How can the dharmas [of sentient beings and the Buddha] … differ from that of mind? [It cannot and does not.] The only [tentative] difference is that the dharmas of sentient beings are very vast [since they include the nine realms] and the dharma of the Buddha is very superior and thus they are difficult for beginners to comprehend. However, [as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says,] these three [dharmas of] mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings are not distinct.”²⁵⁶ It is simple to merely contemplate one’s own thoughts.

The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, “All sentient beings are endowed with the three concentrations [samadhi]. . . . The superior concentration refers to the Buddha-nature.”²⁵⁷ This superior concentration is so-called because it is a contemplation of the nature of one’s mind. The superior includes the inferior. Therefore this includes the dharma of sentient beings.

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says, “If one disports one’s mind in the dharma-realm [dharmadhātu] as if in space, then one will know the objective realm of all Buddhas.”²⁵⁸ The dharmadhātu is the middle. Space is emptiness. The mind and Buddhas are conventional existence. The three together are the objective realm of all Buddhas. This means that if one contemplates [the thoughts of] one’s mind, one can become endowed with all Buddha-dharmas.

This magician-like mind,²⁵⁹ in a single day and night, is constantly creating various sentient beings, aggregates, and various “lands,” such as tentative and real “lands” from hell to that of the Buddha. The practitioner must himself decide and choose which path he should follow.²⁶⁰

256

This refers to the famous verse from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra which emphasizes the importance of the mind in our perception of the objective world. See note 106. This verse can be interpreted in many ways, some more “idealistic” than others. The first part of the verse is often quoted as providing the basis for a mind-only philosophy. The last part of the verse, however, which equates the Buddha, sentient beings, and the mind, weakens this interpretation. In other words, one could use this verse with equal justification to argue that Buddhism is a “Buddha-only” or a “sentient-beings-only” philosophy. All these positions are an extreme interpretation. This verse needs to be re-examined in light of the entire context of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. For a discussion of Chih-i’s frequent use of this quote, see Andō Toshio 1978, 152ff. return

257

This quote is from a section of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which discusses the Buddha-nature. See Yamamoto, 659. The context reads: “O good man! All sentient beings are endowed with the three concentrations, i.e., superior, middling, and inferior. The superior (concentration) refers to the Buddha-nature. Therefore we say that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature. The middling (concentration) refers to all sentient beings being endowed with the first dhyāna (transic state). When conditions are right, they are able to practice it. If conditions are not right, they are not able to practice it. return

258

Once again this is not an exact quote but the meaning is the same. See the Avatawsaka Sütra, T. 9, 409c1. return

259

The mind is like a “magician” because it creates illusions, and the impressions produced in the mind are not the same as the reality which is the true “thusness” of what we see as the objective world. return

260

But it is implied that the path of contemplating the mind is the most accessible. return

[V]erses in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra say, “All things are transient; this is the dharma of arising and perishing . . .” and “When arising and perishing is extinguished, this quiescence is the appearance, nature [and so forth] of those of the six destinies [from hell to heaven] are the referent of “all things.” The appearance, nature [and so forth] of those of the two vehicles and [the bodhisattva of] the Shared Teaching are the referent of “transient.”²³⁸ The appearances, nature [and so forth] of the bodhisattvas of the Distinct Teaching are the referent of “when arising and perishing is extinguished.”²³⁹ The appearances, nature [and so forth] of the Buddha realm are the referent for “this quiescence is bliss.”²⁴⁰ Also, “when arising and perishing is extinguished, this quiescence is bliss” refers to the appearances, nature [and so forth] of the Distinct Teaching, i.e., arising and perishing is identical with the quiescence of extinction. When extinction has not yet been accomplished, it is already called “bliss.”²⁴¹ This is the appearances, nature [and so forth] of the Buddha realm as taught in the Perfect Teaching.

