THE ESSENTIALS OF

THE EIGHT TRADITIONS

by

Gyonen

Translated from the Japanese

by

Leo M. Pruden

Numata Center

for Buddhist Translation and Research

1994

Contents

Translator's Introduction

This work was not initially undertaken as a fall translation of the Hasshu-koyo (The essentials of the eight traditions); rathei; I first translated the section on the Ritsu tradition for the benefit of my students at Brown University and later for the use of my students at the College of Oriental Studies (Los Angeles). I later translated the section on the Kusha tradition for courses that I taught at the Nyingma Institute (Berkeley), It was only later; when I began to teach a course on the history of Japanese Buddhism (at the College of Oriental Studies) that I completed the translation of the whole of this work.

The Hasshu-koyo was composed in 1268 (Bun'ei 5) by the scholar-monk Gyonen (1240-1321), one of the most eminent scholars of his time.

The first mention of this work is in Volume 2 of the book catalogue the Shoshu shosho roku. The text of the Hasshu-koyo was (first?) printed in 1827 (Bun'ei 10) and in 1886 (Meiji 19).

A variant title of this same work is the Hasshu-koyo-sho (An essay on the essentials of the eight traditions), A printed edition of this work, with this title, appeared in 1653 (Shoo 2), in 1862 (Bunkyu 2), and in 1885 (Meiji 18). This is also the title of an undated manuscript preserved in the library of Ryukoku Univer­sity Kyoto.

Although written in the second half of the thirteenth century this work appeared to have but few pre-Meiji (i.e., pre-1868) com­mentaries composed on it.

The first commentaries to the Hasshu-koyo that have been preserved are listed on the following pages.

1. The Hasshu-koyo, also called Kotei Hasshu-koyo, in two volumes, was composed by the monk Enge (1764-1840). This work was published in 1827 (Bunsei 10).
2. Enge also wrote in one volume the Hasshu-koyo ryakuroku, the undated manuscript of which is preserved in the Library of Otani University Kyoto.
3. The Hasshu-koyo monki, in two volumes, was composed by the scholar-monk Gijo (1796-1858). This was published in 1840 (Tempo 11), and a copy of this work is preserved in the library of Otani University
4. Gijo also published the Hasshu-koyo kogi, at an unknown date, in three volumes. This work is also preserved in the library of Otani University
5. The Meiji period (1868-1912) saw the publication of almost two dozen editions of and commentaries on the Hasshu-koyo.
6. The Hasshu-koyo koge was composed by Fukuda Gido. This work was published in 1878 (Meiji 11) in some six kan, in two volumes.

The Hasshu-koyo-(sho) Keimd-roku was composed by Kusunoki Senryu (and was compiled by Atsumi Kafen). This five-volume work was published in 1878 (Meiji 11) by the Depart­ment of Education (Kydiku-bu) of the Higashi Honganji, Kyoto. Printed by the K6bund6 of Kyoto, this work was reprinted in 1880 (Meiji 13) and 1896 (Meiji 29).

1. The Hasshu-koyo kojitsu (van Hasshu-koyo kosho) was com­posed by Shimmyd^n Mongo (1771-1831) and was edited by Fujii Genju. This work was (first?) published in 1881 (Meiji 14) in two volumes by the Department of Buddhist Studies (,Kydgaku-bu) of the Koshqji-ha branch of the Jodo Shinshu denomination. (The manu­script of this work is preserved in the library of Ryukoku University)
2. The Hasshu-koyo kahon was compiled by Sakai Saisho and was published in two volumes in 1882 (Meiji 15).

1. The Hydchu Hasshu-koyd was compiled by Kuroda Shindo and was published in 1885 (Meiji 18). This work was reprinted three years latex; in two volumes.
2. A two-volume Hasshu-koyo-sho (var. Kotei Hasshu-koyd) of unknown authorship was published in 1886 (Meiji 19).
3. This period also saw the appearance of a Hasshu-koyd monki in three volumes. A manuscript dated 1886 is preserved in the library of Otani University
4. A Hasshu-koyd-sho choki, in three volumes and dated 1886, is also preserved in the library of Otani University
5. The Kando Hasshu-koyo-sho was composed by Senabe Edo and Sugihara Shundo. In one volume, and still occasionally available in present-day Japan, this work was published in 1887 (Meiji 20) by the Shishodo, Kyoto. This work was reprinted in 1888 in two volumes.
6. The Hasshu-koyd kogi was written by Yanagizawa Geizon in two volumes and was printed in 1888.
7. The Keimd Hasshu-koyd, with commentary by Zuishm^Jin Kyokuga (i.e., Sayeki Kyokuga) and Machimoto Donku, was pub­lished in two volumes by the Butsugaku-shoin, Ky^oto, in 1888 (Meiji 21). This work was reprinted in 1890.
8. The Hasshu-koyd shiki tsuketari bunka was composed in four volumes (the bunka in a separate volume) by Gonsaku Gij6 (the Sramana Gijo, 1848-1921) and was published in 1889 (Meiji 22).
9. The Hasshu-koyd, in one volume, was written by Horie Keiryd and was published in 1889.
10. The Hydka-bdchu Hasshu-koyd, in two volumes, was written by Machimoto Donku (see above, No. 15) and was published in 1890 (Meiji 23).
11. The Hasshu-koyo^ki was published in two volumes by Mineya Ryqjun in 1890. The manuscript (?) of this work is pre­served in the library of Otani University

1. The Hasshu-koyo kojitsu, in three volumes, was composed by Yoshitani Kakuju and was published in 1894 (Meiji 27).
2. The Hasshu-koyo kogi, in one volume, was composed by the well-known scholar Oda Tokuno (1860-1911) and was published in 1901 (Meiji 34) in the series Bukkyo-tsuzoku-kogi (Popular lec­tures on Buddhism). This work was reprinted in 1919 (TaishO 8).
3. The Hasshu-koyo kogi by Sakaino Koyo was published in one volume in 1909 (Meiji 42) by the Toyd University Press (Toyo Daigaku Shuppan-bu), Tokyo. This work was reprinted in 1924 (Taisho 13).
4. The Taisho period (1912-1926) saw some five editions and com­mentaries on the work.
5. The Hasshu-koyo kogi was published in one volume in the series Bukkyo-kogi-roku (A record of lectures on Buddhism) in 1913 (Taishd 2), published by the Bukkyo-gakkai.
6. The Hasshu-koyo kogi, in one volume, was written by Wada Rjnizo and published in 1916 (TaishQ 5).
7. The Hasshu-koyo mondai kojitsu by Hino Anju was pub­lished in 1917.
8. The Hasshu-koyo kogi was written by Fujii Ryushin and published in the series Butten-tsuzoku kogi (Popular lectures on Buddhist texts) in 1924 (Taisho 13).

The Hasshu-koyo kowa was written by Sakaino Koyo (see above, No. 22) and was published in 1924 (Taisho 13) by the Hinoeuma Shuppan-sha, Tokyo.The modem period, that is, the Showa period (1926-1988), has seen a comparatively small number of new editions and commen­taries on the Hasshu-koyo. During the Showa period, however; the Bukkyo-gakkai^ edition and commentary (below No. 29) has been reprinted a number of times and has become the most popular edition of the work.

1. The Hasshu-koyo, a Japanese translation or rendering (wa-yaku,

• or kaki-kudashi) of this work, was published in volume ten of the Showa-shinsan Kokuyaku Daizokyo: Shuten-bu (The section on sectarian works).

29.The Hasshu-koyo kogi, edited by the Bukkyo-gakkai of the Higashi Honganji, was first published by the HOzSkan, Kyoto, in one volume, in 1927 (Showa 2). To date, this work has seen some six editions (6th edition, 1974: Showa 49). The commentary to this work is the work of seven different scholars: Inaba Enjo (Preface and Sanron), Naiki Ryushu (Kusha, Jojitsu, and Ritsu), Kojima Eken (JIosso), Honda Shume (Tkndai), Hanayama Daian (Kegon), Kumabe Jimyo (Shingon), and Furuzawa Bunryu (Zen and Jodo). This edition of and commentary on the Hasshu- koyo is by far the most popular of all of the commentaries on this work.

30.The Hasshu-koyo kaisetsu was composed by Kashiwabara Yugi in one volume and was published in 1927 (Showa 2) by the Hozokan, Kyoto.

The university libraries of Japan preserve for us a number of unpublished, undated, and uncirculated manuscript commentaries on the Hasshu-koyo.

31.The Hasshu-koyo koroku, in one volume, is preserved in the library of Ryukoku University

32.The Hasshu-koyo fuketsu, in three volumes, is also pre­served in a manuscript edition at Ryukoku University

33.The Hasshu-koyo Bummo-sho, in five volumes, is pre­served in a manuscript at Ryukoku University

34.The Hasshu-koyo koroku, originally in two volumes (the first volume is now lost) by Hifumi Jin'en, is preserved in a manuscript at Ryukoku University

35.The Hasshu-koyo shochu-suyo is preserved in a manu­script at Ryukoku University

36.The Hasshu-kdan, in one volume, by Soma Kanryd, is preserved in the Library of Otani University

37.The Hasshu-koyo kikigaki, in two volumes, is preserved in the Library of Kyoto University

38.The Hyochu Hasshu-koyo, in one volume, is preserved in the Library of Rissho University Tokyo.

Preface

Question: How many teachings are there within Buddhism?

Answer: There are in all countless teachings within the teach­ing of the World-Honored One; but there are some eighty-four thousand major teachings, which embrace all of the teachings preached by the World-Honored One during his lifetime of fifty-odd years of preaching and exclude none.

Question: Why is this necessarily the number of teachings?

Answer: It is because he desired to put down all of the eighty- four thousand various afflictions of all sentient beings that the teachings are also necessarily eighty-four thousand in number.

Question: Do these teachings pertain only to the Mahayana?

Answer: Both the Mahayana and the Hinayana posit eighty- four thousand teachings. As the Abidatsuma kusha-ron (Abhi- dharmakosa) says J The sets of teachings preached by the sage are eighty thousand in number” In addition to this, many of the various Hinayana scriptures say that there are eighty-four thou­sand teachings, so this is also a position held by the Hinayana. In the case of the Mahayana teachings, this principle is often spoken of The textual sources for it are quite numerous, and we need not mention them here. Thus both the Mahayana and the Hinayana establish that there are some eighty-four thousand [teachings].

Question: How are these teachings classified?

Answer: Even though the teachings are numerous, they do not exceed two pitayas and three pitayas, which totally and completely embrace all of the various teachings. The five pitayas, the ten pitayas, and the twelvefold division of the teachings are also not separate from the three pitayas (Tripitaka).

Question: What are the two pitayas?

Answer: First is the sravaka pitaya, and this is of the Hina­yana. Second is the bodhisattva pitaya, and this is of the Maha­yana. This is the significance of the statement that both the Mahayana and the Hinayana establish that there are some eighty- four thousand [teachings].

The teachings of these two pitayas come out of the Daichido-ron (Mahaprajnapdramita-sastra) and out of the Shogon-ron (Maha- yana-sutrdlamkara-sdstra). Many masters quote from these works in their judgment of what is Mahayana and what is Hinayana.

Question: What then are the three pitayas?

Answer: First there is the Sutra pitaya, which in the Old School of Translators was termed Shutara; translated [into Sino- Japanese] this is termed kai-kid_} which in the Old School was simply termed kid. Second there is the Vinayapitaka, which in the Old School was termed Bini; translated this is termed Jobuku, which in the Old School was termed Ritsa. Third there is the Abhidharma pitaya, which in the Old School was termed Abidon; translated this is termed Tai-hd, which in the Old School was termed Muhi-hd. This refers to the commentarial literature. These then are called the three pitayas. They express, in this order, the teachings about the precepts, about meditation, and about wisdom.

The three pitayas are the teachings that express the princi­ples; the three teachings are the principles that are expressed in the teachings. These then embrace all of the Buddhist teachings with nothing omitted.

Question: What does it mean to speak of “being embraced” ？

Answer: During the lifetime of the Tathagata, he would give out the Dharma in accord with the capacity [of his listeners]. If a person had the capacity he would then give him the Dharma, and in this way the Dharma was preached in an unsystematic manner; in many different places. However the scope of the teachings preached did not exceed that of the three pitayas. When these scrip­tures were compiled, all of the various saints gathered together and formed the three pitayas from them. When they had all been

passing on] the great Dharma. Nevertheless, with the disappear­ance of these various saints, there came to be some extinction of the Dharma and of its significance. In this way then, Ananda entered into samadhi, and Sanakavasin was unable to understand this. Sanakavasin entered into extinction, and with him many scriptures also disappeared. Even though this was the case, quite a lot still remained, and the remaining teachings were truly many.

The True Dharma lasted for one thousand years. Eventually the period of the End of the Dharma (Mappo) arrived. During this period the Dharma was grasped, upheld, and spread to very many different places, to all of the lands in India and even Japan. All of the other countries are too numerous to be mentioned. Each propa­gated the sacred scriptures and caused the affairs of Buddhism to flourish.

Let us now narrate the circumstances of the diffusion [of the Dharma] in the three countries of India, China, and Japan.

Tradition says that in a period some four hundred years after the extinction of the Tathagata, the Hinayana flourished greatly and that different opinions flourished in competition one with another. The Mahayana was hidden and preserved within the palace of the Nagas (dragons).

During this period, then—for one hundred years—a single pure vessel transmitted its contents to another; but after some one hundred years, variant opinions came to contend with one another. At this time Mahadeva willfully spewed forth his deluded words on the five points, and the Vatsiputriya school also had not yet cast away its strong clinging to a substantial self

The Sammatiyas and the Sautrantikas clamorously contended over major principles, and the Aparasailas and the Uttarasailas gave rise to differing views and fought like wild animals. Finally, during this four-hundred-year period, some twenty groups came to compete with one another within India, and eventually some five hundred groups were locked in mutual combat.

In a period five hundred years [after the extinction of the Buddha] the non-Buddhists flourished. The Hinayana came to be

somewhat obscured, and even more so the Mahayana. At this time the Sdstra Master Asvaghosa first began to propagate the Maha­yana in the period approaching some six hundred years [after the extinction of the Buddha]. His Awakening of Faith in the Maha­yana (Daijo kishin-ron) and other works were composed at this time. The non-Buddhists, with their false views, folded in their tongues and were all defeated; and the differing sects of the Hinayana all shut their mouths and were put down. The profound Mahayana teachings once again flourished in Jambudvipa, and the capacities and the responses of all beings were now directed to the correct path.

Next there was the bodhisattva Nagarjuna, who, in a period six hundred years [after the extinction of the Buddha] and at the beginning of some seven hundred years [after his extinction], succeeding Asvaghosa, walked alone in India. There were no non­Buddhists who were not crushed in defeat, and the whole of the Buddha-dharma came to be transmitted and upheld. He carried within his breast the whole of the three editions of the Kegon[-gy6\ (Avatamsaka-sutra). The stream of his writings, fourfold in their eloquence, marvellously controlled rivers and bays. He widely composed commentarial works, and he was an even deeper blue than indigo (he surpassed his teacher; Asvaghosa). He deeply fathomed the Buddha-dharma, and he was colder than ice (same meaning).

Both of these two Sdstra Masters were bodhisattvas of high [spiritual] rank, Asvaghosa was, in the past, the Buddha Great Light; and now he manifested his traces in the eighth Bhumi. Nagaijuna was, in the past, the Buddha Marvelous Cloud Characteristics, and now he abided, in his rank, in the first Bhumi (stage), that of joy (pramudita-bhumi). Both of them were originally Buddhas, and both of them manifested their traces for us. In their knowledge and in their eloquence they surpassed ordinary persons, which was as it should be. Thereupon when the manifestations of these great sages and the conversion of sentient beings were completed, they ceased their converting work and so returned to their origins.

