Zongmi on Chan

ALSO ENTITLED: COLLECTION OF EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE OF DHYANA¹

Explanation of the title: The Chan Canon contains transcriptions of the sayings of the Chan houses on the principles of Chan.

1. The Collection of Expressions of the Chan Source transcribes the written words and lines of verse³ that have been related by the [Chan] houses and that express the principles of the Chan-gate source. Collected into one basket, they will be a legacy for later generations. Therefore, I have used this terminology for the chief title. “Dhyana” is a Sanskrit term. The full form of the Chinese transliteration is “channa.” The Chinese translation is “siweixiu [thinking practice]” or “jinglü [quieting thoughts].” The two translations refer to both concentration [samadhi] and wisdom [prajna]. The source is the original awakening or true nature of all sentient beings. It is also called the buddha nature or mind ground. To awaken to it is called wisdom; to practice it is called concentration. Concentration and wisdom together are referred to as “Chan.” Because this nature is the original source of Chan, I have also used the phrase “Chan Source.” I have used the phrase “Principle and Practice of Dhyana” [in my subtitle]. This original source is the principle of Chan, and forgetting feelings and coinciding with this is Chan practice. That is the reason for the phrase “Principle and Practice.” However, the writings of the various houses herein collected speak mostly of the principle of Chan, while saying little of the practice of Chan. This is the reason I have used the phrase “Chan Source” in my title.

Some mistaken Chan adepts unfortunately hold to the view that the true nature is Chan, but the true nature is more than that. It is the source of all dharmas.

2. Today, there are those who just declare that the true nature is Chan.⁴ They do not comprehend the purport of principle and practice and misunderstand both the Chinese and Sanskrit terms. It is not that a Chan entity exists separately from the true nature. It is merely that, when a sentient being loses the real and embraces sense objects, we say that it is a state of distraction, and, when there is rejection of sense objects and fusion with the real, we say it is a state of dhyana and concentration. If I were to speak directly of the original nature, [I would have to say that] it is neither real nor unreal, that neither rejecting nor fusing exists, that neither concentration nor distraction exists. [Were I to do this,] who would then speak about Chan? This true nature is not merely the source of the Chan gate, but the source of all dharmas as well, and thus it is called the dharma nature. Because it is also the source of delusion and awakening in sentient beings, we call it the buddha-in-embryo [tathagatagarbha] or storehouse consciousness (from the Lanka Descent Sutra). Because it is the source of all the attributes of the buddhas, it is also called the buddha nature (the Nirvana Sutra and others). It is the source of all the practices of the bodhisattvas, and, for this reason, it is called the mind ground. (In the “Chapter on the Dharma Gate of the Mind Ground” of the Brahma Net Sutra it says: “This is the original source of all the buddhas, the basis of the bodhisattva path, the basis of the great assembly of all the buddha sons.”)⁵ The myriad practices are no more that the six perfections [of giving, morality, forbearance, striving, dhyana, and prajna], while the Chan gate is merely one of these six, namely, the fifth. How can these people declare that the true nature is just the practice of dhyana?

3. Thus, the one practice of dhyana is most divine and excellent. It has the potential to produce from the nature wisdom that is without the outflows [of desire, existence, ignorance, and views]. All the excellent activities, practices, and attributes of a buddha, even to the superknowledges [such as the divine organ of sight, divine organ of hearing, etc.] and rays of light, derive from concentration. For this reason, those training in the three vehicles [of the hearer, private buddha, and bodhisattva] who wish to seek the path of the noble ones must practice dhyana. Apart from dhyana there is no gate, in the absence of dhyana no road. Even those who simply seek rebirth into a pure land through buddha-recitation cultivate the sixteen viewing dhyanas, the buddha-recitation concentration [samadhi], and the engendered concentration.⁶

4. The true nature is neither stained nor pure, neither common nor noble. Within dhyana, however, there are different grades, ranging from the shallow to the deep. To hold deviant views and practice because one joyfully anticipates rebirth in a heaven and is weary of the present world is outsider dhyana.⁷ Correctly to have confidence in karmic cause and effect and likewise practice because one joyfully anticipates rebirth into a heaven and is weary of the present world is common-person dhyana. To awaken to the incomplete truth of voidness of self and then practice is inferior-vehicle dhyana. To awaken to the true principle of the dual voidness of self and dharmas and then to practice is great-vehicle dhyana. (All four of the above types show such distinctions as the four [dhyanas of the realm of] form and the four [concentrations of the] formless [realm].) If one’s practice is based on having all-at-once awakened to the realization that one’s own mind is from the outset pure, that the depravities have never existed, that the nature of the wisdom without outflows is from the outset complete, that this mind is buddha, that they are ultimately without difference, then it is dhyana of the highest vehicle. This type is also known by such names as tathagata-purity dhyana, the one-practice concentration, and the thusness concentration. It is the basis of all concentrations. If one can practice it from moment to moment, one will naturally and gradually attain the myriad concentrations. This is precisely the dhyana that has been transmitted down from Bodhidharma. Before Bodhidharma arrived, all of the scholars from early times had understood only the four dhyanas [of the realm of form] and the eight concentrations [that is, those four plus the four formless concentrations of the formless realm]. Various illustrious monks had effectively practiced them, and they had all obtained results. Nanyue [Huisi] and Tiantai [Zhiyi] relied upon the principle of the three truths to practice the three tranquilizations and three viewings.⁸ Although the principles of their teachings are most perfect, their entrance gate is step-by-step. It also involves the type of dhyana mentioned above. It is only in the transmission from Bodhidharma that the practitioner all-at-once identifies with buddha substance. This is like no other gate.

Because in the later Bodhidharma tradition one master transmitted to more than one disciple by handing over some sort of sacred regalia as proof of transmission, there arose a bewildering plethora of torch illuminations. A degeneration in the quality of some Chan adepts ensued. This is why textual scholars grew very critical of Chan.

5. Therefore, those who practice in the [Bodhidharma] lineage find it difficult to apprehend its purport. If they do apprehend it, they become noble ones and quickly realize awakening. If they miss it, then they become common persons, slipping quickly into muddy water and raging fire. The early patriarchs [in the Bodhidharma lineage] reined in those who were still in the dark and excluded those who missed it, and so they transmitted to [just] one person. In later generations, there was something taken as a standard⁹ [of proof for Chan transmission], and so this allowed thousands of [Chan] torches, thousands of [Chan] illuminations. Eventually the dharma was subject to malpractice, and mistaken people grew numerous. This is why there is widespread doubts and criticism [of Chan] on the part of sutra and treatise scholars.

At present scholars are extremist in stressing the step-by-step teaching, and Chan adepts are extremist in championing the all-at-once gate. I will prove that the words of the Chan masters tally with the intention of the Buddha found in the canonical texts.

6. Originally, the Buddha spoke both the all-at-once teaching and the step-by-step teaching, while Chan opens both the all-at-once gate and the step-by-step gate. The two teachings and the two gates fit together like the notches of a tally. At present, exegetes in a biased manner display the step-by-step principles, and Chan adepts in a biased manner encourage the all-at-once axiom. When a Chan adept and an exegete meet, the distance between them is that between a Central Asian barbarian and a barbarian from the South. I, Zongmi, do not know what they have done in past births to perfume their minds in this way. Having not yet liberated themselves, they desire to release the bonds of others. For the sake of the dharma, they disregard their own health. Pitying others, they cut off their own divine feelings. (It is well known that the Vimalakīrti says: “No one who is himself in bondage can release the bonds of others.”¹⁰ Thus, if they desire to stop what they are doing but cannot do so, it must be because habit [energy] from past lives is difficult to change.) I always lament discrepancies between people and the dharma, when the dharma becomes a disease for people. Therefore, I have selected passages from the sutras, the rules of discipline [vinaya], the treatises, and the commentaries, and have opened widely the gate of precepts, concentration, and wisdom. I will show that all-at-once awakening is enriched by step-by-step practice and will prove that what the [Chan] masters say tallies with the intention of the Buddha. Even though that intention is manifest throughout [the entire canon], the texts are extensive and difficult to examine. Though careless scholars are numerous, determined ones are rare. Passing through terms and characteristics, who can distinguish gold from brass? Followers weary of the labor before they find that to which their disposition is receptive. Even though the Buddha said that increasing compassion is practice, I worried that my progress was being blocked by desiring views and discarded the multitude to enter the mountains. There I practiced making concentration equal to wisdom. My earlier and later sojourns of practicing the quieting of thoughts total a decade.¹¹ (By earlier and later sojourns I refer to the fact that, during [my stay in the mountains], I was summoned by imperial edict to the court and lived within the city for two years. I then requested permission to return to the mountains.) The rising and falling of subtle, fine habit-energy feelings are shown in dhyana and wisdom. Lines of different principles of the teachings appear in the void mind. When a ray of the sun streams through a crack, it shows the disturbance of the dust. At the bottom of a serene body of water images are reflected clearly. How can I reconcile stupid Chan adepts who in voidness cling to quietism and crazy devotees of wisdom who just wallow in the texts? Because I have come to an understanding of my own mind and have a grasp of the teachings, I have cordial feelings for the [Chan] mind axiom. On the other hand, because I have a grasp of the teachings and have come to understand cultivation of mind, I am prudent about sincerity towards the principles of the teachings.

The sutras are prolix and oriented to all types of beings. Chan texts are an abridgement oriented to the Chinese temperament. Chan goes right to the heart of the matter and is readily accessible.

7. The teachings are the sutras and treatises left behind by the buddhas and bodhisattvas. Chan is the lines of verse related by the various good friends [on the path]. The buddha sutras open outward, catching the thousands of the beings of the eight classes,¹² while Chan verses scoop up an abridgment, being oriented to one type of disposition found in this land [of China].¹³ [The teachings,] which catch [the thousands of] beings [of the eight classes], are broad and vast, and hence it is difficult to rely upon them. [Chan,] which is oriented to dispositions, points to the bull’s-eye and hence is easy to use. Herein rests my intention in making the present compilation.

Question: You stated that Chan texts are a succinct abridgement. Nevertheless, they must be comprehensive. Sutras have a standard, comprehensive vocabulary: dharma and principles; cause and effect; faith and understanding; practice and realization. But the texts in your Chan Canon are mostly question upon question in which some questions stand and others are negated, there being no discernible order to it. How can you call that a succinct statement of Buddhist teachings?

Answer: Since the sutras are a foundation for generations, they, of course, must be comprehensive. But Chan instruction is geared to bringing people to liberation right now, and this liberation involves forgetting words. The answers given by Chan masters that you find in Chan dialogues are simply responses to the dispositions of particular students at the time in question.

8. Question: You said [that Chan verses] scoop up an abridgment. Even if the [Chan] texts are simple and concise, the principles [therein] must be comprehensive and complete. It is axiomatic that [Chan] texts should scoop up many principles within a small amount of text. The sutras of buddha word all include [such terms as] “dharma” (dharma substance), “principles” (doctrinal principles), “causes” (the three worthies, ten stages, thirty-seven parts of the path, and ten perfections),¹⁴ “effects” (the qualities and functions of a buddha), “faith” (faith in the dharma), “understanding” (understanding principles), “practice” (passage through the stages cultivating causes), and “realization” (realizing effect). Even though the locations and modes of discourse are different [for each of these sutras], in the teachings that they set up they all possess this [terminology]. Thus, in every assembly and every stage of the Huayan the worlds of the ten directions are spoken of in this vocabulary.¹⁵ [But] as I now browse through the collected Chan writings of the various houses, [I find that] most of them are [cast in the form of] an unrelenting succession of questions [asked of the preceptor by a disciple, which are either] abruptly affirmed or abruptly repudiated [by the preceptor].¹⁶ There is no order to it. I see no beginning and end. How can you call that a scooped-up abridgment of the buddha teachings?

Answer: A buddha’s appearing in the world and setting up the teachings [that is, the sutras] and the [Chan] masters’ crossing people over [to nirvana] according to the place differ in the manner of substance and phenomena. The Buddha teachings are a support for ten thousand generations, and it is axiomatic that they must be comprehensive. The instructions of the [Chan] masters lie in liberation in the here and now. The intention [of the Chan masters] is to enable people to realize dark understanding, and dark understanding necessarily entails forgetting words.¹⁷ Therefore, if all at once [the Chan trainee] does not retain any traces, the traces are cut off at his mind ground, and principle appears at his mind source, then faith, understanding, practice, and realization are not acted upon, and yet they are spontaneously achieved. The sutras, rules of discipline [vinaya], treatises, and commentaries are not rehearsed, and yet they are spontaneously understood in a mysterious way. Thus, if someone asks about cultivating the path, [Chan preceptors] respond: “No cultivation.” If someone asks about seeking liberation, they answer with the question: “Who is bound?” If someone asks about the road to becoming a buddha, they say: “From the outset no common person.” If someone asks about quieting mind on the verge of death, they reply: “From the outset nothing to do.” Some even say: “This is the unreal. This is the real. Exert yourself in this manner. Stop karma in this manner.” Essentially speaking, [these Chan dialogues] are just things in accordance with the present time, a response to the dispositions [of sentient beings] of the present time. How could there be a real dharma called unexcelled, perfect awakening? How could there be a real practice called great wisdom? Just to attain [the state wherein] feelings have nothing to think about, ideation has nothing to do, mind has nothing that arises, and wisdom has no place to abide, is real faith, real understanding, real practice, and real realization. If a seeker of the buddha path merely grasps at the terms in the teachings without understanding his own mind, then he will come to know the written words and [be able to] read the sutras, but never realize awakening. He will wear down the texts in explaining their principles, but kindle only passion, hatred, and false views. [The Buddha’s disciple] Ānanda heard everything the Buddha said and held it in his memory but grew old without ascending to the fruit of a noble one.¹⁸ If you stop objective supports and return to illumination, after a short time, you will realize non-arising. Then you will know that there is a reason behind each of the bequeathed teachings and each of the approaches to crossing people over [to nirvana]. You should not place the blame on the written words.

