妙法蓮華經文句 壽量品 · 異解與釋品（如來・壽・量）

On hearing that the Buddha’s lifespan is immeasurable, we readily imagine a timeline so long that its end cannot be seen. It is as though we have understood the Lifespan chapter once we keep enlarging the number of years until it can no longer be calculated.

Zhizhe, however, begins with a dispute. Some infer permanence from immeasurability; others infer impermanence from measurability. Both sides assume that “measure” can decide only whether or not there is ultimately an end.

He expands their two answers into four: actually measurable yet spoken of as immeasurable; actually immeasurable yet spoken of as measurable; actually immeasurable and spoken of as immeasurable; actually measurable and spoken of as measurable.

This step reminds us that the way something is said does not necessarily reduce it to a single surface meaning. Facing different conditions, the Buddha sometimes speaks of long and sometimes of short, sometimes manifests birth and sometimes manifests extinction. If we grasp only one word, we may mistake a skillful means for the whole.

The first question, then, is not “Exactly how many kalpas?” but “Which body is being discussed?”

The Dharma body does not change with birth and extinction; the reward body is wisdom corresponding to truth; the response body manifests according to the conditions of beings. When conditions are long, he likewise manifests long; when conditions are short, he likewise manifests short. Long and short belong to the side of what beings elicit and cannot confine the Buddha’s body within a number.

It is also like winter, spring, and summer. Beneath the same sun, one person sees only a short day, another sees the days lengthen, and another exhaustively beholds its radiance. The difference lies not only in how much the Buddha gives outwardly, but also in how much the beholder can receive.

Yet this does not mean that everything is determined solely by subjective perception. The treatise still carefully distinguishes Dharma, reward, and response; it distinguishes life according to principle, wisdom-life, and life according to conditions. It first clarifies every level and only then says that one body possesses the three bodies.

We often make two opposite mistakes. One knows only how to divide: it cuts technical distinctions ever finer until it forgets that the subject is one Buddha. The other knows only how to combine: it rushes to say that all is nondual but can no longer explain how distinct qualities arise or how they benefit beings.

Zhizhe first explains separately and afterward explains universally. Separation keeps distinctions from becoming confused; integration keeps distinctions from becoming severed.

At the end, the various causes, fruits, supernormal powers, beings, Dharma teachings, and persons liberated are all gathered into the sea of the Tathāgata’s lifespan. Without life, treasures and rank cannot be put to use; without life, the work of benefiting beings cannot continue.

The sea of lifespan is therefore not a larger number. It allows manifold causes and fruits to occur, allows wisdom to accord with principle, allows the response body to follow conditions, and allows every act of teaching and transformation to do more than flash once and disappear.

The next time we hear “immeasurable,” perhaps we can ask one fewer question about how much more must be added and ask instead: What does this life sustain? Which causes does it allow to mature, which beings does it allow to be seen, and which teachings does it allow to keep flowing into later generations?

The depth of the immeasurable lies not only in having no end. It also lies in the fact that every manifestation responsive to conditions has never departed from that sea of lifespan.

Fascicle nine, lower, of the Fahua Wenju, taught by Tiantai Master Zhizhe. What follows explains the “Lifespan of the Tathāgata” chapter.

I. First Listing Five Divergent Interpretations

First, the differing interpretations are set out.

Master Rui says in his preface: “Merely saying that the Buddha’s lifespan extends through immeasurable kalpas is still insufficient to show how distant it truly is; merely saying that his divided bodies are beyond number is also insufficient if those forms are taken to differ from one another. Lifespan and measure therefore establish that the Buddha’s lifespan does not fall within number; the divided bodies show that the many bodies are not different in substance; Samantabhadra reveals that the Buddha fruit is not something newly produced; and Prabhūtaratna reveals that the Buddha body does not become extinct.”

Daolang of Hexi says: “This chapter shows that the Dharma body is not different from true body and transformation body and that existence and disappearance are one in principle. Prabhūtaratna Buddha appears to show that the Dharma body constantly abides; the Lifespan chapter shows that the Buddha’s lifespan has the same measure as vast open space.”

Daochang Guan says: “Gathering the three vehicles and returning them to the One is the beginning of teaching through the Buddha vehicle. Extinguishing the outer shadow-Trace and clarifying the inner spirit-principle is its end. Extinguishing the shadow-Trace means bringing manifestation to rest; clarifying the spirit-principle means revealing the Origin. Thus the manifested Trace is impermanent while the Origin is permanent.”