But the karmic conditions of sentient beings kept arising, and their wrong views became even deeper Because of this, dur­ing the period some nine hundred years [after the extinction of the Buddha], the bodhisattva Asanga arose in the world, benefit- ting sentient beings. At night he would ascend to the Tusita heaven, and there he personally received instruction from the Compassionate Lord, Maitreya. In the daytime he would descend to Jambudvipa, there to teach widely sentient beings. However the clingings of sentient beings were deep, and they would not follow his teachings. He thereupon requested Lord Maitreya himself to descend [to Jambudvipa] and to preach the Dharma. The Lord Maitreya acceded to his request and came down to the Lecture Hall at Ayodhya, in central India. There he spoke the five major sastras, such as, for example, the Yuga-ron (Ybgacdra-Bhumi-sastra), in some one hundred folio volumes. He profoundly discussed the deep principles of the eighty thousand teachings. Of all the teach­ings in the Buddha's lifetime, there are none that he did not judge [in this work], so this work is termed “The Commentary That Broadly Explains All of the Sutras.”

At this time the false views of all beings were all put down. Together they proceeded on the correct path, and their progress and attainment were marvelous and magnificent. After Lord Maitreya ascended to heaven, Asanga continued his teaching in Jambudvipa. j

It was during this period that Vasubandhu taught. Originally he propagated the Hinayana and composed some five hundred commentarial works on it. Later he studied the Mahayana and again composed some five hundred commentarial works [on the Mahayana]. For this reason everyone called him “The Sastra Master of One Thousand Words

In addition, it was at this time that Harivarman composed the Jojitsu-ron (Satyasiddhi-sastra)₉ and the Sastra Master Samgha- bhadra composed the Junshdri-ron (JSIyayanusari-sastrd).

In a period some one thousand years after the extinction of the Tathagata, the major tenets of the Mahayana had not yet been divided into differing opinions. After some one thousand one

hundred years, the Mahayana first began to generate differing opinions. At this period one thousand one hundred years [after the extinction of the Buddha], Dharmapala and Bhavaviveka debated emptiness and existence with reference to the truth of dependent origination.

Some one thousand seven hundred years after, Silabhadra and Jflanaprabha discussed the problem of appearance and reality These masters in debate were like diamonds against diamonds, like boulders against boulders.

All of the various other Sastra Masters, such as NSgabodhi, Nilanetra, Rahula, Dignaga, Bandhu^ri, Citrabhtoa, Jfitoacandra, were all of them bodhisattvas of the four supports, the refuges of all sentient beings. From ancient days to the present they promi­nently appeared, and like orchids and chrysanthemums they com­peted with one another for excellence. All of the various traditions [within Buddhism] take them to be their patriarchs and teachers, and all sentient beings depend upon them to be their leaders.

In this way then various commentarial masters appeared and succeeded one another from ancient days down to the present, illuminating all of India and saving all sentient beings. Such were the circumstances of the propagation [of the Buddha-dharma] in India.

In the case of China, in the period toward the end of one thousand years [after the extinction of the Buddha], Kashyap-m Stanga first came to China. Chu Fa-lan came next. He first disseminated the Three Treasures and then gradually propagated the five vehicles.

From this time onward, during the various dynasties of the Han, Wei, Chin, [Liu] Sung, Chi, Liang, Chen, Sui, Tang, and Sung, many Tripitaka Masters each transmitted Buddhism, and each one propagated the sacred Dharma.

As for the translation of the three pitayas, some monks came to China from the West, whereas others went from China to the West and came back to China. The three pitayas of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana were all translated and dissemi­nated, and both the revealed and the secret teachings were widely

spread about. In this way Kumarajiva and Hsuan-Tsang exhausted the most excellent scriptural translations, and their efforts ulti­mately called forth the heavenly praise of the god Skanda. Buddha- bhadra and Dharmaksema are praised for the beauty of their translations, and they too attained the divine protection of the Nagas.

There were other eminent monks who revered the Buddha- dharma: the moon of the Golden Mountain (Chi-Tsang) and of pure reflection (Hui-yiian) was clearly reflected in the waters of the eight negations that reveal the truth; the flowers of the Southern Peaks (Hui-ssu) and of Mt. Tien-fai (Chih-i) were ever fresh in the garden of the three insights into the one mind; the breezes from the Tz^-en-ssu Monastery (Kuei-chi) and from out of the province of Tzu (Hui-chao) were cool among the branches of the three herbs and the two trees; the jade of the musk elephant (Fa-tsang) and of Lake Anavatapta (Ch'eng-kuan) was bright and clear in the pavilion of the ten types of profound dependent origination and the six characteristics.

In addition to these, the two masters P^lucking and Fa-pao most clearly plumbed the profundities of the Abhidharma; the two scholar-monks Fa-li and Tao-hsuan brightly polished up the precepts and the Vinay a. How much more too were the two monks Hui-kuan and Tan-ying resplendent with respect to the major princi­ples of the Jojitsu-ron (Satyasiddhi-sastra)\ The monks I-hsing and Hui-kuo were also both of them illustrious with respect to the secret teachings of the Mantra Yana.

All of the various masters other than these are too numerous to mention; they all propagated the great path, and each one of them penetrated the teachings of the Buddha. They were lofty and eminent in their awe-inspiring qualities (guna), and they frequently called forth heavenly gifts. Their marvelous under­standing was broad and vast, and they often perceived the Buddha within their own minds. Such eminent monks, from ancient days up to the present, have been very many and very great! How can words do justice to them?

Such were the circumstances of the dissemination [of the Buddha-dharma] in China.

In the case of Japan, in the eleventh month of the sixth year of the reign of the thirteenth Japanese sovereign, the Emperor Kimmie, which year corresponded to the eighth year of Ta-Fung of the Liang Dynasty(A.D. 545), a kinoto-ushi year, the king of Paasche, Song- myong wang, presented [to the Japanese court] one gold and bronze alloy image of the Buddha Sakyamuni, along with its pennants and banners, and some volumes of the Buddhist canon. The emperor was overjoyed at this, and when he saw them he worshipped them.

Although at that time the ministers and subjects did not revere these objects, a temple was constructed for them, and the Buddhist scriptures were placed therein. From this time onward, the Three Treasures gradually came to flourish and to be established.

On the first day of the first month, in the first year of the reign of the thirty-first Japanese sovereign, the Emperor Bidatsu (A.D. 572), a mizunoe-tatsu year; Prince ShOtoku was boom in the province of Yamato. He further propagated the Buddha-dharma, filling the empire in many places with sangharamas (large monas­teries), and the persons he saved were countless. The rebellious minister Moriya was stricken by the bows and arrows of samadhi andprajna, and the two monks from Kdguryo gained fame for their propagation of the Buddha-dharma.

In his putting down of false views, in his building up of the Three Treasures, in his saving of sentient beings, and in his carrying out of the affairs of the Buddha-dharma, wherein could he (Prince Shotoku) be surpassed in the countless goings and comings from ancient times to the present? For this [flourishing of the Buddha-dharma] was all exclusively due to the power of the expedient means of this Prince of the Inner Palace (Prince Shotoku).

From this time onward, eminent monks appeared in great num­bers and broadly propagated the Buddha-dharma. These monks

were none other than the traces of the Great Sage (Sakyamuni) who came down in order widely to disseminate the Three Treasures.

Hui-Kuan sojo transmitted the profound principles of the Sanron; Gembo sojo propagated the Hoss6 Mahayana; the perfect tradition of the Kegon was introduced by the Vinaya Master Tao- hsuan; and both the precepts and the Vinayas, and the Tendai, were propagated by the upadhyQya (preceptor) Chien-Chen (Ganjin wajo). It was Dengyb-daishi (Saicho) who again caused the Tendai to flourish, and SiSbo-daishi (KUkai) who established, with great success, the Mantra ana. The Kusha tradition and the Jojitsu tradition have both had their transmission.

Some of these great masters came to Japan from T'ang Dynasty (A.D. 589-907) China, whereas others went to China and came back [to Japan with their teachings].

There were many other masters who disseminated the Buddha- dharma; they all studied the above teachings and transmitted them to their disciples. Some drank from the jade-like streams (of the Gyokusenji Monastery the Tendai); some transmitted the light of the sun of wisdom (the Enichi-dojo of Kichijd [Chi-tsang], the Sanron)\ some received the full moon from out of Lake Anavatapta (the Kegon); some became disciples of the jade flowers (the Gyokka- kyu Translation Bureau, the Hoss。); some walked beneath the chaste pines of Mt. Nan-shan (the Ritsu tradition); some sported in the Miraculous Fungi Garden of West Lake (the masters In-tan [Yiin・k'aii] and Gansho [Ytian-chao], the Ritsu tradition); some perceived the depths of doctrine just as the Green Dragon (Shingon) sees the bottom of the sea; and some comprehended all aspects of doctrine just as the Great Clouds (Kusha) cover all four sides of the globe.

The Mahayana and the Hinayana, the traditions of internal nature (.Sanron) and of external characteristics (Hosso), the gates both of teaching and of meditational insight, and the two teachings called the revealed teachings and the secret teachings, each were all transmitted [by various teachers] in their own ways. They were too numerous to mention.

All of the seven major monasteries shoulder to shoulder were looked up to and esteemed. Both the Southern Capital (Nara) and the Northern Capital (Kyoto) competed in the excellence of their academic studies. These masters were all of them the followers and disciples of [saints like] dragons and elephants, and all were great teachers of both gods and humans.

All rural districts too accordingly saw the dissemination [of the Buddha-dharma], and from ancient times up to the present there has been no interruption of this Buddhist tradition.

Even though in this, the period of the End of the Dharma, the taste of the Buddha-dharma has become weak, the ocean-like teachings are still as deep as ever. Even if a person wanted to snare its depths, he would not be able to do so. Great it is, for one caimot grasp it nor adequately speak of it.

These are the circumstances of the dissemination [of the Buddha- dharma] in Japan.

Question: We now know in general terms the circumstances of the dissemination [of the Buddha-dharma] into these three coun­tries. However; how many types of the Buddha-dharma in all have been transmitted into Japan? Please explain this again!

Answer: In Japan, from ancient times, there have only been some eight traditions which have been pursued. Up to the present day this has not changed. In this interval however there have been some other traditions.

Nevertheless, by common consent, only these eight traditions have been studied from ancient times up to the present.

Question: What are these eight traditions?

Answer: The eight traditions are (1) the Kusha tradition, (2) the Jojitsu tradition, (3) the Ritsu tradition, (4) the Hosso tradition, (5) the Sanron tradition, (6) the Tendai tradition, (7) the Kegon tradition, and (8) the Shingon tradition.

Question: Of these eight traditions, how many are Hinayana, and how many are Mahayana?

Answer: The three traditions of the Kasha, the Jojitsu, and the Ritsu are all Hinayana. The five traditions of the Hossb, the Sanron, the Tendai, the Kegon, and the Shingon are all Mahayana.

Question: Could we hear of the principles and the teachings of these eight traditions?

Answer: The principles of these various traditions are deep, profound, and difficult to understand. I have not yet fully tasted of even one of these traditions, so how much less of some eight traditions! For this reason then I shall present only an itemized list of their doctrines, and in this way I shall roughly present but one of their teachings.

Chapter I

The Kusha Tradition

Question: Why is this tradition termed the Kusha tradition?

Answer: The word. ^aKushaⁿ (kosa) is the name of the principal commentary of this tradition. To speak in greater detail, the full name of this commentary is the Abidatsuma kusha-ron (Abhi- dharmakosa^sastra). The word run is based on the Chinese word lun\ the other six syllables are Sanskrit.

Abhi signifies“facing”;dharma signifies "item, thing'; and kosa signifies “sheath, enclosure." So this work may be called the com­mentary that embraces all things relevant to the dharmas; that is, undefiled wisdom. It is this that this commentary approaches.

There are two meanings to the word "facing"： first, facing or going toward nirvana; and second, facing the four noble truths in meditation.

There are two meanings to the word “dharma”: first, the dharma of the absolute truth, or nirvana; second, the external charac­teristics (laksana) of the dharmas, which permeate all of the four noble truths. That is, undefiled wisdom is turned toward nirvana and meditates on the four noble truths.

There are two meanings to “enclosure”: first, “embracing,“ and second, “support.” “Embracing“ means that this commentary embraces all of the absolutely true words out of the Hotchi-ron (Jnanaprasthana-sastra) and other works, and so for this reason this work is called a kosa. The phrase “the kosa of Abhidharma” is a tatpurusa compound.

With respect to the meaning of kosa as “support,“ this com­mentary was based upon the Hotchi-ron and other works, and so it is called a kosa. This work completely adopts the name of

Abhidharma from this more basic work (Hotchi-rori), and since the kosa is an enclosure of all things concerning the dharmas, it is called an enclosure (kosa) of all things concerning (abhi) the dharma (Abhidharma-kosa'). This is called a bahuvrlhi compound.

This then is the significance of the full title of this commentary Now since it is the Abidatsuma-kusha that is revered in this tradition, this tradition is termed the Kusha tradition.

Question: This work was written by whom, after how many years had elapsed after the extinction of the Tathagata?

Answer: This work was composed by the bodhisattva Vasu- bandhu, in a period some nine hundred years after the extinction of the Tathagata.

Of the twenty different Buddhist groups in existence at that time, this work belonged to the Sarvastivadins. Originally it had come out of the Daibibasha-ron (Mahavibhasa-s&stra) and encom­passed all other teachings.

The Daibibasha-ron (Mahavibhasa-sdstra) is based on the Junshdri-ron (Nyayanusari-sastra) and the Rokusoku-ron (Six Pada- sastras).

Some four hundred years after the extinction of the Tathagata there was a king of the land of Gandhara by the name of Kaniska, who revered and deeply believed in the Buddhist scriptures.

One day he invited some monks to come into his palace, there to receive his offerings. The king took this opportunity to inquire concerning the way The monks differed in their teachings, one from the other; and the king thought this very strange. He addressed the elder Parsva saying, “The teachings of the Buddha were identical in their origins, and there was then no difference in its principles. How then can there be such differences in what these elders say?”

The elder answered him, saying, ""All of these teachings are correct, for if one but cultivates [any one of them], he shall attain to the fruits [of the religious life]. The Buddha in fact gave a prophecy [that his teachings] would come to resemble a golden staff broken into many pieces !^w

When the king heard these words, he again asked, "Which is the best of all these various philosophical positions? For I wish to cultivate it. O Venerable One, please tell me what it is!” The elder answered him, saying, “Of all these various groups, there is none that surpasses the School of Existence (the SarvSstivadins). If Ybur Majesty wishes to cultivate a practice, you would do well to revere this one?

Thereupon the king was overjoyed and commanded that the Tripitaka teachings of this one sect be brought together. Eminent and venerable monks assembled together from the four directions like clouds. Ordinary persons and saints were exceedingly many but because of their numbers there was much confusion and disorder. Finally the king removed the ordinary monks, and only the saintly monks were allowed to remain. The number of these saintly monks was also very great, and so the king removed those that were saiksas (learners), and only those who were asaiksas (those with nothing more to learn, arhats) were allowed to remain. The number of asaiksas was still large, and they could not assemble together. So from among the asaiksas, he chose those who had attained the six supernormal powers in their samadhis_} who had perfected the fourfold eloquence in their knowledge, who had learned the Tripitaka, and who were proficient in the five vidyas (sciences)一 such were permitted to assemble together.

Now those saintly worthies allowed to remain were in number some 499 persons. However the elder Vasumitra was eventually chosen too, and the number was then an even five hundred per­sons. The elder Vasumitra was chosen to be the presiding elder.

Thereupon the five hundred saints first collected together some one hundred thousand slokas that served as commentary on the Sutra pitaya. Next they composed some one hundred thou­sand slokas that served as their commentary on the Vinayapitaka. And lastly they composed some one hundred thousand slokas that served as their commentary on the Abhidharma pitaya; this is the Daibibasha-ron (Mahavibhasa-sastra).

After these five hundred arhats had finished this compilation, they had [these slokes engraved on stones and made a resolution

that [these teachings] were to be allowed only within this land (Gandhara) and were not to be allowed out into foreign lands. Indeed yaksas (demons) were commanded to guard the city gates, so that people could not leave at will.

Now the Venerable Elder Vasubandhu had initially studied the Sarvastivada doctrines, and later he had studied the doctrines of the Sautrantikas and realized that these latter teachings corre­sponded to the truth. Thus with respect to the doctrines of the Sarvastivada school, he embraced thoughts of “taking and reject- Ing,“ and he desired to determine which was right and which was wrong [in its teachings]. He thereupon hid his [real] name and again went [to Gandhara], where he then spent some four years. He frequently proclaimed that [the Sarvastivadins] were his own school and that he would vigorously crush all other groups.