The Chan Canon serves two audiences. Those currently in training can use it in their own practice, and those aspiring to become teaching masters can use it to increase their repertoire of teaching devices for dialogues with trainees. The Chan Canon is geared not only to the Chan enterprise of forgetting words; it contains the canonical teachings as well.

9. Question: Since the important thing is to get the idea and not to value specialization in the texts, what is the need for you to compile all these [Chan] lines of verses?

Answer: This compilation serves two purposes: First, there are those who have not fully awakened, in spite of the fact that they have been studying under a master, and, also, those who are conducting an earnest search, but have not yet met a good friend. By enabling them to browse through this compilation, they will have before them the ideas behind the words of the masters, and they will use these to penetrate their own minds and cut off any remaining thoughts. Second, there are those who are already awakened, but who desire to go on and become masters. [This compilation] will enable them to broaden their learning and increase their good skill in teaching devices in order to embrace sentient beings and answer questions during instruction.¹⁹ Above [in section 7] I said that [the teachings], which catch the thousand worlds, are broad and hence difficult to rely upon, while [Chan], which is oriented to one place [China], points to the bull’s-eye and is easy to use. This [is my answer to your question]. However, [this compilation is not meant] solely as an aid to the [Chan] gate of forgetting words. [It is intended to present] concurrently the benefits of Chan and the bequeathed teachings. [It will] not only make the intentions [of the Chan patriarchs] tally with the Buddha [mind]; I also want to make the [Chan] texts coincide with the [Buddha] sutras. Since the [Chan] texts seem to contradict each other, it is impossible to consider all of them the real teaching. I must classify the entire canon into Hinayana and Mahayana, those of provisional principle and those of the real principle, those of complete meaning and those of incomplete meaning. Once this is done, I can critically evaluate the Chan gates of the various lineages. Each of them has a purport; none of them is in conflict with the intention of the Buddha.²⁰ I mean by this that the sutras and treatises of the entire canon in all are of just three types, and the oral teachings of the Chan gate also in all are of just three axioms. (Each is explained separately in the following text.) [When the three types and three axioms] are matched up like a tally, they become the perfect view.

There are ten reasons why the Chan sayings in the Chan Canon are connected to the Mahayana sutras and treatises.

10. Question: How are the Chan explanations in the present²¹ collection [= the Chan Canon] connected to the sutras and treatises?

Answer: There are ten grounds for [the connection]. You must [first] know which sutras and treatises are provisional and which real, and only then will you understand the rights and wrongs of the Chan [axioms]. Furthermore, you must first know about the nature and characteristics among the Chan minds, and then you will understand principle and phenomena within the sutras and treatises.

1. There are [two sorts of] masters, the root [the Buddha] and the branches [the bodhisattvas]; we rely on the root to seal the branches.

2. Chan has various lineages which conflict with one another.

3. The sutras are like a [carpenter’s] inked marking string, serving as a model by which to establish the false and the correct.

4. Some sutras express the provisional and some the real; we must rely upon the complete meaning [that is, the real].

5. There are three sources of knowledge, and they must coincide.

6. There are various sorts of doubts, and they must all be resolved.

7. Dharma and the principles [of the teachings] are not the same, and one must be good at distinguishing [what is dharma and what is a principle.]

8. [The term] “mind” penetrates both the nature and characteristics; [the term] “mind” is always the same, but its meaning varies.

9. The various sayings having to do with all-at-once and step-by-step awakening and practice seem to be contradictory.

10. Masters instruct through teaching devices, and they must know the medicine [for each and every] disease.

Śākyamuni Buddha is the first patriarch of all the Chan lineages. There is no contradiction between buddha word (the sutras) and the intention of the buddhas/buddha mind (Chan). Bodhidharma saw that in China Buddhist followers were bogged down in scholasticism and an exclusive focus on phenomenal characteristics, so he propagated his slogan about a mind transmission uninvolved with the written word. The purpose of his slogan was to destroy grasping; it does not posit that inexpressibility itself is liberation. In the present climate there are many who harbor erroneous assumptions about this slogan.

11. No. 1: To say that there are [two sorts of] masters, the root and the branches, means that the first patriarch of all the [Chan] lineages is Śākyamuni. The sutras are buddha word, while Chan is the intention of the buddhas. The mouth and mind of the buddhas cannot possibly be contradictory. The lines of descent of all the [Chan] patriarchs go directly back to the disciples of the Buddha. [These] bodhisattvas composed treatises, and, in all cases, they were just propagating the Buddha sutras. Certainly, in the [Chan] transmission from Mahākāśyapa through Upagupta all were equally versed in all three baskets [of rules of discipline, sutra, and scholasticism].²² However, after Dhrtaka disputes arose among the monks, and henceforth the rules of discipline and the teachings [that is, sutras and scholasticism] were practiced separately.²³ Further, because of the trouble with the Kashmir king, the sutras and treatises [that is, scholasticism] began to be propagated separately.²⁴ In the meantime [between Dhrtaka and Simha] Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna were both patriarchal masters.²⁵ They compiled treatises and commentaries on the sutras in ten thousands of verses. Viewing and transformation of beings [that is, dhyana practice and teaching] did not have definite [or separate] rules. Exegetes did not yet deprecate Chan, nor did Chan adepts deprecate exegesis. Bodhidharma received dharma in India and personally brought it to China. He saw that most of the scholars of this land had not yet obtained dharma, that their understanding was based merely on [scholastic] nomenclature and numerical [lists,] and that their [dhyana] practice was concerned only with phenomenal characteristics. Because his desire was to inform them that the moon does not lie in the finger [pointing at the moon] and that dharma is our mind, he just [raised the slogan] “a mind-to-mind transmission; no involvement with the written word.”²⁶ To reveal his [mind] axiom and eradicate grasping he had this saying. It is not that he was preaching a liberation [consisting] of freedom from the written word. This explains why those who gave instruction in getting [Bodhidharma’s] idea incessantly praised the Thunderbolt-Cutter and the Lanka Descent, declaring that these two sutras are the essence of our mind.²⁷ At present, disciples everywhere entertain mistaken notions about the origin [of Bodhidharma’s saying]. Those who cultivate mind consider the sutras and treatises as a separate axiom, while those who explain [texts] view the Chan gate as a separate dharma. [These days,] when people hear someone speak of cause and effect or practice and realization, they immediately conclude [that the speaker] is a sutra or treatise scholar, without realizing that it is precisely practice and realization that are the basic events of the Chan gate. If they hear someone say “mind is buddha,” they immediately conclude [that the speaker] is a subjective Chan adept, without realizing that it is precisely mind and buddha that are the basic ideas of the sutras and treatises. (There are some people who make the following objection: “How can a Chan master explain [the sutras and treatises]?” I have now answered this.) If at the present juncture we do not correlate the provisional and the real among the sutras and treatises with the relative gradations of Chan axioms, how can we illuminate our minds with the teachings or understand the teachings with our minds?

Polemics are rife among the ten houses of Chan, but none of them is heterodox. Below I will distill their ideas into three axioms and juxtapose these three axioms to the three canonical teachings. This approach will unify them into one substitute, skillful teaching device.

12. No. 2: Chan has various lineages that conflict with one another. In fact, the writings collected herein are like the one hundred [contending] schools [of China’s classical age]. [However,] differences in the principles of their axioms involve only ten houses. They are: [Hongzhou of] Jiangxi; Heze; the Northern [Shen]xiu; [Zhi]shen in the South [= Jingzhong]; Niutou [Oxhead]; Shitou; Baotang; Xuanshi [= the South Mountain Buddha–Recitation Gate Chan Lineage]; as well as [Hui]chou-[Gu]na[bhadra], Tiantai, etc.²⁸ Although there is no disagreement among them over comprehension, in setting up axioms and transmitting dharma, they conflict with one another. Some base themselves on voidness [Niutou], while others take Knowing as the source [Heze]. Some say that calm and silence are the real, while others say that [all ordinary activity such as] standing, sitting, etc., is the real [Hongzhou]. Some say that right now from dawn to dusk [in the midst of] discrimination and action everything is unreal [Northern], while others say [in the midst of] discrimination and action everything is real [Hongzhou]. Some carry out all the practices [perhaps Jingzhong and Xuanshi], while others disregard even the Buddha [Baotang]. Some let loose their will and give it free rein [Hongzhou], while others restrain their minds [perhaps Jingzhong and Xuanshi]. Some take the sutras and rules of discipline as a support [Jingzhong], while others consider the sutras and rules of discipline an obstruction to the path [Baotang]. This is not just vague talk. It is concrete talk, for [each house] concretely spreads its axiom and concretely attacks the other types. Junior trainees cling to these sayings and miss the intention. With their emotional viewpoints they obstinately dispute one another and fail to come together.

Question: [Why can you not simply] select what is right [from these Chan houses] and disregard what is wrong? What is the need for these crooked [Chan houses] to come together?

Answer: Some discuss voidness, while others discuss existence; some discuss the nature, while others discuss characteristics. But none of them is heterodox. The problem is merely that each considers itself to be a coterie in possession of right and criticizes the others as wrong. Each of them is firm in its certainty. This is the reason why they must be brought together.

Question: Since none of them is heterodox and each is firmly certain, what is the need to bring them together?

Answer: The true path leads back to oneness. The subtle principle is non-duality. There should be no duality. The true path is not an extreme. The [teachings of] complete meaning do not lean to a side. No one should grasp a single biased viewpoint. For this reason, I must bring them into oneness and make them all perfect.

Question: If one mixes ice with fire, both of them cannot remain intact. Likewise, if one strikes a shield with a sword, both of them cannot be victorious. Whenever the collected writings of the various lineages contradict each other, one is right and one is wrong. How can you bring them [into oneness] and make them all perfect?

Answer: In all cases, I will preserve their dharma and get rid of their diseases. All of them will then be excellent. In other words, to take dharma to go to people is difficult, but to take people to go to dharma is easy. Most people follow feelings into mutual grasping; grasping entails mutual conflict. Indeed, this is difficult in the same sense that a mix of ice and fire or a clash of sword and shield is difficult. Dharma from the outset proclaims principle and is mutual penetration; penetration entails mutual accord. This is easy in the same sense that frozen and running water are both water, or all gold rings gold. Essentially speaking, if one considers [the Chan houses] individually, then they are all wrong. If one brings them together, then they are all right. I will use buddha word to illustrate the intention behind each of them, to select the strong points of each of them, to unify them into three axioms, and to juxtapose these to the three canonical teachings. [Without this approach,] how could they be brought together into one substitute skillful [teaching device], and how could they all become the essential dharma gate? If each [of these Chan houses] would forget its feelings, they would all flow back into the sea of wisdom. (What the buddhas have said shows variations and yet is sameness, and so, if you condense the Buddha sutras, you bring the three [canonical teachings] into oneness.)

A skilled carpenter uses an inked string as a measuring standard. The string is not the skill itself. A Chan adept likewise uses the sutras and treatises as a measuring standard. The sutras and treatises are not Chan itself.

13. No. 3: The sutras are like an inked marking string, serving as a model by which to establish the false and the correct. The inked marking string is not the skill itself; a skillful craftsman must use the string as a standard. The sutras and treatises are not Chan; one who transmits Chan must use the sutras and treatises as a norm. Those of medium and inferior faculties must rely on a master. The master sizes up [each student’s] ability and instructs him accordingly. Those of high ability must be of perfect penetration²⁹ in their awakening, but, if they have not yet fully probed Buddha word, how can they be equal to the Buddha view?

Question: [Up until now,] all that has existed [in the way of texts] are the Buddha sutras. It has been left to the students to turn [the scrolls] and read them, checking and verifying.³⁰ Now you have collected the essentials of Chan, so what further need exists to understand the sutras?

The Chan Canon includes twenty-plus sheets of sutra passages so that the reader will gain an overall view of the intention of the Buddha. Having seen the intention of the Buddha, the reader will be able to classify every phrase of the sutras.

14. No. 4: Some sutras express the provisional and some the real; we must rely upon the complete meaning [that is, the real]. This means that, among the various sutras in which the Buddha speaks, in some cases he is speaking in accordance with his own mind, and, in other cases, he is speaking in accordance with the minds of others. Some [of the sutras] proclaim ultimate principle, while some are geared to the dispositions [of sentient beings] of the present time. Some speak in terms of the nature and some in terms of characteristics. Some are all-at-once and some step-by-step, some Mahayana and some Hinayana, some of complete meaning and some of incomplete meaning. But, even though the texts sometimes contradict each other, the principles must always be of unobstructed perfect penetration. The dragon treasury [that is, the three baskets of the canon] is vast. How can one see where it is guiding to? Therefore, I have made a comprehensive selection from this [treasury] in twenty-plus sheets³¹ in order to enable [the reader] suddenly to have a perfect view of the intention of the Buddha.³² Once he has seen the intention of the Buddha, when he reads through the entire canonical treasury, he will come to know the axiom of every phrase.

