Teaching's harmonization of root and branch holds that while the doctrinal forms of the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle are inherently mutually pervading, their harmony is only a relative integration—their original relativity remains intact. The One Vehicle is always the root, the Three Vehicles end up as branches, yet they don't lose their relatively opposed positions. That's the mark of this teaching. But in the Special Teaching One Vehicle's comprehensive-inclusion gate, the Three Vehicles exist within the original One Vehicle. They're not allowed to stand isolated outside the One Vehicle, nor is any special form of root-and-branch recognized. The Common Teaching harmonizes the relativity of root and branch through an absolute, unshared integration of fundamentally different characteristics. Hence the logic of the comprehensive-inclusion gate more forcefully penetrates to the very core of the Huayan One Vehicle.

The Special Teaching One Vehicle's comprehensive-inclusion gate explains its doctrinal structure from an extremely broad standpoint, letting one grasp how the distinguishing-characteristics gate serves as the philosophical root of the Special Teaching One Vehicle as the genuine One Vehicle. On this basis, one sees clearly why the Common Teaching One Vehicle must be established on its own grounds. Through the distinguishing-characteristics gate, one comes to know the true face of the Special Teaching itself. At the same time, set on the foundation of both gates, the Special Teaching's presentation unfolds its fundamental stance and adds a further layer of clarity to its character and meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the entire Buddhist teaching's existence is clarified through the foundation and content of the Huayan teaching. Fazang, who used the method of harmonizing nature and characteristics throughout, not only brought the Huayan One Vehicle school to its great synthesis but, regarding its preservation and development, refused to be read—on external grounds—as a follower of the Consciousness-Only school. While adopting that methodology, one mustn't forget that the logic built by the Common Teaching One Vehicle's "harmonization of root and branch" and the Special Teaching One Vehicle's "comprehensive-inclusion gate" ensures the proper doctrinal content of each.

Furthermore, the Common Teaching One Vehicle's doctrine properly belongs to the Final Teaching's non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. For those with the capacity to turn from the Three and enter the One, the Three Vehicles are seen as skillful means of the One Vehicle, and all ultimately return to the One Vehicle. As the Lotus Sūtra says, "That which you practice is the Bodhisattva Path"⑧(Note: Lotus Sūtra, vol. 3, "Medicinal Herbs Simile Chapter" (Taishō 9, p. 20b).). Since the Three Vehicles are originally designated by the One Vehicle, there is also the matter of uniting the Three and returning to the One—subsumed within the perfect teaching of the Common Teaching One Vehicle. This is what the Treatise on the Five Teachings says: that the Common and Special Teachings are simultaneously manifested within the Ocean-Seal Samādhi, which is why this classification is called an absolute one. With Fazang's appearance, the Huayan teaching was able to display its distinctive qualities all the more. His achievement of grounding the teaching in philosophical theory is precisely why it earned the honored name of "Xianshou's Teaching." Such profound thought and experience, unifying the doctrinal organization, cannot but be praised as magnificent. The opposition between the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle in Sui- and Tang-dynasty China was debated endlessly over the centuries, with the Three-Vehicle and Four-Vehicle parties as the chief points of dispute. This is a historical fact. The One Vehicle's position always prevailed, which also shows that the theoretical system of the true Mahāyāna is thoroughly worked out.

Chapter 5: Dependent Origination and Nature Arising

1. Sources of Origin and Lineage of Transmission

The main focus of Huayan studies is to explain the ultimate unity of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination and to unfold the actual principle at its heart. The central thought running through Buddhism is dependent origination. Buddhism is customarily divided into two broad currents: the doctrine of true reality and the doctrine of dependent origination. These two are ultimately just two ways of viewing the thought of dependent origination from different angles, and because that thought takes different forms in different periods, the two currents end up looking quite divergent. In early Buddhism, the twelvefold chain of causation was the chief form of inquiry, arising from the Buddha's actual experience of attaining the path through both forward and reverse contemplation. The doctrine of karma and retribution took shape, giving rise to the scholastic philosophy of the sectarian schools. Then, with the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, the form and content of the śūnyatā view as centered on Nāgārjuna's system were introduced, organizing these teachings. Along the way, the idealist standpoint shaped it into consciousness-only dependent origination; Tathāgatagarbha thought offered another unifying thread; and the Avatamsaka Sūtra clearly established the fundamental standpoint of endless dependent origination. These various theories of dependent origination were transmitted to China, where each built its own doctrinal foundation. The Huayan teaching took the earliest dependent origination thought and deepened it thoroughly from within, developing until it reached a complete system—at the same time gathering the core of the Buddha's thought most faithfully. Later, the Shingon school's six-great-element dependent origination understood that the six elements already present in dharma-realm dependent origination are united with the person of Mahāvairocana. Whether in Zen and Pure Land thought, where meditation has reached its highest expression, or wherever religious understanding has been most fully unfolded, in the end it is dharma-realm dependent origination that represents the utmost philosophical depth and breadth of Buddhism as a religious standpoint.

The truth of dharma-realm dependent origination, in a word: all dharmas function mutually as endless lord and retinue among phenomena, mutually being and entering, perfectly harmonized without obstruction. Though each phenomenon is in itself independent and distinct, it cannot stand wholly apart from other phenomena—they are placed in mutual opposition and contradiction. Through "the negation of emptiness," this opposition, contradiction, and obstruction becomes unobstruction; hence there is endless, deep relationality in all things. Phenomena themselves are none other than True Suchness itself: this is dharma-realm dependent origination. But this dependent origination differs from the one-sided, isolated dependent origination of the Three-Vehicle teaching. No third set of causes and conditions is needed; within phenomena themselves the law of dependent origination is found. Its idealist original basis is called "nature arising." Compared with other theories of dependent origination, dharma-realm dependent origination has its own distinctive features—so it must be called the doctrine of nature arising. Seeing dependent origination and nature arising as one body is, in this way, the hallmark of Huayan studies. To understand these is the first step in dissecting the teaching.

Now, as seen in the Avatamsaka Sūtra, the sutra's explicating text has five divisions. The explicated meaning divides into the fivefold causation, as explained earlier.①(Note: Examination of the Mysterious Meaning, vol. 1 (Taishō 35, p. 120b), vol. 2 (ibid., p. 125b); Summary of Meanings (Taishō 35, p. 501b).) In its content, because of Samantabhadra, the fruition is Vairocana's causally conclusive causation, and this causation runs through the entire sutra as the broad scope of the fivefold causation. In the introductory section's "World-Cleansing-Eye Chapter," fruit-virtue is taught first, then cause-practice—the sutra is nothing other than clarifying cause and fruition as its premise. In the main section's first assembly, "Vairocana Chapter," it first explains the causation of what is to be believed: Vairocana as the fruit-Buddha's proper and dependent realms, and Bodhisattva Universal Adornment's past cause-practice—causing practitioners to arouse faith in the dharma realm. From the second assembly, "Names Chapter," to the sixth assembly, "Buddha's Small Marks Light Merit Chapter," a series of chapters explain the differential causation of the (five positions) after commencing cultivation—this is precisely the section explaining dependent origination. The last two chapters of the sixth assembly—"Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice Chapter" and "Jewel-King Tathāgata Nature-Arising Chapter"—explain Vairocana's equal causation. Cause must contain fruition, fruition must contain cause—mutual interpenetration, cause and fruition's inseparability. This differs from the Three Vehicles' one-aspect causation, where causation is plainly evident but not harmonized. This twofold equal causation, beginning with "Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice Chapter" within cultivation, does not speak of differential stages such as nature, practice, advancement, and ground—it only explicates Samantabhadra's vast, equal single cause. In the chapters after "Nature-Arising Chapter"—"Buddha's Inconceivable Dharma Chapter," "Tathāgata's Characteristics Ocean Chapter," "Buddha's Small Marks Light Merit Chapter"—differential fruition is shown, displaying only Vairocana's vast, equal single fruition. These two chapters are the causation of cultivation made manifest: this is precisely nature arising.②(Note: Questions and Answers on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, part 2 (Taishō 45, p. 609c): "This sutra, from the 'Names Chapter' to the 'Small Marks Light Merit Chapter,' clarifies the causation of cultivation and practice; from the 'Samantabhadra' and 'Nature-Arising' two chapters, clarifies the causation of arising.") On the basis of this nature-arising fruit-virtue doctrine, the explanation becomes one of two thousand practices—the seventh assembly's "Departing from the World Chapter." The "differential" and "equal" causations just mentioned stand in the position of "understanding," facing the position of "practice." The two thousand practices detailed are "cause-practice"; the function of wonderful enlightenment's eightfold accomplishment of the path is "fruit-practice." This accomplished causation of practice realizes the absolute nature arising of the fifty-one positions. The eighth assembly, "Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter," has the main assembly's sudden entry into the dharma realm and the final assembly's gradual entry—both are entry into the dharma realm. Taking Sudhana's journey of practice, benefit, and entry as the understanding, the result is still none other than nature arising and dependent origination. Knowing this, one sees that the entire sutra from beginning to end explains dependent origination and nature arising. In particular, the twenty-eight chapters from the "Names Chapter" onward explain mainly dependent origination, as the causation of cultivation's arising; the two chapters "Samantabhadra" and "Nature-Arising," as the causation of cultivation made manifest, center on the nature-arising gate. These distinctions must also be understood.③(Note: Cf. Gyōnen, Essentials of the Huayan School, "Sixth: Sequence of the Original Sūtra," "Seventh: Aspects of Practice and Characteristics" (included in the Japanese Tripiṭaka, Huayan section, works by various masters, vol. 631 ff.).)

How did the Five Patriarchs express the meaning and intent of these two gates? It can be said that the two gates—dependent origination and nature arising—aren't necessarily established on a logical foundation that argues they cannot be divided into one body; but in their doctrinal exposition, each takes its own main position and characteristic, and this can't be denied. Broadly speaking, they can be divided into the exposition of the first three patriarchs and that of the last two. The era of Dashun, Zhiyan, and Fazang was when the school was just beginning to take shape. On the one hand, it was the period when Xuanzang and Kuiji were establishing the Consciousness-Only teaching as a distinct school, making waves and consolidating their position while extending their doctrinal influence. Confronting this, the Huayan school had to take a countervailing stance. At the same time, given the trend toward harmonizing nature and characteristics, the school necessarily took its stand on the dependent origination gate, striving to systematize the doctrinal organization. Among them, Dashun, opposing the academicism of the Six Dynasties, inevitably opened the interpretation to various gates from the standpoint of contemplative practice; Zhiyan notably strengthened the methods of doctrinal organization. Based on Vasubandhu's interpretation of the dependent origination contemplation in the "Ten Grounds Chapter," he attempted to systematize it across the entire Avatamsaka Sūtra. Furthermore, in handling nature and characteristics, he took the standpoint of harmonizing his own school with the broader open gate, speaking of dependent origination. The third patriarch Fazang exerted his full effort toward the school's great synthesis, bringing its doctrinal organization to completion. In handling nature and characteristics, he likewise began from a naturally forceful harmonizing attitude, and within his unhurried composure one even glimpses the spirit of a sharp awl piercing a bag! His standpoint was the dependent origination gate, through which he established the dharma-realm dependent origination doctrine.

By the time of Chengguan and Zongmi, separated from Fazang by some eras and inheriting the school's great synthesis, the task of the dependent origination gate was no longer felt to be of great importance; instead, they devoted themselves to the practical side of the practice gate, producing distinct doctrinal characteristics. With the rise of the Zen school, freely teaching that "one thought unborn is precisely the Buddha," they boldly did not speak of the process of cultivation, correction, and cutting through delusion; instead, they promoted a policy of harmonizing teaching and Zen. Drawing on the nature-arising gate within the Avatamsaka Sūtra, they taught that all sentient beings are originally the fruition-characteristics of being freed from bondage—Zen's spiritually aware, unobscured one-mind and Huayan's one-mind dharma realm being one body in two aspects. Chengguan himself is said to have specialized in teaching nature-arising one-mind, keeping the Essentials of Huayan Contemplation④(Note: Manji Zokuzōkyō 1.8.4, p. 303a.) always at his right side and never setting it aside.⑤(Note: Chengguan studied Ox-head Zen under the masters Huizhong and Daoqin, and also inherited the Northern-school Zen of Huiyun. Additionally, from the dharma-heir of Heze Shenhui named Wuming, he learned the methods of Southern Zen. Zongmi understood the Zen of Heze, and studied Southern-school Zen under Daoyuan of Suizhou. He authored Preface to the Collection of Source Explanations of Zen, four volumes. He also deeply studied the Perfect Enlightenment Sūtra, authoring the Brief Commentary in four volumes, and the Commentary Notes in twelve volumes, among other works.) In the Commentary on the Universal Adornment Practice Vows Chapter, vol. 2, we find that one-mind is precisely the dharma realm; mind-substance is apart from thought—this is the nature-arising standpoint—teaching only perfect enlightenment, the form utterly transcended, far from what is awakened and that which awakens.⑥(Note: Manji Zokuzōkyō 1.7.3, p. 258a.) Likewise, in the Essentials of the Mind-Teaching in Reply to Emperor Shunzong, "the non-abiding mind-substance is Zen's spiritually aware, unobscured awareness."⑦(Note: Ibid., 1.8.4, p. 303a.) All of these hold that which is identical with Huayan's one-mind, maintaining that only from the standpoint of the unity of teaching and Zen can one grasp nature arising.

Additionally, Zongmi had the deepest karmic affinity with the Complete Enlightenment Sutra and devoted himself wholeheartedly to its commentaries. The Complete Enlightenment Sutra takes the original arising-ground of all the Thus-Come Ones as the foundational cause and practice and belongs to the scope of the Final Teaching. At the same time, taking the perfectly bright, pure awakening-aspect as the extinction of all fruit-characteristics, it also belongs to the scope of the Sudden Teaching. Yet Zongmi went beyond this, using the Complete Enlightenment Sutra to link up with the nature-arising of the one-mind Dharma-Realm of the Avataṃsaka, in order to grasp the Avataṃsaka itself, pointing directly to the essence and characteristics of the awakened mind. In fact, the Avataṃsaka Sutra stands higher than the Complete Enlightenment Sutra. In propagating the Avataṃsaka Dharma-gate this way, he took the marrow of the Complete Enlightenment Sutra as the principle that sentient beings are originally already buddhas, uniting it with the nature-arising gate of the Avataṃsaka Perfect Teaching. He even said that the Complete Enlightenment portion is identical with the Avataṃsaka. He further used the teaching of nature-arising to unite with the undimmed knowing heart of Chan, in agreement with Chengguan's propagation of the harmony of teaching and Chan.⑧(Yuanjue jing dashu, vol. 1 [Manji zokuzō 1·14.2·pp. 110b–]; this is treated in detail there. See also Chanyuan zhujun ji duxu for related passages.)

Furthermore, the principal scriptures upon which the first three patriarchs and the latter two patriarchs based their teachings are, on the one hand, the Jin translation, and on the other, the Tang translation. The two translations display different characters in expression, and of course it cannot be denied that each exerts a different influence according to its standpoint. Let us first examine the structure of their opening sections. In the Jin translation, this is the "Chapter on the Pure Eyes of the World" (Shijian jingyan pin); in the Tang translation, it is the "Chapter on the Wondrous Adornments of the World-Lords" (Shizhu miaoyan pin). As for the "Vairocana Chapter" (Lushena pin)—taking the Jin translation as the standard—its content covers the "Chapter on the Thus-Come One's Manifestation of Aspects" (Rulai xianxiang pin) through the five chapters ending with the "Vairocana" section. Of these five, the first two describe the ceremonial occasion of the teaching, presenting the proximate and distant skillful means as the causal conditions for expounding the Dharma. The latter three contain the principal exposition: with respect to the cause, they discuss the results of the various Buddhas, Vairocana, and the worlds. In the Jin translation's "Vairocana Chapter," within the Samādhi of Universal Worthy (Puxian sanmei), the five seas are contemplated and ten wisdoms are expounded. In the Tang translation, the "Samādhi of Universal Worthy Chapter" (Puxian sanmei pin) does not expound the Dharma. By the "Chapter on the Accomplishment of the World" (Shijie chengjiu pin), after Universal Worthy emerges from the samādhi, he contemplates the ten seas and expounds the ten wisdoms. The abbreviation within the samādhi indicates the profundity of the Dharma; the fruit-aspect cannot be spoken of, while within the cause-aspect of Universal Worthy it can be. From this we can see that cause and fruit are placed in opposition, with the speakable and the unspeakable understood accordingly.⑨(Note: See Fazang's Tanxuan ji, vol. 3 [Taishō 35·p. 156b] for an explanation of the abbreviated exposition within the samādhi.)

However, in the Tang translation, "Universal Worthy's Samādhi" is unspeakable, and "Accomplishment of the World" is speakable. This points to principle (li) and phenomena (shi), set up separately as the speakable and the unspeakable.⑩(Note: See Avataṃsaka Sutra, vol. 7 [Taishō 10·pp. 32c–] for the passage on not speaking within the samādhi and speaking upon emerging.) From this, by opposing Fazang's cause-and-effect gate to Chengguan's principle-and-phenomena gate, we can discern the original differences in the foundations from which they established their teachings. Fazang stood on the cause-and-effect gate in his exposition while containing within it the standpoint of the principle-and-phenomena gate. Centering his doctrinal system on the fruit-aspect Dharma-gate, he built a rationalistic teaching in which it was only natural that conditioned origination should serve as the primary focus. Chengguan, by contrast, took the principle-and-phenomena gate as primary, while his exposition contained within it the standpoint of the cause-and-effect gate. Since bodhisattvas in the cause-stage must follow a path of seeking, he had to establish a teaching of practice. Accordingly, the fruit-gate nature-arising that, in Fazang's practice-gate, lacked essential content nevertheless became the center of the path in Chengguan's teaching—indeed, it came to constitute its very essence. When it comes to establishing the contemplation-gate of nature-arising at this point, it was only natural that the nature-arising gate should be primary.

Of course, this does not mean that the successive patriarchs in the lineage limited themselves to expounding only these two gates or solely one of them, with no contact at all with other Dharma-gates. As in the Five Teachings Calming and Contemplation, "according with the perfect pearl" and "certifying the nature-sea"⑾(Note: Taishō, vol. 45, p. 512a. "Therefore, according with the perfect pearl, [one is] perfectly free; let no views be clung to. Certifying the nature-sea, [one is] unhindered, transcendently beyond things, transcending feeling and departing from thought.")—the Sudden Teaching's non-arising of a single thought and its entry through the severance of the temporal extremes before and after are equivalent to nature-arising. In the Kongmu zhang, vol. 1, the Sudden Teaching is said to belong to the Perfect Teaching.⒀(Note: Taishō, vol. 45, p. 537b.) Furthermore, in the Wangjin Haiyuan guan, beneath the one essence, one's own inherently pure and wondrous essence is none other than the true essence of one's own Tathāgatagarbha.⒁(Note: Same as above, p. 637b.) Though speaking of the nature-arising path-entry of attaining Buddhahood through no-thought, Zongmi also took into account the nature-arising teaching and incorporated it as material for harmonizing teaching and Chan. It should also not be forgotten that the second patriarch at one time stood upon the nature-arising gate; if he then shifted his standpoint, he could not but touch on the underlying thrust of conditioned origination (pratītyasamutpāda)—a matter evident everywhere.

In this way, the source-texts of these two gates, derived from the Avataṃsaka Sutra and passing through the tradition of successive transmission, formed the consistently maintained central teaching system. Through this, the Four Dharma-Realm Contemplations were opened up; an investigation into the synthesis of emptiness and existence was launched; and the doctrinal learning and contemplation-gate of the Ten Profound Dependant Originations and the Six-Characteristic Complete Interfusion were realized.

2 Meaning and Content

The phrase pratītyasamutpāda (conditioned origination) can be explained from many perspectives. One of these is the arising of causes and conditions, meaning the causal occasion for expounding sutras and composing treatises. As the Tanxuan ji, vol. 3, says: "The reason for conditioned origination is to display the causes from which the teaching arose."①(Note: Taishō, vol. 35, p. 147b.) This cites an explanatory passage from the Samyuktābhidharma (Za ji lun) that clarifies by means of causes and conditions. Moreover, this is in partial agreement with the explanation of the name "cause-aspect of conditioned origination" given for the Universal Worthy realm in the Five Teachings Chapter's opening "Establishment of the One Vehicle Chapter." The conditioned origination spoken of here differs in meaning from the explanation of the name given above; it should be understood as the Dharma produced by causes and conditions. In the Five Teachings Chapter, vol. 4, "Division of Principles and Meanings," it is said within the six-meaning Dharma of the cause-aspect of conditioned origination②(Note: Taishō, vol. 45, pp. 501b–.): "In the essence, emptiness and existence are expounded; in the function, depending on whether [the cause is] powerful or powerless, the arising of all dharmas is expounded."

This conditioned origination is the central thought of Buddhism as a whole, as just mentioned. This is especially so within the Five Teachings: the latter three teachings generally expound the Tathāgatagarbha-conditioned origination and, when discussing the self-nature of conditioned origination, additionally require the aid of other causes and conditions. The conditioned origination of the separate gate of the Perfect Teaching, however, is that the entire nature is function: within the Dharma-nature of Suchness, the dynamic function manifests immediately at the present moment, giving rise to the entirety of the Dharma-Realm-nature and expounding all dharmas. Therefore, for the Three Vehicles, it is merely a "cultivated-arising" (xiū qǐ) conditioned origination, whereas for the One Vehicle Perfect Teaching, it ought to be called the conditioned origination of "nature-arising" (xìng qǐ). Fazang's Avataṃsaka Sūtra Questions and Answers, vol. 1, makes this distinction in conditioned origination between the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle explicit: "The conditioned origination of the Three Vehicles is such that when conditions gather, [it] exists; when conditions disperse, [it] does not. It is not so with the conditioned origination of the One Vehicle. When conditions combine, it is not-being; therefore, when conditions disperse, it is also not non-being."③(Note: Taishō, vol. 45, p. 606a–.)

Hence, transmigration and return to extinction—the state of ignorance and the pure mind—are mutually powerful and powerless and yet mutually identical and mutually interpenetrating. One does not transmigrate merely on the basis of ignorance, nor return to extinction by virtue of the knowing of initial enlightenment alone.④(Note: Youxin fajie ji [Taishō 45·pp. 649a–].) Of course, this cannot be understood without the aspect of nature-arising. The Kongmu zhang, vol. 4, in explaining the meaning of nature-arising, says: "It clarifies the arising of conditions (缘起之际) of the One Vehicle Dharma-Realm."⑤(Note: Vol. 4 [Taishō 35·p. 580b].) The Tanxuan ji also explains nature-arising thus: "Though arising (起) is gathered through conditions, the conditions are necessarily without self-nature; the principle of non-self-nature manifests itself within the conditions. Therefore, in terms of what is manifest, it is simply called nature-arising (xìng qǐ)—as when, from the non-abiding source, all dharmas are established."⑥(Vol. 16 [Taishō 35·p. 405b].)

According to this explanation, nature-arising, while manifesting the meaning of conditioned origination, makes explicit the content of the One Vehicle conditioned origination. The result is nothing other than "arising yet not arising"⑦(Kongmu zhang, vol. 4 [Taishō 45·p. 580b]). Arising (起) possesses great understanding and great practice; within the discriminative-free Bodhicitta, there exist the mutually-identical and mutually-interpenetrating, infinitely layered aspects of the Dharma-Realm as it is in itself—yet this is not other than an arising that is not arising. Therefore, in phenomena it is not the case that a single phenomenon simply stops there; within the phenomenon there is an interpenetration of phenomenon and principle, transcending the conditioned origination that arises as a solitary aspect—the whole is function, an inexhaustible conditioned origination. This following-of-conditions manifesting of Dharma-nature is the entirety of the phenomenal world; one cannot but say it is perpetually being taken up. On the side of the Dharma-nature's manifesting, it is called nature-arising; on the side of the following-of-conditions manifesting, it is called conditioned origination.

Next, regarding "nature" (性) in nature-arising: Zhiyan already made this explicit⑧(Note: Same as above, under the name of the Baowang Rulai xìng qǐ pǐn in his commentary on the sūtra.): "Nature (性) is the essence; arising (起) is none other than the present ground of the mind (xīn dì—即是). It is the gathering of the aspects of arising and the entry into reality." The Buddha-fruit-nature freed from bondage is "nature." This is originally fully present in the mind of sentient beings; it is in no way the case that sentient beings must accumulate merit and cultivate before they can become buddhas. Fazang therefore explains that which is named "nature" by "unchangeability" and "principle-nature"⑨(Note: Tanxuan ji, vol. 16 [Taishō 35·p. 405a].). First, "unchangeable is named nature; manifesting function is named arising"—this is spoken of as the Thus-Come One's nature-arising. Second, "the true principle is named Suchness (rú) and is also named nature; moreover, manifesting function is named arising; it is also named Thus-Come (lái)." This is the Thus-Come One's nature-arising. Furthermore, Chengguan explains the "nature" in nature-arising by means of the two meanings of seed-nature (zhǒng xìng) and Dharma-nature (fǎ xìng)⑩(Note: Avataṃsaka Sūtra shu, vol. 49 [Taishō 35·p. 872b].). Seed-nature refers to what manifests as arising within the cause; it considers the practical aspect centered on bodhisattvas in the cause-stage. Dharma-nature can be stated as: "Whether it be the Suchness-body (zhēn) or the response-body (yìng), all are born from this." That is, it points out that the sutra takes the Buddha-body that should be manifested as the one-mind self-essence that wholly encompasses the ten thousand dharmas; this meaning is precisely in accord with Fazang's second meaning of the Thus-Come One as nature-arising. To sum up, in order to understand the "nature" of nature-arising according to the tradition, it is: essential nature (tǐ xìng), unchangeable nature (bù gǎi xìng), principle-nature (lǐ xìng), and seed-nature (zhǒng xìng). Essential nature is the comprehensive meaning of the entire essence; the other three natures represent particular meanings.

Next, "arising (起)" is the "arising of non-arising" and is "the present ground of Bodhi in the mind." Within the meaning of the mind, it is grasped that the three births of seeing-and-hearing, practice-and-realization, and certification-and-entry are constantly non-arising yet arising. So-called "great understanding, great practice, and the great positions of seeing-and-hearing are all present within the mind"⑾(Note: Five Teachings Chapter, vol. 4 [Taishō 45·p. 507a].). The self-nature of the one-mind Dharma-Realm inherently possesses wondrous function, and the virtuous function endowed in the fruit-nature manifests in this way⑿(Note: Kongmu zhang, vol. 4 [Taishō 45·p. 580b] speaks only of great practice and great understanding, but naturally also includes the great positions of seeing-and-hearing.). Therefore, the "arising" taught here is in no wise an arising from causes and conditions—this point must be understood.

Yet Fazang, in his commentary on the Baowang Rulai xìng qǐ pǐn chapter of the sūtra, explains: arising (qǐ) as manifesting function (xiǎn yòng)—the originally present principle-nature's manifesting is called "principle-nature arising"; the arising of the fruit that awaits maturation through hearing the teaching is called "practice-nature arising." When "principle-nature arising" and "practice-nature arising" both accompany cultivation-produced (xiū shēng) arrival at the fruit-stage, this is "fruit-nature arising." From this "fruit-nature," responsive transformative functions (yìng jī huà yòng) arise, and the special advocacy is placed upon "fruit-nature arising"⒀(Note: Tanxuan ji, vol. 16 [Taishō 35·p. 405a]: "Nature has three kinds: principle, practice, and fruit. Arising likewise has three: the principle-nature, obtaining its cause, manifests—this is called arising. The practice-nature, awaiting the assistance of hearing the teaching to generate the fruit—this is called arising. The third, fruit-nature arising, means this fruit-nature has no other essence; that very principle and practice together, when cultivation-produced reaches the fruit-stage, combine into fruit-nature; responding to capacities with transformative function is named arising. Therefore, each of the three stages has its own nature and its own arising; thus it is called nature-arising. In the present passage, the latter one is principally expounded, with the former two also expounded.").

However, the sentient beings of the cause-stage within bondage do not perceive this within their own minds. It is not only buddha-fruits and bodhisattvas who possess this self-nature; we ourselves, presently in the realm of delusion, simply cannot manifest and open up the actual virtue of the Buddha. In truth, buddhas and sentient beings have been and forever will be non-dual and without distinction. There is no denial that ordinary beings thus immediately arrive at the pure, perfect, bright fruit-essence. Those who especially emphasized this point—Chengguan and Zongmi—spoke of the undimmed single knowing heart, each thought becoming Buddha, the single mind being the Buddha-mind; this is the explanation that "not a single atom is not a Buddha-realm."

In one question-and-answer of Tanxuan ji, vol. 16, by contrasting the fruit-function of Avataṃsaka nature-arising with what is explained in the Three Vehicle teachings, the cause and reason for wishing to speak of this to sentient beings in their present mind is clearly indicated.⒁(Taishō, vol. 35, p. 405b. "Question: This nature-arising—does it only refer to the image-fruit [i.e., the manifested buddha]?…") That is, according to the general theory of the Three Vehicles, the minds of sentient beings possess only the nature of cause and cannot directly manifest the aspect of fruit-function. In contrast, in the Perfect-Teaching One Vehicle, the minds of sentient beings fully possess the fruit-virtue of Vairocana at the present moment; the fruit-nature that manifests—this is nature-arising. Furthermore, in the following question-and-answer, the general meaning of nature-arising is explained in regard to mountains, rivers, the great earth, and all the myriad phenomena of the world. If all dharmas in the ten thousand phenomena are without exception fruit-essences of nature-arising, and their activity all points to nature-arising's functioning, that is the fruit-Buddha's preaching of the Dharma.⒂(Note: Concerning the meaning of nature-arising, reference may be made to the author's "The Structure of Conditioned Origination" (pp. 440–), which discusses the core of Dharma-Realm Conditioned Origination.)

3 The Relationship Between the Two Arisings

Dharma-Realm Conditioned Origination (fǎjiè yuánqǐ) takes the unobstructedness of event with event (shì shì wú'ài) as its theme. However, in regard to phenomenal particulars: as the Three Vehicle teachings explain, on every dharmic particular differentiated through causes and conditions, there must, at that very moment, be the virtuous function of the one-mind Dharma-Realm. It is unquestionably the entire functioning of the one, true Suchness. Therefore, on the surface, all dharmas are dharmas of conditioned origination (缘起法). At the same time, viewed from within, the essence-body of all dharmas is the entire manifestation of Dharma-nature. Dharma-nature is non-self-nature (wú xìng); this non-self-nature as it is, in its entirety, is called nature-arising (xìng qǐ). In other words, because the entirety of the one, true Suchness is functioning, and its essence is nature-arising, nature-arising is the arising of non-arising, with emphasis placed upon the "non-arising." Conditioned origination is the non-arising of arising, with emphasis placed upon the focal point of the "arising" for its observation. Accordingly, taking Dharma-nature as calmly abiding yet following conditions to function throughout, what manifests from the side of Dharma-nature is called nature-arising; what manifests from the side of following conditions is called conditioned origination. From the standpoint of this view, to say that conditioned origination is also called nature-arising is not at all to indicate some additional fact; rather, it is nothing more than the single fact of Dharma-nature following conditions, in which one aspect is the appearance of nature-arising called conditioned origination, and the other aspect is the essence of conditioned origination named nature-arising.

Thus, dependent arising (缘起) and nature arising (性起) have two distinct meanings within the one dharma realm and are never truly separate—yet for the sake of exposition we first divide them into two domains. Explaining them as an inseparable whole, in fact, makes it easier to grasp the essence of dependent arising and the characteristics of nature arising, clarifying their relationship. Fazang frequently poses questions and provides answers in Questions and Answers on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Vol. 2① (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 609b–), clarifying extremely broad relational points. The chapter titles of the Avatamsaka Sūtra itself explain the cause and effect of dependent arising and nature arising, and their relationship is made clear by this principle: without practice conditioned by circumstances (缘修), there can be no nature arising; without nature arising, practice conditioned by circumstances cannot be established. Practice conditioned by circumstances is what turns away from phenomena to accord with the noumenon—and that is nature arising; conversely, nature arising, following conditions, becomes practice conditioned by circumstances. These two are not two separate entities, yet their two meanings are not identical. Practice conditioned by circumstances cannot exist if separated from conditions, but nature arising is neither increased nor diminished when separated from conditions. What is meant here is that nature arising, being dependent on the gathering and dispersal of conditions, is neither increased nor diminished. How, then, do we distinguish the relationship between the two? We must first grasp this key point. Dependent arising refers to the arising of all dharmas from conditions, on account of their having no inherent nature; nature arising refers to an inherently possessed nature, said to arise without reliance on conditions.② (Note: Exploration of the Profound Meaning, Vol. 16 (Taishō 35, p. 405a): "The essence of nature cannot be spoken of; if it is spoken of, it is called 'arising.' Now, speaking in terms of arising from conditions, this arising is no other arising, and it still takes nature as its basis, so it is called nature arising, not dependent arising.") Thus dependent arising is non-arising in its very arising: it appears to arise from the noumenon of dharmas while not apprehending the side of inherent nature, arising from conditions. Nature arising is non-arising, spoken of as inherently existing. We see this broadly expounded meaning—"arising is non-arising, and non-arising is nature arising"③ (Note: Vol. 4 (Taishō 45, p. 580b))—in Zhiyan's Confucius Chapter. What's more, this dependent arising arises from conditions; because it is without inherent nature, it is nature arising. This too is the meaning Chengguan often employed.④ (Note: Elucidation of the Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Vol. 79 (Taishō 36, p. 615a). The phrase "from conditions, no inherent nature—thus it is nature arising" is an example of this.)

Now, if the dharma realm is solely dependent arising, why speak of nature arising at all? Conversely, if all dharmas are nature arising, is there any need to speak of dependent arising? Such questions naturally arise. Fazang poses this question in Record of Wandering the Mind within the Dharma Realm: "If this is the case, then all is nature arising; how can there be a gateway of dependent arising?"⑤ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 649a.) His response to this passage also addresses other related issues. Dependent arising is the theory that resultant dharmas arise from their causal conditions. Strictly speaking, a result relies on the meaning of dependent arising, and its very manifestation reveals that it has no inherent nature. If we speak of dependent arising in terms of noumenon being mutually empty and existent, and function being mutually powerful and powerless, then the empty principle of no inherent nature is the cause, while power and powerlessness are the conditions. If we take cause as identical to result and result as identical to cause, then of course "result arises from cause." Viewed from the standpoint that all things lack independent, inherent existence, causal dependent arising is established precisely by this identity of cause and result, result and cause. When we apprehend dependent arising through the medium of no inherent nature, what uniquely manifests as dependent arising must be no inherent nature as nature arising; dependent arising is nothing other than no inherent nature, because what uniquely manifests as nature arising can also be called dependent arising. This is because, based on power and powerlessness, they give rise to nature arising of no inherent nature through mutual dependence, and we see the arising of resultant dharmas as dependent arising through mutual overcoming. Although dependent arising and nature arising occupy the same ultimate scope, these two, from their own respective standpoints, are "the same yet not identical"—an understanding established on the basis of the reasoning above. The key point here is that the "arising" of this nature is the meaning of non-arising.

To sum up the relationship between dependent arising and nature arising in a single phrase: "Nature arising clarifies that the one vehicle's dharma realm is the ultimate limit of dependent arising."⑥ (Note: Outline of the Essential Points, Vol. 4 (Taishō 45, p. 580b).) The term "ultimate limit" (际) carries the meanings of extreme and boundary. The dharmas of the dharma realm expressed by dependent arising are the true nature of nature arising; the manifest forms of dharma-realm dharmas, when perceived in their dynamic activity, are called dependent arising, and when discerned in their static essence, should be called nature arising. Thus, for those who stand on the standpoint of substance, dependent arising is nature arising and nature arising is dependent arising—but in terms of their respective meanings, these two names are established as distinct.⑦ (Note: Questions and Answers on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Vol. 2 (Taishō 45, p. 609b): "Nature arising follows conditions, so it is practice conditioned by circumstances; although there is no distinction in substance, the two meanings are not identical.") In truth, the root of dependent arising is emptiness of inherent nature, but when we speak of the ultimate limit of dependent arising as nature arising, nature arising manifests as no inherent nature—so it can be understood to encompass, give rise to, and fully possess infinite, unimpeded, perfect and complete virtues. The Avatamsaka school's dependent arising is dharma realm dependent arising: endlessly nested, with primary and secondary dharmas fully present, each containing and interpenetrating the other. Its result is precisely nature arising—not a mere static, inactive principle, but an ever-active wondrous functioning at the level of the Buddha's fruition. When we understand this, the wondrous essence of the original enlightenment of sentient beings' single mind is no other than dependent arising.

To put it briefly: dependent arising is the wondrous realm of unobstructed mutual penetration of all phenomena, without limit or boundary; nature arising is the ultimate limit of this dependent arising. Therefore, all manifold phenomena are none other than dharma nature, just as they are reflected in the Buddha's eye, and do not exist outside the enlightened body. This is what distinguishes the Xianshou (Huayan) school's teaching from other general theories of dependent arising. Other teachings first establish the concept of a fixed, inherent entity, then explain true-suchness dependent arising (which is exactly equivalent to ignorance-dependent arising) from the arising of all phenomena. If true suchness is also the underlying substance of all dharmas' dependent arising, and if ignorance is not established as the intermediary, then a coherent theory of the arising of all phenomena cannot be established. Only by explaining the arising of all phenomena from nature arising itself can we infer and lead out a complete, logical theory of dharma realm dependent arising—which is why it differs from general theories of dependent arising.

4. The Issue of the Two Kinds of Arising

Dependent arising and nature arising are the fundamental theories of Huayan teaching. Once we have understood the distinct meanings each contains and their mutual relationship, we must of course resolve the many related issues that follow. The reason is simple: when developing a teaching, no flaws can be allowed to remain in its fundamental doctrines.

First, let us address the question of whether dependent arising and nature arising apply to both defiled and pure dharmas. Since it is said that "nature arising is the ultimate limit of dependent arising of the one vehicle's dharma realm," the extreme limit at which the dharma body manifests as dependent arising is nature arising, expressed within dependent arising—so it should be said to encompass the defiled and pure dharmas of transmigration and liberation.① (Note: Exploration of the Profound Meaning, Vol. 13 (Taishō 35, p. 344a–) explains that dharma realm dependent arising has three meanings—defiled dharmas, pure dharmas, and a combination of the two—each of which is further divided into four gates. Search for the Profound Meaning inherits this view, distinguishing dependent arising into the defiled portion of ordinary beings and the pure portion of bodhisattvas.) This is the ultimate limit. Then, how should we explain nature arising from the perspective of no inherent nature? If dependent arising is phenomena and applies to both defiled and pure, then nature arising is noumenon and should likewise apply to both these meanings—a question that must, of course, be raised. Fazang explains in Exploration of the Profound Meaning, Vol. 16: sentient beings and afflictions "are all [included in nature arising] because they are the objects of what is to be saved, what is to be eliminated, and what is to be known; thus all are without exception nature arising."② (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 405b.) Not only that, but in the Perfect Teaching, both Buddha-nature and nature arising apply to both forms of retribution—the person's body and the surrounding environment. The Questions and Answers on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Vol. 2 says: "Speaking in terms of ultimate truth, all dharmas that accord with or oppose the path, defiled and pure, all arise from nature arising."③ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 611a.) Every domain of defilement and purity is nature arising. Only in hells and similar realms, its characteristic activities are not yet manifested. Later, Chengguan states in Elucidation of the Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Vol. 79④ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 36, p. 615a): dependent arising applies equally to defiled and pure; this is the gate of mutual overcoming. If we divide this into taking the defiled aspect of dependent arising to overcome the pure aspect—the side of sentient beings—and taking the pure aspect to overcome the defiled aspect—the side of Buddhas—then the pure aspect is necessarily called nature arising. But if we stand on the standpoint of the gate of mutual accomplishment, nature arising also extends to the meaning of co-accomplishing dependent arising. Furthermore, Zongmi's Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Aspiration for the Conduct of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, Vol. 1⑤ (Note: Continuing the Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 1, Part 7, No. 5, p. 399 left–) explains that all defiled and pure dharmas are the great functioning of nature arising. This is because ignorance and the pure mind are mutually powerful or powerless, and through the interplay of causes and conditions they form the two kinds of dependent arising—defiled and pure. Because of this meaning, nature arising of no inherent nature necessarily applies to both defiled and pure aspects. If we judged that nature arising is only pure dharmas, where would we seek the root of the arising of false dharmas? Thus Chengguan's theory of the unceasing nature of evil can also be considered a valid argument.

However, this theory—in holding that nature arising applies to defiled dharmas—will be criticized for positing the existence of false dharmas at the fruition level; this difficulty must be acknowledged and explained. In response: even if we posit the arising of defiled dust for the Buddha at the fruition level, this is fundamentally different from ordinary beings being driven by delusion and karmic actions. Since the Buddha has fully realized the source of falseness, this is instead a skillful means for benefiting sentient beings through transformative action. If the theory that nature arising applies to both defiled and pure stops here, however, it remains an incomplete, lopsided account of the teaching. Moreover, according to the view that upholds a hierarchy of doctrinal superiority, even though dependent arising applies to both defiled and pure, nature arising is necessarily only pure. This is what Fazang states in Exploration of the Profound Meaning, Vol. 16, in the chapter on the defiled and pure of nature arising: the reason nature arising dharmas are decided to be explained only in terms of pure dharmas and not defiled ones is that defilement belongs exclusively to ignorance, while purity is summed up in nature arising.⑥ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 405a–.) As for the theory of mutual overcoming and mutual accomplishment expounded by Chengguan above, its result lies mainly in the gate of mutual overcoming. It explains that "pure conditions accord with nature arising, while defiled conditions violate it." Yet the source of these two kinds of dependent arising—defiled and pure—is sought from nature arising of no inherent nature. Because there is no inherent nature, they become dependent arising through the interplay of powerful and powerless conditions. Dependent arising has defiled and pure aspects: defiled dependent arising arises when ignorance is powerful and pure mind is powerless; pure dependent arising arises only when pure mind is powerful and ignorance is powerless. Each mutually contains and interpenetrates the other, forming endlessly nested dependent arising. This nature arising that is only pure, without defilement, is the basis of defiled and pure dependent arising, due to the characteristic of no inherent nature. The highly regarded Huayan Mirror of the Hand provides a detailed account of ancient positions on defiled and pure aspects in its discussion of nature arising's relation to defilement and purity. Its core point is that what is able to manifest is subordinate to what is manifested; speaking of the characteristics of the reflected image, since they apply to all, including birth and death, they must necessarily apply to both defiled and pure. But if what is manifested directly follows the fundamental manifesting agent, nature arising is necessarily said to be only pure. In upholding the only-pure theory, we must not forget to explain the root of defiled dependent arising, and we must take care not to confuse the both-applicable theory with Tiantai's theory of inherent good and evil nature.

Second, as fundamental doctrines, both dependent arising and nature arising are exclusive teachings of the Distinct Teaching (别教), and neither should be assigned a distinction of superiority or inferiority. Both gates inherently contain the fundamental teachings of the One Vehicle Perfect Teaching. When the practitioner skillfully connects the ten profound mysteries of dependent arising with contemplative wisdom, this is because they have thoroughly realized the dharma body of nature arising. But if we observe the characteristics of practice according to the capacities of sentient beings, dependent arising is the contemplation of the distinctions of phenomena, expressed through phenomena. Nature arising is the contemplation of the luminous, knowing essence of the mind, which is originally a Buddha—without needing to establish intellectual understanding or set up practices, making it seem as if dependent arising is the skillful means for entering nature arising. Yet the nature arising contemplation is established on the basis of the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomena and noumenon, taking noumenon as the essence of contemplation and practice, and directly realizing this through noumenon. But noumenon is the mind, and since the mind is the very substance of the great dependent arising, the true realization of noumenon-contemplation is therefore not separate from the practice of phenomena at the same time. The dependent arising contemplation is called the contemplation of phenomena, which is no different from the Buddha's fruition realm in the present moment. Taking the self-nature of the perfectly integrated gate as its essence, the two kinds of arising absolutely have no distinction of superiority or inferiority, depth or shallowness. Therefore the wisdom that observes is also not distinguished as superior or inferior—both are the wisdom-contemplation of perfect integration.

Nevertheless, Zongmi in his Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Aspiration for the Conduct of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, Vol. 1 takes a slightly different view on the two kinds of arising. After citing the necessary materials for each of the two gates—nature arising and dependent arising—he points out that the nature arising gate is "[the meaning of the Distinct Teaching, completely different from all other teachings]." As for the dependent arising gate: "[this is the Shared Teaching, the gate through which I universally encompass all teachings]."⑦ (Continuing the Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 1, Part 7, No. 5, p. 400 left–.) In Chengguan's Fundamental Discussion of the Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, after referencing the meaning of completely selecting all schools and universally including all teachings, he aligns nature arising with the Distinct Teaching and dependent arising with the Shared Teaching. At first glance this seems to fall outside the correct path of the teaching, giving rise to such an impression. The Japanese monk Hōtan⑧ (Note: Correct Interpretation of the Five Teachings Chapter, Vol. 1, p. 16 right.) excluded this view on those grounds, but Hōtan was in turn criticized as failing to penetrate its profundity and lacking the critical eye. The first reason for this difference is that Zongmi stands on the standpoint of the observing wisdom, first establishing the ladder of entry, taking the nature arising contemplation as the ultimate point of entry, and taking the originally possessed single-mind nature arising dharma as the ultimate point of the direct path of contemplation. Unlike Fazang, who does not take nature arising as the direct object of the contemplation gate but as the most powerful content of contemplation, this difference in view naturally arises. The second reason is that this was a time when the Northern and Southern Chan schools were at their height, and Chan was advocating direct pointing to the original face of one's own mind without detour. Zongmi therefore used the means of uniting teaching and Chan, taking the single-mind dharma realm as the one mind that encompasses all dharmas, aligning it with the Heze school's luminous mind that does not dim, in order to attract Chan practitioners—taking entry through nature arising as the primary method. In his Preface to the Comprehensive Collection of Sources of Chan and other writings, he greatly expounded this. As a result, the single-mind nature arising dharma gate was taken as the exclusive meaning of the One Vehicle and positioned as the Distinct Teaching, while dependent arising—the method of cultivating causes to attain fruition—was first shared with the Three Vehicles as the Shared Teaching.

Third, I want to compare the meaning of nature arising (xingqi) with Tiantai's teaching of nature inclusion (xingju) — to clarify what makes Huayan distinctive and to investigate how its dharmadhātu dependent arising expresses those unique features. Then let me draw together the key points of dependent arising and nature arising.

The Tiantai teaching of nature inclusion rests on the principle that phenomena are reality itself. The principal and dependent retributions, form and mind — none of these dharmas arise through cultivation or transformation. They are already complete with the three thousand dharmas, perfectly so, right in the present moment. Evil dharmas too, then, are part of dharmatā from the start. Beyond cultivated good and cultivated evil, there is no separate inherent good or inherent evil. Tiantai speaks of the nature inclusion of evil and establishes the mutual inclusion of the ten realms — this is the Uncontrived Perfect Teaching. The single character "inclusion" (ju) is the hallmark of Tiantai thought, its very foundation. Hence it has been called a teaching of the true aspect (shixiang) since ancient times.

Huayan, by contrast, is grounded in the singular rational principle, taking dharmatā as the One Mind Dharmadhātu. From there it explains how all differentiated dharmas arise dependently — an approach that Tiantai criticizes. When the one principle follows conditions, nature arising simply is dependent arising in its general sense. What sets Huayan apart is this: nature arising itself gives rise to all phenomena, and that arising as the One Mind Dharmadhātu is its distinctive character. From the delusion of the nine realms one rises to the buddha realm. Through the single character "arising" (qi), the dharmadhātu is seen from an absolute standpoint. Tiantai's nature inclusion, by contrast, brings the buddha realm's fruits of virtue down into the delusion of the nine realms, explaining the dharmadhātu from a relative standpoint. This is the fundamental point of divergence. ⑨(Annotation: Zhili's Shi Bu Er Men Zhi Yao Chao, fascicle 2 (Taishō vol. 46, p. 716—), distinguishes the Separate and Perfect teachings based on whether or not the doctrine of nature inclusion is established, and criticizes the Huayan doctrine of nature arising.)

The root of this divergence lies in the foundational scriptures of each tradition. In broad outline, the Lotus Sūtra is called the dharmacakra that "gathers the branches back to the root." After more than forty years of gently guiding beings of every capacity, it finally opens, reveals, awakens, and enters the Buddha's knowledge and vision, with upward ascent as its aim. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra, by contrast, is the fundamental dharmacakra, descending from root to branches. After his awakening, the Buddha, sitting in the Ocean Seal Samādhi, expounded the dharma he had realized directly to great-capacity beings like Samantabhadra. For those who couldn't follow, he went further, offering teachings adapted to their capacity as encouragement. So if the Lotus moves from the audience's capacity toward the dharma, the Avataṃsaka moves from the dharma toward the audience. Each sūtra has its own character. ⑩(Annotation: On the similarities and differences between the Avataṃsaka and Lotus sūtras, see Jizang's Fahua Youyi (Taishō vol. 34, p. 635a) and Fahua Xuan Lun, fascicle 1 (ibid., p. 366c), among other comparative studies since ancient times.) In this way we can see where the foundations of Huayan's nature arising and Tiantai's nature inclusion diverge.

One point is easily misunderstood: the criticism of Chengguan's doctrine of inherent evil. Chengguan, on one hand, integrated his teaching with the Chan standpoint. He saw the One Mind Dharmadhātu as the one mind that encompasses all existence — in its very substance transcending being and non-being, the absolute awakened mind. ⑾(Puxian Xingyuan Pin Shu, fascicle 1 (Xuzangjing 1.7.3, p. 249a).) On the other hand, he also worked to bring Tiantai teachings into his own system. The famous Mind-Only Gāthā from the "Eulogy Chapter" of the Fourth Assembly, the Yāma Heaven Palace Assembly, in the Tang translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, reads:

"The mind is like a skilled painter, Able to paint all the worlds. The five aggregates all arise from it; There is nothing it does not create. As with the mind, so too with the Buddha; As with the Buddha, so too with sentient beings. One should know that the Buddha and the mind Are both inexhaustible in essential nature." ⑿(Annotation: Taishō vol. 10, p. 102a.)