The elder Skandila was once defeated [by Vasubandhu] in debate and was unable to respond [to his assertions]. Thereupon Skandila entered into samadhi and so came to know that this person was Vasubandhu. Skandila then privately told Vasubandhu, "Among the followers of the Sarvastivada teachings there are some persons who have not yet been liberated from desires. If they come to know of your defeating [their philosophical positions], they will surely kill you. You must quickly return home to your native land!”

When Vasubandhu reached his native land he began to lecture on the Daibibasha-ron (Mahavibhasa-sastra). After a day's lecture he would then compose one sloka that would embrace within it all the teachings that he had lectured on during that one day He had these slokas engraved on leaves of copper; and in this manner he wrote down all the slokas. In this way then there gradually came to be some six hundred slokas that embraced all the teachings of the Daibibasha-ron perfectly and completely These slokas he attached to a musk elephant (gandha-hastiri). Beating a drum, Vasubandhu announced, ^t(If there is anyone who is able to refute [these propositions], I shall gladly confess my faults But there was no one who could refute the propositions contained in the slokas. Thereupon Vasubandhu sent someone with these slokas to go to the land of Kasmira.

Then the king of that land and the assembled clergy saw [these slokas\ and they all rejoiced, saying that Vasubandhu was pro­mulgating the teachings of their own school (i.e, that of the SarvSstivadins). Only Skandila knew that this was false, and by saying so he alarmed many persons.

Vasubandhu was eventually requested [by the king] to compose a commentary [on these sloka^\. The Sastra Master Vasubandhu acceded to the kinds request and commented on the original text [the slokas\ for him. This commentary was some eight thousand slokas in length. Latei; when people saw this commentary (Abhi- dharmakosa-bhasya), the predictions of the Arhat Skandila were vindicated.

At this time a disciple of the elder Skandila, the Sastra Master Sanghabhadra, composed a treatise that refuted the Abhidharma- kosa. This treatise was entitled the Kusha baku-ron (A Treatise, Hailstones on the Kosa). He showed this work to Vasubandhu, and when Vasubandhu saw it, he praised it and changed its name to Junshdri-ron (Nyayanusari-sastra, ^aIn Accord with the Truth"). This Sastra Master Sanghabhadra also composed the Kenshu-ron (Abhidharma-samaya-pradlpika-sastra), which forms some forty fascicles in its Chinese translation. Translated into Chinese, the Junshdri-ron (Nydyanusari-sastra) forms some eighty fasci­cles. Thus we know that the Abhidharma comes originally from the Daibibasha-ron.

Question: This commentary indeed arose and flourished dur­ing a period some nine hundred years [after the extinction of the Tathagata]. But when was this commentary transmitted to China?

Answer: There have been two occasions when this commen­tary was translated into Chinese. The first occasion was during the Chen Dynasty when it was translated by the Tripitaka Master Paramartha in some twenty Chinese fascicles. Paramartha there­upon wrote his own commentary on the text in fifty fascicles. At present this work has been lost and has not been transmitted to us.

Latei; in the Tang Dynasty the Tripitaka Master Hsuan-Tsang translated this commentary into Chinese in some thirty fascicles.

This was done during the Vung-hui period(A.D. 650-55); and the work was carried out in the Tz'u-en-ssu Monastery This then is the present text of the work.

Now since this commentary (Abhidharma) and its com­mentary (the Bhasya) were composed by the 6astra Master Vasubandhu, the bodhisattva Vasubandhu is regarded as the first patriarch [of the tradition]. The Tripitaka Master of Universal Learning (Hsuan-tsang) marvellously translated this work during the great Tang Dynasty and the Dharma Masters P⁵u-kuang and Fa-pao wrote commentaries on the Kosa, and indeed many other masters have studied this work. This work has been transmitted to Japan, and it is studied in all of the monasteries in an unbroken succession down to the present time.

Question: Does this tradition teach only the doctrines of the SarvSstivadins, or does it also include the teachings of other schools?

Answer: This commentary primarily teaches the doctrines of the Sarvastivadins. Thus the doctrines established in this text are based on those of the Sarvastivadins, and it was on the basis of these that this work was composed. However; on occasion, the teachings of the Sautrantikas are approved of; thus it says in the work, “The doctrines of the Kasmira are proven [to be correct]; I have relied on them in commenting on the Abhidharma." But it also says, “The doctrines of the Sautrantikas are not in opposition to the truth.” Vasubandhu picks and chooses from among these two schools, and it appears that the author has both a revealed and a secret aspect [i.e., Vasubandhu publicly approves of the Sarvastivadins and rejects the positions of the Sautrantikas; but he secretly approves of the Sautrantikas and rejects certain posi­tions of the Sarvastivadins].

But the principles behind these references may be known through the work itself

Question: What are the principal tenets of this commentary?

Answer: Since this commentary teaches the doctrines of the Sarvastivadins, it teaches that all the dharmas have real existence.

This, then, is regarded as its main tenet. Speaking in greater detail, however; we cannot say that its teachings are not those of the Sautrantikas.

With reference to the revealed intention of this work, then we must say that it is solely Sarvastivada; that is, it teaches that all the dharmas really exist in all the three periods of time (past, present, and future), and that the nature of these dharmas is eternally existent. These are the doctrines taught in the school of the Sarvastivadins.

There are a variety of different opinions with respect to the teaching of the real existence of the dharmas in the three time periods. There are four opinions.

The first is the opinion of the Venerable Dharmatrata, who holds that [the dharmas] differ with respect to their natures (bhava) and thus differ in the three time periods. The second is that of the Venerable Ghosaka, who maintains that [the dharmas] differ with respect to their [external] characteristics and thus differ in the three time periods. The third is that of the Venerable Vasumitra, who holds that [the dharmas] differ with respect to their condition (avastha) and thus differ in the three time periods. The fourth is that of the Venerable Buddhadeva, who holds that [the dharmas] differ with respect to their mutual relationship (apeksa) and thus differ in the three time periods.

Now the SSstra Master Vasubandhu judges these four opin­ions and holds that the opinion of the Venerable Vasumitra is the best. However the Sautrantikas hold that the dharmas of the past and the future have no real structure, and that only the dharmas of the present are real.

The Abhidharma is an Abhidharma work, so it is in the Abhidharma pitaya.

Question: In sum, how many principles does this commentary elucidate?

Answer: In all there are some nine chapters in the thirty fascicles that make up this commentary These nine chapters are first, the chapter on the dhatus (realms); second, the chapter on the

indrises (sense faculties); third, the chapter on the physical world; fourth, the chapter on the karmas; fifth, the chapter on the defile­ments; sixth, the chapter on the stages of holiness; seventh, the chapter on the knowledges; eighth, the chapter on the absorptions; and ninth, the chapter on the refutation of the atman (substantial self).

A short stanza says, "Kai ni, kon go, seken go, go roku zui san, genjo shi, chi ni, jo ni, haga ichi, ze myo kusha sanjikkan^), ^dhatus two, indriyas five, worlds five, karmas six, defilements three, saints foui; knowledges two, absorptions two, refuting the atman one; these are the thirty fascicles of the Abhidharma^)f).

The ninth chapter; ^Refutation of the Atman"' does not have any original slokas but rather assembles a number of verses from the Sutras.

Of these nine chapters, the first two chapters are a general discussion of defiled and undefiled dharmas; the last six chapters are a specific discussion of the defiled and undefiled dharmas.

As far as the general discussion is concerned, the first chapter deals with the dharmas themselves and the second chapter with the functions of the dharmas. As far as the six chapters with a specific discussion are concerned, the first three chapters deal with defiled dharmas and the last three chapters with undefiled dharmas.

In the elucidation of the defiled dharmas, the third chapter; "On the Physical World/ elucidates resultant states. The fourth chapter; "On Karma,^w elucidates causes; and the chapter on the defilements elucidates conditions.

In the elucidation of undefiled dharmas, the [sixth] chapter “On the Saints,^M elucidates the resultant states; the [seventh] chapter; "On Knowledges/⁵ elucidates their causes; and the [eighth] chapter; "On the Absorptions/ elucidates their conditions.

The [ninth] chapter; ^Refutation of the Atmanelucidates the principles of selflessness.

This then is the classification of the principles elucidated from the beginning to the end of the nine chapters and thirty fascicles [of this work].

Question: In how many different ways does this tradition embrace all of the dharmas?

Answer: Some seventy-five dharmas embrace all of the dharmas. The seventy-five dharmas are as follows:

First, the dharmas of physical matter (rupia dharma), which are eleven: five indrises, five Visayas (spheres), and the avijnapti-rupa (unmanifested form).

Second, the mind dharma (citta dharma), which is only one item, namely the mind [made up of] the six consciousnesses, which however make up in their totality only one [dharma].

Third, the dharmas of mental states (Camtasia dharma), which are forty-six, divided into six classes: the mah&bhumika dharmas are ten; the kusala mahabhumika dharmas are ten; the klesa mahabhumika dharmas are six; the akusala mahabhumika dharmas are two; the parlttaklesabhUmika dharmas are ten; and the animate dharmas are eight. Altogether these make up forty-six dharmas. This is called the sixfold division of the dharmas of mental states.

The ten Maha Bhumika dharmas are as given in a sloka from the Abhidharma: ''Sensation, perception, volition, contact, de­sire, Prajna, remembrance, attention, determination, samadhi—— these permeate all mental states.”

The ten kusala mahabhumika dharmas are as given in that same sloka: "Faith, vigilance, freedom from dullness, equanimity shame, bashfulness, the two roots [of good: absence of greed and absence of hatred], nonviolence, and diligence permeate only good mental states

The six klesa mahabhumika dharmas are as given in a sloka: “Ignorance, negligence, laziness, absence of faith, melancholy and restlessness—these are always and solely defiled.”

The two akusala mahabhumika dharmas are as given in a sloka: "These, shamelessness and non-bashfulness, only permeate bad minds.^,,

The ten parlttaklesa bhumika dharmas are as given in a sloka: “Anger, concealing one's misdeeds, stinginess, jealousy; anguish,

violence, enmity fraudulence, deception, arrogance—such are termed the parlttaklesa bhumika dharmas

The eight animated dharmas are as given in a brief sloka: ''Reflection, investigation, repentance, torpor, greed, hatred, pride, and doubt.”

Fourth are the cite viprayukta samskara dharmas, which are fourteen in number. A sloka from the Kosa says, “The cite viprayukta samskaras are acquisition, non-acquisition, similarity thoughtlessness, the two absorptions (absorption of thoughtless­ness and the absorption of extinction), life, the characteristics (i.e._, origination, continuance, decay and impermanence), and names (i.e., sentence, letter), etc.”

Fifth are the three samskara dharmas'. (1) extinction through conscious effort, (2) extinction not obtained through conscious effort [but through natural causes], and (3) space.

These, then, are what are called the seventy-five dharmas. Among these seventy-five dharmas, the first seventy-two are all conditioned dharmas and the last three are unconditioned. All of the dharmas are included within these two [conditioned and uncon­ditioned] .Within the conditioned dharmas, there are dharmas that are defiled, and there are those that are undefiled. Unconditioned dharmas are undefiled.

Thus this tradition posits some seventy-five dharmas, and so includes all dharmas, with none being omitted.

Question: In what way are the causes and the resultant states of the three vehicles [of sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhi­sattvas] posited within this tradition?

Answer: Within the three vehicles (triyana), the sravaka tra­verses a minimum of three lifetimes and a maximum of some sixty kalpas in his cultivation of his practice and his attainment of the result. There are some seven stages to his expedient means, and there are four grades to his resultant state (srota-apanna, sakrdagamin, anagama, and arhat).

The pratyekabuddha traverses a minimum of four lifetimes and a maximum of one hundred kalpaks in his cultivation of the

causes and the attainment of his resultant state. He accumu­lates causal cultivations and straightaway ascends to the state of Asakusa. There are not many grades for him but only one approach and only one resultant state.

The bodhisattva traverses some three asamkhyeya kalpas and cultivates all of the paramitas. For one hundred kalpas he plants the roots of actions, which will result in the major and minor characteristics of full Buddhahood. In his last body he will sit on the Vajra Throne, and cutting off all bonds, he will attain to Buddhahood.

When the conditions whereby he converts others are finally exhausted, he will enter into nirvana without residue.

The sravaka meditates on the four noble truths, the Pratika- buddha meditates on the twelve links of dependent origination, and the bodhisattva cultivates the six paramitas.

Question: How many types of emptiness (sunyata) does this tradition elucidate?

Answer: This tradition only elucidates the emptiness of sen­tient beings. It does not discuss the emptiness of the dharmas. The emptiness of sentient beings means cutting off clinging to self Within the five skandhas there is no personality or self There are only the five skandhas, which join together and are thus provision­ally called a person. There is no real person in them. If one meditates on things in this way he will then be awakened to the truth of the emptiness of self

However this tradition does teach that the nature of the vari­ous dharmas really exists in the three time periods. Because of this, the other traditions have called this Kusha-Shu the tradition that teaches the emptiness of self and the existence of dharmas.

Chapter II

The Jojitsu Tradition

Question: Why is this tradition called the Jojitsu tradition?

Answer: It is called the Jojitsu tradition because the Jojitsu- ron (Satyasiddhi-sastra) is its basic, authoritative text. The word Jojitsu (Satyasiddhi) signifies an exposition of the truths within the three pitayas as spoken by the Tathagata. The author of this commentary says, in a passage where he narrates his intention, “for I wish to expound truly on the truths within the three pitakas'⁷

Question: This commentary was composed by whom, how many years after the extinction of the Tathagata?

Answer: In a period some nine hundred years after the extinc­tion of the Tathagata, a scholar of the Sarvastivada school, Kumaralata, had a chief disciple by the name of Hariharan. Hariharan despised his teacher's views and understanding as being very shallow and inferior; and so he took the outstanding points from out of the various sectarian traditions, brought them all together; and formed one tradition out of them.

During the Yao-Chin Dynasty; the Tripitaka Master Kumara- jiva translated this work and disseminated it. This work consists of sixteen folio volumes and is made up of some two hundred two chapters. Chinese masters composed many commentaries on this work, and it was also studied in Japan.

Question: Which of the twenty Hinayana groups does the Jojitsu tradition belong to? What are the outstanding principles of these various groups?

Answer: There are various different opinions about the origi­nal affiliation of the Jojitsu-ron {Satyasiddhi-sastra). Some say

that it relies on the Bahusrutiyas; some say that it relies on the Sautrantikas; some say that it searches for (tends to) the Mahayana in its commentary on the Hinayana; some say that it relies on the Dharmaguptakas; some say that it adopts the outstanding points of all of these various groups, that is, the best points of the Hinayana; and some say that it relies on the Mahisasakas.

Also the three great Dharma masters of the Liang Dynasty that is, the Dharma Master Fa-yun of the Kuang-che-ssu Monas­tery, the Dharma Master Chih-tsang of the Kai-shan-ssu Mon­astery and the Dharma Master Wen-min of the Chuang-yen-ssu Monastery these three masters all said that the Jojitsu-ron is Mahayana. The Tlen-fai Master Chih-i and the [San-lun] Master Chi-tsang both judged this work to be Hinayana. The Nan-shan [Vinaya] Master Tao-hsuan, and the Ling-chih [Vinaya] Master Yiian-chao both said that the work is “partial Mahayana,^,J which was also the opinion that they held of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. Thus the various opinions of these masters were all different.

However; after the time of the Ching-ying-ssu Master Hui- yiian and the Tien-fai Master Chih-i many shared the opinion that “The Jojitsu-ron is the best of the Hinayana." However the Nan-shan [Vinaya] Master Tao-hstian held that in its teaching the work was Hinayana, but that its principles had points in common with the Mahayana. Many say that within the Hinayana, the Jojitsu-ron relies in many points on the Sautrantikas, or that it belongs to the Dharmaguptakas.

As for its best points, this tradition fully elucidates two types of emptiness. It thus posits two types of insight.

First, there is insight into emptiness. In the way that there is no water within a pot, there is no self (pudgala or atman) within the five skandhas. This then is insight into the emptiness of the self Second, there is insight into selflessness. In the way that there is no substantial reality in the nature of the pot, all of the dharmas of the five skandhas are only provisional names. This then is insight into the emptiness of the dharmas. These are [this tradi­tion^] outstanding points, since it elucidates these two emptiness’s.