Indian masters always held to the three sources of knowledge. Of the three, most Chan lineages have direct perception and inference. They must seal them with the third source, the sutras.

15. No. 5: There are three sources of knowledge, and they must coincide.³³ In their understanding of the principles of dharma, the worthies and nobles ones of the western lands always considered the three sources of knowledge to be definitive: (1) inference, (2) direct perception, and (3) buddha word. “Sources of knowledge” means to weigh something in the scales to determine its exact weight. “Inference” means to infer from causal analogy. For instance, when one sees smoke in the distance, one knows for certain that there is a fire. Even though one does not see the fire, it is not unreal. “Direct perception” means that one sees [something] before one’s own eyes, without relying on inference; it is spontaneously definitive. “Buddha word” means that the sutras are definitive. [When I say that] they must coincide, [I mean that,] if one just takes buddha word as a standard and does not infer for himself, then his realization will be a thing of empty belief, bringing no benefit to him. If one just takes direct perception, that is, seeing it for oneself, to be definitive and does not inquire into Buddha word, then how will he know [the difference between] false and correct? The followers of outside paths [that is, the six heretical teachers at the time of the Buddha] also directly perceived the principles to which they held, and, practicing them, obtained results. They called themselves correct. How would we know that they were false [without Buddha word]? If one were to rely only on inference without the teachings of the noble ones and seeing it for oneself, then what would he infer about? What dharma would he infer about? Thus, the three sources of knowledge must coincide to be definitive. The Chan lineages already for the most part have the two sources of knowledge of direct perception and inference. Once they have gone on to seal them with [the third,] the sutras and treatises, the three sources of knowledge will be complete.

Both scholars and Chan adepts harbor a multitude of doubts. By classifying the canon into the three types of teachings, I will at one stroke put all these doubts to rest.

16. No. 6: There are various sorts of doubts, and they must all be resolved. During the last several decades there have been a number of great worthies of the sutras and treatises³⁴ who have asked me the following question: The four dhyanas and eight concentrations [samadhis] are all in the upper realms [of form and non-form]. There is no dhyana in this realm [of desire where humans reside]. Whoever practices dhyana must rely on the sutras and treatises. He practices in this realm in order to be drawn up into the dhyanas and concentrations of the upper realms. Anyone whose practice has reached completion is in [one of] those dhyanas [and concentrations of the upper realms]. The teachings are clear on this point. There are no exceptions to this. How can anyone speak of a Chan gate that is separate from this? Since [such a separate Chan gate] is not grounded in the sutras and treatises, it is a false path.

Another question is: The sutras speak of step-by-step practice, that after limitless eons one realizes awakening. Chan proclaims all-at-once awakening, that in a moment one achieves perfect awakening. The sutras are Buddha word, while Chan is the word of monks. I am skeptical about contravening Buddha [word] in order to honor [the word of] monks.

Another question is: The essential purport of the Chan gate is neither affirmation nor negation, neither enmity nor affection, neither anger nor happiness. [If this is so,] what is the reason for the hatred between the Southern [lineage of the sixth patriarch Hui]neng and the Northern [lineage of Shen]xiu, which are like fire and water, and for the hostility between the Heze and Hongzhou [houses], which are like the shen star [in the west] and the shang star [in the east, that is, like brothers who do not get along]?

Another question is: For six generations [from Bodhidharma to Huineng] the Chan dharma was transmitted from master to disciple. [In each successive generation masters] said [to their disciples]: “Within, I confer upon you the secret oral transmission [miyu]; without, I hand to you [Bodhidharma’s] robe of faith.” The robe and the dharma were complementary, serving as a tally seal. Since Caoqi [Huineng], no one has heard of this procedure.³⁵ I am skeptical. In present Chan procedure, are secret oral transmissions spoken in transforming people or not? If they are not spoken, then what is transmitted is not Bodhidharma’s dharma. If they are, then [those disciples] who hear them should all obtain the robe.

Also, there are Chan worthies who ask: Bodhidharma’s transmission of mind was uninvolved with the written word.³⁶ Why do you go against the former patriarch by explaining the treatises and transmitting the sutras?

Lately, there has been this question: Vimalakīrti shouted his disapproval of quiet sitting.³⁷ Shenhui always attacked [the practice of] freezing mind.³⁸ When Caoqi [Huineng] saw someone in cross-legged posture, he took his staff and hit him until he got up.³⁹ Now let me ask you: You [Zongmi] always rely on the injunctions of the teachings to encourage cross-legged Chan sitting. [Due to your exhortations] lines of Chan huts fill the cliffs and ravines. This perverts the [Chan] axiom and goes against the [Chan] patriarchs, and hence I am doubtful about it.

Although on a number of occasions I have responded to each of these questions, those with doubts still number in the thousands. It is a pity that they have not yet listened. Those who raise these objections are all led by their feelings into biased grasping. The things that they grasp are in each case different. They conflict with each other, and thus, in resolving these doubts, I may well increase the disease [from which they have been suffering]. For this reason, I must unveil the principles of the three gates and classify the entire canon [within these three gates]. This will answer all these doubts with one stroke, and every one [of the above questioners] will understand thoroughly. (Below, I will add notes in answer to these questions after the appropriate passage. You must consult these notes to see my answers.)

The Awakening of Faith makes a distinction between dharma and principles. Most Chan adepts neglect the latter and go about shouting “mind is Chan!” Most scholars have not come to know dharma and so get bogged down in detailed discussions of doctrinal principles. To clear up this situation I will classify the sutras and treatises into three types of teachings.

17. No. 7: Dharma and the principles [of the teachings]⁴⁰ are not the same, and one must be good at distinguishing [what is dharma and what is a principle]. Whoever wishes to clearly understand the nature and characteristics of all dharmas must first be able to differentiate between dharma and principles. If we rely on dharma to understand principles, then the principles will be clear. If we discuss dharma in terms of principles, then dharma will be revealed. Let me make this clear now with a worldly analogy. Real gold is conditioned by artisans into rings, bracelets, bowls, cups, and other utensils, but the nature of the gold never changes into brass or iron. Gold is dharma, while immutable and conditioned are principles. Should someone ask what is immutable and what is conditioned, I would merely reply in both cases: gold. By analogy, the principles of the sutras and treatises of the entire canon are talking only about mind. Mind is dharma; all [of the sutras and treatises] are principles. Therefore, the sutra says: “Immeasurable principles arise from the one dharma.”⁴¹ However, the incalculable principles fall into only two types. The first is the immutable and the second the conditioned. Various sutras just say that this mind follows conditions of delusion or awakening, becoming stained or pure, common person or noble one, depravities or awakening, with outflows or without outflows, etc. They also just say that, while this mind is stained or pure, it is from the outset immutable, constantly calmed, reality and thusness, etc. Should someone ask what dharma is immutable and what dharma is conditioned, I would merely reply in both cases: mind. Immutable is the nature, while conditioned is characteristics. You must know that the nature and characteristics are both principles on the one mind.⁴² The fact that at present [those of] the two axioms, nature and characteristics,⁴³ criticize each is because they do not know the true mind. Whenever they hear the word “mind,” they think that it signifies only the eight consciousnesses,⁴⁴ not realizing that the eight consciousnesses are merely conditioned principles on the true mind. Thus, Asvaghosa Bodhisattva⁴⁵ considered the one mind to be dharma and the two gates, thusness and arising-disappearing, to be principles. The treatise says: “Grounded in this mind, the Mahayana principles are revealed.”⁴⁶ The true thusness of mind is the substance; the arising-disappearing of mind is the characteristics and functions. Because this mind is not unreal, we say it is true; because it is immutable, we say it is thusness. Thus, the treatise speaks repeatedly of the thusness of mind and the arising-disappearing of mind.⁴⁷ Today, most Chan adepts, unaware of principles, merely shout “mind is Chan,” and most exegetes, not knowing dharma, merely use nomenclature to speak of principles. By following these nomenclatures they give rise to grasping, and it becomes difficult for them to be able to harmonize [the seemingly contradictory ideas found in the various teachings]. When they hear [the word] “mind,” they say it is shallow. When they hear [the word] “nature,” they say it is profound. Some of them even take “nature” to be dharma and “mind” to be a principle. In order to illuminate things, I must classify the sutras and treatises according to three axioms. Once dharma and the principles are revealed, there will be only reversion to one mind. Spontaneously, there will be no more contention.

There are four types of mind: the fleshly mind; the pondering-of-objective-supports mind (the eight consciousnesses); the mind that accumulates karmic seeds and produces the seven active consciousnesses (the eighth consciousness or ālaya-vijñāna [“storehouse consciousness”]); and the true mind. This true mind, when unawakened, has the two principles of mixed with thought of the unreal (the storehouse consciousness) and unmixed (thusness). The nature (the fourth type of mind) and characteristics (the first three types of mind) together are one mind. Pedantic scholars and subjective Chan adepts miss this.

18. No. 8: [The term] “mind” penetrates both the nature and characteristics; [the term] “mind” is always the same but its meaning varies. Some of the sutras criticize mind as a thief and [say that we should exert] control to cut off [its activities]. Some praise mind as a buddha and encourage us to subject it to practice. Some speak of the good mind and the bad mind, the pure mind and the stained mind, the covetous mind and the angry mind, the mind of friendliness and the mind of compassion. Some say that mind arises in dependence on sense objects. Some say that mind gives rise to sense objects. Some say that calm is mind. Some say that pondering of objective supports is mind. These various [formulations] contradict one another. If the [three] axioms [that is, the three types of teachings of section 21] are not juxtaposed and laid before the sutra reader, how can [the reader] differentiate these [definitions of “mind”]? Are there many sorts of mind or merely one kind of mind? Let me now explain in brief the terms and substance [of this matter]. Generally speaking, mind can be reduced to four types. The Sanskrit is different in each case, and hence the [Chinese] translations [and transliterations] also differ.

The first is helituoye. This means the mind that is a lump of flesh. This is the mind in each of the five viscera in the body. (The full details are given in the discussion on the five viscera in the Yellow Court Classic [Huangting jing].)⁴⁸

The second is the pondering-of-objective-supports⁴⁹ mind. This is the eight consciousnesses [vijñāna], because all [eight] are capable of pondering as objective supports their own sense objects. (Forms are the sense objects of the eye consciousness, up to and including the organ body, the [karmic] seeds, and the vessel world are the sense objects of the storehouse consciousness.⁵⁰ Because each [consciousness] takes as its objective support only one particular [type of sense object], we say: “Its own [sense objects].”) Each of these eight [consciousnesses] has mentals [caitta]. Within these, some are just neutral, while others are distinguished as either good or impure. Some sutras declare mind to be a collective term for all these mentals. They speak of the good mind, the bad mind, etc.

The third is zhiduoye [citta]. This means the mind that accumulates and produces, because only the eighth consciousness accumulates [karmic] seeds and produces the [seven] active [consciousnesses]. (The discussion on the five viscera in the Yellow Court Classic declares this type of mind to be a spirit. Followers of outside paths in the western countries consider it to be an [eternal] at-man [Self].)

The fourth is ganlituoye. This means real mind or true mind. This is the true mind. However, it is not an entity separate from the eighth consciousness. It is just that this true mind, when unawakened, has [two] principles: in concord with and not in concord with unreal thought.⁵¹ In its principle of being in concord [with unreal thought], it can contain impurity and purity, and we view it as the storehouse consciousness. In its [principle] of not being in concord [with unreal thought], its substance is constant and immutable, and we view it as thusness. [The storehouse consciousness and thusness] taken together are the buddha-in-embryo [tathagatagarbha]. Therefore, the Lanka Descent says: “The calmed is called one mind. One mind is the buddha-in-embryo.”⁵² The buddha-in-embryo is also the dharma body in bondage, as the Śrīmālā Sutra says.⁵³ Thus, we know that the four types of mind are from the outset one substance. Therefore, the Secret Array Sutra says: “The Buddha said that the buddha-in-embryo (the name of the dharma body in bondage) is to be taken as identical to the ālaya (storehouse consciousness). The uninformed are incapable of realizing that the [tathagata]garbha is the ālaya consciousness. (There are those who hold to [the mistaken view] that thusness and the ālaya are different in substance. They are uninformed.) The pure buddha-in-embryo and the worldly ālaya are like gold and a gold ring, absolutely without difference.”⁵⁴ (The ring is like the ālaya, while the gold is like thusness. Together they are called the buddha-in-embryo.) However, even though they are identical in substance, as real and unreal principles [of the true mind] they differ, just as beginning and end differ. The first three [types of mind] are characteristics; the last one is the nature. Grounded in the nature, characteristics are originated through causation. Bringing characteristics back to the nature is not impossible. The nature and characteristics are without obstruction; together they are the one mind. If you lose your way here, any direction you go you will face a wall. If you are awakened to this, then the ten thousand dharmas [will appear as if] in a mirror. If one vainly searches through the phraseology of the texts [as some exegetes do] or [just] puts one’s confidence in one’s subjective feeling⁵⁵ [as some Chan adepts do], how can he understand the nature and characteristics of this one mind?

The canonical texts and the Chan gates propound all sorts of variations on all-at-once and step-by-step in both awakening and practice. Though all-at-once and step-by-step seem mutually exclusive, they are, in fact, complementary.