In his Huayan Jing Shu Yanyi Chao, fascicle 42, ⒀(Taishō vol. 36, p. 323a.) he explains that mind is the general characteristic (zongxiang). The Buddha, upon full awakening, establishes pure dependent arising and attains buddhahood; sentient beings, in delusion, establish defiled dependent arising. Though the arising may be pure or defiled, its general characteristic is one — based in the substance of the One Mind. The Tathāgata does not sever inherent evil, and the icchantika does not sever inherent good. This resembles Tiantai's nature inclusion, but only in the sense that evil has its root in the One Mind, with the substance of delusion taken as fundamentally true. One could say that suchness inherently possesses the nature of mind-only, and its ultimate meaning doesn't differ from nature arising. It is not like the Tiantai doctrine, where thusness pervades all form and mind and a single deluded thought contains the three thousand dharmas. The doctrine of inherent evil is wholly distinct from the doctrine of nature inclusion.

But Japanese monks like Hōtan and Fujaku got it wrong from both sides. On one hand, they upheld the Tiantai Perfect Teaching while misreading Huayan's true meaning. On the other, leaning on Huayan's Perfect Teaching, they distorted Tiantai's. Since both schools speak of the "Perfect Teaching," they conflated what "perfect" meant in each, blurring what made each teaching distinct. ⒁(Annotation: Gokyōshō Kyōshinsō, fascicle 1, p. 10a—.) They missed that Chengguan built the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena (shishi wu'ai) on the basis of the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle (shili wu'ai), and that, through the free communion of dharmatā, he bridged phenomenon and principle in theory — clarifying the original intent of the Ten Mysterious Gates. The phenomenon-and-principle unobstruction Chengguan (and Zongmi) established departs from Fazang's framework, so they dismissed it as inferior. Either way — criticizing nature arising on the basis of inherent evil, or criticizing inherent evil on the basis of nature arising — stems from not grasping what "nature arising" and "nature inclusion" essentially mean.

---

Chapter 6: The System of the Four Dharmadhātus

1. The One Mind Dharmadhātu

Dharmadhātu dependent arising has a remarkably deep structure — infinitely layered, with things mutually identical and mutually interpenetrating. We've already seen that dependent arising is nothing apart from nature arising. The content of that arising, formed on the basis of nature arising, falls into four categories. Only by understanding the doctrine of the four dharmadhātus can one approach the innermost core of the teaching. The four dharmadhātus are how Huayan observes the dharmadhātu from four angles — a distinctive teaching of the school.

Why does Huayan study encompass all principle and phenomenon, penetrating noumenon and phenomenon, and call the totality of the world "dharmadhātu" (fajie)? In ordinary usage, this suchness-noumenon is inseparable from the One Mind, hence the term "One Mind Dharmadhātu," also called the One True Dharmadhātu. In the second assembly, the "Mingnan Chapter," the bodhisattva Caishou replies to Mañjuśrī in verse: "All worldly dharmas / take the mind alone as their master." ①(Annotation: Taishō vol. 9, p. 427.) In the fourth assembly, the "Bodhisattvas' Verse Chapter" at the Yāma Heaven Palace, the bodhisattva Rulailin sings: "The mind is like a skilled painter, painting various five aggregates; in all the worlds, there is nothing it does not create…" ②(Annotation: ibid., p. 465c.) — the Mind-Only Gāthā. In the sixth assembly, the "Daśabhūmi Chapter" states: "The three realms are illusory; they are all made by the mind. The twelve links of dependent origination all depend on the mind." ③(Annotation: ibid., p. 558c.) Many such passages confirm that nothing is separate from the absolutely equal, true mind. The Tanxuan Ji, fascicle 13, discusses the tenfold mind-only teaching, ④(Annotation: Taishō vol. 35, p. 346c—.) and fascicle 16 addresses the general and specific scope of nature arising. ⑤(Annotation: ibid., p. 405c.) The three-vehicle teachings hold that sentient beings' minds contain only causal nature — no talk of resultant function. But in Huayan's One Vehicle, the resultant dharma of Vairocana Buddha encompasses the realm of sentient beings. The perfect characteristics of the result are therefore directly present in beings' minds. The nature arising of buddha-nature extends to both principal and dependent retributions, so the dharmadhātu's source lies in the nature arising of the One Mind. Chengguan repeatedly emphasizes that the One Mind encompasses all existence: "Unifying and encompassing, it is the singular One True Dharmadhātu," ⑥(Annotation: Huayan Jing Xingyuan Pin Shu, fascicle 1 (Xuzangjing 1.7.3, p. 249a).) and "taking the One True Dharmadhātu as its profound and wondrous substance." ⑦(Annotation: Huayan Jing Sui Shu Yanyi Chao, fascicle 1 (Taishō vol. 36, p. 2b).)

The One Mind is the substance. One might picture the dharmadhātu as the various forms it takes, but in reality the One Mind itself is the dharmadhātu — no dharmadhātu apart from the One Mind, no One Mind apart from the dharmadhātu. If this can be called the vivid showing of phenomena within the Ocean Seal Samādhi, then the Avataṃsaka Sūtra concretely presents the whole of the One Mind Dharmadhātu — the sūtra itself is the One Mind Dharmadhātu. Fazang definitively established the purport of the entire sūtra as "causal dependent arising and the dharmadhātu of true principle." ⑧(Annotation: Tanxuan Ji, fascicle 1 (Taishō vol. 35, p. 120a).) Examining the sūtra's title, "Great Vast and Broad" (Da Fangguang) corresponds to the dharmadhātu of true principle, while "Buddha's Flower Adornment" (Fo Huayan) corresponds to causal dependent arising. From this we can see that the One Mind Dharmadhātu — turned from the side to the center — is the very purport of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Moreover, the dharmadhātu itself is cause and effect: the Samantabhadra dharmadhātu as cause, the Vairocana dharmadhātu as result. In terms of the path, all is Samantabhadra; in terms of the fruit, all is Vairocana. The five cycles of cause and effect span the whole sūtra, with the dharmadhātu arranged as ten topics in five pairs, unified throughout. The intent is clear: the One Mind Dharmadhātu is central to the teaching's organization.

Generally speaking, "dharma" (fa) encompasses a broad range of meanings and can be interpreted from various angles. The most common definition is "maintaining its own nature, and producing understanding through norms." "Maintaining its own nature" means a dharma holds fast to its own nature and form, never letting them go. "Producing understanding through norms" means that, through this self-maintaining, when communicated to others, it enables them to understand. So when we look at the dharmas of the dharmadhātu: the true face of reality is impermanent and ever-changing. What makes this impermanence serve as a norm is not the appearance of ordinary existence — that would be an abstraction. We need to go further: in concrete phenomenal forms, it's empirically verified as real existence. Fazang's Tanxuan Ji, fascicle 18, explains in detail: "Dharma has three meanings: first, the meaning of maintaining self-nature; second, the meaning of norm; third, the meaning of correspondence [to an object]." Similarly, "'realm' (jie) also has three meanings: first, the meaning of cause; second, the meaning of nature; third, the meaning of boundary or delineation." ⑨(Annotation: Taishō vol. 35, p. 440b.) Dharma can easily seem abstract, but through "realm" it becomes specified — the causal dharma from which the holy path arises, the nature on which all dharmas depend, and the existential nature of dependently arisen dharmas, none to be confused with one another. This shows how phenomenon and principle exist. ⑩(Annotation: ibid., p. 440c.) The One Mind Dharmadhātu comprises both the gate of suchness of mind and the gate of arising-and-ceasing of mind. Taken one step further toward concreteness, there are the five gates of the dharmadhātu: first, the dharmadhātu of dharmas; second, the dharmadhātu of persons; third, the dharmadhātu of the mutual integration of persons and dharmas; fourth, the dharmadhātu of the mutual dissolution of persons and dharmas; fifth, the dharmadhātu of non-obstruction. The first, the dharmadhātu of dharmas, further contains ten kinds: the dharmadhātu of events, of principle, of objects, of practice, of substance, of function, of accordance, of contrariety, of teaching, and of meaning. ⑾(Annotation: ibid., p. 441a.) All these ten dharmadhātus are, however, "of one and the same dependent arising, unobstructed and harmoniously fused, each containing all." Chengguan interpreted "realm" (jie) as "delineation" in relation to phenomena, and as "nature" in relation to principle. ⑿(Annotation: Huayan Lüece (Taishō vol. 36, p. 707c): "Question: What is meant by dharmadhātu, and what is the meaning of dharmadhātu? Answer: 'Dharma' means norm-and-maintenance. 'Realm' has two meanings: first, in terms of phenomena, 'realm' means delineation — distinguishing according to phenomena. Second, the meaning of nature — in terms of the principle dharmadhātu, it is the nature of all dharmas that does not change.") This broadly extends Fazang's insights and shows that their essential purport was taken seriously.

Explaining dependent arising with the dharmadhātu at its center isn't a one-sided take on the question of genesis — like producing the many from the one, or manifesting difference from equality. Rather, every single thing serves as a condition for every other thing's arising. Their relationships are infinitely layered, mutually supporting and dependent — the very pinnacle of interconnectedness. So if "dharma" means "things," then "dharmadhātu" refers to all dharmas, and what's discovered through their arising and unfolding is what we call dharmadhātu dependent arising. Dharmadhātu dependent arising stands alongside other types — karma-induced dependent arising, ālaya dependent arising, and tathatā dependent arising — addressing the question of genesis as an epistemological inquiry. ⒀(Annotation: The six-great-elements dependent arising is in principle none other than dharmadhātu dependent arising; it differs only in its concrete and realistic mode of expression.) But "dharma" also carries the meaning of "teaching" — the so-called "producing understanding through norms." From this original sense of "dharma," the dharmadhātu is the cause of the holy dharma, bearing the meaning of nirvāṇa and buddhahood. From this angle, dharmadhātu dependent arising has already gone beyond dependent arising as mere cognition of the world. It takes the opposition between delusion and awakening as its premise and carries the meaning of transcending worldly dependent arising through practice. "Affliction is bodhi; saṃsāra is nirvāṇa" — the word "is" (ji) logically entails the contradiction between delusion and awakening. It clearly indicates a standpoint that transcends this contradiction as a path of practice. On this basis, the teaching of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, of infinite layering, is established. Unified through the One Mind and the four dharmadhātus, this addresses epistemological questions about the objects of cognition. At the same time, its conclusion — in terms of dharmadhātu dependent arising's original character — must break through to practice. On the practical side — cultivation or self-realization — these two aspects come together: philosophy and religion, without contradiction, integrate cognition and practice. The lineage masters didn't always make this explicit in what they wrote. Through the four dharmadhātus, we must not approach dharmadhātu dependent arising one-sidedly. Why? Because although what they expressed may be subtle and hard to see, if we look carefully into the lineage's content, we can truly investigate, recognize, and practice Huayan dharmadhātu dependent arising.

2. Lineage Transmission and Interpretation

The lineage of the four dharmadhātus teaching is first sought in the three contemplation gates in Dushun's Dharmadhātu Contemplation Gate (Fajie Guanmen). ①(Annotation: Chengguan's Fajie Xuanjing, upper fascicle (Taishō vol. 45, p. 672c).) In Fazang's Huayan Fa Putixin Zhang Fanli (Preface to "Awakening the Bodhicitta in Huayan"), ②(Annotation: Taishō vol. 45, p. 650c.) among the five gates expressing virtue, since the first three gates have been continuously transmitted, it's hard to attribute the work definitively to Dushun. Fazang elsewhere, in Tanxuan Ji, fascicle 18, discusses the meaning of five types of entered dharmadhātus. ③(Annotation: Taishō vol. 35, p. 441a.) So for now, let us proceed assuming the three contemplation gates represent Dushun's original insight.

First, he takes the Dharma Realm as the profound teaching of the entire sūtra and, grounded in this, realizes that the sūtra's central aim is the inconceivable interdependence of the Dharma Realm. The Dharma Realm itself has four aspects: the realm of phenomena, the realm of principle, the realm where principle and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction, and the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction. The first—the realm of phenomena—admits every particular as an object of contemplation, so there is no need to enumerate them one by one; we will pass over it here. The remaining three forms of contemplation serve as the foundational body of practice. Though the names of these four realms have been set out, their actual content of practice is presented as three contemplations: the Contemplation of True Emptiness, the Contemplation of the Non-obstruction of Principle and Phenomena, and the Contemplation of All-pervading Inclusion.

The first, the Contemplation of True Emptiness, corresponds to the realm of principle. It is neither the emptiness of annihilation nor emptiness apart from form; rather, it is emptiness made clear within form. This contemplation is structured around four phrases and ten gates. The four phrases are: (1) seeing form return to emptiness, (2) seeing emptiness as form, (3) the unobstructed interpenetration of emptiness and form, and (4) the dissolution of all points of reference. The first two phrases each contain four gates, functioning to cut through emotional attachment and reveal true understanding. The third phrase has a single gate, marking the transition from understanding into practice. The fourth phrase directly establishes the body of practice itself. This is the felt sense of moving from understanding into practice: once practice arises, attachment to understanding should be let go of.

The second, the Contemplation of the Non-obstruction of Principle and Phenomena, fuses principle and phenomena into a single whole. It applies across all conditions of existence and non-existence, of adversity and ease, and is structured around ten gates. The third, the Contemplation of All-pervading Inclusion, treats phenomena as it does principle: all dharmas mutually interpenetrate without obstruction, freely intermingling, and is likewise given ten gates. Detailing each of these ten gates risks turning the teaching into a rigid classification; yet its doctrinal substance is nothing other than an exposition of the four Dharma Realms—or rather, it is meant to clearly articulate the actual content of contemplative practice. For the practitioner, the more categories available for approaching the object of contemplation, the better; the number of gates is not limited. This is unmistakably a sincere pedagogical impulse, aimed at making the practice accessible to fellow cultivators.

Indeed, we can glimpse Dushun's stance in the accounts of his life④ (see Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, j. 25 (T50, 653b–c); Huayan Jing Zhuanji, j. 3, "Biographies of Zhiyan" (T51, 163b), and j. 4, "Biography of the Layman Fan Xuanzhi" (T51, 166c)). He is called a Huayan scholar, and after witnessing his many miracles one is bound to regard him as something more: the Chan master Dushun, a "divine monk," whose life was devoted above all to practice. His Five Teachings and the Contemplation of Stillness, which concerns the contemplative gates, takes its full title—The Practice-Gate of the Contemplation of the Dharma Realm of the Great Means Expansive Buddha Flower Ornament Sūtra—as Chengguan and Zongmi point out, with the word "practice" (xiu 修) prefixed to it. The threefold contemplative gate presented there must be understood through the relation between contemplator and contemplated in each case; if treated merely as an object of doctrinal study, its meaning grows thin. The text not only delineates the object of contemplation but, more importantly, addresses the phenomenon of contemplation from the standpoint of the contemplator's wisdom. Chengguan, in his Mirror of the Mystery of the Dharma Realm, notes the inadequacy of the phenomenal realm: "The phenomenal realm is hard to set out item by item; since every single phenomenon can serve as a focus of contemplation, it is passed over in brief."⑤ (Mirror, j. 1 (T45, 672c).) If one were to enumerate all objects of contemplation, every phenomenal dharma is such an object, so leaving them out is defensible. Zongmi, in his Notes on the Contemplation-Gate of the Dharma Realm, states: "There are briefly threefold; the phenomenal realm is omitted. Phenomena do not stand alone, for in the Dharma Realm there is no isolated dharma. If one contemplates it separately, it becomes the territory of conceptual grasping, not of contemplative wisdom."⑥ (T45, 684c.) Because the contemplator's wisdom is primary, only the threefold is taught today. These three are exhaustive within a single path of contemplative wisdom; beyond the first there is no second or third. They are not three segments arranged side by side, hence the term "threefold" rather than "three kinds." The depth of this distinction can be appreciated at exactly this point. In this way both Chengguan and Zongmi were pioneers in emphasizing the practice of contemplative gates, and Dushun's threefold gate reveals an aspect of the four realms as a path of practice.

The establishment of the fivefold teaching through the gate of cause and effect, and the construction of a full doctrinal synthesis, was Fazang's project. He devoted himself to explaining the meaning of the Dharma Realm one enters, pressing this point especially when interpreting the chapter title "Entering the Dharma Realm."⑦ (Tanhuan Ji, j. 18 (T35, 440b).) The word "entering" in "entering the Dharma Realm" denotes the realization attained by the one who enters, while the Dharma Realm is what is entered. Within this, five gates are distinguished: (1) the conditioned Dharma Realm, (2) the unconditioned Dharma Realm, (3) the Dharma Realm that is both conditioned and unconditioned, (4) the Dharma Realm that is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and (5) the unobstructed Dharma Realm. Each gate is paired in turn with its sub-divisions: (1) the foundational consciousness that holds the seeds of all dharmas and the determinate boundaries of the three times, (2) the gate of essential purity and the gate of freedom from defilement, (3) the gate of accommodation to characteristics and the gate of non-obstruction, (4) the gate of mutual cancellation and the gate of no point of reference, and (5) the gate of all-inclusion and the gate of perfect interpenetration—five meanings and ten gates in all.

From the standpoint of conditioned and unconditioned, these are the Dharma Realms one enters. From another angle, distinguishing the Dharma Realm into the one who enters and what is entered, the latter is further divided into ten: (1) the phenomenal Dharma Realm, (2) the Dharma Realm of principle and phenomena, (3) the Dharma Realm as object-field, (4) as practice, (5) as essence, (6) as function, (7) as conformity, (8) as contrariety, (9) as teaching, (10) as meaning. The aim of this last, the Dharma Realm of meaning, is to show that these ten are of one interdependent arising, unobstructed and mutually fused, one containing all, all containing one. The root of this teaching is likewise the one-mind Dharma Realm, hence the five-meaning structure. Beginning with the four phrases of conditioned and unconditioned, the unobstructed Dharma Realm is finally given the additional gate of all-inclusive perfect interpenetration. Distinguishing characteristic and nature, this division is grounded in the doctrinal classifications of the five teachings, from Hīnayāna through the Perfect Teaching. For comparison, Wujiao Zhang, j. 2, on the differences in what is taught, in the first section on distinctions of mind-consciousness, shows how each teaching treats the ālaya consciousness differently. The Initial Teaching speaks of the ālaya only in terms of a partial arising-and-ceasing and does not say that the principle of suchness permeates phenomena⑧ (T45, 484c)—this is the hidden intent of the ālaya's arising-and-ceasing. The Hīnayāna mentions the ālaya only by name, without explaining its meaning, implying that it belongs to the phenomenal realm. The Final Teaching establishes the ālaya as the tathāgatagarbha, teaching the interpenetration of principle and phenomena; this is the realm where principle and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction. The Sudden Teaching takes all dharmas as solely the mind of suchness, exhausts differences of characteristic, and—beyond words and conceptual reflection—cannot be spoken of; this corresponds to the realm of principle. The Perfect Teaching is the gate of the ocean of nature's inherent qualities: through the unobstructed freedom of interdependent arising, one is all and all is one, principal and retinue perfectly fused; this corresponds to the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction.

Based on this, the one mind is then brought into relation with the various teachings to clarify their differences. Two perspectives are set up—regarding the dharma and regarding the capacity of the practitioner—and, through the former, decisive conclusions are drawn: the Hīnayāna corresponds to the gate of gathering meaning through names; the Initial Teaching, the gate of gathering principle through phenomena; the Final Teaching, the gate of principle-and-phenomena interpenetration; the Sudden Teaching, the gate of phenomena exhausted and principle manifest; the Perfect Teaching, the gate of the ocean of nature's inherent qualities. In Huayan Jing Yihai Baimen, in the section explaining "entering the Dharma Realm," the names phenomenal Dharma Realm, noumenal Dharma Realm, and so forth appear⑨ (T45, 627b: "If nature and characteristic are absent, this is the noumenal Dharma Realm. Phenomena's appearance undiminished is the phenomenal Dharma Realm. Unifying principle and phenomena without obstruction, two yet not two, not two yet two—this is the Dharma Realm"). Measured against the standard of establishing the teaching through cause and effect, the Hīnayāna only explicates differentiated phenomena and does not elaborate on the principle of suchness. The Initial Teaching holds that suchness is one of the six unconditioned dharmas, merely a single item among the hundred dharmas. Because the relationship between phenomena and their principle is not positively clarified, both belong to the phenomenal realm. The Sudden Teaching, a teaching of swift awakening beyond words, must naturally belong to the realm of principle. The Initial Teaching of Emptiness, however, exclusively explicates the principle of equal emptiness while at the same time showing the interpenetration of phenomena; on its surface it seems to belong to the realm of principle, but from the perspective of the gate of Buddhahood it belongs to the interpenetration of principle and phenomena. The Final Teaching holds that suchness, following conditions, gives rise to all dharmas without losing its own nature—unchanging yet adapting to conditions—and teaches the unobstructed interpenetration of principle and phenomena, hence is called the realm of non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. Finally, the Perfect Teaching teaches the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena, the meaning of mutual identity and mutual entry, displaying realm upon realm without end. This is plainly the true exposition of the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction.

From what has been said, if we limit ourselves to Fazang's standpoint in classifying the teachings: the Hīnayāna, working from the phenomenal realm, stops at the face of things, fixated on the phenomenal side, ignoring the principle-body of the one mind and taking only the differentiated phenomena as its focus. This can hardly be called anything but the most rudimentary stage of teaching through the gate of interdependent arising. The Sudden Teaching, representing things from the standpoint of the realm of principle, focuses solely on the dharma-nature and adopts a method of subtraction toward the existence of the entity itself—words cease, reflection is cut off from all dharmas—ignoring the differentiated characteristics of phenomena before principle, and never examining their arising as effects. Its doctrinal stance inevitably falls short. The Final Teaching, though it brings phenomenon and essence into intimate contact, observes phenomena only as expressed through principle, stopping at a single layer of relationship between them. This falls short of the depths of interdependent arising of the Dharma Realm, remaining within the realm where principle and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction—nothing more than a general teaching. The One Vehicle of the Perfect Teaching, by contrast, takes each and every phenomenon and, through their mutual relations, understands mutual identity and mutual entry. Only in this way can one speak of penetrating into the inner chamber of the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction. This standpoint takes principle as the underlying reality; it is neither an absolute beyond all relativity nor a state of awakening in which phenomena alone are valued. Rather, it is a view that has passed beyond a simple inversion of the deluded world, and for that reason carries the meaning of the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction. On the other hand, when speaking of phenomena it does not ignore principle; alongside the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, it does not deny the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena. This became the seed of Chengguan's later thought on principle and phenomena. Though Chengguan would go on to distinguish and verify the two, the doctrinal horizon of Fazang's exposition did not vanish from his teaching.

That is, having taken up Fazang's explanation in the Tanhuan Ji of the five gates of the Dharma Realm one enters and interpreted it from his own standpoint, Chengguan writes in his Huayan Jing Xingyuan Pin Shu, j. 1: "Therefore, in the unobtained realm, three are briefly distinguished: the phenomenal Dharma Realm, the noumenal Dharma Realm, and the unobstructed. Within the unobstructed there are two kinds, the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena and the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena, completing four Dharma Realms."⑩ (X 1.7.3, 249a.) Referring to Fazang as "an ancient worthy," he says: "What the ancient worthy established does not exceed five Dharma Realms," yet "from one to five, none falls outside the unobstructed Dharma Realm." Standing on the thought of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, his understanding is none other than an understanding of the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena. Of the ten reasons Fazang lists for the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena, especially that which comes down to the reason of interdependent arising, one may say it is in the end nothing other than a way of grounding everything in the meaning of the interpenetration of dharma-nature. These four Dharma Realms, within the one mind of the contemplator, simply manifest as differences in what is contemplated. The ultimate of the contemplation of interdependent arising of the Dharma Realm is reached when one embodies the realm where phenomena and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction; then phenomena, principle, and the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena are all the profound content of interdependent arising within that realm. In Huayan Jing Shu, j. 54, the Dharma Realm is the object one enters⑪ (T35, 908a). In sum, it is the single, true, unobstructed Dharma Realm; its nature and characteristic do not go beyond phenomena and principle. Fazang's exposition, then, is simply a fivefold presentation distinguished by meaning, and in its overall thrust regarding the Dharma Realm one enters, it differs in no way from his own understanding. Likewise, in Huayan Jing Lüece, the statement that the Dharma Realm is divided into four⑫ (T36, 707c) is no more than an explication of meaning through the aspect of each teaching, all sharing the same doctrinal intent.

Transmitted in this way, the meaning contained in the teaching of the four Dharma Realms is, from the standpoint of doctrinal classification, first a distinction of four levels of depth, enabling the contemplator to reach a unification of the one mind, while serving at the same time as material for understanding the content of interdependent arising of the Dharma Realm. This is not necessarily limited to the view of the Same-Teaching One Vehicle; properly speaking, it falls under the "gate of inclusion" within the Different Teaching. Only the unique teaching of Huayan bears the name "perfect teaching," because "perfect" carries the meanings of completion and interpenetration. As to why the name "perfect teaching" is given, an unmistakable answer can be found in the sixth fascicle of Chengguan's Huayan Jing Shuchao Xutan, where all five teachings are comprehensively embraced⒀ (X 8.8.3, 262a: "Yet this ocean of teaching is vast and profound, containing nothing outside it; form and emptiness reflect each other, qualities and functions layer upon layer. Speaking of its lateral embrace, it wholly embraces the five teachings—down to the human and heavenly realms, leaving nothing uncontained—so that its depth and breadth may be shown. Even the preceding four teachings are not subsumed by the perfect teaching, yet the perfect teaching subsumes the four. Though it subsumes the four, it runs through them as a single thread: the ten good deeds and the five precepts, too, are included in the perfect teaching. How much the more so the third and fourth, let alone the first and second."). The two Dharma Realms of non-obstruction of principle and phenomena and non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena are specifically named the unobstructed Dharma Realm—this is their immediate significance. Clearly, once the deeply transmitted meaning of the interpenetration of principle and phenomena and the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena has been grasped, one should, beginning from the shallow and moving toward the deep, attempt to bring order to the fourfold aspect of interdependent arising, while keeping in mind that this is meant to constitute the inner meaning of all interdependent arising of the Dharma Realm.

3. The Connection of the System

We have understood the transmission and content of these four Dharma Realms; we must now see what kind of system brings the whole into a unified structure, and why the four are set out in this particular order to display the phases of interdependent arising.

The manifest characteristic of the Dharma Realm is boundless and infinitely varied; at first glance, it seems entirely without order. Unordered, unintegrated multiplicity can't, on its own, become a proper object of rigorous cognition. Only when the cognizing mind applies appropriate formal structures to phenomena do they come into view as a coherent, integrated whole—as already discussed in the section on the One-Mind Dharma Realm.

The fourfold representation of the Dharma Realm does more than organize the manifold of phenomena; it also carries ontological weight. Taking the true nature of the Dharma Realm as a standpoint of dependent origination, it systematically categorizes all aspects of phenomena and their underlying essence into four modes of objects for analysis.

The clearest exposition comes from Chengguan: > "It encompasses all phenomena, and is nothing but the One Mind; its essence transcends existence and nonexistence, its characteristics are beyond birth and extinction, and there is no beginning or end to be sought." ① (Note: Commentary on the Chapter of the Vows of the Avatamsaka Sutra, Vol. 1 (卍 Ed., Series 1, Vol. 7, fascicle 3, p. 249, left column).)

This is the Unobstructed Dharma Realm, further divided into the two gates of the phenomenal and the noumenal. The phenomenal refers to individual characteristics, specific particularities, and the diverse, changing side of the world of experience—form, mind, and all other universal phenomena. The noumenal points to the aspect of equality inherent in differentiated phenomena: its nature is empty and still, the root of all universal phenomena, the undifferentiated, universal dimension. So this is the noumenal Dharma Realm underlying all phenomena—an equal, fundamental principle that transcends the realm of experience. Since the phenomenal and the noumenal merge without obstruction, the Dharma Realm can be classified into three types: the Phenomenal Dharma Realm, the Noumenal Dharma Realm, and the Unobstructed Dharma Realm.

Of these three, the Unobstructed Dharma Realm is further divided into two: the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal, and the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena. The Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal means that phenomena of the Phenomenal Dharma Realm and the noumenal essence of the Noumenal Dharma Realm aren't unrelated, independent particularities. The differentiated characteristics displayed by the immeasurable array of all things contain, at their very root, the equal, universal dimension of unified essence, and they interpenetrate seamlessly through their relations of dependent origination. Yet if we look at their inherent nature, one is phenomenal, the other noumenal; one is characterized by differentiation, the other stands on the basis of equal, autonomous self-nature. On this point alone, they're fundamentally incapable of merging. In fact, the two are inherently incompatible: the differentiated particularities of phenomena, by their very nature, mutually obstruct one another. They're diametrically opposed and must ultimately remain irreconcilable contradictions that cannot be combined.

Even so, precisely because they're mutually contradictory, this contradiction becomes the medium that keeps phenomenon and noumenon from separating. If phenomenon and noumenon were mutually isolated, existence itself would be impossible to establish or sustain.

This represents a clear advance over the emptiness-view approach, which gradually reduces all phenomena to opposing contradictions and ultimately halts at the negation of all things—clinging to "unobtainability," taking "refuting error is itself revealing the truth" as its core tenet, and relying on unmediated synthesis. Compared to the dialectical method that proceeds solely from "emptiness as unobtainable," we can see several stages of progress here.

In short, the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal arises from the mutual opposition and contradiction of phenomenon and noumenon. It holds that "phenomenon is noumenon, noumenon is phenomenon," combining them as an immediately present, real structural unity in which the One-All (noumenon) and the one-in-many (phenomenon) interpenetrate without obstruction across the entire world. Ultimately, this is observed from the standpoint that "phenomena are none other than the ultimate essence."

In the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena, not only do phenomena and the ultimate essence interpenetrate without obstruction, but each and every particular among the infinitely varied phenomena of the world, by virtue of "one is all," possesses its own unique particular characteristics. Hence the name: unobstructed perfect interpenetration. Here, the One-All and the one-in-many interpenetrate without obstruction, and at the same time, each individual particular interpenetrates with all others. The entire Dharma Realm exists as a single great display of dependent origination, constituted by infinite, interwoven relations among all things—the most thorough analysis of the phenomenal realm.

If one clings solely to the absolutely equal "emptiness" in contemplation, one will only arrive at the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal and never consider the ultimate teaching of the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomena. The standpoint of the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal is only a relative "emptiness" grounded in its equal, rational principle. So when we speak of both being "empty" and relying on contradiction as a medium, the first operates from a relative standpoint, the second from an absolute standpoint; a vast gulf between them must be acknowledged. The Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena, by taking phenomena as the basis for relating to phenomena, reveals the true nature of the phenomenal and takes a step beyond the relation of phenomena to the noumenal by fully actualizing phenomena themselves.

Therefore, in the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena, one sees the profound ultimate truth of the Dharma Realm: every single thing is independent and autonomous in its own particularity, yet precisely because of this, all things become mutually interrelated, revealing the appearance of unobstructed interpenetration. It explains how the infinite, layered dependent origination of the universe gradually manifests within each individual thing.

Since we've already explained the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomena, and the noumenal is by nature universally equal, there's no need to state that noumenon interpenetrates with noumenon; naturally, there's no reason to establish a separate Dharma Realm for this. The four modes of the Dharma Realm as objects of cognition based on the One Mind are thus fully and completely systematized. In this way, the total encompassment of all phenomena serves as the content of cognitive form, while the One Mind serves as the formal structure that organizes this content, completing the systematic meaning of the fourfold Dharma Realm.

Chengguan didn't merely categorize these for the sake of objective objects or limit them to cognitive forms; he also integrated the practical content of contemplative gates into the cognizing One Mind, successfully establishing "doctrine is contemplation" as a defining feature of Huayan teachings. The Japanese Huayan scholar Gyōnen, in his Essentials of the Huayan School ② (Note: contained in the Japanese Taishō Tripiṭaka, Huayan School Commentaries and Subcommentaries, fascicle 3, p. 630, left column.), in the fifth section of his established doctrinal framework, explains that these four Dharma Realms are the core of Huayan teachings. He further clarifies the significance of Chengguan's systematic framework, synthesizing it with Fazun's explanation of the threefold contemplation in the Meditation on the Dharma Realm, and providing a unified, coherent interpretation.

1. The Phenomenal Dharma Realm: This realm refers to the abstracted view of all observed phenomena and differentiated multiplicity, perceivable through our sensory and cognitive faculties. Chengguan stated: > "The term 'realm' (jie) means 'differentiation,' referring to the limits of differentiation of phenomena of the three periods of time, which are known to the discriminating consciousness." ③ (Note: Commentary on the Chapter of the Vows of the Avatamsaka Sutra, Vol. 1 (卍 Ed., Series 1, Vol. 7, fascicle 3, p. 249, left column).)

This precisely refers to the "ten pairs of dharmas" that constitute the basis of the later Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena (the phenomenal dimension): "doctrine and contemplation, noumenon and phenomenon, realm and wisdom, practice and stage, cause and effect, basis and manifestation, essence and function, person and dharma, adverse and favorable, and response and stimulation." ④ (Note: as expounded in the Record of the Exploration of the Profound, Vol. 1 (Taishō Vol. 35, p. 123, middle column); The Purpose of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Taishō Vol. 45, p. 594, upper column); Subcommentary Elucidating the Meaning of the Avatamsaka Sutra in Connection with its Commentary, Vol. 11 (Taishō Vol. 36, p. 82, upper column), and other works. The Treatise on the Five Teachings, Vol. 4 (Taishō Vol. 45, p. 505, upper column) lists the same content, but the headings aren't fully integrated, though it also enumerates ten items.)

2. The Noumenal Dharma Realm: The abstracted view of the differentiated realms seen from the standpoint of the Dharma Realm as ultimate essence is a further abstraction of the Phenomenal Dharma Realm. Its nature transcends sensory qualities, and as an object of rational cognition, it possesses intrinsic qualities: it is the unified essence perceived within the differentiated phenomenal realm. Since the nature of phenomena has no inherent self-existence, it isn't a separate, particular existence outside the Phenomenal Dharma Realm. Chengguan stated: > "The term 'realm' refers to nature, meaning the silent, tranquil nature of ultimate truth, which is the nature of all dharmas."

He also said: > "The term 'realm' means 'nature,' because all infinite phenomena and dharmas share the same nature." ⑤ (Note: Mysterious Mirror of the Huayan Dharma Realm, Vol. 1 (Taishō Vol. 45, p. 673, upper column).)

3. The Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal Dharma Realm: This realm is realized when one examines the relationship between phenomena and the ultimate essence, moving beyond the standpoint that treats the Phenomenal and Noumenal Dharma Realms as entirely separate. One actively comes to understand their interconnectedness: these two realms are equal in the dimension of noumenon, yet differentiated in the dimension of phenomena. The undifferentiated truth of the noumenon is fully manifested within differentiated phenomena, and the noumenon completely preserves the differentiated nature of phenomena. Thus, there is no phenomenon outside the noumenon, and no noumenon outside phenomena—"noumenon is phenomenon, phenomenon is noumenon"—and one sees their perfect, unobstructed interpenetration in their mutual relation. In this section, Gyōnen draws on Fazun's Meditation on the Dharma Realm to explain this, listing ten gates (such as the gate of the noumenon pervading all phenomena) for clarification. Among these ten gates, the ninth and tenth are "ultimate truth is not phenomenon" and "phenomenal dharmas are not noumenon." To avoid conflating the phenomenal and noumenal, the first eight gates state: the noumenon pervades phenomena, phenomena pervade the noumenon; phenomena are formed by the noumenon, phenomena reveal the noumenon; the noumenon supersedes phenomena, the noumenon is hidden within phenomena; ultimate truth is phenomenon, phenomenal dharmas are noumenon. These eight gates vigorously expound the interpenetration of the phenomenal and noumenal.

4. The Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena Dharma Realm: This realm is observed in the relations between phenomena and phenomena. Taking the aforementioned non-obstructed interpenetration of phenomenal and noumenal as its argumentative basis, it takes phenomena in relation to phenomena as the object of the Dharma Realm. The ground of phenomena need not be reduced to or await the ultimate essence; rather, it affirms that there are mutually unobstructed relations between phenomena and phenomena in their immediate existence. This corresponds to Fazun's concept of "universal pervasion and mutual containment," and Gyōnen explains these ten relations as the ten profound gates of interpenetration.

As described above, the systematic meaning of the fourfold Dharma Realm maintains constant interrelatedness among all four, and they aren't independent, isolated entities. If one understands any one of these realms as opposed to the others, one grasps only the separate, independent meaning of each individual representation. If we ignore the interconnectedness of this systematic framework, we lose the very foundation of the doctrine of Dharma Realm dependent origination—this point requires special attention.

---

4. Understanding the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal

Among the four Dharma Realms, the phenomenal refers to the differentiated dharmas of phenomena, and the noumenal refers to the equal, selfless nature of the ultimate essence; these are relatively easy to understand. But from each respective standpoint, without considering the connections between self and other yet grounding their doctrinal positions on these distinctions, various schools strengthened their specific Buddhist teachings.

First, among the Hinayana schools that affirm the absolute existence of phenomena, there's the Sarvāstivāda doctrine of the eternal existence of dharma-natures, which carries metaphysical significance, as well as the Mahāsāṃghika doctrine that the past and future have no inherent existence. Teachings such as the "nominalist" view that all dharmas are mere names can also be included in this category. Of these, the former is rooted in an extremely simple approach to phenomenal observation, aligned with the tendencies of the early Theravāda school, yet it adopted a dogmatic stance, holding that the simple, unadorned transmission of the Buddha's teachings is inherently self-evident. As represented in the later Abhidharmakośa, all dharmas were analyzed and categorized, ultimately dividing all phenomena into 75 dharmas. The first 72 are conditioned dharmas, corresponding to the existence of phenomena, specifically conditioned by the four phases of birth, abiding, change, and extinction. The final three are the three entities that serve as the basis for these conditioned characteristics. This school's thought isn't only a purely philosophical phenomenology but also largely leans toward a simple, commonsense realism.

The latter (the Mahāsāṃghika tradition) should be regarded as a form of objective idealism. After being refined through the era of ancient scriptural literature up to the Abhidharma scholastic literature, its intellectual current gradually spread and developed into the Yogācāra doctrine of the storehouse consciousness, which elaborates an individual, mind-only epistemology.

However, from the standpoint of these teachings that cling to the fixed view of the inherent existence of dharmas, all dharmas are seen as mutually opposed and contradictory through one-sided analysis. Even if the unconditioned is posited as the basis for explaining the conditioned, it inevitably becomes the opposite of the conditioned. Within the broad category of conditioned phenomena, one sees the opposition of form and mind; even within mental dharmas, the opposition of mind kings and mental factors is posited. Following this line of reasoning to its conclusion, divisions multiply endlessly, making it almost impossible to grasp the unity of dharmas. Even if later Yogācāra scholars sought the root of all dependent origination in the seeds of the eighth ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness), their understanding of the relationship with suchness (tathatā) was limited to seeing suchness merely as the basis of phenomena. They still couldn't actively and clearly identify the ultimate essence of phenomena, so all their analysis remained limited to a one-sided, oppositional view.

To truly establish the proper position of the unconditioned, one must thoroughly dismantle the reality of the conditioned, with the final result that all the characteristics of the conditioned are ultimately rejected. This meaning can be easily discerned in the attempts of the various Hinayana schools and Yogācāra scholars to systematize their teachings by positioning the Phenomenal Dharma Realm as unrelated to any other dharmas.

The second phase of the self-awareness of dependent origination is the meaning of emptiness, sought in the second, Noumenal Dharma Realm. The infinitely varied phenomena, each with their own distinct differences, appear as a mixed, disordered array of existent forms and are understood as having no inherent reality—merely nominal designations. The truly real, eternally unchanging essence—unborn, undying, neither increasing nor decreasing, perfectly still and permanent—is sought in the absolute infinite. In negative terms, this is the teaching that all is empty, the middle way of the eight negations; in positive terms, it's the position of the Three Treatise School, which speaks of "no thought arising in a single moment is Buddhahood" and "a single leap directly entering the stage of the Tathāgata." The Noumenal Dharma Realm taught in the sudden teaching school is established as a teaching entirely unrelated to the other Dharma Realms; comparing it to the positions discussed above makes it easy to understand.

Differentiated phenomenal forms and the ordinary noumenal essence, however, are inherently interrelated and inseparable; the two realms of the phenomenal and noumenal are by no means isolated, disconnected entities. Since the Phenomenal Dharma Realm of phenomena manifests from the noumenal essence, "phenomenon is none other than noumenon," and the two merge seamlessly, forming the dependent origination teaching of the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal. The standard method for understanding this is largely based on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. Fazang wrote a 5-fascicle Commentary on the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith and a 1-fascicle Separate Commentary, which helped accelerate understanding of his doctrinal system. The Awakening of Faith, which elaborates the dependent origination of the tathāgatagarbha, indeed provided Huayan teachings with powerful resources and was studied as part of its transmission.

Its content and explanatory methods are extremely subtle and detailed, yet paradoxically, they make it very difficult to arrive at a correct understanding. That said, by relying on the Awakening of Faith, we can gain an understanding of the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal. We'll trace and penetrate the root of this realm in our discussion; the content of the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena will be covered in a later chapter. This fourfold Dharma Realm system takes the Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenal and Noumenal as the foundational task, to be gradually explored step by step in order to arrive at the ultimate source of the final Non-Obstructed Interpenetration of Phenomena.

⑥ (Note: Numerous questions regarding the authorship of the Awakening of Faith, the date of its composition, its historical context, and its doctrinal connections warrant independent, individual discussion. As these aren't the direct focus of the present work, we won't address them in detail here. That said, this text is a masterful, panoramic overview of Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy and is regarded as a favorite among modern general philosophical circles. Dr. Shin'ichi Hisamatsu wrote Issues in the Awakening of Faith, a short book that serves only as an introduction to understanding the text, but its rich content has made it widely beloved by general readers.)

First, the Awakening of Faith's ② (Note: The main text of the treatise appears in Volume 32 of the Taishō Tripiṭaka, p. 575, middle column. For convenience, we will draw on the explanations given in the Commentary on the Awakening of Faith (Taishō 44, p. 240, lower column), adding our own reflections and proceeding slowly.) account of dependent origination appears, on the surface, quite simple: it concerns the relationship between tathatā and phenomenal reality.

The opening section on causes and conditions moves on to the "Establishing of the Meaning," where the Mahāyāna is divided into two categories: the "dharma" and the "meaning." The "dharma" is the "mind of sentient beings," a mind "that encompasses all worldly and supramundane dharmas." The "meaning" is presented through three great qualities: the greatness of essence, the greatness of characteristics, and the greatness of function. The essence of tathatā is that it is "equal and neither increases nor decreases." The characteristic is that "the tathāgatagarbha is fully endowed with measureless qualities of virtue." The function is "the ability to bring forth all the wholesome causes and effects, both worldly and supramundane." From here, the treatise clarifies the relationship between tathatā, ignorance, the ālayavijñāna, and the true and false; it speaks of the theory of one mind, two gates, and three great qualities; it addresses original enlightenment and initial enlightenment, the doctrine of perfuming in the cycles of transmigration and return; and finally it turns to practice, presenting the fourfold faith and fivefold practice.

First, the treatise says that tathatā, "through the dharma of one mind," is divided into true suchness of mind and the arising-and-ceasing of mind. True suchness of mind is defined as "the essence that is the great all-inclusive characteristic of the one dharmadhātu." Tathatā is the principle of absolute equality, without differentiation and without duality — the fundamental ground of all dharmas taken as a whole. When this tathatā is stirred by the fundamental ignorance that fails to recognize tathatā itself, it becomes the ālayavijñāna, a union of the conditioned and unconditioned, neither one nor different. Yet it also contains all dharmas and gives rise to all dharmas. From the standpoint of the gate of arising and ceasing, the ālayavijñāna can be taken as the starting point of dependent origination: tathatā becomes the dharmas, and the ālayavijñāna is understood as the initial state. If so, the ālayavijñāna stands midway among the dharmas unfolded from tathatā — if tathatā is the essence, the ālayavijñāna is the characteristic; if the ālayavijñāna is the essence, then the dharmas become its manifestation. This is the relationship described above.

The way the Awakening of Faith explains "dharma" is extraordinarily ingenious, and the influence it foresees for the treatise is very far-reaching; one can hardly say it failed to attain an important place in Chinese scholarship in the centuries that followed. Yet it cannot be denied that its understanding is, in certain respects, incomplete. ③ (Note: From ancient times, the Awakening of Faith has posed three great difficulties: first, the difficulty of positing a separate ground for the true and the false; second, the difficulty of the true preceding the false; and third, the difficulty of falling back into delusion after attainment. The result must be said to lie in the incompleteness of its expression.) Where, then, does the treatise fall short? This needs to be pointed out. Fortunately, Fazang's Commentary goes to great lengths to supplement these gaps and achieves a measure of success. In fact, the treatise does little more than say that tathatā, activated by ignorance, gives rise to the waves of phenomenal reality, and the relationship between the two is inevitably left somewhat obscure. Once enlightenment and non-enlightenment are opposed and the ālayavijñāna arises, how exactly ignorance acts upon tathatā is left without clear explanation. Moreover, the treatise suddenly introduces the notion of "the arising of thought," which presents another large difficulty for interpretation.

Still, when the treatise describes "reality," it begins with the mind of sentient beings, and this is the point we should notice first. It says, "All sentient beings are called non-enlightened." From this, we can see that the non-enlightened mind of sentient beings constitutes a world of delusion and suffering; yet the treatise also calls this the essence of the Mahāyāna. The Commentary says that the mind of sentient beings is likewise called the tathāgatagarbha, and "encompasses worldly and supramundane dharmas." But this means that value-laden true suchness of mind and the disvalue-laden arising-and-ceasing of mind are contained together, and the two are inseparable within the mind of sentient beings. The same is said of the ālayavijñāna. Yet because sentient beings are limited to being sentient beings, they remain unenlightened to tathatā, which is to say, because of ignorance. "Not knowing ignorance" means that one who knows ignorance as ignorance relies on tathatā as the ground of sentient beings. Seen in this light, the treatise's claim that the mind of sentient beings is the essence of the Mahāyāna immediately affirms the statement that "this mind is originally pure in its self-nature, yet it also has ignorance; stained by ignorance, it has a defiled mind, and though it has a defiled mind, it remains forever unchanged." Self-nature purity is enlightenment; enlightenment and ignorance are mutually opposed, yet saying they are inseparable amounts to denying their identity. It is only where non-enlightenment arises that initial enlightenment arises — and initial enlightenment is something that did not exist before but exists now, just as ignorance is. This points to the reason for the indeterminate identity of enlightenment and ignorance.

Thus, the original purity of self-nature, with ignorance arising, is explained as "a sudden arising of thought." But the Commentary explains "sudden" as "not referring to a moment in time, so the arising has no beginning," thereby negating the temporal meaning of "sudden." What remains is the notion of no-beginning; but to say there is no beginning can equally be read as saying any moment may be the beginning. Ignorance arises moment by moment; unlike tathatā, which has neither beginning nor end, ignorance has no beginning but does have an end.

Do all dharmas arise from tathatā, with ignorance arising from outside tathatā and activating it? Or do the dharmas arise from a division within tathatā itself? It must be one or the other — but either view contradicts tathatā's universality or its absoluteness. Hence the saying that "ignorance is explained in dependence on the ālayavijñāna": this is the key by which the ālayavijñāna is understood as the ground of ignorance. Once this is grasped, ignorance lies within tathatā, and tathatā transcends ignorance. Ignorance constantly opposes tathatā, yet it is also a wave of tathatā itself. Tathatā is principle, from which phenomena arise; but it also transcends phenomena while containing them within itself. This is the meaning of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena — a meaning genuinely understood through the Awakening of Faith.

Indeed, in the treatise, principle is identified with tathatā, which is transcendent and should be said to transcend reality: tathatā is tathatā precisely for this reason. But can such a tathatā be regarded as a hidden entity directing phenomena from behind? If such an entity were entirely cut off from phenomena, with no relation to them, then of course no link of dependent origination between the two would be acknowledged. Sentient beings believe they have grasped tathatā, but in fact they have not only failed to grasp it — the distance has only grown. Trying to transcend principle from the standpoint of differentiation alone is not a transcendence of tathatā itself; it is only an act of conceptual discrimination. Yet the Commentary says "all dharmas are none other than tathatā," and on this basis one can say that we are always in contact with tathatā. Though tathatā lies within deluded thought, when it transcends that thought, it reveals its full measure in each and every dharma realm. Only at this point does such rational tathatā become an entity manifested in all dharmas — though this is only a convenient way of explaining matters. In fact, principle is event; on the one hand, principle is present within events, and on the other, events are expressed precisely on the level of events. Taking the ālayavijñāna, the union of true and false, as tathatā, since it is always in communication with transcendent tathatā, transcendence and immanence are one and indivisible, working together without cease. Through this immanent transcendence, approached step by step, one draws near to initial enlightenment. The treatise says "initial enlightenment exists in dependence on non-enlightenment" — that is the meaning. Moreover, the ultimate end of initial enlightenment is original enlightenment; once one returns to the ultimate state of original enlightenment, initial and original become one and the same, and one already knows that immanent tathatā and transcendent tathatā are identical, not two. Hence: "the meaning of original enlightenment is explained in relation to initial enlightenment, because initial enlightenment is the same as original enlightenment." If so, then since the ālayavijñāna depends wholly on ignorance, its original grounding must lie in the unification of tathatā.

When one realizes that ignorance is originally false and delusive, that ignorance and tathatā are originally not different, that there are no dharmas outside tathatā, and that once dharmas are removed there is no tathatā — then wherever there is birth and death, there is nirvāṇa; wherever there is ground for affliction, there is bodhi. This is what is meant by "birth and death are none other than nirvāṇa; affliction is none other than bodhi."