Question: If this is the case, it cuts off two clinging’s, because it reveals the two emptiness’s.

Answer: This is not so. Although it discusses the two emptiness’s, it only cuts off [the hindrance of] views and of thoughts (klesa-avarana). It does not cut off the hindrance of intellectuali­zation (jneya-avarand). It has only a very profound intellectual understanding.

This commentary elucidates some twenty-seven stages of the wise and saintly and embraces all of the stages of the wise and saintly These twenty-seven are as follows: (1) the practice of following through faith, which lies in the stage of [obtaining wis­dom] by hearing and by [discursive] thought; (2) the practice of following the Dharma, which lies in the stage of the four roots of good; (3) the practice of no-characteristics, i.e.,, when the above two persons have entered into the path of seeing (darsana-marga), all three of these persons practice approaching the state of a srota-apanna; (4) the fruit of a srota-apanna; (5) the practice that approaches the state of a sakrdagamin; (6) the fruit of a sakrdagamin; and (7) the practice that approaches the state of an anagama.

Within the state of an anagama there are some eleven types of persons: (1) one who attains the state of an anagama in the interval {antara-bhava) between death [in the k&ma dhatu] and birth [in the Rupa dhatu]; (2) one who attains the state of an anagama soon after birth [in the Rupa dhatu]; (3) one who attains the state of an anagama upon practicing it [in the Rupa dhatu]; (4) one who attains the state of an anagama [in the Rupa dhatu] not after practice [but only after the elapse of time]; (5) one who attains the state of an anagama by desiring Prajna [within the fourth, or highest, stage of the Rupa dhatu]; (6) one who attains the state of an anagama by desiring samadhi [after being reborn in the highest stage of the Arupa dhatu\\ (7) one who attains the state of an anagama after being often reborn [in the Kama dhatu, and without being reborn in either the Rupa dhatu or the Arupa dhatu\ \ (8) one who attains the state of an anagama in this life; (9) one who attains the state of an anagama after hearing the

teaching and practicing the way; (10) one who attains the state of an anagama through his own understanding; (11) one who attains the state of an anagama in his present physical body Together with the above seven types of persons, these make in all some eighteen types of persons. These are all called learners (saiksas).

The following nine types of persons are all asaiksas: (1) one who still has the possibility of regression [from the fruits of enlighten­ment]; (2) one who protects himself [so that there is no possibility of regression]; (3) one who seeks death [so as not to lose the fruits of enlightenment]; (4) one who attains a nature that cannot re­gress; (5) one who feels he must advance; (6) one who has a nature that cannot be destroyed; (7) one who is liberated through Prajna; (8) one who is liberated from both [the hindrance of the defile­ments (klesa-avarana) and the hindrance of intellectualization (jneya-avarana)]; and (9) one who attains the state of non-regression. Together with the above eighteen, these form the twenty-seven stages of the wise and saintly

Some eighty-four dharmas embrace all of the various dharmas.

Although this tradition has not yet progressed into the Maha­yana, it is the most outstanding of the Hinayana. This is truly to be marveled at! Perhaps this is Mahayana!

All of the various dharmas are only subsumed under the one truth of extinction. The principle of emptiness is quiescent, but all of the various dharmas are posited with respect to it. A firm clinging to substantial dharmas dissolves away like ice, and all of the many phenomenal images—provisional existence—are as pro­fuse as a forest. [Emptiness and existence] fuse together like space and marvelously interpenetrate. These teachings are profound.

Chapter III

The Ritsu Tradition

Question: Why is this tradition termed the Ritsu [Vinaya] tradition?

Answer: The Vinaya pitaya is its basic, authoritative text; so it is termed the Ritsu tradition.

Question: How many sectarian divisions are there with regard to the Vinaya [pitaya]?

Answer: There are various sectarian divisions with regard to the Vinaya \pitakd\. There is a twofold division, a fivefold division, an eighteenfbld division, and a five-hundredfold division.

In the fifty-odd years during which the Tathagata was in the world, he preached in a dispersed manner to fit the variety of human capacities. After he entered into extinction, his disci­ples assumed the leadership [of the Sangha]. They compiled [the Tripitaka], and this compilation is termed a single work. This is the great Vinaya pitaya, recited in eighty sections.

For one hundred years after the extinction of the Buddha, the five masters, one after the other; faithfully transmitted [the Vinaya pitaya]. It was of one flavor; and there was not yet any division of it into differing views. After a period of one hundred years, this text gradually came to be divided into two sectarian divisions, five divisions, twenty divisions, and even into five hundred divisions. These differing views arose in contention, like stormy waves. This was also the case with the scriptures and commentaries.

As the Tripitaka teachings were radically divided, so too did the Vinaya pitaya come to form differing collections according to the differing views. Thus did the pitayas divide, forming various liter­ary corpuses. In this way the number of the divisions is very many

but they do not exceed in scope the twenty sectarian groups. Thus with regard to the Vinaya there are also twenty sectarian divi­sions. Each of these various sectarian groups was diffused widely throughout all of India.

However in all only four Vinaya \pitayas\ and five commen­taries on them were transmitted to China.

The four Vinayas are

(1)     the Vinaya in Ten Recitations (Jiiju-ritsu), which makes up sixty-one fascicles in its Chinese translation. This is the Vinaya \pitaya] of the Sarvastivadins.

(2)     the Fourfold Vinaya (Shibun-ritsu), which makes up sixty fascicles. This is the Vinaya [pitaya] of the Dharma- guptakas.

(3)     the Mahasanghika Vinaya (Maka sogi-ritsu), which in Chi­nese translation comprises forty fascicles. This is the Vinaya \pifaka] of the Sthaviravadins, those of the two original divisions within the Sangha who were inside the cave, since the name ^wMahasarighika^w is common to both groups.

(4)     the Fivefold Vinaya (Gobun-ritsu), which in translation comprises thirty fascicles. This is the Vinaya [pitaya] of the Mahisasakas.

Only the pratimoksa section of the Vinaya [pitaya] of the Kasya- piyas was transmitted to China; the full text has not yet been introduced to China.

All these four Vinaya pitayas were translated into Chinese, and all of them were circulated in China, but the only one that was to be carried on in later ages was the Fourfold Vinaya tradition of the Dharmaguptakas.

The five commentaries are: (1) the Binimo-ron (Vinaya- matrka)\ (2) the Matokurokka-ron {Sarvastivada Vinaya-matrka), which is based on the Sarvastivada Vinaya; (3) the Zenken-ron [Clear-Sighted Commentary, Samantapasadika), which explains the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya pitaya; (4) the Sappata-ron, which comments on the Vinaya pitaya of the Sarvastivadins; and (5) the

Mydryd-ron (Ming-liao-lun, Commentary of Clear Understanding), which is a commentary on the Vinaya pitaya of the Sammatiyas.

In addition to the above, various other Vinaya works of the Mula-Sarvastivadins, such as the Vinaya in the New Translations [of I-ching] have also been transmitted to China. Nevertheless it was the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya pitaya that had the deepest ties with this land, China.

In ancient times, before the time of the Vinaya Master Chih- shou (566-635), all of the various Vinaya were in confusion, and there was not one that was exclusively studied to the exclusion of all the others. Chih-shou and the Vinaya Master of Mt. Chung-nan, Tao-hsiian (595-667) composed the Gobu-kubun-sho (Wu-pu-ch'il- fen-ch'ao, On the Differences between the Five Vinaya Pitakas) and examined the circumstances of the first ordination in China. Both of these masters relied exclusively on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya pitaya in their examinations of the nature of this ordina­tion, and they also relied on this same Vinaya pitaya in discussing the practices subsequent to ordination.

From that time up to the present, only this school [of Vinaya practice and study] has been transmitted to Japan. It is for this reason that we shall narrate the essentials of the arising of just this one Vinaya tradition-that of the Dharmaguptakas—and so explain the history of its transmission and diffusion.

Question: At what period did this Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition first begin to flourish?

Answer: Before the various sects divided one from another; only one flavor [of the doctrine] was faithfully transmitted. While the Tathagata was still in the world, he preached [the Dharma] in a dispersed manner, to suit the variety of individual capaci­ties. One hundred years after the extinction of the Buddha, the scriptures were compiled and widely circulated. In a period one hundred-odd years [after the extinction of the Buddha], the arhat Dharmagupta narrated [a new Vinaya pitaya] that accorded with his views, thus creating a separate sectarian group. It was at this time that this Vinaya pitaya first appeared.

Question: When was this tradition transmitted to China and to Japan?

Answer: During the Ts'ao Wei Dynasty the Venerable Dharma- kala first carried out an ordination ceremony During the Yao Chin Dynasty the Tripitaka Master Buddhayasas first [translated and] transmitted the complete text of a Vinaya pitaya. This is the history of the transmission of the precepts into China.

As for Japan, in the past, during the Tempyo period, two Japanese masters, Yoei and Fusho, travelled to T'ang Dynasty China, and there they asked the great preceptor (maha-upadhyaya') Chien-Chen (Ganjin) of the Ta-ming-ssu Monastery [to come to Japan]. He promptly acceded to their request and began his journey to Japan. The calamities encountered on his way were extremely numerous, yet he regarded them as nothing. For some twelve years he bore the difficulties of the open sea, being thrown back to shore by heavy waves six times. His will remained totally unwearied, and on the sixth occasion [sic] he finally reached Japan. He was requested to reside as abbot in the Todaiji Monastery

The joy of the Emperor Shomu, of the princes, and of all the court officials was unbounded. They had an ordination platform erected in front of the sanctuary of the main image, Vairocana, and there an ordination ceremony was carried out. The emperor; the empress, and in all some four hundred persons all received the precepts.

Later [this ordination platform] was moved to the west of the Great Buddha Sanctuary and there it was constructed separately in the Kaidanln (the Chapel of the Ordination Platform). From that time forward until the present, these ordinations have been performed yearly without interruption.

In all of the provinces of Japan, the precepts in the Vinaya pitaya were very widely practiced at this time. There was no one who did not study them. In addition the T5sh6daiji Monastery was constructed, from whence the precepts and the Vinayapitaka were transmitted and propagated. This has continued without interrup­tion up to the present day The transmission of the teaching of the

precepts and the Vinayapitaka to Japan is solely due to the efforts of the great preceptor Chien-Chen.

Question: How many patriarchs does this tradition recognize?

Answer: From the Venerable Mahakasyapa up to the recent Sung Dynasty their numbers have been many both in general enumeration and in their more specific enumeration. They are as follows.

The Buddha is the master of the teaching and is beyond logical classification. Then there are the Venerable Mahakasyapa, Ananda, MadhySntika, Sanakavasin, Upagupta, Dharmagupta, and Dharmakala; the Vinaya Masters Fa-ts'ung, Tao-fu, Hui-kuang, Tao-Yun, Tao-hung; and the Vinaya Masters Chih-shou₇ the Mt. Chung-nan Master Tao-human, Chou-hsiu, Tao-Heng, Hsing-kung, Hui-Cheng, Fa-pao, Yuan-piao, Shou-yen, Wu-wai, Fa-ying, Ch^Ju- heng, Ts'e-wu, Ytin-k'an, Ts'e-ch'i, and Yuan-chao. If^ howevei; we count the patriarchs from the origin of this specific [Dharma- guptaka] school to the master Tao-hstian, we find that there are nine patriarchs, since we start the count with the Venerable Dharma- gupta. The order after Tao-hsuan is as given above.

If we look at the Japanese transmission, we have the Vinaya Masters Tao-hsuan, Hung-ching, Chien-chen (Ganjin) daisbjd, Fa-chin (Hoshin) daisozu, Ju-pao (NyohO) shosozu, Buan. sdjd_} and others.

Question: Does the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition have many variant schools within it?

Answer: It did during the T'ang Dynasty Each of the Vinaya Masters—the Vinaya Master Fa-li of the Hsiang-chou school, Tao- hsiian of Mt. Chung-nan, and Huai-su of the Eastern Pagoda (tung-t'd) of the Ta-yiian-ssu Monastery-set up differing inter­pretations, and their disciples and followers contended with one another. These are termed the three schools of the Vinaya tradi­tion.

Ganjin waj6 brought both the Ta-su (The Great Commentary) of Fa-li and the five works of Tao-hsuan to Japan, where all of the various temples and monasteries sponsored lectures on these

world [without benefit of commentary]. Each of these works can be said to have exhausted the glories [of the Vinaya tradition], and all have come to serve as reputable guides. Toward the end of the Tang Dynasty [all these works] flourished in the capital, Loyang. In addition there is the Bini-toyo (Pi-ni fao-yao), in three chuan, of the Master Tao-shih, which differs only slightly from the other commentaries. The major and minor commentaries on the Dharma- guptaka Vinaya Pitaka are all of them in large measure identical in content with those of Tao-hesitant.

All of the commentaries of these six masters were transmitted to Japan, but now only those of the school of Tao-hsuan are popularly studied, with the new principles of Ting-pin also occa­sionally being studied. We shall not narrate the differences in the Vinaya teachings of these three schools, for fear of being prolix.

There are five major works in Tao-hessian’s literary corpus: (1) the Gyoji-sho (Hsing-shih-ch^,ao'), in three chuan, but now in twelve chuan; (2) the Kai-sho (Chieh-su), in four chiian, but now in eight chiian; (3) the Go-sho (Yeh-su\ in four chuan, but now in eight chuan; (4) the Shubinigi-sho (Shih-p³i-ni-i-ch^fao), originally in three chiian, but the last chiian has been lost; now there are only the first and second chiian, which are now divided into four chiian; and (5) the Bikuni-sho (Pi-ch'iu-ni-ch'ao), in three chiian, but now in six chuan. Tao-hsuan composed his own commentaries on his Kai-sho (Chieh-su) and Go-sho (Yeh-su), and these, together with his minor works on the Vinaya and his other literary compo­sitions, form a voluminous corpus that cannot be listed in detail here.

The Nan-shan Vinaya tradition primarily studies these five major works. But its basic text is the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka in sixty chiian and its commentary the Zenken-ron.

Question： What are the teachings elucidated by this tradition?

Answer: This tradition elucidates the precepts, of which there are two types.

First are the prohibitive precepts, the five groups [of rules in the Vinaya Pitaka] that put an end to evil. Second are the

injunctive precepts, the various practices of good, such as the posadha ceremony All of the precepts taught by the Tathagata are completely embraced by these two types of precepts. Thus the principles expressed by this Ritsu tradition are nothing more than these two, the prohibitive and the injunctive precepts.

[In the Vinaya Pitaka] first, the two pratimoksas are termed the prohibitive precepts, and then the following twenty skandhakas are the injunctive precepts.

The two pratimoksas are those for monks and nuns. The precepts that bhikkhus and bhikkhunis uphold are termed the full number of precepts.

If we first explain the precepts for the monks, then from among those precepts taught in the pratimoksa there are two hundred fifty precepts for monks, and these are divided into some eight divisions.

First [of the eight divisions] are the parajika precepts, which are four in number: the precepts against unchastity against rob­bery; against murder, and against bragging [about having attained enlightenment].

Second are the sanghava^esa precepts, which are thirteen in number: (1) intentional emission of semen; (2) touching a woman; (3) harsh language; (4) praising oneself in order to receive offer­ings; (5) acting as a marriage go-between; (6) building too large a dwelling; (7) receiving a building that is too large from a donor; (8) slandering another without cause; (9) accusing another of hav­ing committed transgressions greater than he actually committed; (10) encouraging schism in the Sangha; (11) aiding someone in creating schism in the Sangha; (12) not heeding a charge of defiling the donations of laymen; and (13) not heeding the admonitions of the Sangha through obstinacy

Third are the indeterminate (aniyata) precepts, which are two in number: the precepts against (1) being with a woman in a secluded place, and (2) being with a woman in a public place.

Fourth are the nihsargika-payantika precepts, which are thirty in number: these precepts concern extra robes, not wearing the robes, extra bowls, going on the begging rounds, etc.

Fifth are the payantika precepts, which are ninety in number: these precepts concern lying, disruptive speech, digging in the earth, destroying vegetation, drinking liquoi; eating at forbidden times, etc.

