First of all, the lotus is generally presented as forming six analogies. The sequence of appearance of the lotus flower and the seedpod of the lotus in different times are portrayed as the allegorical expression of the doctrine of the Relative Truth and the Ultimate Truth, or the doctrine of the Traces and the Origin. The three analogies for the door of the Traces indicate that the Buddha employs expedient means as the beginning stage to teach beings, and eventually leads them to attain perfect enlightenment.

The third analogy uses the falling flower that ripens the seedpod to analogize that by abolishing the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas), the One Vehicle of Buddhahood is revealed: “When the flower falls, the seed is formed. This analogizes the abolishment of the Three [Vehicles] and the revelation of the One [Vehicle], [because] there is only one single Buddha vehicle that arrives directly at the bodhimaṇḍa.”

The three analogies for the door of the Origin indicate that the cause and effect of Buddhahood are complete at the time of the Origin.

1. The first analogy uses the flower that must be accompanied by the seedpod to analogize that the Traces must contain the Origin (though the Origin is not yet known): “The flower that contains the seedpod analogizes that the Traces certainly contain the Origin, and are contained in the Origin. Although the intention [of the Buddha] is for the Origin, the purpose of the Buddha is difficult to be known.”
2. When the flower opens, the seedpod is displayed. This is to analogize that the recognition of the Origin is to realize that the Traces as expedient means are extremely important, for the Traces can lead one to realize the Ultimate Truth the Origin represents: “When the flower blooms, the seedpod is revealed. This analogizes that the opening of the Traces and the revelation of the Origin is for the sake of the Traces, for this can cause the bodhisattvas to recognize the expedient means [employed by] the Buddha. Since the Traces have been recognized, [one] returns to recognize the Origin, by which the Path is enhanced and the life [of birth-and-death] is decreased.”178
3. The third analogy indicates that when the Origin is manifested, the Traces should be abandoned, so that one is no longer attached to the Traces, and is able to progress to attain perfect enlightenment: “When the flower falls, the seed is ripe. This analogizes the abolishment of the Traces and the revelation of the Origin. Since the Origin has been recognized, [one] is no longer ignorant about the Traces. [One] abides in the dharmakāya only, cultivating the Path, and ascending the supreme stage of perfection.”

In Mādhyamika philosophy, all things are viewed as empty (Ch., K’ung; Skt., śūnya), since they are produced by causes and conditions, and cannot exist independently. Prajn͂ā (Perfect wisdom) can be attained through realization of śūnyatā. Endowed with prajn͂ā, one is able to reach the state of Absolute Truth, the truth to which no thoughts and words are applicable but is comprehended through intuition. In Nāgārjuna’s system, although there are two levels of truth, the only reality is the world of the Absolute. This is the never changing world, always remaining what it has ever been, in which there is no distinction between birth and death, or nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. The truth of śūnyatā is conveyed by Nāgārjuna through his dialectic of eight negations stated in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (T.30, I c). These eight negations are: “Nothing originates (Pu-sheng), nor does anything annihilate (Pu-mieh). Nothing is permanent (Pu-ch ‘ang), nor has anything an end (Pu-tuan). Nothing is identical (Pu-i), nor is anything different (Pu-i). Nothing comes (Pu-lai), nor does anything go (Pu-ch’ü).” The phenomenal world is conceived through analysis of words and conceptions. The very same world, if perceived free from conceptualization, is nothing but the absolute reality. From this point of view, there could exist multiple worldly truths, such as the Śrāvakayāna doctrines, which, according to Mahāyānists, were taught by the Buddha for the beings who were not ready for the Supreme Truth.

To portray [the] interconnectivity relationship between one entity and all entities, Chih-i gives an example revealing the structures that constitute Chinese characters. In association with traditional writing, black ink is the basic element to enable written character to be formed. Thus, black ink is treated by Chih-i as the fundamental form to be used to depict the formulation of characters.

“Form can interpret all dharmas. It is like the black ink as form. With one stroke [i.e., horizontal stroke], it means ‘one’. With two strokes, it means ‘two’. With three strokes, it means ‘three’. Adding the vertical stroke (on the three horizontal lines), it means ‘king’ (Wang). Adding one stroke on the right, it means ‘the period from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m.’ (Ch’ou). Adding one stroke on the left, it means ‘field’, (T’ien). If the middle vertical line goes over the top, it means ‘due to’ (Yu). When this line goes over the bottom, it means ‘to explain’ (Shen). With such a bending and turning, the meanings that are signified are endless. It could be that one word interprets immeasurable dharmas, or immeasurable words commonly interpret one dharma; either immeasurable words interpret immeasurable dharmas, or one word interprets one dharma. With one dot of black ink slightly bending and turning, its interpretation differs greatly. Bending to the left, it is interpreted as ‘evil’ (E); bending to the right, it means ‘good’ (Shan). Writing the dot on top means “no outflow” (Wu-lou) [of defilement]; writing the dot on bottom means outflow (Yu-lou) [of defilement]. Being killed or alive, being prosperous or robbed, being ruined or honored, being in suffering or in joy, they are all in the form of ink. There is no dharma that is beyond ink. In short, black ink interprets immeasurable Teachings, Practices, and Principles. Black ink is also the foundation for Teaching, Practice, and Principle.”