But this state is truly what is called "correspondence only with direct realization"; tathatā must be the ever-abiding subject. Thus tathatā, seen as an object from an objective standpoint, is not a real existent — a point that should be called ultimate emptiness. Yet this emptiness must not collapse into the mere nothingness of an object. When we move beyond existence and beyond non-existence and abide in true wisdom, we become one with tathatā, and in our very being we can verify the mutually inclusive relationship of absolute negation and absolute affirmation in this reality. On the level of doctrinal classification, the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena is set forth as the teaching of the final teachings, and is a stage lower than the round teaching of the non-obstruction of event with event. We should first understand this, and also recognize the content of realm-dependent origination constituted by the four dharma realms — namely, that the realm of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena serves as the foundation for the realm of the non-obstruction of event with event, carrying out the very important task of guiding that foundation, and should be understood to be contained within it. ④ (Note: On the relationship between principle and phenomena, the reader may consult the author's The Structure of Dependent Origination (pp. 464—), as well as the system of the four dharma realms and the third section on the relationship between principle and phenomena. Some overlap with that earlier treatment may occur here, with additional notes offered by way of clarification.)

Chapter 7: Contemplation of Emptiness and Practice of Being

1. Samantabhadra's Practice and the Contemplation of Emptiness

The formation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra's history was largely shaped by the thought of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras — a fact clearly established by the history of the sūtra's own formation and confirmed by its content. The Prajñāpāramitā tradition, needless to say, flows steadily on the thought of emptiness as its core; yet the Avataṃsaka Sūtra by no means ignores the contemplation of emptiness. Rather, Huayan teaching takes the phenomenal dharmas of form as its ground and uses them precisely to explain the non-obstruction of event with event. Real existence rests on emptiness as its foundation; otherwise its ultimate reason cannot be thoroughly understood. We should first recognize clearly the import and content of Samantabhadra's practice, which holds the most important place in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a whole expounds Samantabhadra's practice and may be said to embody his vows; it is therefore also called the Samantabhadra Sūtra, a general title that is entirely fitting. ① (Note: On this point, according to Kaneko Dai'ei in "Samantabhadra and the Contemplation of Emptiness" (Annual Bulletin of the Japanese Association of Buddhist Studies, No. 3, pp. 1–8), a comparison of the sūtra's title with the overall structure of the entire text leads to the conclusion that the sūtra is structured precisely from the standpoint of expressing Samantabhadra's practice.) Given this, the representative bodhisattvas active within the Avataṃsaka Sūtra who draw the most attention are Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra; if anything, Samantabhadra later overtakes Mañjuśrī and assumes a position of dominance that is clearly set forth throughout the sūtra. The Tripiṭaka contains an enormous number of passages concerning Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, ② (Note: The titles of many sūtras — some ten or more — reveal only Samantabhadra's name; their content typically has Samantabhadra addressing the assembly or expounding his practice. Later, the "Chapter on Samantabhadra's Encouragement and Resolve" in the Lotus Sūtra has Samantabhadra make a great vow to protect the Lotus Sūtra, representing a major development of Samantabhadra thought within the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. The Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice inherits the Lotus Sūtra directly and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra indirectly; it centers on Samantabhadra's repentance of karmic hindrances and gives rise to Samantabhadra faith, with Samantabhadra appearing as the teaching lord; thereby the practice of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva is raised to the exalted rank of Samantabhadra Tathāgata, who protects the land. The Mahāvaipulya Mahāsannipāta Sūtra, Vol. 7 (Taishō 13, p. 185, lower column), and the Bhadrakalpikā Sūtra, Vol. 4 (Taishō 3, p. 188, lower column), among others, record such matters.) which is likely connected with the origin and development of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra in many ways. Thus Samantabhadra always holds the most important place in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, forming the active center of its thought: Mañjuśrī represents the wisdom of understanding and moves on the stage of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, while Samantabhadra represents the wisdom of practice, and his role within the Avataṃsaka Sūtra requires particular attention. Especially as seen in the history of the sūtra's formation, Samantabhadra thought appears after Mañjuśrī thought, with Mañjuśrī himself virtually extolling Samantabhadra's practice at every turn. Those who were dissatisfied with the age of Mañjuśrī thought and longed for something beyond it found here the supplement they sought, and through this Samantabhadra thought developed; it is reasonable to regard it as the representative thought running through the entire sūtra. ③ (Note: In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Vol. 46, "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" (Taishō 9, p. 689, lower column), Mañjuśrī encourages Sudhana, saying: "Perfectly cultivate the way of Samantabhadra, fully realize the Buddha's bodhi; through all kalpas of all lands, practice the bodhisattva path, fulfill all great vows, and accomplish the vehicle of Samantabhadra. Countless sentient beings who hear his name will cultivate Samantabhadra's vows and attain the supreme way." Whatever the interpretation of this passage, a subtle investigation of the history of ideas makes it clearly visible as one example of the shift from Mañjuśrī to Samantabhadra, and of intellectual history moving forward.) Among these, the single chapter titled "Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's Practice" held in the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven assembly explains and reveals the special qualities of Samantabhadra's practice. And the Samantabhadra's Vows chapter appended at the end of the Zhenyuan-period translation of the "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" serves as the conclusion of the entire sūtra.

Thus, the so-called Samantabhadra sūtras are a collection of sūtras and chapters that together form the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva, active in the Mañjuśrī sūtras, transfers his precious presence from the stage of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, where the positive thrust of practice is greatly increased and brought to a still higher completion. Through this we see the activity of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva running through the entire sūtra; its orientation is overwhelmingly that of Samantabhadra thought, and this is something we must absolutely understand.

Broadly speaking, however, if we trace the history of the canon's formation with real rigor, the earliest imagined form of Samantabhadra's (Pǔxián) practice was simply the practice of ordinary Mahāyāna bodhisattvas. Its meaning shifted gradually over time, until it came to be understood as the distinctive practice of the specific Bodhisattva Samantabhadra. As for this shift: within the Avatamsaka Sūtra (Huāyán Jīng), Samantabhadra's practice is upheld as the consummate practice of the Mahāyāna bodhisattva. This special emphasis led to the conclusion that it could not merely be classed as an ordinary Mahāyāna bodhisattva practice; it had to be distinguished, by the special status of this bodhisattva, from all other bodhisattvas—and above all from Mañjuśrī (Wénshū) with sharp clarity. Were it not so, every ordinary Mahāyāna bodhisattva practice could be called Samantabhadra's practice, and every bodhisattva who cultivated it could be called a Samantabhadra Bodhisattva. ④ (Note: For an examination of the view that Samantabhadra's practice is the practice of ordinary Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, and for textual research on the canonical sources relevant to the path toward understanding the practice of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, the author treats these matters in detail in "The Significance of the Developmental History of Samantabhadra's Vow-Thought" (Ryūkoku University Bulletin, First Series, Buddhist Studies Compilation 79—), which may be consulted alongside.)

Thus, based on an account of the canon's formation history, whatever shifts in thought may have occurred, the ultimate attainment of the dharma realm remains the fruit of Huayan practice: Vairocana (Shènà) represents the fruit-aspect, and Samantabhadra the cause-aspect, and there is no dispute on this point. Fǎzàng, in Volume 1 of the Tànxuán Jì (Record of Exploring the Profound), explains that the dharma realm unfolds so as to constitute cause and effect: "The Samantabhadra dharma realm is the cause; the Vairocana dharma realm is the fruit." ⑤ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 120a.) This clarifies that the dharma realm as cause and effect is the central theme of the entire sūtra. The Chapter on Entering the Dharma Realm, which can be read as a miniature of the whole sūtra, is described in Volume 18 of the Tànxuán Jì as having the same central theme: "Since the entry into the dharma realm has been clarified, this is taken as the central thesis." ⑥ (Note: Ibid., p. 440b.) Following this lineage, Chéngguān states in Volume 1 of his Commentary on the Samantabhadra Vow Chapter: "The entry into the dharma realm, along with dependent origination and Samantabhadra's practice and vows, is taken as the central thesis." ⑦ (Note: Manji Zokuzō, Vol. 1, No. 7, Part 3, p. 249r.) With this, the position of Samantabhadra's practice within the sūtra becomes clear.

Since Samantabhadra's practice bears the characteristic stamp of the Mahāyāna bodhisattva's practice, the various practices expounded in the so-called Mañjuśrī chapters are likewise organized around Samantabhadra's practice; and the path of the ten grounds, taken as an integrated whole, is of course Samantabhadra's practice. Viewed through the lens of the canon's formation, the Ten Dedications Chapter is the seedbed of Samantabhadra thought, and shows a markedly strong presence. Later, when the defining qualities of Samantabhadra thought came to be clearly recognized, it was on this basis that ordinary Mahāyāna bodhisattva practices came to be identified as Samantabhadra's practice, and were seen to be linked with the ten pāramitās that belong to Samantabhadra's practice. With this intense focus on Samantabhadra's practice, Zhìyǎn, when he first formulated the Ten Profound Gates of the One Vehicle, definitively established that the ultimate, perfect entry into the dharma realm is identified with Samantabhadra. ⑧ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 514a–b.) In Volume 1 of his Tànxuán Jì, Fǎzàng frames the entire Avatamsaka Sūtra with the Samantabhadra dharma realm as cause and the Vairocana dharma realm as fruit, thereby establishing dharma-realm cause and effect as the central theme of the sūtra. ⑨ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 120a–b.) And in his Huāyán Zhǐ Guī (The Purport of the Avatamsaka), he sums up the entire canon in a single line: "Exhausting the dharma realm, transcending the realm of space—only the wisdom of Samantabhadra can reach its deepest depths." ⑩ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 596b.) This shows that Samantabhadra sits at the heart of the sūtra, and that expounding his practice is the central thread running through the whole.

Turning to the meaning of the name "Samantabhadra," Zhìyǎn says: "Practice that pervades the entire dharma realm is called samanta (universal); a nature that is compliant, gentle, and good is called bhadra (auspicious)." ⑾ (Note: Sōuxuán Jì, Vol. 4 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 78b).) Fǎzàng follows this gloss: "Virtue that pervades the entire dharma realm is called samanta; function that is compliant and brings good to fruition is called bhadra." ⑿ (Note: Tànxuán Jì, Vol. 16 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 403a).) Chéngguān and Zōngmì largely follow the same interpretation, so we can see that the doctrinal reading of the name is consistent and unified throughout. ⒀ (Note: The Sanskrit term in the Chapter on Entering the Dharma Realm is Samantabhadra, transliterated into Chinese as Sānmǎnduō bátuóluó. Samanta means "good," bhadra means "auspicious"; the compound is a term of praise for Mahāyāna bodhisattvas and an especially fitting epithet. Adding the adjectival carya, meaning "to be practiced," gives caryasamantabhadra, rendered in Chinese as Pǔxián Xíng—"Samantabhadra's Practice.") This auspicious name expresses the perfection of a great bodhisattva's practice of self-benefit and benefiting others, so the practice it denotes can take in an enormously wide range of content. The Tànxuán Jì lists ten kinds of Samantabhadra's practice:

1. Comprehending the eons of time,
2. Knowing the world systems,
3. Discerning the capacities of sentient beings,
4. Understanding cause and effect,
5. Penetrating the principle of reality,
6. Examining the characteristics of phenomena,
7. Always abiding in samādhi,
8. Constantly arousing compassion,
9. Displaying supernatural powers,
10. Constantly dwelling in nirvāṇa. ⒁ (Note: Tànxuán Jì, Vol. 16 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 403b).) Each of these ten kinds further subdivides into ten, giving a hundred aspects of Samantabhadra's practice—enough to show just how vast it is.

The chapter of the Avatamsaka Sūtra that bears Samantabhadra's name directly is the Samantabhadra Bodhisattva Practice Chapter from the sixth assembly of the Jìn Edition Sūtra. ⒂ (Note: The Táng Jīng (Tang Edition) contains the Samantabhadra Practice Chapter, and its first assembly additionally opens with the Samantabhadra Samādhi Chapter, which is not found in the Jìn Edition.) The Zhēnyuán Edition Sūtra adds, at the very end, the Samantabhadra Vow Chapter—absent from both the Jìn and Táng editions—giving a concrete exposition of the content of Samantabhadra's practice and vows. In the seventh assembly of the sūtra, the Chapter of Transcending the World, Samantabhadra Bodhisattva answers 200 questions posed by Puhui Bodhisattva by setting forth 2,000 practices, which shows how prominently Samantabhadra figures in the sūtra. ⒃ (Note: In the Táng Jīng, there is also a reconvened assembly at the Palace of Universal Light, at the start of which the Ten Samādhis Chapter is placed, with Samantabhadra as the foremost bodhisattva, expounding the characteristics of the ten great samādhis.) We shouldn't overlook, either, the Ten Dedications Chapter, placed at the end of the fifth assembly. This chapter tells how Vajra Banner Bodhisattva (Jīngāngchuáng Púsà) enters the bodhisattva's wisdom samādhi; on emerging from that samādhi, he expounds ten methods of dedication, explaining that all practices cultivated up to this point, and the immeasurable great deeds accumulated, must be unified in dedication to sentient beings, to perfect enlightenment, and to ultimate reality. As for the dedication of the three kinds of roots of goodness, Fǎzàng indicates that the chapter's central theme is "to bring to fulfillment the meritorious function of the Samantabhadra dharma realm." ⒄ (Note: Tànxuán Jì, Vol. 7 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 242a).) The threefold dedication expounded here, which broadly encompasses and unifies the ten kinds of dedication, is therefore truly magnificent and sublime! The spectacle it presents cannot be captured in words. Mainly, by means of dedication grounded in universal principle, it explains how one can reach the state of true freedom and arrive at the verification of nirvāṇa. Though Vajra Banner Bodhisattva leads this chapter, its content is steeped in Samantabhadra thought. And the Ten Grounds Chapter that follows makes plain that the true practice of the ten grounds is precisely Samantabhadra's practice; the practice of the ten pāramitās itself is Samantabhadra's practice.

On the other hand, the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (Bōrě Jīng) expound ten grounds that include the "dry wisdom" ground. ⒅ (Note: Especially in the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Chapter on Arousing Aspiration, Vol. 20 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 8, p. 259b).) This connects clearly with the ten pāramitā thought set out in the Ten Grounds Chapter of the Avatamsaka Sūtra. ⒆ (Note: Vol. 25 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 9, p. 561b): "On each successive thought of this bodhisattva, the ten pāramitās and the practices of the ten grounds are fully accomplished.") The connection is unmistakable. Within the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, however, the principal virtue running through the consistent practice is the perfection of wisdom (prajñāpāramitā). Of the six pāramitās, if the perfection of wisdom is removed, what remains is simply moral practice without profound significance; this is the abstract role Mañjuśrī plays upon the stage of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras. When Mañjuśrī enters the Avatamsaka Sūtra in the so-called Mañjuśrī chapters—from the second assembly's Chapter of Names through to the sixth assembly's Ten Grounds Chapter—these form the four heavenly-palace assemblies belonging to the sūtra's earliest layer. Though other bodhisattvas are named as assembly leaders in these chapters, the wisdom-content expounded here is largely derived from the symbol of Mañjuśrī. With Mañjuśrī as the inner virtue, scattered praises of Samantabhadra's practice uttered by Mañjuśrī himself appear throughout the chapters of the second assembly at the Palace of Universal Light. With Mañjuśrī as the leading figure, this layer is not yet fully formed, but it has already begun to break away from the ten-faith assemblies of the Prajñāpāramitā. Then come the ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, and the ten grounds—the heavenly-palace assemblies that fit Samantabhadra thought perfectly and, in their presentation, create a situation in which Samantabhadra thought comes to dominate, especially in the meaning expounded in the Ten Grounds Chapter. The emptiness thought of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras exerts its strongest influence on Huayan's ten-grounds thought, revealing that Samantabhadra's practice serves as the crucial hinge to emptiness-view thought.

These matters are largely recorded in the sūtra's final chapter, the Chapter on Entering the Dharma Realm. From this account we can infer that the pilgrim Sudhana (Shàncái) was first guided by Mañjuśrī, and at the end turned to Samantabhadra and entered the dharma realm. The entire Avatamsaka Sūtra—originally a Samantabhadra Sūtra—gradually absorbed the influence of Mañjuśrī's prajñā thought, and finally shifted into the unique standpoint of Huayan Buddhism. Prajñā thought, then, seems to set up an opposition to "being," taking a stance of refuting error and negating all other dharma realms wholesale. Huayan, by contrast, breaks free of emptiness-view as a mere method, holding that true "being" must be encompassed within emptiness as an essential requirement. So if the former takes "emptiness-view" as its standpoint, the latter takes "emptiness in process" or "the fault-line of emptiness" as its standpoint. Reading the Avatamsaka Sūtra with Samantabhadra's practice as the preparatory key, we can clearly take in its whole shape.

Turning back to the content of Samantabhadra's practice: at the beginning of the Samantabhadra Bodhisattva Practice Chapter in Volume 33 of the Jìn Edition Sūtra, Samantabhadra Bodhisattva says: "If a bodhisattva-mahāsattva gives rise to a single mind of hatred, there is no evil greater than this among all evils." ⒇ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 9, p. 607a.) He expresses the strongest aversion to the evil of hatred. He goes on: "If one gives rise to a mind of hatred, one will encounter hundreds of thousands of obstructing dharma gates." He details the content of these obstructions, because hatred is the obstruction that undermines a bodhisattva's great compassion and the merit of benefiting and transforming others. To remove these obstructions, he emphatically insists that one must abide on the ground of emptiness-view and cultivate the ten correct dharmas. And in the later Chapter of Transcending the World, when he reveals the ten kinds of Samantabhadra's mind—which correspond to the ten kinds of Samantabhadra's practice and vow-methods—he abides in the great practices of a bodhisattva's benefiting-others mind, such as great loving-kindness and great compassion. 21 (Note: Jìn Edition Sūtra, Vol. 37 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 9, p. 634b ff.).) One can gain full penetration of these only by taking the emptiness of all things as the foundation; this is the method by which all Thus Come Ones (Tathāgatas) bestow their great vows and prophecies. Whoever can share in this same aim will [all be named Samantabhadra] and is sure to gain boundless, inexhaustible merit. The Chapter of Transcending the World sets forth 2,000 practices: through the practice of a true bodhisattva, in order to embody the virtues of Samantabhadra, one must firmly abide in a mind of non-existence and cultivate the pāramitā practices. 22 (Note: Tànxuán Jì, Vol. 17 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 418b).) Fǎzàng explains the chapter's title through four principles: "1. Abandoning the delusive attachments of the world; 2. The conditioned world, being without self-nature; 3. Being in the world without being taken up by the world; 4. The Buddha-fruit, which is ultimately identical with all worlds, without attachment to the world." Samantabhadra's practice skillfully engages in all practices while effacing every trace of practice; so Samantabhadra's practice can display its own dignified Samantabhadra-practice, expounding the vast and auspicious Samantabhadra-practice. This is the emptiness-view hidden deep within Huayan—if one overlooks this point, one can be certain that one does not truly understand Huayan at all.

Since Samantabhadra's practice, by its essential nature, carries the meaning of emptiness-view, and cannot exist apart from emptiness, from this standpoint the Samantabhadra Sūtra is also called the Avatamsaka Sūtra. We must understand that it is originally founded on the ground of the principle of emptiness, with the exposition of practice as its central point. The later flourishing of Samantabhadra faith, too, was once rooted on this same ground of emptiness; without passing through Samantabhadra thought, it could never have come into being. Looking at the signs of gradual expansion from earlier layers in the Avatamsaka Sūtra, the most recently added chapter is the Samantabhadra Vow Chapter, which describes in detail how Sudhana realizes and enters the inconceivable liberation of the dharma realm in accord with Samantabhadra's practice and vows. At the start of Volume 40 of the Zhēnyuán Edition Sūtra, ten vast practices and vows are set forth:

1. Reverent homage to all Buddhas,
2. Praise of the Thus Come Ones (Tathāgatas),
3. Extensive offerings and support,
4. Confession of karmic obstructions,
5. Rejoicing in others' merits,
6. Requesting the turning of the dharma wheel,
7. Requesting the Buddhas to remain in the world,
8. Constantly following the Buddhas in their learning,
9. Constantly complying with sentient beings,
10. Universal dedication [of all merit]. 23 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 10, p. 844b.) Each item is striking in its concreteness and practicality.

As the earlier-layer chapters cited above show, the content of Samantabhadra's practice originally emphasized almost exclusively the principle-ground of emptiness; by contrast, the later content shifts markedly and actively toward the exposition of practice, describing the gradual transition from Samantabhadra's emptiness-view practice to a practice-path of "being" and the slow drift into Samantabhadra faith. From this we can see that the germination of a concrete Samantabhadra faith, born of Samantabhadra thought, was already latent at this stage. In short, Samantabhadra's practice, with its distinctively positive and active character, developed to the point of presenting concrete and practical dharma-methods; this belongs to a very late layer in the formation history of the Avatamsaka Sūtra. The mainstream running through the Avatamsaka Sūtra treats emptiness-view as the heart of Samantabhadra thought; only in this way can it serve as the foundation that upholds the unobstructed, inexhaustible dharma.

2. Emptiness-Thought and Dependent Arising

When it comes to the schools of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, scholars generally distinguish two systems of thought. One is the Madhyamaka school, centered on Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, known as the Emptiness School; the other is the Yogācāra school of the Asaṅga and Vasubandhu lineage, commonly called the Existence School. ① (Note: This is stated in Yìjìng's Record of Things Sent Back from the Southern Sea, Vol. 1 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 54, p. 205b): "The Mahāyāna has no more than two schools: one is Madhyamaka, the other is Yogācāra. Madhyamaka holds that conventional existence is empty of true nature, the substance void as an illusion; Yogācāra holds that there is nothing external, but there is something internal, and all phenomena are mere consciousness")

。" After that, these two schools became common knowledge in Buddhism.). Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu themselves never set themselves against one another; it was later scholars who, following their own preferences, took opposing stances and created a split between the two lineages, eventually giving rise to two mutually opposing labels. Perhaps this opposition didn't take shape until a thousand years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa. According to Fazang, both schools rest on the single principle of dependent origination, working from the overarching premise that "all dharmas arise through conditions." Because they begin from the same theoretical foundation and arrive at two different conclusions, the result is a synthesis of being and emptiness. The Treatise on the Five Teachings (Wujiao Zhang), Volume 4, puts it this way: "they complement one another rather than refute one another." ② (Note: Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, Volume 45, p. 501a.)

Looking at the relationship of mutual inclusion between form and emptiness from the standpoint of form, or looking at the form-emptiness nexus from the standpoint of emptiness, leads to different conclusions. "Form is emptiness" is the established position of Bhāviveka; "emptiness is form" is the position upheld by Dharmapāla. ③ (Note: This matter, including their fundamental stances, is also discussed in the Record of the Meaning of the Twelve Gate Treatise (Taishō, Volume 42, p. 218b).) The dharmas of dependent origination are illusory being, and so they are also true emptiness. Emptiness is "emptiness within being," and being is "being within emptiness." From this we can see that the two in no way contradict one another—they complete one another.

Form is empty because we don't reify form or emptiness as substantial entities. If we say a single dharma exists, then at the same time and in the same space no other dharma can be said to exist. Because there is ultimately no independent thing, the meaning of a dharma's existence is displayed all at once. From an ordinary, surface-level view, all presently existing dharmas are empty, and precisely because they are empty, they possess the meaning of being. Indeed, "form is emptiness" allows us to understand being; "emptiness is form" allows us to perceive emptiness. These are the two statements—form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. The grounds for form's existence and the grounds for emptiness's existence, understood as mutually causal, give rise to two meanings that interpenetrate without obstruction and complete one another. This is not a case of repeating the same content in reverse and forward phrasing.

If form and emptiness were locked in permanent opposition—if form were simply form and emptiness simply emptiness—they wouldn't be dependently originated dharmas. Emptiness primarily manifests as the negative aspect of form, while form points to the positive aspect of emptiness: emptiness takes form as its form, and form takes emptiness as its emptiness. "Because [dharmas] arise from conditions, they must have no intrinsic nature" ④ (Note: Treatise on the Five Teachings, Volume 4 (Taishō, Volume 45, p. 499b).) —this is Fazang's explanation. It isn't that dharmas exist first and dependent origination arises afterward; rather, dependent origination is right there in the fact of things, with no contradiction. The "dharmas of dependent origination" are expressed from the standpoint of self-verification. For this reason, Fazang's one-fascicle Treatise on the Golden Lion lays out ten modes describing the features of dharma realm dependent origination, using this accessible method to invite deeper contemplation.

The structure of the Treatise on the Golden Lion is the framework the author regularly used as his teaching outline, briefly arranging ten modes to set forth the general outline of dependent origination: 1. Clarifying Dependent Origination, 2. Distinguishing Form and Emptiness, 3. Discussing the Three Natures, 4. Revealing Non-form, 5. Teaching Non-arising, 6. Expounding the Five Teachings, 7. Elaborating the Ten Profound Mysteries, 8. Summarizing the Six Marks, 9. Attaining Bodhi, 10. Entering Nirvāṇa. ⑤ (Note: This organizational pattern first appears in Fazang's four-volume Treatise on the Five Teachings and serves as the standard format for his one-fascicle works such as the Guiding Principles of the Huayan Sūtra and the Ocean of Meaning of the Huayan Sūtra: One Hundred Gates; his works everywhere follow this pattern. For our school, the number ten is used to penetrate the endless interpenetration of the dharma realm. At the same time, the numeral ten represents a complete and full number, used to convey the meaning of endless interpenetration. Its depth cannot be exhausted by pen or tongue, so within the limits of language it is conventionally presented by dividing into ten modes.)

It begins with the foundational Buddhist principle of dependent origination, and its ultimate goal is the attainment of bodhi and nirvāṇa—fully expounding the true reality of dharma realm dependent origination. The first mode, "Clarifying Dependent Origination," is Buddhism's fundamental thought and serves as the initial premise. ⑥ (Note: This pattern can also be seen in another of Fazang's works, the Ocean of Meaning of the Huayan Sūtra: One Hundred Gates (Taishō, Volume 45, p. 627ff).) From this, one enters the gate of emptiness, which is the second stage, "Distinguishing Form and Emptiness." Then the gate of differentiated being is revealed, corresponding to the third stage, "Discussing the Three Natures." From the overarching premise of dependently originated arising, two different conclusions emerge: "all dharmas are empty" and "all dharmas exist." Illusory form is true emptiness, so dependent origination is emptiness; if form were not empty, there'd be no need to rely on dependent origination. The purpose of the dharmas of dependent origination is nothing other than to reveal emptiness. Form and emptiness can indeed be called the central standpoint of Buddhist thought on dependent origination. That said, the essential nature and characteristics of dharmas are usually described in terms of three natures: the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), and the perfectly accomplished real nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). Though these three natures ultimately converge at a single ultimate level, we must first divide the essential nature of dharmas into the two truths—ultimate and conventional (the perfectly accomplished real nature is ultimate truth; the imagined and other-dependent natures are conventional truth). Taken as the appearance of being, these surface as the manifest layer.

At the same time, if one clings to the distinctions of the three natures as the essential positions of dharmas' nature and characteristics, that shows one hasn't yet grasped the true reality of dependent origination. The distinctions of the three natures can be seen to manifest the single, equal, formless nature, and when the three natures are led back to converge at the same ultimate level, this reveals the fourth stage, "Revealing Non-form." The imagined nature exists in deluded perception but not in principle: it appears to ordinary beings lost in delusion, but from the standpoint of true principle it doesn't exist. The other-dependent nature has existent characteristics but no intrinsic nature: the other-dependent dharmas arisen from conditions have distinct, existent characteristics, but their intrinsic nature is necessarily non-existent. The perfectly accomplished real nature exists in principle but not in deluded perception: while ultimate truth exists from the standpoint of principle, for those lost in delusion it is entirely non-existent. Thus, following the deeper intent of the three natures, there are the three non-natures: "characteristic non-nature," "arising non-nature," and "ultimate non-nature." Synthesized, they point to the single, formless ultimate level—this is the mode of Non-form. Even though all characteristics are exhausted and brought to the single formless nature, this nature can't remain confined to the idea of "non-arising" either. This is why there is the fifth mode, "Teaching Non-arising," which transcends all relative distinctions and points toward absolute dependent origination. Here all deluded speech and ideation are extinguished, and both nature and characteristics are perfectly still; ultimately, non-arising cannot even be grasped, but non-arising is provisionally taught as a way of speaking.

So the first mode gives a general overview of dependent origination; from the second through the fourth modes, dependent origination's two sides—ultimate and conventional, being and non-being—are observed from a relative standpoint. The fifth mode, meanwhile, speaks of dependent origination from an absolute standpoint that transcends all relative distinctions, and serves as the thread leading us to endless, interpenetrating dependent origination, free from bondage to dependent origination itself. The sixth mode expounds the Five Teachings. The seventh and eighth modes, "Elaborating the Ten Profound Mysteries" and "Summarizing the Six Marks," follow in sequence. These are presented to show that capacities and responses differ, that different kinds of teachings are established, and—returning to the source to explain the scope—to put forward the aspect of "expounding the differences of the Five Teachings" as the doctrinal framework for dependent origination. In this way, the ultimate exposition of dependent origination covers the dependent origination of the Ten Profound Mysteries, the perfect interpenetration of the Six Marks, and finally grasps the true reality of dependent origination: the wisdom that realizes it is "attaining bodhi," and the truth realized thereby is "entering nirvāṇa." This completes the framework of the one-fascicle Treatise on the Golden Lion. Indeed, form and emptiness are two ways of observing dependent origination, never isolated from each other; in the end, being and emptiness must be synthesized. This is the core goal of the Xianshou school of Huayan. According to Fazang's Brief Commentary on the Heart Sutra, ⑦ (Note: Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, Volume 33, p. 553a.) the relationship between form and emptiness, considered face-to-face, has three meanings. First, the meaning of mutual opposition: emptiness and form are completely opposite—where form exists, emptiness is absent; where emptiness exists, form is absent; they mutually negate each other. Second, the meaning of non-obstruction: when we speak of form, it isn't substantially existent form, only illusory form; at the moment of form, emptiness is not obstructed. When we speak of emptiness, form is not obstructed either. The two share a mutually penetrating relationship. Third, the meaning of mutual activation: this takes the second meaning further to establish a relationship in which form and emptiness activate one another. The illusory form is itself emptiness just as it is, because emptiness is immediately present as illusory form. Emptiness doesn't stick in emptiness, and form doesn't cling to form—yet emptiness and being complete each other, so that form is form and emptiness is emptiness. Indeed, form and emptiness oppose and contradict each other, mutually negating; but considered in terms of dependent origination, they're identical, precisely because dependent origination is emptiness. Only by truly understanding form this way can one truly understand emptiness, and likewise, only those who truly penetrate emptiness can simultaneously know true form. We explain this by saying that form is great compassion and emptiness is great wisdom: by observing "form is emptiness," one accomplishes great wisdom and therefore does not dwell in saṃsāra; by observing "emptiness is form," one accomplishes great compassion and therefore does not dwell in nirvāṇa. ⑧ (Note: Same source, p. 553b. Also, Chengqian's Commentary on the Huayan Golden Lion Treatise (Taishō, Volume 45, p. 668b) states that the result of the synthesis of emptiness and being is great wisdom and great compassion, representing non-dwelling in saṃsāra and non-abiding in nirvāṇa—the path of Mahāyāna bodhisattvas. This is why Fazang advocates the mutual, unobstructed interpenetration and complementarity of the two meanings of form and emptiness.)

There once was an artist who used gold as his material and, with superb skill, carved a golden lion statue. The golden lion thus created appears, through the artist's skill, to be a suddenly manifested lion, as vivid as a living one. We cling to it and take it to be real, but this is a mistake born of ordinary common sense. In fact, the lion we see before us is nothing but a fabrication of the artist's craft—a mere illusory appearance. The manifestation of the lion's form is simply a transformation arising from the gold itself. Its arising is ultimately an arising that is no arising at all. Though the lion has a form, it can be said to be completely unarisen: the golden lion comes about by relying on conditions, using gold that is originally unarisen to manifest the appearance of an unarisen lion. This is the true reality of dependent origination. The text calls this "right view." Right view is defined in contrast to wrong view—wrong view being the denial of cause and effect. As explained above, if one cannot realize dependent origination as non-form, and dependent origination as having no intrinsic nature, on the basis of the synthesis of emptiness and being, one cannot align with the true principle of cause and effect.

Based on the above, one might think that Huayan simply took over Madhyamaka's method of refuting error regarding emptiness wholesale—without revision or deepening—and inserted the endless, unobstructed dependent origination of all phenomena into its framework. But this is not the case. Madhyamaka takes emptiness as its fundamental standpoint, consistently penetrating through to the absence of intrinsic nature and continually refuting erroneous attachments. It negates all substantialist clinging but puts forward no positive agenda of its own. For if Madhyamaka held any such agenda, it would only end up negating the very emptiness view it advocates; the emptiness view must negate everything, including itself—otherwise it cannot be considered a true emptiness view. In this respect, Madhyamaka never makes any explicit, positive affirmation on the level of active practice, so it isn't without its limitations. Moving on to Huayan, the school fully unfolds endless dependent origination. It transforms Madhyamaka's "unobtainable emptiness" into a positive, active practice—realizing that "being is established within emptiness" at the same time that "emptiness is established within being." Within the framework of endless, interpenetrating relations, every phenomenon and dharma has its own proper place. Fazang's Ocean of Meaning: One Hundred Gates says: "If one raises emptiness, it is a single, uniform emptiness; if one raises intrinsic nature, it is a single, uniform intrinsic nature; if one raises suchness, it is a single, uniform suchness." ⑨ (Note: Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, Volume 45, p. 629a.) From the standpoint of the synthesis of being and emptiness, all emptiness is intrinsic nature, is suchness. The text also says: "When eliminating, it eliminates views that fall outside the principle; when preserving, it preserves all phenomena that fully embody the principle: in elimination there is constant preservation; in preservation there is constant elimination." This explains that the elimination of emptiness and the preservation of being are an inseparable, unified whole. From the methodological standpoint of Madhyamaka's direct engagement with the problem of emptiness, Madhyamaka places the core of its emptiness view within the ongoing practice of Buddhism—at least in its exegetical dimension—treating emptiness as an object of objective study, while transcending and negating existent dharmas, penetrating deeply into the realm of emptiness and reaching far beyond it. Huayan's dharma realm dependent origination, seen here as without shortcomings, adopts this endless structure as its direct goal and the culmination of its doctrinal exposition, fully bringing out the distinctive features of dharma realm dependent origination. In doing so, it completes the thoroughly deepened teaching that "being is emptiness, and emptiness is being." The contradictory, negating "unobtainable emptiness" of the emptiness view is integrated into Huayan's synthesis of emptiness and being. As the old saying goes, "Prajñā is the beginning of the emptiness view; Huayan is the end of the emptiness view." This saying carries a deep meaning.

3. The Three Natures and the True and the False

The two meanings of being and emptiness are synthesized in dependent origination. Those who assert "being is non-being, and non-being is being" can here see the ultimate of the dharma realm where principle and phenomena interpenetrate without obstruction—which is precisely the proper position of the Final Teaching. At the same time, the question of the true and the false is the fundamental foundation of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena; when it's fully encompassed within this framework, it immediately becomes the content of the Perfect Teaching. On this question, Fazang writes in his Exhausting Delusion and Returning to the Source. Overall, he begins from two modes of functioning: the universal, constant functioning of the "seal of the ocean" samādhi, and the free, unimpeded functioning of the "dharma realm's perfect clarity" samādhi. When the original, enlightened true suchness has exhausted all deluded thoughts and the original mind is perfectly clear and still, the entire array of myriad phenomena manifest as the display of the one mind, emerging clearly in their full form. He separately explains the use of the countless virtues inherently possessed by the original, enlightened true suchness, and the use of the myriad practices cultivated to manifest this inherent nature. In the great practice of Huayan, it is clearly demonstrated that the true and false interpenetrate, and principle and phenomena are perfectly fused, such that the fruit of awakening is spoken of even within the context of causal practice. True suchness and all dharmas are inseparable and mutually inclusive; this can only be understood from the standpoint of the Perfect Teaching. Taking this as a clue, Fazang explains this further in Volume 4 of his Treatise on the Five Teachings. ① (Note: Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, Volume 45, p. 499a.) In the chapter "Distinguishing Doctrinal Levels," among its four sections, the first two concern "the similarities and differences of the three natures" and "the six meanings of the gate of dependent origination," which further examine Huayan's thought on being and emptiness from the perspective of the true and false, and the relationship between principle and phenomena.

The <Ten Grounds Chapter> of the Avatamsaka Sūtra holds an extremely pivotal place within the entire Avatamsaka canon, so there is little need to say more. Since this chapter unfolds the thought of dependent origination in detail, it carries immense significance. The passage in particular—"The three realms are illusory, created solely by the mind; the twelve links of dependent origination all depend on the mind"—has served across later Buddhist schools as an unsurpassed central tenet; to grasp it is to be more than halfway there.

The forward and reverse contemplations of the twelve links of dependent origination display both a defiled and a pure dependent origination. The pure one corresponds to true suchness (tathatā); the defiled one represents the cycle of transmigration within the realm of delusion. The turning point between this transmigration and the path of cessation lies in the single mind. This single mind is none other than true suchness, yet it cannot be severed from deluded phenomena either.

Set this passage from the <Ten Grounds Chapter> side by side with the famous mind-only (cittamātra) verses from the <Chapter of the Bodhisattvas' Verses in the Palace of the Suyama Heaven>②(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 9, p. 465b.), and the significance of the single mind's working comes into clearer view. The mind-only verses center on the mind: "The mind is like a skilled painter, painting the various five aggregates." The mind "creates everything in all worlds without exception." And so, "all buddhas fully understand that all things are transformed by the mind"; one who sees this is said to be skilled in seeing the true Buddha. The verse "The mind is just like the Buddha; the Buddha is just like sentient beings; mind, buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference" weaves through the others, treating the three dharmas as fully equal.

Mind, buddha, and sentient beings are functions within the dependent origination of dharmadhātu, each simply manifesting a different process. The mind is the cognitive function of dharmadhātu itself; when this cognitive activity directed at dharmadhātu produces awakening, the result is a worthwhile buddha; when it operates through delusion, it produces a worthless ordinary being. In the process of dharmadhātu dependent origination, these three dharmas are fundamentally undivided between subject and object, all on the same level—this is the view of Tiantai master Zhiyi. Fazang, by contrast, takes mind as the sole pivot: all delusion and awakening, defilement and purity are centered on mind and transformed by the single mind. The lines "All dharmas are created by the mind" and "All things are transformed by the mind" bracket the verse on the non-difference of the three dharmas that lies between them. Zhiyi reads the passage through the doctrine of inherent nature possessing [all qualities]; Fazang reads it through the manifestation of inherent nature within dependent origination. The two simply stand at different positions in interpreting the mind-only verses.

Even though the three dharmas are without distinction, Fazang reasons that since mind can create both buddha and sentient beings, the three cannot be different. Mind serves as the basis upon which both buddha and sentient beings depend, and can equally become the object of dependence for either; hence mind is placed in the position of creator. Just as mind is identical with buddha, so too is mind identical with sentient beings. The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna adds that if ignorance arises from true suchness, then the root of ignorance can be sought within true suchness; and if sentient beings arise from buddha, then buddha and sentient beings too must be without difference. From this, the question of the mutual identity of the three natures comes clearly into view: the true suchness of perfect nature (pariniṣpanna) and the deluded phenomena of the imagined nature (parikalpita) are joined through the ālayavijñāna of dependent nature (paratantra).

In the end, when we explain all the varied phenomena of existence from the standpoint of mind-only, they arise through the discriminating wisdom of defiled dependent origination. The dharma, originally unborn and undying, manifests its form through this discriminating wisdom; thus if delusive thought is set aside, all phenomena shed their forms and return to the original unborn and undying state—emerging from true suchness and returning to true suchness. The true suchness of perfect nature is where all mental activity ceases, far beyond the reach of ordinary knowledge. As the Awakening of Faith says: "All dharmas have distinctions only because they depend on deluded thoughts; when separated from thought, there are no forms of any object."

If true suchness is one taste, perfectly equal, with object and wisdom both dissolved, it should be called: "Speech ends, thought is cut off; emptiness cannot be grasped." Yet to call true suchness "empty" does not mean it is wholly devoid of content—it inherently possesses merits beyond counting, more than the grains of the Ganges. Our limited language cannot fully describe it. Worse, if one tries to measure it using deluded thought and emotion, true suchness only recedes further. We said earlier that true suchness is "empty and cannot be grasped," as though because its content is formless. In fact, the meaning of true suchness as formless cannot be explained through emptiness. If one says it has form, it is formless; if one says it is formless, it has form. To refrain from any fixed determination on form or formlessness—this is the true meaning, which is why we say emptiness cannot be grasped.

Because the existence or non-existence of true suchness lies beyond what our deluded minds can determine, it is called empty. Yet if its entire being follows conditions and becomes all phenomenal dharmas, this is no different from saying that conditions form the root of all dharmas. We must not treat the single substance lying behind phenomena as "existent"; rather, we must understand the absolute completion of all dharmas as itself the existent.③(Note: Five Teachings Chapter, Vol. 4 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, pp. 499a–b.))

Fazang teaches that the one true suchness has two attributes—unchanging and following conditions—and he highlights how the true and the deluded, principle and phenomena, mutually interpenetrate. As it follows conditions and forms both defiled and pure [phenomena], it does not lose its inherent purity. He illustrates this with the analogy of a bright mirror: a bright mirror accurately reflects the original appearance of any object, whether pure or impure; though it reflects the images of both defiled and pure objects, it does not lose its own clarity. On the contrary, by reflecting the images of defilement and purity exactly as they are, it demonstrates that it is a bright mirror. The unchanging true suchness becomes all dharmas through conditioned origination, without ever losing its unchanging virtues. As it follows conditions and forms defiled and pure [phenomena], it eternally retains its inherent purity. Because it does not lose its inherent purity, it can follow conditions and become all dharmas; thus these two meanings are ultimately one nature.

Just as reflecting pure phenomena does not particularly increase the mirror's clarity, so reflecting defiled phenomena does not stain it. When pure forms appear as pure, this displays the mirror's clarity in one sense; when defiled forms appear as defiled, this too is the mirror's own display of clarity. On a single bright mirror, the defiled and pure images are all displayed as one image of defiled and pure alike; but if dust covers the mirror's surface, this no longer applies. If the mirror is dustless, what it reflects is defiled-and-pure as one. If we do not apply wise discernment, we cannot understand that within perfect nature the unchanging and the conditioned are consistent, that in true suchness emptiness and existence are not contradictory. In truth, existence and emptiness are not inherently different; they are simply two perspectives on the same single reality—one directed inward, one outward. So emptiness does not obstruct existence, nor does existence hinder the establishment of emptiness. Existence is emptiness, emptiness is existence; existence and emptiness are established such that each inherently contains the other at the very point where each becomes possible. The two meanings of emptiness and existence, corresponding to unchanging and conditioned, mutually determine each other's mode of being, merge completely without separation, and are known to be of one nature.

The buddha and sentient beings discussed within the three dharmas share the same underlying principle. The buddha of cessation speaks to sentient beings of transmigration: sentient beings are of the imagined nature, the product of deluded mind. In Yogācāra (Faxiang) teaching in particular, although all share the imagined nature, it is divided into the discriminating subject, the object of discrimination, and the imagined nature itself, and the school seems to have its own unique explanations of each. The school of nature (Xingzong, i.e. Huayan) establishes two meanings here: "existent in delusion" (情有) and "nonexistent in principle" (理无). "Existent in delusion" refers to the appearance of the marks of self and dharmas in one's own deluded mind, as though there were truly existent dharmas outside the mind—this is deluded mind, spoken from the side of existence. "Nonexistent in principle" means that, since this is the deluded mind of ordinary beings, it is in fact nonexistent, merely a false existence; reasoned from principle, it was originally nonexistent; and since true suchness is entirely free of deluded defilement, it must be called "nonexistent in principle"—this is the meaning of emptiness. Thus on the single ground of the imagined nature of sentient beings, the two meanings of "existent in delusion" and "nonexistent in principle," of existence and emptiness, are synthesized together.

The ālayavijñāna, which serves as the nexus uniting buddha and sentient beings in the single mind, manifests the dependent nature. The Awakening of Faith recognizes that it contains both awakening and non-awakening, combining the defiled aspect of the discriminating nature and the pure aspect of the true nature into a defiled-and-pure aspect. The various form-and-mind dharmas arising from the dependent dharmas of the four conditions and the like—bearing the defiled aspect—are the defiled dependent nature, referring to the afflicted (sāsrava) dharmas as the deluded imagined nature. The pure aspect is the pure dependent nature, referring to the unafflicted (anāsrava) dharmas as the pure dharmas of pure cultivation; they depend not only on other dharmas such as the four conditions, but, in the sense of dharmas manifested through true suchness following conditions, are no different from true suchness itself.

Thus this dependent nature, in the form-and-mind dharmas, appears as something substantially real, while its false existence resembles the real existence of perfect nature. Again, the "seemingly existent in delusion" of the imagined nature is a false existence among the conditioned dharmas, and apart from the true suchness of no-inherent-nature, nothing else exists. In the end this is without self-nature—the meaning of no-inherent-nature. From these two meanings, we know that existence and emptiness are synthesized on the single nature of dependent origination.

Each of the three natures thus possesses both true and deluded meanings, and contains both empty and existent aspects. The two meanings of each are never held in fixed isolation; while each establishes its own two meanings, it also shares in the two meanings that connect it with the others. As the exposition above makes clear, we should understand these paired meanings of the three natures as interrelated, each looking to the others from the side of self and other. Further: the unchanging aspect of perfect nature, the no-inherent-nature of dependent nature, and the "nonexistent in principle" of the imagined nature are the inherent purity of true suchness. Conditioned dharmas arise from true suchness, and their essential nature is established through perfect nature. The imagined nature, again, is the deluded mind born from ignorance, confused about the principle of true suchness; in its essential nature, therefore, it too is the inherently pure true suchness. The three natures are ultimately a single reality.

On the other hand, when we set side by side the conditioned aspect of perfect nature, the seemingly existent aspect of dependent nature, and the "existent in delusion" of the imagined nature: true suchness relies on the condition of ignorance to form all dharmas, so the conditioned [attribute] is connected to all dharmas. Conditioned dharmas themselves are not the imagined nature; they truly arise from true suchness, yet appear to arise from perfect nature, and also appear to bear the "existent in delusion" of the imagined nature. And if we speak of the imagined nature as the deluded phenomena appearing before deluded mind, these three meanings too are simultaneous across the three natures. The former are called the three meanings of the root, the latter the three meanings of the branches. When the root and branch three natures are compared, they clearly express the meaning of non-identity. Yet within their own positions, the root three natures and the branch three natures are of identical meaning in all three natures, without difference.④(Note: Regarding the root and branch of the three natures, the account here follows the Tōdaiji lineage, known as the "main temple" school. If the unchanging and conditioned meanings are taken as the two root meanings, then no-inherent-nature, "existent in delusion," and "nonexistent in principle" form the four branch meanings. If in addition the three natures are said to be simultaneous, this is the tradition of the Kōsenji lineage, known as the "branch temple" school. The core point—that the three natures are simultaneous—is no different in either school.)

For the root three natures, the true and the deluded are mutually identical: delusion is none other than truth—"form is none other than emptiness." For the branch three natures, the true and the deluded are mutually identical: truth is none other than delusion—"emptiness is none other than form," is it not? This stands apart from the Yogācāra school's teaching that the true and the deluded do not intermingle and the three natures are wholly separate. Huayan doctrine examines this from the standpoint of the mutual fusion of the true and the deluded, beginning from the fact that each of the three natures possesses both empty and existent meanings and each provides the grounds for the others.

Fazang summarizes the identity and difference of the three natures in the Five Teachings Chapter: "The above passages further clarify that the true penetrates the end of the deluded, and nothing is not called true; the deluded penetrates the source of the true, and its essence is nowhere not tranquil. The true and the deluded interpenetrate, the two aspects are fully fused, unobstructed and all-embracing."⑤(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 501a.) Relying on these scriptural proofs to confirm his own teaching, he definitively establishes the position of the true and the deluded, placing emptiness and existence within a single essential nature.

In explicating the three natures, Fazang especially brings perfect nature, dependent nature, and the true and the deluded into opposition, then fuses them into a single simultaneous reality, pioneering the view that each of the three natures possesses both empty and existent meanings and focusing on the synthesis of existence and emptiness. Yogācāra doctrine, by contrast, consistently places dependent nature and imagined nature in opposition as false existence and delusion, distinguishing them as mutually opposed. The school of nature (Xingzong, i.e. Huayan) develops its distinctive character by following the guidance of the Paramārtha (Zhendi) lineage; this is clearly evident in the scriptural passages cited in the Five Teachings Chapter. Fazang's usual standard of integrating nature and phenomena takes the dharmadhātu dependent origination of the tathāgatagarbha as taught in Yogācāra doctrine as the principal framework and integrates it into his system—this point should be understood.

In his scriptural evidence,⑥(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 501a.) Fazang cites two sūtras from Paramārtha's translation of Vasubandhu's Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Vol. 6: the Brāhmaṇaparipṛcchā Sūtra and the Abhidharma-sūtra,⑦(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 31, p. 193a. Both are cited as scriptural evidence.) bringing together the defiled aspect of the imagined nature and the pure aspect of perfect nature within dependent nature, thereby demonstrating the doctrinal tenet that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not eternally distinct. Based on the unimpeded fusion of the three natures—each possessing root and branch, true and worldly, empty and existent—he concludes that the three natures are simultaneous and that existence and emptiness are fused. The Yogācāra evidence he cites is a subtle methodological device, intended to lead later students to understanding.⑧(Note: However, in Xuanzang's translation of the Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Vol. 5 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 31, p. 407a.), the defiled aspect of the imagined nature and the pure aspect of perfect nature are included within dependent nature, and this teaching is presented only as a hidden intention. The fact that Fazang cites Paramārtha's old translation rather than Xuanzang's new translation of the same Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha reveals his intent.)

