A discussion of the two truths controversy and Mādhyamika philosophy in China properly begins with Kumārajīva, surely one of the greatest translators and transmitters of a religious tradition at any time or place. Kumārajīva (344-413) was born in Serindia and left lay life at the age of seven. He first studied Hinayāna, mostly Sarvāstivādin, philosophy and other non-Buddhist subjects, but later converted to Mahāyāna and studied the Śūnyavāda tradition. He settled in Kucha where he established his reputation. When a Chinese army conquered Kucha in 383 Kumārajīva was taken captive and brought back to Liang-chou in northwestern China where, it is assumed, he learned Chinese. In 401 the Liang were conquered by the Later Ch’in, who welcomed Kumārajīva to their capital in Ch’ang-an. Here Kumārajīva received the support needed to complete his voluminous and superb translations.

Not only did Kumārajīva introduce and establish Mādhyamika philosophy in China, but also his translations became the authoritative texts for much of later Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. They provided Chih-i with the authoritative texts on which he based his philosophy and practice. Particularly important for Tien-t’ai philosophy are Kumārajīva’s translations of the Lotus Sūtra (T. 9, No. 262), the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajn͂āpāramitā Sūtra [Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Lines] (T. 8, No. 223), the Ta Chih tu lun [Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom] (T. 25, No. 1509), the Mūlamadhyamakakārika [Fundamentals of the Middle Way] (T. 30, No. 1564), the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra [Vimalakīrti Sūtra] (T. 14, No. 475), Vajracchedikā Sūtra [The Diamond Sūtra] (T. 8, No. 235), and the Ch’eng shih lun (Satyasiddhi Śāstra?) [True Attainment Treatise] (T. 32, No. 1646).

As we shall see later, Chih-i’s philosophy often relies to a great extent on the wording of Kumārajīva’s translations.

After quoting the Mūlamadhyamakakārika 24:18 verse, Chih-i continues:

The characteristics of those in the six destinies [from hell to divine] corresponds to “all things which arise through conditioned co-arising.” The characteristics of those in the two vehicles [śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha] and the bodhisattva of the Shared Teaching corresponds to “I explain as emptiness.” The characteristics of the bodhisattva of the Six Pāramitās [Tripiṭaka] and Distinct Teachings correspond to “Again, it is a conventional designation.” The characteristics of the Buddha-realm corresponds to “Again, it is the meaning of the Middle Path.”
[T 46, 695c15-18]

In other words, those in the six lower destinies perceive the world in its arising and perishing as the interplay of interdependent causes and conditions. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas perceive the world as empty of substantial Being and thus to be characterized as neither arising nor perishing. The bodhisattvas go a step further and perceive the immeasurable conditioned phenomena of this world as provisionally existent, albeit having existence merely as conventional designation. The Buddha, in his perfect wisdom, spontaneously perceives the world as it truly is – uncreated, beyond description, beyond conceptual discrimination, subtle, the Middle Path.

This is where Chih-i reaches his ultimate conclusions. In the final analysis, all of reality is an integrated, interdependent unity. Everything contains everything else, and the whole contains all things.

In the [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra] this is described in terms of “the interinclusiveness of the ten realms” or “the interpenetrating unity of all aspects of reality”. As Chih-i puts it:

One dharma realm contains ten suchlike characteristics. The ten dharma realms thus contain one hundred suchlike characteristics. Also, each dharma realm contains the other nine dharma realms, so there are one hundred dharma realms and one thousand suchlike characteristics.

The actual number, whether a thousand or a hundred or whatever, is irrelevant; what matters is the inclusion and interpenetration of all of things in one reality.

In the [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra ] Chih-i points out a further correspondence between this [24:18] verse in the Mūlamadhyamakakārika and the multifarious characteristics of beings in the various realms of existence. Chih-i divided the realms of existence into ten interpenetrating realms or destinies: hell, preta, beast, asura, man, gods, śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, and buddha. These are not ten separate distinct worlds, but rather experiences or states of existence in one reality.

It may be more accurate to refer to these ten “destinies” as ten states of experience: hellish, to be full of insatiable appetite, brutish, combative, human, divine, ‘śrāvaka-like, pratyekabuddha-like, bodhisattva-like, and buddha-like. When one suffers the inevitable results of his or her misdeeds, one experiences the realm of hell. When one blindly follows sensual desires in a futile attempt to satisfy fleshly appetites, one experiences the realm of the preta. When one blindly follows one’s passions, one experiences the realm of beasts. When one fights with one’s fellow human being, one experiences the combative realm of the asura. When one joyfully listens to the music of Bach, one can experience the delightful realm of the gods. When one hears the teaching of the Buddha, one experiences the realm of the śrāvaka. When one performs an altruistic deed, one experiences the realm of the bodhisattva. When one has an insight into the true nature of reality, one experiences the realm of the Buddha. Chih-i’s claim that these realms are “interpenetrating” or “mutually inclusive” means that each sentient being experiences them all in accordance with its actions.