By pointing out how the “black ink as form” (Hei-mo-se) can possibly work out in the development of writing various strokes in formulating various characters (with their different meanings), Chih-i presents an ontological concept about one dharma containing all dharmas, and all dharmas being identical to one dharma. “One dharma contains all dharmas” is demonstrated by Chih-i from the black ink (as the fundamental source) that functions to draw multitude strokes, from which various characters are formed. Since all characters are derived from strokes and all strokes are derived from the black ink (as form), this demonstrates that all dharmas are identical to one dharma. Therefore, this second type of sign interpretation vividly depicts the dynamic nature of Chih-i ‘s perfect harmonization philosophy. (Page 95-96)

The comparison between the Lotus Sūtra and the other sūtras from various perspectives can be seen throughout the Hsüan-I (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra). This is Chih-i’s endeavor to demonstrate that the Lotus Sūtra is superior to all other sūtras. In the meantime, this comparison provides legitimacy for Chih-i’s own choice of selecting the Lotus Sūtra as the doctrinal foundation for his system of thought. The superiority of the Lotus Sūtra is derived from its reconciling nature of acknowledging the validity of all doctrines that are embraced by the One Vehicle of Buddhahood. The establishment of this superiority in turn sustains Chih-i ‘s own system of thought as perfect and harmonizing. Thus, this technique of comparison exemplifies Chih-i’s perfect harmonization philosophy in terms of its nature of reconciliation and all-embracing nature. (Page 88-89)

For the section “Substance,” Chih-i compares various conceptions of the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth for beings in the realms of desire, form, and formlessness signifies that these three realms are different. The Two Vehicles perceive the Ultimate Truth as the suchness of emptiness. The bodhisattvas take both difference (provisional existence) and suchness (emptiness) as the Ultimate Truth. For the Buddha, the Ultimate Truth means neither suchness nor difference. The Ultimate Truth realized by the Buddha is thus taken as the correct substance. In Chih-i ‘s view, only the Lotus Sūtra enjoys the privilege of possessing the correct substance. Although the Ultimate Truth is also confirmed by Chih-i to be the substance of all other sūtras (seeing that the Ultimate Truth is the underlying principle), the substance they possess is not perfect. This is because other sūtras expound either the Relative Truth or the Ultimate Truth by means of expediency, and thus they cannot be regarded as fully possessing the correct substance, but only the one-sided substance (referring to emptiness as the Absolute Truth that is represented by the Tripitaka Teaching) or the correct substance with one-sidedness (referring to the Common Teaching that reveals the Ultimate Truth as the substance of dharmas, but its view concerns the one-sided emptiness). Only the substance of the Lotus Sūtra can function to embrace all entities, with which only the one Ultimate Truth is expounded without any expediency, viz. the Relative Truth and the Ultimate Truth are identified with each other in forming an integrated reality of all aspects. (Page 86)

[The technique of comparison] serves to support Chih-i’s theory taking the Lotus Sūtra as the supreme teaching. By comparing different features between the Lotus Sūtra and other sūtras, the superiority of the former is confirmed.

The most unique feature of the Lotus Sūtra lies in its doctrine of the Ultimate Truth, and this Ultimate Truth is identified by Chih-i with the Middle Way, since the Middle Way, as the principle, represents the Ultimate Truth of Buddhahood. While the theory of the Lotus Sūtra as the supreme teaching is sustained by this method of comparison, the doctrine of the Ultimate Truth in turn provides the foundation for the legitimacy of Chih-i’s own theory of the Middle Way.

A good example of launching a comparison is by presenting an illustration of the Ten Suchnesses in each of the Ten Dharma-realms. As a result of this comparison, the Ten Suchnesses of the Buddha-realm are shown to be the foremost of all suchnesses in whatever realm, in view of the fact that they embody the Buddha’s knowledge and insight (that embrace all dharmas and make no distinction between the two opposite aspects). This is the first level of comparison among the Ten Dharma realms, by which the Buddha Dharma-realm is confirmed as the highest. The second step is to explain why the Buddha praises the Lotus Sūtra as the unsurpassed, by means of judging whether or not the Ten Suchnesses in the nine Dharma-realms (that are exposed in other sūtras) enter the Buddha Dharma-realm. The conclusion is that only in the Lotus Sūtra are the Ten Suchnesses in the nine Dharma-realms converged into the Buddha Dharma-realm. This kind of comparison legitimizes the Lotus Sūtra to be the supreme doctrine. By presenting the Lotus Sūtra as the final teaching of the Buddha, which automatically denote the meaning of perfect and harmonizing, Chih-i ‘s own system of thought is also legitimated with the undertone of perfection, corresponding to what is represented by the Lotus Sūtra. (Page 84-85)