The above exposition shows that the three natures are characterized by the interpenetration of the true and the deluded, a synthesis of emptiness and existence. In the fourth volume of the Treatise on the Five Teachings (Wujiaozhang), the chapter "On the Similarities and Differences of the Three Natures" is followed by "On the Six Meanings of the Gate of Conditioned Arising as Cause." These lay the groundwork for the later chapters "On the Gate of the Unobstructed Conditioned Arising of the Ten Mysteries" and "On the Meaning of the Six Marks of Perfect Interfusion." We will also see that, while the unobstructed conditioned arising of the ten mystery gates serves as a premise, it is inseparably linked to the six meanings of conditioned arising as cause.

The connection works like this: conditioned, other-dependent phenomena manifest on the gate of effect in conditioned arising, and explaining its gate of cause is precisely what the later six meanings of conditioned arising as concern. Linking the gate of effect and the gate of cause leads to the later unobstructed conditioned arising of the ten mysteries. At the same time, the doctrine of true thusness following conditions, as outlined in the meaning of the similarities and differences of the three natures, is the very root from which the paired teachings of existence and emptiness, power and powerlessness, dependence on conditions and non-dependence on conditions—as expounded in the six meanings of conditioned arising as concern—derive. Principle is manifested through phenomena; phenomena are none other than principle, while principle also takes shape as concrete, tangible reality through phenomena.

The root of the mutual opposition and contradiction among phenomena is contained, as the basis within principle, in the similarities and differences of the three natures. To grasp the three natures and the true-and-deluded from the foundational level of the interpenetration of true and deluded and the synthesis of emptiness and existence—transcending what we might previously have imagined—is something we need to understand.

4. Forms of Arising and the Six Meanings of the Gate of Cause

As for the results manifested by conditioned arising, Fazang worked out the view that, from the standpoint of the true and the deluded, the identity of true and deluded within the three natures gives rise to a synthesis of emptiness and existence. The unobstructed interfusion of principle and phenomena—where phenomena are none other than the ultimate, and the ultimate is none other than phenomena—flows from this. All present phenomena certainly possess both the meanings of existence and emptiness, and these are mutually identical.

Question: "What causes this to be so?" To answer, we must turn to examine the "six meanings of conditioned arising as cause."¹

When we view the similarities and differences of the three natures discussed above as the resulting effect, the later six meanings of conditioned arising as cause function as the generative cause: the two meanings of emptiness and existence manifest now as existence, now as emptiness, bringing this state about. The question of their function and efficacy is also crucial, and we must consider the standpoints of dependence on conditions and non-dependence on conditions in order to rigorously critique and examine the form of arising. Using the sutras as a guide to draw a conclusion linking the Huayan school's view of emptiness and its practice of existence-affirming action is, in fact, a pressing task.

Whenever we speak of phenomena as existent, this is the manifestation of conditioned arising: it indicates that all phenomena are empty of self-nature because they are constituted by conditions. Conditioned arising is present, so they exist; being empty of self-nature, they are empty. If we fail to trace this fact of conditioned phenomena thoroughly to its source, we might assume that the many causes behind them all stand on equal footing. Conceptually, however, when we select the most intimate relation to a result from among the manifold causes, the remaining causes take on the status of auxiliary, surrounding conditions. Among these, the primary cause is called the "cause," and the auxiliary causes are called the "conditions." This stems from Buddhism's general rejection of contingency and its insistence on necessity. It also moves beyond one-cause-one-effect theory, using a multi-cause framework for explanation. Indeed, the complex and varied connections between cause, condition, and effect have been organized in Abhidharma teachings into the framework of six causes, five effects, and four conditions. Working within this multi-cause framework, the Abhidharma masters took the Buddha's view of conditioned arising as their basis for examining cause and effect, showing they had conducted extremely detailed analysis. Yet the Abhidharma masters fixed and reified cause and effect, reducing them to an abstract theoretical game; there is no denying their tendency to force their application where it does not belong. This is why Nāgārjuna, at the beginning of the first chapter of the Middle Treatise (Zhonglun), "The Chapter on Examining Cause and Conditions," rejected the four modes of arising of phenomena—self-arising, other-arising, joint arising, and causeless arising—and established the doctrine of non-arising.²

Indeed, this verse on the four kinds of non-arising is Nāgārjuna's incisive critique explaining the meaning of non-arising, and he goes on to expound the "eight negations" at the start of the treatise. The eight negations are identical in content to the four kinds of non-arising, with the judgment "all phenomena are empty" as their theoretical basis; this is why the treatise holds such a central position. Since all conditioned phenomena are empty of self-nature, phenomena cannot arise from their own power. If a phenomenon were to arise from itself, it would have to already exist prior to arising. But a phenomenon cannot be said to arise solely from other causes and conditions, excluding itself. Why? Because the existence of "other" is only possible once "self" exists first. Yet if the self cannot arise on its own, how can it arise by relying on other? Furthermore, since neither self-arising nor other-arising is valid, joint arising has no grounds, and causeless arising is even more meaningless.

In short, this confused claim that "phenomena have birth and cessation" arises from initial deluded discrimination, particularly the erroneous fixation that "phenomena arise." This is why the first of the eight negations is non-arising, which encompasses all eight negations: any context asserting the necessity of "arising" is negated. The next verse goes on to negate self-nature and other-nature to supplement the previous one: it first grants the premise of self and other "arising" in order to critique it, and finally does not even allow the existence of self-nature, thereby also rejecting the denial of other-nature. This directly addresses the fundamental question of reality and takes up the issue of generation. Strictly speaking, phenomena are indeed empty of self-nature in the most rigorous sense. If they had self-nature, they would only be able to exist by themselves and so manifest their arising. Moreover, the self-nature of phenomena cannot be found within the web of cause and condition. And if one assumes there is other-nature within that web, claiming that this other-nature gives rise to self-nature is simply not valid. All views that hold that myriad phenomena arise from this [other-nature] are mere intellectual fabrications and must be resolved through rigorous critique. This is the natural conclusion of "conditioned arising is emptiness," returning to the standpoint of emptiness of self-nature—which is nothing other than an affirmation of "form is none other than emptiness."

However, in Huayan thought, while taking the aspect of emptiness as meaningful, it also positively affirms the standpoint of the present existence of conditioned arising, in order to fully systematize this form of arising. This tradition first appeared in Zhiyan's Search for the Profound (Souxuan Ji), where, in explaining the Ten Grounds Chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra, he expounded the reasoning of arising from causes and conditions.³

When a cause is viewed as a proximate cause-condition, it can only be called a true cause if it functions decisively as such; then, with the three other conditions—such as contributory conditions—having the power to bring forth resultant dharmas, can it be discussed as a cause. The fact that a cause has the six meanings is the reason it can give rise to resultant phenomena. If there is no power of conditions to bring it to manifestation, then the six meanings of the cause become meaningless. While acknowledging the importance of the six meanings of the cause, we must also emphasize how closely they are linked to the power of conditions. Now let us clarify what the six meanings of the cause are:

1. Perpetual cessation (empty, powerful, not dependent on conditions)
2. Coexistence (empty, powerful, dependent on conditions)
3. Concomitance (existent, powerless, dependent on conditions)
4. Determinacy (existent, powerful, not dependent on conditions)
5. Observation of causes and conditions (empty, powerless, dependent on conditions)
6. Drawing forth and manifesting its own result (existent, powerful, dependent on conditions)

Note that these six meanings are already rooted in deep scholarly inquiry, as they also take into account Vasubandhu's Treatise on the Ten Grounds (Shidi Lun) and its discussion of the synthesis of emptiness and existence. In his interpretation of seed theory, Zhiyan had already achieved a well-organized framework based on the logical synthesis of existence and emptiness in conditioned arising theory, but it is regrettable that he did not explicitly clarify the standpoint of essence and function.

When it came to Fazang, he fully absorbed and integrated the three natures doctrine and the endless, interpenetrating conditioned arising of the dharma realm into his system, organizing it into a very coherent framework. In the fourth volume of his Treatise on the Five Teachings, under the section "On the Order of Doctrinal Meaning" (Yili Fenqi), he provides a complete, systematic exposition of the second [topic], the six meanings of conditioned arising as cause, organized under six headings: 1. Explaining the characteristics, 2. Establishment, 3. Number of clauses, 4. Expansion and contraction, 5. Interfusion and integration, 6. Organization in relation to the teachings.⁴

The meaning is as follows: First, placed under the doctrine of the similarities and differences of the three natures, it both adopts a position of reconciliation with the Yogācāra (Faxiang) teachings and further implies that their separate arguments regarding existence and emptiness are not fully supported by evidence. Instead, it explicitly presents the synthesis of existence and emptiness, using this as the framework to introduce endless conditioned arising, and expresses this content. In particular, Zhiyan's Fifty Essential Questions and Answers (Wushi Yingda Wen), in its lower volume, gives the same explanation as the Search for the Profound, naming the six meanings of the cause as [above], and ultimately states, "These six meanings, together with the prior causal relation of the interfusion of principle and phenomena, are further expressed through six dharmas."⁵ Thus, through the meaning of the six marks—totality, particularity, similarity, difference, formation, and disintegration—[these principles] are universally applicable. If we take the central thesis "in accordance with the nature of the dharma realm" as the conclusion, this implies that these six meanings constitute the content of endless conditioned arising. The Treatise on the Five Teachings⁶ harmonizes the six meanings and the interfusion of the six marks, holding that the two are distinct in terms of "the self-nature of conditioned arising" and "the meaning gate of conditioned arising," while at the same time achieving unobstructed integration of both. This is entirely a continuation of the ideas presented by Zhiyan and earlier masters.

Fazang's thought does not rigidly fix the inherent causal nature of dharmas; rather, it frames causality entirely within the context of conditioned arising. From the perspective of causal relations, it addresses only relationality rather than fixed existence, focusing on the correlation of functional activity rather than inherent substantiality. Thus, even the meaning of cause posited in the seeds of the ālayavijñāna adopted by the Yogācāra (Faxiang) school is not limited solely to the context of seeds giving rise to present-moment functioning. In the context of present-moment functioning perfuming seeds, the present-moment functioning also takes on the status of a cause. It is also stated that [the cause] possesses the six meanings, and of course, even seeds are definitively recognized as having both the meanings of emptiness and existence in their resultant state. The trace of his more systematic and refined organization of this mode of thought compared to Zhiyan is immediately obvious.

It is clear that the Treatise on the Five Teachings first cites Vasubandhu's Treatise on the Ten Grounds (Shidi Lun) and Asaṅga's Compendium of the Higher Abhidharma (Dasheng Apitan Za Ji Lun) as scriptural evidence.⁷ As for the form of conditioned arising, there are four possible modes: self-arising, other-arising, non-joint arising, and joint arising. These are the four kinds of non-arising that Nāgārjuna once rejected, which [Fazang] actively adopts here, seeking to establish them from the standpoint opposite to the six meanings of conditioned arising as cause. After citing this scriptural evidence, he sets up a question-and-answer:

"Question: What is the distinction between the six meanings and the eight negations? Answer: The eight negations are based on negation, while the six meanings are based on affirmation. Moreover, the eight negations rely on the absurdity of counterfactual reasoning to make their point, while the six meanings rely on the manifestation of principle to eradicate deluded conceptions."

From these two answers, we can see that the eight negations provide a negative explanation of the root of conditioned arising, while the six meanings provide a positive exposition of it.

First, the Treatise on the Ten Grounds of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Shidi Jinglun), vol. 8, states:

1. It explains that all phenomena arise from their own intrinsic cause: "They are not produced by other [conditions], because they arise from their own cause";
2. It cites that all phenomena arise from other [external] things: "They are not produced by self [cause], because they arise from conditions";
3. It states that phenomena are not produced by either cause or condition alone, and are entirely without independent cause: "They are not produced jointly [by both], because they arise merely in accordance [with conditions], because there is no agent, and because there is no abiding at the time of production";
4. It states that phenomena only arise when cause and condition depend on each other: "They are not produced without cause, because they exist in accordance [with conditions]."⁸

The first line speaks from the perspective of the cause, appropriating the power of conditions; the second line speaks from the perspective of conditions, appropriating the power of the cause. In this way, cause and condition each have their own functional power and each holds a share [in the arising of phenomena]. The third line states that arising from either cause or condition alone is impossible, so the meaning of cause cannot be established; thus it only formally uses the reason of "no cause" as a placeholder. The fourth line explains that cause and condition depend on each other and mutually support the arising of phenomena. The same meaning is laid out in four modes in the Compendium of the Higher Abhidharma (Zaji Lun), vol. 4, which states: "1. Because it has its own seed, it does not arise from others; 2. Because it depends on manifold conditions, it is not self-produced; 3. Because there is no inherent function, it is not jointly produced [by self and other]; 4. Because it has functional capacity, it is not causeless."⁹ Although the wording of these four lines differs, their substantive meaning is no different from that of the Treatise on the Ten Grounds of the Avatamsaka Sutra.

In this explanation of the form of arising of dharmas, if we set aside the meaningless third line of "no cause," we can establish three forms:

1. All phenomena arise from causes, so the cause is powerful and does not depend on conditions;
2. All phenomena arise from manifold conditions, so the cause is powerless and depends on conditions;
3. All phenomena arise from the combination of cause and condition, so the cause is both powerful and dependent on conditions.

In sequence, these become the three clauses: cause is powerful and not dependent on conditions; cause is powerless and dependent on conditions; cause is powerful and dependent on conditions. Moreover, these three clauses do not merely serve as rules for the arising of present conditioned phenomena; they must also accommodate the inherent nature of dharmas as emptiness of self-nature due to conditioned arising. In other words, when we actively systematize the form of arising, we do not limit ourselves to these three clauses; we must also completely negate the form of arising, organizing it according to the four kinds of non-arising. When we also take into account the three clauses of non-arising, the three clauses of arising correspond to existence, while the three clauses of non-arising correspond to emptiness, as regulations of the gate of conditioned arising as cause. In other words, when we view dharmas from the static standpoint of essence, they possess both the meanings of emptiness and existence. When we view dharmas from the dynamic standpoint of function, they maintain the two meanings of power and powerlessness. The cause, in relation to its effect, must take into account the emptiness and existence of its essence, as well as the presence or absence of power in its function. Meanwhile, from the standpoint of auxiliary causes, the condition, in relation to its effect, is recognized as holding this same position. Thus, the three forms of arising on the level of present conditioned arising are synthesized from existence and emptiness and, through the two meanings of emptiness and existence combined, yield the six meanings listed under the gate of conditioned arising as cause:

The explanation of the above six meanings shows that the complete dharma of conditioned origination can serve as a form of generation—not limited to these six meanings but capable of opening and closing freely. One may conceive that each of the six meanings itself contains six meanings, yielding ever-deeper understanding as an infinite unfolding. Yet the result must inevitably be subsumed into the single cause-entity of conditioned origination. When observed from the standpoint of the two meanings of existence and emptiness, the six meanings of the cause-gate thus manifest as a state of fusion and mutual identity between emptiness and existence. So among the six meanings, "existence with power, not awaiting conditions" represents the preeminent meaning of existence; "emptiness with power, not awaiting conditions" represents the preeminent meaning of emptiness; "existence with power, awaiting conditions" and "emptiness with power, awaiting conditions" are both existence and emptiness; "existence without power, awaiting conditions" and "emptiness without power, awaiting conditions" should be called neither existence nor emptiness. As for the cause-entity, its being without obstruction between existence and emptiness is now, according to the four propositions, exceedingly evident. Understanding that opening and closing are without obstruction rests fundamentally on the foundational concept of the synthesis of existence and emptiness.

As arranged above in the six meanings of the cause-gate, the dharma of conditioned origination is entirely synthesized from existence and emptiness; in order to demonstrate this, the root of the dharma of conditioned origination has been broken through. However, when we consider the Faxiang teaching's conditioned origination of the one characteristic of the three vehicles, treating it as seeds of conditioned dharmas giving rise to manifest functioning, and stand upon the inner dharma of the ālaya-vijñāna of "existence," the seeds as causes of these dharmas—those possessing the six-meaning explanation—are provisionally matched for the purpose of exploring their meaning. These students, seeking to preserve the "existence of dharmas" of the Hīnayāna Abhidharma, have moved beyond naive realism. From the standpoint of the fundamental consciousness, all external dharmas are received by the inner storehouse consciousness; from the standpoint of "existence of dharmas," this becomes consciousness-transformation and is rendered into the meaning of cause and condition. This is a solitary-gate, single-characteristic three-vehicle teaching that simply stops at the explanation of "existence" and has not yet reached the stage of the synthesis of existence and emptiness. Yet their method of explanation can serve as a reference: Asaṅga's Mahāyānasaṃgraha, scroll one, speaks of the six meanings of seeds ⑩ (Note: same as above, p. 135a.). In Vasubandhu's Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, scroll two ⑾ (Note: same as above, pp. 165b–166a.), a brief explanation is given. In the Chéng Wéishí Lùn (Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi), scroll two ⑿ (Note: same as above, p. 9b.), the seeds stored in the eighth ālaya-vijñāna are given a clear meaning of the six characteristics. Furthermore, in the Chéng Wéishí Lùn Shùjì (Record of Commentary on the Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi), scroll three, part one ⒀ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 43, p. 309b–.), a still more detailed explanation is provided. The six meanings of seeds spoken of are: 1. momentary extinction; 2. coexistence with the fruit; 3. constant continuation; 4. determined nature; 5. awaiting manifold conditions; 6. drawing forth one's own fruit.

First, as to the seed as the cause of manifest functioning: the first, being subject to momentary arising and ceasing, should be a conditioned dharma (momentary extinction). The manifest functioning of the fruit and the seed as cause are mutually opposed concepts; ordinarily they should be simultaneous (coexistence with the fruit). Further, what continues without interruption should be the unbroken continuation of its own category (constant continuation). And the manifest functioning that results from the seed as cause should be determined to be the same in terms of good and evil nature (determined nature). Moreover, as a cause, the seed must necessarily possess the other manifold conditions (awaiting manifold conditions). And form dharmas have their causes among form dharmas, mind dharmas have their causes among mind dharmas—each should necessarily draw forth its own fruit (drawing forth one's own fruit). When such a seed acts as cause and is to produce a fruit, it must possess the above six meanings. Recognizing the meaning of drawing forth one's own fruit while also considering the meaning of awaiting manifold conditions, one can envision moving from the standpoint of one-cause-production to the standpoint of many-causes-production—this shows the direction of moving from cause-and-effect to conditioned origination. The cause does not become a cause by itself; it is the fruit that depends on the cause. From this standpoint, the cause exists simultaneously with the fruit, hence called "coexistence with the fruit." "Constant continuation" means that on its own body, the cause must display an unbroken continuation of its own category; if there is interruption, the connection with the result is lost and the fruit cannot arise. So based on "coexistence with the fruit," the simultaneous relationship of cause and effect can be seen; based on "constant continuation," one can conceive the non-simultaneous relationship of cause and effect. The seed as cause, however, is not like unconditioned dharmas that have no arising and ceasing; rather, by possessing the unceasing nature of "constant continuation," it manifests as "momentary extinction." "Determined nature" indicates that good and evil seeds must each be classified in order to give rise to fruit dharmas.

Harmonizing the six meanings of the cause-gate and the six meanings of seeds as above, and permeating the content of the six meanings of the cause-gate of conditioned origination into them, understanding this meaning is presumably easier to gain.

1. Emptiness with power, not awaiting conditions... the meaning of "momentary extinction." The seeds as causes of all dharmas are in each instant impermanently arising and ceasing; therefore they should be said to be without self-nature, originally without self-substance—hence "emptiness." Yet because the fruit-dharma of manifest functioning arises from seeds that are empty of self-substance, the cause should be said to "have power." When the cause is extinguished, the fruit-dharma arises without relying on other conditions; thus the power of conditions is overridden by the cause, which is "not awaiting conditions." So "emptiness with power, not awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "momentary extinction."

2. Emptiness with power, awaiting conditions... the meaning of "coexistence with the fruit." The seed capable of producing the cause and the fruit of manifest functioning are presently simultaneously unified and coexistent. Yet the cause does not exist apart from the fruit; the so-called coexistence indicates that the self-substance is "empty." While the cause-entity is empty, if it coexists with the fruit, it gains the ability to produce a result; therefore the cause should "have power." Moreover, this seed called cause becomes a cause only when the fruit becomes the condition; therefore it is "awaiting conditions." Thus, "emptiness with power, awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "coexistence with the fruit."

3. Emptiness without power, awaiting conditions... the meaning of "awaiting manifold conditions." The arising of the seed is not solely by its own power becoming manifest functioning; it must possess various external conditions. Yet this seed awaiting conditions originally has no self-nature; therefore its self-substance is "empty." In order to give rise to the fruit, it relies on other powers to become manifest functioning; therefore the cause is "without power," and at the same time it is "awaiting conditions." Hence "emptiness without power, awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "awaiting manifold conditions."

4. Existence with power, not awaiting conditions... the meaning of "determined nature." Taking cause as seed, its nature is determined: good seeds become good fruits, and evil seeds become evil fruits. Because when conditioned origination manifests, the cause-and-effect entity is the unchanging self-nature, the cause-entity is "existence." This seed of existence-entity is capable of giving rise to its own fruit; therefore the cause "has power." Moreover, this unchanging self-nature is not influenced by the power of conditions; the cause can itself trigger the arising of the fruit, so it is "not awaiting conditions." Thus, "existence with power, not awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "determined nature."

5. Existence with power, awaiting conditions... the meaning of "drawing forth one's own fruit." Seeds of form dharmas must necessarily produce form dharmas, and seeds of mind dharmas must necessarily give rise to mind dharmas; each gives rise to fruits of its own category. From this standpoint, the cause-entity is "existence." It may await conditions to produce fruit, but because the cause is the cause capable of producing its own fruit—not producing fruits of conditions—the cause "has power." From the point of relying on its conditions, it is of course "awaiting conditions." Hence "existence with power, awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "drawing forth one's own fruit."

6. Existence without power, awaiting conditions... the meaning of "constant continuation." The seeds' regression until final cessation, following other forces and constantly proceeding in the continuation of their own category, is the meaning of "constant continuation." From the standpoint that the seed relies on other forces to arise and turn, the cause-entity is "existence." Furthermore, relying on other conditions to become manifest functioning, the cause has no functional power to give rise to fruit; therefore the cause is "without power." Since the cause is without power and relies on conditions to give rise to fruit, it is "awaiting conditions." Hence "existence without power, awaiting conditions" is the meaning of "constant continuation."

What has been touched upon above—the six meanings of seeds as discussed in the Faxiang teaching—is roughly similar and consistent with the six meanings of the cause-gate of conditioned origination established by the Huayan teaching. Yet the establishment of the six meanings upon seeds is indeed a case where the three natures remain each separate, not departing from a standpoint where the true and the deluded do not merge; this is only seen on the ālaya of dependent origination. Presently, however, the six meanings of the cause-gate of conditioned origination proceed from the tathatā-tathāgatagarbha, able to unfold with conditions and manifest upon the myriad phenomena. Therefore, although one may speak of any deluded dharmas, if one seeks their substance, they are all not apart from tathatā. Hence it is called the mutual interpenetration of the true and the deluded, acknowledging that each of the three natures possesses both the meanings of emptiness and existence, so that the six meanings of cause-dharma can serve in every situation, whether conditioned or unconditioned.

Furthermore, if the six meanings of cause are discovered from the cause-dharma, then seeking the two meanings of existence and emptiness on the fruit-entity is merely a provisionally matched explanation. The cause-effect relationship absolutely cannot be fixed; in a certain situation of cause-effect combination, and in others, when a fruit already exists and the cause is treated as cause, the fruit becomes the cause. There are also opposite situations where reversing the cause can likewise become fruit. Therefore, the six meanings possessed by the cause-gate must be acknowledged in exactly the same way in the fruit-dharma. Moreover, the two meanings of emptiness and existence acknowledged in the fruit-dharma can be directly sought in the cause-dharma—this is mutual causation. One should know that the six meanings of the cause-gate and the two meanings of existence and emptiness exist and stand simultaneously in one dharma.

Regarding the two meanings of existence and emptiness, while they are seen as the root of mutual identity on the dharma-entity, they also contain the six meanings within them. If, according to their functional power, they mutually become with-power or without-power, the interpenetration of dharma-characteristics is derived. Then, based on the principle of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration within the content of non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, the foundation can be discovered within the synthesis of existence and emptiness proclaimed as the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena within the mutual interpenetration of the true and the deluded. Moreover, the mutual combinations of awaiting conditions and not awaiting conditions seen in the six meanings induce the two gates of same-body and different-body, together with the mutual identity and mutual interpenetration mentioned above. Whether on the same-body gate or the different-body gate, one can examine it from any aspect; hence one can increasingly clearly understand the meaning of the content of the theory of non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena. Namely, the same-body gate: when one dharma is set against all other dharmas, what is called all-dharmas does not merely belong to its own body but in fact originally possesses its virtuous power within one dharma, hence becoming all dharmas. All that is contained in this one dharma is the same-body gate; moreover, it is the virtuous function originally possessed within one dharma, hence manifesting "not awaiting conditions." The different-body gate, however: when one dharma possessing all dharmas is set against many dharmas that each also possess all dharmas, this points out that each is a different body. In this situation, although it is the mutual identity of one and many, it must borrow other conditions; the different-body gate corresponds to the meaning of awaiting conditions. Thus, on the fruit-entity, the three natures are each a synthesis of emptiness and existence; on the cause-seed there are six meanings; on the entity, on one hand emptiness and existence are mutually identical, and on the other hand mutually being with-power or without-power, relying on the combinations of awaiting conditions and not awaiting conditions, to manifest the mutual identity and mutual interpenetration of the same-body and different-body gates. So the dharma-realm of non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, taken as the present goal in terms of doctrinal classification, compared with the provisional position of the shallow single characteristic for the dharma-realm of non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, on the standpoint of the synthesis of emptiness and existence and the interpenetration of the true and the deluded, there is already a clue to the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena; right here and now this is precisely what suggests the content of the dharma-realm of non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena!

The composition of the fourth scroll of the Wǔ Jiào Zhāng (Treatise on the Five Teachings) consists of four chapters; its center is the third chapter "Gate of Ten Profound Conditioned Origination," which is plainly evident. Investigating why the second chapter contains a chapter on the "Dharma of Six Meanings of the Cause-Gate of Conditioned Origination"—to clarify what nature the conditioned origination cause-dharma possesses—we can see that it carries the meaning of preparing for the derivation of the subsequent "Non-obstruction Dharma Gate of Ten Profound Conditioned Origination."

The Ten Profound Conditioned Origination is written in the Wǔ Jiào Zhāng in two aspects: metaphorical explanation and dharma explanation. In the dharma explanation, the names of the ten profundities are enumerated; in the metaphorical explanation, the metaphor of tens of coins is used to first explain the meanings of the different-body gate, same-body gate, and mutual identity and mutual interpenetration. Yet presently the six meanings of the cause-gate can directly combine with the metaphorical explanation of the Ten Profound Conditioned Origination; this can be clearly understood from the explanation above. Namely, the mutual identity of the Ten Profound Conditioned Origination first begins with the talk of emptiness and existence regarding the entity; one can also consider that the six meanings of the cause-gate are conceived in terms of emptiness and existence. Furthermore, the mutual interpenetration of the Ten Profound Conditioned Origination is discussed in terms of with-power and without-power regarding functional force; therefore, considering the emptiness and existence of the entity and connecting them, it is divided into four pairs: emptiness with power, emptiness without power, existence with power, and existence without power. Moreover, the pairings of existence's with-power and without-power, the pairings of emptiness's with-power and without-power, as well as the oppositions of awaiting transformed conditions and not awaiting other conditions can also be considered. If these are the same-body gate and different-body gate, then with the "entity's" emptiness and existence paired with the "function's" with-power and without-power, one can anticipate the meaning of non-obstruction of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration of the Ten Profound Conditioned Origination in both the different-body and same-body.

Investigated in this way, on one hand standing on the standpoint of non-obstruction of principle and phenomena and anticipating the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena—overcoming the oppositional contradiction of emptiness and existence, and simultaneously establishing a new standpoint of the synthesis of existence and emptiness—directly speaking of the Ten Profound Conditioned Origination of non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena within the inclusion of non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, this precisely shows that overcoming the oppositional contradiction between distinct phenomenal dharmas and phenomenal dharmas is the original purpose. In order to overcome this oppositional contradiction of dharmas, one must not forget, as a premise, that it indicates the aspect of mutual contradiction and opposition of phenomenal dharmas. The non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, completely overcoming the oppositional contradiction of dharmas, is the premise. It is as the root of this oppositional contradiction that the six meanings are indicated. If one observes from the dharma of six meanings of the cause-gate of conditioned origination, the later text may further say that the center of dharma-realm conditioned origination is overcoming oppositional contradiction. For this, the task of its indispensable medium is derived. Understanding that the synthesis of emptiness and existence serves as a witness to the dharma of six meanings of the cause-gate of conditioned origination—thus one sees that it bears this aspect of the task!

Chapter 8: The Structure of Non-Obstruction Between Phenomena and Phenomena

1. Mutual Identity and Mutual Interpenetration

The central focus of the Huayan Distinct Teaching lies in the interrelationship among all phenomena (shi 事). The dependent origination of the Dharma Realm (fajie yuanqi 法界緣起) is shown through its account of a system of phenomena—interpenetrating, unobstructed, and endlessly layered. What has been said above confirms that the Huayan view of dependent origination (yuanqi 緣起) is identical with origination from nature (xingqi 性起), and that the completed structure of the Four Dharma Realms forms its grand framework. Investigating this teaching further, one must, in keeping with the inherent character of dependent origination itself, faithfully hold to the path of contemplative practice (guanmen xingdao 觀門行道) and grasp its subjective core.

Indeed, all Buddhist philosophy, however much it may help organize the teachings, is not merely a pile of cumbersome, abstract concepts and their logical exposition. At its foundation it is a pyramid of theory erected upon direct self-realization in the world of experience—and this deserves our closest attention. If we overlook this, the life of Huayan philosophy, whose theme is "the teaching is itself contemplation" (jiao ji guan 教即觀), loses its core. This is no exaggeration.

So, from this angle, when scholars say that the Buddha often rejected philosophical speculation, they mean something quite specific: the Buddha was not merely someone who understood or explained the Dharma—he was, in truth, a religious experiencer. One should emphasize that the Buddha served as a paradigm for all humanity in practicing and teaching the Dharma (dharma 達磨), and Great Emptiness would surely agree. This is not to say that philosophy should be removed from Buddhism. Though its roots lie in religious realization, Buddhism—nurtured in the rich soil of Indian spirituality—has built upon a philosophical foundation to advance culture. From its very beginning it has overflowed with the coloring of religious philosophy, and along its path it has vastly expanded philosophical horizons and plumbed deep wells of logical reasoning. This is a natural development. It is implicit, too, in the structure of the Huayan view of dependent origination—a clear enough fact.

The logic of "every phenomenon unobstructed with every other" (shishi wuai 事事無礙) and "endlessly layered" (chongchong wujin 重重無盡) is organized through the mutual identity (xiangji 相即) and mutual inclusion (xiangru 相入) of phenomenon with phenomenon. To take this as merely a conceptual claim would be a logical leap, grounded only in surface reasoning. One is one: without giving up its own autonomy, it can never become many. If a part does not surrender its particular character, how can it become the whole? This is nothing but a logical contradiction. The Buddha is enlightened; ordinary beings are deluded—the two are by no means one. Birth-and-death (samsara) is always birth-and-death and never becomes nirvana, so delusion and awakening cannot be confused. Since afflictions (fannao 煩惱) differ from awakening (puti 菩提), afflictions are afflictions and awakening is awakening. In this way, each maintains its own standpoint through opposition and its own autonomy.

And yet now we say "one is all," "the part is the whole," "afflictions are awakening," "birth-and-death is nirvana." The reason is this: the abstract, one-sided relationship between one phenomenon and another, and the law of cause and effect, are both transcended. We must go further and grasp, at the level of Dharma-principle, the concrete, total relationality of dependent origination. This is to be understood through the thought that arises within the view of dependent origination whose essence is practice—the understanding proper to the path of practice (xingmen 行門).

The system of the Four Dharma Realms, as we have seen, can be set against one another from the standpoint of doctrinal classification (panjiao 判教). The Dharma Realm of Phenomena (shi fajie 事法界) belongs to the Small Vehicle teaching (xiaocheng jiao 小乘教) and to the Characteristic Initial teaching (xiangshi jiao 相始教) among the Five Teachings. The Dharma Realm of Principle (li fajie 理法界) belongs to the Empty Initial teaching (kongshi jiao 空始教), the Final teaching (zhongjiao 終教), and the Sudden teaching (dunjiao 頓教). The Dharma Realm of the Unobstructed Interpenetration of Phenomenon and Principle (shili wuai fajie 事理無礙法界) belongs to the Final teaching. The Dharma Realm of the Unobstructed Interpenetration of All Phenomena (shishi wuai fajie 事事無礙法界) belongs to the Perfect teaching (yuanjiao 圓教). Such is the assignment under the Five Teachings.

However, when we turn back and reflect, these Four Dharma Realms are manifested by the contemplating mind (nengguan zhi yixin 能觀之一心) as the object of contemplation (suoguan zhi fa 所觀之法). Once we understand that this single mind can reach the ultimate state of Dharma Realm dependent origination—the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena—the contemplative domains of "phenomenon and principle" and of "the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle" are set aside altogether and become content within Dharma Realm dependent origination. On this ground, phenomenon (shi 事), as the world of delusion, is not assigned an opposite value, nor is principle (li 理) ever made into a substantial entity. Moreover, the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle concerns the relation between principle and phenomenon, with one taken as noumenon and the other as phenomenon—principle, the "one," carrying the meaning of equality and universality; phenomenon, the "other," carrying the meaning of differentiation and particularity. From the standpoint of contemplative practice, the two occupy different loci—there is a "there" and a "here"—and differ in nature. They may also be separated temporally, as before and after. None of these ways of viewing them is the proper one. Only principle, in the contemplation of emptiness, is taken as "one"; temporally, it is grasped as eternal. As for phenomena, spatially they are taken as "many"; temporally, they are grasped as the continuous flow of a single moment. To see them as permanently set apart in this way is simply a mistake. In truth, the entirety of principle always appears in the form of phenomena, and phenomena are not, as is often imagined, mere reflections of principle. Rather, the most concrete form of principle itself is phenomenon. Phenomena express themselves as phenomena, and at the same time most fully manifest the proper mode of principle. Thus "principle is phenomenon, and phenomenon is principle," and as a result the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon with phenomenon is seen to rest on a deeper, inner foundation.

Chengguan took up the five gates for entering the Dharma Realm that Fazang had set forth in the Tanxuan Ji (Inquiry into the Profundities), fascicle 18—the Dharma Realm of conditioned dharmas, the Dharma Realm of unconditioned dharmas, the Dharma Realm of both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, the Dharma Realm of neither conditioned nor unconditioned dharmas, and the Dharma Realm of non-obstruction ① (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 440b.)—and interpreted them from his own standpoint. In the Huayan Jing Xingyuan Pin Shu (Commentary on the "Vows" Chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), fascicle 1, he divided the Dharma Realm into three: phenomenon, principle, and non-obstruction. Within non-obstruction, he further distinguished two—the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle, and the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena—thereby establishing the Four Dharma Realms. He made clear that this was a transmission from Fazang: "The Five Dharma Realms established by the ancient worthies do not go beyond these." ② (Note: Xuzangjing [Supplementary Tripiṭaka], 1·7·3, p. 249a.) And again: "From the first through the fifth, none goes beyond the Dharma Realm of Non-obstruction"—thus folding the first three Dharma Realms into the final Dharma Realm of Non-obstruction. What unfolds from this is "the totality of all things is none other than a single mind": the Dharma Realm as object of contemplation is developed from the single contemplating mind. The main point is that all Four Dharma Realms are one and the same object on the knowing, grasping mind. Standing on the contemplating mind, the Four Dharma Realms are subsumed as a single realm of Dharma Realm dependent origination. In the Huayan Jing Shu (Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), fascicle 54, interpreting the Dharma Realm, it is clearly stated: "The Dharma Realm is the Dharma to be entered—namely, the distinctions of principle, phenomenon, and so forth. In the end, they are further divided into four." ③ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 907c.) And the Huayan Jing Lüece (Brief Expositions on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra) states: "The Dharma Realm is divided into four types" ④ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 36, p. 707c.)—a provisional expression. Based on the meaning of their characteristics, all establish their views along the same lines.

In particular, when Chengguan organized the Distinct One Vehicle teaching, in the Huayan Jing Shuchao Xuantan (Profound Discourses on the Commentary and Sub-commentary to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), fascicle 6, he set up four gates to reveal the Distinct One Vehicle: "First, clarifying the foundational entities upon which [the teaching] depends; second, collectively incorporating them into the true actuality; third, manifesting their non-obstruction; fourth, all-pervasive inclusive containment. Each has ten gates to reveal the inexhaustible." ⑤ (Xuzangjing, 1·8·3, p. 263a.) The first gate presents ten meanings as the foundational entities on which the Ten Profound Gates depend, using principle to understand the content of the Dharma Realm of Phenomena. The second gate illuminates the contemplation of true emptiness found in the Dharma Realm contemplation gate—pertaining to the Dharma Realm of Principle. The third gate manifests non-obstruction, indicating the contemplation of the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle. The fourth gate reveals the Ten Profound Gates, expounding the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena. Especially in the third gate, the contemplation of the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle inherits and elaborates the ten gates that Fashun set forth in his Fajie Guanmen (Dharma Realm Contemplation Gate). Thus, from the standpoint of contemplative practice, the Distinct One Vehicle system intends to encompass all Four Dharma Realms: that within the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena one simultaneously sees the unobstructed interpenetration of phenomenon and principle, and broadly understands phenomenon and principle from that same standpoint—such is the intent, and it is clear enough. Furthermore, the move to encompass all Five Teachings within the final Perfect teaching can be plainly discerned. According to the Huayan Jing Shuchao Xuantan, fascicle 6 ⑥ (Note: Ibid., p. 262a—. "Now this ocean of teaching is vast and profound, all-inclusive and boundless. Form and emptiness interreflect; virtues and functions are endlessly layered. Speaking of its horizontal inclusion, it completely encompasses all Five Teachings, even the human and celestial teachings—nothing is excluded. Only thus is its depth and breadth revealed... The first four teachings are not contained within the Perfect teaching, yet the Perfect teaching necessarily encompasses the four. Although it encompasses the four, the Perfect pervades them all. Therefore even the ten good deeds and five precepts are subsumed under the Perfect teaching—they are not even included in the third or fourth, much less the first or second."), the reason the Huayan Dharma gate is called the Perfect teaching is that "perfect" (yuan 圓) means perfect interpenetration (yuanrong 圓融) and perfect completeness (yuanman 圓滿). Vertically, the Five Teachings stand in sequence; horizontally, although the Perfect teaching is not contained within the first four, it necessarily encompasses them all. Understanding the mutual identity and mutual inclusion shows that Dharma Realm dependent origination embraces the entirety of Buddhism. The reason the Dharma Realm of the Unobstructed Interpenetration of All Phenomena is also called the Dharma Realm of Non-obstruction is that, having once moved from shallow to deep and systematized the patterns of dependent origination into four types, every representation is ultimately subsumed into the content of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena. At the same time, this reveals that "the mutual identity and mutual inclusion of phenomena with phenomena" is an especially convenient new expression.

As for "phenomena" (shi 事), they are the differentiated dharmas of appearance in contrast to the equal principle. Principle cannot exist apart from phenomena, and phenomena are the concrete form of principle, as already mentioned. They are thus designated as differentiated phenomenal dharmas. If we were to single out each individual entity one by one, we would surely be lost along the way. The Buddhist tradition takes this as the foundational gate of "the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena"—or as the foundational entities upon which [the teaching] depends—and gathers them into ten pairs and ten meanings. This is Zhiyan's Yicheng Xuanmen (Ten Profound Gates of the One Vehicle): "1. Teaching and meaning, 2. Phenomenon and principle, 3. Understanding and practice, 4. Cause and effect, 5. Person and dharma, 6. Delimitation and positional stage, 7. Dharma-wisdom and master-disciple, 8. Host-companion and dependent-reward, 9. Obverse-reverse and substance-function, 10. Adaptive response to faculties, desires, and natures" ⑦ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 515c.)—these ten dharmas. Within each, the Ten Profound are further complete, thus forming one hundred gates. Fazang, in the Wujiao Zhang (Treatise on the Five Teachings), fascicle 4, established the gate of ten meanings ⑧ (Note: Ibid., p. 505a.), largely inheriting the Ten Profound Gates of the One Vehicle as they stood. Only the ninth and tenth gates differ in order, with minor textual revisions before and after.

In the Tanxuan Ji, fascicle 1 ⑨ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 35, p. 123b.), and the Huayan Jing Zhigui (Essentials of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra) ⑩ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Vol. 45, p. 594a.), after terminological refinement, they are: 1. Teaching and meaning, 2. Phenomenon and principle, 3. Domain and wisdom, 4. Practice and position, 5. Cause and effect, 6. Dependent and direct reward, 7. Substance and function, 8. Person and dharma, 9. Obverse and reverse, 10. Response and resonance—ten pairs and ten meanings. Later, Chengguan, in the Huayan Jing Shuchao Xuantan, fascicle 6 ⑪ (Note: Xuzangjing, 1·8·3, p. 263a.), speaking of the Dharma Realm of Phenomena and the ten meanings of the foundational entities, adopted the terminology of these refined ten pairs and ten meanings exactly.

Between the old ten meanings and the refined new ten meanings, the most striking difference is this: in the Wujiao Zhang, the third pair, "understanding and practice," was revised to "domain and wisdom." The terms from the sixth pair onward—on delimitation and positional stage—were, like the first five meanings, made more concise; superfluous language was eliminated, and each was reduced to two characters. The seventh pair, "master-disciple, dharma-wisdom," was folded into "domain and wisdom" and therefore omitted. The ninth, "adaptive response to faculties, desires, and natures," and the tenth, "obverse-reverse, substance-function, and freedom," swapped positions, becoming the new ninth, "obverse and reverse," and tenth, "response and resonance." The old "obverse-reverse, substance-function, and freedom" was thus newly divided into the seventh, "substance and function," and the ninth, "obverse and reverse"—a fresh innovation. These are the differences in names and order between the old and new ten meanings, and there are also slight differences in content. This relates to the new and old Ten Profound Gates to be discussed later. The differences in the arrangement of names were made to fit the needs of the system. From this we can appreciate the immense care and sustained effort Fazang invested in organizing the teaching—a telling reflection of his dedication. Having refined the terms of the new ten pairs and ten meanings, the result is that each—arising out of every form of opposition—simply expresses the infinitely various phenomenal dharmas.

First, "teaching and meaning" (jiaoyi 教義): the verbal teaching that expresses and the meaning that is expressed—primarily all forms of expression and their content. Second, "phenomenon and principle" (lishi 理事): the equal truth and the differentiated phenomenal dharmas that manifest from it. Third, "domain and wisdom" (jingzhi 境智): all dharmas that are objects of knowledge, and the wisdom that knows them. Fourth, "practice and position" (xingwei 行位): practice, and the stages of attainment achieved through it. Fifth, "cause and effect" (yinguo 因果): the generating cause, and the result that arises from it. Sixth, "dependent and direct reward" (yizheng 依正): the dependent-reward lands of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and their direct-reward bodies and lives. Seventh, "substance and function" (tiyong 體用): all dharmas invariably possess substance and function. Substance is the static, foundational source of the dharma; function is its dynamic, derivative expression. Eighth, "person and dharma" (renfa 人法): Buddhas and bodhisattvas are the persons who expound the teaching, and by virtue of them there is the dharma that is expounded. Ninth, "obverse and reverse" (nizhun 逆順): the proper accord and opposition within phenomenal dharmas. When Buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest compassionate forms, this is the obverse (accord); when, through wisdom, they guide sentient beings by way of adverse conditions, this is the reverse (opposition). Tenth, "response and resonance" (yingan 應感): the active, positive inclination toward [the teaching] is "resonance" (gan 感); the passive reception of the dharma is "response" (ying 應).

These ten meanings are the differentiated, abstract entities of all phenomenal dharmas—all the efforts we make to grasp phenomenal dharmas more easily. In fact, within each meaning there are further ten meanings, and within each of those another ten, forming the entities of inexhaustible phenomenal dharmas. That the list is limited to ten is, as is commonly said, because "ten" shares the meaning of "layer" (chong 重), signifying the inexhaustible—this is nothing other than the established convention of the Huayan school. Moreover, through these ten pairs of dharmas, as oppositions within the Dharma, the question of "what are phenomenal dharmas?" is brought to manifestation. Phenomena are, by their origin, presentations of differentiation, and differentiation has the character of opposition by its very nature. As will be elaborated later, the logic of "identity" (ji 即) ultimately rests on the overcoming of opposition and contradiction as its fundamental framework, from which the Ten Profound Gates of dependent origination and the theory of the Six Characteristics of Perfect Harmony are derived. Establishing ten graded phenomenal dharmas as the foundational entities, with the aim of constructing the root concept of mutual identity and mutual inclusion—this is the intent of the Buddhist tradition, and it should not be missed.

2. Same Essence and Different Essence

Generally speaking, differentiation is the inherent nature of phenomenal dharmas, and it naturally tends toward opposition among them. That said, opposition does not necessarily amount to contradiction. Opposing things simply express themselves in contrary ways. On a static level, opposition is merely a face-off between differing orientations; but when that opposition shifts to a dynamic level, it inevitably carries contradiction within it.

Take the opposition of human feelings. If emotions confront one another in silent, static tension, they are simply pointing in opposite directions. But once those opposed feelings flare up and opinions clash, the conflict erupts on a dynamic stage, and at that moment emotional opposition suddenly turns into contradiction, with each side obstructing the other. This is just an easy example using easily stirred emotions. Even so, when all differentiated phenomenal dharmas transcend opposition and pass into a dynamic standpoint, they are frequently drawn into contradiction, and this is easy to perceive.

In actuality, then, when phenomena that obstruct and contradict one another take mutual obstruction as their medium, they harbor the latent possibility of turning that very obstruction into the occasion for overcoming the contradiction. If phenomena were equal and unified from the start, there would be neither opposition nor contradiction, and no ground could exist for the theory of unobstructed "即" (identity). Only when contradiction is overcome and a thing becomes identical with itself is this "即" realized. The "即" is understood by examining both the noumenon (tǐ, 体) and the function (yòng, 用) of phenomena, which are mutually interpenetrating and inclusive (xiāngjí xiāngrù, 相即相入).

Now, is this mutual interpenetration and inclusion (相即相入) the central teaching of Huayan's doctrine that all phenomena are unobstructed (shìshì wú'ài, 事事无碍)? This question must be answered by going through the logical hinge of the matter.

Mutual interpenetration (xiāngjí, 相即): in dependently originated dharmas, each carries within itself the two aspects of emptiness and existence. When one dharma is taken as "existent," all the others become "empty" and are absorbed into it; this is called mutual interpenetration.

Mutual inclusion (xiāngrù, 相入): in dependently originated dharmas, their function divides into the potent and the impotent. When one dharma is potent, the others are impotent and are absorbed into it; this is the meaning of mutual inclusion.

^⑿ (Note: The Classification of the Teachings (Wǔjiào Zhāng), vol. 4 (Taishō 45, p. 503c), states: "All dependently originated dharmas have two meanings. First, the meaning of emptiness and existence, with respect to their own nature. Second, the meaning of potency and impotency, with respect to their function. From the first meaning, mutual interpenetration is obtained; from the second, mutual inclusion.")

The potent is "that which possesses power"; the impotent is "that which lacks power"—this is how we should understand them. To make the traditional interpretation easier to grasp, we can add the following. Mutual interpenetration centers on the actualization of the individual, in which absolute truth is fully manifest within that individual: the individual is identical with (i.e., inseparable from) the whole. Mutual inclusion centers on the actualization of the whole: it places every causal relation that constitutes the individual within the scope of the whole, so that the whole embraces the individual and enables the individual to fully become itself. This is mutual inclusion. Because mutual interpenetration means the individual, in becoming itself, is in fact the whole, the saying "the one is the all" (yī jí yíqiè, 一即一切) is recognized when observed from the standpoint of the nature of dharmas. Mutual inclusion, by contrast, means the whole enables the individual to fully become itself, so the whole is in fact an abstraction of the individual; considering this, the saying "the all is the one" (yíqiè jí yī, 一切即一) must be acknowledged as drawn from an examination of the function of dharmas.

Suppose we have a plum blossom here.^⒀ (Note: The example of a house, used to explain mutual interpenetration and inclusion as the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics, is found in the Classification of the Teachings, vol. 4, section "Distinctions of Meaning and Principle" (Taishō 45, p. 507c), in the explanation of the six characteristics' perfect interfusion.) It is neither a cherry blossom nor a chrysanthemum. Clearly, the particular nature of a plum blossom differs from that of generic flowers: its petals, stamens, pistils, fragrance, color, and the other traits a plum blossom should have all arise through the combination of causes and conditions. If we pluck one of its petals and try to prove it is a plum petal, we cannot decide by the petal alone. We must take into abstraction all the "other" parts of the plum blossom and not isolate the petal from the "whole." To prove that this single petal is truly a plum petal, we must attend to the many-sided connections—the stamens, pistils, fragrance, color, and so on—that belong to the petal as part of the plum blossom itself, through the "即" of its own dharma. In other words, to correctly decide whether a single petal is a plum petal, we take the petal as "existent" and all "other" conditions as "empty"; at that point, mutual interpenetration is necessarily established. Otherwise, the thing is merely vegetal matter and can never be called a plum petal. This is the reasoning behind the principle that dependently originated dharmas are empty of inherent existence: the plum blossom is dependently originated, so when we say the single petal is "existent," the "other" must also be said to be "empty." Thus, when the "existence" of the petal as its own dharma and the "emptiness" of all other dharmas face each other, the stamens, pistils, and so on of the "other" flowers are without self-nature and are mutually interpenetrating with the petal as its own dharma. Likewise, if we determine the petal as its own dharma to be "empty" and the stamens of the other dharmas to be "existent," the petal is without self-nature, so the petal is mutually interpenetrating with the stamen—and is therefore called the stamen of a plum blossom.