19. No. 9: The all-at-once and step-by-step of awakening and practice seem to be contradictory but [in reality] fit together like a tally. Of the various sutras and treatises and the various Chan gates, some say that one first relies on the merit accumulated through step-by-step practice and then suddenly all-at-once awakens. Some say that one first relies on all-at-once awakening and then can engage in step-by-step practice. Some say that relying on all-at-once practice, one step-by-step awakens. Some say that awakening and practice are both step-by-step. Some say that they are both all-at-once. Some say that the dharma has neither all-at-once nor step-by-step, that all-at-once and step-by-step are in the dispositions [of trainees]. Each of the above theories is significant. “Seem to be contradictory” means that, having awakened, one becomes a buddha: from the outset no depravities. We call this all-at-once. Thus, there is no need to practice cutting off [the depravities], so how can anyone speak further of step-by-step practice? Step-by-step practice implies that the depravities have not yet been fully exhausted, that the practice of causes is not yet perfect, that the virtues of effect are not yet full, so how can it be called all-at-once? All-at-once is not step-by-step. Step-by-step is not all-at-once. Thus, they are said to be contradictory.⁵⁶ If in the following I bring them together to face each other, then [it will be clear that] all-at-once and step-by-step are not just not contradictory, but are complementary.

All instructional devices aim first to bring the trainee to awakening to the nature and subsequently to a practice grounded in this nature. Grasping of characteristics is the usual obstacle to awakening, and masters must here employ teaching devices of the negative sort, “neither x nor y,” “the path is like a dream or illusion,” and so forth. Unfortunately, novices show a tendency to take this type of saying as ultimate truth. In the case of the practice following awakening, masters are given to exhortations about diligence, regulation of the body and breath, and so forth. Unfortunately, novices, upon hearing these exhortations, have a tendency to lose sight of original awakening and fall into the grasping of characteristics. Only the best students get the meaning of both awakening and practice. Shallow students quit after getting only one. The latter then become teaching masters in their own right and in a biased fashion champion either all-at-once or step-by-step. A potential teaching master must see that the three Chan axioms do not conflict, so that he feels free to draw from the vast repertoire of teaching devices found in all the Chan houses.

20. No. 10: In a master-student transmission, [the master] must know the medicine [for each and every] disease. This means that all instructional teaching devices inherited from the past first show the original nature and then require reliance on this nature to practice dhyana. In most cases, when the nature is not easily awakened to, it is due to the grasping of characteristics. Thus, if [a master] wants to reveal this nature, he must first eradicate grasping [on the part of the student]. In [the master’s] teaching devices for eradicating this grasping, he must [employ a type of rhetoric in which] common person and noble one are both cut off, merits and faults are both gotten rid of, in the precepts there is neither violation nor observance, in dhyana there is neither concentration nor distraction, the thirty-two marks⁵⁷ are all like flowers in the sky, and the thirty-seven parts of the path⁵⁸ are all a dream or illusion. The idea is that, if [the master] enables [the student] to have a mind free of attachment, then [the student] can practice dhyana. [But] junior trainees and those of shallow knowledge just grasp these [Chan] phrases as the ultimate path. Furthermore, as to the gate of practice, because most people are self-indulgent and indolent, [masters] further speak a great deal of taking joy [in the path] and wearying [of this world]. They criticize passion and anger and commend diligence, regulation of the body and regulation of breath, and the sequence of coarse and subtle [characteristics].⁵⁹ When novices hear this, they become deluded about the function of original awakening⁶⁰ and single-mindedly grasp characteristics. Only those [trainees] of great ability and fixed will serve their masters for the full course [of training]. They then attain the purport of [both] awakening and practice. [Trainees] of a light, shallow nature, upon hearing only one idea, [i.e., either the original nature or gradual practice], say that they already have had enough. Still depending upon their small intelligence, they become masters of others. Having not yet investigated from beginning to end, they produce a lot of biased grasping. Thus, [some stand] under the all-at-once gate and [some] stand under the step-by-step, glaring at each other like enemies. The Northern and Southern lineages are mutual enemies in the manner of [the warring kingdoms of] Chu and Han.⁶¹ The practice of washing the feet and the analogy of [the blind men] feeling the elephant are relevant here.⁶² Why do I desire to bring together these [Chan] writings by making them into a separate compilation? [My reasoning is best explained by] reference to the three round marks of the [triangular] letter i.⁶³ Three marks standing apart would not constitute an i. If the three [Chan] axioms ran counter to each other, how could they make buddhas? Thus, we realize that, if one wants to know the medicine [for each and every] disease in [the course of] instructing [trainees], he must see that the three [Chan] axioms do not conflict. If he wants to see that the three [Chan] axioms do not conflict, he must understand the three types of Buddha teachings. (As mentioned previously [in section 16], there are some people who make the following objection: “Why do you, a Chan master, explain [the sutras and treatises]?” I have now answered this fully through ten ideas. This is why I remarked earlier [in section 11] that the [Chan] patriarchs of the western regions all propagated the sutras and treatises.)

The teachings authenticate the Chan gate. Each of the three teachings is identical to its counterpart among the three Chan axioms.

21. The above ten ideas have been made clear through examples. Once the three axioms of Chan and the three types of teachings have been paired off with each other, it will be like weighing each of them, sufficient to determine which are shallow and which deep. I will first discuss the Chan gate and later use the teachings to authenticate it. The three axioms of Chan are:

1. [Realizing] the axiom of stopping [thought of] the unreal and cultivating mind [only]

2. [Realizing] the axiom of cutting off and not leaning on anything

3. [Realizing] the axiom of directly revealing the mind nature

1. The teaching of cryptic meaning⁶⁴ that relies on [dharma] nature to speak of characteristics

2. The teaching of cryptic meaning that eradicates characteristics to reveal [dharma] nature

3. The teaching that openly [with no cryptic or hidden meaning] shows that the true mind is [dharma] nature

Each of these three teachings is identical to its counterpart among the previous three axioms. Once I have juxtaposed [the three Chan axioms and three types of teachings] and authenticated [the axioms] one by one, I will fashion a comprehensive fusion into the one taste [of dharma].

The first Chan axiom involves withdrawal from sense objects and the extinguishing of thought of the unreal. It employs such teaching devices as seclusion, cross-legged sitting, breath counting, etc. Jingzhong, Northern, Baotang, and the South Mountain Buddha–Recitation Gate Chan Lineage belong to this axiom. Niutou and three non-Bodhidharma Chan lineages employ preliminary teaching devices similar to those of this axiom, but their theoretical framework is different.

22. At this time I will start with a discussion of the Chan axioms. The first is the axiom of stopping [thought of] the unreal and cultivating mind [only].⁶⁵ It says that, even though from the outset sentient beings possess the buddha nature, beginningless ignorance has always covered it so that it could not be seen. Because of this, the wheel [of rebirth] turns. Because the buddhas have cut off thought of the unreal, they see the nature in its entirety, escape the rebirth process, [come into possession of] the superknowledges, and exist in freedom. [This Chan axiom says:] You must realize that the common person and the noble one are not the same in their achievements, that external sense objects and internal mind are separated. Thus, you must, relying on the oral teachings of the [Chan] masters,⁶⁶ turn away from sense objects and view mind,⁶⁷ extinguishing thought of the unreal. When these thoughts are exhausted, you will awaken. There will be nothing you will not know. It is like a mirror beclouded by dust.⁶⁸ You must vigorously wipe it, for, once the dust is removed, the brightness will reappear, and [the mirror] will reflect anything placed before it. Further, you must clearly understand the teaching devices leading into the realm of Chan: Divorce yourself from confusion and noise; seclude yourself in a quiet place; regulate the body and regulate the breath; sit silently in cross-legged sitting posture; press the tongue against the roof of the mouth [in order to inhibit salivation]; and have the mind concentrate on one sense object. The disciples of [Zhi]shen in the South, the Northern [Shen]xiu, Baotang, [the South Mountain Buddha–Recitation Gate Chan Lineage of] Xuanshi, and others are all of this type. The preliminary teaching devices of Niutou, Tiantai, Huichou, Gunabhadra, and others are much the same [as this type], but their understanding is different.⁶⁹

The second Chan axiom holds that from the outset there is only voidness and calm. It often employs negative sayings in the mode of “neither x nor y.” The Shitou and Niutou houses belong to this axiom. Frivolous Daoists, Confucians, and Buddhists get a touch of this Chan principle and become infatuated with its negative sayings, claiming they are ultimate truth. Heze and Hongzhou, as well as one non-Bodhidharma lineage, touch on this principle, but it is not their axiom.

23. The second is the axiom of cutting off and not leaning on anything.⁷⁰ It says that the dharmas of both the common person and the noble one are like a dream or illusion;⁷¹ none of them has any [real] existence. From the outset [there is only] voidness and calm. It is not a case of coming to non-existence for the first time now. Thus, even the wisdom that comprehends this non-existence cannot be apprehended. In the dharma sphere of sameness there is neither buddha nor sentient being.⁷² Even “dharma sphere” is a provisional name. Since mind is not [really] existent, who [could possibly exist to] say “dharma sphere”? There is neither practice nor non-practice, neither buddha nor non-buddha. Suppose there were a dharma that excelled nirvana. I say that even it would be like a dream or illusion.⁷³ There is no dharma to adhere to and no buddha to become. Whatever is created is unreal.⁷⁴ If one comprehends in this way that from the outset there is nothing to do⁷⁵ and mind has nothing to rely upon, then he will escape inverted [views] and for the first time be called liberated. [The lineage of] Shitou and [the lineage running] from Niutou to Jingshan both evince this principle.⁷⁶ They make their mind sphere bonded with this and do not allow feelings to stagnate on [any] dharma. When, after many days, achievement arrives and habit [energy directed toward] sense objects disappears, they [no longer] have anything to do with enemies, friends, suffering, or joy. But there exists a type of Daoist master⁷⁷ or Confucian scholar or idle Buddhist monk who, having only lightly trained in this Chan principle, says that these sayings [“neither buddha nor sentient beings,” etc.] are the ultimate. [Such foolish people] do not understand that [those realizing] this [Chan] axiom do not just take these sayings as dharma [but practice so that they do not allow feelings to stagnate on anything]. The disciples of Heze, [Hongzhou of] Jiangxi, Tiantai, and others also speak of this principle, but it is not what they take as their axiom.⁷⁸

The third axiom holds that all dharmas are the true nature, reality. Two houses, Hongzhou and Heze, belong to this axiom. Hongzhou exalts giving free rein to luck and existing in freedom. Heze says that your true nature is the Knowing of voidness and calm. Despite differences among all the Chan houses of the three axioms, each of them is appropriate for a particular type of being.

24. The third is the axiom of directly revealing the mind nature.⁷⁹ It says that all dharmas, even though they are both existent and void, are just the true nature. The true nature is unconditioned; it is not anything substantial. This is what is meant [by such phrases as] “neither common nor noble,” “neither cause nor effect,” “neither good nor bad,” etc. However, in its functional aspect it has the potentiality to create all sorts of [dharmas]. This is what is meant [by such phrases as] “can be the common person and can be the noble one,” “manifests form and manifests characteristics,” etc.

Within [this axiom] there are two types [of Chan houses] that point to and show the mind nature. The first, [the Hongzhou house],⁸⁰ says: “Your potentiality right now to talk, act, [experience] passion, anger, friendliness, patience, create good or bad and receive suffering or joy, etc., is your buddha nature. By virtue of this you have been a buddha from the outset. There is no other buddha than this. Once you understand this spontaneity of the heavenly real,⁸¹ you should not stir your mind to cultivate the path. The path is mind. You should not use mind to cultivate [the path in] mind. The bad is also mind. You should not use mind to cut off [the bad in] mind. When you neither cut off [bad] nor cultivate [good], but just give free rein to luck and exist in freedom, then you are to be called liberated. The nature is like space; it neither increases nor decreases. What could you possibly add to it? Whatever time it is, wherever you are, just stop karma and nourish the spirit.⁸² Your noble embryo⁸³ will grow and become manifest, spontaneously divine and excellent. This is true awakening, true practice, and true realization.”

The second, [the Heze house],⁸⁴ says: “All dharmas are like a dream. All the noble ones have said the same thing. Thus, thought of the unreal from the outset is calm. Sense objects are from the outset void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens.⁸⁵ It is precisely this Knowing of voidness and calm that is your true nature. No matter whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on any sense object. The one word “Knowing” is the gate of all excellence.⁸⁶ Because of beginning-less delusion about it, you have falsely grasped body and mind as a self and produced such thoughts as passion and anger. If you find a good friend to open up and show [the path], then you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is it that is characterized as a self, and who is it that is characterized as the other? When you awaken to the voidness of all characteristics, mind is naturally no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear.⁸⁷ The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Thus, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just attain the Knowing-seeing of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously decrease, compassion and wisdom will spontaneously increase, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and meritorious practices will spontaneously increase. Once you have understood that all characteristics are non-characteristics, you will practice in a spontaneous manner, but it will be a non-practice. When the depravities are exhausted, the rebirth process will cease; once arising-disappearing is extinguished, calm and illumination will become manifest, and you will respond to everything. This is called becoming a buddha.” Thus, both these houses, [the Hongzhou and the Heze], gather characteristics back to the nature and are, therefore, of the same single axiom.⁸⁸

Nevertheless, within the above three [Chan] axioms, there are [Chan houses] that honor the teachings and those that disparage them, those that follow characteristics and those that destroy characteristics. There are a great many differences [among the Chan houses in terms of] doors to refuting the arguments of outsiders, good skillful [teaching devices] for receiving outsiders, and rules for teaching disciples, but all of them are the practice gate of dual benefit [of self and other]. Each is suitable for a particular type of person, and hence, none of them misses [the mark]. It is just that the principles that they take as their axioms should not involve duality. Thus, I must bring them together in accordance with the Buddha.

