The Diamond Needle, Treatise on the Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle, The Key to the Secret of the Heart Sutra

THE DIAMOND NEEDLE; TREATISE ON DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS OF THE HUAYAN ONE VEHICLE; THE KEY TO THE SECRET OF THE HEART SUTRA

THE DIAMOND NEEDLE TREATISE ON DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS OF THE HUAYAN ONE VEHICLE THE KEY TO THE SECRET OF THE HEART SUTRA dBET PDF Version © 2023

All Rights Reserved

Title Page

BDK English Tripiṭaka Series THE DIAMOND NEEDLE (Taishō Volume 32, Number 1642) Translated by Yuto Kawamura and Jinghao Bai TREATISE ON DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS OF THE HUAYAN ONE VEHICLE (Taishō Volume 45, Number 1866) Translated by Taitetsu Unno, Mark Unno, and Monica E. McLellan THE KEY TO THE SECRET OF THE HEART SUTRA (Taishō Volume 57, Number 2203A) Translated by Matthew D. McMullen BDK America, Inc. 2023

Copyright

The dBET version of the original publication is distributed according to the Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)" license agreement and the provisions stated on the website at https://bdkamerica.org. This PDF file may be printed and distributed according to the terms of use established on the website. The file is formatted with certain security provisions in place that disallow modification. Any organization or individual with legitimate reason to modify and/or adapt the contents of this file (such as for inclusion of the contents in a publically available online database of Buddhist sources) may contact us for permission and access to an unrestricted copy.

Copyright © 2023 by Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai and BDK America, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed in any form or by any means —electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise— without the prior written permission of the publisher. First Printing, 2023

ISBN: 978-1-886439-91-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023934846 Published by

BDK America, Inc.

1675 School Street

Moraga, California 94556

Printed in the United States of America

A Message on the Publication of the

English Tripiṭaka

The Buddhist canon is said to contain eighty-four thousand different teachings. I believe that this is because the Buddha's basic approach was to prescribe a different treatment for every spiritual ailment, much as a doctor prescribes a different medicine for every medical ailment. Thus his teachings were always appropriate for the particular suffering individual and for the time at which the teaching was given, and over the ages not one of his prescriptions has failed to relieve the suffering to which it was addressed.

Ever since the Buddha's Great Demise over twenty-five hundred years ago, his message of wisdom and compassion has spread throughout the world. Yet no one has ever attempted to translate the entire Buddhist canon into English throughout the history of Japan. It is my greatest wish to see this done and to make the translations available to the many English-speaking people who have never had the opportunity to learn about the Buddha's teachings. Of course, it would be impossible to translate all of the Buddha's eighty-four thousand teachings in a few years. I have, therefore, had one hundred thirty-nine of the scriptural texts in the prodigious Taishō edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon selected for inclusion in the First Series of this translation project. It is in the nature of this undertaking that the results are bound to be criticized. Nonetheless, I am convinced that unless someone takes it upon himself or herself to initiate this project, it will never be done. At the same time, I hope that an improved, revised edition will appear in the future.

It is most gratifying that, thanks to the efforts of more than a hundred Buddhist scholars from the East and the West, this monumental project has finally gotten off the ground. May the rays of the Wisdom of the Compassionate One reach each and every person in the world.

NUMATA Yehan

Founder of the English

August 7, 1991 Tripiṭaka Project

v

Editorial Foreword

In the long history of Buddhist transmission throughout East Asia, translations of Buddhist texts were often carried out as national projects supported and funded by emperors and political leaders. The BDK English Tripiṭaka project, on the other hand, began as a result of the dream and commitment of one man. In January 1982 Dr. NUMATA Yehan, founder of Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), initiated the monumental task of translating the complete Taishō shinshū daizōkyō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka (Buddhist canon) into the English language. Under his leadership, a special preparatory committee was organized in April 1982. By July of the same year the Translation Committee of the English Tripiṭaka was officially convened. The initial Committee included the following members: (late) HANAYAMA Shōyū (Chairperson), (late) BANDŌ Shōjun, (late) ISHIGAMI Zennō, (late) KAMATA Shigeo, (late) KANAOKA Shūyū, MAYEDA Sengaku, (late) NARA Yasuaki, (late) SAYEKI Shinkō, (late) SHIOIRI Ryōtatsu, (late) TAMARU Noriyoshi, (late) TAMURA Kwansei, (late) URYŪZU Ryūshin, and (late) YUYAMA Akira. Assistant members of the Committee were as follows: KANAZAWA Atsushi, WATANABE Shōgo, Rolf Giebel of New Zealand, and Rudy Smet of Belgium. After holding planning meetings on a monthly basis, the Committee selected one hundred and thirty-nine texts for the First Series of the project, estimated to be one hundred printed volumes in all. The texts selected were not limited to those originally written in India but also included works composed in China and Japan. While the publication of the First Series proceeds, the texts for the Second Series will be selected from among the remaining works; this process will continue until all the texts, in Japanese as well as in Chinese, have been published. Given the huge scope of this project, accomplishing the English translations of all the Chinese and Japanese texts in the Taishō canon may take as long as one hundred years or more. Nevertheless, as Dr. NUMATA wished, it is the sincere hope of the Committee that this project will continue until completion, even after all the present members have passed away.

vii

Publisher’s Foreword

Editorial Foreword

Dr. NUMATA passed away on May 5, 1994, at the age of ninety-seven. He entrusted his son, Mr. NUMATA Toshihide with the continuation and completion of the English Tripiṭaka project. Mr. Numata served for twenty-three years, leading the project forward with enormous progress before his sudden passing on February 16, 2017, at the age of eighty-four. The Committee previously lost its able and devoted first Chairperson, Professor HANAYAMA Shōyū, on June 16, 1995, at the age of sixty-three. In October 1995 the Committee elected Professor MAYEDA Sengaku (then Vice President of Musashino Women's College) as Chairperson, and upon the retirement of Professor Mayeda in July 2016, the torch was passed to me to serve as the third Chairperson. Despite these losses and changes we, the Editorial Committee members, have renewed our determination to carry out the noble ideals set by Dr. NUMATA. Present members of the Committee are Kenneth K. Tanaka (Chairperson), MAYEDA Sengaku, ICHISHIMA Shōshin, KATSURA Shōryū, MINOWA Kenryō, SAITŌ Akira, SHIMODA Masahiro, WATANABE Shōgo, and YONEZAWA Yoshiyasu.

The Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research was established in November 1984, in Berkeley, California, U.S.A., to assist in the publication of the translated texts. The Publication Committee was organized at the Numata Center in December 1991. In 2010, the Numata Center's operations were merged with Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai America, Inc. (BDK America), and BDK America continues to oversee the publication side of the English Tripiṭaka project in close cooperation with the Editorial Committee in Tokyo.

At the time of this writing, in July 2017, the project has completed about sixtyfive percent of the seven thousand one hundred and eighty-five Taishō pages of texts selected for the First Series. Much work still lies ahead of us but we are committed to the completion of the remaining texts in order to realize the grand vision of Dr. Numata, shared by Mr. Numata and Professor Hanayama, to make the Buddhist canon more readily accessible to the English-speaking world. Kenneth K. Tanaka

Chairperson

Editorial Committee of

the BDK English Tripiṭaka

viii

Publisher's Foreword

On behalf of the members of the Publication Committee, I am happy to present this volume as the latest contribution to the BDK English Tripiṭaka Series. The Publication Committee members have worked to ensure that this volume, as all other volumes in the series, has gone through a rigorous process of editorial efforts. The initial translation and editing of the Buddhist scriptures found in this and other BDK English Tripiṭaka volumes are performed under the direction of the Editorial Committee in Tokyo, Japan. Both the Editorial Committee in Tokyo and the Publication Committee, headquartered in Moraga, California, are dedicated to the production of accurate and readable English translations of the Buddhist canon. In doing so, the members of both committees and associated staff work to honor the deep faith, spirit, and concern of the late Reverend Dr. Yehan Numata, who founded the BDK English Tripiṭaka Series in order to disseminate the Buddhist teachings throughout the world. The long-term goal of our project is the translation and publication of the texts in the one hundred-volume Taishō edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon, along with a number of influential extracanonical Japanese Buddhist texts. The list of texts selected for the First Series of this translation project may be found at the end of each volume in the series.

As Chair of the Publication Committee, I am deeply honored to serve as the fifth person in a post previously held by leading figures in the field of Buddhist studies, most recently by my predecessor, John R. McRae.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the members of the Publication Committee for their dedicated and expert work undertaken in the course of preparing this volume for publication: Managing Editor Marianne Dresser, Dr. Hudaya Kandahjaya, Dr. Carl Bielefeldt, Dr. Robert Sharf, and Rev. Brian Kensho Nagata, Director of the BDK America English Tripiṭaka Project.

A. Charles Muller

Chairperson

Publication Committee

ix

Table of Contents

x

Contents

A Message on the Publication of the English Tripiṭaka NUMATA Yehan v

Editorial Foreword Kenneth K. Tanaka vii Publisher's Foreword A. Charles Muller ix The Diamond Needle Translators' Introduction Yuto Kawamura and 3 Jinghao Bai

The Diamond Needle 5 Notes 17

Bibliography 19 Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle Translators' Introduction Taitetsu Unno, Mark Unno, 23 and Monica E. McLellan Outline of Contents 29 Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle 37 Notes 209

Glossary 213

Bibliography 217 The Key to the Secret of the Heart Sutra Translator's Introduction Matthew D. McMullen 225 The Great Incantation Sutra of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā 229 The Key to the Secret of the Heart Sutra 231 Notes 241

Glossary 245

Bibliography 247 Index 249

A List of the Volumes of the BDK English Tripiṭaka (First Series) 267 xi xi

THE DIAMOND NEEDLE

Translators’ Introduction

Translators' Introduction

Yuto Kawamura and Jinghao Bai

The Diamond Needle (Jingang zhen lun) is known as a work that critiques the Varṇa system, in which the class of brahmans has the highest status. The author regularly proceeds by citing classical texts accepted as authoritative by brahmans to undermine their position and lampoon their claims. This work was translated into Chinese by Fatian (法天, ?-1001 C.E.) in the latter half of the tenth century, during the Song dynasty (960-1279 C.E.), and is included in the Taishō canon (volume 32, no. 1642). The Sanskrit text of The Diamond Needle (Vajrasūcī) contains a verse that declares its author to be Aśvaghoṣa (ca. first-second centuries C.E.), a well-known Buddhist poet. Nevertheless, the aforementioned Chinese translation ascribes the work to Dharmakīrti (ca. seventh century C.E.), another well-known Buddhist philosopher. Whether the work was composed by the former or the latter remains in dispute. The most detailed survey of the scholarship on this work can be found on a website set up by Professor Kiyoshi Okano (see Bibliography), to which interested readers are directed for further information. Since this translation is generally designed for English readers, the bibliography also lists major English-language publications on The Diamond Needle that the website may not include, as well as some Japanese works that do not appear on the website. Fatian's Chinese translation of The Diamond Needle is not faithful to the Sanskrit original in our possession; the translation does not correspond to the Sanskrit text in multiple places. The version Fatian used for his translation might be from a different recension than the Sanskrit original. Fatian's translation is entirely in prose, with a fairly standard four-character prosodic pattern. The Sanskrit original is a mixture of prose and verse. Both in the Sanskrit original and the Chinese translation, the target of severe criticism is the class of brahmans among the four classes that constitute the Varṇa system, brahman (priest class), kṣatriya (ruling/warrior class), vaiśya (merchant class), and śūdra (servant class). Colorful arguments are deployed to challenge and defy the authority of the brahmans. 3

The Diamond Needle

In the following translation, interpolations of the basic components of a sentence (e.g., subject, object, complement, and verb) that are easily understood from the context are not marked by square brackets to avoid distraction. Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft.

4

The Diamond Needle

By Dharmakīrti Bodhisattva

169b

Having received an imperial edict, I, Fatian from the western direction (India), a translator of Buddhist texts, Tripiṭaka Master, Junior Fifth-and-under Ranking Official, Senior Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, a great teacher who spreads the doctrine, translated this work.