Sixth are the four pratidesanlya precepts, which concern receiv­ing donations of food in the forest [and not on begging rounds], and receiving donations of food from laymen who are saiksas.

Seventh are the one hundred rules of training (siksa-karanlya), which concern the proper wearing of robes, laughing loudly jump­ing around, etc.

Eighth are the seven methods of settling disputes (adhikarana- samatha): litigation with the accused and the defendant present, and litigation based on what one remembers, etc. These eight divisions embrace all of the two hundred fifty precepts.

These eight divisions that embrace all the precepts can also be divided into five sections: (1) the parajikas and (2) the sangha- vasesa precepts embrace the two types of transgressions given above; (3) the payantika combine with the nihsargika-payantika and the payantika precepts to form one section, embracing one hundred and twenty precepts; (4) the pratidesanlya precepts, as above; (5) the duskjta precepts, which combine with the two indeter­minate precepts, the one hundred rules of training, and the seven methods of settling disputes to form one section that embraces a total of one hundred nine precepts.

The two hundred fifty precepts are classified into five sections according to the effects of transgressions and their seriousness.

And again, all these transgressions can be included in six groups: (1) the parajikas, (2) the sangh^va^esas, (3) the sthula- tyayas, (4) the payantikas, (5) the pratidesanlya3, and (6) the duskrtas. These are the six groups.

If we elaborate upon the duskrtas, there are seven groups. Five are all as above; the sixth is evil actions (the duskrtas proper), and seventh is evil speech (durbhdsitaY

Of these seven groups, the parajikas, the sanghavasesaSy the payantikas, and the pratidesanlya^ are identical to the above divisions. The category of sthulatyayas embraces all of the major

and minor transgressions not included in the duskrtas, whether they are causes or results. The duskrtas in the above groups and all the other major and minor duskHas are embraced within "evil actions" and "evil speech7⁵ Thus apart from these seven groups, there are no further transgressions, because the six groups and the seven groups completely embrace all the transgressions.

Next we shall explain the nuns' precepts. The precepts of the bhikkhunis are, as itemized in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka_, three hundred forty-one, grouped into six divisions: (1) eight parajikas, (2) seventeen sanghavasesas, (3) thirty nihsargika- payantikas, (4) one hundred seventy-eight payantikas^ (5) eight pratidesanlyas, and (6) one hundred rules of training. The nuns^, precepts do not have the two indeterminate precepts.

There has traditionally been a debate concerning the seven methods of settling disputes [about whether they are included within the nuns' precepts or not]: some say that they are, and some say that they are not. Now according to Tao-hsuan, they are there in principle but are not in fact in the Vinaya pitaya, since that section of the text is abbreviated. Thus there are seven divisions [to the nuns' precepts].

If one were to add the seven methods of settling disputes, then there would be a total of three hundred forty-eight precepts. These precepts also do not exceed the five sections, which may be known by referring to the monks' precepts.

This concludes the first part of the full Vinaya pitaya, the commentary onpratimoksa for monks and nuns. The classification of the teachings as presented in the first half of the Vinaya pitaya is as given above. These are the prohibitive precepts.

Next are the twenty skandhases of the last half of the Dharma­guptaka Vinaya Pitaka, which are the injunctive precepts. They are ⑴ “On Receiving the Precepts^, (pravrajv^L-skandhakd)\ (2) "On Reciting the Precepts” (posadha-skandhaka); (3) ⁱ⁽On Retreats” (varsa-skandhaka); (4) “On the End of a Retreat” (pravarana- skandhaka); (5) "On Leather Goo ds^w {carma-skandhaka)\ (6) “On Robes^w (clvara-skandhaka); (7) “On Medicine^J, (bhaisajya- skandhakd)\ (8) "On the Kathina Robes^w (kathina-skandhaka);

(9) "On the Monks in Kosambi” (后oSGmba为儿and九a儿a); (10) “On Karma^w (karma-skandhaka);(ll^>) “On Censuring^ (pandulohitaka- skandhaka); (12) ^uOn Persons” (pudgala-skandhaka); (13) ^icOn Hid­den Faults^w (pdrivasika-skandhakaY, (14) ^aOn Prohibiting a Monk from Participating in a Posadha Ceremony” (posadhasthapana- skandhakd),, (15) “On Schism" (samghabheda-skandhakaY, (16) “On Eliminating Disputes” (adhikarana-§amatha-skandhaka); (17) “On Bhiksunl^ (bhiksuni-skandhaka); (18) ^MOn Dharma^w (Pharma- skandhaka); (19) ^uOn Dwellings” (6tWG7ia-Gsana-sEand九a^a); and (20) ^<<Miscellaneous^w (ksudraka-skandhakd). These are called the twenty skandhakas. They are all of them injunctive precepts.

However; these two halves of the Vinaya pitaya mutually interpenetrate one another The prohibitive precepts contain injunc­tions, and the injunctive precepts contain prohibitions. Although, broadly speaking, they mutually interpenetrate, the two halves have been assigned to either the prohibitive precepts or the injunc­tive precepts.

If we view these precepts with reference to [Tao-hsuan^] five major works-the Gyoji-sho (Hsing-shih-ch^fao), the Kai-sho {Chieh^su), and the Go-sho (Yeh-su) are called the Three Major Works—then we may say that the Kai-sho (Chieh-su) contains the details of the practice of the prohibitive precepts and the con­comitant actions that aid these prohibitive precepts; the Go-sho (Yeh-su) narrates with great clarity the practice of the injunctive precepts and the official legislative actions of the Sangha by any of the three types of groups, that is, of four monks or more, of one monk, or of two or three monks; the Gyoji-sho {Hsing-shih-ch^fao) explains both the prohibitive precepts and the injunctive precepts to equal perfection; the Bikuni-sho (Pi-ch^fiu-ni-ch'ad} specifically elucidates both the prohibitive precepts and the injunctive pre­cepts of the bhikkhunis; and the Shubinigi-sho (Shih-p^yi-ni-i-ch^fao) largely explains the prohibitive precepts.

Thus all of these works of the Master (Tao-hsiian) rest on these two types of precepts: the prohibitive precepts and the injunctive precepts. These two types of precepts have both general and specific characteristics.

Generally speaking, all good actions are embraced in these two types of precepts, but speaking specifically they are as explained only with reference to this Vinaya tradition. Now then, the two types of precepts spoken of here are those referred to in the Vinaya tradition; but even so there is some reference to their more general characteristics.

Question: Are the total numbers of precepts for monks and nuns limited to these [mentioned above]?

Answer: No, they are not. The total numbers of monks' and nuns' precepts are numberless and limitless. A definitive number was decided on because these precepts were legislated according to circumstances.

The numbers of monks^, precepts and of nuns' precepts are to be understood on three levels: in their broadest form, [the monks' precepts] are numberless; in their median form, they consist of three thousand rules of discipline (samara) with their sixty thou­sand minute rules; and in their most abbreviated form, they con­sist of the two hundred fifty precepts.

The precepts of the nuns are to be understood on three levels: in their broadest form, they are innumerable; in their median form, they consist of eighty thousand rules of conduct with their one hundred twenty thousand minute rules; and in their most abbre­viated form, they consist of the three hundred forty-eight precepts.

A scripture speaks of “the five hundred precepts/* but this is merely a name, having no specific characteristics. As the Master Yuan-chao says, “If we speak with reference to actual cases, the precepts are without number; nevertheless, the number two hun­dred fifty serves as a guide to conduct." Such is also the case for the nuns' precepts.

Thus when the two congregations, monks and nuns, receive the full number of precepts in ordination, they both receive this number­less, limitless number of precepts. The precepts are equal in num­ber to space, and they are applied to individual cases in the Dharma dhatu (world).

There are no precepts that are not perfect, and so they are termed “all the perfect precepts .^w

The five precepts (paftca-slla)_f the ten precepts {dasa-slld), and the six rules are extracted from the total number of precepts, for the gradual inducement of people of various capacities. They form an upaya (expedient means) leading to the total number of pre­cepts. One gradually progresses and advances with them, until one finally attains to the stage that naturally possesses all the precepts.

Because of this there are said to be in all four ranks of precepts: the five precepts, the eight precepts (astanga-samanvagatopavasa), the ten precepts, and the full number of precepts. If we add the six rules, then there is a total of five ranks.

There are seven groups of Buddhists. These groups are set up [by these five types of precepts]. The seven are (1) bhikkhu and (2) bhikshuni, who both undertake the full number of precepts; (3) siksamana, who undertakes the six rules of training; (4) ^ramanera and (5) ^ramanerika, who both undertake the ten precepts; (6) upasaka and (7) upasika, who both undertake the five precepts.

The first five groups of persons have left the householders^, life, and the last two are still in the householders^, life.

Although the precepts of the siksamanas, sramaneras, and sramanerikas are in number the ten precepts, etc., when it comes to the actual upholding of them, they are like a fully ordained monk [or nun].

The eight precepts of abstinence are clerical precepts under­taken by the laity Nevertheless these precepts are included in the precepts kept by the laity the upasakas and the upasikas.

There are no other groups of persons [within Buddhism] except these seven.

The five precepts are (1) the precept against killing; (2) the precept against stealing; (3) the precept against illicit sexual prac­tices; (4) the precept against lying; and (5) the precept against drinking liquor.

The eight precepts of abstinence are as follows: the first five are as above, except that the precept against illicit sexual practices becomes a precept against all sexual activity; (6) the precept against putting perfumes or oils on the body; (7) the precept against seeing or listening to songs and dances; (8) the precept against using high and broad beds; and (9) the precept against eating at forbidden times.

A commentary on the Sarvastivada Vinaya says, “Eight are precepts, the ninth is abstinence; when counted together there are then nine

The ten precepts are: the first nine are as above; and (10) the precept against grasping gold, silver, or jewels.

The six rules of training are (1) the rule against killing any living thing; (2) the rule against stealing even three coins; (3) the rule against touching [a man]; (4) the rule against lying； (5) the rule against drinking liquor; and (6) the rule against eating at forbidden times.

Of these seven groups of persons there are three groups for men: bhikkhu, Sramana, and Upasana; and four for women, namely, the other four.

Question: How many teachings does this tradition set up to embrace all of the various teachings?

Answer: The Vinaya Master Tao-human sets up two types of teachings, those of converting and those of legislating, in order to embrace the full teaching in the lifetime of the Buddha. These are also termed the teaching of converting and the teaching of practice. The teaching of converting is the teaching of samadhi and Prajna as taught in the scriptures and in the commentaries, the Four Agamas, etc. The teaching of legislating is the teaching of the precepts taught in the Vinaya, such as the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitka.

Now then, this tradition is based on the Vinaya pitaya, and so it regards the precepts as primary. If the practice of the precepts is purified, then samadhi and Pramila arise automatically Thus if one first upholds the precepts and guards against faults in one's

actions, samadhi and Prajna then, and only then, put down and cut off mental defilements and errors.

It was for the purpose of obtaining enlightenment that the precepts were legislated; it was never for any worldly benefit. The path to holiness of all of the three vehicles cannot be estab­lished in the absence of precepts; herein lay the reason that the Tathagata initially legislated the precepts. [This is the explanation of Tao-human].

Question: It is popularly said, ^w[Keeping] the five and the eight precepts brings rebirth in either the human or the heavenly realm. The ten precepts and the full number of precepts bring athwartship.^,> What does this signify?

Answer: This is not necessarily true. If one keeps the five or the eight precepts, one will then receive—as a birth based on such a cause-rebirth as a human or as a god. If one keeps the ten precepts, or the full number of precepts, one will then receive—as a birth based on such a cause—the end result of airmanship, that is, Hinayana athwartship. The popular saying given above is based on this. Ig however; one views this from the point of view of the intention (asaya) of the person undertaking the precepts, this is not the case. As the Vinaya Master Yaan-chao says, “There are four groups of precepts: the five, the eight, the ten, and the full number of precepts. Now if any of these are undertaken by one of dull capacities, they will all lead to worldly good. If they are undertaken by one of superior understanding, then they will form the basis for enlightenment. "Thus we should remember that the precepts differ according to the various individual capacities. This is the teaching of this tradition, the purport set forth by the Master Tao-hessian.

Question: To which of the two, the Mahayana or the Hina­yana, does the Shibun (Dharmaguptaka) Ritsu tradition belong?

Ansiver: The judgments of the various masters about the Ritsu tradition differ with respect to this. The Vinaya Master Hui-kuang said, “The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition is Mahayana." The Vinaya Masters Fa-li and Hstian-yun both said that this tradition “is purely Hinayana." The Vinaya Master Tao-hsuan said, "This

Dharmaguptaka tradition is, in its principles, Mahay anna^’s This latter judgment has in large measure become authoritative.

The Go-sho (Yeh-su) sets up five points on which the Dharma- guptaka Vinaya Pitaka is Mahayana. These are (1) the Arhat Dabba searches for a higher goal; (2) Buddhahood is bestowed on all sentient beings with the phrase, “May all sentient beings together attain Buddhahood!”； (3) the vijnana perceives external phenomena; (4) monks are addressed as “Sons of the Buddha”; and (5) the penalties for infractions of the precepts are determined according to the intention of the transgressor. In these points, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka far surpasses all other Vinaya works. It is truly profound.

Each of all the above various precepts has four aspects: (1) the precept itself for precepts legislated by the Tathagata apply to all situations; (2) the nature of the precepts: the person receiving the precepts generates this, and it becomes absorbed into conscious­ness (this Dharmaguptaka tradition, relying upon the Jojitsu-ron [Satyasiddhi-sastra], holds that an element neither physical nor mental constitutes this nature); (3) the practice of the precepts: upon receiving the precepts, they are carried out, and the three actions—of body speech, and mind-are thus formed; and (4) the external aspect of the precepts: these virtues are manifested out­wardly and so become a model of conduct for others. Each one of the many precepts possesses all of these four aspects.

Question: Be they Mahayana or Hinayana, what are the basic practices and resultant attainment posited in the doctrines of this tradition and in the ideas of Tao-hsiian?

Answer: The teachings of this tradition are basically Hina­yana, as the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka is concerned with persons of Hinayana capacities. Nevertheless, in principle it is Mahayana, as it obliges persons of such capacities to progress gradually [to the Mahayana]. Because it is Hinayana, it includes all Hinayana practices. Because it is partially Mahayana, there is nothing that it does not anticipate as Mahayana. This is the purport of the teachings of this tradition.

According to Tao-hsuan, the teaching given in the lifetime of the Tathagata, both Mahayana and Hinayana, is divided into three teachings: (1) the teaching of the emptiness of nature (svabhava- sunyata), which includes all Hinayana teachings; (2) the teaching of the emptiness of external characteristics (laksana-sunyata), which includes all shallow Mahayana teachings; and (3) the per­fect teaching of cognizing-only (vijnapti-matrata), which includes all profound Mahayana teachings.

This Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition is but one aspect of the teaching of the emptiness of nature. Nevertheless Tao-hsiian^ heart lay in the perfect teaching of cognizing-only which he regarded as a perfect interpenetration of the three learnings (frlni siksani), the unimpeded perfect practice.

In his Go-sho (Yeh-su), Master Tao-hessian elucidates the es­sence of the precepts as discussed in various schools and presents the significance of three schools. The school of existence and the school of emptiness are both included in the teaching of the empti­ness of nature. And the teaching of cognizing-only is the perfect teaching.

Both the Mahayana and the Hinayana recognize the three learnings. But in the three learnings of the perfect teaching of the Mahayana, the learning of the precepts means the keeping of the threefold pure precepts, and a seed (Blaj) in the alaya-vijnana is held to constitute its nature.

Samadhi and prance are the practice of cognizing-only. Samatha (stilling) and vipassana (insight) carried out together are held to constitute its characteristics. The precepts (Sila) are none other than samadhi and Prajna; there is not one precept that is not samadhi and Prajna. Samadhi and Prajna are none other than the precepts; there is no aspect of these that is not one of the precepts. This is termed the practice, and the characteristics, of the perfect interpenetration of the three learnings.