236

This is the verse from a famous story concerning one of Śākyamuni’s previous lives in which he is practicing in the Himalayan mountains. A Buddha who appears as a rākṣasa speaks the first part of the verse to the future Śākyamuni, who then offers his body to be eaten by the rākṣasa in order to hear the last half of the verse. return

237

This corresponds to the position of pratītyasamutpāda, conditioned co-arising. return

238

This corresponds to the position of Śūnyatā, emptiness. return

239

This should correspond to the position of prajn͂aptirupādādya, conventional existence. return

240

This should correspond to the position of madhyamā, the middle. return

241

In other words, true nirvāṇa is not complete extinction; rather, reality is inherently and originally quiescent. Chih-i could have quoted, for example, the Lotus Sūtra, which Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 37, translates: “The dharmas from their very origin are themselves eternally characterized by the marks of quiet extinction.” return

The characteristics of the Buddha include the manifestation of correct universal knowledge. The Buddha’s wisdom is universal and he knows all appearances.²²⁸ This is taught in all of the Sūtras. If one utilizes this teaching to interpret the simile of the teachings of the Five Flavors [the results are as follows]:

First, the “milk” teaching expounds the nature and characteristics²²⁹ of both the bodhisattva and Buddha realms, at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of conventional existence, at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of the middle . Although the teaching of the middle is supreme, this [”milk”] teaching [of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra] still partially contains expedient means and thus is not completely supreme.

Second, the “cream” teaching clarifies only the characteristics and natures of those of the two vehicles, and though it attains [the doctrine of] “sameness” as emptiness through analysis [of dharmas],²³⁰ it does not clarify the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of emptiness, let alone the others [of conventional existence and the middle]. Therefore it is not supreme.

Third, the “curds” teaching clarifies characteristics and nature in four ways, at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms of] emptiness [gained through] analysis, at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of emptiness, at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of conventional existence, and at times expounding the “sameness” [of reality in terms] of the integration of the middle. Only the Buddha with his characteristics and nature fully attains [perfect insight into] the integration of reality as simultaneously empty [of substantial Being] and yet conventionally existent. However, this [”curds” teaching] contains three types of expedient means [i.e., the first three types]. Therefore it is not supreme.

Fourth, the “butter” teaching clarifies three types of characteristics and nature, i.e. at times expounding the integration of emptiness, at times expounding the integration of conventional existence, and at times expounding the integration of the middle. Only the Buddha with his characteristics and nature fully attains [perfect insight into] the integration of reality as simultaneously empty [of substantial Being] and yet conventionally existent. However, this [”butter” teaching] still contains two types of expedient means. Therefore it is not supreme.

Fifth, this Lotus Sūtra [the “ghee” teaching] clarifies that the nine [suchlike characteristics of] appearance, nature, and so forth are all [characterized as] an integrated reality simultaneously empty of substantial Being yet conventionally existent. [As the Lotus Sūtra says,] “You are my true son. I am your true father.”²³¹ Each visible form and each taste in itself is the dharma of the Buddha, and there are no other dharmas.” Therefore it should be known that the Buddha realm is supreme.

228

Or “all characteristics of reality.” return

229

In this section I have translated the character as “characteristics” rather than “appearances” as in the first of the ten suchlikes. In this section the compound [Chinese characters] refers to the ten suchlike characteristics in general and thus “characteristics and nature” makes for a more readable, though admittedly inconsistent, English translation. return

230

Chih-i criticizes the Abhidharmic understanding of emptiness as an emptiness which is achieved by analyzing or “breaking down” dharmas to show that they have no substantial Being. To Chih-i this is an inferior understanding of emptiness, and all things should be understood as empty just as they are. return

231

This statement is by the father of the poor son in the chapter on “Faith and Understanding,” where he finally reveals to everyone the true relationship of he and his son. It illustrates the integrated relationship between the Buddha and sentient beings, and the integrated nature of all of reality. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 88, translates the context as follows: “When facing his end, the old man commanded his son to gather his kinsmen, as well as kings, great ministers, kṣatriyas, and householders, who were all to gather together. Then he himself proclaimed to them: ‘Sirs! Know that this is my son, by me. Having forsaken me in such-and-such a city and run off, he suffered loneliness and hardship for more than fifty years. His original name was so-and-so. My own name is thus-and-so. Formerly, in my native city, affected by grief, I sought him. Some time ago, I suddenly encountered him by accident and got him back. He is really my son. I am really his father. Now all the treasure I have belongs to my son. What was formerly paid out and taken in, my son knows it all.’ ” return