When existence is just existence and emptiness is just emptiness, and self and other do not collide—when self and other are mutually unobstructed—that unobstructedness is "mutual interpenetration."

Now, the "function" of a plum blossom is the release of its rich, distinctive fragrance. Yet this fragrance does not leave aside the flower's color, shape, and other features and stand alone. If we take the fragrance as potent, then color, shape, and the rest are impotent and dissolve into it. The fragrance of this particular plum blossom is by no means a generic scent: as an impotent function, it is itself held latent within the potent "others" by which it is conditioned. Picture three staffs, A, B, and C, set up as a tripod. If A bears the full weight, the tripod stands by virtue of A. Here A is potent, while B and C are impotent and merge into A. In this way, when any one is potent, the others are impotent; when it is impotent, the others become potent. What is potent can absorb the others into itself; what is potent among the others can absorb it into them. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra often says, "A mustard seed can hold Mount Sumeru; a single pore can take in the dharma realms of the ten directions." If one cannot grasp the import of this scriptural passage together with the principle of mutual inclusion explained above, one will end up with nothing but vague, deluded speculation. Through this, however, one can arrive at an understanding of how the one and the many mutually interpenetrate and include each other.

To summarize the foregoing: if, in mutual interpenetration, we suppose both the one and the many to be inherently existent, the one and the many will mutually negate, obstruct, and conflict with one another—and no other outcome is possible. Such inherent existence is eternalism, which Buddhism rejects. Conversely, if we suppose both the one and the many to be entirely empty, the view collapses into nihilism, a doctrine of cutting off, and is not adopted, since it denies all efficacy. In mutual inclusion, the one is not enough to be the one on its own, for its function lies in the many; at the same time, the many are not enough to be the many on their own, for their function also lies in the one. That is, when the many are potent, the one is impotent; when the one is potent, the many are impotent. They take on the roles of potent and impotent in turn and so include one another. Yet this is nothing more than the two meanings—noumenon and function—borne by a single dharma. Mutual interpenetration always contains mutual inclusion, and mutual inclusion is never outside mutual interpenetration. In this way, against mutually negating opposition, contradiction is fully overcome; by grasping this stance in contemplative practice, we establish it as the logic of "即." To understand how all phenomena are unobstructed, then, we must rely on this principle of "mutual interpenetration and inclusion" of dharmas.

Since noumenon and function are simply the two meanings borne by a single dharma, mutual interpenetration always contains mutual inclusion, and mutual inclusion is never outside mutual interpenetration. Fazang states in the Classification of the Teachings, vol. 4: "When function subsumes noumenon, there is no separate noumenon—hence there is only mutual inclusion. When noumenon subsumes function, there is no separate function—hence there is only mutual interpenetration."^⒁ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 45, p. 503c.)

From this we may conclude that mutual interpenetration and mutual inclusion are not mere euphemisms of speech. They are the theory of "即" defined through reasoning from the respective standpoints of noumenon and function, and their meanings are necessarily interconnected. Therefore, to speak of mutual interpenetration is necessarily to include mutual inclusion, and to speak of mutual inclusion is necessarily not to leave mutual interpenetration aside. As the foundation of the doctrine that all phenomena are unobstructed, the linked phrase "mutual interpenetration and inclusion" is habitually used in Huayan scholarship, and this is in no way strange. Indeed, mutual interpenetration and inclusion must be called unobstructed and free. The same is reflected in the Three Vehicles' one-nature teaching, which states "affliction is bodhi, samsara is nirvana"—transcending birth-and-death within the realm of delusion while realizing the nirvana of awakening is a strong factual tendency that grasps the formulation of "即." Compared with the One Vehicle's distinct teaching—"right in the midst of birth-and-death, this very moment is nirvana"—the latter shows why "即" is used as a theoretical term.

2 Same Essence and Different Essence

To discuss how all phenomena can be unobstructed: its principle is mutual interpenetration and inclusion. The examination of the relationship between the one and the many is the Ten Profound Mysteries of dependent origination; grasping the relationship between part and whole is the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics. Yet, without delving deeply into the logic of same essence and different essence in relation to the interpenetration and inclusion of the one and the many, the whole and the part, one cannot claim a truly thorough understanding. Indeed, at the very beginning of the section on the Ten Profound Mysteries of unobstructed dependent origination in the Classification of the Teachings, vol. 4, the introductory passage explains the relationship of mutual interpenetration and inclusion between same essence and different essence,^① (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 45, p. 503a.) forming the basis of the fully systematic organization of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena.

First, all dependently originated dharmas, when viewed in relation to self and other, exhibit two meanings: non-dependence on others and dependence on others. Non-dependence on others takes the standpoint that a thing exists autonomously and on its own, denying the independent status of all other things and treating all dharmas as its own functional virtues. In cases where causes and conditions mutually subsume one another completely, the principle of "not awaiting conditions" holds that conditions possess all inherent virtues within the cause itself and are wholly subsumed by the cause. Dependence on others, by contrast, acknowledges the independent status of other things, affirms the existence of all self-and-other dharmas, and establishes separate standpoints for self and other. In the formation of dharmas, it holds that causes are potent and depend upon conditions. On the basis of non-dependence on others, we have the gate of same essence; on the basis of dependence on others, we have the gate of different essence.

In other words, from the standpoint of the gate of same essence, when the one is taken as primary, the many do not stand in opposition to it; all dharmas become functional virtues contained within the one and are wholly absorbed into it. Take the example of counting from one cent to ten cents.^② (Note: The numerical method of counting to ten to explain the principle of interfusion is based on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra translated by Buddhabhadra, vol. 10, "Bodhisattvas' Verse Chapter at the Palace of the Heaven of Joyful Contemplation" (Taishō 9, p. 465a). The method of counting from one to ten and on to the infinite is based on the apt analogies cited by Fazang in the Classification of the Teachings, vol. 4 (Taishō 45, p. 503a ff.).) Because the first cent of the original count is what makes ten cents possible, that initial cent can wholly subsume the virtues of the other nine cents of the final count; this is called the gate of subsumption. From the standpoint of the gate of different essence, the one and the many stand in a mutually related position: ten cents are formed by the aggregation of individual cents, each of which has its own functional virtue, while we must also acknowledge that the second cent, the third cent, up to the tenth cent each have the virtue of forming ten cents. This is called the gate of mutual granting, expressing the meaning that each thing has its own independent existence: the one is the one, and the many are the many.

Take a house as an example, and consider the pillar that forms part of it: the pillar is a crucial part of the house. If even one pillar is missing, the whole house cannot stand. So we say the "one" (the pillar) can display the "many." When we consider whether the one and the many here are same essence or different essence, we must examine the matter from every angle. The pillar in question is not some abstract, generic pillar, but a concrete pillar with the specific function of forming a particular house. What we call a pillar necessarily presupposes that, to form a given house, there must be other building materials—beams, bricks, tiles, and so on. If we do not presuppose such a "many" and assume the pillar has no relation to the specific house it belongs to, it is not a pillar but merely a piece of wood in the shape of a pillar. The pillar and the beams, bricks, tiles, and other "many" are absolutely not separate, distinct existences; they are the actual, concrete pillar. This is a product of dependent origination: the pillar arises in dependence on the beams, bricks, tiles, and other conditions, so the "one" pillar and the "many" beams, bricks, and tiles can be called same essence. In this case, the pillar is the cause of the house, while the beams, bricks, and tiles are its conditions; the cause is wholly subsumed by the conditions, and the concept of a house can be formed only with the pillar. The conditions become conditions within the cause, already carrying the content of the cause. Because the beams, bricks, tiles, and other "many" are not fixed, inherently existent entities but are synthesized from numerous conditions, when causes and conditions wholly subsume one another, the one and the many are necessarily same essence.

But is there only the aspect of same essence? If there were no aspect of different essence, all opposing, differentiated characteristics would be eliminated: there would be no pillar, no beam. Yet the thought of dependent origination requires that, while phenomena are same essence in one respect, they must also display the aspect of different essence. That is, the pillar must retain its specific shape and load-bearing function, while the beams, bricks, tiles, and other components each retain their own forms and functions; it is through this that a complete house is formed. If this were not so, the many would not be the many, the one would lose its function, and a house could not be formed. It is only on the basis of the one and the many being both same essence and different essence, in a relationship of neither-identity-nor-separation, that a concrete house can exist.

Thus, the gate of different essence is the standpoint from which the dependently originated one and many do not ignore each other's existence when viewed in relation. While this alone allows us to understand the oppositional relationship between the one and the many, if we fail to recognize that the one already contains the many from the start, we miss the fundamental meaning of dependent origination itself.

The mutual identification and mutual penetration of the same-body gate differs from the mutual identification and penetration that, in the case of phenomena mutually arising through conditions, is spoken of when one thing stands facing another thing in the present moment. Here, identification and penetration are spoken of with respect to the many that each particular dharma originally possesses within itself. Take, for instance, two mirrors, A and B, facing each other. One can say that mirror A is mirror B, and mirror B is mirror A. And mirror A enters mirror B, and mirror B enters mirror A—that is the identification and penetration of the different-body gate. By contrast, when the various images reflected within mirror A face the surface of A itself, or the images in B face the surface of B, and A and B then identify with each other—also called mutual penetration—that is the identification and penetration of the same-body gate. If a conditionally arising dharma had no self-nature in its own being, yet also lacked the virtues of conditional arising, then even the nature of dependent origination would be wiped out. A mirror has no self-nature, and so it can reflect all images. Every particular phenomenon, fully containing the many within itself, follows a principle that is natural and inherent. So we do not speak only of identification and penetration within the different-body gate; we must equally affirm that they occur within the same-body gate as well. To take the same-body gate as the different-body gate, while at the same time grounding it in "the other," makes clear that once we treat the many inherently present in each thing as the standpoint from which to view things, and subject the dependent arising of dharmas to rational reflection, we draw out a posteriori identification and penetration as the object of inquiry. The original character of conditional arising is, in essence, the content of dharma observing dharma in its own suchness.

In the Five Teachings Chapter, Volume 4 ③ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 45, p. 504c.), within the explanation of mutual identification in the different-body gate, the question is raised: "Is this principle stated in terms of the wisdom of initial awakening, or in terms of the principle of original awakening as it has always been?" When, in the original way, it is explained in terms of wisdom, then once the wisdom of initial awakening is perfected, it merges with the dharma of original awakening, and so initial and original become nondual. If we speak in terms of wisdom, then the meaning of mutual identification has existed from the start, and at once wisdom and dharma are fully present. To explain the mutual identification of the different-body gate is to say that a conditionally arisen dharma exists, and this is the principle of natural, spontaneous beingness. When wisdom accords with its own truth, one also speaks of mutual identification—just as it is said within the mutual identification of the different-body gate. In fact, the same is true of mutual penetration within the different-body gate. Likewise, both mutual identification and mutual penetration within the same-body gate are of the nature of conditional arising, natural and inherent; they are simply the way things have been from the start. One should be aware of this.

Next, regarding the meanings of mutual identification and mutual penetration in the same-body and different-body gates, as was said earlier, "即" means, in the face of opposition and contradiction, the overcoming of those into "oneness." Its detailed exposition will be given elsewhere. Here, as this section draws to a close, I would like to offer a few preliminary remarks in preparation for the fuller treatment to come. The logic of "即" can only hold on the basis of opposition and contradiction, so mutual identification, mutual penetration, the same-body gate, and the different-body gate all require, from the start, such opposition.

Speaking of mutual identification in terms of "substance": the one and the many become one another as emptiness and existence; one speaks of an opposition and contradiction between emptiness and existence. If the one is existence, the many are emptiness; if the many are existence, the one is emptiness. Hence existence is not apart from emptiness, emptiness not apart from existence; emptiness and existence are nondual—and the overcoming of this opposition is mutual identification.

Then, speaking in terms of "function": if the one is powerful, the many are powerless; if the one is powerless, the many are powerful. Powerful and powerless are in opposition, yet when the one, as powerful, draws in the many's powerlessness, and the many, as powerless, enter into the one's power, and vice versa, then through mutual penetration the opposition between powerful and powerless is wholly overcome.

Given what has been said of mutual identification and mutual penetration, the same-body gate and the different-body gate may be considered in just this way. In the case of powerlessness, whether existence or emptiness, there is only waiting on conditions—there is no meaning of not waiting on conditions. But when there is power, whether existence or emptiness, an opposition arises between waiting on conditions and not waiting on conditions. The arising of dharmas as waiting on conditions leads to the standpoint of the different-body gate; their arising as not waiting on conditions points to the standpoint of the same-body gate. Whether same-body or different-body, both speak of identity and penetration only insofar as emptiness and existence stand in opposition. As the opposition between powerful and powerless is overcome, so too, in that very moment, the opposition between waiting on conditions and not waiting on conditions.

3 The Demonstration of Non-Obstruction

From what has been said, in all dharmas the one and the many in their different-body aspect together realize non-obstruction and freedom, and at the same time the many within each particular dharma's own same-body aspect can enter into mutual identification and penetration. Yet the perfect fulfillment of the dharma realm, in the Avatamsaka Sūtra's fundamental standpoint, is nothing other than the manifesting of the Tathāgata. To understand the content of perfect awakening requires being grounded in a view of dependent origination. Fazang, in his Avatamsaka Guidepost (《华严策林》), set out the essential aim of the Huayan teaching: "To clarify in general the two gates of cause and effect—the cause is the vow and practice of Samantabhadra, the effect is the activity of Vairocana; chiefly, they do not depart from dependent origination." ① (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 45, p. 597a.)

Grasping cause and effect together: within the cause lies the effect, and when we speak of the effect, the meaning of the cause is already contained within it. Based on dependent origination, we deny chance and explain cause and effect as a matter of necessity.

We commonly say one plus one equals two, and yet the two is already a necessary existence within the one itself—it is by no means a matter of chance. Whenever a question is posed, the answer, even before the response, is already contained within the meaning of the question. A question that contains no answer is a meaningless question. When something appears at first glance to be a matter of chance, it is only because we have not yet recognized the necessity at work. When the unknown becomes known, no matter how it may seem a chance event, in truth it is always necessary. As mentioned earlier, the fundamental principle of the same-body and different-body gates involves the opposition between waiting on conditions and not waiting on conditions: waiting on conditions means awaiting an external influence, acknowledging the opposition of one and many, and giving rise to the meaning of the different-body gate; not waiting on conditions means not awaiting external influence, acknowledging that the one, in the present moment, contains the many, and giving rise to the meaning of the same-body gate. It is known that by accumulating one until it becomes ten, in practice, the capacity for the one to become ten is already a prior condition within the one. Take the number "two" (the base number): "two" does not arise simply by adding one to one, with each "one" contributing half its force, and only when those halves combine does the "actual" "two" come about—because every "one" necessarily contains within it the full virtue of "two." Yet in ordinary common sense, we only say one plus one equals two, and considering the fact that each "one" possesses a force equivalent to half of "two," all that such an account means is that one plus one merely establishes "a two," without ever reaching an "actually existing" "two." The same holds when one adds one to ten: in the end, it remains no more than "a many." By "many," I do not at all mean that one plus one, each independent of the other, stands side by side as a heap of many. Therefore, one plus one equals two does not mean that, by some mechanical addition of one and one, a two is set up through a posteriori, external association. Because the one is conditionally arisen, and the two is conditionally arisen, even before one plus one becomes two, the meaning of the one becoming two is already present. Hence the sūtra says: "All worlds enter into a single hair-shaft." ② (Note: Jin Translation of the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Volume 33, "Samantabhadra Bodhisattva Practices" chapter (Taishō 9, p. 607b).) And so it is explained: "From a single hair-shaft emerge inconceivable lands," and even, "All three times entirely enter into one time." These passages show that the many lie within the one, and that the many take the one as their root and ground.

Further, the sūtra says: "In a single instant one travels through the ten directions, displaying them as a full moon"; "Within a single atom countless lands appear, yet that atom does not increase"; "In each of countless pores countless buddhas, each preaching wonderful teachings beyond conception." ③ (Note: Same sūtra, Volume 6, "Bhadrottama Bodhisattva" chapter (same edition, pp. 434b–c, 438a).) In other parts of the sūtra, the same point is also made: "[Entering into innumerable samādhis through the gate of a single samādhi, one knows completely the bounds of all samādhis]." ④ (Note: Same sūtra, Volume 10, "Dharma-Light" chapter (same edition, p. 461a).) From these passages we see that this expresses the pervasion of the many within the one, and shows the one to be the root and ground of the many.

If, taking the one as the object of thought, the result is in this way conditionally arisen, then whatever boundless measure we think of must also be conditionally arisen. Taking the one as the base number and arriving at boundlessness, the boundlessness one reaches differs by one from the boundlessness one reaches when taking the two as base and arriving at boundlessness, yet in truth each equally attains boundlessness. Likewise, taking ten as base and reaching boundlessness may, by ordinary reckoning, seem to differ by nine from the boundlessness reached from one as base; yet there is in fact no difference at all. Whether it be one, or two, up to ten, each in itself contains boundlessness within. The way an ordinary being caught within the shackles of unenlightenment perceives the fruit-aspect of a buddha who has broken free of those shackles, is in the end no different from this very principle. After all, conditionally arisen and empty are not two. The Avatamsaka Sūtra extols emptiness and selflessness throughout. This sūtra exists for the sake of plainly showing the experiential content of dharma-realm dependent origination. ⑤ (Note: For instance, in the Jin Sūtra, Volume 12, "Ten Inexhaustible Treasuries" chapter (Taishō 9, p. 474b), when the bodhisattva Gunaśīri praises the inexhaustible virtues of the treasury, and in the first faith and tenth discourse sets forth that all dharmas are empty and without self-nature—along with the other passages that praise emptiness and non-attainment—there are simply too many to enumerate.)

Truly, the non-obstruction of thing with thing, the endlessly interlocking depths, is to see things just as they are—and empty, unattainable. It is none other than because dependent origination is itself empty, because dharmas are empty of self-nature, that the demonstration of boundlessness first enters the scene as the leading line of reasoning.

Fazang, to provide a means for entering into this dharma-realm non-obstruction samādhi, wrote the Record of a Journey through the Dharma-Realm of the Avatamsaka (《华严游心法界记》) in one roll: he first clarified what is needed for entry, then explained the practice. ⑥ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 45, p. 646b.) Within it, in the first gate he distinguished the "gate of conditional arising through mutual dependence" and the "gate of the principle's interpenetration." The reason for these two gates is that all existing dharmas lack self-nature. Selflessness is itself emptiness, is itself perfect interpenetration, and becomes illusory existence. Grounded in selflessness, the intention is to discuss non-obstruction. And what we call "no-nature" does not merely set existence against emptiness to show that illusory existence is of course emptiness—the naturelessness of an emptiness-and-existence that perfectly interpenetrate. This point later gave rise to the basis of Chengguan's standpoint of "the principle-substance gate." Conditional arising is by no means substantial existence, nor is it mere emptiness. The realm of phenomena does not obstruct principle, and therefore fully contains the realm of principle; the realm of principle does not obstruct phenomena, and therefore fully contains the realm of phenomena. From this, of course, follows the dharma realm of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena—and all of these, in their turn, are the dharma realm of the non-obstruction of phenomena with phenomena, with the standpoint of dependent origination as the organizational reason for the system as a whole. Hence the inexhaustible ten profound gates (十玄门). Their exposition was first put forward by Zhìyǎn in his one-roll The Single-Vehicle Ten Profound Gates of the Avatamsaka (《华严一乘十玄门》). Taking ten as the analogy, it sets out the two gates of same-body and different-body, and three meanings: the provisional teaching that within each one, many, and within each many, one; the principle teaching that one is many, many is one; and the wisdom teaching that transcends the original suchness of one-and-many. From these the ten gates of the ten profundities are derived, but the demonstration of the inexhaustibility of the ten profundities had not yet reached a fully assured and unimpeachable argument. That was the achievement of Fazang's completion of the teaching as a great synthesis: he carried the demonstration of inexhaustibility to a place where no further objection remained.

We focus here on the explanations of the ten causes of non-obstruction and the ten classes of non-obstruction as set out in Fazang's The Aim of the Avatamsaka Sūtra (《华严经旨归》) and Volume 1 of his Memoir on the Profound Meaning (《探玄记》). In The Aim of the Avatamsaka Sūtra, in the eighth section, "Explaining the Sūtra's Intent," as the causes of "the perfect interpenetration of dharmas," he sketches roughly the measureless causes, listing ten: 1. To clarify that all dharmas have no fixed marks; 2. Because they arise only from mind; 3. Because they are like an illusion; 4. Because they appear like a dream; 5. Because of the force of superior spiritual powers; 6. Because of the use of deep samādhi; 7. Because of the power of liberation; 8. Because causes are without limit; 9. Because of the mutual dependence of conditional arising; 10. Because the dharma-nature is interpenetrating. ⑦ (Note: Same edition, p. 594b.) Ten meanings in all are listed. And yet these ten do not all need to be present at once for the demonstration of non-obstruction to hold; raising any single one of them is sufficient to show that dharmas commingle and interpenetrate without obstruction. One may therefore consider that each of these reasons, taken individually, already proves the full force of non-obstruction. It is then said: "Therefore this single gate of conditional origination itself fully contains the aforementioned ten meanings." If we follow this, then no single meaning is only itself; rather, each single meaning is already qualified to manifest all ten. Among them, of course, whether on the side of the same-body or the different-body, mutual identification and mutual penetration are displayed. In Volume 1 of the Memoir on the Profound Meaning, the question is raised: by what causes are dharmas able to commingle and interpenetrate without obstruction in such a way? The answer, in ten categories of non-obstruction, is set forth with such ordered thoroughness that the theory reaches its full and proper completeness. ⑧ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 35, p. 124a.) That is, Volume 1 of the Memoir lists: 1. Because of the mutual dependence of conditional arising; 2. Because the dharma-nature is interpenetrating; 3. Because each arises only from mind; 4. Because things are like an illusion and not real; 5. Because the great and the small are not fixed; 6. Because causes without limit give rise; 7. Because the fruit-virtues are fully perfect; 8. Because of the superior spiritual freedom; 9. Because of the great function of samādhi; 10. Because of a liberation beyond conception. Ten categories.

Chengguan, in Volume 6 of his Introductory Talks on the Profound Meaning of the Outline and Commentary of the Avatamsaka (《华严经疏钞玄谈》), first sets out ten profundities of dependent origination, then raises the question of the causes of such free commingling and interpenetration of dharmas, and lists ten gates: 1. Because of mind alone; 2. Because dharmas lack fixed nature; 3. Because of the mutual dependence of conditional arising; 4. Because the dharma-nature is interpenetrating; 5. Because things are like illusion and dream; 6. Because things are like reflections; 7. Because causes are without limit; 8. Because the buddhas have realized and exhausted it; 9. Because of the use of deep samādhi; 10. Because of spiritual power and liberation. ⑨ (Note: Xuzangjing 1.8.3, p. 277 right.) Ten gates. And he says: "Any single one is sufficient to make all those dharmas commingle and interpenetrate without obstruction." The names have undergone some change—mainly because the wording revealed in The Aim is already complete, and Chengguan has only refined the same terms—yet the underlying meaning, on the whole, inherits The Aim, with only the order of the items shifted slightly. Notably, the Introductory Talks places "because of mind alone" first, because in the new ten profundities that Chengguan employs the gate of the mind's wholesome turning is absent, whereas in the old ten profundities that gate appeared; that the ten profundities are argued in The Aim's order is a sign of special respect for Fazang's intent in the Five Teachings Chapter. ⑩ (Note: Yoshie's "Southern Record of the Memoir on the Profound Meaning," Volume 1, Section 7 (the Honsei edition of the Kegon-shū's Shōsho collection, Vol. 1, p. 95 in Japan) goes into this matter in particular detail.) But in any case, these are not to be regarded as Chengguan's original contributions; if we but search within Fazang's writings, that will be enough.

When we compare the Zhigui with the Tanxuan ji, both present ten meanings without any difference between them; but in terms of whether the wording is well-ordered or not, the former ultimately falls short of the latter. Although their headings differ, this is only a matter of expanding and contracting. For instance, the fourth meaning in the Tanxuan ji, "like an illusion, unreal," is expanded in the Zhigui into the third meaning, "like an illusion, arising from conditions," and the fourth, "like a dream, appearing events." Likewise, the seventh in the Zhigui, "the power of liberation," is expanded in the Tanxuan ji into the seventh, "the perfect culmination of fruit-virtues," and the tenth, "inexplicable liberation," and divided into two. Furthermore, the ten matters and five pairs in the Zhigui are arranged in order by name, whereas the Tanxuan ji takes the first five meanings and the latter five meanings, each respectively distinguishing dependent origination from cause and effect.⑾ (Note: cf. Tanxuan ji nan xilu, j. 1, no. 7 (in the Japanese Tripiṭaka, Huayan zong zhushu, vol. 1, 195a).) The ten matters and five pairs are: first, one pair of essence and characteristics; second, one pair of similes and analogies; third, one pair of universal and particular; fourth, one pair of cause and effect; fifth, one pair of events and principle. Nevertheless, the dependent origination and cause-effect of the latter—the events and principle, essence and characteristics of the first four meanings—are subsumed under the fifth, "without fixed size." The various causes from the sixth through the ninth are brought together and subsumed under the tenth, "inexplicable exposition." Yet these ten meanings "merely set forth in full the measure of the ground of causes and conditions"; this is only condensed, merely a "brief indication," so the demonstration may be expanded further and need not be confined to the fixed ten meanings. One can also imagine that they might be further contracted, with the essential points gathered into several meaning-gates. As Fazang states in the "Chapter on Dependent Origination of the Dharma-realm" in the lower fascicle of the Establishment of the Three Jewels within the Usage Section of the Huayan Sūtra: "Now, the unimpeded universal containment of dependent origination of the dharma-realm is like Indra's net spread out in full; if the pearls mutually interpenetrate, they are perfectly interfused and at ease, inexhaustible and difficult to name. I shall briefly point out the essentials through four gates: first, the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination; second, the gate of interfusion of dharma-nature; third, the gate of dual manifestation of dependent origination and nature; fourth, the gate of distinguishing principle and phenomena."⑿ (Note: Taishō vol. 45, p. 620a. This is entirely identical with Fazang's other work, the Miscellaneous Chapter Gate of the Huayan.) Following this, one can conceive of contracting the ten meanings into four doctrinal gates. Within the initial gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination, however, from the standpoint of the other-body gate it is further distinguished into three: first, from the standpoint of the same-body gate it becomes the "gate of mutual distinctness of various conditions"; second, from the standpoint of dual discernment of sameness and difference it becomes the "gate of mutual correspondence of various conditions"; third, the "gate of unimpeded correspondence and sameness." Moreover, within each of these three gates there are three meanings: first, the meaning of mutual sustaining power and powerlessness (on the basis of which mutual penetration occurs); second, the meaning of mutual overshadowing and overriding of essence and non-essence (on the basis of which mutual identity occurs); third, the meaning of essence-function dual interfusion of existence and non-existence (this, on the basis of simultaneity and freedom, is explained). From these three aspects, the meanings of mutual identity, mutual penetration, and unimpeded freedom are expounded.

Nevertheless, in juan 4 of the Tanxuan ji, when explaining the sūtra text of the "Light-awakening Chapter," after explaining matters relating to the mutual identity and penetration of the other-body and the mutual identity and penetration of the same-body, the exposition of mutual identity and mutual penetration in this sūtra proposes only two gates for demonstrating non-obstruction: namely, the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination and the gate of interfusion of dharma-nature.⒀ (Note: Taishō vol. 35, p. 173c.) In juan 1 of the Wujiao zhang, within the exposition given before and after the sixth teaching's emergence, when praising the present teaching of the Huayan Sūtra and comparing it with the various sūtras of the inferior teachings suited to capacities, it is presented as the distinct teaching of the One Vehicle, emphatically stating that this sūtra was spoken by the Buddha on the second seven days after attaining Buddhahood, beneath the bodhi tree, entering the samādhi of the ocean-seal, expounding the inexhaustible dharma-gates of multiple layers, explaining the reasons for this: "first, because of identical dependent origination; second, because of non-duality of characteristics."⒁ (Note: Taishō vol. 45, p. 482c.) When comparing the two passages, the former's ability to teach on the basis of mutual dependence of dependent origination corresponds to the latter's "because of identical dependent origination." And the former's ability to teach on the basis of the interfusion of dharma-nature corresponds to the latter's "because of non-duality of characteristics." When the Wujiao zhang was composed, the two gates of mutual dependence of dependent origination and interfusion of dharma-nature had already been taken as the basis for arguments concerning non-obstruction, while simultaneously occupying a place within the organization of Fazang's teaching. It is moreover conjectured to have been compiled fairly late in his life. The demonstration of the non-obstruction of the dharma-realm presented in the Record of Roaming the Mind in the Dharma-realm of the Huayan⒂ (Note: ibid., p. 646c.) cited earlier—if understood on the basis of these two meanings, the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination and the gate of interfusion of principle-nature—although its foundation may be said to lie in non-self-nature, at least in terms of wording, as already indicated in juan 4 of the Tanxuan ji, takes the two meanings of the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination and the gate of interfusion of dharma(-nature/principle) as the theoretical starting point for demonstrating non-obstruction.

These two meanings, however, when carried to their ultimate, can be reduced to the single gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination. That is, among the ten kinds of causes and conditions enumerated in the Zhigui of the Huayan Sūtra, the ninth—the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination—alone explains how the same-body and the other-body obtain mutual identity and mutual penetration.⒃ (Note: ibid., p. 595b.) Because other-body mutual containment (mutual penetration) obtains, there is the meaning of the gate of subtle particulars; because other-body mutual identity obtains, there is the meaning of the gate of concealment and manifestation. Again, because same-body mutual penetration obtains, the one and the many are non-obstructed; because same-body mutual identity obtains, the broad and the narrow are non-obstructed. Therefore this single gate of dependent origination (the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination) fully contains all the foregoing ten meanings. The intent is to use the single gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination as the unifying demonstration for the ten meanings. Moreover, as explained in the Establishment of the Three Jewels cited above, although four gates of demonstration were once revealed, only the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination was explained; within it, only the mutual identity and mutual penetration on the same-body and other-body were expounded in detail, and it was stated with the words, "the foregoing first gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination concludes; the remainder have not been composed,"⒄ (Note: ibid., p. 620c.) and with this one section of the "Chapter on Dependent Origination of the Dharma-realm" came to a close. It then moves on to the next, the "Chapter on the Perfect Sound." The phrase "the remainder have not been composed" probably means that for arguments other than that of mutual dependence of dependent origination, explanation is at present not required. When juan 4 of the Tanxuan ji takes, as representatives of demonstration, the two gates of mutual dependence of dependent origination and interfusion of dharma-nature in summary form, it says: "Therefore these two gates, because they are produced through mutual unfolding, are not distinct; furthermore, because each of the two gates of mutual identity and mutual containment respectively fully encompasses the dharmas, they likewise are not distinct."⒅ (Note: Taishō vol. 35, p. 173c.) When mutual correspondence can be called forth between them, in the latter text it is merely noted, "this text provisionally explains in terms of the meaning of mutual containment; therefore..." Taking the standpoint of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena with mutual penetration as primary, these two gates are "not distinct"; in neither of the two demonstrations is it specified which serves as the main subject. If we take the standpoint of the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon, with mutual identity as primary, it is naturally not difficult to infer that it is reduced to the single gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination. Thus, in Xianshou's teaching, argumentation for non-obstruction is consistently represented by the reasoning of mutual dependence of dependent origination; from this we understand how the organization establishes the inexhaustible dependent origination of the dharma-realm in multiple layers.

Furthermore, juan 1 of the Tanxuan ji, when speaking of mutual dependence of dependent origination, further explains ten meanings, elaborating in detail on the boundless interfusion and unimpeded freedom of all dharmas.⒆ (Note: ibid., p. 124a.) The ten kinds of principles it expounds can organize and establish a more ultimate demonstration of non-obstruction; the result is that it comes to rest upon the fundamental principle of understanding mutual identity and mutual penetration from the two aspects of the same-body and the other-body.

First, the meaning of the various conditions having distinct names: all dharmas are dharmas produced through causes and conditions; dependent origination, when manifest, displays differentiated characteristics, and among them there is certainly no disorderly chaos. Material dharmas possess a tangible, obstructive aspect and reveal their forms and characteristics; mental dharmas are formless yet possess the function of cognition; essence and function are not confused.

Second, the meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual sustenance: since these differentiated dharmas are dharmas of dependent origination, they simultaneously pervade one another and maintain a relation of mutual sustenance and mutual dependence. Therefore the one pervades all things, and all things interfuse into the one without remainder. Moreover, the self pervades the other, and within the self all things are fully present; all things return into the self, becoming interfused and non-obstructed.

Third, the meaning of simultaneous existence without obstruction: since the various dharmas constituting dependent origination are maintained through the above two meanings, each retains its differentiated characteristics, and each contains unlimited content while mutually pervading and sustaining the others. On the basis of self and other, each simultaneously maintains equality within differentiation, while within equality the substance itself retains differentiation; these two meanings exist together without obstruction.

The three meanings set forth above explain the fundamental dharma of dependent origination⒇ (Tanxuan ji, j. 1 (ibid., p. 124b): "These three gates altogether explain the fundamental dharma of dependent origination, concluding."), presenting in summary the basis of the thought of dependent origination. The fourth and following meanings treat how, on the same-body and other-body, mutual identity and mutual penetration come about.

Fourth, the meaning of other-body mutual penetration.

Fifth, the meaning of other-body mutual identity.

Sixth, the meaning of essence-function dual interfusion.

Regarding the other-body gate, the fourth and fifth relate to dynamic function. Through relations of mutual strength and weakness, mutual penetration arises; with regard to their essence, mutually they become empty and existent, and thus achieve mutual identity. In this way essence and function interfuse without obstruction and are at ease. Indeed, all dharmas, if with function they gather into essence, then outside function there is no separate essence and they mutually penetrate one another; if with essence they contain function, then outside essence there is in principle no separate function and they solely achieve mutual identity.

Seventh, the meaning of same-body mutual penetration.

Eighth, the meaning of same-body mutual identity.

Ninth, the meaning of joint interfusion without obstruction.

With regard to the same-body gate, the seventh and eighth show that there is mutual penetration and mutual identity; and on the other-body gate similarly no obstacle whatsoever exists between them; therefore joint interfusion without obstruction is spoken of.

Tenth, the meaning of perfect fulfillment of sameness and difference: those that become mutual identity and mutual penetration on the same-body and other-body have an even more intimate and necessarily perfect relation. Thus, this meaning may be said to summarize and conclude the standpoints of the two gates of same-body and other-body; the latter seven gates are mainly for maintaining the initial three meanings and are probably distinct meanings opened out separately.

Consequently, this fully corresponds to the meaning of the gate of mutual dependence of dependent origination being distinguished into three gates, as stated in the Establishment of the Three Jewels cited above. Among the ten gates, the first—the meaning of the distinctness of all dharmas, which is the fundamental dharma—is equivalent to (1) the other-body gate of distinctness of the various conditions in the Establishment of the Three Jewels; the second, the meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual sustenance, corresponds to (2) the same-body gate of mutual correspondence of the various conditions; and the third, the meaning of simultaneous existence without obstruction, corresponds to (3) the gate of unimpeded correspondence and sameness, which discerns sameness and difference in a dual manner. Looking at this, one can imagine how carefully systematized the demonstration of the non-obstruction of dependent origination of the dharma-realm is, accomplished on the basis of the meaning of mutual dependence of dependent origination. If one further opens this out, it can become a system of four gates, ten meanings, or even countless rationales.

4. Ten Profound Dependent Origination and Perfect Interfusion of the Six Characteristics

Within the framework of dependent origination of the dharma-realm, it has been clarified how non-obstructed demonstration is obtained with respect to every single thing among all dharmas. At the same time, one must ask and clarify what, in the end, non-obstruction is. This is unquestionably the fundamental issue of dependent origination of the dharma-realm; its own nature of non-obstruction is explained through ten pairs and ten meanings. Or rather, the state of non-obstruction is expounded as the key points of mutual identity and mutual penetration on the same-body and other-body. How to explicate "what non-obstruction is" is explained in detail through ten gates; at the same time, this serves specifically to lead one to grasp the task of attaining non-obstruction. This is precisely the appearance first encountered in Zhiyan's works, the Ten Profound Gates of the One Vehicle of the Huayan① (Note: Taishō vol. 45, p. 515b—) and juan 1, part 1, of the Record of Searching Out the Profound Meaning of the Huayan Sūtra② (Note: Taishō vol. 35, p. 15b.). Under the detailed and organized explanations transmitted through Fazang's many works, and carried forward by Chengguan and Zongmi, it became the central thought of Huayan philosophy, clearly indicating that the content of dependent origination of the dharma-realm, as its ultimate point, is the theory of ten profound dependent origination. Although this shares roughly the same purport as the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics, the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics may rather be said to become the fundamental concept of the ten profound dependent origination, while being developed separately to fulfill the task of arriving at the conclusion. The ten profound dependent origination grasps the relation of the one and the many; whether in spatial, temporal, or analogical respects and in actual fact, its content is invariably the overcoming of contradictions and the explication of mutual identity and mutual penetration, the perfection of primary and companion, multilayered inexhaustibility, and the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon. The perfect interfusion of the six characteristics rather grasps the relation of part and whole, investigating its foundational meaning. The foundation should take the fundamental ten profound gates as preceding, but if, on the basis of the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon, one is directly questioned about phenomena, it conversely possesses the significance of supplementary explanation.

Take Fazang's principal work, the Wujiao zhang, in four juan, divided in total into ten chapters. The first two chapters, "Establishment of the One Vehicle" and "Inclusion of Benefit by Teachings and Meanings," should, viewed as a whole, belong to a general exposition. From the third chapter, "Establishment of Teachings Ancient and Modern," through the eighth, "Differences in Set-up," six chapters in total explain the position that the Huayan teaching occupies within the entirety of Buddhist teaching. The ninth chapter, "Differences in What is Expounded," examines the relation between the Huayan teaching and other teachings, attempting to bring forth a comparison of its special features; it may also be seen as a general overview of Buddhism centered on Huayan philosophy. The tenth chapter, however—"Discrimination of Meanings and Principles"—can be singled out even more pointedly as the core of Huayan philosophy. A single Wujiao zhang, as its title indicates, explains the shallowness and depth of the five teachings and possesses the character of a work of doctrinal classification; at the same time, its ultimate aim lies in clarifying the view of dependent origination of the distinct teaching of the One Vehicle of the Huayan. That the final chapter, "Discrimination of Meanings and Principles," serves as the final summation cannot be denied to possess its important position.③ (Note: The four-juan version of the Wujiao zhang is what is called one version of the Song edition; in the Japanese edition of the three-juan version, the chapter "Discrimination of Meanings and Principles" is divided and placed as the ninth chapter in the middle juan. Which arrangement is correct, although this has been a matter of dispute since ancient times, from the standpoint that there is no difference in purport, it does not matter whether chapters nine and twelve come first or after. However, viewing matters in the manner described above, if one wishes to coordinate an integrated discourse, the order of the Song edition is presumably more appropriate.)

Nevertheless, when the chapter "Discrimination of Meanings and Principles" is separately opened into four gates, the first is the meaning of sameness and difference of the three natures, and the second is the six meanings of the gate of causes of dependent origination. As stated in the section "Contemplation of Emptiness and Practice of Existence" in the sixth chapter above, when touching upon "the three natures and the true and the false" and "the forms of arising and the six meanings of the gate of causes," these both contain the task of subsequently leading out the ten profound dependent origination and the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics. Moreover, the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics, the fourth gate, has gradually become the foundation of the ten profound dependent origination. Indeed, in its form of exposition, what holds the position of supplementary explanation is the ten profound dependent origination; this is truly the center of the center of the entirety of the Huayan, and that dependent origination of the dharma-realm becomes the core of Huayan philosophy—there is nothing to be said against it.

Long ago at Nara's Tōdaiji (Japan), when lecturing on the Wujiao zhang (五教章), particularly in the chapter "Yili fenqi" (〈义理分齐〉, Classification of Principles), he would, apart from occasional private oral instructions, merely read the text aloud during public sessions and never delve into its explanatory content—keeping any oral transmission strictly confidential. This chapter concerns the special doctrine of the ten profound conditioned co-arising (十玄缘起): not only is it suitable for doctrinal understanding, but it can be directly applied as the essence of contemplative practice. Because it constitutes an essential gateway of this school, restrictions prevented its indiscriminate exposition.④ (Note: Gyōshō records this Nanto tradition of oral transmission at the opening of volume 8 of his Huayan Wujiao Zhang Ziliao Ji.) Such restrictions in fact narrowed the scope of transmission and study—a practice that can hardly be praised—and yet it shows how the ancients valued the ten profound conditioned co-arising as the treasured sword of their lineage.

In sum, in the Tanxuan ji (探玄记) vol. 1, when annotating the sutra, the prefatory profound discussion (玄谈) is opened into ten sections to present the outline, of which the ninth, "Yili fenqi," takes the ten profound conditioned co-arising as its beginning and end.⑤ (Note: Taishō Tripitaka vol. 35, p. 123a.) Likewise, the Wenyi gangmu (文义纲目), in summarizing the sutra's general meaning, lists only the ten profound conditioned co-arising.⑥ (Note: Same, p. 505b.) Furthermore, the Huayan zhigui (华严旨归), in the section on "manifesting the sutra's meaning" (显经义, seventh), first explains ten pairs of principles such as teaching and meaning, principle and phenomena, then demonstrates ten examples to clarify non-obstruction.⑦ (Note: Taishō Tripitaka vol. 45, p. 594a.) These two works grasp the profound meaning of the Huayan sutra through the ten profound conditioned co-arising, and when they illuminate each other, one can infer how central a position the ten profound conditioned co-arising occupies within the dharma-realm conditioned co-arising.

Fazang's Huayan Jinshizi Zhang (华严金师子章), in one fascicle,⑧ (Note: Jingyuan's paraphrastic edition, same vol., pp. 665a–.) first raised issues concerning the ten profundities. Chengguan's Huayan jing shuchao xuantan (华严经疏钞玄谈) vol. 6⑨ (Manji zokushoku 1.8.3, pp. 268b–.) and his Huayan jing lüece (华严经略策)⑩ (Note: Taishō Tripitaka vol. 36, p. 707b.) likewise center their teaching on this topic. Fazang's authorship is generally regarded as fulfilling the latent aspiration of the ten profound gates. Chengguan's Fajie xuanjing (法界玄镜) and Zongmi's Zhu Fajie guanmen (注法界观门) also touch on related viewpoints to varying degrees. But Huiyuan's Kanding ji (刊定记) vol. 1, in the seventh section on "classification of meanings" (显义分齐), divides principles into three gates: essence-and-matter (体事), virtue-and-characteristics (德相), and activity-and-function (业用).⑾ (Note: Manji zokushoku 1.5.1, p. 21a.) With respect to virtue-and-characteristics and activity-and-function, the ten profound conditioned co-arising is expanded from various angles into twenty profundities, whose structure becomes highly complex. Yet in attempting to treat the ten profound conditioned co-arising as something marginal, the work drifts into excessive technicality; lacking clear reasoning, the content of practice itself becomes vague. It merely falls into superfluous intricacy—"adding legs to a snake," as the saying goes. Chengguan's Huayan jing shuchao xuantan vol. 6⑿ (Note: Manji zokushoku 1.8.3, p. 269a.) already criticizes this complexity, clearly pointing out its inadequacy. Although virtue-and-characteristics and activity-and-function differ, when treated as identical in content to the ten profundities, they are forced into that presentation and led into tedious intricacy; therefore one must return to Fazang's original meaning and point to the proper path of endless conditioned co-arising.

The concrete form of the ten profound gates (十玄门), though not seen occupying a particular position in the Huayan sutra itself, is clarified in terms of classification in the Souxuan ji (搜玄记); thus the meaning it expounds aligns with what the ten profound gates articulate, and can be faintly discerned in the sutra's transmission. In the Jin jing (晋经, trans. of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra) vol. 23, at the beginning of the "Ten Grounds" chapter (〈十地品〉), the bodhisattva of the first ground, established in the Ground of Joy, generates great vows and brings forth such a concentration,⒀ (Note: Taishō Tripitaka vol. 9, pp. 545b–.) which is explained as the meaning of "immediate entry." Again, in vol. 26 of the same chapter, the bodhisattva of the eighth ground obtains the power of freedom,⒁ (Note: Same, pp. 564c–.) spoken of as the meaning of "mutual identification." Throughout the sutra, the doctrinal intent of the ten profound gates is scattered everywhere, and the patriarchs of the tradition organized them into the ten profound gates simply by drawing on the essence of Huayan philosophy. The one who organized them most completely and systematically was Great Master Fazang. Therefore, in the lineage of transmission and organization, although the names and arrangements may vary somewhat in order and form—not only due to broader or narrower methods of interpretation but also according to the depth and completeness of thought—the foundation throughout is the One Vehicle's ten profound gates.

Yet because Fazang approached his later years, his thought matured, and his doctrinal system was refined through successive discipline, his exposition is not limited to simply organizing the ten profound gates. The teaching's underlying principles—the so-called ten pairs of categories such as doctrine and meaning, principle and phenomena, established as the "ten meanings and ten pairs" doctrine gates (立义门) of the Wujiao zhang—can be seen as described above. Furthermore, within the so-called "explanatory gates" (解释门) of the ten profound gates, the names and order in the Huayan jing wenyi gangmu (华严经文义纲目) are largely the same as those in the Yicheng shixuan men (一乘十玄门) and the Souxuan ji (搜玄记). In the Wujiao zhang and the Jinshizi Zhang, only one or two names differ, but the order can vary considerably. Yet in any series of organization, the names are nearly identical—these are generally called the "Old Ten Profundities" (古十玄). By contrast, the names and order presented in the Tanxuan ji clearly modify and supplement those of the earlier sequence, and are called the "New Ten Profundities" (新十玄).⒂ (Note: In Jingyuan's annotated edition of the Jinshizi Zhang, the names of the ten profundities still follow the Old Ten, but their order shows consideration of the New Ten.) The reasons for Chengguan's revision are explained in his Huayan jing shuchao xuantan vol. 1⒃ (Note: Manji zokushoku 1.8.3, p. 184a.) and vol. 6,⒄ (Note: Same, pp. 269b–.) which makes the standpoint of "phenomena-mutual-non-obstruction" (事事无碍) even more clearly explicit.⒅ (Note: The names of the Old and New Ten Profound Gates, according to the Wujiao zhang and the Tanxuan ji, are as follows:

Wujiao zhang / Tanxuan ji

1. Gate of Simultaneous Complete Correspondence (同时具足相应门) — 1 ………………

2. Gate of One-and-Many Mutual Accommodation without Difference (一多相容不同门) — 3 ………………

3. Gate of Mutual Identification and Freedom of All Dharmas (诸法相即自在门) — 4 ………………

4. Gate of the Subtle Indrajāla Realm (因陀罗微细境界门) — 7. Gate of the Indrajāla Realm (因陀罗网境界门)

5. Gate of Subtle Mutual Accommodation and Establishment (微细相容安立门) — 6 ………………

6. Gate of Secret Concealment and Manifestation Both Complete (秘密隐显俱成门) — 5. Gate of Concealment and Manifestation Both Complete (隐密显了俱成门)

7. Gate of Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries (诸藏纯杂具德门) — 2. Gate of Freedom of Broad and Narrow without Obstruction (广狭自在无碍门)

8. Gate of Distinct Completion across the Ten Times (十世隔法异成门) — 9 ………………

9. Gate of Mental Reversion and Skillful Completion (唯心回转善成门) — 10. Gate of Complete Virtue with Principal and Retinue (主伴圆明具德门)

10. Gate of Entrusting Matters to Manifest the Dharma and Give Rise to Understanding (讬事显法生解门) — 8 ………………

From the table above, one can see that the "Gate of Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries" was replaced by the "Gate of Freedom of Broad and Narrow without Obstruction," and the "Gate of Mental Reversion and Skillful Completion" was replaced by the "Gate of Complete Virtue with Principal and Retinue."

The names of the ten profundities in the Wujiao zhang are: 1. Gate of Simultaneous Complete Correspondence; 2. Gate of One-and-Many Mutual Accommodation without Difference; 3. Gate of Mutual Identification and Freedom of All Dharmas; 4. Gate of the Subtle Indrajāla Realm; 5. Gate of Subtle Mutual Accommodation and Establishment; 6. Gate of Secret Concealment and Manifestation Both Complete; 7. Gate of Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries; 8. Gate of Distinct Completion across the Ten Times; 9. Gate of Mental Reversion and Skillful Completion; 10. Gate of Entrusting Matters to Manifest the Dharma and Give Rise to Understanding. In the Tanxuan ji they are: 1. Gate of Simultaneous Complete Correspondence; 2. Gate of Freedom of Broad and Narrow without Obstruction; 3. Gate of One-and-Many Mutual Accommodation without Difference; 4. Gate of Mutual Identification and Freedom of All Dharmas; 5. Gate of Concealment and Manifestation Both Complete; 6. Gate of Subtle Mutual Accommodation and Establishment; 7. Gate of the Indrajāla Realm; 8. Gate of Entrusting Matters to Manifest the Dharma and Give Rise to Understanding; 9. Gate of Distinct Completion across the Ten Times; 10. Gate of Complete Virtue with Principal and Retinue. One can see evidence of overall adjustment. Likewise, with differences in phrasing, the Old Ten's fifth gate "Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries" and the ninth "Mental Reversion and Skillful Completion" were abolished, while in the New Ten the second gate "Freedom of Broad and Narrow without Obstruction" and the final tenth gate "Complete Virtue with Principal and Retinue" were newly added.