The first of the three teachings is the teaching of cryptic meaning that relies on the nature to speak of characteristics. It has three subdivisions: the karmic cause-and-effect teaching that enables one to be reborn as a human or god (worldly cause and effect = the first two of the four noble truths); the teaching that cuts off the depravities and extinguishes suffering (the cause and effect of transcending the world = the four noble truths = the negation of self found the Hinayana sutras and treatises); and the teaching that takes consciousness to eradicate sense objects (the teaching of unreal consciousness transformation found in the Yogācāra sutras and treatises)

25. I will now divide the whole of the Buddha’s teachings into three types. The first is the teaching of cryptic meaning that relies on the [dharma] nature to speak of characteristics. (The Buddha saw that the three realms [of desire, form, and non-form] and six rebirth paths [of hell beings, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, and gods] are all characteristics of the true nature. They arise merely because sentient beings are deluded about the nature. They have no substance of their own separate [from the nature]. Therefore, we say: “Rely on the nature.” Nevertheless, for those whose faculties are dull, it is unexpectedly difficult to open up awakening. For this reason, the dharma is spoken to them in terms of the characteristics of the sense objects that they see, and step-by-step they cross over [to nirvana]. Therefore, we say: “Speaks of characteristics.” Its speaking does not go so far as to reveal [the nature] and, therefore, we say: “Cryptic meaning.”) Within this first teaching there are three subdivisions.

The first is the karmic cause-and-effect teaching [that allows rebirth as a] human or a god. It speaks of good and bad karmic retribution. It makes beings know that there is no discrepancy between cause and effect, makes them fear suffering in one of the three [bad] rebirth paths [of hell beings, hungry ghosts, and animals], makes them seek the joy of [being reborn as] a man or a god, makes them carry out all such good practices as giving, precepts, and dhyana, enabling them to be reborn into the path of humans or the path of the gods up through the realms of form and non-form. Therefore, we say: “Humans-and-gods teaching.”

The second is the teaching of the cutting off of the depravities and the extinguishing of suffering.⁸⁹ It says that there is no peace in the three realms [of desire, form, and non-form], that [rebirth within any of the three realms] is like suffering in a burning house.⁹⁰ It enables beings to cut off their accumulation of karma and the depravities, to cultivate the path, and to realize extinction. In order to accord with the [varying] dispositions [of sentient beings] its methods of teaching dharma⁹¹ [show a focus on] intense differentiation, picking out false and correct, discriminating between common person and noble one, dividing up weariness and joy, and clarifying cause and effect. [This second subdivision] says that sentient beings, [composed of] the five aggregates [of form, feelings, thoughts, karmic formations, and consciousness], all lack a self and are just bodily form and cognitive mind. From without beginning, because of the power of causes and conditions, arising and disappearing from moment to moment, the personal continuity series⁹² is without end, like water bubbles or the flame of a lamp. Body and mind temporarily unite, but seem to be a permanent whole. The ignorant, those not yet awakened, grasp this as a self. To protect this self, they produce the three poisons, passion (covet fame and profit in order to glorify the self), anger (are angry when things go against their feelings and fear harm to the self), and stupidity (any direction they go they misunderstand, calculating in an irrational way). The three poisons attack consciousness and produce bodily movement and speech, creating all karma. Once karma is brought into being, it is impossible to escape it. (A shadow follows a form; an echo responds to a sound.) Therefore, one is reborn into a suffering or joyful body in one of the five rebirth paths (this is in response to individual karma)⁹³ and into a superior or inferior place in the three realms (this is the place in response to common karma)⁹⁴. Once again [the ignorant] grasp the body that they have received as a self, once again producing passion, etc., creating [more] karma and receiving retribution. The body [passes through] birth, old age, sickness, and death. Once dead, it is reborn. The realms come into being, stabilize, disintegrate, and [reenter] the void. From the void they come into being again. Kalpa after kalpa, birth after birth, the wheel turns ceaselessly, without end and without beginning, just as a well wheel draws [water]. All this is because they do not understand that this body has never been a self. (Up to this point everything is the worldly cause and effect in the previous humans-and-gods teaching. The previous [humans-and-gods teaching] merely makes people weary of the present world and joyfully anticipate rebirth in a heaven. It does not yet say that the three realms are all a calamity to become weary of. Also, it does not eradicate the self. If I were now to summarize it, it is the two truths of suffering and the accumulation [of suffering]. Below [this point] eradicates the grasping of self, enabling beings to cultivate the two [further] truths of extinction and the path.⁹⁵ It clarifies the cause and effect of transcending the world, and, for this reason, we call it the teaching of the four truths.) “Is not a self” means that this body from the outset takes the concord of form and mind as a characteristic. When we now investigate and analyze, [we find that] there are four types of form (earth, water, fire, and wind) and four types of mind: feelings (taking in agreeable and disareeable events) thoughts (apprehending images), karmic formations (karmic fashioning of everything), and consciousness (perceiving one thing after another). (These four [types of mind] plus form are called the five aggregates.) If each and every one of these [types of form and mind] were a self, then there would be eight selves. Furthermore, within the form [of the body] there are three-hundred-and-sixty bones, each one different from the other, and skin, hair, muscles, flesh, liver, heart, spleen, and kidney, no one of them identical to another. (Skin is not hair, etc.) The various mentals⁹⁶ are also different from each other. Seeing is not hearing; happiness is not anger. Since there are this many components, we do not know what definitively to take as a self. If all of them are selves, then there are a hundred thousand of them, many subjects in confusion within one body. There are no other dharmas beyond these, but, upon analysis, a self cannot be apprehended in any of them. Thus, one awakens to the realization that these [types of] body and mind are merely conditions, with the characteristic of seeming concord, but were never one substance. They are characterized as an apparent self and others, but there never existed a self and others. Who is passionate and angry? Who kills and steals? Who practices giving and the precepts? Who is reborn as a human or a god? (This is knowledge of the accumulation of suffering.) One then does not let the mind sink into the good and bad of having outflows in the three realms (the truth of the cutting off of the accumulation [of suffering]). One just cultivates the discerning wisdom of non-self (the truth of the path) in order to cut off passion, etc., stop all karma, and realize the thusness of voidness of self. He obtains the fruit of stream enterer, [the fruit of once-returner to this world, and the fruit of non-returner to this world,] up to and including extinguishing all evil bonds and obtaining the fruit of arhat (the truth of extinction). Having burned up body and extinguished knowledge, he is eternally free of all suffering. Sutras in six-hundred-and-eighteen fascicles, the Āgamas,⁹⁷ etc., and treatises numbering six-hundred-and-ninety-eight fascicles, the Explanations,⁹⁸ and [Abhidharma-]kośa,⁹⁹ etc., discuss only this Hinayana and the previous karmic cause-and-effect [teaching that allows rebirth] as a human or a god. Although the sections and cases [of these canonical texts] are voluminous, their principle does not go beyond this.

The third is the teaching that takes consciousness to eradicate sense objects.¹⁰⁰ (It says that sense-object characteristics, which the previous [subdivision] speaks of as arising and disappearing [from moment to moment], are not just lacking a self, but are not even dharmas in the sense in which the previous [subdivision uses that term], that they are just unreal transformations of consciousness. Therefore, we say: “Takes consciousness to eradicate sense objects.”) [This subdivision] says that the above arising-disappearing dharmas are unconnected to thusness [tathata].¹⁰¹ It is just that in each of these sentient beings eight types of consciousness have existed spontaneously from without beginning. Within these the eighth, the storehouse consciousness [ālaya-vijñāna], is the basis. All-at-once transforming into the organ body, the vessel world, and the [karmic] seeds, its turnings produce the seven [active] consciousnesses, each of which has the potentiality to manifest its own objective supports [ālambana].¹⁰² (The eye [consciousness] takes forms as its objective supports [and so on], up to the seventh [consciousness], which takes as its objective support the seeing [part] of the eighth [consciousness].¹⁰³ The eighth takes as its objective supports the organ [body], the [karmic] seeds, and the vessel world.) There are no real dharmas whatsoever outside these eight consciousnesses.

Answer: Because of the power of fumigating habit [energy; vāsanā] that discriminates a self and dharmas, when the various consciousnesses arise, they transform into a seeming self and dharmas.¹⁰⁴ Because two consciousnesses, the sixth and seventh, are covered by ignorance [avidyā], they take this [apparent self and dharmas] as objective supports, grasping them as a real self and real dharmas. It is like one who is ill (when one is seriously sick, the mind is beclouded and sees people and things in strange colors) or one who is dreaming (things seen in the dream state can be remembered). Because of the power of the illness or the dream, in the mind the characteristics of various external sense objects seem to arise. Even though when dreaming one grasps them as really existent external things, when awakening comes, one knows that they are just dream transformations. This body characteristic and external world of ours are also like this, just consciousness transformations. Because of delusion, one grasps [the mistaken notion] that a self and sense objects exist. Having awakened to the realization that there has never been a self and dharmas, that only mind [citta-mātra] has existed, one then relies on this wisdom of dual voidness [of self and dharmas] to cultivate such practices as the [five-tiered] consciousness-only viewing,¹⁰⁵ the six perfections, and the four articles of attraction.¹⁰⁶ Step-by-step one extinguishes the two hindrances of the depravities and objects of knowledge¹⁰⁷ and realizes the thusness revealed by dual voidness.¹⁰⁸ The ten [bodhisattva] stages fill up completely, turning over the eight consciousnesses to become the awakening of the four knowledges.¹⁰⁹ Once the hindrances to thusness have been exhausted, the body of the dharma nature and great nirvana actualize.¹¹⁰ The principle spoken of in several tens of sutras such as the Unraveling the Deep Secret¹¹¹ and several hundreds of fascicles of treatises [such as] the Yoga¹¹² and the [Cheng] weishi [lun]¹¹³ do not go beyond this.¹¹⁴ The three subdivisions above are all the first teaching of cryptic meaning that relies on the nature to speak of characteristics.

The teaching that takes consciousness to negate sense objects (the Yogācāra sutras and treatises) is identical to the Chan axiom of stopping the unreal and cultivating mind. Thus, the teaching devices of the Chan houses belonging to this axiom, such as cross-legged sitting, breath control, etc., find canonical support in the Yogācāra sutras. How can anyone possibly condemn such praxes? Whether or not to encourage a trainee to do cross-legged sitting depends upon a considered assessment of the trainee’s disposition. Even Bodhidharma himself and the East Mountain patriarchs practiced cross-legged sitting!

26. However, only the third [subdivision of the first teaching], the teaching that takes consciousness to eradicate sense objects, comes together like a tally with the Chan gate’s axiom of stopping [thought of] the unreal and cultivating mind [only]. Knowing that all external objects are void, [this Chan axiom] does not cultivate the phenomenal characteristics of external sense objects, but just stops [thought of] the unreal and cultivates mind [only]. “Stopping [thought of] the unreal” means to stop the unreality of self and dharmas; “cultivating mind [only]” means to cultivate the mind of consciousness only.¹¹⁵ Thus, [this Chan axiom] is identical to the consciousness-only teaching. Since it is identical to buddha [word as recorded in such sutras as the Unraveling the Deep Secret], how can anyone condemn its step-by-step gate of stopping [thought of the] unreal and gazing at purity,¹¹⁶ sweeping away [dust] from time to time,¹¹⁷ freezing mind and abiding in mind,¹¹⁸ concentrating completely on one object, doing cross-legged sitting, regulating the body and regulating the breath, etc.? These sorts of teaching devices were all encouraged and praised by the Buddha. The Vimalakīrti says: “It is not necessary that one sit.”¹¹⁹ It does not say: “It is necessary that one not sit.” To do sitting or not to do sitting depends upon what is a suitable response to the disposition [of the trainee in question]. Whether to freeze mind or to make mind attentive [to ritual acts depends] in each case [on a master’s] estimate of the [trainee’s] habit-energy nature. During the interval from the great Emperor Gaozong [r. 650–683] to the court of Xuanzong [r. 713–755] the basic axiom of the perfect and all-at-once [that is, the Southern lineage of Huineng] was not yet practiced in the North. [In the North during that time] there was only Chan Master Shenxiu. He spread widely the step-by-step teaching and became the Dharma Ruler of the Two Capitals [Chang’an and Luoyang] and Master of the Gate to Three Emperors [Empress Wu, Ruizong, and Zhongzong].¹²⁰ Everyone called it the Bodhidharma lineage, and yet it did not reveal the purport of “[mind] is buddha.” Caoqi [Huineng] and Heze [Shenhui] feared that the perfect axiom would die off, and so they scolded and condemned such things as abiding in mind, breath control, etc. This was just a case of getting rid of disease and was not a case of getting rid of dharma.¹²¹ These teaching devices were precisely those that the Great Master, the fifth patriarch [Hongren], used in instruction. Each [of his ten major disciples] was sanctioned as the master of one direction.¹²² Bodhidharma used the practice of wall viewing to teach people how to quiet mind.¹²³ He said: “Externally, stop all objective supports. Internally, make the mind free of panting [nei xin wu chuan]. When the mind is like a wall, one can enter the path with it.”¹²⁴ Certainly this is a dharma of cross-legged Chan sitting! Furthermore, the Damochanjing in two fascicles, which was translated by [Hui]yuan Gong of Mt. Lu and the two Indian monks Buddha and Yaśas,¹²⁵ clarifies in detail the gate of cross-legged Chan sitting and step-by-step teaching devices. The idea is no different from that of the Tiantai [lineage] and the [Jingzhong and Northern] schools of [Zhi] shen and [Shen]xiu [respectively]. The fourth [Chan] patriarch [Daoxin] for a period of several decades did not touch his ribs to a mat.¹²⁶ Thus, we know whether a [Chan] axiom is explicit or implicit by whether its understanding is deep or shallow. We do not take its practice or lack of practice of breath control, etc., to ascertain whether the principles of its dharma are biased or perfect. One merely applies antidotes in accordance with the disease. One must not praise this and condemn that. (Earlier [in section 16] I mentioned that there was a person who criticized me, saying: “Why do you encourage cross-legged Chan sitting?” This is now my answer.)