The anonymous annotator says: “What does not belong to the count of survival and death is called lifespan; what goes beyond the limits of long and short life is called measure. The Dharma body is not encompassed by form and years. This enables great beings to cultivate and practice the ultimate illumination without taking awakening at Gayā as the Buddha’s first attainment of buddhahood or one hundred years as the extreme limit of the Buddha’s lifespan.”

Zhu Daosheng says: “The so-called form-body Buddha appears in response to beings and therefore seems to exist; it has no real fixed form. Since the form is not real, how could it have a fixed lifespan? The myriad forms therefore converge upon one purport, and ancient and present are originally one. Ancient is present and present is ancient. There is no time when the Buddha does not exist and no place where he is absent. If he seems absent at some time or place, this is so only from the side of beings; it is not so for the Buddha. Thus the sutra speaks of long life to the utmost yet also says that buddhahood was attained at Gayā. To say that Gayā is the place of awakening does not make the present Gayā a real beginning. If Gayā is not fixed, how could the long duration spoken of elsewhere alone be fixed as real? In this way long and short dissolve, while long and short also constantly remain according to conditions.”

II. The Two Attachments to Permanence and Impermanence, and Four Explanations

Earlier exegetes, such as those just listed, generally used immeasurability to explain that the Buddha’s lifespan is permanent. Recent exegetes generally say instead that because lifespan can be measured, although in the past it exceeded the sands of the Ganges and in the future doubles that number, it ultimately reaches a limit and is therefore impermanent.

Another perplexed person clings to the chapter title and objects: “Since this chapter speaks of lifespan and measure, and measure is impermanent, how can it be interpreted as permanence?”

The reply is this: the title directly says only “lifespan and measure.” It does not say that lifespan is necessarily measurable, nor that it is necessarily immeasurable. You interpret it as impermanent and another interprets it as permanent—what fault lies in the title itself? Like a snipe and clam gripping one another, the two schools remain mutually attached. The root treatise makes use of the vulnerability in their stalemate to show that four explanations are required.

First, something is actually measurable but spoken of as immeasurable, as in the Amitābha Sutra. Second, it is actually immeasurable but spoken of as measurable, as in this chapter and the Golden Light Sutra. Third, it is actually immeasurable and spoken of as immeasurable, as when the Nirvāṇa Sutra says that only a buddha with a buddha can fully see the immeasurability of the Buddha’s lifespan. Fourth, it is actually measurable and spoken of as measurable, as when the Buddha manifests eighty years and announces extinction. The chapter text possesses all four meanings; how could one accept only one and deny the other three?

III. Do the Scriptures’ Teachings of Permanence Ultimately Agree or Differ?

Someone asks: If the Lifespan chapter teaches permanence, how does it differ from the Nirvāṇa Sutra?

The present text first asks in return: If that is the question, how does the one vehicle in the Lotus Sutra differ from the one vehicle in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra? 〔The remainder is abbreviated.〕

If a differentiated answer is given, the Lotus Sutra briefly explains permanence, while the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it extensively. The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra directly teaches the one vehicle in order to reveal it, while the Lotus Sutra first gathers the three vehicles and thereby reveals the One. 〔The remainder is abbreviated.〕

Someone further asks: If recent attainment is a skillful manifestation and distant attainment is real, would the Avataṃsaka Sutra’s attainment of buddhahood at the site of quiescence and the Great Sutra’s transcendence of the preceding nine kalpas not both become skillful means? If so, after the Lotus Sutra has revealed the distant, why does the Bodhisattva Never Disparaging later appear recent again? Would not the Lotus Sutra, after revealing the distant, have become skillful means once more?

By the same inference, after gathering the three into the One, it should again be said that there was no gathering of the three into the One. If opening the three to reveal the One is the common path of all buddhas, opening the near and revealing the distant should also be the common path of all buddhas. If so, all buddhas should be thus, not Śākyamuni alone. If only Śākyamuni were thus, the foregoing meanings would collapse.