In view of the three teachings (Tripitaka, Common, and Separate), compared with the Perfect Teaching that represents the ultimate teaching, they are considered to be the relative teachings leading to the final teaching of the Perfect. Thus, they are coarse. However, the relative teachings are not only determined as relative, they can have different meanings depending on whether or not they are integrated with the ultimate teaching the Lotus Sūtra represents. If they are not converged into the Lotus teaching, they are relative. At the moment when they are looked at in the context of opening the Relative and revealing the Ultimate, they become ultimate. This is because, in the Lotus Sūtra, all teachings are said to contain the real intention of the Buddha for all beings to attain Buddhahood. Therefore, there is no more difference between the relative and the ultimate teachings, in a sense that the relative teachings are one with the ultimate teaching. In actuality, the relative teachings are not only ultimate when they are converged, but the relative teachings themselves are also considered to be ultimate, from the perspective that they are the indispensable steps in leading living beings to reach the final goal of the ultimate teaching. For example, in his discussion of the importance of the relative position, Chih-i gives an analogy comparing the positions of the three teachings with the positions of the Perfect Teaching by asserting:

“The relative [positions] in the past contain the ultimate [positions]. This is like the [lotus] flower that contains the seedpod. To open the Relative and to reveal the Ultimate resembles the blooming of the flower, and the seedpod is manifested, Apart from this flower, there is no other seedpod that can be displayed. Likewise, apart from the coarse [positions], there are no other subtle [positions] that can be revealed. Why does it need to destroy the coarse [positions] in order to attain the subtle positions? Only by opening the relative positions, the subtle positions can be at once manifested.”

Chih-i’s endeavor to judge the coarse or the subtle is seen in every part of his discussion of the Four Teachings. However, one ought not to mistake the means as the end. The distinction of the coarse and the subtle is the means for Chih-i to confirm various types of the teaching of the Buddha as legitimate and coherent. This is because, Chih-i repeatedly claims that regardless of whether it is coarse or subtle teaching, all of the teachings of the Buddha are suitable to the circumstances and to the capabilities of listeners with the real intention of the Buddha to enlighten all sentient beings. Given that Chih-i never dwells on any fixed view (which reflects the flexible and comprehensive nature of his perfect and harmonizing philosophy) while confirming the existence of all types of the teaching of the Buddha, Chih-i also vehemently stresses the superiority of the subtle teaching of the Perfect in relation to the other coarse teachings, so that the Ultimate Truth can be eventually realized through the Perfect Teaching. (Page 65)

This polar notion is established to judge various teachings of the Buddha in terms of whether or not they contain expedient means. Chih-i demonstrates the coarseness or subtlety by comparing the Lotus Sūtra with other sūtras. The teaching of the Buddha that contains expedience in other sūtras is considered to be Relative Truth, for it complies with various capabilities and inclinations of audiences. Relative Truth is coarse, given that it is only the means to reach the final goal of the Ultimate Truth. In the ultimate teaching of the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha directly reveals that all past teachings are expedient means in leading beings to open the Buddha’s knowledge and insight. The Lotus teaching that contains no expedient means is regarded by Chih-i to be the ultimate, and renders subtlety. However, the distinction of the coarseness and the subtlety are only Chih-i’s strategy of projecting the superiority of the Lotus teaching in his system of classification so that the ultimate goal of attaining Buddhahood as the spirit of Mahāyāna Buddhism can be asserted. In Chih-i’s view, with the Ultimate Truth as an absolute reality, there is no more distinction between these two. From the viewpoint of the coarse teaching as the preparatory means for listeners to be intellectually matured for the subtle teaching, and from the viewpoint of the Buddha’s real intention being always for the purpose of expounding the subtle teaching even when he was implementing the coarse teaching, the significance of the coarse teaching would never be overly emphasized. Hence, Chih-i insists that the coarseness contains the subtlety, and it is no longer coarse when the universal salvation for all beings is declared by the Buddha in the Lotus Sūtra. (Page 64)

Arising and abandoning are the two aspects of evaluating various levels of religious attainment as positions that belong to the Four Teachings respectively. According to Chih-i, the positions that belong to the three teachings (Tripiṭaka, Common, and Separate) are coarse, seeing that the doors of these teachings are expedient means or contain expediency. This proposes that truth expounded by the Buddha in these teachings is relative, which functions to guide beings to eventually reach the Ultimate Truth. The positions of the Perfect Teaching are considered to be subtle, for the door of the Perfect Teaching directly reveals the Ultimate Truth without having to employ expedient means as the Relative Truth. Therefore, “arising of positions” (Wei-hsing) is to confirm the legitimacy of various positions regardless of whether they are coarse or subtle, from the viewpoint that all of them are beneficial in terms of suiting different abilities of sentient beings. On the other hand, the abandonment of these tentative positions (Wei-fei) is necessary for the arising of new positions. Attainment arises according to conditions. Along with the arising of new conditions, new positions are produced, with which old positions must be abandoned. With regard to the Four Teachings, Chih-i argues that the positions of the Tripiṭaka, the Common, and the Separate Teachings must be abandoned. This is because, once they have fulfilled their roles as tentative positions, i.e., after one has progressed from these three teachings to the Perfect Teaching, and attained the ultimate position of the Perfect Teaching, these tentative positions are no longer needed. Moreover, at the moment when these tentative positions hinder one’s attainment of the ultimate position on the path of religious practice, they must be abolished too.