The second teaching, the teaching of cryptic meaning that eradicates characteristics to reveal the dharma nature, on the surface negates everything, but its hidden meaning is more positive, to reveal reality or the true nature. This teaching critiques the third subdivision of the first teaching, stating that both mind and sense objects are mutually dependent and hence void. The canonical texts of this second teaching include the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the treatises of the Madhyamaka school.

27. The second is the teaching of cryptic meaning that eradicates characteristics to reveal the [dharma] nature. (According to the real, complete meaning, grasping of the unreal has always been void and need not be further eradicated. The dharmas without outflows have always been the true nature. The excellent functioning of the conditioned has never ceased. It should not be eradicated. It is just for the sake of a type of sentient being who grasps unreal characteristics, obstructs the perfected nature, and [finds it] difficult to obtain profound awakening, that the Buddha [in such sutras as the Perfection of Wisdom] does not sort out good and bad, stained and pure, nature and characteristics, but eradicates everything. Even though the true nature and excellent functioning are not nonexistent, [the Buddha in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras] says that they are non existent. This is the reason we say [this second teaching] is of “cryptic meaning.” Even though its [hidden] meaning lies in revealing the nature, its words are an eradication of characteristics, and, hence, the [hidden] meaning is not manifest in the words. Hence it is “cryptic.”) This teaching states [the following critique]: Since in the previous [consciousness-only] teaching, the sense objects, which are transformations [of consciousness], are all unreal, how could the consciousnesses with the potentiality to transform alone be real? This is because mind and sense objects are mutually supportive; they are void but seem to exist. In other words, mind does not arise alone. It is arises in dependence on sense objects. Sense objects do not arise by themselves. They are manifested from mind. If mind is void, then sense objects fade. If sense objects are extinguished, then mind is void. There has never been mind without sense objects, nor have there ever been sense objects without mind. It is like seeing things in a dream, where there seems to be a difference between the seer and the seen [that is, the sense objects]. In fact, they are equally unreal, neither of them having any existence whatsoever. The consciousnesses and the sense objects are also like this. This is because they both are dependent upon [causes and] conditions [hetu pratyaya] and have no self nature [asvabhāva]. There has never been a dharma that did not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, among all dharmas, there are none that are not void [śūnya].¹²⁷ Whatever has characteristics is unreal.¹²⁸ Therefore, in voidness [śūnyatā] there are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind; no eighteen [psychophysical] elements [of the personality], twelve [members of the chain of] causation, four truths; no knowledge and also no attainment.¹²⁹ There is no karma and no retribution, no practice and no realization. Samsara and nirvana are equal, like an illusion. Just take not being fixed in anything, no grasping, and no attaching, as practice of the path. The thousand-plus fascicles of the [Perfection of] Wisdom Sutras¹³⁰ in various sections and the three treatises, the Zhong[lun],¹³¹ the Bai[lun],¹³² and the [Shi’er] men,¹³³ as well as the Guang bai[lun],¹³⁴ etc., all discuss this [teaching]. (The [Da] zhidu lun¹³⁵ in one hundred fascicles also speaks of this principle, but, since this treatise emphasizes the comprehension of non-grasping, it includes dharma characteristics of both the Mahayana and Hinayana and is covertly identical to the later true-nature axiom [that is, the third teaching].)¹³⁶

The second teaching and the second Chan axiom are identical. Chan gradualists such as the Northern lineage and dharma-characteristics exegetes are critical of voidness formulations, holding that they fall into the extreme of negating cause and effect. But Nagarjuna’s voidness and Asanga’s existence form a perfect whole, and this is also the case with the later Indian masters Bhavaviveka of the Madhyamaka school and Dharmapala of the Yogācāra school. According to the teachings of the Huayan master Fazang, existence and voidness in contradiction annihilate each other and, at the same time, in agreement fuse into oneness: The extreme of contradiction is the extreme of agreement. In the case of the Indians negation equaled confirmation, but, lamentably, in China negation has led to jealousy. Some Chinese have not taken the Indian medicine.

28. This [second] teaching and the Chan gate’s axiom of cutting off and not leaning on anything are identical. Since they are identical to what the World-honored-one has said [in the voidness sutras] and what the bodhisattvas have propagated [in the Madhyamaka treatises], why is it that whenever Chan adepts of the step-by-step gate [such as Northern lineage] and [some] followers of exegesis [such as those of the dharma-characteristics axiom] hear these [negative] expressions [used by Chan adepts of the all-at-once gate and exegetes of the eradication-of-characteristics axiom], they are critical? They say: “It abolishes cause and effect.” But the Buddha himself said: “There is neither karma nor retribution.” How could this be a false view? [These Chan adepts and exegetes] might say: “When the Buddha spoke these words, they had a deeper [that is, cryptic or hidden] meaning.” [But then I would in turn ask]: “Why is it that when [some under] the Chan gate employ these expressions, there is no such deeper meaning?” They might say: “I have investigated the awakening [of such-and-such Chan adepts], and there is no deeper meaning.” [I would reply:] “You have met those who have misunderstood. You should abhor only the people involved. How can you reject the dharma?” The above two teachings [that is, the third subdivision of the first teaching, the teaching that takes consciousness to eradicate sense objects, and the second teaching, the teaching of cryptic meaning that eradicates characteristics to reveal the dharma nature] are in accordance with the Buddha’s basic intention. Even though they do not conflict, in what junior trainees transmitted there was a great deal of grasping the written word and missing the purport. Either each grasped one view [that is, taking consciousness to eradicate sense objects or eradicating characteristics to reveal the nature] and denied the other, or both of them were of floating faith and too dull in terms of ability to understand. Therefore, the bodhisattvas Nagarjuna and [his disciple] Aryadeva relied on the teaching that eradicates characteristics and spoke widely of the principle of voidness.¹³⁷ They eradicated this grasping of existence [on the part of junior trainees] and enabled them to come to a penetrating understanding of true voidness. True voidness is a voidness that does not go against existence. The bodhisattvas Asanga and Vasubandhu relied on the consciousness-only teaching and engaged in extensive discussions of terms and characteristics. They analyzed the nature and characteristics as different, impurity and purity as different, and eradicated this grasping of voidness [on the part of junior trainees], enabling them to come to a clear understanding of excellent existence. Excellent existence is an existence that does not go against voidness. Although each writes of one principle, [true voidness or excellent existence, they form a] perfect whole. That is why they do not go against each other.

Question: If so, why later were there treatise masters such as Bhavaviveka and Dharmapala who eradicated each other’s [teaching]?¹³⁸

Answer: This [voidness of the Mādhyamika Bhavaviveka and existence of the Yogācārin Dharmapala] confirm each other; they do not eradicate each other. Why? The reason is that the faculties of scholars during the final phase [of the dharma]¹³⁹ are gradualistic and dull, and they grasp either voidness or existence. Bhavaviveka and others eradicated really existent characteristics, enabling [those who grasped existence] to plumb the ultimate depth of true voidness. This confirmed the excellent existence of origination by dependence of the other [that is, Dharmapala]. Dharmapala and others eradicated a biased voidness of the annihilationist [view that denies cause and effect]. Their intention lay in excellent existence. Because excellent existence is preserved, it is identical to the no-self-nature [asvabhāva] and true voidness of the other [Bhavaviveka]. The texts negate each other, but the intentions confirm each other. (With this the previously mentioned doubt [in section 16] about the clash between the Southern and Northern Chan gates has been resolved.) This is because there are two principles to excellent existence and true voidness.¹⁴⁰ The first is the principle of mutual contradiction in the extreme. This means that they clash and are completely snatched up and eternally exhausted. The second is the principle of mutual agreement in the extreme. This means that they mysteriously fuse into one characteristic, and the whole substance is completely taken in. If they did not snatch each other up and completely exhaust each other, there would be no way for the whole substance to be completely drawn in. Thus, contradiction in the extreme is agreement in the extreme. Because Nagarjuna and Asanga, etc., accorded with the gate of agreement in the extreme, they confirmed each other. Because Bhavaviveka and Dharmapala, etc., are based on the gate of contradiction in the extreme, they eradicated each other. Contradiction and agreement exist in freedom; confirmation and eradication are unobstructed. Thus, within all dharmas there are none that are not brought together. Alas! In this land [of China], junior students of the sutras and treatises of these two axioms [that is, dharma-characteristics and eradication-of-characteristics] denied and criticized each other as if they were mutual enemies. When will they be capable of realizing the patience [that comes from recognizing that] dharmas are non-arising [and non-disappearing]? Today’s all-at-once and step-by-step Chan adepts are the same way. Exert effort to penetrate the [mind] mirror. Do not be biased.

Question: Since for the former worthies of the western regions mutual eradication was identical to mutual confirmation, how can it be that in this land mutual negation becomes mutual jealousy?

Answer: It is like a person’s drinking water. He himself knows whether it is cold or warm.¹⁴¹ Everyone [must] view mind. Everyone [must] investigate thoughts. [The former worthies of the western regions] left behind medicine to prevent disease, [but some in this land] have not become healthy. [The western worthies] set up a dharma to prevent error, [but some Chinese] have not become worthies.

The third teaching, the teaching that openly shows that the true mind is dharma nature/true nature, does not discuss characteristics, does not negate characteristics, does not employ teaching devices, and is without any cryptic meaning. It just teaches that mind = the true nature = Knowing. This teaching is found in sutras such as the Huayan, Perfect Awakening, and Buddha Top-knot (= Heroic Progress Samadhi) and in treatises like the Awakening of Faith. It is identical to the third Chan axiom.

29. The third is the teaching that openly shows that the true mind is the [dharma] nature. (It points directly to the realization that one’s own mind [svacitta] is the true nature [tattva].¹⁴² It does not show in terms of phenomenal characteristics, nor does it show by eradicating characteristics. Therefore, we say: “Is the nature.” It does not involve teaching devices or a hidden, cryptic meaning, and, therefore, we say: “Openly shows.”) This teaching says that all sentient beings possess the true mind of voidness and calm that is intrinsically pure from without beginning. (It is not a case of becoming pure by cutting off the depravities and, therefore, we say: “Intrinsically pure.” The Ratnagotra-śāstra says: “There are two kinds of purity. The first is intrinsic purity, and the second is the purity [that results from] the removal of stain.”¹⁴³ The Śrīmālā says: “The intrinsically pure mind is difficult to understand. This mind made impure by the depravities is also difficult to understand.”¹⁴⁴ Comment: This mind transcends the principles of the two previous axioms of voidness and existence, and that is why it is difficult to understand.) Bright and never darkening, it is a clear and constant Knowing. (From here down I quote buddha word.) Exhausting the limit of the future, always abiding and never extinguishing, we call it the buddha nature. It is also called the buddha-in-embryo or mind ground. (Bodhidharma’s transmission was this mind.) From beginningless time thought of the unreal [abhūta-vikalpa] forms a screen over it, so that, never self-realized, it sinks into the rebirth process. The one of great awakening, feeling sadness at this, appears in the world in order to say that all the dharmas of samsara are void and to openly show that this mind is identical to all of the buddhas. It is as the “Chapter on the Appearance [of the Tathagatas]” of the Huayan Sutra says: “Buddha sons, there is not one sentient being who does not possess the wisdom of the Tathagata. It is just that sentient beings do not realize [they possess it] because of thought of the unreal and grasping. If thought of the unreal is removed, then complete wisdom, spontaneous wisdom, unobstructed wisdom, can appear. It is like a great sutra roll (analogous to the Buddha’s wisdom). In size it is three-thousand great thousand of worlds. (The wisdom substance is without limit; it circulates throughout the dharma sphere.) It narrates the events in the three thousand great thousand of worlds, exhausting all of them. (It is like merits and excellent functions as numberless as the grains of sand of the Ganges from the outset existing on the substance.) In spite of the fact that this great sutra roll is a great thousand of worlds in size, it exists in its entirety within one speck of dust. (It is like the Buddha wisdom existing in its entirety within the body of [every] sentient being, perfect and complete.) [I have made] an example of one speck of dust (raised the example of one sentient being), but all specks of dust are like this. Once there was a person whose wisdom was clear and comprehensive (like the World-honored-one). Having brought to perfection the pure, divine eye, he saw the sutra roll within the speck of dust. (The divine eye cuts through hindrances to see forms, just as the buddha eye cuts through the depravities to see the buddha wisdom.) [Hidden within the speck of dust, the sutra roll] was not of the least benefit to sentient beings. (When [sentient beings] are deluded, none of them attains this function; there are none that are not separated from it, etc.) [The good friend on the path then] produces teaching devices with which to break open that speck of dust (just as [the Buddha] speaks dharma in order to destroy hindrances). He brings out this great sutra which enables all sentient beings to obtain abundant benefit (etc.). The wisdom of the Tathagata is also like this. Immeasurable, unobstructed, it can benefit all sentient beings everywhere. (This is like the [sutra’s] narration of events in the three thousand worlds.) [Yet it exists] perfect and complete within the body of every sentient being. (This is like the [sutra roll] within [each and every] speck of dust.) It is just that the ordinary, ignorant ones engage in thought of the unreal and grasping. Unaware, not awakened, they do not obtain benefit. It is then that the Tathagata, gazing upon all sentient beings in the dharma sphere with his unobstructed, pure wisdom eye, speaks these words: ‘Strange! Strange! Why is it that, [even though] all these sentient beings possess the wisdom of the Tathagata, [they continue in] stupidity, delusion, and the depravities, not Knowing and not seeing? I will teach them by means of the path of the noble ones that will free them forever from thought of the unreal and grasping, enabling them to come to see the great wisdom of the Tathagata within their own bodies, no different from that of a buddha. He then teaches those sentient beings how to practice the path of the noble ones (the six perfections and the thirty-seven parts of the path) that will free them from thought of the unreal. Once free of thought of the unreal, they will realize the immeasurable wisdom of the Tathagata, which benefits and brings peace to all sentient beings.’”¹⁴⁵

Question: Above you have spoken of the “complete and constant Knowing that is intrinsically [pure from without beginning].” Why would it be necessary for the buddhas to open it up and show it?