As the brahmans have said, of all the scriptures, the four Vedas are a valid [means of knowledge]. And among them (the four Vedas), what has been memorized is viewed as a valid [means of knowledge]. And among them (what has been memorized), what interprets (speech), and what is interpreted (meaning) are valid [means of knowledge]. And of these two, what interprets is viewed as a valid [means of knowledge]. This (speech) alone is supreme and there exists nothing better than it. How do individuals of the world spend their lives without this (speech)? Using this interpreter (speech), affection or hatred is born from it. Just as the brahmans are the best among all the classes, so is this speech in question, which is the interpreter.

This perspective is illogical. Shall I give reasons? What type of birth does a brahman have? What type of living [body] does a brahman have? What type of knowledge does a brahman have? What types of customs and work does a brahman have? How does a brahman come to obtain the title brahman? Additionally, how do you declare those Vedas to be a valid [means of knowledge]? How does Indra become an animal while having Indra[hood] for his primary cause? How is an animal born as the moon god while having animal[ity] for its primary cause? Additionally, the sun god, which has the sun god[hood] as its primary cause, is born as an animal; the wind god, the fire god, and the water god, having the wind god[hood], the fire god[hood], and the water god[hood], respectively, as their primary causes, are reborn [as animals] after having died again and again. How can this phenomenon be possible?

Additionally, the brahmans mistakenly insist on the following belief: a god, after having died among the gods, is reborn among them; a human, after having 5

169c

The Diamond Needle

died among humans, is reborn among them; and the same is true of animals. Regarding the four Vedas, [however,] such a claim is not valid. What is this soul? On what basis do you call it a "soul"? The same question is posed regarding concepts such as brahman.

Furthermore, you non-Buddhist brahmans state the following; [that is to say,] the following is stated in their scripture: Mount Bhārate1 gives birth to the seven types of beasts; the country of Daśārṇa feeds the other group of deer; there is Mount Kālañjara and all the animals (e.g., parrots, herons, swans, and deer) on that mountain were born among humans in Kurukṣetra (i.e., a place of blessedness). After having died there, they are born among brahmans and can elucidate the teachings of the four Vedas. These beasts—deer, swans, and mandarin ducks—were born among humans. Their souls are simultaneously brahman and not brahman. The reason [for this dichotomy] is that if their soul is a brahman, they do not become animals. [On the other hand,] if their soul is not a brahman, how are they born as brahmans? The aforementioned quote ("a god, after having died among the gods, is reborn among them; a human, after having died among humans, is reborn among them; and the same is true of animals") is not valid; however, the brahmans adhere to this belief.

[For the brahmans,] the four Vedas are the source of all the teachings; they are called truth. Although brahmans are not permitted to receive food from the other classes, they receive benefits repeatedly from śūdras; this practice is against their foundational teachings. Why are they called practitioners of noble deeds? On the basis of this information, my proposal is that they are not true brahmans.

Moreover, the teachings of the brahmans, which are the four Vedas, mistakenly insist on a soul that serves to make the brahmans superior. However, the brahman class [advocated] in the correct teachings (the four Vedas) has no logical support. Why then do you call the four Vedas the correct teachings? Why do you refer to the brahmans as the best when different classes are mixed within [the brahman class]? There is no need to explain my point. The brahmans are not the best; [different] classes are mixed there. What does this mean?

Now, for example, a father is named Narakṣa,2 but his son is a sage called Piṅgala.

6

The Diamond Needle

Additionally for example, a father is named Agasti and his son also is called Agasti.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Puṣyasa,3 but his son is called Kauśika.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Kuśa,4 but his son is called Sambhava.5

Additionally, for example, a father is named Kapilā, 6 but his son is also

called Kapilā.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Śaragulma,7 but his son is called Gautama.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Kalaśa,8 but his son is called Droṇācārya.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Tittirī, 9 but his son is called

Tittirī-suta.

Additionally, for example, a father is named Rāma,10 but his son is called "[Antelope-]horned Sage."

Additionally, for example, a mother is named "Wild Deer" and she is a fisherwoman. She gave birth to a son and he is called Vyāsa; she gave birth to another son and he is called Kuśika.

A father belongs to the śūdra class, but his son is called Viśvāmitra. A mother is an untouchable, but her son is called Vasiṣṭha. A mother is named Urvaśī, and because she was born among the gods she is not a brahman.11

This being the case, on what basis can you absolutely insist on and present the view that the brahmans are the best of humans?

Additionally, according to [the teachings to which the brahmans] adhere, the Vedic scriptures are the valid [means of knowledge]; however, this claim is also not reasonable. Therefore, the reasoning in any teaching of the brahmans is faulty. Furthermore, according to the teachings of the brahmans to which they adhere, the śūdras are allowed to receive items such as fresh meat, purple ore (red dye), and salt. [On the other hand,] it is not proper for you the brahmans to do so. Why do you not follow this rule? Moreover, brahmans, flying across the sky, fall if they sell milk while measuring its amount, and they lose the state of being brahmans. Likewise, 7

170a

The Diamond Needle

if they eat meat, they fall from the sky [and lose the state of being brahmans]. Although such conduct (selling milk and eating meat) is not according to the rules, you are doing this.

Thus, the following is to be known: buying and selling milk or meat is taught as being improper for brahmans, but proper for śūdras. For this reason, the following is to be known: Do individuals who do not eat, buy, or sell milk or meat earn the appellation brahman?

Therefore, the following is to be known: brahmans, when selling milk or meat measuring their amount, lose the state of being brahmans; [nevertheless,] they mistakenly insist on the incorrect teaching [that their state of being brahmans is guaranteed by their birth, and hence, that status is not lost even if they engage in the aforementioned activities.]

Furthermore, the brahmans mistakenly insist that the brahman class is the best among all the classes in the world. Such a view also is not valid. [For] all the classes would be called the brahman class if kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras respectively insisted that their class is the best. Additionally, the brahmans insist that the body experiencing suffering is called a brahman.12 [If so, however,] anyone whose body experiences suffering would be called a brahman.

Additionally, they mistakenly insist that killing brahmans is a great sin. However, the same is true of killing the relatives of the brahmans. Additionally, the brahmans mistakenly insist on the following view. They were born from the mouth of a god in heaven, the kṣatriyas were born from the arms of the god, and the vaiśyas and śūdras were born from the thighs and the feet [of the god]. Killing brahmans is tantamount to killing the god; a great sin is committed. This view to which they adhere is not valid. Shall I explain why? The brahmans neither think that they do not commit a sin even if they kill those of the non-brahman class, nor assume a sin even if they kill the relatives of those who belong to the non-brahman class. This view mistakenly insisted on is not valid.13

Moreover, they insist that if an individual obstructs their activities, namely giving and receiving gifts, and harms their knowledge or bodies, then that individual has committed a great sin. [However,] this is not the case. Shall I explain why? Is an individual called a brahman on the basis of either an individual's body or knowledge? [The answer is negative.] For all individuals, 8

The Diamond Needle

such as śūdras, have bodies and knowledge. Should it be the case that they are all called brahmans?

Furthermore, they mistakenly insist that individuals who understand the four Vedas and the treatises on Mīmāṃsā, Sāṅkhya, and Vaiśeṣika, and who are familiar with all the treatises are called brahmans. This reasoning is also wrong. Should it be the case that if śūdras and others also understand those treatises and comprehend their meanings, all of them are to be called brahmans? If the brahmans call those who perform asceticism brahmans, śūdras also can perform it. Are they called brahmans as well?

If the brahmans call those who know skills brahmans, are fishermen and musicians also called brahmans when they know different skills? Thus, the following is to be understood. Religious austerities are not equivalent to brahman[hood]. Activities are not equivalent to brahman[hood]. Giving and receiving gifts are not equivalent to brahman[hood]. Kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras are also able to perform these [actions]. Should it be the case that they are all called brahmans?

Hence, the following is to be known: It is not based on their birth, activity, asceticism, soul, or merit that living beings are called brahmans. On what basis is the name [brahman] established? It is said that an individual is called a true brahman when the following conditions are fulfilled. Like a kuṇḍa flower, or like a white moon, individuals who are free of all impurity, cultivate good conduct very well, do not lack [good] behavior, and follow the rules; individuals who control their senses very well and abandon and renounce worldly desires; individuals who do not cling to the ideas of self and other, to attachment, to affection, to hatred, and to delusion. Moreover, an individual is called a brahman if they avoid sexual desires, do not have affection and attachment even if reborn as an animal, and cultivate pure conduct. Thus, the following is known, as taught by the great sage Śukra: This brahman[hood] is not by birth, activities, merit, asceticism, and craft. Is a caṇḍāla called a brahman when he is familiar with the four Vedas, craft, and art, accumulates merit, and practices asceticism? Hence, the following is to be known: It is not based on their soul, birth, knowledge, body, activity, and asceticism that living beings are called brahmans. 9

170b

The Diamond Needle

170c

Additionally, for example, a śūdra, after having practiced asceticism and studied and understood the four Vedas, attains the state of a sage with the five supernormal abilities. Why do you brahmans serve one who is from the low class?

Moreover, individuals from any four classes can attain such sagehood. Thus, why are the members of the other classes not called the best? Furthermore, for instance, Indra practiced good deeds in the past and succeeded in being born to that heavenly state. He was originally from the low class. In the main body of the brahmans' scripture it is taught that the Bhagavan and Indra were originally from the low class. Thus, we can attack you in the aforementioned way.14

Additionally, you brahmans teach that the god Indra, the other various deities, and this shared sensory world are born from the mouths of Maheśvara and his divine wife, and that Maheśvara and his divine wife are not born from the world. The root produces the branch; the branch does not produce the root. Thus, this teaching of yours is against your ''correct'' claim [that the brahman class is the best and that the śūdra is a low class].15 They (Maheśvara and his wife) were originally from the low class. Why do you mistakenly insist that we were born from them? Thus, we know that your claim is not valid. Additionally, for example, after dying, a śūdra was reborn as that Maheśvara. Why are you brahmans serving one who is from the low class? Furthermore, according to the brahman's teaching that you impart, individuals are called brahman when they perform a special breathing exercise, drink a magical elixir, perform asceticism, and fast. [However,] śūdras can do such things as well. Are they also called brahmans?

Moreover, brahmans adhere to the following view. If a brahman receives food from the hands of a śūdra in his residence for one month, in this very life his body changes into that of a śūdra. Thereafter, in the next world, where the result of an individual's action is supposed to occur, the brahman becomes a dog without exception. Additionally, if a brahman marries a śūdra woman, his parents and the deity of his house leave him. After death, the brahman goes to hell.

These mistaken viewpoints are invalid. [For] what difference is there between the brahman class and that śūdra class?16

10

The Diamond Needle

For example, the great sage Kapila, born from a female deer, became a sage after having practiced asceticism and acquired knowledge. Was this sage born from a female brahman?

For example, the great sage Vyāsa was originally born from a fisherwoman; after having practiced asceticism and acquired knowledge, he became a sage. Did this sage belong to the brahman class? Therefore, this mistaken viewpoint [that brahmanhood is based on birth] is not legitimate. Moreover, for example, the great sage Vasiṣṭha, born from the divine female Urvaśī, became a sage after having practiced asceticism and acquired knowledge. Did this sage belong to the brahman class?

Furthermore, for example, the great sage Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, born from the womb of a female deer, became a sage after having practiced asceticism and acquired knowledge and skills. Did this sage belong to the brahman class? Additionally, for example, the great sage Viśvāmitra was born from a woman of a caṇḍāla's family. Did this sage belong to the brahman class? On the basis of the aforementioned information, the following is to be known. An individual is called a true brahman when they control the senses, do not distinguish between self and other, diligently observe celibacy, stay far away from poluting desires, and have forever laid all delusion to rest. On the other hand, it is not the case that brahmanhood was founded based on a family line. Why do you mistakenly insist that the brahman class is the best class in the world and the purest in terms of following rules and practicing asceticism, without any admixture from other classes? Following this mistaken viewpoint, you consider who is not the best to be the best. Hence, the following is to be known. It is not based on one's class, soul, family line, asceticism, activity, or birth that an individual is called a brahman. Moreover, many individuals can be born in heaven if they follow the rules and accumulate merit, even if they originally belonged to the lower classes. Were they born in heaven by virtue of their family line? Furthermore, for example, great sages such as Kapila, Vyāsa, Vasiṣṭha, Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, Viśva, Mitra, and Nārada are mentioned in your statements. These great sages were born to the lower classes. They became sages after having practiced asceticism and accumulated [good] seeds. Why do you mistakenly insist that your class is unmixed and is the best in the world? Thus, this is a false statement not to be believed and accepted.

11

171a

The Diamond Needle

Moreover, [brahmans] adhere to the following view: the brahman class was born from the mouth of the god Brahmā, the kṣatriya class was born from the arms of the god Brahmā, the vaiśya class was born from the thighs of the god Brahmā, and the śūdra class was born from the feet of the god Brahmā. This view is faulty. The brahmans frequently adhere to this view. Furthermore, [brahmans] insist that if individuals, while performing asceticism, are firm in sticking to their purpose, they are called brahmans. [However,] does it then follow that if a fisherman, a dyer, a leather craftsman, or a śūdra and the like also practice asceticism while firmly sticking to their purpose, they are called a brahman?

Additionally, [brahmans] adhere to their appearance. They think that those who bind their hair up in a topknot, wear a cord around their waists, carry a wooden staff in their hands, dress in white, and have a restricted diet are called brahmans. [Yet] other individuals, for example, śūdras, can also adopt these types of form. Should it be the case that these individuals are all called brahmans?

Moreover, [brahmans] insist that all the four classes are born from the god Brahmā. [If this were the case, however, ] why are the classes of children different when their father is one and the same [god]? [If it is the case that these classes of children are different when their father is one and the same god, then] the same would be true of [fathers belonging to] the śūdra class and the other classes. That the classes of children born from the same father differ is not valid. Why do they adhere to such a view? Furthermore, the brahman class was born from the mouth of one and the same god, Brahmā. Globally, incest between brothers and sisters is blamed and hated. [Yet] you frequently engage in this. Why are you [considered] pure? Hence, you mistakenly insist as follows, considering individuals who are not pure to be pure.

For instance, suppose the same father and mother gave birth to four babies. It is not the case that their classes differ respectively. Why do you mistakenly insist on this view: "This baby is a brahman, this baby is a kṣatriya, this baby is a vaiśya, and this baby is a śūdra." Why do the classes of children born from the same father differ? Thus, you mistakenly insist that the four classes are differentiated.

12

The Diamond Needle

It is unlike the footprints of elephants, horses, cows, sheep, camels, deer, lions, tigers, and wolves, which all differ and can be distinguished from each other, such that one can say, "This is a cow's footprint . . . this is an elephant's footprint." Unlike this, the four classes cannot be distinguished. Furthermore, for example, flowers and fruits produced from the same tree cannot be distinguished. [On the other hand,] flowers and grasses produced from different trees are different. Because they have were not produced from the same [tree], they cannot be regarded as the same.17 The same logic applies to the current four classes you claim. Because brahmans, kṣatriyas . . . and śūdras are all born from the same father (the god Brahmā), why do you mistakenly insist that the four classes are distinguished? Moreover, there was a god-king called Yudhiṣṭhira. After having approached the sage Vaiśampāyana with his palms joined, faithfully and reverently, and having paid homage by bowing his head to the sage's feet, he asked the sage, "What are the so-called brahmans' qualities? Moreover, what are the so-called brahmans' characteristics? Furthermore, how many distinguished characteristics are there? Please explain them to me now. Please make me understand them."

Subsequently, the sage Vaiśampāyana said to the king, "Endurance, effort, meditation, and wisdom are called the brahmans' qualities. Avoiding greed, anger, and killing any living being—this is called the first characteristic of brahmans. Any property belonging to others are not to be coveted with a greedy mind—this is called the second characteristic of brahmans. If one avoids violence and hatred, is mild in nature and behavior, does not distinguish between self and other, and gets rid of entanglements and polluting desires— this is called the third characteristic of brahmans. Always avoiding attachment to human and divine females and even [female] animals—this is called the fourth characteristic of brahmans. Furthermore, if one matures all living beings, is always compassionate, controls their senses, and becomes a pure and excellent person—this is called the fifth characteristic of brahmans. Thus, if one is fully equipped with these five characteristics, one is called a brahman. If one makes a distinction between others and themselves and is not equipped with the five characteristics, one is called a śūdra."

13

171b

The Diamond Needle

Then, the sage said to Yudhiṣṭhira, "It is not on the basis of one's family line, birth, or [practice of] austerity that one becomes a brahman. Caṇḍālas and others who possess these five characteristics could also be called true brahmans. In the same vein, it is also possible to say that brahman is called a śūdra and a śūdra is called a true brahman."

Yudhiṣṭhira said to the sage, "A brahman attains a pure result by not killing any creatures. Thanks to this [instruction], I know somehow that such a person is called a brahman."

Additionally, the sage said to Yudhiṣṭhira, "The distinction of these four classes is due to deeds and conditions accumulated in the past. Moreover, for example, all living beings in the world, who are born from their mother's body, are those born through a dirty organ. Then what type of distinction is there [between living beings?] Therefore, one is called a brahman if one practices asceticism following the monastic rules and does meritorious deeds. Even a śūdra, if they cultivate meritorious conduct, becomes a brahman. If a brahman does not practice meritorious deeds, they also obtain the name of 'lower śūdra.' Furthermore, one should always control the five senses since they lead one to bad deeds. They (the five senses) are like an ocean in which living beings drown, so one should seek to save them and bring them to the far shore."

Then, King Yudhiṣṭhira, after having heard this from the sage, understood what has been said and thinks with a joyful heart, "I will teach the limitless living beings what I have just heard and make them all understand. This is neither for my own sake nor out of greed for my own life. From today on, night and day, I will cultivate endurance, avoid retinue and envy, not be greedy for anything desirable, go forward to seek salvation, and always cultivate pure conduct." Furthermore, the sage said to Yudhiṣṭhira, "Not killing living beings, avoiding greed and anger, and matchless purity—these are called the conduct of brahmans. Controlling the senses, giving gifts, cultivating endurance, truly practicing asceticism, being compassionate toward all living beings, loving and protecting them, and accumulating knowledge—these are called the conduct of brahmans. Avoidance of improper asceticism and offering help to living beings according to their abilities and numerous sufferings—these are called the conduct of brahmans. Moreover, it is taught in the Gāyatrī18 of the 14

The Diamond Needle

brahmans that one can only be called a true brahman after they have spent a thousand kalpas performing asceticism without holding on to anything, controlling their senses, giving gifts four times a day, thinking lovingly of living beings, getting rid of sleepiness, and always cultivating pure conduct." Additionally, the sage said to Yudhiṣṭhira, "If one understands the teachings of the four Vedas, one is called a brahman and the best among the classes. Why then are the other individuals like śūdras also not the best when they also can understand the teachings of the Vedas?"

For example, individuals from the four classes wander through a sacred place. All of their footprints cannot be distinguished in such a way that it could be said that this footprint is from this person, not from that person. This phenomenon is true of [footprints made by individuals within] either one class or the four classes. The division of the four classes is due to linguistic convention. Originally, there was no such division.

Moreover, for example, although in this world the forms of cows, horses, and other animals differ, they belong to the same category since they have male or female sexual organs. When the brahmans examine individuals from one class, such as kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras, or individuals from the four classes, they (the brahmans) understand in the same manner. Furthermore, for example, blood, flesh, excreta, limbs, and the senses of one person and those of many persons belong to the same category and hence are not different.

Additionally, for example, the shapes and colors of a lotus, a flower of the tilaka tree,19 and a moonlike conch are distinguishable. On the other hand, there is no distinction between the shapes and colors of individuals from the four classes. Why are they distinguished?

Moreover, for example, cows, horses, elephants, and deer act out of their polluting desires, but they do not have a sexual intercourse with each other and they are distinguished. Now, brahmans have [sexual intercourse] with kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras and act from their polluting desires. They all are born from a mother's body. What type of distinction is there between them? Furthermore, for example, why does a woman born from a brahman have sexual intercourse with an individual of the same class who is close to her in relation, that is, with her relatives?20 Even śūdras do not do such a thing in this world.

15

171c

Notes

172a

The Diamond Needle

For example, although several flowers, fruits, branches, and leaves are grown in the udumbara tree in this world, the root and the trunk of this tree are not distinguished. There is no distinction such that this is the flower from this tree and this is the flower of that tree. This fact is also said of you brahmans. You should not have sexual intercourse with individuals of the same class who are close to you in relation. This [kind of act] is blameworthy and despised in the world. You must not do this.

Moreover, for example, individuals are called brahman if they avoid evil acts in word and deed and always cultivate pure conduct. Vaiśyas, and the like, also do this and can become a great sage, now called Vasiṣṭha. Furthermore, for example, fire in this world can burn brushwood and firewood and all of [these kinds of fuel] are not distinguished [when they are being consumed by fire.] Now, when the brahmans interact with individuals from the other classes, there is no distinction between them all. Additionally, for example, the great sage Vyāsa was originally born from a fisherman. Therefore, he also was not born from a brahman. Moreover, for example, the five Pāṇḍava brothers of the royal family were born from the same mother but they have different fathers. It is the result of the deeds performed by them in the past and not because of their class that they have the same mother but different fathers. However, you mistakenly insist on the distinction [between their classes].

Furthermore, for example, in this world salt dissolves in water. In this case, the shape of the salt disappears yet its taste still remains. The results of deeds performed in the past come to us. The disappearance and appearance of these results are the same [as salt dissolved in water]. Wise individuals should know the details of the aforementioned mistaken viewpoints, which cannot be relied upon or believed.

16

Notes

1 Poluodishan 婆囉帝山, ''Bhārate mountain,'' seems to be a translation of bhārate, which in the Sanskrit text originally means ''in the [Mahā]bhārata.'' 2 Naluoqicha 那洛乞叉 is probably a transliteration of "Narakṣa" (?), but this is not found in the Sanskrit original. The origin of naluoqicha is uncertain. The word ulūkī, ''female owl,'' appears in the corresponding part of the Sanskrit text. 3 Bushayezuo 布沙野左 is probably a transliteration of "Puṣyasa," but this word is not found in the Sanskrit original. It is likely that the transliteration bushayezuo is rooted in puṣpāc ca, ''and from a flower,'' in the Sanskrit text.

4 "Kuśa" is the name of a type of grass.

5 Sengsaduoe 僧薩多誐 (for the name "Sambhava") is probably a transliteration of saṃsataḥ, but this word is not found in the Sanskrit original. Sengsaduoe probably originates from -sambhavaḥ, ''birth,'' in the Sanskrit text. 6 "Kapilā" means a brown cow.

7 "Śaragulma" means a clump of śara, a sort of reed or grass. 8 "Kalaśa" means a water pot.

9 "Tittirī" means a female partridge.

10 Naluoman 捺囉𤚥 (for the name "Rāma") is probably a transliteration of drāmam, which comprises d and rāmam. The corresponding part of the Sanskrit text reads: reṇukājanayad rāmam ṛṣyaśṛṅgamuniṃ mṛgī. It is likely that the former d is the last letter of the finite verb ajanayad, and that the latter rāmam is an accusative form of the word rāma. It is very probable that the conjunct consonant drā generated by the adjacency of the two words was not resolved correctly and this error was reflected in the Chinese translation.

11 The Chinese translation in this passage is difficult because (1) the classes of the parents and their children can differ, but (2) the children are customarily classified into the same brahman class; thus, (3) there exist various classes within the brahman classes; consequently, (4) it is unreasonable to claim that the brahman class is superior to the other classes, because such a claim presupposes a clear distinction between the classes.

12 What is meant is that an individual is called a brahman when they torment themselves through asceticism.

13 There is no difference between the brahmans and the other groups of people (kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, śūdras) because it is true that they all were born from parts of the god. Whomever you kill, you will have committed a great sin.

17

Bibliography

The Diamond Needle

14 Since they can attack the brahmans, the question is why do the brahmans serve a god that originated from the low class?

15 The gist is as follows: the brahmans admit that Śiva is originally from the śūdra class and that Śiva and his wife created the other deities and the world. Hence, Śiva is deemed to be superior to the other deities and the world, because only someone/something superior can produce someone/something inferior. Thus, the brahmans accept that those belonging to the śūdra class can attain the state of one who is superior to anyone/anything. This fact contradicts their claim that the brahman class is the best and the śūdra class is low, a claim that should be abandoned. 16 The point is that any idea that presupposes the distinction of the brahman and śūdra classes is invalid because there is no such distinction.

17 On the other hand, according to the view the brahmans accept, all four classes were born from the same god, Brahmā. If this is the case, there can be no difference between them. 18 Eyedalijingzhou 誐野怛哩經呪.