Also, each being has ten “suchlike,” or “such-as-it-is”, characteristics: appearance, nature, essence, power, activity, causes, conditions, results, retribution, and “ultimate identity of beginning and end.”

Chih-i in the [Great Concentration and Insight] and [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra ] explicitly identifies the four phrases of [the Mūlamadhyamakakārika] verse as corresponding to the four ways of interpreting the four noble truths. The four noble truths are, briefly, the four basic Buddhist truths of all is suffering, the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering, and the path, which are common to all Buddhist systems. The four ways of interpreting the four noble truths are as arising-and-perishing, as neither arising nor perishing, as immeasurable, and as spontaneous.

Chih-i writes:

In the Mūlamadhyamakakārika verse [24: 18], “All things which arise through conditioned co-arising” refers to [the viewpoint of] “arising and perishing.” “I explain as emptiness” refers to “neither arising nor perishing.” “Again, it is a conventional designation” refers to “the immeasurable.” “Again, it is the meaning of the Middle Path” refers to “the spontaneous.”

This categorization of four ways of interpreting the four noble truths is original with Chih-i, though Chih-i claims that it is based on the “Chapter on Noble Activity” in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra does discuss the four noble truths in detail, expounding on the eight kinds of suffering, various causes of suffering, and so forth, but this four-fold classification should be attributed to Chih-i. This fourfold classification does not posit four kinds of four noble truths, because there is only one “four noble truths,” but refers to four ways of viewing, or interpreting, the four noble truths:

1. The four noble truths as arising and perishing. This is the standpoint which emphasizes the constant flux of phenomena. All things are constantly arising and instantly perishing in an interdependent web of causes and conditions. From this point of view, as Chih-i says, “Suffering consists of passing through the three stages [of birth, change, and annihilation], the cause of suffering consists of flowing through the four [defiled] mental states, the path consists of conquering and eliminating [the defilements], and extinction consists of extinguishing Being and returning to non-Being” (T. 46, 5b15-16). In Chih-i’s words, this is the realm of “change” (T. 46, 5b18). This is the viewpoint expressed in the first phrase of the verse: “All things which arise through conditioned co-arising.”
2. The four noble truths as neither arising nor perishing. This is the standpoint which emphasizes that all is empty (T. 46, 5b19). There is no real coming into Being nor the extinguishing of Being, because there is no substantial Being. Suffering has no real existence, and by extension there is no real cause of suffering. There are no real defilements to extinguish nor to eliminate on the path. All conditioned things, by definition, lack an eternal, unchanging, self-existent Being. What, then, can ever truly arise or perish? This is the viewpoint expressed in the second phrase of the verse: “I explain as emptiness.”
3. The four noble truths as immeasurable . This is the standpoint which emphasizes that, although all things lack substantial Being, there are immeasurable aspects to temporary conventional existence. As Chih-i points out, there are immeasurable sufferings in only one realm of existence (such as that of man), how much more so in all of the different realms of existence (from hell to Buddha) together. These immeasurable sufferings have innumerable causes, including “greed, anger, ignorance, and the various [defiled activities of] mind, body, and speech” (T. 46, 5c3). So also there must be innumerable features to the path, such as scholastic analysis, mystical insight, clumsy and skillful means, ways which are crooked or straight, long or short, teachings which are provisional or complete. Finally, there are immeasurable features of extinction, because there are innumerable delusions and defilements to extinguish.

   Chih-i is quick to point out that all this is from the standpoint of “conventional speech,” and that ultimately there are no distinctions because ultimately all are empty of substantial Being. Nevertheless, “it is not a mistake nor a confusion to make these [innumerable] distinctions” (T. 46, 5c9-10), as long as one realizes that one is speaking conventionally. This is the viewpoint expressed in the third phrase of the verse: “Again, it is a conventional designation.”

4. The four noble truths as spontaneous. This is the expression of ultimate reality which is beyond conceptualization and verbal distinctions. There is no difference between suffering, its cause, its extinction, and the path. All is One. This is the viewpoint expressed in the fourth phrase of the verse: “Again, it is the meaning of the Middle Path.”

The objects of our experience have a temporary reality. We do experience something. Nevertheless, the world which we experience is empty of an eternal, unchanging, svabhāba-like substance. Lest one lapse into a mistaken nihilism, one must realize the Middle Path. One must realize the emptiness of phenomenal reality simultaneously with the temporal, provisional reality of these empty objects. This Middle Path, however, must not be grasped as an eternal, transcendental Reality; it is, rather, manifested in and through and is identical with temporal phenomenal reality, which is again in turn empty of an unchanging substance. The circle is complete in itself, what Chih-i calls “a perfectly integrated threefold truth.”