The threefold pure precepts mentioned above are (1) the pre­cept that embraces all rules of conduct, which cuts off all evil; (2) the precept that embraces all good dharmas, which is the practice of all good; and (3) the precept that embraces all sentient

beings, which means to bear [the sufferings of] all sentient beings, and to bestow the ultimate benefit [of enlightenment] upon them.

The practice of the threefold pure precepts also perfectly inter­fuses, so that each of these three precepts perfectly and totally embraces all of the various precepts. For instance, the precept against killing embraces the threefold pure precepts, and such is the case with all of the precepts. And so it follows that if one upholds one precept, all of the threefold pure precepts are then totally upheld.

Although this is the practice of but one precept, it broadly embraces all (lit. "the ten thousand")precepts. Although this may last for one moment of thought, it instantly spans three asamkhyeya kalpas. The three asamkhyeya kalpas are not negated, and yet this one moment of thought is recognized. This one moment of thought is not ignored and yet the three asamkhyeya kalpas are really spanned. Long and short are unhindered; sentient beings and the Buddha are the same; all phenomena mutually interpene­trate; and all of the various external characteristics are identical one with another without end. How can this not be profound and marvelous! For the purpose of abbreviation, we shall not discuss either the precept that embraces all good dharmas or the precept that embraces all sentient beings.

There are three categories to the precept that embraces all the rules of discipline: (1) the precepts that lead to separate libera­tion (pratimoksa-slla); (2) the precepts that [necessarily] accom­pany samadhi; and (3) the precepts that [necessarily] accompany enlightenment.

Within the first of these, the precepts that lead to separate liberation, there are three aspects to its activities, namely, the precepts upheld by one's body speech, and mind. Whereas the precepts upheld by one's body and speech have two aspects-those precepts upheld by both Mahayana bodhisattvas and Hinayana sravakas, and those precepts not upheld by Hinayana sravakas but only by Mahayana bodhisattvas—the precepts relating to mental action are upheld only by Mahayana bodhisattvas. For this

reason, the precepts received by Hinayana sravakas are merely one part of those precepts relating to the actions of body and speech held by both Hinayanists and Mahayanists.

These are the precepts taught in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka, etc. Nevertheless the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka par­tially corresponds to the Mahayana precepts relating to mental activity Because of this [the Mahayana precepts] contain the Hinayana precepts.

The Mahayana tradition regards the precepts held in common by both the Hinayana and the Mahayana as being included within the threefold pure precepts, in order to reconcile and to subsume them all within the Mahayana.

The precepts taught in the Hinayana Vinayapitakas are, all of them, the greater, perfect, and sudden [Mahayana] precepts. They have no separate characteristics apart from them. Being pure, one, and of greatest perfection, these rules for the seven groups of persons are totally identical to those of the Hinayana Vinaya pitaya, because they are [as included] recognized within the first of the threefold pure precepts, the precept that embraces all the rules of discipline.

This is the purport of the teaching concerning the teaching and the resultant insight of Tao-hstian, and the disposition of those followers who receive, follow, understand, and practice the pre­cepts. However in the receiving of the threefold pure precepts, there is a general receiving [of all three] and a separate receiving. When all of the three precepts are received, this is termed the general receiving. The receiving of only the first of these three precepts, the precept that embraces all the rules of discipline, is termed the separate receiving.

Master Tao-hsiian maintains that the perfect precepts relating to mental activity as transmitted in a correct Hinayana karma- vacant ceremony correspond to this separate receiving of the precept that embraces all the rules of discipline. When one later receives the bodhisattva precepts, that corresponds to the general receiving of all of the threefold pure precepts.

Now then, the followers of this Ritsu tradition receive both the general receiving and the separate receiving [of the threefold pure precepts] within a ritual enclosure (sima) and the precepts of both the [Hinayana] Dharmaguptaka Vinaya Pitaka and the [Maha­yana] Bonmo-kyo (Brahmajala-sutra) are all upheld. The two terms, “general receiving' and "separate receiving originated with scholars of the Hosso (Ybgacara) tradition, but its principles lie within the sphere of the Nan-shan Vinaya tradition of Tao-hsuan. The legis­lation of the five sections and those for the seven groups in the Sangha arose among the sravakas, and yet its practice spans the Mahayana.

Clear are the true teachings of the Yuga-ron (Yogacara-Bhumi- sastrci) and the judgments of Master Tao-hsiian. If the disposition of the devotee but resides in this tradition, how can the marvelous result that is Buddhahood be far away?

Chapter IV

The Hosso Tradition

Question: Why is this tradition termed the Hosso tradition?

Answer: It is termed the Hosso (dharma-laksana, character­istics of the dharmas) tradition because it determines the charac­teristics and the nature of all of the various dharmas.

Broadly speaking, this tradition has some four names. First, it is called the Tradition of Cognizing-only (Vijnapti-matrata) because the major purport of this tradition is to elucidate the fact that there are only (matata) mental concepts (vijnapti). Second, it is called the Perfect and True Tradition That Is in Accord with Reason {Ori-enjitsu) because all of its teachings are in accord with the truth. Third, it is called the Teaching That Is Universally for All Vehicles (Fuijo-kyo) because it embraces all of the five vehicles. Fourth, it is called the Hossd tradition for the reason given above. We now present only one of these names.

Question: Which scriptures and commentaries does this tra­dition rely upon for its authority?

Answer: There are some six scriptures and eleven commentaries quoted in the Jd-yuishiki-ron (Ch,eng-wei-shih-lun of Hsiian-tsang). The six scriptures are the Kegon-gyd (Auatamsaka-sutra'), the Gejin- mikkyd (Samdhinirmocana-sutra)_t the Nyorai-shutsugen-kudoku- shogon-kyo, the Abidatsuma-kyd (Abhidharma-sutra), the Rydga-kyd (Lahkavatara-sutra), and the Kogon-kyo (Ghanavyuha-sutra). The eleven commentaries are the Yuga-ron, the Ken'yd shogyo-ron (Aryadesana-vikhyapana\ the Juryd-ron (Pramanasamuccaya), the Sho-daijo-ron (Mahayana-samgraha-sastra'), the Juji-kyd-ron (Dasabhumika-sastra'), the Fumbetsu-yuga-ron (Yoga-vibhaga), the Ben-chu-ben-ron (Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya), the Niju-yuishiki-ron

(Vimsatikavrtti), the Kan-sho-ennen-ron (Alambanapariksa), the Zbju-ron (Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyakhya), [and the Jd-yuishiki- ron (Ch'eng-wei-shih-lurCj].

Speaking generally however; some five major commentaries or ten subsidiary commentaries are all of the textual authorities of this tradition. Nevertheless the texts such, as the Gejin-mikkyd, the Yuga-ron, and the Jd-yuishiki-ron especially serve as a guide to the study [of this tradition].

Question: Whom does this teaching regard as its patriarchs?

Answer: The various generations of the lineal succession of this teaching in the three countries are clear. Some nine hundred years after the extinction of the TatMgata, the bodhisattva Maitreya descended from the Tusita heaven, down to the country of Ayodhya in India. There in the lecture hall of Ayodhya he preached the five major commentaries. The spiritual, stage of the bodhisattva Maitreya was the tenth Bhumi; and he was transmitting that which he had personally heard when the Tathagata was in the world.

The marvelous truth of the Middle Way which is neither emptiness nor existence, is truly a clear mirror within all of the various teachings. The Yuga-ron, in its one hundred scrolls of text, evaluates all of the various teachings. For this reason it is called The Commentary That Broadly Comments on All the Various Scrip­tures (Koshaku shokyd ron).

Next there was the bodhisattva Asariga, whose spiritual stage was the first Bhumi. He succeeded the bodhisattva Maitreya and widely disseminated this tradition. Asanga made detailed commen­taries on all the writings of the bodhisattva Maitreya and com­posed commentaries upon the teachings of the Buddha Sakyamurd.

Next, in a period some nine hundred years [after the extinction of the Tathagata], there was the bodhisattva Vasubandhu, the younger brother of Asariga. He was a bodhisattva in the first stage of the four roots of good, which is called “clear understanding." He succeeded the bodhisattva Asanga and widely disseminated this tradition. Vasubandhu composed explanatory commentaries based upon Maitreya's commentary (Yuga-ron). Initially Vasubandhu

had studied the Hinayana and composed some five hundred com­mentaries upon it. Later he disseminated the Mahayana and composed some five hundred commentaries on it. He thoroughly penetrated the teachings of all of the texts of all of the teachings in the lifetime of the Tathagata.

Next there was the bodhisattva Dharmapala, who profoundly understood the commentarial literature of Vasubandhu, and who disseminated the teachings of Maitreya. Being a Buddha of this Bhadra Kalpa (Good Aeon), he gave an explanatory revelation from out of the sky All the non-Buddhists, with their perverse clingings, closed their mouths and were as dumb. The various sectarian traditions of the Hinayana all folded in their tongues and were as stammerers. Thus did the non-Buddhists and the Hina- yanists of India all say “The Mahayana has only this one man.”

Next there was the Commentary Master Sllabhadra, who was as a great general in the transmission of the Buddha-dharma. During his age he far transcended ordinary persons. He trans­mitted all of the teachings of the Hosso and commented upon all of the teachings in the lifetime of the Tathagata.

These five great commentary masters were all of them great masters, transmitters of the Dharma in India.

Next, in the early years of the great T'ang Dynasty in China, there was the Tripitaka Master Hsuan-tsang. He traversed the distant, shifting sands on his journey to faraway India. There he eventually met the Commentary Master Silabhadra, who was disseminating this tradition. The master Silabhadra had waited long for Hsuan-tsang and transmitted to him all of the teachings of the Hosso, that is, the five major commentaries and the ten subsidiary commentaries, omitting nothing. Finally Hsuan-tsang returned to China, where he widely propagated this tradition.

Hsuan-Tsang had some three thousand students, seventy dis­ciples who were spiritually advanced, and four chief disciples. Indeed, the whole realm went to him in allegiance, and the whole country within the four seas paid court to him. He translated an exceedingly large number of the various Sutras, Vinayas, and Abhidharmas, both of his own tradition and of other traditions.

Hsiian-tsang is the first of the patriarchs of the Hosso tradition in China, and he is the sixth patriarch in the Indian lineage of succession.

Next there was the Dharma Master Kuei-chi. He was the chief disciple of the Tripitaka Master Hsiian-tsang. His wisdom and his understanding far surpassed the ordinary Succeeding the Tripitaka Master Hsiian-tsang, he widely transmitted this tradition. Kuei- chi was “the master of the one hundred volumes of commentaries, a manifestation of a bodhisattva of the tenth bhtlmi, a master whose outstanding qualities stand out as a flower among weeds. The whole world looked to him in allegiance. He was given the honorific posthumous title of “the great master of the Tz^-en-ssu Monastery” （Jion-da，s）.

Next there was the great master Hui-chao of Tsu-chou, who succeeded the great master of the Tz^u-en-ssu Monastery Kuei- chi. He widely disseminated this tradition. Next there was the great master Chih-chou of Punya, who succeeded the great master of Tsu-chou, Hui-chao. He broadly transmitted this tradi­tion. These then are the generations of the lineage succession in the land of the great T'ang Dynasty.

There have been some three transmissions of this tradition into Japan. First, the two monks Chih-fung and Chih-ta received these teachings from the Tripitaka Master Hsiian-tsang. Second, the Dhyana Master Chih-feng, of the kingdom of Silla, received these teachings from the Tripitaka Master Hsuan-tsang and ini­tially transmitted them to the monk of sojo rank Giin of Japan. He propagated this Hosso tradition in the Yuima-dd [of the KOfukuji Monastery]. Third, the monk of sojo rank Gembo of Japan went to T'ang Dynasty China, where he studied under the guidance of the great master of P'u-yang, Chih-chou. Returning to Japan, he trans­mitted the teachings to the monk of sojo rank Zenju.

From that time to the present there has been a continuous transmission of these teachings. The monasteries have been filled with those who have cultivated this study up to the present day with no interruption. All of these masters were excellent, like dragons, and the spears of their wisdom and their eloquence were

truly sharp. All of them had the outstanding qualities of lions, and the roar of their determining [truth from error] was exceedingly loud and fierce. The whole land of Yamato (Japan) was filled with the Hosso teachings. What other tradition can match this?

In the above narration nothing has been omitted with respect to the lineage succession of this tradition in the three countries.

Question: How many periods of the teaching does this tradi­tion posit in order to embrace all of the teachings in the lifetime of the Tathagata?

Answer: This tradition posits three periods of the teaching in order to embrace all of the teachings in the lifetime of the Tathagata. This is the clear teaching of the Gejin-mikkyd.

First there is the teaching of existence. During the first of these chronological periods the Buddha elucidates, for those who aspire after the vehicle of the srQvakas, the teaching of the emptiness of the self and the existence of the dharmas, thus destroying the clinging of non-Buddhists to a substantial self. All of the various Hinayana groups are included within this teaching. For now how­ever we shall speak of this teaching from the point of view of its teaching of existence. All of the other [Hinayana] groups may be subsumed within this.

Second there is the teaching of emptiness. The Buddha, in this second chronological period of his teachings, elucidates, for those who aspire after the Mahayana, the teaching that all of the various dharmas are empty in order to destroy the above clinging to substantial dharmas.

Third there is the teaching of the Middle Way. In this, the third of the chronological periods, the Buddha taught the teaching of neither emptiness nor existence, in order to destroy the above one-sided clingings to existence or to emptiness.

Nevertheless the first period teaches existence with reference to its temporary; dependent nature (etakisho, paratantra).

The second period teaches emptiness with reference to cling­ing to [false concepts of] a self It is not yet the fully revealed teaching of the three natures, or of the three non-natures. Thus

these first two periods are “the not yet fully revealed teachings, for they are philosophical positions easily leading to argumentation.

In the third period the three natures and the three nonmature are fully taught. Because of the illusory nature of exist­ence (Jienge-shoshu-sho, parikalpita), there is no existence. But because of the temporary dependent nature of things, there is no nonexistence. This is the marvelous truth of the Middle Way neither emptiness nor existence. It is from its very beginnings apart from the two extremes and immediately enters the right path. This is the most profound of all of the teachings in the lifetime of the Tathagata and the most marvelous of all of the eighty [-four] thousand teachings.

All of the most profound Mahayana scriptures, such as the Kegon-gyd (Avatamsaka-sutrd), the Gejin-mikkyo {Samdhinirmo- cana-sutra)the Konkomyo-saishoo-kyd (Suvarnaprabhasottama- raja-sutra), the Lotus Sutra, the Nehan-gyd (Mahaparinirvana- sutra), are included within this period.

All of the Prajnaparamita scriptures are included within the second period All of the various Hinayana groups are included within the first period.

Question: Are these three periods a chronological sequence, or are they an ideational sequence?

Answer: Scholars differ in their opinions with respect to this. Some say that the three periods are a chronological sequence, some others say that the three periods are an ideational sequence of different teachings, and some others say that the three periods are a combination of both ideational and chronological sequences.

Question: Is the Middle Way as taught in the third period posited with respect to the three natures? Or is the Middle Way elucidated with respect to one dharma [with respect to any one of the three natures]?

Answer: There are two teachings with respect to this.

The first one says that the three natures are seen with respect to the Middle Way The second one says that the Middle Way is seen in each of these [three] elements. Many however hold that the

three natures should be seen only with respect to the Middle Way but that the Middle    could also be seen in each of these [three]

elements.

Question: How is emptiness taught in the second period?

Answer: There are two teachings on this. The first holds that emptiness is based on the illusory nature of things, and that it teaches only in its hidden meaning that all things are empty The second holds that emptiness is based on the three non-natures.

Question: How many types of vehicles does this tradition posit?

Answer: The teachings of this tradition posit some three vehi­cles and five natures, [Those with] the five natures are first, those with the definitive nature of a sravaka; second, those with the definitive nature of apratyekabuddha; third, those with the definitive nature of a bodhisattva; fourth, those with no definitive nature; and fifth, those sentient beings without any nature.

Those of the two vehicles with definitive natures attain to the fruit taught within their own vehicles, and in addition they attain to an entry into nirvana without residue.

Those who have the nature of a bodhisattva perfect the prac­tice of the two benefits [benefitting oneself and others] and are awakened to the greatest bodhi.

Those sentient beings without any nature are by nature with­out any undefiled seeds (西as); they have only defiled seeds. If they do progress, then they are reborn among humans or gods, but this is as high as they advance.