Now, reflecting on the reasons for the change as the ten profundities indicate: the Old Ten's seventh gate, "Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries," expresses the standpoint of phenomena-mutual-non-obstruction of the ten profound gates. Taking one principle as pure and myriad practices as mixed, one mingles oneself with the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, and thus need not fear losing the direct, endless, perfect principle. Accordingly, the first gate, "Simultaneous Complete Correspondence," becomes the comprehensive opening statement set at the beginning as the whole—its "simultaneously" clearly indicates "the same time," as the subsequent text makes plain. "Broad and narrow" corresponds and signals the spatial intention; to indicate the next step of non-obstruction, the New Ten newly establishes the second gate, "Freedom of Broad and Narrow without Obstruction." Moreover, the Old Ten's ninth gate, "Mental Reversion and Skillful Completion," gives the reason why all dharmas are non-obstructed. Since it merely expresses this from the standpoint of mind-only (唯心论), it is difficult to point directly to what non-obstruction is; therefore the New Ten abolishes this, newly establishing at the end the gate "Complete Virtue with Principal and Retinue," emphasizing phenomena-mutual-non-obstruction: within phenomenal dharmas, mutually being principal and retinue becomes the bright completion of virtues. Especially because all ten profundities are based on the "one-mind dharma-realm" (一心法界) through "Mental Reversion," there is no need to establish a separate gate of Mental Reversion—this is another reason for its abolition.⒆ (Note: Regarding the order of arrangement of the ten profound gates, in his Wujiao zhang zhishi ji, Jōrei (Dainichi-butsu shōshū bon 86–) provides an item-by-item explanation of the ten gates, emphasizing the necessity of the Old Ten's sequence. This is made explicit as the reason for that sequence in the Wenyi gangmu (Taishō 35, p. 505b); yet one need not necessarily follow that order, and rather the New Ten, later revised and reorganized, shows greater appropriateness. Nonetheless, Chengguan in his Huayan jing shuchao xuantan explains the order of the New Ten, while in his Huayan jinglüe ce (Taishō 36, p. 707b) says: "The ten profundities have no front or back; raising one gathers the whole. This may be called the distinctive profound intent of Huayan—each has its own meaning; one need not abandon one to become fixated on another." Hōei, in Tanxuan ji nan jilu vol. 1.7 (Nihon zō Kegon-shū shōso 1, p. 188), likewise states his view: "Each has its own meaning; this is not mere novelty, but so that later disciples may grasp the great meaning of the sutra.") For convenience, I will now explain each according to the order of the New Ten, touching on all aspects related to doctrinal teaching and their manifold dimensions.

1. Gate of Simultaneous Complete Correspondence (同时具足相应门): All dharmas of conditioned co-arising are simultaneously complete in time, space, and the whole of universal phenomena. The dharma arisen through conditions, by taking up one, simultaneously corresponds to all dharmas and completes the same conditioned co-arising—there is absolutely no distinction of before and after, beginning and end. The Huayan jing (Avataṃsaka Sūtra), as the perfectly complete teaching of the One Vehicle, is what manifests simultaneously within the Tathāgata's Ocean-seal Samādhi, showing that all opposing contradictions are here and now overcome together. Thus this gate is the comprehensive summary of the nine that follow. Generally, the nine are treated as particular expositions, while this one is the overall exposition. The particular expositions are set upon the ground of the general exposition; therefore the latter nine are merely extensive explanations. All phenomenal dharmas possess difference in meaning by their own nature and naturally retain the character of obstruction; yet in phenomenal dharmas' self-manifestation, their own internal contradictions are overcome and accomplished, and through this a concrete structure of the world can be seen. The mutual identification and mutual entry of the one and the many, completed through temporal intervals, would otherwise fall into the shallow, partial "isolated gate" of the Three Vehicles. The doctrinal teaching of Dharma Characteristics (法相), even when it says "affliction is itself bodhi, saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa," does so only as a process from sentient being to Buddhahood, or from delusion to awakening. Likewise, although the yogic practices and virtues in the Hīnayāna teaching break free from their attachment, even speaking of "becoming identical" through the negation of opposition—that absolute identity is merely "the one side of 'is-ness'"—is more accurately a strong attachment to the "opposing side" of negation, attempting to establish meaning for one's own process. By contrast, emphasizing "simultaneously" and "completely corresponding" is the standpoint of the Huayan One Vehicle. Taking "affliction is bodhi, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa" as the content of contemplative practice, it advocates absolute identity and makes its position unmistakably clear. "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"—where form and emptiness stand in mutual opposition, they become, on the contrary, the medium through which the logic of "is-ness" is constructed and its principle is the more thoroughly healed. Do not forget the crucial concept of "simultaneously" stated here. This is what the fifth gate, "Secret Concealment and Manifestation Both Complete," calls "correspondence through complete co-arising." To say "simultaneously" concerning the opposing contradictions of all dharmas means that the "now" of phenomena-mutual-non-obstruction, mutual identification and mutual entry, principal-and-retinue completion is the most essential condition, and the logic of "is-ness" is its foundation.

2. Gate of Freedom of Broad and Narrow, Endless (广狭自在无尽门): Mutual identification and mutual entry extend to both sides, becoming freely non-obstructive—an indication applied to space. In the opposition of broad and narrow in space, or in the relation of one and many, and in the relation of part and whole, though mutually contradictory, they take this opposition as their medium and become freely harmonized without obstruction. Thereupon, from the third gate, "One-and-Many Mutual Accommodation without Difference," through the seventh, "Indrajāla Realm Gate," and so on, each gate explains particular aspects of this mutual identification and mutual entry, manifesting the standpoint of "principle entering" and "entering principle," the two passages. This gate replaces the Old Ten's "Pure-and-Mixed Virtues in All Treasuries" and is set up as the most important single gate. The first gate, "Simultaneous Complete Correspondence," regarding the dimension of time, corresponds with the later "Distinct Completion across the Ten Times"; this single gate speaks of the dharma of "layer upon layer, endless," and must surely correspond with the final gate, "Principal and Retinue Complete."

3. The Gate of Mutual Accommodation of One and Many: Speaking of how dharmas function, the many within the one and the one within the many interpenetrate each other, thereby showing how the opposition between one and many is overcome. Indeed, when the one enters the many and the many enter the one, each relies on and contains the other, bringing out all the more vividly the living vitality that both the one and the many possess. To reject the many as the one is to deny the universality of truth; such a one has no freedom. According to the principle of universal truth, the one pervades each and every one of the many, exerting the full power of the one while at the same time necessarily taking in and merging all the many. It is like many lamps lit in a single room: each light contains the others and never shuts out what is different. In the end, this is because both the one and the many alike are dependently arisen and without self-nature.²⁰ (Note: Chengguan, in Huayan Jing Shu Chao Xutan, vol. 6 [卍 Xu 1.8.3, p. 272 left], says that "mutual penetration," "mutual containment," and "mutual accommodation" are generally explained as synonyms. As to their differences, he writes: "Mutual penetration means the one entering into all; mutual containment means all entering into the one; mutual accommodation combines the two, displaying the sense of mutual containment and mutual penetration.")

4. The Gate of Spontaneous Mutual Identity of All Dharmas: From the standpoint of mutual identity, this gate explains how opposition is overcome through the emptiness and existence of the underlying nature. To speak of all dharmas is the same as speaking of the one and the many. The Wujiao Zhang (Treatise on the Five Teachings) gives considerable space to this question especially, working through it in dialogue form and unfolding the full meaning of mutual identity within a single body and within different bodies. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra repeatedly teaches the meaning that "at the very moment one first resolves the mind, one attains perfect enlightenment."²¹ (Note: The Jin translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 6, "Chapter on Bodhisattva Xianshou" [Taishō 9, p. 432b–], says: "When the bodhisattva first resolves the mind amid birth and death, / seeking single-mindedly the bodhi that is firm and unmovable, / the merit of that single thought is deep and vast beyond measure." Similar passages appear throughout.) If one cannot grasp that at the moment of attaining the one one simultaneously attains all, one cannot fully understand its truth. By way of analogy: if a book is placed on a wooden platform, we do not call it a desk. Yet if one sits on it, one calls it a chair. Someone might object, "But that's sitting on a desk." Such an objection merely presupposes the desk as something fixed with real substance, and what issues from that presupposition is nothing but a learned delusion. The desk is only the provisional name given to something that arises through the condition of a book being placed upon it. If one steps on it, one calls it a footstool. So to say the desk is the chair, and the chair the footstool, is not at all out of place.

5. The Gate of the Secret Accomplishment of Both Hidden and Manifest: When, among dependently arisen dharmas, the one appears as existent in its manifest aspect, the many become the empty hidden aspect, and the two are mutually identical in a single simultaneous accomplishment. Because this simultaneous accomplishment is so deep and subtle, it is called "secret."²² (Note: In the Jinshizi Zhang (Golden Lion Chapter), what is pointed to as "secret" refers especially to the hidden dimension of dharmas. The character yin, hidden, is taken to convey the sense of secret.) This is not only about mutual identity; it also includes mutual penetration. Concealment and manifestation are accomplished at the same moment, with particular stress on the standpoint of "simultaneity."

6. The Gate of the Subtle Establishment of Mutual Accommodation: This gate concerns the appearance of mutual penetration on the marks of dependently arisen dharmas. Its difference from the third gate lies in its main point: not destroying each thing's own mark. In every single dharma-matter, the small enters into the great and the one is contained within the many, yet the marks of great and small are not confused, the marks of one and many are not broken, and mutual penetration is seen with orderly clarity. Hence the word "subtle" here goes beyond the fixed, autonomous, isolated meaning of the small or the one. Within it, the great or the many become a wondrous and inconceivable scene already complete. This refers to the actual virtue of the empty dharma-realm. As when it is said that within a single dust mote or a single hair, the entire dharma-realm of the ten directions and the buddhas of the three times calmly abide in perfect order—such a scene is wondrously inconceivable. Therefore the mark of "mutual accommodation" does not express a meaning of mutually accommodating one another; it only reinforces the sense of "accommodation" as an auxiliary term. This too is a matter of overcoming opposition in such a way that the self-mark is preserved, and no further explanation should be needed.²³ (Note: Chengguan, in Huayan Jing Shu Chao Xutan, vol. 6 [卍 Xu 1.8.3, p. 273 left], gives the example of a crystal vase filled with many mustard seeds: the seeds are seen in the vase in perfect order without disorder. Fazang adds another simile in the Wujiao Zhang—a quiver half-filled with arrows whose heads stand neatly in rows without confusion, so that one can see through them as through clear glass. A wonderful image indeed.)

7. The Gate of Indra's Net as the Realm: The previous gate spoke only of a single layer of self-and-other relations. This gate takes each and every one of the myriad phenomena as mutually reflecting and manifesting one another without end. It uses as a metaphor the net hung in the palace of Indra, lord of the Trāyastriṃśa heaven. The net signifies boundlessness, so its openings too are boundless. From each of these boundless openings hangs a jeweled pearl, each pearl reflecting the images of all the others. The pearls reflected in the first pearl in turn reflect other pearls, and through two, three, and countless layers the accumulating reflections go on without limit. The dazzling brilliance of celestial light was a common belief in India, deeply venerated. To use such an image for the symbol of endless multiplicities is the most accessible approach and one widely and skillfully employed in sūtras and śāstras.

The five gates just covered, from the third to the seventh, take up the second gate's general exposition of mutual identity and mutual penetration in their unobstructed meaning. Working from the respective standpoints of identity and penetration, each displays its own characteristic feature, and together they clarify what the unobstructedness revealed through the oppositional contradiction of one and many truly is.

8. The Gate of Entrusting Events to Manifest the Dharma and Awaken Understanding: Whereas the gates discussed so far speak in terms of dharmas, this eighth gate speaks in terms of images, and it provides the proper occasion for a formal discussion of Huayan's symbolic philosophy. The unobstructed mutual identity and mutual penetration of dharmas are by no means restricted to some particular single event or thing; they must be understood by being entrusted to all events and dharmas. In Huayan's symbolic philosophy, entrusting events to manifest the dharma is not mere illustration. The dharma is not something apart from the event; the image, right where it stands, becomes the symbol of the dharma. Whatever our eyes touch and our ears hear, the content of infinite truth is directly displayed without exception. With this in mind, one can see that the Indra's net example above is no isolated image but is itself a symbol. That is to say, in every single dharma whatsoever, truth is entrusted and manifested. The phrase "entrusting and manifesting" takes what manifests as all dharmas and what is manifested as suchness. Just as the manifest and the manifested are distinguished, this ought to be called "manifestation." Because the manifest is itself what is manifested, when spring displays its whole being through plum blossoms on a branch, apart from this there is no body of spring. Each and every thing exhausts the content of unattached truth in its adornment, and each and every one stands on a universal ground. Therefore the one and the many, precisely in this way, mutually identify and mutually penetrate within unobstructed freedom, and the dependent origination of the dharma-realm is established. Here too, the entrusting image and the entrusted dharma stand as an opposition, and on the symbolic level it is not easy to grasp identity-and-entry as one body. The exposition explains how this opposition is overcome.

9. The Gate of the Ten Times as Separated Dharmas Yet Differently Composed: From the second gate through the eighth, both in terms of dharmas and in terms of images, unobstructedness has been shown chiefly on the spatial side. The ninth gate seeks to grasp the logic of unobstructedness on the temporal side. So it must necessarily touch upon and echo the [simultaneity] of the first gate, the general teaching. Broadly, the past, present, and future—the three times—interpenetrate, and these are further organized into the ten times. Because time means separation into before and after, yet in the "present" of simultaneity, through unimpeded interpenetration, thought-moments and kalpas become mutually identified, showing mutual identity and mutual penetration at work.

The ten times: within the past, present, and future—three times—each in turn contains past, present, and future, making nine times. These nine are in fact gathered into a single thought-moment; and if the single thought-moment opens out into the nine times, the general and the particular together make ten. This is because time carries the sense of flowing and moving; time flows on without interruption. To speak of the present is necessarily to be connected with past and future; hence there is no substantial present. Likewise, past and future interpenetrate and flow among the three times in the same way. So the idea that within each of the three times there are three times is, from the standpoint of Buddhist doctrinal history, nothing particularly remarkable. Yet the nine times mutually identify and mutually penetrate, so while they are gathered as a single thought-moment, the general and the particular together form ten.²⁴ (Note: On the division of time into ten times, Fazang's Huayan Jing Mingfa Pin Neili Sanbao Zhang, vol. 2 [Taishō 45, p. 621b–], gives a particularly detailed account in the "Ten-Times Chapter." As for scriptural sources, the Jin translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 37, "Chapter on Transcending the World" [Taishō 9, p. 634a–], also speaks of this.) Such temporal opposition uses contradiction itself as its medium: by overcoming the discourse of temporal opposition, the dependent origination of the dharma-realm is expounded on Huayan's unique stage. These distinctions among past, future, and the ten times are called "separated dharmas." The ten times of separated dharmas mutually identify and mutually penetrate and are gathered into a single thought-moment. Yet time is never confused, and in its orderly arrangement, this is called "differently composed."

As just mentioned, in the fifth gate—the Gate of the Secret Accomplishment of Both Hidden and Manifest—one understands the hidden and manifest of dharmas at the moment of their "joint" accomplishment. Going further back, it is only at the moment when the overarching first gate—the Gate of Simultaneous Complete Correspondence—achieves "simultaneity" that unobstructedness can be discussed. This "joint time" and "simultaneity" mean that the one containing the many and the many containing the one, without interval of time, become simultaneous and joint at once. Moreover, this is not an abstract simultaneity; within the actual structure of time, it must always become the single thought-moment of the present. Taking this "present" as the main point, we notice that although the Abhidharma schools include the Sarvāstivāda doctrine that the three times are substantially existent and the dharma-nature permanent—broadly maintaining the continuity of the three times and the permanence of dharma-nature—the Sautrāntika standpoint that past and future have no self-nature has already accepted only the present as substantially existent as its focus. Even within Sarvāstivāda, however, on the point of the present's substantial existence, agreement was reached with Sautrāntika and a relation established. Later, the Yogācāra system taught that, although the cessation of a cause and the arising of an effect are two, they both occur in the present, thus establishing the simultaneity of cause and effect in the present; and on the basis of this present, considered past and future. So only the present can become a moving present. From dharma to dharma, from moment to moment, there is instantaneous arising and ceasing—so the so-called permanent present becomes the eternal present. The present emphasized within the structure of time is certainly not to be overlooked. In Huayan, the structure of time is expressed as simultaneity, and this simultaneity preserves the character of the single thought-moment of the present. Centered on actual practice, this is naturally also the common rule of Buddhism. Therefore Huayan teaches that the ten times are separated dharmas yet differently composed: the nine times mutually identify and mutually penetrate, forming the summary phrase of the single thought-moment. At the same time, the nine times are unified in the present single thought-moment of now. Thus such a single thought-moment can establish the nine times, and by overcoming the opposition between the nine times and the single thought-moment, the ten times are taught, with mutual identity and mutual penetration unobstructed as their characteristic feature.²⁵ (Note: Examples of thought-moment and kalpa interpenetrating in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra are too many to enumerate, but here are two or three. The Jin translation, vol. 30, "Inconceivable Chapter" [Taishō 9, p. 593a], says: "Within a single thought-moment, completely and without remainder, one discriminates and knows all dharma-realms, all beings, and the activities of every mind throughout the three times." Also (same source, p. 594a): "Within a single thought-moment, one pervades everywhere and turns the wondrous Dharma-wheel." Or vol. 9, "Chapter on the Merits of the Initial Resolve of Mind" [same source, p. 451a]: "Knowing that boundless kalpas are precisely a single thought-moment; knowing that a single thought-moment is boundless kalpas; knowing that all kalpas enter into no-kalpa; knowing that no-kalpa enters into all kalpas." Passages like these are extremely numerous.)

The ten times, then, are spoken of as within a single thought-moment, and in any flow of time whatsoever, they are nurtured within eternity, "always flowing from the present to the present," going on in this form. That single thought-moment is the arising thought-moment. To confirm the meaning of "single thought-moment": such a present arises from the past, and the future is the disappearing of the present. Relatively there are past and future, but whether moving from past to future or future to past, without the present their existence could not be maintained at all. So from the absolute standpoint, the three times and nine times must be taken into the absolute and eternal "now." Because this is absolute, the present instant is in no way a means to some other moment. Rather, it is precisely the "now" that is bottomless life, able to live freely. And this present, even as it utterly negates any fixed past and future, is clearly not itself a fixed present. The Abhidharma schools—whether Sarvāstivāda's three times substantially existent and dharma-nature permanent, or the teaching that past and future lack substance—all of them place their weight on the present. But the "now" of Huayan, the eternal "now" of no-time, is seen through the contemplative view of emptiness that negates time, and is wholly different from the Abhidharma views. The active personal life within concrete self-action is none other than a single thought-moment of the Tathāgata. Because it is said to be unfixed, it truly holds room for development: not resting in existence, not abiding in non-existence, it is at once negative and affirmative.

凡是认为时间具有实在性的，是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的立场。这种观点自其思想发端之初便成为批判的对象，随着佛教思想的演进，其实有性不断被否定；到了中观学派时代，更被批判得体无完肤。其实华严教学所包含的内容，《五教章》中说："时与法不相离故。"²⁶（注释：卷第四〈大正四十五·页五○六下〉。）《华严经旨归》也说："时无别体，依法上立。"²⁷（注释：〈说经时第二〉，同时·页五九○下。）不是先有时间，然后法体寄存其中；其实是依法而立时。说"春天时节"，并没有一个独立的实体存在；只有花开这一事实的出现，我们只是把花开之时建立为春天之时。然而，法之外，别无时间。昨日的花蕾是今日的花开，在开花的迁流之中，不过是假立时间的差别罢了。因为法是缘起而无自性，所以融通无碍；依其所立之时，无碍相入是自然的理则。倘若当初没有三世、九世的隔法，便是完全无时间；然而唯有隔法，也同样无时。所谓隔法，是对立矛盾之义。当异成与隔法处于对立矛盾之中时，这种对立在同时与当下的一念上被彻底克服，不失其前后长短之相状，以事事无碍而成相即相入。

《华严经》中，若不能领会时间的即入无碍，毕竟无法超脱，处处都会遇到障碍。不仅如此，从教学的立场上看，本经所说的"时"，是佛成道后的第二七日。〈入法界品〉中说：佛降诞后七日，佛母摩耶夫人去世。另外，佛成道后六年建立祇园精舍，作为说此品之处。又见佛成道后五年，佛弟子舍利弗、目犍连等人之名出现在僧团中。在这短短的第二七日里，释迦宣说了久远过去与未来的事实；正因如此，天台宗通常称之为"长时华严"。这便是华严以十世隔法异成，显示其对时间持有甚深之意义。

十、主伴圆明具德门： 上来诸门约相即相入、事事无碍、超越对立矛盾之克服，一层一层地说明；最后约主伴而作结，藉以说明矛盾克服的过程——毋宁说是将所克服之状态，以一切法互为主或伴，于圆明具德为果满，完成十门的总结。古十玄的"唯心回转善成门"，新十玄修改为"主伴圆明具德门"，由唯心法界改说诸法缘起。由于主伴具足，故于果满之后，夺得现成之因；为避免因中十玄门诸义相滥，从"同时具足相应门"别开之后九门，最后必有无碍法而使其极成。这一点在新十玄的调整上是相当优良的。²⁸（注释：参照《华严经疏钞玄谈》卷第六〈卍续一·八之三·页二六九右〉。）固然法界缘起之法，事与事之间互成障碍，但它们绝不会孤立。若以一法为主，其余皆为伴而具德从属，一切地位与立场都让与这一主法，唯有消极的具德作为意义，渐次保持。应该这样说：在这种场合下，作为主的一法，占有全法界现成之法，那才是实存法界之中心、圆明之德。若以另一法为主，原主之法又成为伴而同样具德其中。恰如光源不固执地局限于一处，光所扩及之处，任何一点无不是光源所在。那就是无碍之自由性，不受任何烦恼的系缚，而成为现成。

上来所说的十玄缘起，是从"华严别教一乘的法界缘起究竟为何物"这一问题出发，由种种门径去论理。我们所持的概念——一在何处仍是一，多在何处仍是多——在其间自身仍持续着矛盾，亦即持有一种自相矛盾。在这种情况下，到底不能成就"一即一切，一切即一"；也不能肯定"一入于一切，同时一切入于一"。空与有、迷与悟、生死与涅槃、凡夫与佛，都难免不处于对立矛盾的相克之中。然而，在曾经一度超越概念的实践观行中，当自身统一为无底甚深之果时，矛盾反而成为媒介，克服一多、有无、迷悟、染净等对立，显示其全貌而自证。又于同时与当下一念之中，事事即入无碍。这种境地，在三生之中，"证入生"应当能够到达；"见闻生"与"解行生"也能谛观此世界。²⁹（注释：《五教章》卷第四〈大正四十五·页五○七上〉：〔此上十门等……普眼境界谛观察余时，但在大解、大行、大见闻心中。〕）此种极深远的哲学教理即是观行，所以特别称为"十玄缘起观"。

十玄门的性格，并非一一保持独立的意义——一玄之中尽摄其余九玄而无余。那只是总含别、别由总所出，故一一玄门中互相含摄其余九玄。所以十玄并非仅止于十之数字：十玄互具而成十玄，便成百玄；能成千玄、万玄、无量玄——其中存有所谓重重无尽、主伴具足之义。古德认为新、古十玄名目列序虽有不同，其实无量玄之中，若要理解十玄自由自在之义，绝不能以固定的或类型化的玄作为充数——这理由已得到充分的认可。《五教章》在此十玄缘起十门之结论说："此十门，一门中即摄余门，无不皆尽。"即指此意。

我们执着于文字，以义理为对象去理解。真正能观行到普贤境界，成为大解、大行，以自身的生活体验为主体去把握时，应当铭记：我们自己当下就是华严行者善财童子。

以上十玄缘起的一系列关系，从部分或全体的关连上，可以明白法体之事事无碍之所由，乃是六相圆融。因此《五教章》在〈义理分齐章〉的第三门设置十玄缘起。接着在第四门中连结此六相圆融之义——何为具有十玄缘起之法？对这一不问之问的回答是：具有总、别、同、异、成、坏六相而圆融之法，指示出法界缘起一一事法的根源性格。³⁰（注释：华严学常以十数表示无尽，成为惯例。然今依六数说六相圆融，《探玄记》卷第九〈大正三十五·页二八二上、中〉说明，缘起法有三门，说不定是基于《起信论》之体、相、用三大。依此三大说明真如的事例，当为法则。于体上说总、别二相；就义相上为同、异之一对；而就义用上说成、坏之一对。《起信论》所表现的影响力不能不重视。）法藏《五教章》于十玄门总结说："应以六相方便而会通之可准。"³¹（注释：卷第四〈大正四十五·页五○七中〉。）继十玄缘起门之后，六相圆融之义能够显示前者根本义之点，作为其补充说明，前文已经提及。³²（注释：凝然《五教章通路记》卷第二十七〈日佛全所收本二一〉中，说六相圆融义为成立十玄缘起之法门："云何六相成立十玄？十玄之中初门总相，余九门别相，总别圆融。九种玄门同成圆融。九玄何异？同异无碍，九玄皆悉成圆融法。九玄差别，各住自位。此即成坏一对无碍。总、同、成三，圆融三门。别、异、坏三，行布三门。行布圆融，互相即入，由六相故，成十玄门。"此说明十玄与六相之关系，此解释应当注意。然而在寿灵《五教章指事记》卷中末〈大正七十二·页二五一上〉也曾说到，似乎自古以来皆如此惯说。）

原来此六相出自《晋经》卷第二十三〈十地品〉菩萨十地之中：安住初欢喜地的菩萨，发诸大愿，宣说十大愿；于其第四修行愿，叙述自行化他二利方便愿中，示出"总相、别相、有相、无相、有成、有坏"六相。³³（注释：〈大正藏第九册·页五四五中〉。）十地波罗蜜行以此六相而修行，并提示一切菩萨修行方法。《唐经》中所见其名称为：总相、别相、同相、异相、成相、坏相。³⁴（注释：〈大正藏第十册·页一八一下〉。）通常采用的是《唐经》译出的名目。³⁵（注释：关于《五教章》著作年代，若法藏于三十余岁时所作，则是《唐经》尚未译出之前的事；与《唐经》译出之名目相同的称呼出现，恐是依据世亲《十地经论》（菩提流支译）。六相各名目之译出，于鸠摩罗什译《十住经》卷第一〈大正十·页五○一中〉译为有相、无相、有成、有坏等相；而尸罗达摩译《十地经》卷第一（同上·页五三八下）译为一般所用的总、别、同、异、成、坏六相。）

虽然经典所示，此六相之义表面上只是初欢喜地菩萨修行之愿——一切菩萨修行，为摄化众生，以修行增进之心作为利他之愿，其说明不超出修行之范围——但其后如所解说，一切诸法得六相圆融之说，不能以事事无碍、相即相入为其根源。因此世亲解释《十地经》文，于《十地经论》卷第一说："一切所说十句中，皆有六种差别相门。"³⁶（注释：〈大正藏第二十六册·页一二四下、一二五上〉。）这暗示一切诸法，一一皆有相义；其说明作为菩萨修行方便，重点毋宁说在修行之方法上。即总相，说"根本入"——总体而言是菩萨入如来智慧地；别相，说"余九入"——叙述菩萨渐次进入如来智慧地。其余四相亦准此，明白解释修行之顿修与渐修。因此该论中引申"皆有六种差别相门"之说："此言说解释，应知除事。"明白表示六相之义不适用于有为差别之事法。³⁷（注释：凤潭《五教章匡真钞》卷第六中叙说，论中"除事"之言，乃当终教之义。恰是以三乘家立场处理《十地经》之六相义，故于理体上理解。此在世亲是当然的看法。既然如此，《探玄记》卷第九〈大正三十五·页二八二中〉为释六相义，将其分别成六门，于其第六门下，解释世亲之"除事"等。"除事"指阴、界、入等，此辨定其义：约道理说融通，非于阴等事相中辨，故附"除事"之言。其意是：六相之义不应仅限于说五阴、十二处、十八界——仅依此三科之事相而说；若约道理，则关于一切诸法之事事物物，应解说其融通，以"除事"一语补救华严本来的教学立场。但世亲果真是按法藏所说之教学意义而用此语吗？颇有可疑。毋宁说，从世亲所谓三乘教之立场，只在理上说明《十地经》之六相，才是正直的看法。）

中国注释家慧远，于《十地经论义记》卷第一末解释此文，³⁸（注释：〈卍续一·七一之二·页一五一右〉。）又于《大乘义章》卷第三说到六种相门一章，认为六相之义不能谈事相，唯于理体上讨论，³⁹（注释：〈大正藏第四十四册·页五二四上、中〉。）这是破除凡夫、二乘空执的滞凝之障。如慧远上述解释之方法，推究世亲论意更进一步论理：不只是偏取菩萨修行方法，由论中推想"除事"之辞句，说及诸法之理体——仅在注释上已可见大大进步之痕迹。

However, this deeper layer of reasoning that hovers over Huayan teaching is not just a logical examination confined to the principle-body. Inwardly it also deeply contains the bodhisattva's practice, extending all the way to understanding that on every single dharma within the Dharma-realm, the Six Characteristics are perfectly interfused. At the start of the Ten Grounds Chapter (十地品) of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Vajragarbha Bodhisattva states that the profoundly deep dharma-gate of the Ten Grounds has ten reasons (十由). Taking this as his basis, Vasubandhu explains the so-called ten reasons through four gates, the fourth of which establishes "non-obstruction of root and branches." When grasped from the standpoint of "non-obstruction of thing with thing" (事事無礙), its original meaning is that every concrete phenomenon of all dharmas in itself fully possesses the Six Characteristics. Hence if one follows the doctrinal exposition without pressing it to the point of perfect interfusion, one cannot understand the sūtra's true intent. Indeed, the sūtra vigorously extols the merit of the Ten Grounds: "These Ten Grounds are the bodhisattva's most supreme and wonderful way, the most supreme and pure dharma-gate."40 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 9, p. 543a.) Or it praises the virtue, saying: "The Ten Grounds are the root of all Buddhadharma. A bodhisattva who fully practices these Ten Grounds can attain all wisdom."41 (Note: ibid., p. 543b.) The bodhisattva practice of the Ten Grounds transcends any superior rank. Therefore, upon entering the First Ground with its "roots of goodness" (善根), "aids to the path" (助道法), and "pure dharmas" (清白法), welcomed with a heart of boundless joy, the mind cultivating the First Ground of Joy must be able to observe and practice the meaning of the Six Characteristics' perfect interfusion across all dharmas presently manifest. It is entirely natural that Huayan teaching unfolds in this way; it was first elucidated by Zhiyan.

As recorded in volume 3 of the Chronicle of the Huayan Teaching (華嚴傳記), Zhiyan first heard the profound meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra from Zhizheng, and was later moved by the sūtra commentary composed by Huiguang. Then, at the age of twenty-seven, he one day received a message from an extraordinary monk: "If you wish to think through and understand the meaning of the One Vehicle, you should investigate and illuminate the meaning of the Six Characteristics within the Ten Grounds; you will certainly attain a place of awakening." He immediately followed the monk's instruction, devoted himself single-mindedly to the meaning of the Six Characteristics, studied it deeply and repeatedly, and as a result attained a kind of awakening. On this basis he himself composed the Avataṃsaka Sūtra Commentary (華嚴經疏).42 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 51, p. 163b.) From the above, the Record of Searching Out the Profound Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經搜玄記) was composed on the basis of this very incident; there should be no mistake about this. In what is set forth as the meaning of the Six Characteristics in the third volume, lower section,43 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 35, p. 66b.) his attainment in the Huayan implies the Six Characteristics' profound meaning together with its foundation and status. For he was, like Huiyuan, Huiguang, and others, a master of the Dìlùn (地論, Treatise on the Ten Grounds) lineage, deeply influenced by the Six Characteristics as set forth in Vasubandhu's Treatise on the Sūtra of the Ten Grounds (十地經論), and he thoroughly explored its logic. The Six Characteristics have two meanings: conforming to principle (順理) and conforming to things (順事). In theoretical terms, the meaning of conforming to principle is quite evident. Although the meaning of conforming to things is more subtle, if one wishes to manifest it concretely, it is not the case that the Six Characteristics are confined merely to theory; rather, one should display the characteristics through principle. If one examines them in terms of things (上「襾」下「敫」), their purport becomes even clearer. In the lower volume of the Fifty Essential Questions and Answers (五十要問答), the six meanings of the dharma-gate of causes are tied to the foregoing causes-and-conditions and matters-and-principle along with the dharma of the Six Characteristics; establishing truth through matter as proof, the reason given is "because it accords with the Dharma-realm,"44 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 45, p. 531b.) and one can clearly see the traces of remarkable progress already made in the investigation of the Six Characteristics' meaning.

Yet Zhiyan's explanation of the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics was extremely simple. Examining all of his works, the Chapter on the Six Characteristics45 (Note: It is said that Zhiyan had a separate work, the Chapter on the Six Characteristics, in one volume, but unfortunately it has been lost and is no longer extant. The verses on the Six Characteristics appended at the end of the section on the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics in the Treatise on the Five Teachings are said to have been extracted from this Chapter on the Six Characteristics. The Tōrokuki of the Treatise on the Five Teachings, volume 27 (Japanese Buddhist Complete Works edition, vol. 4, p. 423), states: "These verses were composed by the Great Master Zhixiang and moved by the chapter-master [Zhiyan] to Quan'an, and now appear in the chapter." Also, in the eighth [section] of the Zuanshi of the Treatise on the Five Teachings (Japanese Buddhist Complete Works edition, vol. 4, p. 493), the Restoring Antiquity Record is quoted as follows. The Yuanzong Wenlei, volume 21, states: "These verses originated from Zhixiang's Chapter on the Six Characteristics. In the section on 'Distinguishing the Meaning and Principle' [of the Treatise on the Five Teachings], its text is followed, but people do not know this and say it is the work of Xianshou [Fazang]." Also, the Fifty Essential Questions and Answers, upper volume (Taishō 45, p. 522a), to clarify the meaning of the teaching-phase, under the section explaining the Tenth Ground through analogy, displays the import of establishing the One Vehicle teaching. Furthermore, in Uisang's Diagram of the Dharma-realm of the One Vehicle of the Avataṃsaka (華嚴一乘法界圖), as recorded in the second section of the lower volume of the Jì Suǐ Lù of the Fajie Tuji (Taishō 45, p. 760b), this meaning is cited. From this one may observe that Zhiyan, taking Vasubandhu's doctrine of the Six Characteristics as his starting point, gestated the thought of the One Vehicle; this may be taken as sufficient evidence.) is said to have explained it in detail, but today neither its systematic explanation survives, nor can one fully glimpse its ultimate meaning. It explains only through phenomenal characteristics, and one knows only in isolation that it has profound content. Yet once Fazang took it in hand, he connected it with the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination (十玄緣起), gave it the fundamental standpoint of non-obstruction of thing with thing, brought to light that the characteristics of dharmas mutually interpenetrate and enter one another, and displayed their root source. Together with the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination as found in works such as the Treatise on the Five Teachings and the Golden Lion Chapter, it forms a continuous chain of doctrinal principles. As can be said, when the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination are assigned the position of being non-central within the Dharma-realm's dependent origination, the Six Characteristics become an indispensable supplement for explanatory purposes.

In the Record of Exploring the Profound (探玄記), volume 9,46 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 35, p. 282a–.) when explaining the meaning of the Six Characteristics in the sūtra's Ten Grounds Chapter, he almost disregards the understanding methods of the Treatise on the Sūtra of the Ten Grounds and the Dìlùn lineage, and quite boldly alters their appearance.47 (Note: Among Indian commentators, Fazang's attitude of reverence toward Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna was greater than toward Vasubandhu. This is because Vasubandhu belonged to the Dharma-characteristics teaching system, and in China it was propagated by Xuanzang and Kuiji, the commentators who established the Consciousness-Only teaching system. Regarding the meaning of the Six Characteristics, he likewise did not attach great importance to Vasubandhu's position; rather, Fazang's explanation of the Six Characteristics can be said to go one step beyond Vasubandhu. In exploring the sūtra's profound meaning, one may understand that he harbored a kind of proud sentiment, but when expounding the Avataṃsaka Sūtra he followed Vasubandhu's account of the second seven days, and it should be said that when necessary he also cited Vasubandhu's statements.) Chengguan, in his Subcommentary to the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, volume 53, inherited Fazang's exposition and divided it into seven gates for explication,48 (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 36, p. 414a.) notably eliminating the aspect of meaning-study and establishing it instead on the standpoint of entering-in (趣入), wishing to penetrate deeply in order to understand. On this point, Fazang's intent, in order to strengthen it as a practical gate of the essential teaching, was that Chengguan, in order to facilitate reliance upon entering-in, used Vasubandhu's saying of "excluding things" (除事) to interpret from the standpoint of non-obstruction of principle and thing. The Treatise on the Sūtra of the Ten Grounds, in speaking of the matter-bodies of the five aggregates, twelve sense-bases, and eighteen elements, does not say they lack the Six Characteristics, but only says "excluding things"—that is, without grasping the phenomenal characteristics of ordinary sentiment. Thus body is principle, and characteristics are things; either side actually possesses the meaning of the Six Characteristics and can serve as an explanation. Hence, citing Huiyuan's Record of the Meaning of the Treatise on the Ten Grounds, at first glance it seems rather inferior to Fazang's exposition, and people today feel it is even more regressive; however, this is by no means the case—it is only that in regard to entering-in Fazang places greater emphasis. Fazang wished, within his teaching system, always to stand on the gate of non-obstruction of thing with thing in dependent origination, whereas Chengguan rather stood on the gate of cause and effect within non-obstruction of principle and thing. Of course, the two accounts differ only in some respects.49 (Note: Futan's Corrective Notes on the Treatise on the Five Teachings, volume 6, says: The master Guan [Chengguan] only acknowledges him [Fazang] as conservative, regarding him as the ultimate—how could this not be erroneous? In Chengguan's standing on the standpoint of non-obstruction of principle and thing to explain the meaning of the Six Characteristics, he rejects the orthodox line of Huayan. He considers that Huiyuan's view is unaware of non-obstruction of thing with thing, and is merely non-obstruction of principle and thing. According to Chengguan's established non-obstruction of principle and thing, one should know it is spoken of as the entry into non-obstruction of thing with thing.)

The Six Characteristics are: totality (總相), particularity (別相), sameness (同相), difference (異相), completion (成相), and disintegration (壞相). As already explained above, within the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination the aim is to overcome all contradictions and achieve mutual identity and mutual penetration without obstruction. Therefore, at the fundamental level, the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics likewise represents the overcoming of opposing contradictions; this can be clearly seen from the principle itself. Totality and particularity are distinguished: with regard to dharma there is the relation of individual and whole; within a single dharma, the two teachings of emptiness and existence are seen. Taken from the aspect of body, the opposing contradiction is particularity; by way of contrast, its overcoming is seen as totality. Again, within a single dharma, the relation of being conditioned and unconditioned is seen in the meaning-aspect of dharma; its opposing contradiction appears as difference, and by way of contrast, the overcoming of this contradiction is sameness. Furthermore, within a single dharma, the two meanings of powerful and powerless are seen; in terms of functional meaning, the contradiction appears as disintegration, while overcoming it is completion. Yet the Six Characteristics themselves, divided by body and meaning into three aspects—body, characteristic, and function—express opposing contradictions from the standpoint of the individual-whole relation. Viewed by way of contrast, each can become perfectly interfused; there is a sense that they must be wholly overcome. Such perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics means that the same-body and different-body can mutually identify and mutually penetrate; it is a principle intrinsically present from the start. Hence Fazang's intent in the Treatise on the Five Teachings of linking the Ten Mysteries and the Six Characteristics together. As also noted above, in the concluding passage of the gate of the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination: "Using these Six Characteristics as a skillful means, one will surely be able to comprehend and penetrate." This carries a profoundly deep meaning. Now then, the first gate of the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination—the "gate of simultaneous and perfect correspondence"—if taken as totality, the remaining nine gates are particularity. The Ten Mysteries are all together the aspect of non-obstruction in dependent origination, hence called sameness. Each of the Ten Mysteries displays its own purport; in possessing an autonomous point, this is difference. Among the ten gates, after the nine separately explained gates, the meaning that all can be accomplished depending upon the first generally explained gate is completion. Apart from the nine separately explained gates, the absence of the first generally explained gate is called disintegration.50 (Note: Cf. Shouliang's Record of Pointing to the Meaning of the Treatise on the Five Teachings, volume middle, end (Taishō 72, p. 251a).) Within the series-relationship of the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics and the gate of the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination, and the non-obstruction of thing with thing in mutual identity and mutual penetration as the overcoming of opposing contradictions, one can understand that this has been theoretically constituted. Even though the Treatise on the Five Teachings uses the phrase "skillful means of the Six Characteristics," the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics might seem to be a provisional skillful means temporarily set up for the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination, giving rise to such an impression; however, one should know that this is entirely different in meaning from Vasubandhu's view of the Six Characteristics as skillful means for bodhisattva practice. Moreover, the verses on the Six Characteristics at the very end of volume 4 of the Treatise on the Five Teachings say: "Using these skillful means, one will comprehend the One Vehicle." This is not merely setting up the Six Characteristics as an empty skillful means of the One Vehicle, but rather signifies a more excellent device for cognizing and bodily realizing the inexhaustible doctrinal principle of the One Vehicle as a distinctive teaching.

Nevertheless, the establishment of the Six Characteristics, according to the Treatise on the Five Teachings, proceeds from three aspects—dharma-body, meaning-characteristic, and meaning-function—each of which establishes two gates, and through inference the Six Characteristics are constituted. Looking toward the Record of Exploring the Profound, the logical basis for its establishment has three meanings: "First, the branches depend on the root, and there is arising or non-arising (totality, particularity). Second, those branches that have arisen carry the root with them; therefore, with regard to each other, there is sameness and difference (sameness, difference). Third, those branches that carry the root are gathered into the root; therefore, in themselves there is subsistence and disintegration (completion, disintegration)."51 (Note: Record of Exploring the Profound, volume 9 (Taishō 35, p. 282b).) Within each of these three meanings there are two meanings, hence the Six Characteristics are constituted. Moreover, this "discussion of dependent origination has three gates"—because the root and branches of dependent origination take their logical establishment from these as basis, the main purport is not different from what the Treatise on the Five Teachings infers. It corresponds to: body is the root, meaning is the branches; meaning is divided into characteristic and function; root and branches with regard to each other, and on the characteristic-body there is subsistence (completion) and the aspect of disintegration.

Thus the three meanings of totality, sameness, and completion, having a unifying tendency, become the gate of perfect interfusion (圓融門). The three meanings of particularity, difference, and disintegration, having a divisive tendency, become the gate of sequential arrangement (行布門). Standing within the gate of sequential arrangement, one always speaks in terms of the various aspects of opposing contradictions; conversely, within the gate of perfect interfusion, one overcomes them and becomes unobstructed and interpenetrating. Although one might consider contradiction and transcendence as standing opposed to each other, once perfect interfusion is achieved, sequential arrangement is what is meant; what is called transcendence is leaving behind the relative standpoint and entering the absolute gate, completely dissolving contradiction within it without leaving the slightest trace. Indeed, in penetrating insight into the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics, in any single natural moment they mutually symbolize one another, and within mutual contradiction they can be assimilated into oneness with oneself, taking the practice itself as bodily verification. This is entirely the same as how the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination mentioned above, while being the ultimate of doctrinal meaning (study), simultaneously transforms the view of the Ten Mysteries of Dependent Origination into direct practice-realization. This view of the perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics also explains the actual structure of overcoming contradiction, and therefore is also the entire content of fact as conduct. When Fazang explained this perfect interfusion of the Six Characteristics, in the Treatise on the Five Teachings he used a house as an analogy; in the Golden Lion Chapter of the Avataṃsaka he took a golden lion image for explanation; and in the Hundred Gates of the Meaning-Ocean of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經義海百門) he explained it by taking one speck of dust in reality—none of these is other than investigating on the already-existing dharma, taking it as an individual and concrete fact. Now let us consider understanding the meaning of perfect interfusion by combining these descriptions of the Six Characteristics as recorded in the relevant transmissions.

(一) Totality (總相): "One contains many virtues" (一含多德故), as its definition states.52 (Note: The definitions of the various meanings listed below are all based on the explanation in the Treatise on the Five Teachings.) One speck of dust, one dharma, presently contains and gathers in all the myriad dharmas of the Dharma-realm; within one act is embraced all the myriad practices of the three times; within one severing is contained the severance of all obstacles completely without remainder. Therefore, one completion is all completion; this entire whole is what is called totality.

For example, consider a complete house. It contains all its individual parts—rafters, beams, pillars—at once. This whole, one house, is called the General Characteristic. Yet according to the true meaning of dependent origination, each rafter, beam, and pillar contributes its own share of function, and together they compose a single house. So to explain one house simply as the General Characteristic would go against the actual meaning of dependent origination: it is only through the rafters, beams, and pillars—each as a distinct individual—that the whole house comes to be. In other words, the rafter is the house, the beam is the house; that is why the house is called the General Characteristic. A rafter is a rafter, not a house; a beam is a beam, certainly not a house. But can one build a house entirely unlike its parts by piling together many things that are not a house? Obviously not—a collection of things utterly unrelated to one another cannot constitute a dharma of a single nature. If rafters are used to build a house and beams are used to complete it, then the rafter must be the house and the beam must also be the house. Why? Because if even one rafter is missing, it is no longer a whole house; it is just a ruined house. A ruined house is a mere heap of timber and rubble, not a house at all. So in reality, rafters can build a house, and beams can become a house. In this sense, although a rafter is a rafter and not a house, and a beam is a beam and certainly not a house, rafters can build a house and beams can form one. The house thus formed is called the General Characteristic. This is how the General Characteristic should be understood with respect to dependently originated dharmas.

(II) Particular Characteristic: "Because the manifold virtues are not one." Just as this phrase suggests, each individual dharma that makes up the whole is called the Particular Characteristic. Take the house that is the General Characteristic: it is formed by its individual parts—rafters, beams, pillars, floorboards, and so on. Each of these individual entities is the Particular Characteristic, the distinct rafter, beam, etc., that the General Characteristic accommodates as described above. Without these distinct conditions combining, the General Characteristic cannot come about either. So in the relationship between General and Particular Characteristic: apart from the General there is no Particular; apart from the Particular there is no General. The Particular Characteristic necessarily carries the meaning of the General Characteristic within it. Grasping the substance of any single dharma or speck of dust, one may call it the General Characteristic from the side of perfect interpenetration, or the Particular Characteristic from the side of progressive distinction. When we distinguish these two, progressive distinction expresses opposition and contradiction, while perfect interpenetration signifies transcendence as its true meaning, as already explained above and should now be clear. The earlier General Characteristic derives its name from the standpoint of "the rafter is the house"; the present Particular Characteristic stands on "the house is the rafter." Seen from this relationship, each particular is simultaneously grasped.

(III) Identity Characteristic: "The manifold meanings do not conflict with one another; together they constitute one whole." The individual parts—rafters, beams, pillars, floorboards—are each distinguished into their respective characteristics as root and branch, and each maintains its own suchness. At the same time, each of them can establish the identical whole. Because their essential nature is the same, the branches can carry along the root and fulfill the meaning of the Identity Characteristic for each. Dharma is not confined to an isolated substance existing on its own. In dependently originated dharma, every speck of dust, every dharma depends upon the same principle of dependent origination, mutually supporting and relying upon one another, so that the dharma-realm manifests everywhere, equally and completely. This is not unlike the earlier discussion of the General Characteristic, but the two differ in meaning: the General Characteristic is originally named with respect to one whole house, while the Identity Characteristic is spoken of with respect to the rafters and other conditions.

(IV) Difference Characteristic: "The manifold meanings, regarded in relation to one another, are each different." The whole is established by its individual particular entities. Within the essential nature of these particular entities, the whole can equally be established, yet each retains its own distinctive character and maintains its own autonomy. So it is possible for the same whole to come about in different ways. To build one house, the rafters, beams, and pillars cannot give up their respective distinct types. Here we can see how the contradiction between Difference and Identity Characteristic is overcome. The Difference Characteristic needs to be distinguished from the Particular Characteristic mentioned earlier. The Particular Characteristic, in contrast to the General, emphasizes its own individuality as its main point. The Difference Characteristic, however, speaks of the contrast between particular entities within the particulars themselves, pointing out that within the branches, each characteristic is different. Strictly speaking, Identity and Difference are the two aspects that come into view when the Particular Characteristics are compared and set against one another—the Particular Characteristic carries these two faces. But because the branches do not leave the root, even as the particular entities of the branches are spoken of in relation to one another, one must not forget their root—this hardly needs saying.

(V) Formation Characteristic: "Because these dharmas are accomplished through dependent origination." Building on the characteristic-meanings above, the parts held respectively by Identity and Difference Characteristic depend on one another and are established as one whole—just as rafters, beams, and pillars, by mutually supporting each other's functions, bring the house to completion.

(VI) Destruction Characteristic: "The manifold meanings each abide in their own dharma and do not shift." The distinct individual entities of the Particular Characteristic, each different as they are, can preserve their own qualification. Without abandoning their own function, they complete the whole of the dependently originated dharma. In other words, the rafters, beams, and so forth are unified by one house, so they must in every case serve as conditions for building a house. But if they were wholly confined and limited by being unified into the house—remaining rafters as rafters, beams as beams, each abandoning its own individuality—would it not then be possible to build a house without rafters, beams, or pillars? That is complete nonsense; nothing of the kind is possible. Whether or not a house can be formed thus depends on the meaning of unity and division. This is called "the meaning of non-construction." Namely, each thing can only preserve its own function without encroaching on the functions of others; from this standpoint it is called the Destruction Characteristic. These two—Formation and Destruction—are branches that carry the root. Since they are gathered into the root, within themselves the aspects of preservation and dissolution are spoken of. The contradictory implications of the Destruction Characteristic show themselves in relation to the functional meaning of the essence, while in the Formation Characteristic they are transcendently resolved on a theoretical level.

