肇論 涅槃無名論

If nirvāṇa is called nameless, why are there still nirvāṇa with remainder and nirvāṇa without remainder, and why are nine rebuttals and ten expositions still needed? Sengzhao does not abolish names. He makes each name stop at responsive engagement: a manifest trace is called birth, a trace brought to rest is called death; a name can guide, but it cannot seal the true substance within itself. Nirvāṇa has that by reason of which it is not existent, and so cannot be grasped as a thing. It has that by reason of which it is not non-existent, and so cannot be described as annihilation. To say it transcends existence and non-being is to remove attachment to two mutually dependent extremes, not to establish a subtle existent outside them. To say it neither transcends nor abides within is to be immediately existence and non-being without dwelling in either. The unconditioned is not three; the differences among the three vehicles lie in practitioners' residual habits and powers of wisdom. Three birds leave the same net yet remain different birds; three arrows strike the same target and three animals cross the same river, yet their depths of entry differ. Nor does the unconditioned mean that conduct ceases. Because the sage's mind is not existent, every deluded thought is extinguished; because it is not non-existent, there is no principle with which it does not accord. The emptier the mind, the broader the conduct: though moving, constantly still; though still, constantly moving. At the end, if the five aggregates are exhausted, who attains nirvāṇa? The author does not add another attainer. He says only that truth arises through freedom from attachment and takes non-attainment as attainment. Since beings and nirvāṇa are not separate, a fixed being cannot be sent toward a fixed nirvāṇa. The nine rebuttals break the enclosing grasp of existence and non-being, one and other, sudden and gradual, motion and stillness, gain and loss; the ten expositions prevent any rebuttal from collapsing into empty absence. The purport of namelessness appears precisely in speaking without abiding in what is spoken, acting without dwelling in action, and attaining through non-attainment.

Memorial presented to Yao Xing, ruler of Qin

Sengzhao submits this memorial. I have heard that heaven attained the fundamental One and thereby became clear; earth attained it and thereby became settled; rulers attained it and thereby governed all under heaven. Reverently considering Your Majesty: your wisdom is penetrating and luminous, and the Way you practice accords with subtle principle. You meet the center around which the myriad things turn and leave no affair or principle ungathered. With composure you manage the ten thousand tasks and spend each day spreading the great Way. Your commanding virtue extends throughout the people, while your writings remain as a standard. Thus there are four great things under heaven, and the ruler occupies one among them.

The Way of nirvāṇa is the common destination of the three vehicles and the deepest treasury of the Great Vehicle's Vaipulya teaching. Distant and hidden, it exceeds the range of seeing and hearing. Its inward purport is empty, still, and subtle, and surely lies beyond the measure of ordinary cognition. Though my station is slight, I have received the state's favor and was able to dwell at ease in the academy, studying under Master Kumārajīva for more than ten years. The scriptures differ in purport, and their excellent destinations are more than one, yet I always gave priority to hearing and studying the single meaning of nirvāṇa. My talent and insight, however, are dim and shallow. Though I repeatedly received instruction and clarification, a broad uncertainty remained in my mind. I continually exhausted my simple sincerity and seemed to gain a little understanding, but because no one of penetrating wisdom had first opened the way, I dared not decide the matter for myself. Regrettably, Master Kumārajīva passed away. From then on there was nowhere to inquire and investigate, a loss I have long felt deeply.

Your Majesty's noble virtue does not stand alone. You alone were able to accord with Master Kumārajīva in spirit. Without waiting for many words, the Way present in each of you could already reflect the other, freely exhausting its profound purport. Thus Your Majesty has stirred the subtle wind of the teaching and awakened the customs of later generations. One day I was honored to read Your Majesty's letter replying to the Marquis of Ancheng, Yao Song, who had asked about the ultimate principle of the unconditioned. It said: “Beings have long revolved through birth and death entirely because they cling greedily to desire. If desire comes to rest in the mind, birth and death cease. With birth and death no more, the spirit withdraws into subtle silence and virtue accords with empty space. This is called nirvāṇa. Once it is called nirvāṇa, how could a name still be contained within it?” This truly exhausts the beauty of subtle speech and carries the principle beyond images to its utmost. Unless one's practice of the Way allowed one to study beside Mañjuśrī and one's compassionate virtue rivaled Maitreya's, who could spread the mysterious Way, form the moat of the city of Dharma, unfold again the great teaching whose scroll had been closed, and disclose again the hidden purport that had sunk from view?

I searched and savored the letter repeatedly, my feeling so earnest that I could not put it down even for a moment. Joy and understanding filled my mind together, and I could not even stop my hands from dancing. How could this be merely an excellent model for our own time? In ages to come it will be a bridge by which beings cross through kalpa after kalpa. Yet Your Majesty's noble purport is deep and subtle, its principle hidden and its words concise. It can shape those already advanced and lift up those of superior capacity, but I fear that students who cling to the literal headings will still not fully understand Your Majesty's intent. I wished to imitate the intent with which Confucius composed the Ten Wings to the Book of Changes. I did not covet an abundance of words; I wished only to spread and make clear the profound purport. I have therefore ventured to compose On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless. The treatise contains nine rebuttals and ten expositions. It gathers broadly from the scriptures and entrusts the completion of its argument to scriptural proofs and similes, thereby reverently unfolding the purport of namelessness shown by Your Majesty. How would I dare say that I have touched Your Majesty's subtle mind or exhausted its profound and fitting meaning? I have merely tried to deliberate at the gate of mystery and distribute the result among students so that they might understand.

The final chapter of the treatise says: “The various schools that penetrate ultimate truth all say that it is open and still, with no sage there. I have always thought this far too remote and far from human feeling. If there is no sage, who is it that knows non-being?” It is truly as Your Majesty's luminous decree says! Truly as Your Majesty's luminous decree says! The great Way is dim and indistinct, yet within it there is a subtle reality. If there were no sage, who could wander together with the Way? Students in recent times have all hovered before its gate, troubled and uneasy over this purport. They have doubted throughout the day, with no one able to set them straight. Now, fortunately, they have encountered Your Majesty's penetrating judgment. The students of this teaching have suddenly become clear, and those who knocked at the gate seeking the Way have splendidly entered the mysterious chamber. One may truly say that the Dharma wheel has turned again in Jambudvīpa and the light of the Way shines once more across a thousand years.

This treatise now distinguishes through its many turns the nameless substance of nirvāṇa. It brings to rest the view that sees only vacant stillness and removes the discourse that places the sage outside the myriad things. Its several arguments are set out below and respectfully presented. If they accord even slightly with Your Majesty's noble purport, I ask that you order them preserved. If they contain errors, I await your instruction. Sengzhao submits this memorial.

The three names niyue, nihuan, and nirvāṇa arose from differences between earlier and later translations, just as speech differs from region to region; nirvāṇa is the more correct sound. The nine rebuttals and ten expositions are the following nineteen chapters.