Question: Do those beings of the two vehicles (sravakas and pratyekabuddhas) who enter into extinction ever return to the round of birth and death?

Answer: Not those who have entered into [nirvana] without residue, for their bodies are reduced to ashes and their intellects are extinguished, and all of their cognizing consciousnesses are extinguished. How can there be any return to the round of birth and death for them?

Those persons with no definitive nature will certainly convert to the Mahayana, and they shall not enter into this extinction.

When they do convert [to the Mahayana] they enter into the first mental stage of the ten stages of faith. And from the first abode they enter into the stage of the Samkhya kalpaks and attain to Buddhahood.

By nature these five different natures are within the capabili­ties of all sentient beings. For this reason then the Buddha gives an appropriate Dharma to each one of these capacities or faculties. Thus there are necessarily some five vehicles. Those sentient beings without any nature are of the vehicles of humans and gods. Beings of the three vehicles with definitive natures constitute the beings of the three vehicles. Those with no definitive natures are common to any of the three vehicles, as is appropriate. In this manner then there are some five vehicles. However if we speak with reference to those vehicles that are trans-worldly; then this tradition posits only some three vehicles. Truly the reason why this tradition is also called “The Teaching That Is for All Vehicles Universally,^, is based on this.

Question: The Lotus Sutra and other texts teach that there is only One Vehicle (Ekayana), and for this reason those beings who have the definitive natures of the two vehicles can all attain Buddhahood. Why must this tradition maintain some five natures?

Answer: The teachings of the Lotus Sutra and of other texts have hidden meanings. They speak of the One Vehicle with respect to those beings with no definitive natures. These texts do not say that all beings with the five different natures can attain Buddhahood. But when [these scriptures] say “all," this means “all” of one small portion.

It is in the nature of things that these five natures have been distinct one from the other from beginningless time and that they cannot be changed.

Question: What are the characteristics of the religious prac­tices of the three vehicles and their fruits?

Answer: A sravaka traverses some three lifetimes [at a mini­mum], or sixty kalpaks [at a maximum] and attains the fruit of athwartship.

A pratyekabuddha traverses some four lifetimes or one hun­dred kalpaks and attains his fruit.

A bodhisattva traverses three Samkhya kalpaks and attains the fruit of the great awakening.

Question: How many different bodhisattva stages does this tradition posit?

Answer: In all some forty-one stages are posited, including both causal bodhisattva stages and their goal (Buddhahood). These are the ten stages of abode, the ten stages of practice, the ten stages of transfer of merit, the ten Bhumis^ and Buddhahood. If the Stage Almost Equal to Enlightenment (nogaku) is also delineated, then there are some forty-two stages. However this is included within the [tenth] Bhumi, ^a cloud of the Dharma” (dharma-Megha Bhumi). Also, if the ten stages of faith are delineated, then there are some fifty-one stages. However the ten stages of faith are included in the first stage of abode.

The great master of the Tz^-ensue Monastery, Kuei-chi, also posits some forty-one stages. The Dharma Master of the Hsi-ming- ssu Monastery; Ytian-ts'e, posits in all some fifty-two stages.

The forty-one stages are grouped into five stages.

First is the Stage of Preparation (sambhara). This is the thirty stages before the Bhumis.

Second is the Stage of Additional Religious Practice {prayoga). After the ten stages of transfer of merit, the four roots of good are delineated; and they come to make the expedient (upaya) addi­tional religious practice (prayoga) leading to the path of seeing (darsana-marga).

Third is the Stage of Penetration. This is the mental state of entering into the first Bhumi, the stage of the path of seeing.

Fourth is the Stage of Cultivation (bhavana-marga). This refers to the [ten] stages from the first Bhumi up to the tenth Bhumi of the bodhisattva.

Fifth is the Stage of the Ultimate. This is Buddhahood.

These are termed the five stages of religious cultivation.

Question: What hindrances do persons in the three vehicles cut off?

Answer: Beings in the two vehicles cut off only the hindrance of the defilements (klesa-avarana). Beings who are Mahayana bodhisattvas cut off both of the hindrances.

The two hindrances are first, the hindrance of the defilements, and second, the hindrance of intellectualization (jneya-avarana). Each of these two hindrances is twofold: that is, those that are acquired and those that are with a person from birth.

Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi put down the outward manifestations of the two acquired hindrances. In the first Bhumi they cut off the seeds of these two defilements. From the second Bhumi onwards, up to [but not including] the tenth Bhumi, in each Bhumi they gradually cut off the hindrance of intellectualization that has been with them since birth. When they reach the tenth Bhumi they cut off the seeds of the hindrance of the defilements that have been with them since birth. The influences of these two hindrances are gradually cut off in this same order; from the second Bhumi onwards. When one reaches the state of Buddha- hood, all of these hindrances are totally cut off at once.

Question: How many stages are traversed during the period of the three Samkhya kalpaks?

Answer: The three stages of the wise and the four roots of good are traversed in the first Samkhya Kalpa. The first Bhumi through the seventh Bhumi are traversed during the second Samkhya Kalpa. The eighth, ninth, and tenth Bhumis are tra­versed during the third Samkhya Kalpa. After one has traversed the three Samkhya kalpaks, one attains Buddhahood.

The forty-one bodhisattva stages are divided into the four reliance’s. The stages before the Bhumis are the first reliance. At this time the bodhisattva makes offerings to Buddhas as numer­ous as the sands of five Ganges Rivers. The stages from the first Bhumi to the sixth Bhumi are the second reliance. Now the bodhi­sattva makes offerings to Buddhas as numerous as the sands of six Ganges Rivers. The stages of the seventh, eighth, and ninth

defilements (kesars): greed (raga), hatred (prefight), ignorance (mudhif), pride (mana)_f doubt (vici kits&), and wrong views (drastic). Wrong views can be expanded into some five views: the view that [the five skandhas] constitute a self (Satyadarshi), the view of the [two] extremes (antaparigraha-drsti), perverse views [methandriol, not believing in karmic retribution], the view that holds to [the above] views, and the view that there is efficacy in [non-Buddhist] precepts and in [non-Buddhist] ascetic practices (salivate- Paramars Fifth are the twenty minor defilements (up a- kesars): anger (kosha), enmity (panache), concealing one's misdeeds (unraked), anguish (paradise), stinginess (mastery), jealousy (Zorya), deception (maya), fraudulence (Sathya), violence (Valise)_f conceit (madam), shamelessness (ahrlkya), non-bashfulness (anatropia), restlessness (audiation), melancholy (stanza), absence of faith (sraddha), laziness (Kasadya), negligence (Pramada), forgetful­ness (rnusitasmrtita), distraction (vespa), and incorrect under­standings (sampradaya). Sixth are the four indeterminate {animate) mental states: repentance (khurta), torpor (maddah), reflection (vihara), and investigation (vicars). These six groups of dharmas make up a total of fifty-one dharmas.

Third are the eleven material (Rupa) dharmas: the eye, ear; nose, tongue, and body; forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tangibles; and the physical matter included within the dharma-ayapana (dharmayatanikani Rupini). This physical matter is of five kinds: exceedingly small matter; exceedingly unstable matter; matter that is drawn out by receiving [the precepts], matter that is generated in samadhi, and matter that arises through the illusory nature of existence. These are all physical matter included within the dharma-ayapana.

Fourth are the twenty-four types of objects not [necessarily] associated with the mind (cite viprayukta samskara): acquisition (predate), life (Jitendra), similarity {nikaya-sabhaga), difference (visabhaga), thoughtless absorption (asarrijnl-samapatti), the absorp­tion of extinction (nirodha-samapatti), being in the thoughtless absorption Kazanjian)', names (Nama-kaya), words (pada-kaya),

sentences (Vanjan-kaya)\ birth (Jati), old age (Jara), stability (Sthit), impermanence (anitya), progress {prakriti), distinction between cause and effect (platinumed), union (yoga), constant change (java), orderly progression within change (anukrama), direc­tion (desi), time (kala), number (Samkhya), harmony (Samara), and disharmony (anyathQ,tva).

Fifth are the six unconditioned {Adamska) dharmas: space (akasha\ extinction through conscious effort (pratisamkhya-nirodha), extinction not obtained through conscious effort [but through natural causes, apratisamkhya-nirodha], extinction obtained through a motionless state [of heavenly absorption, dninjya-nirodha], extinc­tion obtained through the cessation of ideas and of sensations [of an arhat, sarnjna-vedayita-nirodha], and the Absolute {tathata).

These are the one hundred dharmas. This is nothing other than a systemization of all the various dharmas.

Question: What is the relationship of the three groups-the skandhas, the ayapanas, and the dhatus-that include all of the dharmas of mind and of matter; with this present schema of one hundred dharmas?

Answer: Of these one hundred dharmas, the mind, mental states, and the dharmas of physical matter are divided into the five skandhas. The Skandha of physical matter (Rupa Skandha) is the dharma of physical matter (Rupa dharma), and the two skandhas of sensation (Vedana Skandha) and thoughts (sarnjna-skandha) are mental states. The Skandha of consciousness (vijnana-skandha) is called the mind (cite) and is made up of the eight conscious­nesses. All of the other mental states are included within the Skandha of mental formations {samskara-Skandha). Unconditioned dharmas (samarskite dharma) are not included among the skandhas.

As for the twelve ayapanas, the twelve Qantas are a full elaboration of physical matter; and are an abbreviated explanation of the mind. It may be known on the basis of the above skandhas.

The eighteen dhatus are a full elaboration of both physical matter and the mind, and they also include unconditioned dharmas.

The main purport of this tradition is only to elucidate cognizing- only All of the various dharmas are cognizing-only and there is not one dharma that exists outside of the mind.

Thus did the great master of the Tz^Ju-en-ssu Monastery Kuei- chi, say “If there are dharmas outside of the mind, then there is transmigration in the round of birth and death; if one is awakened to the one mind, then birth and death will be eternally cast off?' However if there is differentiation within the various dharmas, there are only the permutations of cognizing-only Apart from consciousness there are no separate dharmas. All spheres and realms [of the mind, Visayas and dhatus] are subsumed within mind and consciousness (cite and VI jnana).

In elucidating this teaching, there are five levels of cognizing- only.

The first is the consciousness that rejects nonexistence (pair- Kalpita views) and that resides in the real (keno ninjitsu Shiki). This consciousness rejects paricalcitol views, which are non­existent, and abides in the truths operational and participant, which are real.

The second is the consciousness that rejects the mixed and that abides in the pure {sharan rujun shiki). In this consciousness the inner realm of taratantara perception mixes with the external world. For this reason it is cast aside and is termed only consciousness.

The third is the consciousness that subsumes the peripheral layers of the mind into basic consciousness (shomatsu kihon shiki). The two subsidiary aspects [of consciousness], consciousness as perceiver (darsana-bhaga) and external phenomena as perceived by consciousness (laksana-bhaga) are embraced and subsumed into the more fundamental mind functioning as a self-witness (saksatkarl-bhaga).

The fourth is the consciousness that hides the inferior and that manifests the superior (onretsu kensho shiki). This consciousness hides the inferior mental states (caitasika dharmas) and mani­fests the superior mind (cite dharma).

The fifth is the consciousness that rejects external character­istics and that becomes enlightened to [the mind's] real nature

(kensh6 shisha Shiki). This consciousness rejects the character­istics of phenomenal, taratantara, events and is awakened to the true nature of cognizing-only.

The first four of the above constitute the teaching of the cognizing-only of external characteristics. The fifth is the cognizing- only of internal nature.

In all there are four aspects to the functions of the mind: the first is external phenomena as perceived by consciousness; the second is consciousness as perceiver; the third is consciousness as self- awareness; and the fourth is consciousness that affirms its self- awareness. The Boydykes says, “The fundamental limits of the mind are of four distinct types. It is thus called the fourfold division However four masters differ in their teachings regarding this.

First, the bodhisattva Shiromani posits only one functional aspect [to consciousness], that is, consciousness that affirms its own self-awareness.

Second, the bodhisattva Nanda posits two functional aspects, that is, external phenomena as perceived by consciousness and consciousness as perceiver.

Third, the bodhisattva DignSga posits three functional aspects: external phenomena as perceived by consciousness, consciousness as perceiver, and self-awareness.

Fourth, the bodhisattva Dharmapala posits four functional as­pects, that is, those given above. Now it is the teaching of Dharmapala that exhausts the truth (is orthodox), and so the four functional aspects of consciousness are posited [in the Hossa tradition].

[External] characteristics in all their multiplicity are condi­tioned by the mind, and so [this aspect of consciousness] is termed “the portion of characteristics (laksana-bhaga).

As it is the object that conditions the above sphere [of perception], it is called the “seeing portion (darsana-bhaga). As it is able to condition this seeing portion, it is termed the portion that is self- aware (saksatkarl-bhaga). As it is able to condition this portion of its self-nature, it is termed the portion that is aware of self-awareness.

Of these fruit; only the portion of characteristics is conditioned, and it is without any thought of conditioning [something else]. The next three portions are both conditioned and conditioner [or both subject and object of the conditioning]. This is none other than the mind (citta) with its eight consciousnesses, and mental states (caitasika dharmas'), each one of which has these four portions. Even though each of the eight consciousnesses has its own nature, they each have these four portions with respect to their functions. For this reason then each of the eight consciousnesses has these four portions.

In its elucidation of the principles of truth and of error, this tradition posits in all some three natures.

First is the paricalcitol nature. This is the appearance of characteristics caused by passions. This is also divided into three parts: the subjective agent who generates the deluded thought, the object of the deluded thought, and the delusion itself The former two are included in taratantara, while the last one, the deluded clinging itself is the appearance of characteristics caused by pas­sions. [The mark of this is that] one terms a nonexistent thing existent. This is empty deluded clinging.

Second is taratantara nature. All the various dharmas that arise out of the four conditions exist by the harmonious coining together of causes and conditions, and so there is existence.

Third is participant nature. The true nature of all the dharmas is possessed of the three principles of perfection, attainment, and true reality Of these three natures, paricalcitol is erroneous exist­ence, taratantara is provisional existence, and participant is true existence. Pari Kalpita is deluded clinging, and taratantara and participant are the marvelous truth. These three natures are separate one from the other, and they are not confused with one another. Nevertheless the phenomenal dharmas of taratantara existence are not one with, nor different from, the true nature of participant existence. Its characteristics are not apart from its nature, and its nature is not apart from its characteristics.

As a gather of the Sanju-ju (Trim^ika-karika) says, when speak­ing of these three natures,

Because there is parikalpita (discrimination) about this and that, there is parikalpita thought about many and various types of things. Clinging, which is of parikalpita nature, does not exist at all. Discrimination, which is of taratantara nature, is generated by conditions. Participant nature is always far apart in its nature from that (the parikalpita), and so because of this it is not different from, nor not different from, taratantara nature, as the nature of imper­manence, etc. It is not seen without seeing this \taratantara nature].

In opposition to these three natures, this tradition elucidates three non-natures, which are none other than the opposites of the pari­kalpita, taratantara, and parmigiana natures. In this order these reveal the three non-natures of characteristics, of arising, and of the absolute truth. As the Sanju-ju (Trimsika-karika) says,

Because there are these three natures, the three nonmature are posited. The Buddha taught, in his hidden meaning, that all of the dharmas are without any natures. First, characteristics have no nature; next, there is no nature through the process of arising; and lastly, there is a nature because it is far apart from the above-mentioned clinging’s to self and to dharmas.

As these three natures are not apart from consciousness, so also the three non-natures are posited based upon the three natures (i.e., consciousness).

The Jo-yuishiki-ron says, “Know then that the three natures are also not apart from consciousness. It also says, ''Because there are the three natures that we have spoken of previously; the three types of non-nature are established and explained after them.”

All the cultivation of practice in all the various stages is to develop insight meditation into cognizing-only. The awakening

attained in Buddhahood is only awakening to cognizing-only Thus all of the various practices arise out of cognizing-only and the myriad of qualities are perceived on the basis of cognizing-only.

This tradition teaches the permutation of the eight conscious­nesses and the forming thereby of the four wisdoms. These four wisdoms are first, the great, perfect, mirror-like wisdom {adarsa- jnana)\ second, the wisdom that sees that all things are the same in nature (samata-jnana); third, the wisdom of marvelous insight {pratyaveksana-jnand)\ and fourth, the wisdom that accomplishes the work that is to be done (krtyanusthana-jnana).