Bringing these six characteristics together: any dependently originated dharma mutually supports and relies upon another, layer upon layer without end, never departing from the rest. Each and every dharma holds within itself both its own cooperative nature and its own individuality. On the one hand, it lets go of itself to accomplish the whole; yet at the same time, precisely because the whole is accomplished, it recovers its own individuality in return. The so-called relationship of part and whole is not merely a matter of words—that the whole is simply the sum of its parts adjusted together is not such a piece of common-sense reasoning. The whole is dependently originated, and so is the individual; the whole is absolute, and so is the individual. So the whole can be wholly revealed and wholly manifested in the part, and the part can also fulfill itself as the whole. These six characteristics, in their perfect interpenetration, are distinguished into six, yet at once the General is the Particular, the Identity is the Difference, the Formation is the Destruction—characteristic giving rise to characteristic. Furthermore, the fundamental reason these six interpenetrate without obstruction is the General Characteristic. The one principle opens into six meanings—this is the Particular. All six are equally the fundamental reason for unobstructedness—this is the Identity. The six, spoken of in terms of meaning, are distinguished into six gateways each different from the others—this is the Difference. Through these six gateways, unobstructedness can be attained—this is the Formation. The six each keep to their own share—this is the Destruction. So regarding the six as a whole, they too should interpenetrate perfectly.

However, this state of characteristic interpenetrating characteristic and the non-obstructed relationship between phenomenon and phenomenon must not be toyed with at the level of conceptual knowledge alone. One must, in present concrete fact, observe and attain it as a living subject. The Five Teachings Chapter concludes its discussion of the perfect interpenetration of the six characteristics by quoting Master Zhiyan's Chapter on the Six Characteristics: "It is solely the realm of wisdom, not of ordinary discriminating consciousness."[^53] The words are few, but one must realize that within them lies a depth without bottom!

Chapter Nine: Cutting Delusion and Methods of Contemplation

1. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra and the Path of Practice

The core of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra's dharma-realm dependent origination lies, within the logic of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, non-obstruction between phenomenon and phenomenon, and endless layering, in emphasizing practice as the way to overcome contradiction. This has been repeated again and again in the foregoing. The Avataṃsaka is a path of practice; it should be obvious that merely constructing a philosophical system in theory, or tidying things up with concepts, is not enough. It is not only "learning," but must also reach "learning put into practice." Buddhism is called the religion of wisdom, yet this wisdom does not stop at what one knows for oneself—one must directly, in person, come to know and walk the path of practice. What one thus comes to know personally is not just some psychological knowledge, nor merely the pursuit of philosophical meaning; it concerns everything around one and must be seen with the mind's eye that one's own formation has opened up. Buddhist sūtras do not merely hand us knowledge; their aim is to awaken wisdom. One must put aside all worldly knowing, sink into the depths of absolute negation, and from within forge a genuine supra-worldly wisdom as the central thing—yet without losing sight of learning put into practice, with practice as the subject. Otherwise the whole meaning of learning is lost. So Buddhism holds both exceedingly deep philosophy and a rigorous system. From what has been said, one must take full account of Buddhism's special character before arriving at any proper affirmation.

The vast and magnificent body of sūtras exceeding ten thousand fascicles was compiled, on the one hand, to display the truth of Buddhism, making the religious-philosophical anthology shine; at the same time, serving as a guide for practice and realization, it never departs from cultivation and verification, fully expressing the spirit of earnest religious experience. So we may say that Buddhism is a practical philosophy, in which path of practice and philosophical principle are deeply harmonized into a single complete system. Among these, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, which directly reveals the content of the Buddha's right awakening, takes the inner contemplation of endless dependent origination as the awakened one's actual state—an expression of experiential fact that absolutely cannot be seized by conceptual play. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra, whose content is the experience of true realization, takes the contemplative method of practice as the expression of truth, illuminating concrete fact. If one asks, "What is truth?" the answer in fact is simply: "How ought one to practice?" This is the sincere face of the sūtra.

The Sūtra of the Great, Vast Buddha-Avataṃsaka—that is its title. "Great, Vast" (dafang guang) refers to the Dharma; "Buddha" (fo) refers to the person; and "Avataṃsaka" (huayan) is the metaphor. Composed of person, dharma, and metaphor, a sūtra naturally takes the Buddha as its center. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra is, after all, a sūtra about the Buddha. Yet because the Buddha as the perfected fruit of Buddhahood must have its causes and practices, the causes are the myriad practices—the path of the great bodhisattvas. The Avataṃsaka metaphor indicates those myriad practices; the "flowers" achieved through the myriad practices, that is, the "adornment" of the Great, Vast Buddha, are the myriad virtues of the fruit. The causes and effects of myriad practices and myriad virtues themselves contain the great adornment of the Great, Vast Buddha as such. Yet this Avataṃsaka Sūtra is generally abbreviated as the Huayan Jing; by metaphor it indicates the inclusion of dharma and person, and shows how much weight is given within a single sūtra to the attainment of the fruit's myriad virtues through causes and practices—one might say the sūtra questions and answers itself. Therefore, to set forth the splendor of the Buddha-fruit, the sūtra must carry it through from beginning to end, vividly depicting the bodhisattva's progressive advance through the ranks. Finally, in the "Gaṇḍavyūha" chapter, the actual fact of being on the bodhisattva grounds is presented, made plainly visible in the pilgrimage journey of the boy Sudhana.

Particularly, within one sūtra, a front section and a rear section are distinguished; looking at the whole prologue, one may think of the first assembly.[^①] The "Ten Grounds" chapter at the center of the front section, and the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, a separate translation of the same text, can also be seen to set out the bodhisattva's stages in a graded way. Rather than merely defining the bodhisattva ranks, it foregrounds the day-by-day virtues of bodhisattva practice, with the content of practice as its main point. Looking toward the rear section's "Gaṇḍavyūha" chapter, through the names, qualities, and dwelling-places of the good teachers Sudhana visits, one can see its emphasis on the realistic and the practical. With these as background and bearing a strong bodhisattva-rank coloration, advancing a further turn, the great Avataṃsaka Sūtra displays the content verified by the Buddha-fruit as its surface theme, while even more clearly presenting the orderly stages of bodhisattva practice. From the standpoint of the sūtra's formation history, one may think that sūtras formed later—such as the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and the Golden Light Sūtra—offer clearer explanations of the relative high and low of the bodhisattva ranks, and the Ten Grounds should therefore be seen as their prerequisite. But however the sūtra was composed, the process of bodhisattva progress can be known from Fazang's division of the sūtra into the Fivefold Classification[^②] and from the very clear explanation of the fivefold cause-and-effect teaching[^③]—matters that should be evident.

However, the Ten Grounds expounded in the "Ten Grounds" chapter must occupy the most important place within the sūtra. The content of the ten pre-ground stages only represents things abstractly; the Ten Faiths assembly in the Pǔguāng Dharma Hall likewise only explains the fruit to be believed and the cause capable of believing, and does not expound one's own portion or the superior-advancing portion of practice—so it cannot be considered an official stage-rank. But after the Ten Abodes assembly in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, the formal appearance of stages as one's own portion and the superior-advancing portion begins to be shown. Only the Ten Dedications assembly was not separately listed; this is because the entirety of the pre-ground stage is to be understood as the expedient ground of the Ten Grounds. Examining the central chapters gathered from each assembly, the exposition of the "Ten Abodes" chapter centered on the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven assembly is identical to the Tathatā-contemplation of the Ten Grounds shown later in the "Ten Grounds" chapter—only that vihar (abiding) carries the sense of resting; one must stand upon the great ground

<bhumi) as its basis, when we consider the two together, the Ten Abodes and Ten Grounds cannot be separated.④(Note: On the chronological relation between Ten Grounds thought and Ten Abodes thought, current Buddhist scholarship tends to treat Ten Grounds thought as fundamental and prior, though not necessarily as decisive. The origins of the Ten Grounds thought in Huayan likely involve other important Ten Grounds narratives. Moreover, between Huayan and the Ten Grounds, texts such as the Bodhisattva Ten-Abodes Practice Sūtra carry Ten Abodes thought that calls for further reflection. See the author's "System of Thought on the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Saints," Annual Bulletin of the Japanese Association for Buddhist Studies, No. 14, 1961.) The names of the Ten Practices presented in the Ten Practices Chapter at the Yama Heaven assembly, when examined closely, can be seen to resemble the Ten Pāramitās of the Ten Grounds. Likewise, the Ten Dedications Chapter centered on the Tuṣita Heaven assembly likely presents the Ten Dedications as stages prior to the Grounds. By this reasoning, the natures of the Ten Practices and Ten Dedications are not at odds with the assumption that the Ten Grounds underlie them. Accordingly, the stages preceding the Ten Grounds are best understood as abstractions of the Ten Grounds' content, forming the focal point of practice in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra—practice that should instead be grounded in the experiential realization of each suchness within the Ten Grounds. This Ten Grounds Chapter had already come into existence as an independent scripture before the compilation of the great Avataṃsaka Sūtra—a point already made in the section on the sutra's formation. In the Ten Grounds Chapter, Vajragarbha Bodhisattva presides, yet the practice he expounds is the practice of Samantabhadra; within the realm of emptiness, it is Manjushrī's wisdom that assures it. Thus the practice of the Ten Grounds has Manjushrī as its hidden ground, while the practice of Samantabhadra fully illuminates it.

In the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, according to Volume 18 of the T'anhsiang chi,⑤(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 35, p. 451a.) on the fifty-five spiritual teachers of the Sudhana assembly: from the initial Manjushrī to the final Manjushrī, the fifty-four figures all belong to the prajñā gate and stand at the Manjushrī stage; thereafter Samantabhadra belongs to the vijñapti-realm gate and stands at the Samantabhadra stage. The ultimate intent of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, then, may be said to indicate that, grounded in the Buddha-wisdom Manjushrī symbolizes, one is led into Samantabhadra's practice. That is to say, the spiritual teachers beginning with Manjushrī and ending with Samantabhadra are distributed across the stages of faith, abodes, practices, dedications, and grounds; under the T'anhsiang chi's reading, this is nothing other than an expression of the progressive unfolding of the bodhisattva path. According to the Ten Grounds Chapter of the earlier Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven assembly in this sūtra, the next several chapters from the Ten Clarities Chapter onward—and particularly the five from the Chapter on the Inconceivable Dharmas of the Buddha to the Ratnacūḍa Tathāgata Nature-Arising Chapter—explain the causal practices leading to the Ten Grounds and represent the inconceivable nature-arising of the Tathāgata as resultant dharma, depicting the meritorious qualities through which a bodhisattva in the causal stage enters the ground of a Tathāgata of Equal Enlightenment. When the bodhisattva's faith and practice are presented as the fruition of virtue, the practice that exhibits this fruition is precisely the path of Samantabhadra leading into the Dharma Realm. When this is read alongside the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter above and below, one sees that the practice of Samantabhadra is what the sūtra is really about. Especially in the Chapter on Departing from the World at the re-encounter assembly in the Universal Light Dharma Hall, when Samantabhadra Bodhisattva responds to the two hundred questions posed by Universal Wisdom Bodhisattva with two thousand methods of practice, this is truly a great compendium of the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna, displaying the vast content of Samantabhadra's practice and giving it a thorough and devoted exposition. Thus the culmination of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra lies in Samantabhadra's vows and practice: the path of entering the Dharma Realm is one that aspiring practitioners must personally experience and understand, and this is what brings the assembly to its close. Hence in the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, although Sudhana initially seeks the way under Manjushrī as his guide, in the end he is taken over by Samantabhadra. Manjushrī and Samantabhadra embody the ultimate of wisdom and the vows of practice respectively, and together they constitute the complete unity of Vairocana Buddha as both the manifesting body and the fundamental self. On this view, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is at once the display of the Buddha's own inner realization; and, considering the practitioner who receives the teaching according to capacity, the entire sūtra should be read as the bodhisattva's actual path of contemplative practice.

By this approach, the way to truly understand the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is to first enter deeply into the experiential state of the awakened mind—the Buddha's—and from that vantage reapprehend the words of the text, then trust that one's own inner experience will resolve all that remains. Chengguan, in Volume 2 of his Prolegomenon to the Commentary and Subcommentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra,⑥(Xūzàng 8.3, p. 192b: "Because although the sūtra pervades the three trainings, it principally explicates samādhi; all is expounded from the Tathāgata's samādhi-mind… Moreover, the nature-sea of the Avataṃsaka is not separate from the place of awakening; the Buddha, having realized the Ocean-Seal Samādhi, personally brought it forth, and the great bodhisattvas received it with samādhi-mind.") says: this sūtra pervades the three trainings, but principally explicates the samādhi teaching as manifested within the Ocean-Seal Samādhi, and so practitioners too must receive it and possess such a samādhi-mind. The samādhi spoken of here is precisely śamatha; but the śamatha of Huayan's perfect teaching is not apart from vipaśyanā, and because śamatha and vipaśyanā are unified, the entire sūtra is encompassed in vipaśyanā, with practitioners taking this insight as the aim of their experience. Ningran⑦(Note: Mirror of the Meaning of the Dharma Realm, Upper Volume (one of the texts collected in the Huayan-school section of the Japanese Tripiṭaka, below).) says that Huayan's distinctive one-vehicle teaching principally explicates samādhi-study and exclusively clarifies mind-contemplation. The method of contemplative practice is this sūtra, and this is also its essential meaning. Indeed, the dhārmas manifested within the Ocean-Seal Samādhi can be apprehended only through the bodhisattva's samādhi-mind⑧(T'anhsiang chi, Volume 4 (Taishō 35, p. 189a): "Ocean-Seal is named by analogy: as the fourfold army of the Asuras arrayed in the sky appears as a reflection within the great ocean, so the bodhisattva's samādhi-mind, like the great ocean, responds to faculties and displays varied manifestations, like those armies.") ; if sentient beings are to merge mystically with the Buddha's right enlightenment, they must devote themselves single-mindedly to contemplation in samādhi. Viewed from the side of that which is manifested by the Ocean-Seal Samādhi, this awakened experience reveals that every particle of dust, every dharma, is nothing other than true nature; no further pointer is needed for the contemplation that exhausts delusion and returns to the source. This precisely means that right enlightenment, concretely realized through practice and experience, is meaningful in itself. From the side of that which manifests, it is the Buddha's samādhi-mind; from the side of that which is manifested, it is the bodhisattva's samādhi-mind. We could even say it is nothing other than the great functioning of the one-mind original awakening that ordinary beings have possessed from the start.

Indeed, the myriad dhārmas comprehended through the Buddha's samādhi-mind are bestowed with meaning upon each individual existence as the content of the Ocean-Seal Samādhi. If we take each individual thing itself as the standpoint, then each one comprehends the entire Dharma-realm, and the Tathāgata manifests as an individual being within every single part of that realm. To understand the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a scripture of samādhi-mind contemplation, we must look to the dhārmas luminously manifest within the Ocean-Seal Samādhi as its very source.

Li Tongxuan, regarded as peripheral to the orthodox Huayan tradition, took account not only of the eighty-fascicle Tang Translation but also of a chapter from the Profusely Adorned Original Practice Sūtra, reading the ten places, ten assemblies, and forty chapters of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as hinting at a profound organization of the practical process within the Dharma Realm. This is clear from the title of his Brief Explanatory Treatise Resolving Doubts Regarding the Sequential Stages of Practice of the Newly Translated Avataṃsaka Sūtra. The whole sūtra is divided into ten gates; the maturation of all its results is to be seen along the path of practice, each path given the name of an actual practice and each chapter interpreted as a gate of practice through which to enter. In Volume 1, he says at the very start: "The Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra is… such that practitioners have no doubt about their destination."⑨(Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 36, p. 1012a.) His basic intent is to structure the sūtra around the standpoint of the Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter, which presents the experience of practice as a living demonstration, and to make this chapter the main body of the text. In expounding the latter three of his four volumes, he gives detailed explanation, with particular emphasis on the sūtra as a practical path of contemplation⑩(Note: Treatise on the Newly Translated Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 14 (Taishō 36, p. 813c), vol. 16 (ibid., p. 823c), vol. 22 (ibid., p. 872b), vol. 32 (ibid., p. 943b).) —so that, regarding the present-body attainment of Buddhahood by ordinary beings, he powerfully expounds how, from the substance of fundamental ignorance, fundamental wisdom arises, and how all buddhas and sentient beings are seen to share one essence, one realm, and one ocean of wisdom, awakening to the self-present attainment of the Buddha-fruit. On the other hand, though he drew much criticism and gradually revealed dogmatic views, he nevertheless profoundly intimated the meaning and attitude of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra from his own religious experience. Had he been a little more attentive to his tradition and clarified his lineage, his interpretation of the sūtra would have been fair; with the same systematic approach, and with diligent training of his disciples, his actual practice of contemplation would doubtless have contributed greatly to the strengths of traditional teaching. Unfortunately, he often dwelt alone in remote mountains⑾(Note: Comprehensive Treatise on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 1 (Xūzàng 1.4.4, p. 327b); Song Biographies of Eminent Monks, vol. 22 (Taishō 50, p. 853a–).) practicing the path in solitary devotion while holding to his independent views. From the standpoint of the orthodox tradition, there is much to regret—truly, much to regret. Yet later, Chengguan silently drew a great deal from Li Tongxuan's path-of-practice contemplation, as already noted above⑿(Note: See Chapter 3 of this work, "The Lineage of the Five Patriarchs in China: The Third Patriarch Fazang."). It is especially significant that Chengguan, having established his doctrinal foundations on the eighteen-fascicle Tang Translation, made the path of practice a pivotal element in his doctrinal organization—please do not overlook this.

Originally the Avataṃsaka Sūtra has two Chinese translations, the Jin and the Tang; the former is composed of seven places, eight assemblies, and thirty-four chapters, the latter of seven places, nine assemblies, and thirty-nine chapters. In the number of assemblies, seats, chapters, and fascicles, not only do the texts gain and lose material, but the contents differ somewhat in flavor. This cannot be explained by supposing the original recensions were identical, with differences arising solely from the translators' preferences. In the former's first assembly at the site of stillness and extinction, the World-Purified Eyes Chapter serves as preface, corresponding to the latter's Chapter on the Marvelous Adornments of the Lords of the Worlds; the content of the Lushena Chapter is distributed over the five chapters from the Chapter on the Tathāgata's Manifestation of Aspects through the Vairocana Chapter. The former's sixth assembly in the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven gathers eleven chapters, from the Ten Grounds Chapter through the Ratnacūḍa Tathāgata Nature-Arising Chapter, whereas the latter gathers only the Ten Grounds chapter, supplementing it with the Ten Samādhis chapter at the re-encounter assembly in the Universal Light Dharma Hall; the former thus treats the Chapter on Departing from the World at the re-encounter assembly in the Universal Light Dharma Hall as the third assembly there, and the final Entering the Dharma Realm Chapter occupies seventeen fascicles in one recension and twenty-one in another, with various points of difference. The Tang Translation's Ten Grounds Chapter is followed by the Ten Samādhis Chapter, whose opening identifies both the person and the place with the words "at the Universal Light Dharma Hall," presenting the Samantabhadra Samādhi and explaining the bodhisattva path; the chapters on the Ten Samādhis, Ten Penetrations, and Ten Patiences are taken as contemplative practice. The meritorious qualities by which the bodhisattva in the causal stage enters the Tathāgata-ground through Equal and Sublime Enlightenment are also described. When the bodhisattva's faith and practice are presented as the fruition of virtue, the addition of the Ten Samādhis Chapter is thoroughly natural and gives a very reasonable integrating account of the whole. The Jin Translation's first-assembly Lushena Chapter says that Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, upon receiving the Buddha's empowerment, enters the Tathāgata Pure-Store Samādhi, first contemplates the Buddha's five oceans, and then expounds the ten kinds of wisdom; Fazang reads this as an abbreviated teaching within samādhi of the fundamental division⒀(Note: T'anhsiang chi, vol. 3 (Taishō 35, p. 156b).) —for since he does not emerge from samādhi to teach, not only is teaching within samādhi not obstructed, but the profundity of the dhārmā is all the more vividly displayed. The five oceans represent the inexpressible aspect of the resultant dimension, the ten wisdoms the expressible aspect of the causal dimension, and through these two dimensions of cause and result the teaching within samādhi is established in abbreviated form. The Tang Translation, however, has the practitioner within the samādhi of the Tathāgata-Store Mind certifying only the Buddha's resultant ocean, and no teaching is given within samādhi in the Samantabhadra-Samādhi Chapter; it is only upon entering the World-Consummation Chapter, after Samantabhadra emerges from samādhi, that he contemplates the five oceans and expounds the ten wisdoms. Chengguan explains: the one-mind Dharma-realm realized by the Buddha is itself the absolute gate, and the teaching should not occur within samādhi⒁(Note: Avataṃsaka-sūtra Subcommentary, vol. 23 (Taishō 36, p. 174c–), vol. 25 (ibid., p. 191a–)). This is to distinguish, in terms of principle and phenomena, between the inexpressible and the expressible. The Jin Translation, taking the standpoint of cause, treats principle and phenomena as result; the Tang Translation, taking the standpoint of principle, encompasses cause and result within the establishment of phenomena.

Thus the Jin Translation is organized around the gate of cause and result, adopting a downward-oriented standpoint grounded in dependent origination, while the Tang Translation is organized around the gate of principle and phenomena, adopting an upward-oriented standpoint. With the Tang Translation as his basis, Chengguan—who systematized it as a teaching—made explicit his attitude of taking the path of practice as fundamental; the organization of the Tang Translation should be recognized as clearly emphasizing the path of practice.

2. Severing Delusion and Stages of the Path

The organization of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra follows the order of faith, practice, and realization, divided into five major sections. The sūtra as a whole takes the path of learning and practice as its system, while necessarily taking the content of the Buddha-fruit as the object of practice, as noted above. On one side it bears the meaning of the bodhisattva path in the causal stage; on the other, the perspective of the Buddha-vehicle in the resultant stage. One is accordingly regarded as an element of gradual teaching, the other as emphasizing sudden teaching. The distinctive feature of Huayan teaching in its contemplative method is that teaching is contemplation and contemplation is teaching: not only do teaching and contemplation coexist, but the original exposition itself is the method of contemplation. When the Ten Grounds Sūtra first came into being, the character of gradual bodhisattva practice was, if anything, distinctly dominant; but with the passage of time, the chapters and sections of the text gradually expanded, and when it came to form the great Avataṃsaka Sūtra, outwardly it displayed the gradual aspect of progressive bodhisattva practice, while inwardly its meaning as the Buddha-vehicle emphasized the character of sudden teaching. Once it reached China, within a new philosophical framework it gradually evolved into a systematized teaching, and its way of practice departed entirely from gradual cultivation, taking on the coloring of sudden practice. Thus teaching is itself contemplation, whether of nature-arising or of dependent origination, and its appearance no longer resembles the gradual cultivation-contemplations of the other three vehicles. What is called the unimpeded contemplation of dharma-realm dependent origination speaks of principle without limit, with principal and retinue complete; and it is precisely through its method of severing delusion and the stages to be attained thereby that a school's distinctive character comes into play.

Therefore, the fact that the cutting of delusions and the stages of practice contain elements of both gradual teaching and sudden practice is tacitly indicated in the doctrinal organization itself. This can be examined and explained through the two approaches of sequential arrangement and perfect interfusion.

The sequential arrangement gate is the establishment of doctrinal features: the bodhisattva's advance toward the buddha-fruit is examined from the perspective of graded stages and their differences. The perfect interfusion gate is the functioning of principle-nature, in which one stage pervades all stages and all stages are gathered back into one stage—this is the side of equality. Moreover, regarding the point that phenomena are identical with principle-nature, sequential arrangement is no obstacle to perfect interfusion; since principle-nature is identical with phenomena, perfect interfusion is itself sequential arrangement①(Note: Fajie yijing (法界義鏡), fascicle lower (Japanese Taishō, Huayan Zongzhang Shu xia, 611a): "In the perfect teaching, how are delusions cut? Answer: Cutting delusions has two gates: cutting delusions in sequential arrangement, and cutting delusions in perfect interfusion..."). This expresses the fundamental standpoint of the one-vehicle perfect teaching of Huayan, the ultimate principle unattainable by the other lesser and three-vehicle teachings. Thus Fazang, in the Wujiao zhang (五教章), fascicle 3, in the section on "Differences in What the Various Teachings Implicate" (諸教所詮差別), under the sixth topic concerning the measure of cutting delusions②(Note: Taishō vol. 45, p. 492c.), explains in detail the differences and characteristics of cutting delusions from the Hīnayāna to the perfect teaching. Under the perfect teaching, drawing on the common and distinctive teachings, he sets forth the distinctive features of cutting delusions in Huayan.

In the Huayan distinctive teaching, when speaking from the standpoint of the buddha-fruit dharma, the essential nature of afflictions cannot be discussed at all. General Buddhist teachings speak of two obstacles—afflictive and cognitive—and commonly distinguish between discriminative and innate, or between views and cultivation. But regarding the original self-realm of the ten buddhas, every single thing is none other than the real virtue of the dharma-realm; apart from the dharma-realm there is nothing to be cut—this is the distinctive teaching's unique insight. Affliction is itself bodhi; samsara is itself nirvana—this is the standpoint of the unobstructed dharma-body, self-realized in the experience of "suchness."

Looking at the dharma that is obstructed, the nature of affliction is empty. The dharma that is obstructed, however, is the unimpeded interpenetration of all particular events: one is all, with lord and retinue complete—the unhindered interdependent arising of the myriad dharmas. Thus the power and function of the "delusion" that can obstruct is also profound and vast. Moreover, when we look directly at the phenomenal character of delusion, we find that evil dharmas are not the great function of suchness; yet because the true and the false interpenetrate, it is said they are not apart from suchness. Transcending what the final teaching states, the perfect teaching regards all dharmas as the great function of suchness: only virtuous dharmas accord with suchness and are "in accord with the dharma-realm"; evil dharmas go against suchness and are "contrary to the dharma-realm." Conforming and contrary are only the subtle nuances manifested within one dharma-realm③(Note: Tanxuanji (探玄記), fascicle 8 (Taishō vol. 35, p. 269c), citing the Awakening of Faith, explains that its suchness portion is divided into three major sections, with the distinctive teaching's exposition—presented in question-and-answer form—of how the substance of sin is vast and becomes layer upon layer without end, set against the final teaching for reference.). Yet because the phenomenal character of the obstructing affliction is seen as profound and vast within the function of suchness, when we speak of delusion, one obstruction is all obstructions; when we speak of what can be cut, one cutting is all cuttings; when we speak of what is attained, one accomplishment is all accomplishments④(Note: "One obstruction is all obstructions" is stated in the Jin-translation Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 33, "Universal Worthy Bodhisattva Practice Chapter" (Taishō vol. 9, p. 607a): "Of all evils, none is greater than the arising of a single mind of anger." "One cutting is all cuttings" is stated in the same sūtra, fascicle 32, "Buddha's Small Marks and Light Merit Chapter" (ibid., p. 606b): "If sentient beings hear this fragrance, all karmic obstacles are completely eliminated...the 21,000 kinds of afflictions are all completely eliminated." "One accomplishment is all accomplishments" is stated in the same sūtra, fascicle 35, "Jewel King Thus Come One's Nature Arising Chapter" (ibid., p. 627a): "In the Thus Come One's body one sees all sentient beings with bodhicitta, cultivating the bodhisattva practices, attaining perfect enlightenment. Even seeing all sentient beings quietly entering nirvana is likewise so; all are of one nature, because of non-nature." From these sūtra passages, one may glimpse a portion of the meaning.). This is the distinctive feature of the distinctive teaching, which does not depart from the gates of sequential arrangement and perfect interfusion.

Therefore, on the common-teaching gate, perfect interfusion is sequential arrangement: the cutting of delusions is provisionally manifested in the three vehicles, establishing the forty-one stages—the ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, ten grounds, and buddha-fruit. The distinctive teaching, however, regarding the cutting of delusions, establishes three lives: the life of seeing and hearing, the life of understanding and practice, and the life of realization. The "life of seeing and hearing" comes prior to the ten faiths and indicates one life in which the essential vehicle's crucial capacity is seen and heard. The "life of understanding and practice" follows the ten faiths and speaks of the fulfillment of the advance of understanding and practice. The "life of realization" states that one cutting is all cuttings⑤(Kongmu zhang (孔目章), fascicle 3 (Taishō vol. 45, p. 562b).).

Moreover, regarding the cutting of delusions, the statements that one cutting is all cuttings and one accomplishment is all accomplishments belong to the perfect teaching. Fazang, in the Tanxuanji, fascicle 16, explains the sūtra's "Nature Arising Chapter" text by saying that in the perfect teaching, all sentient beings have already given rise to the mind, already cultivated and accomplished, and already completed the attainment of buddhahood. To speak of newly attaining buddhahood actually raises the starting point of doubt. He states that when one person becomes a buddha, all sentient beings are none other than becoming buddhas⑥(Taishō vol. 35, p. 413c.). Likewise, in the Huayan jing wenda, fascicle upper, to the question of how one person's practice enables all persons to attain buddhahood, he immediately answers by citing the interdependent-arising person: it means that one person is all persons, and all persons is one person—this is the purport of the teaching⑦(Note: Taishō vol. 45, p. 600b.).

In medieval Japan, the two major currents of Huayan studies—the head temple faction (本寺派) of Tōdai-ji and the branch temple faction (末寺派) of Kōzan-ji—also diverged in their positions on the cutting of delusions. The head temple faction, treating the "Nature Arising Chapter" teaching of becoming buddha as the teaching of cutting delusions, held that if one person cuts delusions, all sentient beings simultaneously cut delusions; therefore, in the same way that one person becomes a buddha, all persons become buddhas⑧(Note: Wujiao zhang tongluji (五教章通路記), fascicle 26 (Japanese Bukkyō Zensho edition, 410a), fascicle 27 (ibid., 421b); Wujiao zhang zhuanshi (五教章纂釋), fascicle 13 (ibid., 795a).). If the cutting of delusions and becoming buddha are established within the sequential arrangement gate, they are identical with what the three-vehicle teachings say. The perfect interfusion gate, then, is what the perfect teaching fundamentally uses to measure the cutting of delusions and becoming buddha.

The branch temple faction, however, insisted that cutting delusions and becoming buddha must not be confused and must not be measured by the same standard. Cutting delusions is indeed a practice gate within cause, and its original meaning should be established on the sequential arrangement gate. Becoming buddha is the awakening of buddha-nature on the fruit gate, and it must rely on the perfect interfusion gate. The cutting-delusion gate concerns the relation of afflictions to their own class: if one delusion is cut, all delusions of the same class are cut—hence "one cutting is all cuttings." The becoming-buddha gate concerns the relation of self and others: when one person becomes a buddha, all sentient beings simultaneously become buddhas, which is explained as "one accomplishment is all accomplishments"⑨(Note: Jinshizi zhang guangxianchao (金師子章光顯鈔), fascicle lower (Japanese Bukkyō Zensho edition, 188–).). The statement that one person's becoming buddha means all persons' becoming buddha is ultimately discussed within the fruit gate. So the implication of "one accomplishment is all accomplishments"—its original meaning is that when one practice-virtue is accomplished, all practices of one's own class are also accomplished. This interpretation differs somewhat from the head temple faction's. The reason for the difference in their standpoints is that one centers on doctrine, emphasizing mutual identity and mutual entry, while the other emphasizes self-aware practice—hence the differences that emerge in their doctrinal expositions.

The cutting of delusions, as stated above, and the stages thereby attained can also be understood accordingly. According to the true meaning of the distinctive teaching, all is the fruit-buddha Vairocana; no stages at all are established. Yet for sentient beings' understanding, when awaiting the opportunity in this realm of awakening, two gates are established: the perfect interfusion gate and the sequential arrangement gate. The perfect interfusion gate is one stage being all stages; between them no shallow or deep stages are established. And if, according to the sequential arrangement gate, one provisionally manifests within the three-vehicle teaching the divisions of ten abodes, ten dedications, ten grounds, buddha-fruit, and so forth, this is as previously stated: sequential arrangement is perfect interfusion. As for understanding and practice among the three lives, in terms of stages, there are two divisions: the self-position and the advanced-position. The self-position is exactly the stage of practice at that moment; the advanced-position is the stage one enters when practice has achieved something and moves to a higher level. But remember: "one stage is all stages" is the distinctive feature of the graded stages spoken of in the perfect teaching's mutual identity and mutual entry.

Only in this teaching, the perfect interfusion of stages, provisionally manifested in the final teaching, specially establishes the accomplishment of buddhahood through the fulfillment of faith, stating that the full mind of the ten faiths is itself becoming buddha—which praises the practitioner's completion of the buddha-path. In the final teaching, because the ten faiths have not yet reached the measure of stages, they are not called stages, since one has not yet attained non-retrogression. Now, however, in establishing the practice of becoming buddha, the stage of non-retrogression of the first abode is attained because of the merit of fulfilled faith. This provisionally manifests the becoming-buddha-through-practice of the Huayan perfect teaching, and points out that the first and last are simultaneous, cause and effect non-dual⑩(Note: Jin-translation Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 6, "Bhadrasimha Bodhisattva Chapter" (Taishō vol. 9, p. 432c); Tanxuanji, fascicle 4 (Taishō vol. 35, p. 187a); Wujiao zhang, fascicle 2, under the section on differences in stages of practice (Taishō vol. 45, p. 490a).). Stages concern the differentiation established according to their own character, while practice speaks of the integration of all practices. So in becoming buddha through the practice of fulfilled faith, one may say that this stage of becoming buddha is the becoming buddha of the first abode.

3 Characteristics of Huayan Contemplation

The Huayan contemplation has no separate contemplation apart from its doctrinal content; it is characteristic that it does not discuss limited or specific contemplation methods. This has been mentioned on every occasion above. This is not because Huayan places no importance on contemplation in its practice path; rather, it does not remain at the level of conceptual understanding of all doctrines but offers recognition of self-realization within practice as the exposition of its distinctive nature. Fazang, in the four fascicles of the Wujiao zhang, beginning from the standpoint of doctrinal classification, first establishes the position of Huayan teaching within the entirety of Buddhism, constructing his treatise through the establishment of differing characteristics. In the final conclusion he sets up a chapter on "The Differentiation of Meaning and Principle" (義理分齊), primarily discussing the ten-mystery interdependent arising and the six-character perfect interfusion, taking the unimpediment of event and event, mutual identity and mutual entry, as his system, and grasping the overcoming of contradictions in reality.

Yet, in order not to remain solely at the level of conceptual understanding, between doctrinal classification and doctrinal principle he sets up the chapter "Differences in What the Various Teachings Implicate" (諸教所詮差別), fulfilling the mission of an outline of Buddhism from the standpoint of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Within each separate gate he maintains the standpoint of practice-path and contemplation-gate. At the same time he enumerates the respective assertions of the five teachings, striving to verify the practical standpoint of the Huayan perfect teaching. The initial sections on the differences of mind-consciousness and lineage appear unrelated to direct practice-path, but they actually connect to the differences of mind-consciousness in the saint's employing and transforming of sentient beings through the five-meaning gates, as well as to sentient beings' obtaining the dharma through five gates①(Note: Wujiao zhang, fascicle 2 (Taishō vol. 45, p. 485b).). Or, the differences of lineage must likewise be approached through the same twofold method of employing and transforming according to capacity and the obtaining of dharma②(Note: Ibid., p. 488a.). From the standpoint of differences in the practice path, the attitude is quite clear. Moreover, in the distinctions of practice stages, periods of cultivation, the body relied upon in cultivation, the measure of cutting delusions, the turning of mind in the three vehicles, and other practice gates, the Huayan teaching's characteristics and intent are shown with undisguised exposition. And in the latter three gates—the characteristics of the buddha-fruit, the measure of employing and transforming, and the opening and closing of buddha-bodies—these concern the conditions of the attained fruit following the unfolding of the practice path; they are naturally subjects that cannot but be touched upon. The fundamental ten-mystery interdependent arising and six-character perfect interfusion of the teaching are not only objects of doctrinal study; they are known to silently take direct practice-study as the essential meaning of the teaching. In other works Fazang specially explains this as contemplation for "students of the present time who cultivate and study." For us ordinary beings in actual practice, on the standpoint of the deluded mind returning to the source, when speaking of practice one constantly discusses the unimpediment of event and event; from this the importance of the point becomes clearer③(Note: Wangjin huangyuan guan (妄盡還源觀) (Taishō vol. 45, p. 638a); Youxin fajie ji (遊心法界記) (ibid., p. 649a); Huayan jing zhigui (華嚴經旨歸) (ibid., p. 596b), etc.).

By the time of Chengguan and Zongmi, this standpoint of taking practice-gate as fundamental is shown even more clearly. In Fazang's Nature-Arising dharma gate as fruit-gate, it could not be made the direct object of contemplation and thereby transformed. He clearly emphasized that the Nature-Arising contemplation is "the twin flow of quiescence and wisdom—only then is the buddha-fruit accomplished"④(Note: Dahuayan jing lüece (大華嚴經略策) (Taishō vol. 36, p. 707a).): it is not only with wisdom as the leader; one must operate with the empty insight of meditation, otherwise there is no accomplishment. Distinguishing the meaning of the twin operation of śamatha and vipaśyanā, the true and false do not depart from one mind; in the contemplation of the dharma-realm, ultimately this is not a matter of opposed contradictions—only then can one see the absolute unity of true and false. Moreover, the Nature-Arising contemplation of luminous awareness undimmed, the profound Huayan teaching's realization, is experienced within one's own mind; only thus can the characteristic of "teaching itself being contemplation" be revealed.

But what exactly does "teaching itself being contemplation" mean? First learning the teaching, then moving to contemplation—learning the teaching and then practicing—would this not be at different times? In Huayan, if the teaching is taken in this way, then from the standpoint of the teaching itself it is not contemplation, nor is it true teaching. "Teaching itself being contemplation" means that in the teaching's own being it must immediately be contemplation, and therefore sincere self-awareness is required. This self-awareness must be precisely "faith." The forerunner of the three dharmas of understanding, practice, and realization is called "faith"—that is none other than self-awareness itself. It is just like not being aware of one's own lack of authenticity. To have the teaching stop only in the realm of doctrinal study and then transfer to practice-study, calling this "teaching itself being contemplation"—that is neither true teaching nor true contemplation. Teaching is contemplation within doctrinal study; contemplation is teaching within practice-study; only then can one speak of the meaning of "teaching itself being contemplation."

Going further, why is the doctrinal meaning itself called contemplation? In Huayan's dharma-realm interdependent arising, in terms of the doctrinal-meaning gate: "Dharma-realm is the demarcation of all dharmas; interdependent arising is arising through causes and conditions." Dharma-realm interdependent arising primarily means seeking verification of the mutual unimpeded and inexhaustible relations of the myriad dharmas from the arising of each individual dharma, or from the conditions immediately present. However, viewed from the standpoint of the actual-cultivation gate: "Dharma-realm is the realm of the teaching-dharma; interdependent arising is explained as the arising according to opportunity-capacity." That is, in order to enable all sentient beings to attain awakening, the saint, following their capacities, expounds the teaching-dharma. This is the teaching descending from above, displaying the basis of the practice-path from delusion unfolding into awakening. For sentient beings, if they do not move into actual cultivation and contemplation, the meaning of the arising according to opportunity-capacity cannot be realized at all. Truly, principle becomes what the teaching implies; teaching becomes practice, and through experience one is guided into realization. There is the principle of the teaching-dharma's arising through causes and conditions, and there is the arising according to opportunity-capacity of the practice-dharma. Although the principle-dharma itself provides the meaning of the appearances one transforms and manifests through one's own understanding, the principle-dharma in itself does not possess the significance of any other form.

Teachings present the dharma-realm dependent arising that overcomes the opposition and contradiction between things; practice, meanwhile, expresses the lived reality in which the opposition between delusion and enlightenment has not yet been overcome. The ten profound gates of dependent arising are therefore grounded in this dynamic, and are consistently expressed through ten pairs of dharmas. In the Five Teachings Essay, the phrase "appearing in accordance with the faculties and desires of beings" was later adjusted in both the Huayan jing zhigui and the Tanxuan ji to read "responsive interaction"—both formulations bring into relief the surface opposition between Buddha and sentient beings, enlightenment and delusion, while indicating that within the ten profound gates, this opposition is thoroughly overcome. When the ten profound dependent arising is taken up as a contemplative method, it means seeing the realms of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa as extinguished—transcending the contradiction between delusion and enlightenment. This is at once the gate of doctrine and the gate of practice and learning, and it is the distinctive feature of Huayan contemplation.

As noted above, in the Huayan tradition it isn't only books specifically devoted to the contemplative path that count as contemplative works—even doctrinal texts should be read directly as manuals of contemplation. A work is called a Huayan contemplative book only when contemplation is singled out as its main concern. Such books offer methods of cultivating contemplation tailored for practitioners who struggle with diligence, encouraging them to focus their attention. Contemplation appears on the surface; doctrine provides the underlying assurance. Traditionally, from the Tiantai standpoint, that school was described as expounding both the doctrinal and contemplative gates simultaneously—doctrine and contemplation together—giving equal weight to religious philosophy and religious experience. Huayan, by contrast, was criticized as "having doctrine but no contemplation." This charge needs no lengthy refutation; it is simply inaccurate. Historically, around the late Tang and the Five Dynasties, when Tiantai underwent its revival, Tiantai scholars used their own distinct-teaching contemplative methods to mount fierce critiques of Huayan. The miscellaneous remarks of the Song dynasty's Zhipan are typical ⑤(Note: Fozu tongji, vol. 29 (Taishō 49, p. 292b): "It is said that the Five Teachings lack the distinctions of severance and subjugation. If so, whether doctrine or contemplation, they are empty words set up in vain, with no path of cultivation and realization." Also: "Xianshou [Fazang] himself established the Five Teachings; yet when he reached the Awakening of Faith and explained the contemplative method, he said: the stages of cultivation are as in Tiantai's Mohe zhiguan. Qingliang [Chengguan], taking Xianshou as his source, when he annotated the Avataṃsaka, cited Tiantai's passages on the three contemplations of inherent good and inherent evil, the three virtues, and three thousand realms in a single thought."). This was presumably the prevailing casual opinion in the Buddhist scholarly world of the time. However, Fazang's contemplative method was explained in a way that resembled Tiantai's calming-and-insight (śamatha-vipaśyanā), as recorded in the Qixin lun yiji, final section of fascicle 7 ⑥(Note: Taishō 44, p. 283b: "It is explained in detail in Chan Master Zhiyi of Tiantai's two-volume Zhiguan."). This was simply to avoid unnecessary verbosity and did not touch on sectarian doctrinal issues—yet it was misread to mean that Tiantai valued contemplation of the mind while Huayan had no method at all. The truth is rather that Tiantai's contemplation of the fleeting deluded mind in a single thought lends itself easily to being spoken of as mind-contemplation, whereas in Huayan every dependent and supporting condition, every form and every thought, every speck of dust and every dharma—without exception—serves as an object of contemplation. Each and every thing, every event, is a true virtue of the dharma-realm. This is precisely why contemplation (guan) is so consistently used in its name ⑦(Note: Regarding Huayan contemplative method, there is a noteworthy early critique from the She-lun school. Woncheuk's Jieshenmi jing shu, vol. 1 (Xuzangjing 1-34-4, p. 298b), enumerates the doctrinal classifications of various Indian commentators: some speak of four teachings—the Four Noble Truths teaching, the signless teaching; some speak of dharma-attributes, as in the Laṅkāvatāra; some speak of contemplative practice, as in the Avataṃsaka. Paramārtha made such a statement. According to this, Paramārtha takes the Buddha's entire teaching to consist of the Four Noble Truths teaching (Hīnayāna), the signless teaching (Prajñāpāramitā), the dharma-characteristics teaching (Laṅkāvatāra, etc.), and the contemplative-practice teaching (Avataṃsaka, etc.). Thus classifying the Avataṃsaka as the contemplative-practice teaching—more emphatically practical than the dharma-characteristics teaching, and stressing the contemplative practice of the three realms being mind-only—suggests that the doctrine of the Avataṃsaka is directly contemplative practice, seen from a particular angle. Of course this was not determined from a strictly doctrinal standpoint; yet the very fact that such an observation was made from outside the tradition and applied to the Avataṃsaka is worthy of our attention.).

4. Departments of Huayan Contemplation

Although Huayan doctrine ultimately culminates in the unhindered and inexhaustible dharma-realm dependent arising—the mutual non-obstruction of all things—explaining its content requires a variety of pedagogical approaches, and the categories and departments are indeed many. Works focused on the contemplative path are therefore considerable in number among the traditional lineage masters. As Ningran states in the Fajie yijing, fascicle 1: "The ritual procedures expounded by the patriarchs are not of one kind; I briefly cite ten categories as a framework." ①(Note: Japanese edition, Huayan Zong Zhangshu, part 2, p. 592b.) Since doctrinal exposition varies, contemplative method also branches into many gates—such as: (1) Contemplation of the Dharma-realm, (2) Contemplation of the Flavor of the Avataṃsaka, (3) Contemplation of the Exhaustion of Delusion, (4) Contemplation of Samantabhadra, (5) Consciousness-Only Contemplation, (6) Contemplation of the Lotus Treasury World, (7) Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Sages, (8) Contemplation of the Essential Heart of the Avataṃsaka, (9) Contemplation of the Five Aggregates, and (10) Contemplation of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination—ten categories in all. Yet this is merely a flat enumeration of the various features found across the patriarchs' contemplative writings; it doesn't yet address how these relate to the broader categories of the Huayan contemplative path. It is essentially a preliminary gathering of the ancestors' views, presented without much analysis. The content of each contemplation is given only a bird's-eye description of author and outline, without clearly indicating their mutual connections or the standpoint of each method. Only in the conclusion, where "two kinds of contemplation regarding the essentials" are discussed—the Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Sages and the Consciousness-Only Contemplation—are these singled out as most distinctive and given detailed explanation. But even there, there is no sign of any systematic organization or unifying framework for the contemplative method as a whole.

In particular, among the writings of the five Chinese patriarchs, there is no comprehensive, interlinked, unified classification of the contemplative departments. Given the foundational principle that doctrine is itself directly contemplative practice, this shouldn't surprise us. Zhiyan, in the Kongmu zhang, fascicle 2, "Ninth Dedication: Initial Chapter on the Differences of Universal and Particular, Beginning and End, Principle and Phenomenon in Various Contemplations," does cite eighteen kinds of contemplation, from Suchness Contemplation to the Contemplation of All-Inclusion ②(Note: Taishō 45, p. 559a–), and these could be taken as a contemplative department. Yet he himself cautions that these are merely "ordinarily set up at the initial gate of the path of cultivation, in response to specific ailments." Most of these contemplations belong to the Three Vehicles or Hīnayāna, and only partially touch the seeing-and-hearing stage of the One Vehicle—"the divisions are briefly stated"—so it's hard to regard them as a strict Huayan contemplative department. Moreover, only the names of the contemplation gates are listed, with no elaboration, so they don't really constitute a contemplative-path category and need no special attention. Fazang, in his miscellaneous Huayan chapters, in the tenth "completion of contemplation" section of the chapter on transmigration (liuzhuan), divides contemplation into the inclusive gate and the distinct gate. Chengguan, in the Huayan jing shu yanyi chao, fascicle 13 ③(Note: Xuzangjing 1-9-2, p. 150b.), distinguishes the Mind-Only Consciousness Contemplation from the Suchness-Reality Contemplation. But in the Kongmu zhang, eighteen kinds of contemplation are named, and only these two are singled out—both approaches are too brief to constitute a full systematic department.

Looking back over these traditional accounts, however, if we classify them by the nature of their departments, we find inclusive-gate and distinct-gate contemplations, shallow-and-deep doctrinal contemplations, directly revealed and indirectly revealed contemplations, and so forth. If we classify by contemplative object, the range can extend universally to a single speck of dust or a single dharma; more specifically, one may take the Three Sages as the focus, contemplate the Lotus Treasury World, or practice consciousness-only contemplation, mind-only contemplation, five-aggregate contemplation, or twelve-link contemplation. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into two departments: universal contemplation and arising contemplation. All other contemplations can be subsumed under one or the other. What should be noted here is that the qualities of conditioned arising and nature-arising, previously discussed in terms of doctrinal content, are now being applied to the essence of the path itself. Without restricting ourselves to conditioned-arising contemplation, let us speak first of nature-arising contemplation: nature-arising lies beyond the ineffable realm of the fruit-portion, alongside the conditioned arising of the cause-portion—which is nothing other than mind becoming Buddha. For the practitioner actually cultivating the path, what is taken up is precisely "this very mind is Buddha."

Let's begin with conditioned-arising contemplation. When we take the dharmas of conditioned arising that are present before us as the foundation, the doctrines of mutual non-obstruction of all things—such as the ten profound gates and the six marks of perfect interpenetration—can be directly called contemplative method; in effect, this is conditioned-arising contemplation. Already in the Jin jing, fascicle 5, the "Light-Awakening" chapter clearly presents the root condition of the distinct-teaching One-Vehicle dependent arising: the mutual identity of one and many, inexhaustible and without end. From the wheel-marks on the soles of the Buddha's feet, a billion rays of light shine forth, illuminating the trichiliocosm, and each ray in turn pervades a billion worlds, layer upon layer without end ④(Note: Taishō 9, p. 442b–). Fascicle 5, the "Illuminating Difficulties" chapter, also gives an extensive explanation of dependent arising ⑤(Note: Ibid., p. 427a). The dharmas of dependent arising have no self-nature in themselves; their emptiness of self-nature becomes the very medium through which opposition and contradiction are transcended. One contemplates their mutual identity and mutual interpenetration—unhindered, free. Using this conditioned-arising contemplation as the object, one can practice comparatively easily with the golden lion, a house, or the like. Though particular things are singled out as objects, in essence every single dust, every single dharma—everything presently manifest—can serve as material for cultivating contemplation. In the Jin jing, fascicle 6, the "Pure Conduct" chapter, ordinary daily actions of body, speech, and mind are all invested with supreme and wondrous virtue. One hundred forty vows are listed, including: "When the bodhisattva is at home, may all beings abandon the difficulty of leaving home and enter the dharma of emptiness" ⑥(Note: Ibid., p. 430b–). Each vow's content is nothing other than our everyday activities of living. Every one of these things becomes an object of contemplation. What Fazang lays out in the One Hundred Gates of the Sea of Meaning likewise takes the dependent arising of each single dust and single dharma as the entry point into the dharma-realm as contemplative object—demonstrating that conditioned-arising contemplation, which explains the mutual non-obstruction, identity, and interpenetration of all things, is the very foundation of Huayan contemplation.