1. Opening the Thesis: Why is nirvāṇa nameless?

Nameless says: The scriptures speak of nirvāṇa with remainder and nirvāṇa without remainder. In the language of Qin it is rendered “the unconditioned” and also called “cessation and crossing-over.” It is called unconditioned because it is empty, tranquil, and still, subtly surpassing all fabrication. It is called cessation and crossing-over because it brings the great affliction permanently to rest and crosses beyond the floods of sensuality, becoming, views, and ignorance. It is the destination of the myriad dharmas, which are like images in a mirror, and the hidden dwelling where names come to an end. As for with-remainder and without-remainder, they are only different names for the sage's manifestation and concealment, provisional designations established in accord with beings.

Let me try to speak of it. Nirvāṇa is solitary and open; it cannot be obtained through shape and name. Subtle and signless, it cannot be known by a mind that grasps. It rises darkly beyond all existence and shares the duration of vast space. Follow it, and no trace can be seen; meet it, and no beginning is visible. The six destinies cannot contain its arising, and the strongest power cannot alter its substance. Vast and indistinct, it seems to be present yet seems to depart. The physical eye, divine eye, wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and Buddha eye cannot see its form, and the ears cannot hear its sound. Hidden and remote, who can see it or understand it? It pervades everything and is absent nowhere, yet stands beyond the surfaces of existence and non-being. Open the mouth to speak of it, and its truth is lost. Know it with a knowing mind, and one's folly is disclosed. Call it existent, and one violates its nature. Call it non-existent, and one also wounds its true substance.

Therefore Śākyamuni shut himself in a room in Magadha, Vimalakīrti closed his mouth in Vaiśālī, Subhūti proclaimed non-speaking to disclose the Way, and Śakra and Brahmā ceased listening while celestial flowers rained down by themselves. In each case principle governed the spirit, and the mouth accordingly fell silent. How could this be a lack of eloquence? What had to be distinguished was precisely what speech cannot express. Scripture says that true liberation is apart from speech and enumeration, stilled and permanently secure, without beginning or end, neither dark nor bright, neither cold nor hot, clear and pure like space, without name and without speech. A treatise also says that nirvāṇa is neither existent nor non-existent; the road of speech is cut off and the range of mental activity ceases. Could such scriptural and treatise statements be fabrications?

It truly has that by reason of which it cannot be called existent, and so it cannot be taken as existent. It also has that by reason of which it cannot be called non-existent, and so it cannot be taken as non-existent. Why? When the realm of existence is investigated, the five aggregates have ceased forever. When the place of non-being is sought, hidden numinous awareness is not exhausted. Because hidden illumination is inexhaustible, it abides in the One and remains clear. Because the five aggregates cease forever, every entanglement is relinquished. With every entanglement relinquished, it penetrates the Way without obstruction. Abiding in the One and remaining clear, its subtle functioning does not claim achievement. Because it is subtle without claiming achievement, consummate function is constantly present. Because it penetrates the Way, it is empty and unchanging. Empty and unchanging, it cannot be called existent. Consummate function constantly present, it cannot be called non-existent.

Seen in this way, existence and non-being cease within, while names sink away without. Seeing and hearing cannot reach it, nor can the four formless absorptions illumine it. Tranquil and level, peaceful and at ease, it is where the nine streams meet and return and where the sages darkly coincide. This is the subtly level realm, the deeply mysterious and vast domain. If one still wishes to name it by existence or non-being, mark out its territory, and describe its subtle Way, would one not be far from it?

2. Examining the Substance: Are with-remainder and without-remainder not real names?

Named asks: A name does not arise from nothing, and a designation does not originate by itself. Since scripture speaks of nirvāṇa with remainder and nirvāṇa without remainder, these must be true names for returning to the root and subtle designations for the wondrous Way. Allow me to explain.

Nirvāṇa with remainder means that the Tathāgata's great awakening has first arisen and the Dharma body first been accomplished. He bathes in the pure stream of the eight liberations and rests in the flourishing grove of the seven awakening-factors. Through distant kalpas he has accumulated the myriad virtues and swept away the dust left since beginningless time. The three knowledges are bright within like a mirror, and numinous light shines outward. From his first aspiration he donned the armor of vows, and to the very end great compassion drives him toward beings in suffering. He climbs upward to the subtle root and reaches downward to support the lost and weak. He crosses beyond the desire, form, and formless realms and alone treads the great Way. He opens the level road of the noble eightfold path so that the multitude may travel an easy course. He drives the fine horses of the six supernormal powers and rides the secure carriages of the five vehicles. He can enter birth and death and move in accord with beings. There is nowhere his Way does not reach and nowhere his virtue is not given. He exhausts the origin by which creation brings things forth, carries the subtle pivot to its utmost operation, opens boundless space, and shines omniscience into darkness. He is about to end every trace upon the ninth ground and sink forever into vast space, yet the remaining conditions for teaching are not exhausted, the remaining traces of manifestation have not ceased, the body of karmic recompense is still present, and noble wisdom also remains. This is called nirvāṇa with remainder. Scripture says that, like smelting away dross and refining true gold, every entanglement is exhausted while only numinous awareness and illumination remain.

Nirvāṇa without remainder means that the consummate person's conditions for teaching are wholly ended and numinous illumination has ceased forever. Open and without traces, it is therefore called without remainder. Why? No calamity is greater than having a body, and so body is extinguished and returns to non-being. No toil is heavier than possessing wisdom, and so wisdom is cut off and sinks into emptiness. Wisdom is wearied by form, and form is wearied by wisdom. Revolving along the long road, they are exhausted without rest. Scripture says that wisdom is like mixed poison and form like fetters: hidden stillness is thereby estranged and affliction thereby arises. Thus the consummate person reduces body and wisdom to ashes, casts off physical form, and cuts off thought. Within there is no labor of attending to affairs; without, the root of the great calamity is brought to rest. He stands apart forever from every existent and merges with vast space as one body. Silent and without sound, peaceful and without sign, he journeys darkly away, no one knowing where he arrives. It is like lamp-oil spent and flame extinguished, fuel and light exhausted together. This is called nirvāṇa without remainder. Scripture likewise says that the five aggregates cease forever, like a lamp going out.

Therefore with-remainder can be named, while without-remainder can be called nameless. Once the nameless is established, those who prize empty stillness admire tranquility. Once the named is established, those who revere virtue honor the sage's function all the more. These are the words left by scriptural instruction and the tracks traveled by former sages. Yet you now say that existence and non-being cease within and names sink away without, that seeing and hearing cannot reach it and the four formless absorptions cannot illumine it. This would make those who admire virtue cut off their own road of advance, and those who prize empty stillness have nowhere to lodge. It is like blocking the ears and eyes within the fetal shell and obscuring the celestial signs beyond the clouds, yet demanding that one distinguish the tones of the scale and discern black from white. You know only to push the consummate person far beyond existence and non-being and place the highest subtle sound beyond shape and name. Yet the destination of the thesis remains wholly unclear and the hidden road concealed. When the mind grows still and reflects deeply, the breast finds nowhere to lodge. How could this be called illuminating great brightness in a dark room or sounding the mysterious resonance where there is no sound?