Answer: This Knowing is not the knowing of realization. My intention was to explain that the true nature is not identical to the sky or a tree or a stone, and, therefore, I said “Knowing.”¹⁴⁶ [Knowing] is not like the consciousnesses that take sense objects as objective supports and discriminate. It is not like the wisdom that illuminates substance and comprehends. It is just that the nature of thusness is spontaneously constant Knowing.

Therefore, Asvaghosa Bodhisattva says: “Thusness is the self substance and the Knowing of reality.”¹⁴⁷ The “Chapter on Dedications” of the Huayan also says: “Thusness takes illumination as its nature.”¹⁴⁸ Also, according to the “Chapter on Questions on Enlightenment” [of the Huayan, which is quoted below,] there is a difference between wisdom [prajna] and Knowing. Wisdom is limited to the noble ones; it does not pervade common persons. Knowing is possessed by both common persons and noble ones; it pervades both principle and wisdom.

[The “Chapter on Questions on Enlightenment” says:] “Therefore, nine bodhisattvas, including Awakened Head, asked Mañjuśrī: ‘What is the wisdom of the buddha realm (the wisdom of realization awakening)? What is the Knowing of the buddha realm (the true mind that exists from the outset)?’

Mañjuśrī answered about wisdom: ‘The wisdom of all the buddhas exists in freedom, unobstructed in the three times.’

(It comprehends all events in the past, future, and present, and so it exists in freedom and is unobstructed.)

In answering about Knowing, he said: ‘It is not something that consciousness can be conscious of.’

(One cannot by means of consciousness be conscious of it because consciousness belongs to discrimination, and discrimination is not true Knowing. True Knowing is only seen in no mindfulness.)¹⁴⁹

(One cannot by means of wisdom [have] Knowing. This means that if one could realize it by means of wisdom, then it would be an object that had been realized. Because true Knowing is not an object, one cannot realize it by means of wisdom. If one even for a split second produces an illuminated mind, then it is not true Knowing. Therefore, the sutra says: “If one’s own mind seizes one’s own mind, then what is not an illusion becomes an illusionary dharma.”¹⁵⁰ The treatise says: “Mind does not see mind.”¹⁵¹ The Great Master Heze [Shenhui] said: “Deliberate and you are [already] in error.”¹⁵² This is why the Northern lineage’s gazing at mind misses the true purport. If mind could be gazed at, then it would be an object. Therefore, this [Mañjuśrī] says: “It is not an object of mind.”)

(It does not become pure after the removal of stain and extinction of the depravities. It does not become pure after cutting off the hindrances and congealing turbulence. This is why we say: “From the outset pure.” The Ratnagotra-śāstra calls the purity that does not [require] the removal of stain that “intrinsic purity.” Therefore, we say: “This nature from the outset is pure.”)

(It has already been said that it is from the outset pure, that it does not require the cutting off of hindrances, and thus we know that all beings from the outset have possessed it. It is just that, because of a screen of the depravities, they are not spontaneously Knowing. Therefore, the Buddha opens it up and shows them and enables them all to gain entrance to awakening. In the Lotus [it speaks of] opening up and showing [sentient beings how to] awaken to buddha Knowing-seeing.¹⁵⁴ As it says in this passage, the Buddha originally appeared in the world just for the sake of this task. It says: “to have them attain purity.” That is the purity [that results from] the removal of stain in the Ratnagotra. Although this mind is intrinsically pure, one must always be awakened to it and cultivating it. Only then will one attain perfect purity of nature and characteristics. Therefore, a number of sutras and treatises speak of the two types of purity and the two types of liberation. Among present-day people whose learning is shallow, some know just the purity [that results from] the removal of stain and the liberation [that results from] the removal of hindrances, and so they criticize the Chan gate’s “mind is buddha.” Others, knowing just intrinsic purity and the liberation [coming from awakening to] intrinsic purity, make light of teaching characteristics [that is, doctrinal formulations] and reject such practices as holding to the disciplinary rules, cross-legged Chan sitting, [breath] control, etc. They do not know that one must all-at-once awaken to intrinsic purity [to attain] intrinsic liberation and [engage in] step-by-step practice so as to attain the purity [that results from] the removal of stain and the liberation [resulting from] the removal of hindrances, becoming perfectly pure and in ultimate liberation. Free from obstruction in both mind and body, one is then identical to Śākyamuni Buddha.)

The Baozanglun says: “If you know existence, you will be destroyed by existence. If you know non-existence, you will be ruined by non-existence. (These are both the wisdom that is capable of knowing existence or non-existence.) The Knowing of this Knowing does not make any distinction between existence and non-existence.”¹⁵⁵ (Making no distinction between existence and non-existence, it is the Knowing that is intrinsic non-discrimination.) Thus, [this third teaching] opens up and shows the mind of spiritual Knowing that is the true nature, no different from a buddha. Thus, this is called the teaching that openly shows that the true mind is the [dharma] nature.

More than forty sections of such sutras as the Huayan,¹⁵⁶ Secret Array,¹⁵⁷ Perfect Awakening,¹⁵⁸ Buddha Top-knot [= Heroic Progress Samadhi],¹⁵⁹ Śrīmālā,¹⁶⁰ Buddha-in-Embryo,¹⁶¹ Lotus,¹⁶² and Nirvana,¹⁶³ and fifteen sections of such treatises as the Ratnagotra,¹⁶⁴ Buddha Nature,¹⁶⁵ Awakening of Faith,¹⁶⁶ Ten Stages,¹⁶⁷ Dharma Sphere,¹⁶⁸ and Nirvana¹⁶⁹ base themselves on the revealed dharma substance and [hence] all belong to this teaching, though there are some differences concerning all-at-once versus step-by-step. [This teaching] is identical to the Chan gate’s third axiom of directly revealing the mind nature.

Mādhyamikas speak only of the calmed and neglect Knowing; Yogācārins hold that the ordinary person differs from those advanced on the path, neglecting the Chan slogan “mind is buddha.” The schema of three teachings is for these people. Bodhidharma never transmitted the word “Knowing.” He simply waited for trainees to experience the real on their own. This is why his teaching was called “silent transmission of the mind seal.” The word “silent” implies that he was silent about Knowing, not that he did not speak at all. This was the pattern for the next six generations. Shenhui wanted to continue this pattern, but the conditions were inopportune. He worried that Bodhidharma’s teaching was in peril, and, consequently, he spoke the line: “The one word ‘Knowing’ is the gate of all excellence.” This open style of transmission was easily comprehensible.

30. Since Asvaghosa designates mind as the original source¹⁷⁰ and Mañjuśri selects Knowing as the true substance,¹⁷¹ why does the party that negates characteristics [that is, eradication-of-charactersitics/Madhyamaka] just speak of calm and not allow true Knowing? Why does the party that discusses characteristics [that is, dharma-characteristics/Yogācāra] grasp [the view that] the common person is different from the noble one and not allow [the Chan gate’s “mind] is buddha”? [My] present [schema for] classifying the teachings of the Buddha is for precisely these people. Therefore I said earlier [in section 11] that many of those [Chan patriarchs] in the western regions who transmitted mind were equally versed in the sutras and treatises, [following] the road of non-duality. It was just because this land [of China] was deluded about mind and grasped the written word, took the name for the substance, that Bodhidharma’s good skill [in teaching devices] was to select the phrase “transmission of mind.” He raised this term (“mind” is a term), but was silent about its substance (“Knowing” is its substance). As a metaphor he took wall viewing¹⁷² (mentioned above [in section 26]) to effect the cutting off of all objective supports.

Question: When one has cut off all objective supports, is that not [the extreme view of] annihilationism?¹⁷³

Answer: Complete and spontaneous Knowing, words cannot reach it. The master [Bodhidharma], when sealing [a disciple], said: “Just this is the intrinsically pure mind. Have no further doubts.”

If the answers did not coincide, just in order to cut off all errors, he had [the disciple] engage in further reflection. To the very end, [Bodhidharma] did not give others the previously mentioned word “Knowing.” He simply waited for them to awaken of their own accord and then, for the first time, said: “That is how it really is!” Only when they had personally realized the substance did he seal them, cutting off remaining doubts. This is why [his teaching] was called “silent transmission of the mind seal.” The word “silent” means only that he was silent about the word “Knowing,” not that he did not say anything. For six generations of transmission, it was always like this. But, by the time of Heze [Shenhui], other lineages were spreading competing teachings. [Shenhui] wanted to seek a silent coinciding, but he did not encounter a karmic nexus. Further, meditating on Bodhidharma’s prediction about the hanging thread (Bodhidharma had said: “After the sixth generation the fate of my dharma will be like a hanging thread”), he feared that the purport of the [Bodhidharma mind] axiom would be extinguished.¹⁷⁴ Consequently, he spoke [the line]: “The one word ‘Knowing’ is the gate of all excellence.”¹⁷⁵ He trusted that trainees would awaken to this in a deep or shallow manner. In other words, his plan was to ensure that the [Bodhidharma mind] axiom would not be cut off. Also, the fortunes of the great dharma in this country had reached the point where a type of worldly person [who talks about] the path was being heard everywhere. This is the reason [Shenhui] responded in this way. This silent transmission [of Bodhidharma] was unknown to others, and so [Shenhui] took the robe as [a seal of] faith. This open transmission [of Shenhui] was easily comprehensible to trainees. He just dispelled doubts through the spoken word. Since it has already been put into words, is it necessary to quote the sutras and treatises as proof? (An objection previously mentioned [in section 16]: “Do those who at present transmit the dharma speak secret oral transmissions [miyu] or not?” I have now answered this question. The dharma is Bodhidharma’s dharma. Therefore, those who hear it, however deep or shallow, are all benefited. It is just that in the past it was secret, whereas now it is open. Therefore, it is not called a secret oral transmission. Just because the name is different [from what it was in Bodhidharma’s time] does not imply that the dharma is also different.)

Question: Having awakened to the true mind of the third teaching, how does one practice it? Does one employ the cross-legged Chan sitting of the first teaching?

Answer: The person who is prone to turbulent, uncontrollable emotions does make use of the teaching devices of the first teaching, but the person of weak depravities and strong intellect relies on the one-practice concentration (samadhi) of Southern Chan and the third teaching. The one-practice concentration is movement and is carried out in the midst of all activities.

31. Question: Once one has awakened to this [intrinsically pure] mind, how does one practice it? Does one still rely on the command to practice cross-legged Chan sitting within the first teaching, the one that speaks of characteristics?¹⁷⁶

Answer: There are two ideas here. When one is prone to strong emotions that are difficult to control, such as heavy depression and extreme excitability, passion and anger, etc., then one makes use of all sorts of teaching devices within the previous teaching, regulating according to the disease. If one’s depravities are quite weak and one’s intellect is sharp, then one relies on the one-practice concentration of the basic axiom [the third Chan axiom/Southern Chan] and the basic teaching [the third teaching that openly shows that the true mind is dharma nature].¹⁷⁷ As the Awakening of Faith says: “If you practice tranquilization, dwell in a quiet place, straighten the body, and rectify the mind. Rely on neither breath nor bodily form, until you reach mind only, without external sense objects.”¹⁷⁸ The Jingang sanmei [jing] says: “Chan is movement. No movement, no Chan. This is non-arising Chan.”¹⁷⁹ The Fajujing says: “If one trains in the various concentrations, it is movement, not cross-legged Chan sitting. The mind following along in the flow of sense objects, how could that be called concentration?”¹⁸⁰ The Vimalakīrti says: “To manifest all the deportments (walking, standing, sitting, and lying) without arising from the extinction concentration, to manifest neither body nor mind in the three realms [of desire, form, and non-form], this is quiet sitting.”¹⁸¹ [This is a concentration that] the Buddha sanctioned. According to this, once one has comprehended that the three realms [of desire, form, and non-form] are like a flower in the sky, that the four forms of birth [from an embryo, from an egg, from wetness, and from itself] are like a bed of dreams, then, grounded in substance, one produces practice; one practices and yet it is a non-practice. Dwelling in neither buddha nor mind, who is it that discusses higher realms and lower realms? (A previous objection [in section 16] was that, according to the teachings, one must [practice in this realm of desire in order to] be drawn up into the [dhyanas and] concentrations of the upper realms [of form and non-form], thereby stealing a peak into the heavens.¹⁸² [The person who presented this objection] has grasped the words of just one axiom. Having seen this principle of the complete teaching, he should feel shame and withdraw.)