Within this, the Contemplation of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Sages deserves special attention. In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the principal holy figures who appear are the two bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra, who manifest the distinctive virtues of the original teacher, Vairocana Buddha. Throughout the sūtra, in terms of persons, the activity of the Three Sages is the central symbol. On the standpoint of perfect interpenetration and non-obstruction—the trunk of the teaching—understanding the Avataṃsaka means taking in the perfect interpenetration of the Three Sages. It was Chengguan who formalized this as a norm of contemplative method in his one-fascicle Gate of Contemplation on the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Sages ⑦(Note: Taishō 45, p. 671a–). Though this text is not long, it builds on foundations laid by Fazang, inherited and vigorously promoted by Li Tongxuan, before Chengguan shaped it into a distinct contemplative practice. The text first explains the Three Sages through a set of correspondences, then reveals their interpenetration. Regarding Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra, three pairs are set forth: (1) faith and the object of faith, (2) understanding and practice, (3) principle and wisdom—marking the distinctive character of the two sages in dynamic relation. Then, in the gate of interpenetration, the dharma-gates of the two sages are shown to interpenetrate both within their own positions and in relation to each other, so that the two sages merge into the virtue of Vairocana Buddha within the ocean of the fruit—naturally, the Three Sages are perfectly interpenetrating. This reality is to be seen within one's own single mind; apart from one's own mind, there are no Three Sages to be sought. This requires not only understanding the Buddha's samādhi-mind but also extending the bodhisattva's samādhi-mind to all Huayan practitioners—each must realize this through inner contemplation of their own mind. At this point, the conditioned-arising perspective remains central, yet ultimately one enters nature-arising contemplation ⑧(Note: On the investigation of the perfect interpenetration of the Three Sages in terms of the actual thought behind the formation of the sūtra, see the present author's "The Thought System of the Perfect Interpenetration of the Three Sages—With Special Attention to the Content of Practice and Learning in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra" (Nihon Bukkyōgaku Kyōkai Nenpō, No. 14; cited elsewhere as well)). In the Huayan doctrinal standpoint, where conditioned arising is itself nature-arising, practice and learning directly become contemplative realization—this is, naturally, the inevitable result.

However, the contemplation of Nature-Arising takes up the original fruit-aspect of sentient beings right where they stand. The nature of the One Mind is already displayed in the unobstructed fruit-Buddha. Viewed through the unobstructed Buddha-eye, every sentient being throughout the ten directions of the dharma-realm possesses the wisdom and virtues of the Tathāgata—originally enlightened, originally a Buddha. ⑨ (Note: The Jin translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 35, "Treasury King Tathāgata Nature-Arising Chapter" (Taishō 9, 623c) states: "The Tathāgata's wisdom reaches everywhere. Why is this? There is no sentient being, no sentient being's body, in whom the Tathāgata's wisdom is not fully present.") Fazang held that Nature-Arising belongs more firmly to the side of causes than to that of fruits—a stronger claim to expressibility. Chengguan and Zongmi, partly shaped by Chan and partly by Huayan's own teaching on Nature-Arising, worked hard to develop the contemplative side. In practice, one can drift away from the gate of Nature-Arising fairly easily; yet the clear current of the tradition still runs toward making Nature-Arising contemplation the very heart of the path. The Commentary on the Universal Worthy Practice Vows Chapter, fascicle 1, puts it plainly: "The One-Mind dharma-realm and the maker of all dharmas have two gates in total: first, the gate of Nature-Arising; second, the gate of Dependent Origination." ⑩ (Note: X 1.7.3, 236—.) Since the One Mind present in every sentient being's original mind holds birth and Buddhahood undifferentiated, defilement and purity undifferentiated, the two gates of Nature-Arising and Dependent Origination open out from it, and these two gates are then turned into contemplative practice. So the contemplation of Nature-Arising draws the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon back toward its underlying nature; and the principle contained within that mutual non-obstruction is itself the original source from which the One Mind's self-natured arising pervades all that exists. Transcending the opening of understanding and the laying down of practice, not waiting for the various dharmas of dependent origination to appear before it, the path cuts straight through to the original nature of all dharma-courts and directly certifies the true mind. Within Chengguan's Contemplation of the Essential Mind Throughout, then, the "three delusions"—view-thought (jiensi), dust-and-sand (chensha), and ignorance (wuming); the "three contemplations"—emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle; the "three wisdoms"—all-mode-knowing (yīqiè zhì), knowledge of the path's varieties (dàozhǒng zhì), and knowledge of all modes (yīqièzhǒng zhì); and the "three virtues"—dharma-body, prajñā, and liberation—each differ in content, yet there is no temporal sequence among them; they belong to the principle-noumenon as such, and within it the reasons of all teachings are present. Mind after mind becoming Buddha, place after place certifying truth, they show forth together in the fruit. On this basis, fascicle 1 of Ningran's Mirror of the Meaning of the Dharma-Realm ⑾ (Note: Included in the Japanese Tripiṭaka, Huayan Sect Commentaries, lower section, 596b—.) cites the contemplation of the essential mind to explain the principles of consciousness-only contemplation, showing that Chengguan took Nature-Arising contemplation as the defining feature of his contemplative method. Zongmi, for his part, in the Preface to the Collection of Explanations of the Source of Chan, fascicle 1, part 2 ⑿ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 48, 404a—.) sets up two gates—the gate of complete rejection and the gate of complete acceptance. The first is the mind-essence of spiritual awareness, unclouded and unattached; the second is the meaning of heavenly innocence shining alone. This unclouded spiritual awareness, he says, is itself the way of Nature-Arising's original completion. Yet in fascicle 2, part 1 of the General Preface, we read: "In terms of this life, sudden enlightenment is spoken of; but if we trace back to past lives, there is only gradual, no sudden." ⒀ (Note: Same source, 408a.) Since Nature-Arising's original completion takes the initial mind's understanding as its object, sudden enlightenment of original awakening lines up with the contemplation of Nature-Arising; but in its gradual training aspect, it does not quite match what Chengguan meant by it. Still, the Huayan Sūtra's contemplative method, attuned to its times and historical setting, was established as the One-Mind Contemplation of Nature-Arising precisely so that ordinary sentient beings could certify the truth directly. Its contribution should not be passed over lightly.

The essence of the Huayan path, as we've seen, does not need arguing— it cannot be sought in the contemplation of Dependent Origination alone. Any account of dharma-realm dependent origination, with its mutual identity and interpenetration of every particle and every dharma in the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon, is bound to this single topic. If the present moment shifts into contemplative practice, and "teaching equals contemplation" is taken as the hallmark of Huayan, then the ten profound dependently originated principles and the perfect interfusion of the six characteristics need not be claimed as the primary-meaning contemplative method. The contemplation of Dependent Origination, taken to its end, is simply the self-certification of Buddhahood with the fruit-virtue fully manifest—the result is nothing other than becoming Buddha without thought. Nor is the contemplation of Nature-Arising wholly excluded from the opening of understanding and the laying down of practice. Once the contemplation is complete, if one merges into and realizes the fruit-sea, the differences lie only in the aspect of contemplation; in its essence there is no difference. Through the three lives of hearing and seeing, of understanding and practice, and of certification and entry, one passes through and takes up the non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon—the actual virtue of the dharma-realm. Whether one then speaks of sudden enlightenment or of the path, it remains a matter of these two approaches.

In short, the content of Buddhist studies—doctrine and practice—lies, as the tradition says, within a state of unified non-obstruction. This is a feature peculiar to Huayan studies. When Huayan studies as scholarship is taken up also as the content of contemplative practice, and this point is missed, one may grasp one face of Huayan philosophy; but recognizing that one has drifted into empty theory apart from practice, one knows the full content of Huayan studies has not been grasped.

Chapter 10: The Principal and Retinue of Fruition Attainment

1. The Symbolic Representation of the Buddha-body

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra's outline, following the sequence of faith, understanding, practice, and certification, is organized into five categories ① (Note: Record of Investigating the Mystery, fascicle 2 (Taishō 35, 125b); Outline of Textual Meaning (same source, 501a—).), all converging on entry into the dharma-realm. Regarding the principal and retinue of this fruition attainment, one would take it to refer to the Buddha-land and the Buddha-body. On the Buddha-body, general Buddhism in its doctrinal teaching discusses at length the distinction among the three bodies—dharma-body, reward-body, and manifestation-body. According to the Avataṃsaka, however, it is the ten-body-complete Vairocana dharma-body that is specially taken as the fruit-Buddha's self-nature; depending on occasion, this is established as the teaching lord.

The question "What is a Buddha?" ought to be the first concern of every Buddhist doctrinal system. It is the final point to which each teaching returns, and the fundamental idea on which its doctrinal measure is built.

The practical question, "How should one become a Buddha?"—this is the issue raised in contemplative theory. From it one sees that practice, as a real problem, takes actual realization as its topic. To clarify the matter, "How did he become a Buddha?" needs to be brought forward first; this goes without saying. Here, the first thing to bring forward is the existence of the great Śākyamuni Buddha. Building an inquiry around him is only natural. The fact that Śākyamuni Buddha attained Buddhahood must be honestly held as unshakable. From there, one can trace the changes and developments in thought—the emergence of Amitābha Buddha thought, the emergence of Mahāvairocana thought—and explain their relation to Śākyamuni Buddha. Only through this can the content of the Buddha-body view become clear.

Huayan sūtra studies do not stand apart from this general pattern. Since it calls itself "the one-vehicle teaching meaning of Śākyamuni Tathāgata's Sea-Mark Samādhi" ② (Note: Five Teachings Chapter, fascicle 1, opening text (Taishō 45, 477a).), the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is the fundamental scripture first expounded by Śākyamuni Buddha after his awakening beneath the Bodhi tree. On this basis the Huayan distinct one-vehicle doctrine was built. The question "How did Śākyamuni Buddha become a Buddha?" is explained as actual realization, and serves as the occasion for answering "What is a Buddha?" Furthermore, on this foundation, understanding "the self-realm of the ten Buddhas" as the great awakening of Vairocana Tathāgata marks the Huayan ideal Buddha.

Śākyamuni Buddha left home, spent six years in strenuous cultivation, then sat beneath the Bodhi tree in contemplation. He finally cut off ignorance, thoroughly awakened to the original ultimate truth, and attained perfect enlightenment. What he observed through the first, middle, and last watches of the night was the well-known contemplation of the twelve links of dependent origination. "The triple world is illusory, yet made by mind alone; the twelve links all depend on mind" ③ (Note: Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 9, 558c.)—this is presented in the sixth ground of the "Ten Grounds Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as the mind-only dependent-origination investigation of the twelve links. This dharma-realm dependent origination, deepened into layer upon layer of inexhaustible origination, brought the doctrinal system to full organization. Yet when Śākyamuni Buddha expounded the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, he was not speaking only as the manifestation-body Buddha. The manifestation-body Buddha attained Buddhahood here in the human world—this factual Buddha is the Buddha close to all humanity, and also the Buddha who entered nirvāṇa. To speak only of a Buddha close to the human world cannot satisfy humanity's enduring hopes. If Buddha means "awakened one," we should ask plainly what this awakened one awakened to. The direct answer: he thoroughly certified the truth. Truth is the essence of the universe, and must also be the essence of the Buddha. This truth transcends time and space, is eternally unceasing, and is the reality reaching to the edge of empty space. Taking this Buddha-body as the dharma-body Buddha, it becomes the inherently existing Buddha from the end of the past to the end of the future, transcending us in many ways—an ideal Buddha that cannot be denied and that brings satisfaction. The manifestation-body Śākyamuni and the ideal dharma-body Buddha cannot be connected without remainder; this dissatisfaction and gap is resolved only when faith takes as its object the ideal reward-body Buddha. Yet the actual existence of this ideal Buddha—if not held in place by the mind-eye of faith—cannot be conceived. And although the three bodies (dharma, reward, and manifestation) can mutually interpenetrate as concepts, in their phenomenal aspects they differ; each keeps its own characteristic.

From the foregoing, with the Buddha-body theory at the center, one should come to rest on the principal fact of Buddha-nature ④ (Note: On Buddha-nature, see the author's "The Structure of Dependent Origination" (445—), which discusses the relation between Tathāgatagarbha, Nature-Arising, etc.). Buddha-nature points to the inherent possibility of becoming a Buddha; in a broader sense, it is the Buddha's own nature. But who has the Buddha's own nature? The fact that Śākyamuni Buddha was born among humans and attained Buddhahood shows that Śākyamuni has Buddha-nature. Is Buddha-nature, though, possessed only by Śākyamuni? This question has been the most weighty topic handled in Buddhist history since early Buddhism. The mark of Mahāyāna Buddhism is that it moved from granting Buddha-nature only to special persons to extending it to all sentient beings and further to all worlds—what is called a pantheistic tendency. This carries a precise meaning: the strongly nontheistic drift of Śākyamuni's teaching naturally had to reach its terminus. So with Buddha-nature called dharma-nature, on the one hand the three vehicles against the one vehicle left long traces of controversy. Meanwhile, the theory of all-pervading Buddha-nature often held the dominant position. From "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" to "all attain Buddhahood," the position of the one-vehicle teaching was thereby secured. As the "Nature-Arising Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Within the bodies of all sentient beings, the wisdom-virtues of the Tathāgata are completely and perfectly present." ⑤ (Note: Jin translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 35 (Taishō 9, 624a): "How wondrous! How wondrous! Why is it that the Tathāgata's complete wisdom exists within the body, yet is not known or seen? I shall teach those sentient beings to awaken the sacred path, causing them to forever depart from deluded perverted bonds, and fully see that the Tathāgata's wisdom within their bodies is identical with them, no different.") This stresses that there is no difference between Buddha and sentient beings. Likewise, in the "Buddha Ascends to the Tuṣita Heaven Freedom Chapter": "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—the three are without distinction." ⑥ (Note: Fascicle 10 (Taishō 9, 465c): "Mind is like a skilled painter, painting the various five aggregates; in all the worlds, there is no phenomenon it does not create. As is mind, so is Buddha; as is Buddha, so are sentient beings; mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without distinction.") The sūtra plainly shows that Buddha is the whole of the dharma-realm; this has drawn close attention within Huayan doctrinal study. The principal Buddha of the Huayan teaching is called the dharma-body Buddha who interpenetrates the three worlds and is complete in ten bodies ⑦ (Note: Record of Investigating the Mystery, fascicle 2 (Taishō 35, 130b).); or it is called the perfectly interfused, unobstructed dharma-realm-body ⑧ (Huayan Purport of Return (Taishō 45, 591b); Profound Discussion of the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 3 (X 1.8.3, 211 right).). For grasping the root of the teaching that sentient beings are originally Buddhas, the Huayan Sūtra's principal Buddha, as here stated, differs from the dharma-body separately designated within the three-body framework. By interpenetrating and unifying the three bodies within the single Śākyamuni Buddha, one arrives at the standpoint of Vairocana, who sees through to the ten-body completeness. As the Huayan doctrinal teaching touched on above explains the layer-upon-layer inexhaustible dharma-realm dependent origination—every particle and every dharma already being none other than the Buddha, all phenomena being the Buddha—the Buddha-body view follows naturally.

Through this Huayan Buddha-body, the Ten Buddhas of Understanding and the Ten Buddhas of Practice are revealed. First, regarding the Ten Buddhas of Understanding⑨ (Kongmu zhang, vol. 2 [Taishō 45, p. 560a]: "The Ten Buddhas of Understanding refer to the Buddha-body, sentient-being body, and so forth, within the threefold world of the eighth stage, as explained therein"), this is precisely the dharmakāya Buddha Vairocana, who perfectly fuses the threefold world and is complete with ten bodies, as mentioned above. The fusion of the threefold world encompasses the world of sentient beings — humans, devas, bodhisattvas, and all beings with emotions — and includes the non-sentient world of objects and substances such as mountains, rivers, and the great earth, while also embracing the world of wisdom-awakening that represents the true Buddha-realm. The sentient beings of the cause-stage and the wisdom-awakening of the effect-stage are collectively called the "direct reward" (正報), while the world of objects is called the "environmental reward" (依報). Whether cause or effect, whether direct reward or environmental reward, the entirety of the universe is fused and embraced as the Buddha-Tathāgata. In a passage of the eighth-stage section of the Ten Stages Chapter (十地品) in vol. 26 of the Jin Edition (《晉經》), it is explained that, in order to save sentient beings of various levels, manifold forms and appearances are manifested: "In all those ineffable Buddha-lands, according to the bodies of sentient beings and the differences in their faiths and preferences, [the Buddha] manifests as a body to be received."⑩ (Note: Taishō, vol. 9, p. 565c. The Tang Edition, vol. 38 [Taishō 10, p. 200a] contains the same passage.) Simultaneously it says: "Yet in reality, [the Buddha is] beyond all bodily distinctions, perpetually abiding in equality." Although the Buddha-body is presented as the body of sentient beings, the body of lands, the body of karmic recompense, the śrāvaka-body, the pratyekabuddha-body, the bodhisattva-body, the Tathāgata-body, the wisdom-body, the dharmakāya, and the space-body, according to Tanxuan ji (《探玄記》), vols. 2 and 14: "These ten Buddha-bodies pervade the threefold world."⑾ (Note: Taishō, vol. 35, pp. 130c, 363c.) This is already clearly evident from their very names. Encompassing all phenomena, they become ten kinds, taken as the Buddha-body of Huayan.

That is, the first is the Sentient-Being Body: all that has life and spirit is the Buddha; thus it is also called the world of sentient beings. Second, the Land Body: all lands such as mountains, rivers, plants, and trees are called the Buddha; thus this is the non-sentient world of objects. Third, the Karmic-Recompense Body: all the afflictions and karma of sentient beings and the lands they generate are the Buddha; thus it points to the source of both sentient and non-sentient realms. From the fourth, the Śrāvaka-Body, through the seventh, the Tathāgata-Body, are the three bodies of those who cultivate the Buddha-path, and the perfected Tathāgata as Buddha. The eighth, the Wisdom-Body, is the reward-body (saṃbhogakāya) corresponding to the aforementioned seventh Tathāgata-body; the Tathāgata's wisdom is called the reward-body Buddha. The ninth, the Dharmakāya, refers to the Tathāgata's wisdom in accord with the principle — what is called the dharmakāya. Thus, these all constitute the world of wisdom-awakening. The tenth, the Space-Body: like space that contains all and fuses without obstruction. The first nine bodies mutually interpenetrate, with no gap between delusion and awakening; dissolving and merging all, they directly manifest the Buddha-body. The first three bodies are the defiled aspect of the deluded realm; the middle six bodies are the pure aspect of the awakened realm; and the final Space-Body is the Buddha-body of non-duality between purity and impurity, of oneness between delusion and awakening. This is called the Ten Bodies Fusing the Threefold World, or the Ten Buddhas of Understanding.

"Understanding" (解境) means awakening comprehension and illumination of the realm. From the absolute viewpoint of the Huayan distinct-teaching One Vehicle, the dharma-realm is nothing other than the Buddha-body. Indeed, this is a realm accessible only between Buddhas; it is necessarily the realm comprehended by Buddha-wisdom.

Furthermore, with respect to the Ten Buddhas of Understanding, we speak of the response-body's virtue of recompensing through causes and vows, and of cultivating causes to bear fruit. As for the unobstructed, perfect Buddha of fruition, the Ten Buddhas of Practice are set forth⑿ (Note: Kongmu zhang, vol. 2 [Taishō 45, p. 560a]: "The Ten Buddhas of Practice, namely the Buddha without attachment, etc., are as explained in the Lijie shijie pin [離世間品, 'Chapter on Departing the World']")). In essence, they are nothing but a particular virtue within the seventh Tathāgata-body of the Ten Buddhas of Understanding.⒀ (Note: Huayan jing shuchao xutan (《華嚴經疏鈔玄談》), vol. 3 [Manji zokuzōkyō 1-8-3, p. 208b]: "The Ten Bodies are precisely the ten aspects of the seventh Tathāgata-body among the previous ten.") Śākyamuni Buddha's birth in this world and attainment of perfect enlightenment is, as an actualized Buddha, called the Ten Bodies and Ten Buddhas. In vol. 26 of the Jin Edition, within the eighth-stage section of the Ten Stages Chapter, the Ten Buddhas of Understanding are described as: Bodhisattva (Bodhi) Body, Vow-Body, Manifestation-Body, Sustaining-Body, Majestic-Marks-Body, Power-Body, Merit-Body, Wisdom-Body, and Dharma-Body — ten Buddhas.⒁ (Note: Taishō, vol. 9, p. 565b. Tang-translation Avataṃsaka Sūtra, vol. 38, Ten Stages Chapter [Taishō 10, p. 200b]. The first, Bodhisattva-Body, is the Bodhi-Body; in the Jin Edition it is also called the Bodhi-Body.)

Additionally, in vol. 37 of the Jin Edition, the Lijie shijie pin (Chapter on Departing the World) sets forth the ten Buddhas as: Right-Enlightenment Buddha, Vow-Buddha, Karmic-Recompense Buddha, Sustaining Buddha, Transformation Buddha, Dharma-Realm Buddha, Mind Buddha, Samādhi Buddha, Nature Buddha, and Wish-Fulfilling Buddha — ten Buddhas.⒂ (Note: Taishō, vol. 9, p. 634b. The Tang Edition, vol. 53 [Taishō 10, p. 282a], contains: Right-Enlightenment Buddha, Vow-Buddha, Karmic-Recompense Buddha, Sustaining Buddha, Nirvāṇa Buddha, Dharma-Realm Buddha, Mind Buddha, Samādhi Buddha, Original-Nature Buddha, and Joy-Following Buddha.) Though the order differs between these two passages, both are mutually corresponding to the Ten Buddhas of Practice.⒃ (Note: (1) Bodhisattva-Body—Right-Enlightenment Buddha; (2) Vow-Body—Vow-Buddha; (3) Manifestation-Body—Nirvāṇa Buddha; (4) Power-Sustaining Buddha—Sustaining Buddha; (5) Majestic-Marks Buddha—Karmic-Recompense Buddha; (6) Power-and-Majesty Buddha—Mind Buddha; (7) Accomplishment-of-Birth Buddha—Karma-Following Buddha; (8) Merit-Body—Samādhi Buddha; (9) Dharma-Body—Dharma-Realm Buddha; (10) Wisdom-Body—corresponds to Original-Nature Buddha.) According to Tanxuan ji, vol. 14⒄ (Note: Taishō, vol. 35, p. 363c.) and vol. 11⒅ (Note: Same, p. 424a.): First, the Bodhi-Body: the Buddha who has attained perfect enlightenment. Second, the Vow-Body: because [the Buddha] vows to be born in Tuṣita Heaven. Third, the Manifestation-Body: directly expressing the response-body and transformation-body. Fourth, the Sustaining-Body: because the relics can sustain themselves as [the Buddha's] body. Fifth, the Majestic-Marks-Body: indicating that the actual reward-body becomes the adorned body. Sixth, the Power-Body: this Buddha's light perfectly subdues sentient beings, indicating possession of great power. Seventh, the Wish-Fulfilling Body: indicating attainment of all freedom and liberation. Eighth, the Merit-Body: all [qualities] unshared [with others], capable of becoming causes of vast benefit, surpassing ordinary beings and the Hīnayāna, broadly transforming sentient beings. Ninth, the Wisdom-Body: through unobstructed wisdom, capable of accomplishing all things. Tenth, the Dharma-Body: indicating the undefiled wisdom [the Buddha] has realized.

In summary, [the Ten Bodies] are the Buddha who has attained perfect enlightenment; in detail, they unfold from the Vow-Buddha through to the Original-Nature Buddha. The Tathāgata possesses these ten bodies complete, pervades the dharma-realm universally, and is the absolute realm of mutual inclusion and interpenetration. Thus the Tiantai school speaks of the three bodies as one, centered on the dharmakāya; in contrast, Huayan takes as its center the dharmakāya of Vairocana, who fuses the threefold world and is complete with ten bodies, while factually taking the response-body (nirmāṇakāya) as its central standpoint. In the body of Śākyamuni Buddha who attained perfect enlightenment beneath the Bodhi tree, one beholds the wondrous realm of Vairocana's cloud-bodies pervading the dharma-realm. This is not merely an ideal Buddha of reason; further, through the absolute manifestation of the Samādhi of the Sea-Imprint (海印三昧), it should be said to have elevated the thought of universal theism (凡神思想). Because it is the realm of samādhi, it differs from the purport of a purely philosophical theism.

Thus, the Buddha complete with ten bodies becomes the founding teacher-Buddha of Huayan, and according to what this Buddha taught, gates of dharma are revealed in measureless layers. Therefore Fazang says: "The exposition of the ten bodies expresses the One Vehicle, taught equally through the six stages. Through this exposition, the principal and retinue are complete; because the dharma is inexhaustible, the Buddha is likewise so — the ten bodies are inexhaustible."⒆ (Note: Tanxuan ji, vol. 2 [Taishō 35, p. 130c].) Indeed, when Śākyamuni Buddha expounded the Avataṃsaka Sūtra — what is called the self-realm of the ten Buddhas — that is the Ten Buddhas of Understanding; at the same time, it is nothing other than the Ten Buddhas of Practice of perfectly fulfilled fruit-virtue⒇ (Note: Zhiyan's Yicheng shixuan men (《一乘十玄門》)[Taishō 45, p. 514c] exclusively takes the Ten Buddhas of Practice spoken in the Lijie shijie pin as the founding teacher-Buddha; therefore, it is nothing but a statement made from the standpoint of pairing cause and effect.). Since the so-called ten bodies fundamentally differ in meaning from the usual three bodies, this is the doctrinal standpoint of the Xianshou (賢首) tradition.

Yet in Zhiyan's Souxuan ji, vol. 4, it is said: "Among the ten Buddhas, the first three are the Reward-body Buddha, the next three are the Transformation-body Buddha, and the last four are the Dharma-body Buddha."２１ (Note: Taishō, vol. 35, p. 83b.) This is merely a matter of grouping the ten bodies and three bodies differently. To dismiss [the deeper meaning] so lightly may perhaps be a provisional device from the school's earliest stage, when teaching had not yet fully developed. Later, in Chengguan's Huayan jing shuchao xutan, vol. 3２２ (Note: Manji zokuzōkyō 1-8-3, p. 211a.), the ten bodies are paired with the three bodies, and on the basis of the ten bodies fusing the threefold world, each of the ten bodies is explained as pervading the three bodies. This too is a pedagogic strategy centered on cultivation, intended to facilitate comprehension. The preliminary pairing of three bodies with ten bodies does not contravene the fundamental purport of Xianshou's teaching.

Therefore, in conclusion, examining the traditional Vairocana Ten-Body doctrine through the lens of the history of thought, regarding how the thought of Vairocana in the Huayan scriptures came to emerge, one explanation must be mentioned. As discussed under the formation of the scriptures, the compilation of the large Avataṃsaka Sūtra can be conjecturally dated to around the mid-fourth century CE. Among its parts, the opening assembly's chapters form the sūtra's introduction (序分). In the passages added at the very end, a brilliant radiance is described throughout, expressing the scene of the Buddha's enlightenment-realm with joy and aspiration — a symbolism most fitting for radiance. If Vairocana (VAIROCANA) is correctly translated as "Pervading-Illumination" or "Universal Radiance," then the introductory description of the sūtra expounded by this Buddha faithfully embodies the Buddha's name and connects with the intent of the compilers — an exquisitely deliberate design. Since Vairocana thought nowhere appears so overtly in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra except in the introductory portions, it is natural that the sūtra's pre-textual introduction became the climax of Vairocana thought in order to display the content of Vairocana's enlightenment. Conversely, from a history-of-thought perspective, Vairocana thought must have been established at the latest stage of the scripture's formation.

With the establishment of Vairocana thought as the guiding thread, on the one hand there was the influence of the Lotus One-Vehicle thought grounded in the true suchness of all dharmas; at the same time, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which expounded that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, appeared. Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, which expounds the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine that sentient beings, though bound by afflictions, innately possess Buddha-nature, came into being; and further, through Tathāgatagarbha, [the doctrine of] consciousnesses arising within the sea of birth-and-death was discerned, leading to the formation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. After Nāgārjuna, the Yogācāra-centered Buddhism of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu arose, eventually becoming the foundation of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism's development.

Moreover, the Ten Buddhas of Understanding spoken in the Ten Stages Chapter, once connected to the Vairocana thought appearing from the scripture's beginning, makes the character of the teacher-Buddha clearly evident. However, the Ten Buddhas of Practice spoken in the Lijie shijie pin offer a detailed exposition of the ten [qualities] of the Tathāgata-body based on the Ten Stages Chapter, with other elements set aside; the names of the Hīnayāna are also eliminated, and through pedagogical systematization the doctrines of the Ten Bodies of Understanding and the Ten Buddhas of Practice were thereby established.

In vol. 39 of the Zhenyuan Edition (《貞元經》), within Samantabhadra Bodhisattva's realm of spiritual powers, the name of Vairocana Tathāgata appears２３ (Note: Taishō, vol. 10, p. 840a.), corresponding to vol. 80 of the Tang Edition２４ (Note: Same, p. 439c.), and should be regarded as a new image. In the Chapter on Names (〈名號品〉), it appears as a revelation under a different name of Śākyamuni２５ (Note: Taishō, vol. 9, p. 419c.). However, that name does not appear in the originally independent Dousha jing (《兜沙經》) of the Chapter on Names. And although the name appears in the Chapter on Names, its content is not fundamentally addressed. This indicates that Vairocana Buddha thought developed in the later period of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra — a datum that can serve as supporting evidence. By the era of the Brahmajāla Sūtra (《梵網經》), which inherited the Vairocana thought of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra while also following the general convention of Mahāyāna scriptures, the form in which the original Buddha Vairocana directly teaches the dharma clearly reached its mature expression. Within the Huayan teaching tradition, through these traces of doctrinal historical development, it was determined that the teacher-Buddha is the dharmakāya, possessing the ten bodies of Vairocana and fusing the threefold world — thereby expounding the transcendent position of the distinct-teaching One Vehicle.

The great Buddha Vairocana Tathāgata at Tōdai-ji in Nara, Japan — magnificent and vast in its sculpted circumambulation — was intended by its makers to symbolize the characteristic of Vairocana, who pervades the dharma-realm and merges the dharma-cloud of the threefold world. Therefore, the sound of water and the songs of birds are nothing other than the Buddha's teaching. Naturally, this demonstrates the grandeur and vastness of the Huayan conception of the Buddha-body.

2. The Manifestation of the Buddha-Land

The Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra is a scripture that directly reveals the truth of the dharma-realm and expounds the teaching of Buddhahood. As noted above, however, the Buddha-body must be understood in terms of the non-duality of the supporting environment (依) and the supported body (正)—the body itself is the land. This shows that the Avataṃsaka Sūtra depicts Buddha-lands in infinitely layered, interpenetrating expanses. "Huayan" is interpreted as "adorned with manifold flowers," and that which is adorned with manifold flowers is, in the end, nothing other than the Lotus Treasury World. The 〈Ten Grounds Chapter〉 (十地品), central to this sutra, culminates in the tenth stage, the Dharma-Cloud Ground (法云地), which unfolds the final wisdom-realm of the bodhisattva: "manifesting the body of the Tathāgata,"¹ hence the name "Dharma-Cloud Ground." The Tathāgata-body spoken of here is the Lotus Treasury World as wisdom-realm. The 〈World's Pure Eyes Chapter〉 (世间净眼品), which serves as the opening chapter of the sutra in the first assembly, together with the following 〈Vairocana Chapter〉 (卢舍那品), both illuminate Vairocana. The Tang Recension (唐经) treats the first chapter, 〈Lords of the World, Wondrously Adorned〉 (世主妙严品), as concerning Vairocana alone, dividing it into five chapters: 〈Tathāgata's Manifestation〉 (如来现相品), 〈Samantabhadra's Samādhi〉 (普贤三昧品), 〈World Accomplishment〉 (世界成就品), 〈Flower Treasury World〉 (华藏世界品), and 〈Vairocana〉 (毗卢遮那品). Because of this rearrangement, the corresponding content differs somewhat, but these aren't necessarily strict distinctions, and there's no need to insist on them. In sum, this chapter fully depicts the scene of the Buddha teaching at the site of quiescent extinction (寂灭道场)—which is itself, in that very moment, the Lotus Treasury World. With Vairocana at the center, bodhisattvas and celestial beings gather from the ten directions, praising in verse the vast, infinitely layered magnificence of the Lotus Treasury World.

In the 〈World's Pure Eyes Chapter〉, when Śākyamuni attains perfect enlightenment, every single thing in the universe—even a mote of dust or a blade of grass—receives infinite life and power, and all things harmonize with one another in a great chorus of celebration. Next, the 〈Vairocana Chapter〉 describes the land where the Buddha dwells. Surrounding the Lotus Treasury are ten kinds of worlds, each containing its own Buddha-worlds; the Buddhas of those lands arrive at the assembly with countless hosts of sages. Then Samantabhadra expounds on the Lotus Treasury World, the Buddha's abode. This world was established through Vairocana Buddha's cultivation in ages past and is upheld by wind-wheels as numerous as dust motes. The lowest is called the Wheel of Equality (风轮平等), the highest the Victorious Treasury (胜藏); above them lies an ocean of fragrant water. Within this fragrant-water ocean, a great lotus supports the Lotus Treasury World. It is encircled by Vajra Mountains, and across its vast terrain lie countless fragrant-water oceans, each fed by rivers as numerous as dust motes and canopied with jeweled flowers. From each fragrant-water ocean a lotus springs forth, and upon each lotus rests a Buddha-world. Layer upon layer, countless Buddha-worlds overlap in succession. Above them lies yet another fragrant-water ocean, containing a world called Well-Abiding (善住). Thus fragrant-water oceans and worlds interweave and overlap, layer by layer—and so the structure of this cosmos comes into being. The same pattern holds in all ten directions, and all turn the wheel of Vairocana Buddha's teaching in unison. These networks of worlds are explained through ten topics that illuminate the meaning of the Ocean of Worlds (世界海).² The descriptions of the Lotus Treasury World—how vast and majestic they are—can never be fully exhausted in words. Samantabhadra goes on to recount the Buddha's past causal deeds. One can only marvel at the sheer imaginative grandeur of it all! This land embodies the Huayan principle of a world complete with principal and retinue. It is a realm of Indra's Net (因陀罗网), infinitely layered and interpenetrating, embracing every Buddha-land within it. The site of quiescent extinction beneath the Bodhi tree is none other than this world of manifold jeweled adornments.

After completing the 〈Vairocana Chapter〉's account of the Lotus Treasury World's structure, Samantabhadra goes on to narrate Vairocana Buddha's past causal deeds, telling the story of the youth Universal Adornment (普庄严童子), prince of the City of Blazing Light. The boy's father, King Loving Sight of Bodhi Wisdom (爱见菩慧王), came with countless kings, ministers, and attendants to revere the Buddha named All-Merit, Supreme Mount Sumeru Cloud (一切功德本胜须弥山云佛). They made various offerings, heard the Buddha expound countless sutras, and received the prophecy that the youth would attain Buddhahood. In his next life, he venerated the Buddha named All-Liberating, Beyond Stasis, Pure Eye King (一切度离凝清净眼王佛), attaining the Samādhi of Buddha-Recollection (念佛三昧), the Samādhi of the Universal Gate Ocean Treasury (普门海藏三昧), and the Samādhi of Profound Dharma-Joy (甚深法乐三昧). He further heard this Buddha preach the Sūtra of the Self-Nature of the Entire Dharma-Realm, Adorned Beyond Stain (一切法界自性离垢庄严经), thereby attaining the Samādhi of Universal-Gate Joy Treasury (一切普门欢喜藏三昧) and realizing the truth.

One thing worth noting is that the structure of the Lotus Treasury World as presented in the sutra can only be glimpsed through metaphor; each network of worlds is conveyed in symbolic terms. The sequence of space, wind, water, and earth—manifested through the four wheels described above—represents the four great wisdoms of integration, discrimination, protection, and decisive realization. Jeweled garlands symbolize the great vows; every ornament expresses the Tathāgata's unobstructed wisdom. Yet these analogies are not merely illustrative—they reveal the dharma itself. This is the hallmark of symbolic philosophy: in the metaphor, the dharma is directly present. The Lotus Treasury World, where Vairocana—complete with the ten bodies—dwells, is recorded as it appears to "those who enter through realization" (证人入).

Here, in the Kongmu Zhang (孔目章), Chapter One,³ the Wujiao Zhang (五教章), Chapter Three,⁴ and the Tanxuan Ji (探玄记), Chapter Three,⁵ it is stated that beyond the Lotus Treasury World, the pure land perceived by "those born of understanding and practice" (解行生) is shown as the Ten Abodes World (十住世界), while the Buddha-land perceived by "those born of hearing and seeing" (见闻生) is described as the Miscellaneous Worlds (杂类世界). The Ten Abodes World consists of: World of Essential Nature, World of Ocean, World of Wheel, World of Perfection, World of Discrimination, World of Rotation, World of Turning, World of Lotus, World of Sumeru, and World of Characteristics—corresponding to the stages of bodhisattvas of the ten grounds. The Miscellaneous Worlds are the myriad heterogeneous worlds that fill the dharma-realm, mutually unobstructed. All three classes are lands embraced and transformed by Vairocana Buddha, complete with the ten bodies. The Lotus Treasury World is the root; the other two are its branches. Root and branches aren't separate entities—the differences arise only from the relative refinement or coarseness of perception. In essence, they are the same world.

These three classes of worlds are collectively called the Ocean of Worlds. This is taught from the standpoint of causal conditions, yet the Buddha's pure land can truly be known only by Buddha and Buddha alone. Those still on the causal path cannot possibly fathom it. Its transcendence is declared in the Jin Recension (晋经), Volume Four, 〈Tathāgata Names Chapter〉 (如来名号品): "Buddha-lands are inconceivable."⁶ Mañjuśrī, empowered by the Buddha's spiritual force, praises the self-realm of the ultimate ten Buddhas. The ocean of fruit-realization (果海) attained by the Buddha is ineffable. In contrast, the Ocean of Worlds mentioned earlier—expressible from the causal standpoint—is called the Ocean of Lands (国土海). Since the very name "Ocean of Lands" is coined in the language of those on the causal path, it is inevitably limited. Yet through that name, one transcends the name itself, and simply beholds the land as inconceivable. The Lotus Treasury World, expressible in causal terms, doesn't exist apart from the ineffable Ocean of Lands of the fruit-aspect. Because the Buddha-body is marked by mutual identity and interpenetration, perfectly free and harmonious, the Buddha-land likewise interpenetrates in infinitely layered fashion. This is altogether different from the usual understanding of the Buddha-lands of the three bodies. It is the distinctive character of Huayan teaching as manifested in its doctrine of Buddha-lands.

---

Translator's Afterword

In the early autumn of the twenty-eighth year of the Republic, when I was still a thirteen-year-old boy, I followed my grandmother's compassionate instruction and left home to enter monastic life at Fahua An (法华庵), a small temple about eight li northwest of Rugao County in Jiangsu Province. There I shaved my head under Master Zhiming (智明上人). By Buddhist convention, a master must give a dharma-name to a newly ordained disciple. At the suggestion of my grand-master, Elder Qingquan (清诠老人), I was sent to our ancestral monastery, Dinghui Temple (定慧寺) in the city, to request Elder Chuanzhen (传真长老) to bestow a dharma-name. Dinghui Temple belongs to the Linji lineage; according to the lineage verse, I fell under the "Yin" (印) character generation of "Weichuan Fayan" (惟传法印). Elder Chuanzhen gave me the dharma-name "Yinhai" (印海) and the style-name "Yuanxiu" (圆修). That is how I received my dharma-name—and why, back in the countryside, people knew me only as "Yuanxiu."

I spent eight years at Fahua An, leading the arduous early life of a monk: farming, reading sutras, performing rituals. At twenty-one—in the spring of the thirty-sixth year of the Republic—with my grand-master's kind permission and having scraped together enough for precept fees and travel, I made my way south to Longtan Town near Nanjing. There, at Longchang Monastery (隆昌寺) on Mount Baohua—the foremost Vinaya monastery in the nation—I received the full precepts. The precept masters at the ordination platform used only dharma-names, never style-names, so no one knew me as "Yuanxiu." People simply called me "Yinhai," and that name has stayed with me ever since.

I've often reflected on the meaning of my dharma-name from many angles. The character "Yin" (印) comes down through the Linji lineage, while "Hai" (海) must have been Elder Chuanzhen's own addition. If you want a scriptural basis for it, you have to look to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Śākyamuni expounded the Great Avataṃsaka while abiding in the great concentration called Ocean Seal Samādhi (海印三昧). The two characters are reversed—"Ocean Seal" versus "Seal Ocean"—but surely there must be some connection!

I remember the spring of the thirty-ninth year of the Republic. Shandao Temple in Taipei was hosting the nation's first Renwang Protection-of-the-State Dharma Assembly (仁王护国法会), organized by eminent Buddhist figures including Master Daxing (大醒法师), Grand Master Zhangjia (章嘉大师), and laymen Ju Zheng (居正) and Li Zikuan (李子宽). They invited several young monks from Yuanguang Temple in Zhongli to participate in the sutra recitation. After the seven-day assembly concluded, our little group felt that the event had been extraordinary—a rare and precious occasion. Each of us bought a commemorative booklet and asked several senior monks and laypeople to inscribe a few words of encouragement. Layman Li Zikuan, inspired by my name, wrote four characters: "Haiyin Faguang" (海印发光)—"The Ocean Seal Radiates Light." At the time, he said to me, "This is the Huayan realm." I didn't fully grasp what he meant, but from that moment on, a desire to investigate the meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra took root in me.

My reverence for and interest in Huayan studies, beyond that slender connection with my name, was chiefly inspired by three modern Buddhist teachers who guided and encouraged me. They were: Bodhisattva Cihang (慈航菩萨), who first opened my mind; Master Yinshun (印顺导师), who opened my eye of wisdom; and Master Xuming (续明法师), who gave me the chance to actually study and teach Huayan. Around the fortieth year of the Republic, while I was studying under Bodhisattva Cihang at Mile Neiyuan (弥勒内院) in Xizhi, he lectured not only on Consciousness-Only and the Śūraṅgama Sūtra but also on a work called Collected Annotations on the Doctrinal Significance of the One Vehicle of the Avataṃsaka (《华严一乘教义章集解》). This was a commentary by Master Aiting (霭亭法师) of Zhulin Temple on Jia Mountain in Jiangsu. When I listened to Elder Ci's lectures on this Collected Annotations, my state of mind was exactly as the elder Renshan described in his preface: "The various commentaries on the 〈Chapter on Doctrinal Distinctions〉 are either too verbose or too terse, leaving beginners bewildered and unable to grasp the essentials—it troubled me deeply." I was that beginner, and I "could not grasp the essentials"—so how could my heart not be troubled? The ocean of Huayan meaning is deep, vast, and unfathomable! Still, from that point on, I had a preliminary foothold in Huayan studies.

Later, when I went to Fuyan Vihara (福严精舍) in Hsinchu to study under Master Yinshun, he gave us several talks on the "Essentials of the Avataṃsaka." At the time, his frequent trips abroad (to the Philippines) for dharma propagation and his heavy responsibilities at Shandao Temple prevented him from delving deeply into the sutra's profound and wondrous meanings. Yet his grasp of the Avataṃsaka was remarkable for both its depth and breadth. Hearing his lucid explanations deepened my understanding considerably.

The one I am most grateful to is Master Xuming—a man of outstanding virtue and scholarship who, sadly, passed away before fulfilling his aspirations. Though he never lectured me on the Avataṃsaka directly, he gave me the opportunity to teach it. In the forty-eighth year of the Republic, he established Lingyin Buddhist Academy (灵隐佛学院) at Lingyin Temple (灵隐寺) in Hsinchu. In its second year, he invited me to lecture the monks on the Primer on the Five Teachings of Xianshou (《贤首五教仪开蒙》), an introductory Huayan text by the Qing Dynasty master Xufa (续法法师) of Ciyun Temple in Hangzhou. I consulted the Primer on the Five Teachings of Xianshou, with Expanded Annotations (《贤首五教仪开蒙增注》, three volumes) published by the Taiwan Scripture Publication Office. This work was annotated by Master Tongli (通理法师), a descendant in the lineage of Master Xufa, and still conveyed the profound principles of Huayan quite capably. I taught through the entire book over four semesters across two academic years. The students varied widely in age and Buddhist knowledge, and I can't say how much each of them absorbed. But I myself spent countless hours in deep study and investigation. Through the process of teaching and learning together, I came to a much richer understanding of the gradual and sudden, shallow and deep layers of Buddhist doctrine, and of the provisional and definitive distinctions in doctrinal classification. In the early issues of the monthly Haichao Yin (《海潮音》), I published an article titled "The Problem of Buddha-Nature" (〈佛性之问题〉), which drew on the chapter 〈Clarifying the Buddha's Seed-Nature〉 (〈明佛种性〉) from that book.

Around that time, wanting to read more reference works related to the Primer, I learned from the late layman Yang Baiyi (杨白衣居士) that Yuanguang Temple (元光寺) on Lion Mountain (狮山) in Zhunan had a copy of the Subcommentary on the Doctrinal Significance of Xianshou's Five Teachings (《贤首五教义科注》)—the full-length version, of which the Primer was an abridgment. It ran to twenty volumes, also by the Qing Dynasty master Xufa. Thanks to Yang Baiyi's enthusiasm, I hopped on the back of his motorcycle that very evening and rode through the night to Lion Mountain. But when we arrived, the abbot told us: "Master Huixing (会性法师) has already taken it south with him." We had traveled in high spirits and came back empty-handed. It was only a dozen years later, when that book had become a genuine rarity, that the American layman Shen Jiazhen (沈家祯居士) made the noble resolve to fund a photo-offset reprint in Taiwan, arranged through layman Zhu Fei (朱斐居士) of Taichung. He kindly sent me a copy. Since the book had been so hard to come by, I treasured it as if it were a priceless jewel, and my gratitude was boundless. It truly is an indispensable reference for anyone studying the Huayan school. I don't know whether the Bodhi Tree Magazine (菩提树杂志社) in Taichung still carries it.

Twelve years ago, I came from Taiwan to America to teach the dharma and founded Fayan Temple (法印寺). Early on, I gave a lecture series on the 〈Pure Conduct Chapter〉 (净行品) of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Through all those years of listening and teaching, I gradually gained some understanding and appreciation of the great Huayan teaching. Only then did I find the courage to undertake the translation of this "difficult" Huayan Studies (《华严学》). Of course, upon completing the book, I must first remember the source of the stream and express my deepest gratitude to the three modern Buddhist teachers named above, whose guidance and encouragement—whether direct or indirect—nourished me with the milk of the dharma.

This book is divided into ten chapters. Perhaps the author, in the spirit of the Huayan tradition, adopted the framework of the "Ten Profound Meanings" (十重玄义) to express the sense of infinitely layered interpenetration. He draws on relevant Huayan sutras and treatises in both Chinese and Japanese. Through careful reference, citation, and synthesis, he sketches the profound meanings and wondrous principles of Huayan studies. He honors the doctrinal positions established by the patriarchs and preserves the depth of tradition, yet he also "independently sustains the creative vitality of his own scholarship, deepening his inquiry through critical examination of ideas." His hope, throughout, is to make the "difficult" meanings of Huayan accessible and acceptable to ordinary readers. This is the sacred duty and great aspiration of anyone devoted to the study of Buddhist doctrine. His scholarly rigor and painstaking dedication are well worth emulating for all of us today who are engaged in spreading the dharma.

For the timely publication of this book, the greatest credit goes to layman Hong Quanren (洪全忍居士), who diligently proofread and polished the manuscript. He and his gracious wife had come to America to visit family for a little over two years. During the final year-plus, they moved from the East Coast to Monterey Park, to the home of their third daughter, laywoman Hong Mingshu (洪明淑居士)—which gave him the opportunity to serve the Three Jewels in person. Throughout that year and more, every morning at ten o'clock sharp, he would walk to Fayan Temple, settle quietly in the courtyard behind the main hall, and carefully review the draft manuscript. At noon he would go home for lunch—not once did he break this routine. Sometimes he'd find spare moments at home to make corrections as well. For every Buddhist technical term or point of phrasing, the two of us would discuss at length before reaching a final decision. Even for Chapters Nine and Ten, which he and his wife couldn't finish before returning to Taiwan for the Spring Festival, he took the manuscript back and completed the revisions there. Right after arriving in Taiwan, amid the chaos of settling back in, he promptly finished the work so that this arduous project could be completed as early as possible. His conscientiousness, his sincerity and dependability, his tireless dedication to the dharma—these I will never forget, and for them I am grateful from the bottom of my heart.

Finally, I must thank Master Chengyi (成一法师), whose lifelong mission has been to propagate the Great Avataṃsaka Sūtra, for graciously contributing the preface. In it, he lists all the important reference works for studying the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, providing a reliable guide for those who wish to pursue Huayan studies. He also discusses the sutra's exalted position and value within the entirety of Śākyamuni's teaching, approached from the twin perspectives of "religion" and "philosophy." I am grateful as well to layman Weng Quan (翁权居士) for inscribing the book title, and to all the devoted sponsors whose generosity made the printing possible. Through the coming together of these conditions, the merit of bringing this Chinese-language Huayan Studies into circulation has been accomplished. May this supreme merit be dedicated: "May all beings of the four births and nine realms of existence ascend together the profound gate of the Flower Treasury; may all those in the eight difficulties and three evil paths enter together the dharma-nature ocean of Vairocana."

April 4, 1988, recorded at Zhizu Hermitage (知足兰若), Rosemead, Southern California, USA

---

(Excerpted from Huayan Studies by Kamegawa Kyōshin (龟川教信), translated by Śramaṇa Yinhai (释印海), published by Wuliangshou Publishing House.)