3. Placing the Substance: With-remainder and without-remainder are provisional names used in responding to things

Nameless replies: With-remainder and without-remainder are names outside nirvāṇa's substance, provisional designations established in accord with beings. Those who preserve designations are enclosed within names; those who pursue vessels and images cling to shapes. A name reaches its limit at its heading, and a shape reaches its limit at square and round. Yet there are things square and round cannot describe and principles headings cannot transmit. How could a name name the nameless or a shape describe the shapeless?

The foregoing challenge has already said that with-remainder and without-remainder truly express the Tathāgata's intent in teaching according with cessation and are genuine traces of manifestation and concealment. Yet they are not the hidden purport of mysterious stillness beyond speech, nor the subtle functioning by which the consummate person dwells at the center and responds in every direction. Have you not heard the teaching on correct contemplation? Vimalakīrti says that when one contemplates the Tathāgata, one sees him as without beginning or end, beyond the six sense-fields and outside the three realms; abiding in no direction yet not apart from any direction; neither conditioned nor unconditioned; not cognized by consciousness or known by ordinary knowledge; beyond speech, with the range of mental activity ceased. Contemplating in this way is called correct contemplation; contemplating otherwise is not truly seeing the Buddha. The Fangguang likewise says that the Buddha is like space, without coming or going, manifesting according to conditions without a fixed location.

Therefore the sage, while in the world, is silent, empty, without grasping, and does not contend with things. He guides but does not rush ahead, responding only after he is moved, like an echo in an empty valley or an image in a bright mirror. Face him, and one does not know whence he came; follow him, and only then does one see where he goes. Indistinctly he seems present, then suddenly disappears. The more he moves, the stiller he is; the more concealed, the more manifest. He comes from the hidden and enters the dark, changing without a fixed constant state. Designations also arise according to response: when traces manifest, this is called birth; when traces cease, this is called death. Birth is called with-remainder, and death without-remainder. Thus the names existence and non-being originally emerge from the nameless. Where could the nameless Way not receive a name in accord with conditions?

The consummate person therefore appears square when placed in a square and round when placed in a circle. In heaven he appears according to heaven; among humans he appears according to humans. If we investigate the capacity by which he manifests as celestial or human, could it be accomplished by any fixed celestial or human mark? Precisely because he is not fixed as celestial or human, he can accord with celestial and human beings. In his teaching he responds without regarding himself as an agent and acts according to conditions without regarding himself as the giver. Because he gives according to conditions without self-giving, no giving is broader. Because he responds without self-doing, no activity is greater. Activity with nothing greater returns to the most subtle achievement; giving with nothing broader returns to namelessness. Scripture says that the Way of awakening cannot be measured: it is high without anything above it, broad without boundary, deep without bottom, great enough to contain heaven and earth, fine enough to enter the smallest interval. Therefore it is called the Way. From this one knows that the Way of nirvāṇa cannot be obtained by existence or non-being.

The deluded see supernormal transformation and say that nirvāṇa exists; they see cessation and say that nirvāṇa is non-being. Existence and non-being are merely the realms of deluded thought. How could they mark the mysterious Way or discuss the sage's mind? I hold that the consummate person is still and without sign, his concealment and manifestation emerging from one source. Presence does not become existence; disappearance does not become non-being. The Buddha says that he has no fixed mark of birth yet can be born, and though born does not fall within birth; he has no fixed form yet can manifest form, and though manifesting does not fall within form. From this we know that presence does not become existence. Scripture also says that bodhisattvas enter the inexhaustible samādhi and see completely all buddhas who have already passed into cessation; it also says that they enter nirvāṇa without abiding in parinirvāṇa. From this we know that disappearance does not become non-being.

Because disappearance does not become non-being, though absent it is present. Because presence does not become existence, though present it is absent. Though present yet absent, it is called not existent. Though absent yet present, it is called not non-existent. It is therefore settled that nirvāṇa transcends the domains of existence and non-being and cuts off the paths of words and images. Yet you say that the sage treats body as affliction and therefore extinguishes it to return to non-being, and treats wisdom as toil and therefore cuts it off to sink into emptiness. I fear this violates the subtle extreme and injures the mysterious purport.

Scripture says that the Dharma body has no fixed image yet takes form in response to beings; prajñā has no object-grasping knowing yet illumines as conditions arise. Ten thousand affairs may arrive together without disturbing his spirit; a thousand different challenges cannot disrupt his thought. He moves like drifting clouds and stops like the spirit of an empty valley. Where would his mind incline toward one side or another, and what attachment would bind him to motion or stillness? Having no mind fixed on motion or stillness, he likewise has no fixed shape in coming and going. Because coming and going do not constrain shape, there is no vessel whose form he cannot follow. Because motion and stillness do not bind the mind, there is no stimulus to which he cannot respond.

Thought arises only when the mind deliberately produces thought, and form appears only when a fixed form is grasped. Form is not deliberately produced by me, so even if metal and stone melt, I am not scorched. Mind is not deliberately generated by me, so though used throughout the day it does not move within. The many transformations belong entirely to external things; how could they obstruct me? Thus wisdom pervades the myriad things without fatigue, and form fills the eight directions without affliction. Increase cannot make him full, and decrease cannot make him deficient. How could he then fall ill midway, bring his life to an end between the twin trees, exhaust numinous awareness within the celestial coffin, or lose his body in the cremation fire? The deluded remain within seeing and hearing, pursue the traces of responsive manifestation, and take compasses and squares to measure the great Way. They wish to burden the consummate person with wisdom and afflict the great sage with form. They say that he relinquishes existence and enters non-being and on this basis name nirvāṇa. How could this count as gathering subtle words from beyond hearing or drawing the mysterious root from the ground of empty stillness?

4. Pressing the Claim of Transcendence: If existence and non-being include everything, how can nirvāṇa transcend them?

Named asks: When the primal confusion divided, the myriad things formed in their many differences. Since existence is existence, it cannot but return to non-being. Non-being does not become non-being by itself; it must be named in relation to existence. High and low therefore lean upon each other, and existence and non-being give rise to one another. This is the natural rule, the limit of principle. Seen in this way, among all things nurtured by the source of transformation—hidden or manifest, vast, strange, changing, or marvelous—not one is outside existence. Among all that changes into non-being, not one is outside non-being. The two realms of existence and non-being already include every principle. Scripture says that the two dharmas existence and non-being include all dharmas. It also says that the three unconditioned dharmas are space, cessation through discernment, and cessation not through discernment, and that cessation through discernment is nirvāṇa.

Your treatise, however, says that beyond existence and non-being there is another subtle Way that surpasses them and is therefore called nirvāṇa. Let us now examine the root of this subtle Way. If it is existent, then however subtle it may be, it is not non-being; being not non-being, it enters the realm of existence. If it is non-being, then non-being does not differ from non-being; being without difference, it enters the realm of non-being. Gather and exhaust the possibilities: there can be nothing different from existence that is not non-being, nor anything different from non-being that is not existence. This is already clear. Yet you now say that beyond existence and non-being there is another subtle Way, called nirvāṇa because it is neither existent nor non-existent. I have heard the statement, but my mind still cannot accept it.