This concept is summarized by Chih-i in his Fa hua hsüan I [ Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra ]:

The “perfect threefold truth” means that it is not only the Middle Path which completely includes the Buddha-Dharma, but also the real and the mundane [truths]. This threefold truth is perfectly integrated; one-in-three and three-in-one.

In other words, the real truth, the mundane truth, and the Middle Path are three ways of expressing the threefold aspects of a single integrated reality. This concept of the threefold truth plays a central role in Chih-i’s Tien-t’ai philosophy and provides the structure for his interpretation of the Buddha-dharma.

Chih-i interpreted reality as a threefold truth, a single unity with three integrated aspects, and often supported his view by quoting this verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The threefold truth is an integrated unity with three aspects. First, emptiness (śūnyatā), or absence of substantial Being, often identified with the ultimate truth (paramārthasatya). Second, conventional existence, the temporary existence of the phenomenal world as co-arising, often identified with the worldly truth (saṃvṛtisatya). Third, the Middle, a simultaneous affirmation of both emptiness and conventional existence as aspects of a single integrated reality.

For Chih-i these three components are not separate from each other but integral parts of a unified reality. They do not form a pyramid of contrasting realities (Diagram A) but are simultaneous aspects of one reality (Diagram B).

pratipat saiva madyamā
The Middle Path means to take a course between two extremes. Two possible extremes are the affirmation of substantial Being on the one hand (“eternalism”), and nihilistic denial of all existence on the other (“annihilationism”). The teaching of śūnyatā denies the extreme view of substantial Being, and the teaching of conventional designation or existence denies the extreme view of nihilism. It is clear that all of these four phrases are different ways to express the same concept. They are various attempts to explain one teaching and one reality. Co-arising, emptiness, conventional existence, and the Middle are not four realities, four separate existences, or four independent doctrines, but four ways to express the same one reality, the Buddha-dharma, which is saṃsāra to us common ignorant mortals and nirvāṇa to a Buddha. Hence the common Mahāyāna proposition that “there is no difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.”

sā prajn͂aptirupādāya
We have seen above that “conventional designation,” or that which is referred to by language, is one of the meanings of saṃvṛti [the empirical truth]. Reality is ultimately beyond adequate verbal expression, but we must communicate and “name” things and experiences if we are to live in this mundane world. The objects of our everyday experience can (according to Chih-i) be referred to as existing in the sense of arising interdependently. Our phenomenal world has temporary reality in the sense of an integrated, co-arising, interdependent relationship of causes and conditions. This is called “conventional” existence. One can also see that this is another way of making the same point as was made in the first two lines [All things which arise through conditioned co-arising / I explain as emptiness].

What is the relationship between the sacred and the profane, between the realm of the perfected saint and this imperfect world of everyday life, between the City of God and the City of Man, between heaven and earth, between this world and that world, between the Buddha and the ordinary ignorant man. In short, what is the nature of reality and existence? Is the pure realm of the sacred only an “ideal,” a “mythical” goal, separate from our ordinary lives and forever beyond our reach? If the perfect and ordinary are separate realms, how are they related, and how does one get “from here to there”? If they are the same, whence the suffering and painfully obvious imperfections of our mundane lives? These are questions which must be dealt with by any epistemology or religious philosophy, and by any person seeking an answer to the mysteries of life.

Nāgārjuna’s answer, which served as the basis for much of subsequent Mahāyāna Buddhist thought, is found in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā [The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way], most succinctly in chapter twenty-four, verses eight and nine:

8. All Buddhas depend on two truths
In order to preach the Dharma to sentient beings.
The first is the worldly mundane truth.
The second is the truth of supreme meaning.

9. If one is not able to know
The distinction between the two truths,
One cannot know the true meaning
Of the profound Buddha Dharma.

These verses are the most explicit formulation of the two truths, or twofold truth, theory of Mādhyamika philosophy. … Chih-i’s threefold truth concept is an extension of the traditional Mādhyamika theory of the two truths as explicitly taught in chapter twenty-four, verses eight and nine, of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The direct literary inspiration for the formulation of the threefold truth concept is found in verse eighteen of the same chapter. …

This verse can and was interpreted as speaking of the identity of the two truths, emptiness (śūnyatā = paramārthasatya) and co-arising or conventional designation (pratītyasamutpāda = saṃvṛtisatya = prajn͂aptirupādāya), as the Middle Path (madhyamā). Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of this verse, on which Chih-i relied completely, more clearly implies the understanding of the Middle Path as a third component in a single unity.

All things which arise through conditioned co-arising
I explain as emptiness.
Again, it is a conventional designation.
Again, it is the meaning of the Middle Path