Fazang

Main texts

Huayan yisheng jiaoyi fenqi zhang 华严一乘教义分齐章 (the Wujiao zhang 五教章, “Treatise on the Five Teachings”, T45 no.1866); Huayan jing tanxuan ji 华严经探玄记 (T35 no.1733); Jin shizi zhang 金师子章 (“Treatise on the Golden Lion”; the text survives in Chengqian’s commentary, T45 no.1881, and in Jingyuan’s classified explanation, T45 no.1880); Huayan jing yihai baimen 华严经义海百门 (T45 no.1875); Dasheng qixin lun yiji 大乘起信论义记 (T44 no.1846). Attribution debated: Xiu Huayan aozhi wangjin huanyuan guan 修华严奥旨妄尽还源观 (T45 no.1876). Biographies: Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s Biography of the Venerable Fazang (T50 no.2054, including Yan Chaoyin’s stele inscription) and the Song gaoseng zhuan, fascicle 5 (T50 no.2061).

Core-text marks

性海果分是不可說義｜以凡位有性而無起故｜即了無始已來所有顛倒元無實有名之為覺｜煩惱覆之則隱智慧了之則顯

Current six-position placement

② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C); the ① direction has systematic positive evidence, and the ① / ② boundary is substantively open

the gate of support distinguishes the ordinary stage from the bodhisattva’s arising of practice; the seventh gate excludes ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle who have not given rise to the aspiration; the Jin shizi zhang names awakening by “了” (“understanding”); and the Yiji takes initial awakening reaching the mind-source as the criterion. The Wujiao zhang further retains differences of completion at different levels with “因滿者即沒於果海中……為是證境界故” (“when the cause is full it sinks into the fruit-ocean … because this is the realm of realization”) and “是行佛、非位佛也” (“this is a Buddha of practice, not a Buddha of stage”). These texts show that the actual function of awakening cannot easily be deleted; but since the perfect teaching at the same time takes arising, teaching, practice and the marks of fruition wholly into the nature, whether a non-deletable cognitive function of completion still remains is in substantive dispute. The placement is ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C) as a working direction, with the ① / ② boundary substantively open; this archive makes this placement on the existing evidence, without claiming thereby that the dispute is resolved.

Most distinctive feature: Fazang does not treat “arising” and “nature” as two independent entities. The fifth gate, of defining meaning, says “起無餘起，還以性為起” (“arising has no other arising;

it takes the nature itself as arising”), excluding an arising apart from the nature, while the same gate still speaks of “機感具緣” (“the stimulus of the faculties furnishing conditions”), “約緣明起” (“explaining arising in terms of conditions”) and “順證真性” (“according with and realizing the true nature”); the sixth gate, of defiled and pure, both says that defilement does not accord with the true function, and broadly includes sentient beings and afflictions as “所救、所斷、所知” (“what is to be saved, what is to be cut off, what is to be known”); the seventh gate, of cause and fruit, says “初發菩提心已去皆性起攝，唯除凡小” (“from the first arousing of the bodhi-mind onward, all is included in nature-arising, excepting only ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle”); the eighth gate, of the pervasive and the limited, says that in the perfect teaching the marks of fruition are originally present in the bodies of sentient beings. What these gates jointly remove is the externality of an entity; they do not directly say that no sentient being needs saving, needs cutting off, or has not already realized awakening. These sentences must limit one another within the same ten gates.

The last load-bearing point must be tested according to the different objects of deletion: (a) self-sufficiency of the nature: the fruit-portion of the nature-ocean, the unchanging suchness and the marks of fruition in sentient beings — deleting recognition does not affect their establishment; (b) self-inclusion of teaching, practice and awakening: “arising has no other arising”, “principle inherently contains practice” and “若說即名起” (“if spoken of, it is called arising”) exclude a further entity apart from the nature; the evidence for self-inclusion is strong; (c) whether the universal presence of the marks of fruition equals every student already having realized it: the inherent marks of fruition of the gate of the pervasive and the limited stand together with “excepting only ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle” of the gate of cause and fruit; (d) once the functions of the student’s leaving inversion, arousing the aspiration, completing practice, initial awakening and realizing entry are really deleted, whether the sixth gate’s “what is to be saved and cut off”, the seventh gate’s boundary of arousing the aspiration, and E-22’s “了……名覺” (“understanding … is called awakening”) can still be explained as the original text does, is disputed. Therefore the grade is ② (C) rather than ② (B), and it cannot be raised directly to ①.

Most delicate point: the strongest structure of the ① direction is not the number of gates among the ten that favour ①, but that pervasive inclusion by the fruit-dharma, practice inherently contained in principle, and the broad inclusion of defiled and pure make every arising inseparable from the nature. Nor is the ② direction the single sentence of the gate of support, “in the ordinary stage there is the nature but no arising”; it is the functional boundary retained by revelation by the revealing cause, generation assisted by the perfuming of hearing, being led by cultivation to the stage of completion, the pure function according with and realizing (or according with) the true nature, what is to be saved, cut off and known, and the exception of ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle. The 甲 edition of the gate of distinguishing characteristics reads more directly “理待了因顯現名起” (“principle depends on the revealing cause; its appearing is called arising”); the 甲 edition of the gate of defining meaning reads “順於真性” (“according with the true nature”) rather than “順證真性” (“according with and realizing the true nature”), the latter being stronger in explicitly stating “realizing”. The Wujiao zhang further distinguishes the cause sinking into the fruit-ocean when full, and the Buddha of practice from the Buddha of stage. The variants do not remove the evidence of either side; whether the final function can be deleted remains a C-grade dispute.

• T1–T4 (textual reliability): how reliable a passage is as evidence of “Fazang’s own thought”.
• A–D (strength of judgment): A = stated directly in the original text; B = a strong structural inference supported by several passages; C = grounded, but with an equally reasonable alternative reading; D = a counter-side stress test / hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade passage only proves that “the text really says this”; it does not automatically raise an interpretation based on it to grade A.

Direction markers: Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; Limits = shows that some entity, name, practice or form of cognition has been dismantled; Disputed = the direction of the text is not unique; Neutral = the text exists but does not form part of the core argument.

T1 in this archive refers to the main layer traditionally ascribed to Fazang whose explanatory commentary can be checked; it does not amount to direct verification against Tang manuscripts. The explanations in the Tanxuan ji can serve as the main evidence for Fazang’s thought; the Jin shizi zhang, though traditionally ascribed to Fazang, has its specific wording carried only by later Song commentaries, and the limits of its transmission should be marked in each load-bearing argument.

• T4 = biographies: Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s Biography of the Venerable Fazang (E-01), the stele inscription by Yan Chaoyin included in it (E-02), and the Song gaoseng zhuan (E-03). Used only as background on life and on the occasion of the texts.
• Sūtra background: the chapters on “Nature-Arising” and “Pure Conduct” of the sixty-fascicle Huayan jing (E-37, E-38) are the sūtra texts on which Fazang bases his arguments; they are not counted as evidence of Fazang’s thought; the corresponding passages of the eighty-fascicle version are used for collation.

The collation of versions has three layers: (1) the limited variant reports of the Taishō apparatus for the extant texts of the Wujiao zhang, Tanxuan ji and others; (2) the reading of the text of the Jin shizi zhang across the Song commentaries of Chengqian and Jingyuan; (3) the parallel sūtra passages of the sixty- and eighty-fascicle Huayan jing. The existing variants include, for the sudden teaching, “即是佛／即至佛” (“is Buddha / reaches Buddha”) (E-15), for the perfect teaching, “全真／金真” (“wholly true / gold-true”) (E-20), and the different phrasing of the gate of accomplishing bodhi in the Jin shizi zhang (E-22). This archive has not systematically checked the Song-text / Japanese-text recensions of the Wujiao zhang or the ancient manuscripts of the Tanxuan ji;

the interpretive layer on the ten gates of nature-arising rests on the full extant text of fascicle 16 that can be consulted, and cannot claim to be a completed collation of ancient manuscripts. Supplement from the special collation (2026-10-16): (1) the variants of “聖” (the Shōgozō manuscript, copied in the Heian period) in the Taishō apparatus appear only in fascicles 3, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 19 of the Tanxuan ji; fascicle 16, where the ten gates of nature-arising are, has not a single Shōgozō note, only 164 notes from the 甲 edition (a print of the Karyaku–Gentoku era); whether a Shōgozō manuscript of fascicle 16 survives, and what its wording is, could not be found for this archive, nor could images be obtained; this is recorded as missing evidence. (2) In the ten gates of fascicle 16, the 甲 edition has two variants affecting meaning: in the gate of distinguishing characteristics, “謂理性得、了因顯、現名起” reads in the 甲 edition “初謂理待了因顯現名起”; in the gate of defining meaning, “順證真性” reads in the 甲 edition “順於真性”. The two sentences “唯除凡小” of the gate of cause and fruit and “眾生身中亦有果相” of the gate of the pervasive and the limited have no notes. (3) The Taishō apparatus of the Wujiao zhang shows that “第十、義理分齊” of the base text (a Qing Kangxi print) reads “義理分齊第九” in the Japanese 甲 and 乙 editions, i.e. the two lines differ in the order of chapters;

the variants of the 甲, 乙 and 丙 editions in the passages on the three lives, Buddhahood upon the fulfilment of faith and the identity of cause and fruit are mostly function words; “上言一念即得作佛” lacks “得” in the 甲, 乙 and 丙 editions, and “後皆新新斷惑” reads “後後能新新斷惑” in the 甲, 乙 and 丙 editions. The separate Song-text edition and studies of the Japanese text could not be obtained; the Taishō apparatus is not simply called a collation of the Song-text / Japanese-text systems.

Method: first ask (a), whether the fruit-portion of the nature-ocean and the marks of fruition in sentient beings wait on recognition — they do not; then ask (b), whether teaching, practice, wisdom, defiled and pure are positively taken into nature-arising — they are, but distinguishing their inclusion as true substance, as pure function, or as objects to be saved and cut off; then perform two rounds of controlled deletion: the first round deletes “a further cognitive entity outside the nature”, retaining pure function, the revealing cause, arousing the aspiration and initial awakening; the ten gates remain complete, showing that an entity outside the nature can be deleted;

1. the three natures are of one limit, not destroying the branches yet always the root, not moving the root yet always the branches (E-09); the substance of the gold originally has no increase or decrease (E-19).
2. Dependent origination of the dharma-realm: the ten mysteries and six characteristics speak of one being all, mutual identity and mutual entry; all this “唯是一如來藏，為自性清淨心轉” (“is only the one tathāgatagarbha, the turning of the self-natured pure mind”) (E-10); the hiding and appearing of gold and lion “由心迴轉” (“turn according to the mind”) (E-21).
3. The ten gates of nature-arising: (1) distinguishing characteristics determines the arising of principle and the arising of practice by “了因顯” (“revelation by the revealing cause”) and “聞熏資發生” (“generation assisted by the perfuming of hearing”) respectively; (2) support contrasts, within the scope of “此約菩薩位” (“this is in terms of the bodhisattva stage”), the ordinary stage having the nature but no arising; (3) mutual inclusion lets principle take over practice, arising being only nature-arising; (4) the nature’s virtues has principle inherently containing practice, while also saying it is led by cultivation to the stage of completion; (5) defining meaning has arising not apart from the nature, yet still speaks of conditions, pure function and according with and realizing;

1. (6) defiled and pure distinguishes defilement not according with the true function from the broad inclusion of defiled dharmas as what is to be saved, cut off and known; (7) cause and fruit distinguishes inclusion after arousing the aspiration from ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle who have not aroused it, while allowing that they give rise to good as conditions; (8) the pervasive and the limited has the marks of fruition pervasively including all sentient beings; (9) proper extent says each part is perfect and inexhaustible; (10) establishment lists the karmic functions of the Buddha-fruit, such as benefit from seeing and hearing. No single gate automatically becomes an unconditional covering sentence for the other nine (E-24—E-26; supplementary note on the ten gates).
2. Awakening: the simile of the sūtra-scroll contained in a dust-mote in the Tanxuan ji (E-27) uses “離倒智起” to prove in reverse that original awakening does not come later out of nothing, and classifies wisdom as initial awakening, original awakening and the non-duality of initial and original. The direct conclusion of its reasoning is “original awakening is originally present”; it cannot be inferred from this single item that wisdom free of inversion is another independent mediation of completion.

1. ② further raises the difficulty of deleting the function on the basis of the revelation by the revealing cause of the gate of distinguishing characteristics, being led by cultivation to completion in the gate of the nature’s virtues, the boundary of arousing the aspiration in the gate of cause and fruit, E-22’s “了……名覺”, and E-30’s initial awakening according with the mind-source; ① explains their source by principle inherently containing practice, what original awakening accomplishes, and the full presence of the marks of fruition in the gate of the pervasive and the limited.
2. Completion in the perfect teaching: cause and fruit are of the same substance; at the time of first arousing the aspiration one accomplishes right awakening (E-11, E-12); attaining one stage, one attains all stages (E-13); but among the three lives “前位但是因圓，果在後位” (“the former stage is only the perfection of the cause; the fruit is in the later stage”) (E-14); those who have realized entry into the fruit-ocean see all the teachings as the perfectly bright fruit-ocean (E-16).
3. Bodhi and nirvāṇa: when seeing the lion, all conditioned dharmas are originally quiescent without waiting to be destroyed; “understanding” that the inversions are originally not real is called awakening (E-22);

• “究竟果證義……圓融自在，一即一切、一切即一，不可說其狀相” (“the meaning of ultimate realization of the fruit … perfectly interfused and free, one is all and all is one; its appearance cannot be described”) (E-08). The ground is called “fruit”, “the Buddha’s own realm”, “ultimate realization of the fruit”, that is, the Buddha’s realm of realization itself.
• Layer of substance and nature: suchness is “不變” (“unchanging”) (E-29); the substance of dharma-nature within the tathāgatagarbha is “從本已來性自滿足，處染不垢，修治不淨……在聖體而不增，處凡身而不減” (“from the beginning its nature is self-sufficient; dwelling in defilement it is not stained, cultivated and treated it is not purified … in the body of a sage it does not increase, in the body of an ordinary being it does not decrease”) (E-34); “師子雖有生滅，金體本無增減” (“although the lion has arising and ceasing, the substance of the gold originally has no increase or decrease”) (E-19); “實際居於目前” (“the real limit dwells before one’s eyes”) (E-31).
• Layer of relation: the three natures are of one limit, “不壞末而常本” (“not destroying the branches yet always the root”), “不動本而常末” (“not moving the root yet always the branches”), “真該妄末、妄徹真源” (“the true encompasses the false branches, the false penetrates the true source”) (E-09); the fruit-portion and causal portion “此二無二，全體遍收。

• 其猶波水” (“these two are not two, each wholly including the other, like waves and water”) (E-07); the non-obstruction of the ten mysteries “唯是一如來藏，為自性清淨心轉” (“is only the one tathāgatagarbha, the turning of the self-natured pure mind”) (E-10).

Thus Fazang’s ground is neither an external entity nor an object to be known, but the Buddha’s realm of realization itself — self-sufficient without waiting on the teaching or on cultivation and realization, and wholly present in all phenomena. This layer does not wait for recognition: E-06, E-09, E-19, E-29 and E-34 all directly support an inherent ground. The inference to ② does not come from the layer of the ground, but from Fazang’s determinations of “arising”, “awakening” and “realizing entry”.

The differences of all things: Fazang’s account of the differences among phenomena is organized by the ten mysteries and six characteristics: simultaneous completeness, mutual containment of one and many, mutual identity of all dharmas, Indra’s net, mutual containment of the subtle, secret hiding and appearing, purity and mixture of all treasuries, distinct accomplishment of the ten times, turning of mind only, and revealing the dharma through phenomena (E-10, E-21), and the six characteristics of general and particular, same and different, formation and disintegration (E-12).

② Then delete “all the student’s actual pure function from delusion to awakening”, retaining the pervasive inclusion of the fruit-dharma, the marks of fruition in sentient beings, the original presence of original awakening and the teaching within nature-arising, and check item by item whether the revelation by the revealing cause and generation assisted by the perfuming of hearing in the gate of distinguishing characteristics, being led by cultivation to completion in the gate of the nature’s virtues, what is to be saved and cut off in the gate of defiled and pure, “唯除凡小” in the gate of cause and fruit, and E-22’s “了……名覺” thereby lose their explanatory function. The two rounds are not the same deletion; that ① can pass the first round does not mean it can pass the second.

(1) The ground is established: the fruit-portion of the nature-ocean is inexpressible, the realm of the ten Buddhas themselves (E-06); suchness is unchanging (E-29); the substance of dharma-nature is self-sufficient in nature and does not decrease in the body of an ordinary being (E-34); the substance of the gold originally has no increase or decrease (E-19); the real limit dwells before one’s eyes (E-31). If the occurrence of cognition is deleted, not one word of these determinations changes. The first layer passes the deletion test; these are substantive positive evidence for the ① direction, and must not be described as existing only after awakening. (A: stated in the text)

(2) Self-inclusion and function: the two portions of cause and fruit are not two (E-07), the meanings of the dharma-realm are the free functioning of the pure mind (E-10), principle inherently contains practice and arising is only nature-arising (E-26), initial awakening is accomplished by original awakening (E-30); the gate of defining meaning in nature-arising connects the expressible with arising function, the gate of defiled and pure broadly includes by “所救、所斷、所知” (“what is to be saved, cut off and known”), and the gate of the pervasive and the limited takes the marks of the Buddha-fruit into the bodies of sentient beings. The positive built-in placement of ① already constitutes systematic rather than local material. But “what is to be saved” does not equal “already saved”, “what is to be cut off” does not equal “already cut off”, “having the marks of fruition” does not equal “having realized the fruit”, and that “arising has no other arising” denies an entity apart from the nature does not equal deleting the pure function within the nature.

(3) The observable limits of completion: the gate of distinguishing characteristics describes appearance by “了因顯” (“revelation by the revealing cause”) and “聞熏資發” (“generation assisted by the perfuming of hearing”); the gate of support, in the context of the bodhisattva’s accomplishment of practice, contrasts “凡位有性而無起” (“in the ordinary stage there is the nature but no arising”);

the gate of the nature’s virtues has “藉修引至成位” (“led by cultivation to the stage of completion”); the gate of defining meaning has pure function “順證真性” (“according with and realizing the true nature”); the gate of defiled and pure distinguishes defilement not according with the true function from what is to be saved and cut off; the gate of cause and fruit has “初發菩提心已去……唯除凡小” (“from the first arousing of the bodhi-mind onward … excepting only ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle”); in the Wujiao zhang the fruit in the later stage in terms of rebirth stands together with the perfectly interfused identity of cause and fruit (E-11—E-14); the seeing / understanding / awakening of the Jin shizi zhang and the initial awakening according with the source in the Qixin lun yiji also retain differences (E-22, E-30). These cannot by themselves prove an external cognitive entity, but read together they make “completely cancelling the student’s actual completing operation” still seriously difficult.

Conclusion of the deletion: if the non-deletable “mediation” is mistakenly written as another cognitive cause outside the nature, Fazang himself refutes it, and ① can win; but what v1.3 asks is whether within the nature there is still a non-deletable “function”.

If the true substance is retained and all of the following are withdrawn — what is to be saved being saved, what is to be cut off being cut off, the pure function of arousing the aspiration, and initial awakening according with the source — then the transitions in the text between delusion / awakening, not yet aroused / aroused, not yet realized / realized have no explanation; this point supports ②. Yet whether the total mutual inclusion of the perfect teaching makes these differences merely a local mode of contemplation, and whether the final word of the ten gates should let the gates of the pervasive and the limited / proper extent encompass the rest, still suffice to establish a C-grade competition, and ② cannot be raised to B.

Why the ten gates of one passage are not a vote: the second gate, of support, is explicitly limited “此約菩薩位” (“this is in terms of the bodhisattva stage”), and cannot be used to exclude the marks of fruition in sentient beings of the eighth gate, of the pervasive and the limited; the fifth gate, of defining meaning, says explicitly “起无余起” (“arising has no other arising”), but this cannot exclude the rest of that gate, “机感具缘” (“the stimulus of the faculties furnishing conditions”) and “顺证真性” (“according with and realizing the true nature”); the reason for the broad inclusion in the sixth gate, of defiled and pure, “所救所断所知” (“what is to be saved, cut off and known”), itself preserves an unfinished relation;

the seventh gate, of cause and fruit, has “唯除凡小” and offers another angle of inclusion, as conditions causing them to give rise to good. The ten gates answer the scope and manner of different kinds of “arising”; one cannot presuppose that the fifth and eighth necessarily rank above the rest, nor that the second gate governs the whole teaching.

Independence of the evidence and its limits: E-25, E-27 and E-28 all come from the Tanxuan ji, E-12, E-14 and E-16 from the Wujiao zhang, E-22 from the Jin shizi zhang, E-30 from the Qixin lun yiji — they are statements of the same author in different genres (sūtra commentary, treatise on the classification of teachings, simile treatise, treatise commentary), and can be regarded as evidence of the consistency of the author’s thought; the Tanxuan ji and the Yiji are commentaries, but what is cited are Fazang’s own divisions and arguments. E-34 comes from the Huanyuan guan, whose attribution is debated, and serves only as corroboration. B does not rest on the number of pieces of evidence, but on whether the relation “originally complete — not yet arisen in the ordinary stage — arising of wisdom free of inversion / revelation by the revealing cause — non-duality of initial and original / realizing entry” remains consistently coherent across Fazang’s different works.

The ① direction can be organized into a strong candidate: the fruit-portion of the nature-ocean, the non-duality of cause and fruit, principle inherently containing practice, “arising has no other arising” in the gate of defining meaning, the broad inclusion of sentient beings and afflictions in the gate of defiled and pure, the fruit-dharma encompassing the realm of sentient beings in the gate of the pervasive and the limited, and every part being perfect and complete in the gate of proper extent constitute a systematic closure of substance-nature, teaching, practice-function, delusion-defilement and the marks of fruition. What ① has not yet proved is whether this closure can, without altering the original text, at the same time delete “revelation by the revealing cause, being led by cultivation to completion, what is to be saved and cut off, the exception of ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle, understanding the inversions being called awakening, initial awakening according with the source”. What ② has not yet proved is that these differences are truly the final non-deletable function in the most ultimate perfect teaching, rather than divided statements of the inherently present fruit-dharma. Therefore neither side is a settled conclusion; they stand in deadlock at C, provisionally kept in the ② direction.

What has been withdrawn or de-substantialized: the own-nature of the lion’s form (phenomena) (E-18, E-19);

wisdom as a counteracting medicine independent of the illness (E-35); understanding non-discrimination as wood or stone (E-32); taking “gold” (the ground) as an object opposite the lion (E-23, “二相俱盡”, “both marks exhausted”); taking the sudden teaching’s “一念不生即是佛” (“when not a single thought arises, that is Buddha”) as the final statement (E-15); understanding the suchness of Consciousness-only as “congealed”, cut off from phenomena (E-17); taking the ten mysteries as the ultimate fruit-portion itself (E-08).

The last load-bearing point: Fazang very strongly deletes any ontological entity outside the nature and any cognitive entity detached from the true substance; but as to whether “the saving, cutting off of delusion, arousing the aspiration, understanding and realizing entry that still need truly to arise within the nature” can also be deleted, the T1 texts exert pressure in both directions, and there is no undisputed answer. Provisionally placed in ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C), with the ① / ② boundary substantively open; it is not claimed that the function of ② has been proved at B grade, still less is ① weakened into a single objection.

if spoken of, it is called arising”), strong material for taking speech and expressibility into its own explanation. However, “若說” (“if spoken of”) is first of all an explanation that sets up names according to conditions, and should not be directly extended to all actual speech being already perfectly self-realized. The later Huanyuan guan’s “病妄則藥妄” (“if the illness is delusive, the medicine is delusive”) belongs to T2 and cannot alone replace Fazang’s own treatises.

Systematic positive evidence for self-inclusion: the non-duality of the causal and fruit portions, the free functioning of the pure mind in the ten mysteries, all teachings returning to the nature-ocean, principle inherently containing practice, and initial awakening accomplished by original awakening (E-07, E-10, E-16, E-26, E-30); more crucially, the fifth gate, of defining meaning, “起无余起” (“arising has no other arising”), the sixth gate, of defiled and pure, broadly including in nature-arising the sentient beings and afflictions that are to be saved, cut off and known, and the eighth gate, of the pervasive and the limited, saying that there are Buddha-fruit marks in the bodies of sentient beings.

the ten mysteries are the free functioning of the tathāgatagarbha mind (E-10).

(3) The relation of cause and fruit: cause and fruit are of the same substance, attaining this is attaining that (E-11); on each and every stage one is a bodhisattva and is a Buddha (E-13); at the time of first arousing the aspiration one accomplishes right awakening (E-12, E-38).

(4) Self-inclusion of the teaching: the causal and fruit portions are not two (E-07); all teachings are the perfectly bright fruit-ocean (E-16).

(5) The manner of completion: when seeing the lion, all conditioned dharmas “更不待壞，本來寂滅” (“without waiting to be destroyed, are originally quiescent”) (E-22) — completion does not depend on changing anything.

These five layers together constitute a complete candidate for the ① direction in Fazang’s works, stronger than in the preceding archives, and must be taken seriously.

Why ② remains a working direction and is not raised to B:

(1) In the gate of distinguishing characteristics principle is “了因顯” (“revealed by the revealing cause”) and practice “待聞熏資發生” (“generated depending on the assistance of the perfuming of hearing”);

the gate of support is limited “此約菩薩位” (“this is in terms of the bodhisattva stage”), but within that scope it does contrast the ordinary stage having the nature but no arising with the bodhisattva’s accomplishment of practice; the gate of the nature’s virtues further writes “藉修引至成位” (“led by cultivation to the stage of completion”). These retain a real pragmatic difference from not yet accomplished to accomplished (E-25, E-26; supplementary note on the ten gates). One cannot generalize to the whole teaching on the basis of the gate of support alone.

(2) The gate of defining meaning also says “機感具緣” (“the stimulus of the faculties furnishing conditions”) and “順證真性” (“according with and realizing the true nature”); the gate of defiled and pure says sentient beings and afflictions are broadly included because they are “所救、所斷、所知” (“what is to be saved, cut off and known”), not that saving and cutting off no longer exist; the gate of cause and fruit’s “唯除凡小” determines the scope of those who have and have not aroused the aspiration. These are pressures to retain the function raised from within the same ten gates, not dependent on the T2 Huanyuan guan.

(3) The Wujiao zhang’s “前位但是因圓、果在後位” (“the former stage is only the perfection of the cause; the fruit is in the later stage”) does belong only to the three lives in terms of rebirth, and cannot be raised into the sole higher meaning of the gate of perfect interfusion;

but “perfect interfusion / sequential arrangement not obstructing each other” also cannot be used in reverse to make the differences of the three lives wholly meaningless. E-11—E-14 and the relation of first arousing / realizing entry must be set side by side, keeping the dispute at C.

(4) “即了……名之為覺” (“understanding … is called awakening”) of the Jin shizi zhang, preserved through Song commentaries, and “始覺至心源……方名始覺” (“initial awakening reaching the mind-source … only then is it called initial awakening”) of the Qixin lun yiji show that Fazang has a language of cognitive completion; how it is non-dual with original quiescence and with initial awakening being accomplished by original awakening still needs explaining. E-27 is primarily a counter-argument for original presence, and must not be treated as independent final proof for ②.

Why ① cannot now be judged to win: ① can fully explain “arising not apart from the nature”, “the teaching returning to the ground” and “the marks of fruition in the bodies of sentient beings”, but its controlled deletion often deletes only “an arising or wisdom independent of and outside the nature”; v1.3 must also test the function of awakening itself within the nature. Retaining the names “what is to be saved and cut off” while cancelling saving and cutting off and the actual difference between not yet awakened / awakened leaves the textual explanation incomplete; hence ① is strong but has not passed the complete deletion.

Conversely, ② has not yet proved that these functions are finally non-deletable in the highest perfect teaching; hence the main class is C, with the boundary substantively open.

Sources and controlled variables: the seventh gate, of cause and fruit, both says “唯除凡小” and says that they can serve as conditions causing them to give rise to good; the eighth gate, of the pervasive and the limited, says that because the Buddha-fruit includes the three worlds, sentient beings have the marks of fruition; the fifth gate, of defining meaning, says at once that the substance of the nature is inexpressible, that arising is spoken of according to conditions, and that pure function accords with and realizes. Three different propositions — “having the marks of fruition”, “accomplishing pure function” and “attaining the realized fruit” — are recorded separately, and unconditional substitution of the same word “arising” across the ten gates is forbidden. Version layer: the ancient Shōgozō manuscript of the Tanxuan ji has not been checked directly, and from the absence of Taishō notes one cannot infer that the wording is wholly stable.

Grade of judgment: the ① direction is systematic T1 positive evidence rather than isolated sentences; ② has pressures to retain the function at distinguishing characteristics / support / cause and fruit, E-22, E-30 and elsewhere; E-27 primarily bears the counter-argument for ①’s original presence.

① is systematic positive evidence that the ground, teaching, practice, awakening and the marks of fruition are wholly built into nature-arising; ② is the evidence that Fazang retains an actual function of completion in revelation by the revealing cause, being led by cultivation to completion, what is to be saved and cut off, arousing the aspiration / ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle, seeing / understanding / awakening, and initial awakening according with the mind-source. Their relation cannot be decided directly by the number of gates, by assumptions about hierarchy, or by adjacent sentence patterns.

Why ② is provisionally taken rather than ① directly: if only a cognitive entity outside the nature is deleted, Fazang himself has already denied such entities; if arousing the aspiration, saving and cutting off, initial awakening and realizing entry are also deleted as operations that truly occur in the student, the not yet awakened / awakened of the sixth and seventh gates and of E-22 become hard to understand as written. This structural pressure gives ② a priority for filing, but the pervasive inclusion of the gates of the pervasive and the limited / proper extent constitutes an equally strong C-grade counter-reading, so it is not raised to B.

Why ① is not declared the winner: the gate of the pervasive and the limited’s “眾生身中亦有果相” (“in the bodies of sentient beings there are also the marks of fruition”) differs from “ordinary beings and those of the small vehicle have all actually realized the fruit”; the gate of defiled and pure includes sentient beings and afflictions precisely because they are what is to be saved, cut off and known; the inherent practice of the gate of the nature’s virtues also says “led by cultivation to completion”. ① can oppose a newly added wisdom outside the nature, but has not yet proved that the occurrence of awakening within the nature can also be deleted. Conversely, ② cannot use the gate of support’s “no arising in the ordinary stage” to deny the pervasive inclusion of the marks of fruition in the perfect teaching. Each side has textual constraints the other cannot absorb, so the boundary is C.

Why not ③: Fazang is not asking whether the ground exists or how it is possible; he determines the ground directly (the fruit-portion of the nature-ocean, the one true dharma-realm, the tathāgatagarbha mind), and gives the conditions of arising function, awakening and realizing entry.

Why not ④: Fazang’s account of the phenomenal world is extremely precise — the ten mysteries, the six characteristics, Indra’s net — and could easily be seen as “explaining the world”.

• Both archives retain the different levels of the inherent ground and the student’s completion.
• No.08 Huangbo Xiyun (② [C]): Huangbo’s dispute is whether “no-mind” retains a cognitive function of entry; Fazang’s dispute is whether, even granting awakening, wisdom and practice as nature-arising, their actual completing operation can be deleted. Both are C, but the points of dispute differ; Huangbo’s rejection of “將心無心” (“using the mind to be without mind”) cannot be transferred without distinction to Fazang.
• No.05 Xinxin ming (②; local C at the ① / ② boundary): the Xinxin ming’s “一如體玄，兀爾忘緣” (“the One Suchness is profound in substance; unmoving, one forgets conditions”) is close to what Fazang classifies as the sudden teaching, “名言路絕，棲心無寄” (“the road of names and words cut off, the mind resting with nothing to lodge on”) (E-20); Fazang places this level below the perfect teaching, which gathers it in with “情盡體露……繁興大用，起必全真” (“feeling exhausted and the substance laid bare … the great function arises abundantly, and every arising is wholly true”).

The 甲-edition reading of the gate of distinguishing characteristics, “理待了因顯現名起” (“principle depends on the revealing cause; its appearing is called arising”), and the variant “順證／順於真性” (“according with and realizing / according with the true nature”) in the gate of defining meaning both affect the load-bearing strength of individual phrases, but cannot settle the case on their own. Therefore the current ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C) is a working direction, with the ① / ② boundary substantively open; what this archive records is this placement containing the dispute, not a proof that ② prevails over ①.

The subsequent special external checks are not a general re-examination: first read against each other the gates of defining meaning / defiled and pure / cause and fruit / the pervasive and the limited in the ancient manuscripts of the Tanxuan ji, and “accomplishing right awakening at the first arousing of the aspiration” and “attaining the fruit in three lives” in the Song and Japanese lines of the Wujiao zhang; where original prints or ancient texts are missing, this is explicitly retained. One must also clarify the non-substitutability of the ten gates’ “marks of fruition, pure function, actual realizing entry”. If it can be shown that the actual arising of pure function in the highest meaning of the perfect teaching is merely another name for the already present marks of fruition, it can be reopened towards ①;

• Tanxuan ji: T35 no.1733; the ten gates (distinguishing characteristics, support, mutual inclusion, the nature’s virtues, defining meaning, defiled and pure, cause and fruit, the pervasive and the limited, proper extent, establishment) of the chapter “Nature-Arising” in fascicle 16 have been read against the received full text. The Taishō base text is the Goryeo print of the thirty-second year of Gojong (1245); in fascicle 16 the only witness actually collated is the 甲 edition (the Rikaku print of the Karyaku–Gentoku era), with 164 notes according to the special report; the general apparatus lists the Shōgozō text, but fascicle 16 has no “聖” notes, from which it cannot be inferred that the ancient manuscript has no variants, nor can it be determined from this whether a Shōgozō fascicle 16 survives. In the gate of distinguishing characteristics the base text reads “謂理性得、了因顯、現名起” and the 甲 edition “初謂理待了因顯現名起”, the latter more explicitly “depending on the revealing cause”; in the gate of defining meaning the base text reads “順證真性” and the 甲 edition “順於真性”, emphasizing “realizing” and “according with” respectively. The main wording of what is to be saved, cut off and known in the gate of defiled and pure is unchanged in the notes seen;

• “唯除凡小” of the gate of cause and fruit and “眾生身中亦有果相” of the gate of the pervasive and the limited have no notes, and it cannot be asserted that all ancient texts agree word for word. The Shōgozō fascicle 16, the original 甲 print and images of the original Goryeo print have not yet been checked. For the received transcription see T35 no.1733, fascicle 16; the special collation file is an internal research record.
• Jin shizi zhang: Fazang’s text is found in the Song Chengqian commentary, T45 no.1881, and Jingyuan’s classified explanation, T45 no.1880. Jingyuan’s preface describes revising the existing commentaries, with an editorial self-account of deleting, supplementing, trimming and correcting; this does not allow the direct conclusion that every sentence of the root text has been altered, but neither can the word-for-word wording of the Song transmission be treated as having seen the Tang text. The structure of meaning “seeing / understanding / awakening” in the gate of accomplishing bodhi can be used in both texts as side-evidence awaiting delimitation.
• Huayan jing yihai baimen: expounded by Fazang (T45 no.1875). The Taishō text uses a Tokugawa-period print as base text, collated with the Xuzangjing edition.
• Dasheng qixin lun yiji: composed by Fazang (T44 no.1846).

• The Taishō text uses a print of the twelfth year of Genroku as base text, collated with the Xuzangjing edition. The question of the authorship and composition of the Qixin lun itself is not discussed in this archive.
• Xiu Huayan aozhi wangjin huanyuan guan: the Taishō text is titled as expounded by Fazang (T45 no.1876); the Song Jingyuan’s note on re-collation records that it was traditionally ascribed to Dushun, and Jingyuan judged it to be by Fazang; its preface overlaps at length with the preface of the Yihai baimen. Listed as T2.
• Huayan jing: Buddhabhadra’s sixty-fascicle translation (T09 no.278) and Śikṣānanda’s eighty-fascicle translation (T10 no.279), as background for the sūtra on which Fazang relies.
• Biographies: Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn, Biography of the Venerable Fazang, Former Abbot and Great Translation Master of the Great Jianfu Monastery of the Tang (T50 no.2054, including Yan Chaoyin’s Stele of Dharma Master Kang Zang); Zanning, Song gaoseng zhuan, fascicle 5 (T50 no.2061).
• Materials not used as core evidence: the Huayan jing wenda (T45 no.1873, attribution much disputed); the Huayan jing zhigui, Huayan celin, Huayan youxin fajie ji, Huayan fa putixin zhang and others (their attribution and content not checked one by one in this archive);