5. Beyond the Realm: What attachment does “transcending” remove?

Nameless replies: The rule of existence and non-being truly leaves no dharma unincluded and no principle ungathered, but what it includes is only conventional truth. Scripture asks: what is ultimate truth? It is the Way of nirvāṇa. What is conventional truth? It is the dharmas of existence and non-being. Why? Existence is called existent in contrast with non-being, while non-being is called non-being in contrast with existence. Existence is named through non-being, and non-being through existence. Existence thus arises from non-being and non-being from existence. Apart from existence there is no non-being; apart from non-being there is no existence. They arise from each other just as high and low lean upon each other. Where there is high there must be low, and where there is low there must be high. Though their names differ, existence and non-being have not escaped being established through mutual dependence. Words and images form from this, and right and wrong arise from it. How could they include the hidden extreme or measure the subtle Way?

The treatise says that nirvāṇa transcends existence and non-being because the rule of existence and non-being reaches only as far as the six sense-realms. Nothing within those six is nirvāṇa's dwelling. The word “transcend” is therefore borrowed to remove attachment to existence and non-being. One hopes that a seeker of the Way may glimpse the hidden path, lodge the mind where words and images end, forget speech once its meaning is obtained, and realize that it is neither existent nor non-existent. How could this mean that beyond existence and non-being there is another real existent called nirvāṇa?

Scripture speaks of three unconditioned dharmas because beings are confused and disturbed and give rise to grave affliction. Within that grave affliction, grasping existence comes first. To sever the name “existence,” nothing is more direct than non-being. Non-being is therefore borrowed to show that it is not existence; it does not mean that it is itself non-being.

6. Seeking the Mystery: If it neither transcends nor abides within, where can it be sought?

Named asks: The treatise itself says that nirvāṇa neither transcends existence and non-being nor abides within them. If it does not abide within them, it cannot be found in them. If it does not transcend them, it cannot be sought apart from them. If there is nowhere to seek it, it should be entirely absent; yet one cannot say that the Way does not exist. Since the Way is not non-being, the hidden path must be discoverable. The thousand sages followed the same track and never returned empty-handed. Since the Way exists, yet is said neither to transcend nor abide within, there must be a different purport here. Can it be explained to me?

7. Subtle Presence: Immediately existence and non-being, yet abiding in neither

Nameless replies: Speech arises through names, names through marks. A mark is a mark because it can be depicted; without marks there are no names. Without names there is no speech, and without speech there is nothing to hear. Scripture says that nirvāṇa is neither a dharma nor a non-dharma, that there is nothing to hear and nothing to say, and that it cannot be known by the mind. How would I dare discuss it? Yet you wish to hear. Even so, Subhūti once said that if the assembly could receive with no mind and listen through no hearing, he would speak through no words. I wish to relay this intent and may perhaps speak provisionally.

Vimalakīrti says that nirvāṇa is attained without leaving the afflictions. The goddess says that one enters the Buddha-realm without leaving Māra's realm. From this one knows that the mysterious Way lies in subtle awakening, and subtle awakening lies in according with truth immediately within events. To accord with truth within events is to contemplate existence and non-being equally. Equal contemplation no longer divides self from other. Heaven and earth therefore share one root with me, and the myriad things form one body with me. Being the same as me, they cannot again be separated by existence and non-being. If they were other than me, communion would be violated. Thus the Way does not transcend existence and non-being or abide within them; it is present precisely here.

The consummate person empties the mind and illumines the hidden, leaving no principle ungathered. He contains heaven and the four directions within his breast, yet numinous reflection still has strength to spare. He mirrors the myriad existents within the square inch of mind, yet his spirit remains constantly empty. He draws the mysterious root from what has not yet arisen and maintains stillness amid the ten thousand movements. Tranquil, deeply still, and silent, he subtly accords with what is naturally so. Therefore he dwells in existence without falling into existence and dwells in non-being without falling into non-being. Dwelling in non-being without falling into non-being, he does not become annihilating non-being there. Dwelling in existence without falling into existence, he does not become fixed existence there. He can therefore neither transcend existence and non-being nor abide within them.

Dharma has no fixed mark of existence or non-being, and the sage has no fixed knowing of existence or non-being. Because the sage has no knowing of existence or non-being, inwardly the mind grasps nothing. Because dharma has no mark of existence or non-being, outwardly objects cannot be enumerated as fixed. With no fixed number outside and no grasping mind within, both are stilled; things and self darkly become one, tranquil and without traces. Only this is called nirvāṇa. If nirvāṇa is like this, every road of measurement is already cut off. How could one demand it within existence and non-being or pursue it beyond them?

8. Challenging Difference: If the ultimate has no difference, why do the three vehicles differ?

Named asks: Nirvāṇa cuts off measurement, surpasses the six sense-realms, neither transcends nor abides within while the mysterious Way alone remains. It therefore exhausts principle and nature and reaches the ultimate subtle One, which should have no difference. Yet the Fangguang says that the paths of the three vehicles differ on account of the unconditioned. The Buddha also says that when he was formerly the Youthful Ascetic bodhisattva, he had already entered nirvāṇa before Dīpaṃkara Buddha. After the Youthful Ascetic first gained the patience of non-arising as a bodhisattva, he still had to cultivate three further stages. If nirvāṇa is one, there should not be three; if there are truly three, it is not ultimate. How can the ultimate Way have higher and lower? The scriptures speak differently; which central meaning should be taken?

9. Distinguishing Difference: The shore is not three, but those who cross enter to different depths

Nameless replies: The ultimate Way truly has no difference. The Lotus Sūtra says that the foremost great Way has no two right paths. The Tathāgata establishes skillful means for the indolent and speaks of three distinctions within the one-vehicle Way. The three carts leading the three children out of the burning house express this meaning. All three vehicles leave birth and death and so are alike called unconditioned. Their methods differ, and so three names arise. Gather their final convergence, and there is only one.

The statement that the paths of the three vehicles differ on account of the unconditioned means that three kinds of person give the unconditioned three names, not that the unconditioned itself is three. Thus the Fangguang asks whether nirvāṇa has differences and answers that it has none; only the Tathāgata has exhausted even residual habits, while the śrāvakas have not exhausted them. A nearby simile can show the distant meaning. When someone cuts timber, removing a foot leaves the timber one foot shorter, while removing an inch leaves it one inch shorter. The difference in length belongs to the measure of the wood, not to the non-being outside it. Beings are of ten thousand kinds, with different consciousnesses and capacities. Their wisdom sees deeply or shallowly, and their virtue is thick or thin. Though all reach the farther shore, their heights and depths are not the same. How could the shore differ? Difference belongs to those who cross. Though the scriptures speak differently, their purport does not conflict.

10. Pressing Otherness: Are the person and the unconditioned one or different?

Named asks: Since all leave the burning house, their freedom from danger is the same. Since all leave birth and death, the unconditioned should likewise be the same. Yet you say that the farther shore does not differ and difference belongs to me. The farther shore is the shore of the unconditioned, while I am the one who realizes it. Are the unconditioned and I one or different? If I am the unconditioned and the unconditioned is me, you cannot say that the unconditioned does not differ while difference belongs to me. If I differ from the unconditioned, I am not unconditioned. The unconditioned remains itself, while I remain forever conditioned, and the principle of dark coincidence is obstructed. Thus if the unconditioned and I are one, there cannot be three; if different, there also cannot be three. Whence do the names of the three vehicles arise?