When one enters the first Bhumi, one brings about a change in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses and attains the wisdom of marvelous insight and the wisdom that all things are the same in nature. When one attains Buddhahood, one brings about a change in the fifth and the eighth consciousnesses and attains the great, perfect, mirror-like wisdom and the wisdom that accomplishes the work that is to be done. At this time the four wisdoms are perfected, and the marvelous fruit of the two permutations becomes clearly apparent.

There are four nirvanas in the truth to which one is awakened. First is the nirvana inherent in one's basically pure nature. Second is the nirvana with residue. Third is the nirvana without residue. Fourth is the nirvana in which there is no abode. The first of these four is also possessed by an ordinary person. The second and third are also attained by sravakas and by pratyekabuddhas. Only a TathSgata in the state of Buddhahood folly possesses all four of these. Altogether these four nirvanas are called the realm (dhatu) of purity When the four wisdoms are added on to these, they go to make up the five dharmas.

The relationship between the five dharmas and the three bodies of the Buddha is discussed by two masters in the Jo- yuishiki-ron. In the opinion of the first master; the realm of purity and the great, perfect, mirror-like wisdom go to make up the Dharmakaya; the wisdom that sees that all things are the same in nature and the wisdom of marvelous insight constitute the

Sambhogakaya; and the wisdom that accomplishes the work that is to be done constitutes the Nirmanakaya.

In the opinion of the second master, the realm of purity is itself the Body Pure in Nature; the tangible characteristics on the surface of the four wisdoms are the body experienced for the benefit of oneself; and the mode of existence manifested by the wisdom that sees that all things are the same in nature is the body experienced for the benefit of others. The mode of existence manifested by the wisdom that accomplishes the work that is to be done is the Nirmanakaya. The wisdom of marvelous insight is the wisdom of the preaching of the Dharma that cuts off all doubts.

The orthodox teaching of this tradition regards the under­standing of the second master as an authoritative guide.

Know then that the cultivation of the practice of the five grades is gradually plumbed to its utmost and that the two types of hindrances as well as their influences are totally cut off and extinguished.

During three long Samkhya kalpaks all of the myriad vir­tuous deeds are perfected and embraced within one moment of thought; attainment of Buddhahood is indeed swift. The eight defiled consciousnesses are changed and the four wisdoms are obtained. The marvelous results of the two permutations are obtained, and the three bodies [of the Buddha] are perfected. They are quiescent and yet bright shining, bright shining and yet clear. Further; all of the five vehicles are included [within this teaching], and each of the three vehicles is carried to its ultimate. The One Vehicle teaching is an expedient teaching, and the three vehicle teaching is the truth.

Before the attainment of the wisdom of this true nature (basic nature), the truth is quiescent; within the wisdom that is gained later; all sentient beings are universally converted.

In the presentation of this teaching, which relies on words, the three natures and the three non-natures are as a suspended mirror (clear for all to see). In the teaching that dispenses with

words, the four sentences and the one hundred negations put an end to all discursive thoughts.

In its evaluation of the internal nature and the external char­acteristics [of the dharmas], there is no tradition like this one. In the ultimate perfection of its principles, what teaching can match this one? The full moon of the three bodies, which is attained for oneself and the light of the five vehicles, which work for the conversion of others, are ever bright and clear. Both self attainment and the conversion of others are vast and profound. The teaching of the Highest Vehicles is perfect in its principles and in its truth.

The teachings of the Hossa tradition are in outline thus.

Chapter V

The Sauron Tradition

Question: Why is this tradition termed the Sauron (Three Treatise) tradition?

Answer: It is termed the Sauron tradition because three com- material works constitute the literary authority upon which it relies.

Question: What are these three works?

Answer: First the Chu-ron (Mula-madhyamaka-karika) in four volumes; this was composed by the bodhisattva Nagaijuna. Second the Hyaku-ron (Sata-sastra) in two volumes; this was composed by the bodhisattva Aryadeva. Third the Juni-mon-ron (Dvada^a- mukha-sastra) in one volume; this was composed by the bodhi­sattva N^gaijuna. These are called the Three Treatises (Sanron).

However if we add the Chi-ron (Decahedron, Mahaprajna- paramita-sastra) in one hundred volumes, then this makes Four Treatises {Shiron). This work was also composed by the bodhi­sattva Nagarjuna.

Of these four treatises, the [first] three treatises are treatises of a general nature, for they all expound the various teachings of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana. The Decahedron (Maha- prajnaparamita-sastra) serves as a commentary on only one spe­cific text, for it specifically comments on the Daibon-hannya-kyd (Mahdprajnapdramita-sutra). If the Decahedron were to be fully translated [into Chinese], it would fill some one thousand volumes. The Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva reduced the text by some ninety percent, and taking only that which was essential, he translated the work in only one hundred volumes.

As for the Three Treatises, the Chu-ron primarily demolishes the Hinayana, while at the same time demolishing the teachings of the non-Buddhists. In this way it presents the teachings of the Mahayana. The Hyaluronan primarily demolishes the no Buddhists, and only secondarily demolishes all other [Buddhist] groups. In this way it presents the teachings of the Mahayana. The Juni-man-ron demolishes both the Hinayana and the no Buddhists and truly presents the profound teachings of the Maha­yana. What is elucidated in these Three Treatises is nothing other than the two truths.

Now it is the major purport of this tradition that the two teachings, that of demolishing error (haja) and that of presenting the truth (Kenshoo), serve as its rule. Although there are Three Treatises, there are only these two primary paths to their teaching. On the one hand the demolishing of error rescues sinking humanity, while on the other hand the presentation of the doctrine dissemi­nates the Mahayana truth. These two teachings alone serve as a standard and as a model. These indeed make up this great tradition.

Question: What errors are destroyed in the demolition of error?

Answer: In sum, all clinging views are demolished. If we eluci­date these in summary form, however; there are not more than four views.

First, this tradition demolishes the erroneous, non-Buddhist view of a substantial self (dtman\ second, it demolishes the Abhi- dharma's clinging views of real, substantial existence; third, it destroys the one-sided views of emptiness of the Jojitsu tradition; and fourth, it destroys Mahayana views and opinions that there is anything to be grasped.

Both internal and external (Buddhist and non-Buddhist) opin­ions are demolished, and both the Mahayana and the Hinayana are totally crushed. What is demolished is only the idea that there is anything to be grasped. For this reason then there is nothing that is not demolished, and there is nothing that is not criticized. This is what is termed this tradition's teaching that demolishes error

Question: What truth is presented in this tradition's presen­tation of the truth?

Answer: There is no separate presentation of the truth outside of the demolition of error. When the demolition of error has been thoroughly exhausted, then there is nothing that can be grasped. If there is nothing that can be grasped, speech and discursive thought have nothing in which they can lodge.

However it is only in opposition to the demolition of error that there is also a presentation of the truth. If this one source is not plumbed, then discriminative thoughts have not been extinguished. If even a small fraction of the truth has not been exhausted, then the ultimate truth has not been presented. If there is nothing in the source that has not been plumbed, then vain discussions are exhausted therein. If there is no truth that has not been exhausted, then the most profound way is understood.

Ig however; we are to rely upon words in discussing this truth, then there is nothing that will not be elucidated.

Question: If this is the case, what does it mean to say “present the truth”？

Answer: The ultimate truth is profound and ultimate, and words cannot touch it. If we say that it is existence, then we devolve into stupidity If we say that it is nonexistence, then such is not wisdom. Shubuta was scolded and Scriptura was criticized [for holding such views]. It is neither existence nor nonexistence; it is not both existence and nonexistence together; and it is neither nonexistence nor not-nonexistence.

Words and speech are cut off, and thoughts and ideas are all extinguished. It is profound; there is nowhere wherein thoughts may lodge. It is broad and vast; all supports are sundered. We do not know how we may verbalize it, but, obliged to do so, we call it ""presenting the truth.”

Question: If the mind and speech are both cut oa and if both existence and nonexistence are abandoned, then this is the teach­ing of emptiness. What relationship does this have to the presen­tation of truth?

Answer: Since both existence and nonexistence have been abandoned, how can one abide in emptiness? The nature of the way of the Buddhas is truly that there is nowhere wherein one can lodge [the mind and discriminative thought]. Since both exist­ence and nonexistence have been sundered, there is nothing that can be grasped. The purport of presenting the truth is exhausted in this.

Question: Both existence and nonexistence have been aban­doned. Now if this is the case, how can all of the various dharmas that arise through conditions be posited as existing?

Answer: All of the various dharmas that arise through condi­tions are only provisionally existent. Being provisionally existent, they are nothing that can be grasped. It is on this basis that the two truths are posited, and the four middles are posited with reference to this. Because of conventional truth, the limits of existence are not touched; and the existence of all the dharmas is established. Because of absolute truth, provisional names are not destroyed, and yet the true aspect [of things] is explained.

Thus emptiness, just as it is, is existence; and existence, just as it is, is emptiness. The meaning of the statement that ^arura (form) is identical to emptiness, and emptiness is identical to Rupa!" lies in this.

The two truths are merely the words of the teaching and do not concern the realm of truth. But because [the teaching] is couched in conditioned things, there are the two truths. Because truth is substantial, the two truths are submerged.

Existence is the existence of emptiness. Although we speak of existence, it is not existence. Emptiness is the emptiness of exist­ence. Although we speak of emptiness, it is not emptiness. Because it does not equal existence, we speak of emptiness as being identi­cal to existence. Because it does not equal emptiness, we speak of existence as being identical to emptiness.

That is why it is said that all the Dharmas preached by all the Buddhas always depend on these two truths.

What this tradition presents is nothing other than the true insight into the fact that there is nothing that can be grasped. Thus did a person of ancient times say, “The wind of the marvelous truth of the eight negations sweeps away the dust of deluded thoughts and vain discussions. The moon of true insight that there is nothing to be grasped floats on the surface of the water of the one true Middle Way”

Because there is nothing to be grasped, all phenomena, though they are provisional, operate in various ways just as they are. All this may be known on the basis of the above.

Question: What does this tradition say about the resultant state of Buddhahood?

Answer: All sentient beings are basically and originally Buddhas. All sentient beings in the six realms of rebirth are basically quiescent and extinguished. There is no delusion, and there is also no enlightenment. How can one then speak of attain­ing or not attaining Buddhahood? Thus this tradition teaches that both delusion and enlightenment are basically nonexistent, that both are clear and transparent, quiescent and extinguished.

However; within the teaching of provisional names, delusion and enlightenment, and the attainment and nonattainment of Buddhahood, are discussed. Based on this teaching, then, there is both slow and speedy attainment of Buddhahood, depending on whether the human capacities in question are sharp or dull.

The attainment of Buddhahood in one moment of thought is the short [attainment of Buddhahood], and the attainment of Buddhahood that takes three Samkhya kalpaks is the long [period of attainment].

However; this one moment of thought does not obstruct the three Samkhya kalpaks, and the three Samkhya kalpaks do not hinder [attainment] in one moment of thought. One moment of thought is identical to the period of three Samkhya kalpaks, and the three Samkhya kalpaks are identical to the one moment of thought. This is likened to one nights sleep wherein one dreams of

one hundred years^, events, and the events of some one hundred years devolve into this one night.

Because three Samkhya kalpaks are traversed, a myriad practices are accumulated. When they exist in one moment of thought, the attainment of Buddhahood is swift.

Question: How many stages are there in the accumulation [of various practices] during the three Samkhya kalpaks^

Answer: During the three Samkhya kalpaks the bodhisattva traverses some fifty-one stages. Only then does he arrive at Buddha­hood. Thus this tradition posits some fifty-two stages [leading to and including Buddhahood].

The teaching of this tradition is that the nature of enlighten­ment is basically existence. But because there is delusion, there is the round of samsara. When one turns his back on delusion, he returns to his source. When one merely sweeps away the accumu­lated dust of the defilements, one's basically enlightened nature will reveal itself just as it always has been. This is termed the Initially Enlightened Buddha.

Know then that this enlightenment is posited only in opposi­tion to delusion, and that it is by opposition to enlightenment that there is delusion. When enlightenment is generated then there is no delusion; and when there is no delusion, how can there be enlightenment? There is neither delusion nor enlightenment. Both delusion and enlightenment are originally nonexistent, and both are basically and essentially quiescent and extinguished.

Delusion and enlightenment, defilement and purity are tem­porarily established, provisional names. True insight into the non­existence of anything to be grasped is what marvelously plumbs the path of the ultimate.

Question: What are the eight negations?

Answer: They are no arising, no extinction, no annihilation, no eternity; no similarity; no differentiation, no going [no past], and no coming [no future]. These eight negations are taught in order to abandon the eight delusions. This is the truth revealed by this tradition.

This tradition has four types of analysis in its elucidation of all the dharmas. First is the analysis based on a thing's name; second is the analysis based on the causes and conditions that generate a thing; third is the analysis based on meditational practice; and fourth is the unstructured analysis. All of the various teachings may be analyzed on the basis of these.

This tradition also sets up four levels of the two truths. First, existence is conventional truth, and emptiness is the absolute truth. Second, both existence and emptiness constitute conven­tional truth, and neither emptiness nor existence is the absolute truth. Third, emptiness, existence, and neither emptiness nor exist­ence constitute conventional truth; and neither nonexistence nor non-emptiness is the absolute truth. Fourth, all of the former constitutes conventional truth, and neither not nonexistence nor not non-emptiness is the absolute truth.

This does nothing other than demolish [the philosophical posi­tions of] the non-Buddhists, of the Abhidharma, and of the Maha­yana, which still holds that there is something to be grasped.

Question: How many teachings does this tradition posit to include all of the various teachings?

Answer: It posits two pitayas and three turnings of the Dharma wheel in order to embrace all of the teachings taught in the lifetime of the Tathagata.

The two pitayas are first, the sravaka pitaya, which is the Hinayana teachings; second, the bodhisattva pitaya, which is the Mahayana teachings. All the teachings of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana are totally included within this. This is based on the Decahedron.

The three turnings of the Dharma-wheel are the follow­ing: First is the fundamental Dharma-wheel. This is the Kegon (Avatamsaka) teachings. Second is the secondary Dharma-wheel. This is all of the teachings from the time of the Agamas up to, but not including, the Lotus Sutra. Third is the Dharma-wheel that includes the secondary and reverts to the fundamental teaching. This is the Lotus Sutra. All of the various teachings given by the

Tathagata during his one lifetime of preaching are totally included within this. This is based on the Lotus Sutra.

Both the Mahayana and the Hinayana are one and the same in their presentation of the truth, but they differ in accord with various types of human capacities.

The various Mahayana scriptures are one in their presen­tation of the truth, but they differ with respect to various condi­tions. But in the evaluation of the various Mahayana scriptures, each [scripture] sets up some three aspects—equality superi­ority, and inferiority-and it is by this that all of the various teachings are judged. In this way then there are not any one-sided opinions.

Question: Who is regarded as the chief patriarch of this tradition?

Answer: This tradition is especially clear in the lineage of its patriarchs, in its transmission in the three countries, and in its succession from master to master. Initially the great sage, the bodhisattva Manjusri, is regarded as the primary master. Next, the bodhisattva Avahis is regarded as the second master. Next, the bodhisattva Nagarjuna marvelously disseminated this tradition.

Nagarjuna transmitted this teaching to the bodhisattva Sambodhi and to the bodhisattva Aryadeva. These two great masters worked shoulder to shoulder in carrying out the task of teaching. Naga bodhi transmitted the teachings to the bodhisattva Bhava Viveka. Bhava Viveka transmitted the teachings to the mas­ter Jnanaprabha, and Jnana Prabha transmitted the teachings to the bodhisattva Simbarashe.

The knowledge and understanding of the bodhisattva Aryadeva was deep and profound, and his eloquence transcended the ordinary. In large measure he demolished the non-Buddhists and greatly disseminated the teachings of the Buddha. This master transmitted the teachings to the bodhisattva Rihula (Rahulabhadra), and RAhulabhadra transmitted it to Prince Suryasoma. And Suryasoma transmitted it to the Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva.