The causes for attaining Buddhahood should be understood in three ways. First, each of the ten dharma realms from hell to Buddha contain the other nine realms. All possible realms of experience are more or less present in each facet of experience. Those of us who are predominantly human can, depending on our past and present actions, experience the realm of hell or heaven. Second, the first nine dharma realms from hell to bodhisattvahood are integrated with that of Buddhahood. All things possess the potential for Buddhahood and, given the right conditions, can attain perfect enlightenment. Third, the ten dharma realms are all simultaneously empty of substantial Being yet conventionally existent, thus partaking in the threefold truth of reality. These three categories also are three different ways of saying the same thing: that reality is one yet many, threefold yet a unity, neither completely different nor wholly the same. Thus reality, dharma, is best described by the term “subtle.”

The result of Buddhahood is also understood in three ways. First, the essence of reality, or Buddhahood, pervades the entire universe. Buddhahood is not a separate realm detached from our world of experience, but an integral and fundamental part of it. Second, the Buddha did not first attain enlightenment around two thousand years ago under a tree in India, but attained Buddhahood in the incalculable past, or for eternity. Third, the Buddha always has, is, and always will manifest himself in various forms for the benefit of teaching sentient beings and leading them to enlightenment.

It is the Lotus Sūtra which clarifies the meaning of “dharma” in these six ways, therefore it is worthy of the title “subtle.” The other Sūtras, classified by Chih-i according the scheme of the five flavors are subtle in some parts and crude in others, except for the Hinayāna Teachings, which are only crude, and the Lotus Sūtra, which is only subtle.

In terms of “contemplating the mind,” the correct and subtle way is to contemplate the mind as including all other minds and that of the Buddha, not as being detached and separate from other minds. Second, one should contemplate one’s mind as being equal to that of the Buddha. Third, one should contemplate one’s mind and the mind of other sentient beings and the Buddha as being simultaneously empty of substantial being yet conventionally existent.

The “six identities,” a T’ien-t’ai interpretation of the interpenetration and identity of the fifty-two stages leading to Buddhahood should be understood in the same way, that one dharma interpenetrates and contains all other dharmas and stages of attainment.

Finally, this is all summarized in terms of the “four categories of oneness.” The interpenetration of all dharmas is the content of the “oneness of reality.” The unity of the Five Flavors is the content of the “oneness of teaching.” The integrated nature of the mind and of all minds, the subject and object of contemplation, is the content of the “oneness of practice.” The interpenetration and unity of all the levels of attainment as taught in the concept of the Six Identities is the content of the “oneness of persons.”

Chih-i begins his discussion of the title of the Lotus Sūtra by pointing out features that are shared with other Sūtras and which are unique to the Lotus Sūtra in terms of teaching, practice, and reality.

As for teaching, the Sūtras contain various teachings because people have varying capacities to understand and live in differing conditions. However, the basic intent of the Buddha’s teaching is one. According to the Lotus Sūtra, the ultimate intent and purpose of the Buddha’s teaching is the attainment of Buddhahood by all sentient beings. The teachings also have in common the fact that they were all taught by the same Buddha.

As for practice, there is a great variety of practices taught in the Sūtras, since there are many types of people who have different needs with regard to the method of practice. However, as it says in the Lotus Sūtra, the goal of practice is ultimately one: Buddhahood.

As for reality, there are many ways to describe “reality,” and Chih-i illustrates this with quotes from the [Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom] and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. However, the reality which is described in various inadequate verbal terms is one and non-dual. As Chih-i says, “Various terms name one ultimate [reality]. Only one ultimate [reality] is given many names.” What does Chih-i mean by saying that “reality is One”? He does not mean that reality is a nondescript, monochromic entity with indistinguishable features, but that its underlying essence or nature is that of lacking an eternal, unchanging, substantial Being.

Here is where the threefold truth can be applied to illustrate the spontaneous unity and diversity of reality, that it is “one yet many, many yet one.” Reality is one in that all is lacking in substantial Being; its nature is that of emptiness. However, this emptiness is not a complete nothingness but consists of the conventional existence of things which arise and perish interdependently according to causes and conditions. These aspects of emptiness and conventional existence are not contradictory opposites, but are synonymous and integrated. In T’ien t’ai terminology this is called the “Middle Path.” Thus all of reality is empty–it is one. All of reality has conventional existence–it is many. Reality is simultaneously empty and conventionally existent–it is the Middle Path. This threefold truth is implicit in the unity and diversity of the Buddha’s teaching, Buddhist practice, and reality itself.

In the final analysis Chih-i presents threefold cessation and threefold contemplation as something which occurs, or is present in, one single instant or one single thought. He summarizes this section on cessation and contemplation as follows:

In general, [the content of] all of the previous meanings [of cessation and contemplation] are present in one thought. What are their characteristics? To realize the true essence of reality as identical to ignorance and warped views is called “cessation as realizing the essence of true reality.” To realize that this reality is universal, and to put one’s mind at rest by contemplating this objective reality as the object of contemplation is called “cessation as [insight into] expedient conventional existence which arises through conditions.” To put an end to the distraction of saṃsāra and quiescence of nirvāṇa is called “cessation as putting an end to the two extremes.” To realize that all conventionally existent things are empty, that the essence of reality is identical to emptiness, is called “the contemplation of entering emptiness.”

When one understands this emptiness, one’s insight [contemplation] penetrates the Middle Path, knows the dharma marks of the arising and perishing of the worldly realm, and perceives it as it truly is. This is called “the contemplation of entering conventional existence.” In this way [it is realized that] the wisdom of emptiness is identical to the Middle Path, non-dual and not distinct. This is called “the contemplation of the Middle Path.” [T. 46, 25b25-c3]

The most superior contemplation, and the contemplation which is discussed in the [Great Concentration and Insight], is what Chih-i calls the “perfect and immediate cessation and contemplation.” In this case the three aspects of emptiness, conventional existence, and the Middle are contemplated simultaneously and spontaneously, and immediately perceived as being integrated, non-dual, and synonymous. As Chih-i says:

When the truths are contemplated as an object of cessation, [it is realized that] these are three truths yet one truth. When cessation is sustained by means of [insight into] the truth, [it is realized that] these are three cessations yet one cessation. For example, three aspects are present in one mental thought, and though it is one mental thought, there are three aspects present. …

When contemplating objects, the one object is a threefold object [characterized as empty, conventionally existent, and the Middle]; when contemplation is aroused by an object, it is a single contemplation yet a threefold contemplation [of emptiness, conventional existence, and the Middle]. The three eyes of Maheśvara are three eyes yet on one face. … If one contemplates [the concept of] “three yet one,” [the concept of) “one yet three” is aroused. This is beyond conceptual understanding. It is neither tentative nor real, includes neither superiority nor inferiority, has no before nor after, is not equal nor distinct, neither great nor small. Therefore it says in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, “Dharmas which arise through conditioned co-arising are identical to emptiness, identical to conventional existence, and identical to the Middle.” [T 46, 25b9-18]

Here threefold contemplation is explicitly defined and linked to the verse in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, which is the basis for Chih-i’s threefold truth concept.

Chih-i defines the three aspects of threefold contemplation as:

To enter [an insight] into emptiness from [the viewpoint of] conventional existence: this is called the contemplation of the two truths. To enter [an insight] into conventional existence from [the viewpoint of] emptiness: this is called the contemplation of equality. These two contemplations are the path of expedient means for attaining entry to the Middle Path, wherein both of the two truths are illumined. The thoughts of the mind are extinguished and put to rest, and one spontaneously enters the sea of universal wisdom [sarvajña]. This is called the contemplation of the Middle Path and the truth of supreme meaning [T. 46, 24b5-8)]

Entering emptiness from conventional existence

At this first level of contemplation, “conventional existence” refers to the ordinary, mistaken perception of phenomena as existing substantially (as svabhāba), and “entering emptiness” means to negate the existence of independent substantial Being in these phenomena. Thus, as Chih-i says, “When one encounters emptiness, one perceives not only emptiness but also knows [the true nature of] conventional existence” (24b10—11).

Entering conventional existence from emptiness

At this second level of contemplation, “conventional existence” refers to a correct understanding and positive acceptance of objective phenomena as interdependently and conditionally co-arisen. Emptiness here refers to a mistaken attachment to the concept of emptiness, or a misunderstanding of emptiness as merely a nihilistic nothingness. As Chih-i says:

If one understands [“enters”] emptiness, [one understands that] there is no “emptiness.” Thus one must “re-enter” conventional existence. One should know that this contemplation is done for the sake of saving sentient beings and know that true reality is not [substantial] true reality but an expedient means which appears conventionally. Therefore it is called “from emptiness.” One differentiates the medicine according to the disease without making conceptual discriminations. Therefore it is called “entering conventional existence.”[T 46, 240-11]

This insight is compared to blind men who regain their sight. They can then perceive both space and forms and colors, and can differentiate between various grasses and trees, roots and stalks, branches and leaves, medicine and poison. At the first stage of “entering emptiness from conventional existence,” one perceives the two truths but is one-sidedly concerned with emptiness and cannot utilize or see the reality of conventional existence. If one’s eyes are opened concerning the validity of objective conventional reality, one perceives not only emptiness (“space”), but also the visible forms of conventional existence. One can then understand clearly the minute, conditionally co-arisen phenomena of everyday life and use this knowledge to benefit others (24cl 1-19).

The contemplation of the Middle Path of supreme meaning

This refers to the highest level of contemplation wherein one simultaneously and correctly perceives the validity of both emptiness and conventional existence. As Chih-i says:

First, to contemplate [and attain insight concerning] the emptiness of conventional existence is to empty saṃsāra [of substantial Being]. Next, to contemplate [and attain insight concerning] the emptiness of emptiness is to empty nirvāṇa. Thus both extremes are negated. This is called the contemplation of two [sides of] emptiness as a way of expedient means in order to attain encounter with the Middle Path. . . . The first contemplation utilizes emptiness, and the later contemplation utilizes conventional existence. This is an expedient means recognizing the reality of both [in an extreme way], but when one enters the Middle Path, both of the two truths are illumined [simultaneously and as identical and synonymous]. [T. 46, 24c21-26]

“Threefold contemplation” actually refers to both “threefold cessation” (śamatha) and “threefold insight/contemplation” (vipaśanā). Chih-i’s mature development of this concept is succinctly presented in an early section of the [Great Concentration and Insight], where he discusses the meaning of chih-kuan. Chih-i first discusses three kinds of “skillful cessation”: cessation as true insight into the essence of reality as empty of substantial Being; cessation as insight into reality as expedient conventional existence, which arises through conditions; and cessation as putting an end to both extremes of discriminatory conceptual categories. These are described in more detail as follows:

Cessation as Insight into the True Essence of Reality

This cessation is the step of advancing beyond “naïve realism,” wherein one accepts the substantial existence of objective reality, to realizing the emptiness of all things and the lack of any substantive Being. As Chih-i says:

All dharmas arise through conditions. [Things which arise through] conditioned co-arising are empty and without self- Being. … Since one knows the conditioned co-arising, conventional confluence, illusory transformation, and empty nature [of all things], this is called their essence. Conceptualized delusions come to an end upon realizing emptiness; therefore emptiness is [the nature of] true [reality]. Therefore this is called “cessation as insight into the essence of true reality.” [T 46, 24a3-6]

Cessation as Insight into Expedient Conditions

This refers to the contemplation of and insight into reality as the conventional existence of all things which arise through conditioned co-arising, which Chih-i calls “the non-emptiness of emptiness.” The emptiness of all things does not mean nothingness. Their conventional existence as interdependent entities is real. As Chih-i says:

Those of the two vehicles [accept only emptiness as] the essence of true [reality], so they do not consider as necessary the “cessation of expediency” [insight into reality as conventional existence]. Bodhisattvas understand conventional existence and should put it into practice. They know that emptiness is not empty [i.e., not nothingness], therefore this is called an “expedient means”. One discriminates and chooses medicine in accordance with the disease, therefore it is called “in accordance with conditions” . The mind is at rest with regard to the mundane truth, therefore it is called “cessation.” [T. 46, 24a9-11]

Cessation as an End to both Discriminatory Extremes

This refers to the contemplation of and insight into the synonymous nature of both “extremes” of emptiness and conventional existence. A discriminatory and one-sided attachment to either concept of emptiness or conventional existence is mistaken. One must realize that both “emptiness” and “conventional existence,” if correctly understood, refer to the same thing, and that reality is simultaneously empty of substantial Being and conventionally existent. As Chih-i says:

[To think that] saṃsāra flows and moves and that nirvāṇa is a [constant and inactive] maintenance of an awakened state is a one-sided view of practice and activity, and does not correspond to the Middle Path. Now, if one knows that the mundane is not mundane, then the extreme [view] of the mundane is put to rest, and if one realizes the non-mundane [nature of conventional existence], then the extreme [view] of emptiness is put to rest. This is called “cessation as an end to both extremes.” [T. 46, 24a13-15]

Chih-i admits that “the names of these three cessations are not to be seen in the Sūtras and Sāstras, but they have been given names according to their meaning with reference to threefold contemplation.”

The practical side to the threefold truth is Chih-i’s concept of the threefold contemplation of emptiness, conventional existence, and the Middle. The threefold truth refers, inadequately but with validity, to the reality of the objective realm. Threefold contemplation refers to a general pattern of practice that allows one to attain insight into the true nature of reality. As Chih-i writes in his commentary to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, “Reality as the two truths and threefold truth is the objective realm which is illumined through threefold contemplation.”

The threefold truth is a major theme of the doctrinal [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra ], and this threefold contemplation is a major theme of the practice oriented [Great Concentration and Insight].

[Apocryphal Chinese compositions] are forgeries in the sense of not being the actual words of the historical Buddha, to be sure, but not forgeries in the sense of the content being false or of teaching a “counterfeit dharma.” After all, as the [Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom] says:

The Buddha-dharma is not limited to the words spoken by the Buddha; all true and good words , subtle and pleasant words in the world are part of the Buddha-dharma. [T. 25, 66b2-3]

Chih-i devotes a large section at the beginning of his [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra] to a discussion of the four siddhānta, perhaps to make certain that his audience realizes the various ways in which one can approach the Buddha-dharma, and to temper his repeated assertions that his concepts and theories do not adequately describe reality.

The four siddhānta are:

• the worldly point of view (laukika siddhānta )
• the individual point of view (prātipāurusika siddhānta)
• the therapeutic point of view (prātipākṣika siddhānta)
• the supreme point of view (pāramārthika siddhānta)

Lamotte correctly asserts that the theory of the four siddhānta is an extension or development of the two truths theory.

Kumārajīva left very little of his own writings. The only works extant are a commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra in the form of notes probably taken down by his disciples (T. 38, No. 1775), and a collection of his correspondence with Hui-yüan (T. 45, No. 1856), often called the Ta Ch’eng ta i chang (hereafter referred to as the Correspondence). Neither text contains a discussion of the two truths as such, but in the Correspondence Kumārajīva does allude to different levels of truth, or doctrine. …

This work also contains the idea, based on the Ta Chih tu lun (The Treatise on the Great Prajñāpāramitā), that the śrāvakas follow the Four Noble Truths to realize the Buddhist path, but bodhisattvas know that the truth is One. Kumārajīva puts it this way:

The wisdom of śrāvakas is dull, therefore they must first learn this path [of advancing gradually from the stage of stream winner to Arhat] and later attain power. Since bodhisattvas understand profoundly, they have the insight that the four [noble] truths are one truth. … The śrāvakas use the four truths to understand the true aspects of reality. Bodhisattvas use the one truth to understand the true aspects of reality. The wisdom of the śrāvakas is dull so they often have a fearful mind. The wisdom of the bodhisattva is acute, so they often have a compassionate mind. Both realize the same true aspects of reality. [T. 45, 140b28-c5]

There is no mention of the two truths as such, but the idea of different levels of truth, which are ultimately one truth, is clear.

Kumārajīva also declares that:

one cannot state that form and so forth have permanence. For what reason? Because they arise from groups of causes and conditions, and perish moment by moment. Also, because they are included in the skahdha, dhātu, and āyatana, we cannot say that they are inexistent. [T. 45, 137c12-14]

This is reminiscent of Chih-i’s presentation of the threefold truth without the third aspect of the Middle: (a) Form is not permanent; it is comprised of a group of causes and conditions. This is the meaning of “emptiness,” and the content of the first aspect of Chih-i’s threefold truth concept. (b) However, this does not mean that one is affirming a nihilistic nothingness or inexistence. The forms of skahdha dhātu, and āyatana have conventional existence. This is the viewpoint of the worldly truth, and is the content of the second aspect of Chih-i’s threefold truth concept.

In China the viewpoint of emptiness (a) was identified as the supreme truth, so Chih-i utilized the concept of the Middle as a “third truth” to bring the two viewpoints (a) and (b) together into a united whole. At the time of Kumārajīva the problem had not yet taken this form. If Kumārajīva had been asked how he would harmonize his above statement with the Mādhyamika doctrine of the two truths, we may speculate that he would have said that both standpoints (a) and (b) are the conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and that both of them together, or neither, are the supreme truth (paramārthasatya).

In both the Correspondence and commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra Kumārajīva reveals himself to be an orthodox Śūnyavādin and Mādhyamikan who relies chiefly on the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajn͂āpāramitā Sūtra and Ta Chih tu lun for his doctrine. In fact Robinson goes so far as to conclude that “Kumārajīva’s doctrine is the doctrine of the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise.”