19 We take chadalihua 刹怛哩花 as the translation of chattrapuṣpaka, ''tilaka tree,'' which is not found in the Sanskrit original.

20 Zimei·xiongdi·fuqi 姊妹·兄弟·夫妻 is presumably used in the sense of ''relatives'' in this case.

18

Bibliography

Bharadwaj, Ramesh. Vajrasūcī of Aśvaghoṣa and the Concept of Varṇa-Jāti through the Ages. Delhi: Vidyanidhi Prakashan, 2007.

Byōdō Tsūsyō 平等 通昭. "'Kongōshinron'「金剛針論」," in Kokuyaku Issaikyō ronshūbu 6 『國譯一切經論集部 六』, pp. 3-27. Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1931. Hodgson, Brian H. ''A Disputation Respecting Caste by a Buddhist, in the Form of a Series of Propositions Supposed to Be Put by a Saiva and Refuted by the Disputant,'' Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3/1 (1831): 160-169.

Kanazawa Atsushi 金沢篤. '''Bonbun Kongōshinron' o yomu: Bongo gakushūsha no tameni 梵文『金剛針論』を読む—梵語学習者のために—," Komazawa daigaku

bukkyōgakubu ronshū 駒澤大學佛教學部論集 41 (2010): 344-374.

Morton, William. Vajra Suchi the Needle of Adamant; Or the Original Divine Institution of Caste. Jaffna: The Jaffna Religious Tract Society, 1851. Mukhopadhyaya, Sujitkumar. The Vajrasūcī of Aśvaghoṣa: A Study of the Sanskrit Text and Chinese Version with Introduction, English Translation, and Notes. Santiniketan: Visvabharati, 1960, second ed.

Okano Kiyoshi 岡野潔. "4. Vajrasuucii Kongō no hari 金剛の針." Main text: http://gdgdgd.g. dgdg.jp/vajrasuci.html; notes: http://gdgdgd.g.dgdg.jp/vajrasuci-note.html. Accessed August 19, 2020.

Shastri, Losang Norbu, and Lobsang Dorjee (Rabling). Ācārya Aśvaghoṣa's Vajrasūcī. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2006. Wilkinson, Lancelot, and Sūbajī Bāpū. The Wujra Soochi or Refutation of the Arguments upon Which the Brahmanical Institution of Caste is Founded, by the Learned Booddhist Ashwa Ghoshu. Also the Tunku by Soobajee Bapoo: Being a Reply to the Wujra Soochi. Bombay: Nabu Press, 1839.

19

TREATISE ON DOCTRINAL DISTINCTIONS OF THE HUAYAN ONE VEHICLE

Translators’ Introduction

Translators' Introduction

Taitetsu Unno, Mark Unno,

and Monica E. McLellan

The Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle (Huayan yisheng jiaoyi fenqi zhang, T. 1866) is a seminal text in East Asian Mahayana Buddhism, and a foundational text of Huayan (Kor. Hwaeom, Jp. Kegon, Viet. Hoa Nghiêm) Buddhism in particular. It promotes the universal vision of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra—in this translation, the Flower Garland Sutra—as the ultimate realization of the Buddhist teachings, in which all interpretive contradictions are reconciled. But this reconciliation is only one facet of the larger vision of Huayan, in which there are no real contradictions at all, for each and every phenomenon is affirmed as a necessary participant in the ultimate wholeness of the Dharma realm of Vairocana Buddha.

Fazang (643-712) composed the Treatise in the early Tang dynasty, during a time when the canon of texts available to Buddhism in China was expanding rapidly and somewhat unsystematically through the importation of texts and efforts to translate them. It no doubt seemed to scholarly Chinese Buddhists of the time (as indeed it may to readers of the still incomplete English version of the Buddhist canon today) that these proliferating Buddhist texts contained contradictory or irreconcilable teachings. According to Fazang, these seeming discrepancies are merely superficial; they are expedient means to prepare beings for the ultimate truth of One Vehicle Buddhism, which is only fully realized in Huayan. The Treatise can be best understood as an argument for the organic coherence of Buddhist philosophy as seen from the perspective of the Huayan One Vehicle, the vehicle that encompasses all vehicles.

Fazang's ancestors came from Sogdiana, but he was born and raised in the Chinese imperial capital of Chang'an. He is considered the systematizer and third patriarch of Huayan, after Dushun and Zhiyan. Fazang composed other important works including a commentary on The Awakening of Faith and the original Treatise on the Golden Lion. He was also a translator and lecturer, as 23

Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle well as a miracle-worker, showman, and habitué of the imperial court. The patronage of Empress Wu Zetian helped Huayan Buddhism gain recognition and prestige early in its development. Fazang's influence within and beyond Huayan was considerable. Fazang corresponded closely with his Korean Dharma-brother Uisang (625-702), who founded the Korean branch of Huayan (Hwaeom); and taught Simsang (d. 742), the Korean monk who went on to teach Ryōben, the founder of the Japanese branch of Huayan (Kegon). Through the Huayan fifth patriarch, Zongmi (780-841), Fazang's teachings also had a significant impact on Chan (Zen) Buddhism. The Huayan Buddhism of the Treatise is based on the Flower Garland Sutra's vision of universal buddhahood and nonobstruction. The most important concept for understanding the Treatise is the Huayan vision of causation, which differs significantly from older understandings of dependent origination. This is expressed in the Treatise in several ways, including in the traditional metaphor of organic growth from seed to fruit, but the unique contribution of Huayan is best illustrated in the teaching of principal and attendants. This could also be translated as "master and servants" or "lord and retinue." One may imagine a very worldly scene that would have been familiar to Fazang's original audience: the lord of an estate and his retinue of servants, advisors, and bodyguards. Without his retinue, the lord could not manage and secure his estate, and so would not be the lord. Without the lord, the retainers would be retained by no one and would not be a retinue. Yet when the lord of the estate goes to the capital, he is but one of many courtiers, a retainer of sorts, in the court of the king; and when an individual of the lord's retinue goes to his quarters for dinner, he is the lord of his home. So lord and retinue are both essentially interdependent and entirely devoid of essential self-identity.