The true mind of the third teaching can be completely selected out from all dharmas or can be completely inclusive of all dharmas. Direct realization that Knowing is the true mind constitutes the former; the latter means that without exception every single dharma is true mind. The gate of completely selecting out envelops the second teaching; the gate of completely including envelops the first teaching. The third teaching, which directly reveals true mind and within that encompasses both completely selecting out and completely including, subsumes the first two.

32. Within this [third] teaching the one true mind nature faces all dharmas, both impure and pure, and [can be] completely selected out or [can] completely include [all dharmas]. Completely selecting out means, as discussed above [in section 29], just the thing-in-itself:¹⁸³ directly pointing out that spiritual Knowing is the mind nature, and all else in unreal. This is why [Mañjuśrī] said that Knowing is not something that consciousness is conscious of,¹⁸⁴ that is not an object of mind, up to and including that it is neither nature nor characteristics, that it is neither buddha nor sentient beings, that it is divorced from the four alternatives [of is, is not, both is and is not, and neither is nor is not] and cuts off the hundred negations. “Completely including” means that, of all dharmas, both impure and pure, there are none that are not mind. When mind is deluded, it falsely produces depravities and karma, [which lead] to the four forms of birth, the six rebirth paths, and the worlds of miscellaneous filth; when mind is awakened, from substance it produces functions [such as] the four immeasurables, the six perfections, up to and including the four [unobstructed] understandings, the ten powers, and the pure lands of excellent bodies.¹⁸⁵ All of these are its manifestations. Because this mind manifests all dharmas, every single dharma is true mind. It is like the fact that all of the events that occur in a dream happen to the dreamer. When gold is made into utensils, each and every utensil is still the gold. With reflections in a mirror, every reflection is still the mirror. (Dreaming is like thought of the unreal and karmic retribution; utensils are like practice; reflections are like responsive transformations.) Therefore, the Huayan says: “Know that all dharmas are the mind self-nature and bring to perfection the wisdom body. Do not rely on others for awakening.”¹⁸⁶ The Awakening of Faith says: “The three realms are unreal, created by mind only. When one is free of mind, then the six sense objects do not exist…. All discrimination discriminates one’s own mind. Mind cannot see mind; there are no characteristics that can be apprehended. Therefore, all dharmas are like images in a mirror.”¹⁸⁷ The Lanka Descent Sutra says: “The calmed is called one mind. One mind is called buddha-in-embryo [tathagatagarbha]. It has the potentiality to create all the beings in the rebirth paths, to create good and to create bad, to receive suffering and joy, to be the cause of everything.”¹⁸⁸ Therefore, we know that there is nothing that is not mind. The gate of completely selecting out takes in the previous second teaching, the one that eradicates characteristics. The gate of completely including takes in the previous first teaching, the one that discusses characteristics. If we take [those two] previous [teachings] to view this [third teaching], this one is very different from the previous [two]. If we use this [teaching] to take in the previous [two teachings], then the previous [two teachings] are identical to this [teaching]. Depth always includes shallowness, but shallowness does not reach to depth. Depth means directly to reveal the substance of true mind and within that to select out everything and include everything. If, in this way, inclusion and selection exist in freedom, and nature and characteristics are unobstructed, then one is capable of having no place to abide within all dharmas. Just this is called the complete meaning [of the teachings]. There are still the differences between “mind” and “nature,” the conflict between all-at-once and step-by-step, and the ranked oral teachings of the various houses. I will deal with all these topics in sequence in the second roll.

The three teachings can be referred to as three principles or axioms (here not referring specifically to the three Chan axioms). The first and second principles can be understood as the polarity between existence and voidness, the third and first principles as the polarity between nature and characteristics. Everyone agrees on this. However, the second and third principles show the polarity between eradicating characteristics and revealing the nature, and there is widespread misunderstanding about this opposition. Both scholars and Chan people hold that these two are one teaching, one axiom. In other words, they hold that eradicating characteristics is, ipso facto, the true nature. To clarify this situation below I will lay out ten differences between the voidness principle and the nature principle.

33. The above three teachings take in all of the sutras spoken by the Tathagata in the course of his lifetime and all of the treatises composed by the bodhisattvas. A close examination of dharma and principles will reveal that the three principles [that is, the three teachings] are completely different, while the one dharma is without difference. Of the three principles the first and second are opposed as existence is to voidness,¹⁹⁰ and the third and the first are opposed as nature is to characteristics.¹⁹¹ Both of these [oppositions] are easily seen, even from a distance. Just the second and third are opposed as eradicating characteristics is [in contrast] to revealing the nature. Exegetes and Chan adepts are equally deluded [about this opposition].¹⁹² They both say that [the second and third teachings] are one axiom or one teaching. They both hold that eradicating characteristics is the true nature. Therefore, I will now broadly explain the ten differences between the voidness axiom and the nature axiom:

1. difference between them concerning dharma and principles, real and worldly

2. difference between them concerning the two terms “mind” and “nature”

3. difference between them concerning the two substances of the word “nature”

4. difference between them concerning true wisdom and true Knowing

5. difference between them concerning the existence or non-existence of a self-dharma

6. difference between them concerning negativistic explanation and expressive [that is, positivistic or affirmative] explanation

7. difference between them concerning what is recognized as name and what is recognized as substance

8. difference between them concerning the two truths and the three truths

9. difference between them concerning the voidness or existence of the three natures

10. difference between them concerning the voidness or existence of the buddha qualities¹⁹³

The voidness axiom takes characteristics as dharmas, that is, worldly truth, and takes negative statements such as “no arising and no disappearing” as principles, that is, the real truth. The nature axiom takes the true nature as dharma and voidness, existence, etc., as principles.

34. No. 1: The difference between them concerning dharma and principles, real and worldly. The voidness axiom, because it does not yet reveal the true spiritual nature, merely considers all differentiated characteristics to be dharmas; dharmas are the worldly truth. It considers “unconditioned,” “no characteristics,” “no arising–no disappearing,” “no increasing–no decreasing,” etc., which illuminate all dharmas, as principles. Principles are the real truth. Therefore, the Zhilun considers the worldly truth to be dharma-unobstructed wisdom and the real truth to be principle-unobstructed wisdom.¹⁹⁴ The nature axiom considers the one true nature to be dharma and the various differentiations, such as voidness and existence, to be principles. Therefore, the sutra says: “Immeasurable principles arise from the one dharma.”¹⁹⁵ Also, the “[Chapter on the] Ten Stages” of the Huayan says: “Dharma is knowing self-nature. Principles are knowing arising-disappearing. Dharma is knowing the real truth. Principles are knowing the worldly truth. Dharma is knowing the one vehicle. Principles are knowing the various vehicles.”¹⁹⁶ [This sutra] in this way explains ten [differences in] meaning between the two non-obstructions of dharma and principles.

The voidness axiom views the source of all dharmas as their lack of an inherent nature, their voidness, while the nature axiom views the source of all dharmas as true mind or Knowing.

35. No. 2: The difference between them concerning the two terms “mind” and “nature.” The voidness axiom with its unidirectional eye regards the original source of all dharmas as the [lack of self-] “nature” [or voidness of self-nature], while the nature axiom with its multiple eyes regards the original source of all dharmas as “mind.” As to regarding it as the [lack of self-] “nature,” there are many identical [passages] in the treatises, and it is not necessary to quote them here. As to regarding it as “mind,” the Śrīmālā says: “The intrinsically pure mind.”¹⁹⁷ The Awakening of Faith says: “All dharmas from the outset are divorced from such characteristics as speech, names, objective supports of mind, etc…. They are just the one mind.”¹⁹⁸ The Lanka Descent says: “The real mind.”¹⁹⁹ Indeed, the original nature spoken of in this axiom is not just voidness and calm, but is spontaneous, constant Knowing, and, for this reason, we should regard it as “mind.”

For the voidness axiom no-self-nature is the nature; for the nature axiom the non-void substance, in other words, Knowing, is the nature.

36. No. 3: The difference between them concerning the two substances of the word “nature.” The voidness axiom regards the naturelessness [wuxing = asvabhāva] of all dharmas to be the “nature” [xing], while the nature axiom regards the bright, constantly abiding, non-void substance as the “nature.”²⁰⁰ Therefore, although [they use] the same word for “nature,” they differ about its substance.

For the voidness axiom, wisdom is non-discrimination, and Knowing is discrimination. For the nature axiom, wisdom is limited to the noble ones, but Knowing, that is, the true nature, pervades both common persons and noble ones.

37. No. 4: The difference between them concerning true wisdom and true Knowing. The voidness axiom holds that discrimination is Knowing and non-discrimination is wisdom, wisdom being deep and Knowing shallow. The nature axiom holds that the excellent wisdom with the potential to realize the principle of the noble ones is wisdom and the true nature, which encompasses [both] principle and wisdom, pervading [both] the common person and the noble one, is Knowng. Knowing is pervasive, but wisdom is limited.²⁰¹ The “Chapter on Questions on Enlightenment” [of the Huayan Sutra] quoted above [in section 29] has already made this distinction. Furthermore, the “Chapter on the Ten Dedications” [of the Huayan,] in speaking of thusness, says: “Illumination is its nature.”²⁰² The Awakening of Faith says that “the self-substance of thusness is real Knowing.”²⁰³

Whereas the voidness axiom holds that self is unreal and non-self is real, the nature axiom reverses them.

38. No. 5: The difference between them concerning the existence or nonexistence of a self-dharma. The voidness axiom takes self [atman] as unreal and non-self [anatman] as real. The nature axiom takes non-self as unreal and self as real. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: “Non-self is called samsara. Self is called Tathagata.”²⁰⁴ [This sutra] also says: “To consider self as non-self is a topsy-turvy dharma.”²⁰⁵ [The sutra goes on,] up to and including a broad refutation of the impermanence and non-self views of the two vehicles [of the hearers and private buddhas, saying they are] “like stones in a spring pond mistaken for treasures.”²⁰⁶ [It gives] broad praise to permanence, joy, self, and purity as the ultimate, up to and including: “Within the nonself dharmas, there is the true self.”²⁰⁷ (Indeed, sentient beings, being deluded about their own true self, falsely grasp the five aggregates as a self. Therefore, the Buddha, in the Mahayana and Hinayana dharma-characteristics and eradication-of-characteristics teachings [that is, in the second and third subdivisions of the first teaching and in the second teaching] negates it [the self], saying: “It does not exist.” Now in the nature axiom [the Buddha] directly illumines the real substance, revealing it by saying: “It exists.”)

The voidness axiom is just negativistic explanation, saying what the nature is not. This is incomplete. The nature axiom is both negativistic and expressive explanation, leading to a personal realization in the here and now that Knowing is the mind nature.

39. No. 6: The difference between them concerning negativistic explanation and expressive [that is, positivistic or affirmative] explanation.²⁰⁸ “Negativistic” means getting rid of what it is not; “expressive” means revealing what it is. In other words, “negativistic” is rejection of all that is superfluous; and “expressive” is directly showing the thing-in-itself.²⁰⁹ [The thing-in-itself] is the true, excellent principle nature as spoken of in various sutras. Every one [of those sutras] says it “neither arises nor disappears,” “is neither stained nor pure,” “has neither cause nor effect,” “is without characteristics and unconditioned,” “is neither common person nor noble one,” “is neither nature nor characteristics,” etc. [Such phrases] are all negativistic explanation. (Sutras and treatises often negate all dharmas with the word “it-is-not [fei zi].” Sometimes there are thirty to fifty instances of the word “it-is-not.” The words “not [bu zi]” and “no [wu zi]” are also [used in] this manner. This is why we speak of “the cutting off of the hundred negations.”) If [a text] speaks of “Knowing-seeing and awakened illumination,” “the brightness of the spiritual mirror,” “radiancy and luminosity,” “awakened calm,” etc., it is always a case of expressive explanation. If there were no substance such as Knowing-seeing, what dharma could be revealed as the nature, and what dharma could be spoken of as “neither arising nor disappearing,” etc.? You must recognize right now, completely, that Knowing is the mind nature, and only then say that this Knowing “neither arises nor disappears,” etc. It is like talk about salt. To say that it does not have a weak taste is negativistic, while to say that it is salty is expressive. In speaking of water, to say that it is not dry is negativistic, while to say that it is wet is expressive. The cutting off of the hundred negations that is always spoken of in the teachings is all negativistic phraseology. To directly reveal the one reality expressive language is used. The words of the voidness axiom are [just] negativistic explanation, while the words of the nature axiom have [both] the negativistic and the expressive. [Language that is] just negativistic is not yet the [teaching of] complete [meaning]. Combined with the expressive it then hits the bull’s-eye. Today everyone says that negativistic words are deep and expressive words are shallow, and, for this reason, they value only such phrases as “neither mind nor buddha,” “unconditioned and without characteristics,” up to and including “nothing can be apprehended.”²¹⁰ Indeed, it is like this because they just take negativistic phraseology to be excellent and do not want a personal realization of the dharma substance.