11. Reconciling Otherness: Three birds leave the same net; freedom from danger is the same while the birds differ

Nameless replies: Abide here, and one becomes the same as here; go there, and one becomes the same as there. One who is the same as attainment accords with attainment; one who is the same as loss accords with loss. I go to the unconditioned and thereby accord with it. Although the unconditioned is one, how could that prevent those who go to it from differing?

It is like three birds flying from a net and together reaching the realm free from danger. Freedom from danger is the same, yet each bird remains different. One cannot say that the realm free from danger differs because the birds differ. Nor can one compress the birds into a single bird because freedom from danger is one. The birds are within the realm free from danger, and that realm appears in relation to the birds. How could freedom from danger differ? The difference belongs to the birds.

Beings of the three vehicles are the same. All cross the enclosure of deluded thought and reach the unconditioned. Although the unconditioned is the same, each vehicle differs. One cannot say the unconditioned differs because the vehicles differ, or merge the persons of the three vehicles into one because the unconditioned is one. I enter the unconditioned, and the unconditioned appears in relation to me. How could the unconditioned differ? Difference lies in me. Thus although freedom from danger is the same, the birds fly different distances into the open sky. Although the unconditioned is one, hidden illumination has different depths. It is not that I and the unconditioned remain apart, but that I have not yet exhausted the unconditioned. Therefore there are three vehicles.

12. Pressing Graduality: If deluded thought is exhausted, why speak of anything not exhausted?

Named asks: The many entanglements grow more manifest day by day, and their root is deluded thought. Once deluded thought is removed, every entanglement comes wholly to rest. The two vehicles gain the knowledge of exhaustion, while bodhisattvas gain the knowledge of non-arising. At that time deluded thought is exhausted and bonds are permanently removed. With bonds removed, the mind accords with the unconditioned. With the mind unconditioned, principle has no remaining obscuration. Scripture says that these noble knowledges do not conflict with one another, neither transcend nor abide within, and in truth are all empty. It also says that the great unconditioned Way is equal and non-dual. If it is non-dual, the mind cannot admit differences. If it has not realized, let that be; but once it realizes, it should exhaust the subtle. Yet you say that it realizes without exhausting. This I cannot understand.

13. Clarifying Graduality: The same striking and crossing do not mean the same power

Nameless replies: That the unconditioned is not two is indeed so. Yet afflictive bonds are deep delusion. I still cannot understand how they could be exhausted all at once. Scripture uses three arrows striking a target and three animals crossing a river as similes. The arrows alike hit, and the animals alike cross. Striking and crossing do not differ, yet the arrows enter the target and the animals enter the water to different depths because their strength differs.

Beings of the three vehicles all cross the ford of dependent arising, behold the target of the four truths, sever falsity and accord with truth, and rise together into the unconditioned. Yet the paths they ride are not the same, again because wisdom's power differs. Though the myriad existents are many, their number still has a boundary. Even one with wisdom like Śāriputra and eloquence like Pūrṇa could exhaust his talent and thought without seeing the boundary of all existents. How much less could the enumeration of emptiness and the domain of doubled mystery, which have no boundary, be exhausted at once?

Does not the old book say that in pursuing learning one increases daily, while in pursuing the Way one decreases daily? Pursuing the Way means cultivating the unconditioned. If one cultivates the unconditioned by daily decrease, how could everything be gained at once? One must decrease and decrease again until nothing remains to decrease. Scripture also compares wisdom's functioning with a firefly and the sun; from this its differences can be known.

14. Deriding Motion: Once mind and wisdom are stilled, how can cultivation continue?

Named asks: Scripture says that those at and above the level of the Dharma body enter the realm of the unconditioned. Their minds cannot be known by ordinary wisdom and their forms cannot be measured by ordinary shape; their substance surpasses the five aggregates and six sense-fields, while mind and wisdom are stilled. Yet it also says that they continue cultivating through three higher stages and accumulate ever broader merit. Cultivation arises from preference and admiration, and accumulating virtue from seeking. Where preference exists, feelings of choosing and rejecting appear; where seeking exists, gain and loss alternate. Taking choice and rejection as mind and gain and loss as substance, one nevertheless says that substance surpasses the aggregates and sense-fields and mind and wisdom are stilled. The two passages plainly do not accord, yet one forcibly joins them in a single person. This is no different from pointing south and calling it north while wishing to guide the lost.

15. Motion and Stillness: Why does conduct grow broader as the mind grows emptier?

Nameless replies: Scripture says that the sage does nothing contrived, yet leaves nothing undone. Being unconditioned, though moving he is constantly still. Leaving nothing undone, though still he is constantly moving. Though still yet constantly moving, things cannot fix him as a single stillness. Though moving yet constantly still, things cannot split him into a separate movement. Because he cannot be divided into two, the more he moves the stiller he is. Because he cannot be fixed as one, the stiller he is the more he moves. Thus doing is itself non-doing, and non-doing itself doing. Though motion and stillness have different names, they cannot be cut into two things.

The Daoxing says that mind is neither existent nor non-existent. “Not existent” differs from the ordinary person's existent mind of grasping. “Not non-existent” differs from an empty absence that has no illumination. The ordinary person's existent mind stops in deluded thought; vast space without mind cuts off numinous illumination. How could either the existence that stops in deluded thought or the non-being that cuts off illumination mark the subtle Way or describe the sage's mind? The sage's mind is therefore not existent, but it cannot on that account be called non-being. It is not non-existent, but it cannot on that account be called existent. Because it is not existent, deluded thoughts cease entirely within. Because it is not non-existent, there is no principle with which it does not accord. According with every principle, the myriad virtues become vast. With every deluded thought extinguished, achievement is not appropriated as self. Responsive transformation therefore has no fixed direction and never intentionally acts, while stillness unmoving never ceases to do what should be done. Scripture says that mind goes nowhere yet leaves nowhere untraveled. This is surely credible.

The Youthful Ascetic says that through countless kalpas he had given away his state's wealth, body, and life immeasurable times. Because he gave with a mind of deluded thought, it could not yet be called true giving. Only now, when he offered five flowers to the Buddha with the mind of non-arising, was it first called giving. The bodhisattva practicing emptiness entered the liberation-gate of emptiness and likewise said that this was the time for practice, not the time for realization. From this one knows that the emptier the mind, the broader the conduct. Acting all day does not violate non-action.

Thus the Sūtra of the Worthy Kalpa praises giving that relinquishes nothing, the Samādhi of Perfected Radiance Sūtra praises doing that does not regard itself as doing, a meditation scripture teaches compassion without an object, and the Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions clarifies a wisdom that does not know by grasping the known. The noble purport is empty, still, and subtle; different scriptures together distinguish a single meaning. How could the conditioned be fixed as conditioned and the unconditioned fixed as unconditioned? Bodhisattvas dwell in the equal Dharma-gate of exhausting and not exhausting the conditioned: they do not exhaust the conditioned and do not abide in the unconditioned. This is precisely the matter at hand. The simile of calling south north truly does not understand the purport.

16. Exhausting the Source: If nirvāṇa is gained afterward, does it not have a beginning?

Named asks: Without beings there would be no one to drive the three vehicles; without the three vehicles nirvāṇa could not be accomplished. Beings must therefore exist first and nirvāṇa afterward. Nirvāṇa would then have a beginning, and what has a beginning must have an end. Yet scripture says that nirvāṇa has neither beginning nor end and is clear like space. On this account, nirvāṇa must have existed beforehand and not be something accomplished through study.

17. Comprehending Antiquity: How are antiquity and the present, beginning and end, one body?

Nameless replies: The consummate person is empty, luminous, penetrating, and without fixed form, yet takes the myriad things as his own body. Perhaps only the sage can gather the myriad things and thereby accomplish himself. Why? Without according with principle one cannot become a sage; without being a sage one cannot accord with principle completely. Becoming a sage through according with principle, the sage is not different from principle.

Thus Śakra asks where prajñā should be sought. Subhūti says that prajñā cannot be sought within form or apart from form. Scripture also says that seeing dependent arising is seeing Dharma and seeing Dharma is seeing the Buddha. This directly demonstrates that things and self are not different. The consummate person gathers the mysterious pivot before things have sprouted and conceals hidden functioning after things have transformed. He gathers heaven and the four directions as the mirror of mind and joins coming and going into one body. Antiquity and the present penetrate each other, beginning and end are the same, and root and branch are exhausted without a single thing becoming two with it. Vast and equal, only this is called nirvāṇa.

Scripture says that nirvāṇa is attained without leaving dharmas. It also says that dharmas have no boundary and therefore awakening has no boundary. From this one knows that the Way of nirvāṇa is present in subtle accord, and subtle accord is accomplished through hidden unity. Things are not different from me, nor am I different from things. Things and self meet mysteriously and return without limit. Push nirvāṇa forward, and it is not before the earliest beginning. Push it backward, and it is not after the final end. How could beginning and end be contained within it? The goddess asked Śāriputra, “Elder, how long has your liberation lasted?” Since liberation has no measurable length, nirvāṇa also cannot be confined by beginning and end.

18. Examining Attainment: When the five aggregates are exhausted, who attains nirvāṇa?

Named asks: Scripture says that the nature of beings extends only through the five aggregates. It also says that when nirvāṇa is attained, the five aggregates are wholly extinguished, like a lamp going out. The nature of beings is thus suddenly exhausted within the five aggregates, while the Way of nirvāṇa stands alone beyond the three realms. They clearly occupy different domains, so one cannot still say that beings attain nirvāṇa. If a being truly attains it, the being's nature cannot extend only through the five aggregates. If beings truly exist only within the five aggregates, those aggregates cannot be wholly extinguished. If the aggregates are indeed entirely extinguished, who remains to attain nirvāṇa?

19. Mysterious Attainment: Attainment as non-attainment

Nameless replies: Truth arises through freedom from attachment, while falsity arises through attachment. Because there is attachment, one determines that something is attained. Because attachment is left behind, there is no graspable name. One who practices according to truth becomes the same as truth; one who practices according to falsity becomes the same as falsity. You take attainment through something attained as attainment and therefore seek only within something attained. I take non-attainment as attainment, and therefore attainment is present precisely in non-attainment.

Any treatise must first settle its foundation. Since we are discussing nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa cannot be discussed apart from nirvāṇa. If one speaks from nirvāṇa itself, who is not nirvāṇa and must acquire it elsewhere? The Way of nirvāṇa subtly exhausts ordinary enumeration, penetrates heaven and earth, washes through the myriad existents, makes celestial and human equal, and brings one and other into sameness. Looking inward, one cannot see a self; turning hearing back, one cannot hear an “I.” It has never been something attained, nor has it ever been a total absence of attainment.

Scripture says that nirvāṇa is not a being yet is not different from beings. Vimalakīrti further says that if Maitreya attains cessation, all beings should likewise attain cessation, because all beings are constantly stilled in their own nature and do not undergo another cessation. Such cessation is present precisely where there is no additional cessation. Beings are therefore not fixed beings—who would be the one attaining? Nirvāṇa is not a fixed nirvāṇa—what would be the object attained?

The Fangguang asks: Does awakening come from attainment? The answer is no. Does it come from non-attainment? Again no. Does it come from both attainment and non-attainment? No. Does it come apart from attainment and non-attainment? Again no. Then is there absolutely no attainment? The answer is still no. What does this mean? Because there is non-attainment, it is called attainment; what is attained thereby is precisely non-attainment. If non-attainment is called attainment, who is not thus?

The mysterious Way therefore lies in the realm where every distinction is cut off and cannot be attained by grasping. Subtle wisdom is present beyond the traces of things and cannot be known through object-grasping knowing. The great image is hidden within the shapeless and therefore cannot be seen by ordinary seeing. The great sound is concealed within the faintest resonance and therefore cannot be heard by ordinary hearing. Precisely because of this, it can contain the distant past and present, open and guide the four directions, give life to beings, and remain so spacious that nothing falls through. Vast indeed, boundless indeed—what is not accomplished through it? Thus a brahmin said: “I have heard the Buddha's Way. Its meaning is vast and profound, oceanic and without boundary. There is nothing it cannot accomplish and nothing it cannot deliver.” The roads of the three vehicles are thereby opened, the paths of truth and falsity distinguished, the Way of the worthy and noble preserved, and the purport of namelessness made clear.

Let scripture open the way: if nirvāṇa is neither existent nor non-existent, are both sides simply discarded?

At the opening of On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless, the reader is brought to the point where speech is about to end: “Nirvāṇa is not existent, yet neither is it non-existent. The road of speech is cut off; the range of the mind's activity ceases.” If this is read merely as “not existence and not non-being,” it is easy to suppose that the author has simply deleted both answers and left a blank. But the explanation that immediately follows is not a blank. It establishes two boundaries that cannot be crossed: “It has that by reason of which it is not existent, and therefore cannot be apprehended as existent; it has that by reason of which it is not non-existent, and therefore cannot be apprehended as non-existent.”

The five aggregates cease forever, and so nirvāṇa cannot be treated as an existent still caught in arising and ceasing. Hidden numinous awareness is not exhausted, and consummate function remains constantly present, and so nirvāṇa cannot be described as the complete annihilation of everything. “Not existent” blocks the attempt to make nirvāṇa into a thing. “Not non-existent” blocks the attempt to make it nothing at all. Only when both removals fall together does “nameless” become visible—not as a void, but as what no fixed name can contain exhaustively.

This also explains why the treatise says that Śākyamuni shut himself in a room, Vimalakīrti closed his mouth, Subhūti disclosed the Way through not speaking, and Śakra and Brahmā ceased listening while flowers rained down. Silence is not an absence of anything to say. What is to be disclosed is precisely what cannot be made an object by words. Yuankang says that the author takes namelessness as his thesis. Namelessness still borrows speech to open the thesis, but no sentence may be reversed into a new enclosing name.

If names cannot transmit it exhaustively, why do the scriptures speak of nirvāṇa with remainder and without remainder?

Examining the Substance raises the reader's most natural objection: scripture plainly uses the two names “with remainder” and “without remainder,” so how can nirvāṇa be nameless? The challenger describes with-remainder as the state in which all entanglements have been exhausted while the karmic-recompense body and noble wisdom remain. Without-remainder is described as the conditions for teaching having ended, body and wisdom extinguished together like lamp-oil and flame both spent. If the two situations are so distinct, surely the names have real referents.

Placing the Substance does not deny the two teachings. It distinguishes what the names indicate from the true substance. With-remainder and without-remainder can indeed mark the manifestation and cessation of traces, but they remain outward names used in responding to things. Consider an echo in an empty valley: someone calls and the echo arises; the call ceases and the echo stops. Or consider an image in a bright mirror: an object arrives and is reflected; it leaves and the image is gone. Because an echo appears, we cannot say a fixed body of sound is hidden in the valley. Because a mirror image disappears, we cannot say the mirror's power of illumination has been annihilated.

The treatise therefore describes the sage's responsive engagement in this way: the Dharma body has no image yet takes form in response to things; prajñā is without knowing yet illumines as conditions arise. Because there is no image, manifested form is not fixed as existence. Because prajñā is without object-grasping knowing, illumination is not fixed as a mind climbing after conditions. A manifest trace is called birth; a trace brought to rest is called death. Birth may be named with-remainder, and death without-remainder. Names are useful where the sage responds to things, but they cannot exceed their own limit and claim to have captured nirvāṇa's true substance.

Does “transcending existence and non-being” secretly establish another existent?

Pressing the Claim of Transcendence seizes upon the most dangerous phrase. If existence and non-being already include everything, does saying nirvāṇa lies beyond them not place a “subtle existent” outside them? If that subtle Way is existent, it remains within existence; if it is non-being, it remains within non-being. As soon as “outside” is understood as a spatial location, the author appears to deny existence and non-being with one hand while secretly setting down a third thing with the other.

Beyond the Realm therefore explains that “transcending” is language that removes, not language that locates. Existence receives its name through non-being, and non-being through existence. High and low, existence and non-being, are formed through mutual dependence. Such mutually dependent existence and non-being can include conventional truth, but they cannot be used to seal nirvāṇa within a fixed definition. To say “transcend” is to ask the reader to release both forms of grasping. It is not to ask the reader to leave existence and non-being and then grasp a more mysterious existent.

Yuankang's blade here is direct. “Not existent” is spoken to cure the sickness of grasping existence. It must not therefore be equated at once with annihilating non-being. The three names of the unconditioned work in the same way: non-being is borrowed to show what is not existent, not to turn nirvāṇa into complete absence. If the name of the medicine is mistaken for the substance of the sickness, the very word meant to remove attachment adds another layer of it.

If it cannot be obtained within existence and non-being or sought apart from them, where can awakening occur?

Seeking the Mystery presses the problem: if nirvāṇa is not within existence and non-being, it cannot be obtained there; if it does not transcend them, it cannot be sought elsewhere. With no direction in which it can be indicated, how can one avoid saying it is entirely absent? Subtle Presence does not provide a new location. It turns the question back toward the dharmas immediately present.

The treatise draws on Vimalakīrti's purport: nirvāṇa is attained without leaving the afflictions. This does not teach anyone to cherish the afflictions. It refuses to construct afflictions and nirvāṇa as two worlds forever cut off from one another. Subtle awakening lies in according with truth immediately within events. To contemplate existence and non-being equally is to stop cutting self away from other. “Heaven and earth share one root with me; the myriad things form one body with me” does not swallow the myriad things into an enlarged self. It releases the opposition “I am here, while truth is somewhere far away.”

The consummate person therefore dwells in existence without being existent and dwells in non-being without being non-existent. Dwelling in existence without being existent, he does not abide in existence. Dwelling in non-being without being non-existent, he does not fall into non-being. He does not leave existence and non-being, and so his response to things has no fixed direction. He does not abide in existence and non-being, and so they cannot enclose the sage's mind. Yuankang explains “subtle presence” as a subtle existence that is neither existent nor non-existent. That “existence” can be understood only through non-abiding; it cannot again be made into something one possesses.

If the unconditioned is one, why do the three vehicles have different depths?

Challenging Difference turns the question toward practitioners. If the ultimate Way is the subtle One without difference, why does scripture say that the three vehicles differ on account of the unconditioned? Distinguishing Difference first guards the non-duality of what is realized, then returns difference to practitioners. There are not three safe places outside the burning house, though the vehicles used to leave it differ. There are not three farther shores, though the capacities, wisdom, and residual habits of those who cross have different depths.

The doctrinal passage of the Lotus Sūtra is condensed in the treatise: the foremost great Way has no two right paths; for the indolent, the Tathāgata uses skillful means and speaks of three divisions within the one vehicle. The point is not to force the one and three vehicles into the same name. It is to distinguish the expedient name from ultimate convergence. All three vehicles leave birth and death and so are called unconditioned. Their ways of travel differ, so three names are established. Three names do not mean that the true substance of the unconditioned has been cut into three pieces.

The timber simile is especially exact. Cut away a foot and the timber is a foot shorter; cut away an inch and it is an inch shorter. The difference in measure lies in the timber, not in the empty space outside it. How much beings have severed their bonds and whether their residual habits are exhausted belong to practitioners, not the unconditioned. To transfer the practitioner's difference to the farther shore would fragment the undifferentiated Way. To deny differences in depth because the shore is undifferentiated would erase the real sequence provisionally established in scripture.

Are the person and the unconditioned one or other? How do the three birds release both alternatives?

Pressing Otherness refuses to let the previous answer pass easily. If I am the unconditioned, how can one say the unconditioned is without difference while difference lies in me? If I differ from the unconditioned, I remain forever within the conditioned and no dark coincidence can occur. If they are one, the three vehicles appear impossible; if other, realization appears impossible.

Reconciling Otherness does not force an abstract phrase upon the problem. It releases three birds from a net. All three arrive in the realm free from danger. Freedom from danger is the same, yet the birds remain distinct. The birds' difference cannot divide freedom from danger into three. The sameness of freedom from danger cannot press the three birds into one. The treatise says that three birds leave the net and together reach the realm free from danger. Yuankang calls the simile clearly visible because it guards both accord and difference at once.

“I go to the unconditioned and thus am the unconditioned” means that realization no longer leaves two separate domains standing between them. “The unconditioned is one while persons are not one” means that realization does not erase the capacities of the three vehicles. This is neither the otherness of an “I” standing outside the unconditioned nor the sameness of three persons dissolving into one person. How could freedom from danger differ? Difference belongs to the birds. How could the unconditioned differ? The difference lies in practitioners who have not yet exhausted it.

If all three arrows strike and all three animals cross, why speak of gradual realization?