In Huayan, the "principal" is any particular phenomenon and the "attendants" are everything else—all of the other phenomena in all possible universes. The one particular phenomenon attended to is principal from this perspective, but is one of the attendants from any other perspective. Thus, the distinctive characteristic of causation in Huayan is that it is not linear or discreet; rather, it is omnidirectional and omnipresent. In this vision, every being's karma is profoundly interfused with that of every other being, which means that buddhahood is truly universal. All other versions of Buddhism, according to Fazang, did not quite reach the point of understanding the total pervasiveness of interdependence, nor of true buddhahood. The structure of principal and attendants is both a description 24

Translators' Introduction

of the Huayan cosmos and also the organizational framework of the Treatise. In Fazang's exposition, all Buddhist teachings may be principal or attendant, depending on perspective.

The Treatise is organized in ten chapters or "gates." We have chosen to translate the term rather literally, as it sometimes refers to a chapter or section or a particular thread of discourse, but can also mean a perspective on a topic, a point of entry; generally, the "gates" in this text are ways of accessing the ideas under discussion. The first two gates lay out the scriptural and conceptual basis for the systematization of Buddhist teachings into various vehicles, and the third provides an account of historical developments leading up to Fazang's own systematization from the One Vehicle perspective. The fourth gate identifies five phases of the teachings that most essentially articulate the development and realization of Buddhism according to Huayan. The sixth through eighth gates consider the different phases in terms of their interpretations of various fundamental doctrines and the degree to which they express the universality of Huayan. The ninth and tenth gates are where Fazang expounds the unique contributions of Huayan in detail. In the ninth gate, Fazang demonstrates how Huayan is a philosophical advancement over Yogācāra, with technical discussions on topics including the levels of consciousness, seednatures, and the severing of afflictions. In the tenth gate, Fazang elaborates on the philosophical contributions of his immediate predecessors, especially his teacher Zhiyan, and provides concrete illustrations of Huayan doctrine in the well-known analogies of counting coins and building a house.

Within the ten gates the argument is strictly organized, but it is so complex as to be potentially disorienting. Each gate is separated into numbered sections, with further division into many layers of subsections; some subsections are many pages long. The main topic of each section and subsection is often implicit after the initial exposition, or may be indicated only by a number that was assigned to it at some earlier point in the argument. Meanwhile, there are frequent digressions in dialogue form, as if some students are ocassionally interrupting the teacher's carefully structured lecture to ask for immediate clarification. This parallel discourse is set off from the overall organization by its question-andanswer format. To help the reader navigate the text, we have made Fazang's outline explicit by adding headings, and we have included these headings in the Outline of Contents, below. In addition, we have explicitated the numbering system of subsections and lists in some places where it is implicit in the text, 25

Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle while in other places we have rendered some of the more repetitive numbering schemes with non-numerical wording for clarity.

Regarding the text itself, we have followed the standard Taishō edition, T. 1866, which is based on a version of the Treatise brought to Japan during the Song dynasty. This text is based primarily on a Qing dynasty printing (c. 1663), with variants included from print and manuscript editions dating from 1290 to 1706. We have incorporated some textual variants included in the Taishō edition when they seemed much more logically appropriate. In a few instances, when it seemed clearly to produce better coherence than not, we have interpreted words in terms of graphically or aurally similar words. These variations are infrequent and relatively minor, and we believe the interpretation conveyed in this translation is well within the range of graphic instability inherent to the centuries of manuscript culture that preceded the Taishō text. Fazang refers to a great many sutras and other texts in the Treatise, and often directs the reader to consult these texts for a more thorough discussion of the topic at hand. The texts that may be most helpful to the reader for understanding the more technical parts of the Treatise are the Flower Garland Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, The Awakening of Faith, the Treatise on the Ten Stages, the Treatise on Yogācāra Stages, the Summary of the Great Vehicle, and the Treatise on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sutra. Some of the texts or passages to which he refers are no longer extant, or the specific version of a text is difficult to identify; sometimes he mentions a primary text when the language or idea he cites actually comes from a commentary on that text. To assist the reader who would like to explore further, we have compiled a list of the texts cited, complete to the best of our ability, and included it in the Bibliography of this volume, after the Glossary. The list is organized by the English titles we have used, and also gives the Chinese titles used in the text and full or alternate titles. Comments by Monica E. McLellan

I must express my deep gratitude to Taitetsu Unno, whose drafts are the basis of this work, and within whose formidable shadow it was completed. I have done my best to complete what he began. My qualifications in no way measure up to the beginning he provided, and any errors that are to be found in this published version are my own. I would like to thank Mark Unno for providing so many opportunities for spiritual, intellectual, and career growth as I have navigated 26

Translators' Introduction

the challenges of the past many years, including inviting and supporting my involvement in translating this work. I am grateful to the patient editorial staff at Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai; the reviewers, who provided careful criticism of early drafts; and to the library staff at the University of Oregon, who found ways to assist even during prolonged building closures. Finally, thank you to my blood and chosen families, without whom I could not have completed this work. I would like to conclude this introduction with a reflection on relevance. When I wrote this, in September 2020, ash was drifting down from an opaque orange sky from wildfires burning all across the state of Oregon, where I live. Fires were burning across the entire west of North America, and also in the Amazon basin. Even before these fires, the world was struggling with a global pandemic that brought about millions of deaths. At such a time, the Treatise on Doctrinal Distinctions of the Huayan One Vehicle may seem too concerned with precious abstractions, such as Indra's infinite net of jewels, to be considered relevant at all. What could such a deeply scholastic text teach us at this seemingly apocalyptic juncture? But the text begins with a discussion of the parable of a burning house in the Lotus Sutra, and ends with Fazang's original exposition on the building of a house. Although it begins with a house—our world—on fire, as a whole it is a profoundly affirmative project. The simple message is, first, that the proliferating mass of the Buddhist Dharma, as well as the massive conflagration of phenomenal dharmas that we inhabit, is, ultimately, whole; and second, that all of these finite teachings and experiences and things are, as a consequence of their essential participation in the whole, themselves whole. It affirms the world we live in, even as it burns. It affirms every mote of ash: each is the realm of its unique buddha; each is the mirror of every other buddha realm. I believe the house that is built at the end of this book refers, for us, to making a home for all beings: a refuge that is both phenomenal and real, where all beings can awaken true compassion.

27