Pressing Graduality asks again: the two vehicles gain the knowledge of exhaustion and bodhisattvas gain the knowledge of non-arising. Once deluded thought and bonds are removed, no obscuration should remain. The unconditioned is equal and non-dual; how, then, can one realize its substance without exhausting it? The answer again takes up the treatise's own images: three arrows strike the target, and three animals cross the river.

All three arrows hit the target, yet they enter it to different depths. Elephant, horse, and hare all cross the river, yet they enter the water to different depths. What is struck or crossed need not be divided into three for strength to differ. The three vehicles alike contemplate the four truths, cross dependent arising, and rise into the unconditioned, yet wisdom's power need not become equal at once. This answer guards both sides. Gradual cultivation does not give grades to the unconditioned, while the equality of the unconditioned does not make the sequence of practice unreal.

The extra-Buddhist current of daily increase in learning and daily decrease in pursuing the Way is used only to show decrease upon decrease. Sengzhao does not replace scriptural proof with a work of the Masters. He borrows a familiar sentence to say that deep bonds cannot be imagined wholly exhausted merely by invoking “original equality.” Firefly and sun alike give light, yet their illumination is not equal. In the same way, a common destination does not make wisdom's functioning equal.

Once mind and wisdom are stilled, does further cultivation become movement again?

Deriding Motion poses the difficulty closest to daily practice. If those above the level of the Dharma body have entered the unconditioned, surpassed the aggregates and sense-fields, and stilled mind and wisdom, why do they still cultivate through three stages and accumulate ever broader virtue? Further cultivation seems to require preference; accumulating merit seems to require choosing, rejecting, gain, and loss. To place cessation and cultivation within the same person, the challenger says, is to point south and call it north.

Motion and Stillness first gathers the answer into one sentence: the sage is unconditioned yet leaves nothing undone. If unconditioned is read as doing nothing, the sentence contradicts itself. If doing is read as intentional contrivance, it likewise violates cessation. Sengzhao means that, because he is unconditioned, the sage is constantly still while moving; because he leaves nothing undone, he is constantly moving while still. Motion and stillness are not two periods, first stopping the mind and then starting it again. Responsive conduct does not arise from a deluded, appropriating mind.

Thus the Daoxing says that mind is neither existent nor non-existent. The ordinary person's existent mind stops in deluded thought, while the mindlessness of empty space cuts off illumination. The sage's mind falls into neither. Because it is not existent, every deluded thought ceases. Because it is not non-existent, there is no principle with which it does not accord. Because it accords with every principle, the myriad virtues can become vast. Because deluded thought is wholly extinguished, achievement does not return to a self. This is the hinge disclosed by the Youthful Ascetic's offering of flowers and the bodhisattva practicing emptiness saying, “Now is the time for practice.” The emptier the mind, the broader the conduct. Acting throughout the day does not violate non-action.

If nirvāṇa is attained only later, does it have a beginning and an end?

Exhausting the Source brings time into the challenge. If beings exist first and attain nirvāṇa only after riding the three vehicles, nirvāṇa appears to begin. What has a beginning should also end, so how can nirvāṇa be clear like space and without beginning or end? Comprehending Antiquity does not push nirvāṇa back to a time before beings were born and claim that a finished object had already been placed there. It says instead that the sage has no fixed substance of his own and takes the myriad things as his body. Principle and the sage are not different; things and self are not different; antiquity and the present, beginning and end, become one body in subtle accord.

Scripture says that seeing dependent arising is seeing Dharma and seeing Dharma is seeing the Buddha. It also says that nirvāṇa is attained without leaving dharmas. Seeing Dharma through dependent arising means not leaving truth outside the coming and going of the myriad things. Attaining nirvāṇa without leaving dharmas means not cutting birth and death from nirvāṇa as two places arranged before and after.

The goddess asks Śāriputra how long liberation has lasted. If liberation itself has no measurable duration, nirvāṇa cannot be placed on a timeline and said first not to exist, then to be attained, and finally to disappear. This does not deny the course of practice. It refuses to make the principle with which practice accords into a thing that arises and ceases in time.

When the five aggregates are exhausted, who is the attainer?

Examining Attainment is the last of the nine rebuttals and tightens all the earlier questions at once. If the nature of beings exists only within the five aggregates, beings end when the aggregates end. If nirvāṇa stands independently outside the three realms, beings and nirvāṇa occupy two domains. Who crosses the boundary to acquire it? If an attainer remains, a being must extend beyond the five aggregates. If the aggregates are indeed wholly exhausted, an attaining subject cannot be established.

Mysterious Attainment does not add a spiritual entity outside the five aggregates, but neither does it declare that there is absolutely no person and no Way. It first dismantles the grammar “a being acquires a nirvāṇa.” If nirvāṇa is discussed from nirvāṇa itself, no dharma can be excluded from it. Who alone is not nirvāṇa and therefore must acquire it elsewhere? Vimalakīrti questions Maitreya by saying that all beings are stilled in their own nature and do not undergo another cessation. This does not treat one who has not practiced as one who has practiced. It says that cessation cannot become a real object added afterward.

The Fangguang therefore examines in turn attainment, non-attainment, both attainment and non-attainment, and freedom from both, and finally says that because there is non-attainment, it is called attainment; what is attained is non-attainment. Attainment as non-attainment is not a fifth answer established beyond the four alternatives. It simply brings the attachment to acquisition to rest. Truth arises through freedom from attachment, falsity through attachment. Only when the enclosing opposition between attaining subject and attained object is released can the roads of the three vehicles remain open and the purport of namelessness avoid collapsing into non-being.

Continuation / what carries forward

Through its memorial, On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless joins Kumārajīva's community with the age in which Yao Xing sought the Way. Through its nine rebuttals and ten expositions, it repeatedly sharpens a single question: as soon as nirvāṇa is spoken of, names cannot be avoided; as soon as a name is grasped as substance, nirvāṇa has already been left behind. Yuankang preserves each rebuttal and exposition chapter by chapter. His outline shows that the nineteen chapters are not diffuse conversation about mystery, but a rigorous exchange of nine challenges and nine answers, gathered under the governing exposition of Opening the Thesis.

What the treatise carries forward is not a formula, “neither existent nor non-existent,” that can replace practice and realization. It carries a way of reading that permits no resting in either extreme. To speak of namelessness must not fall into non-being; to speak of responsive engagement must not fall into existence. To speak of the unconditioned must not abolish conduct; to speak of continued cultivation must not establish a deluded, appropriating mind. To speak of differences among the three vehicles must not split the unconditioned; to speak of ultimate non-difference must not erase different depths of wisdom. At the end, even non-attainment must not be seized as something attained.

The deepest teaching of the whole treatise therefore does not lie in finding a better name for nirvāṇa. It lies in seeing, whenever a name arises, how far it can point and where it must be released. A name can guide the way, but it cannot become the place reached. Nineteen chapters can expound, but they cannot lock the nameless substance inside sentences. Read this way, the nine rebuttals do not destroy and the ten expositions do not add. Each rebuttal breaks one layer of attachment; each exposition returns the reader to the dharmas immediately present, neither leaving them nor abiding in them.