The answer says: The sutra states that this is my skillful means and that all buddhas are likewise. After hearing the Lifespan chapter, the bodhisattvas also vow that when they become buddhas in the future, they too will teach lifespan in the same way. This shows that the path practiced by the buddhas is the same; one cannot insist that one buddha attained recently while another attained distantly. One should therefore know that the scripture entrusts what is without beginning and end, without near and distant, to reveal the permanent abiding of the Dharma body; when it speaks of beginning and end, near and distant, it discusses the manifested Trace of the response body. Looking at the scriptures through this meaning, their conditions may differ but their ultimate referent does not. Once the scriptures have been understood in this way, the partial accounts of the masters should not in turn be taken as one’s teacher.

IV. What Scriptural Basis Supports Permanence?

Someone asks: Permanence may perhaps be inferred from the principle, but if scriptural text is demanded, what is its basis?

The answer says: Those who understand value the principle disclosed by the text, while those in darkness guard only its words. One should follow the verbal teaching that conveys meaning and realize the purport to which it points; this is the true intent of the teaching. If one clings only to chaff and repeatedly asks how to cross a bridge, what benefit is there?

Moreover, verbal teaching is originally established for the conditions of beings; because conditions differ, teachings differ. Sometimes the Buddha speaks according to what beings desire, sometimes according to what is suitable, sometimes as a counteractive, and sometimes to enable awakening. Once one has awakened and arrived, why continue wandering back and forth among intersecting paths? Thus an ancient scripture says that nirvāṇa is the true Dharma treasure and beings enter it through various gateways. This is exactly the meaning.

Scriptural passages also differ in abundance. Because the Nirvāṇa Sutra takes future permanence as its purport, it says much about it; because it does not take buddhahood attained in the distant past as its purport, it says less. If one follows the many passages and discards the few, that is Māra’s teaching, not the Buddha’s.

The present sutra takes buddhahood attained in the distant past as its purport and therefore says much about reducing innumerable worlds to dust particles; it says less about future permanence. If one again follows the many and discards the few, one’s head will split into seven pieces like the branch of an arjaka tree. A sovereign’s command cannot be disobeyed whether it contains many words or few; disobedience incurs guilt.

The Skillful Means chapter says that the characteristics of the world constantly abide, that the Buddha knew this at the site of awakening, and that the Guide afterward taught it through skillful means. This text speaks of future permanent abiding without extinction. The present chapter also says that the Buddha constantly abides here and is constantly on Vulture Peak and in other dwelling places. The Contemplation of Samantabhadra says that the Buddha’s dwelling is the place accomplished through the pāramitā of permanence and established through the pāramitā of self. Passages teaching permanence are by no means scarce. This sutra also clarifies the Dharma body throughout; how could the Dharma body not be permanent?

Someone asks again: Since the Dharma body has been explained, the three virtues should also be discussed.

The answer says: Are not the two wisdoms, provisional and real, precisely prajñā? Are not the manifestations of past, present, and future precisely liberation? The true mark and original ground are precisely the Dharma body. These are the explicit passages for the three virtues of prajñā, liberation, and Dharma body.

V. The Three Terms Tathāgata, Lifespan, and Measure

The chapter title is now explained.

“Tathāgata” is the common name of all buddhas of the ten directions and three periods, of the two buddhas and three buddhas, and of the Buddha of the Origin and the Buddha of the Trace. “Lifespan and measure” means explaining and measuring the qualities of all these buddhas. The present chapter principally measures and explains the qualities of the three buddhas of the original ground and is therefore called the “Lifespan of the Tathāgata” chapter.

Tathāgata has many meanings. For the moment, two and three Tathāgatas are explained; the remaining meanings may be understood by analogy.

VI. Two Tathāgatas: True Body and Response Body

First are the two Tathāgatas. The Satyasiddhi Treatise says: “He rides the path of suchness as it really is and comes to accomplish perfect awakening; therefore he is called Tathāgata.”

Here, riding is wisdom conforming to the suchness-object; real is the suchness-object; path is cause, and awakening is fruit. If only the wisdom that rides were discussed, there would be no suchness-object to be known. If only the real object were clarified, there would be no suchness-wisdom capable of knowing it. Only when object and wisdom unite can there be cause and fruit: illumination of the object before its source is exhausted is called cause, and exhausting the source is fruit. The meanings of path and awakening are thereby established. This is riding the path of suchness as it really is and coming to accomplish perfect awakening—the Tathāgata of the true body.

To come into the desire, form, and formless realms through wisdom corresponding to reality, riding the path of reality and manifesting the accomplishment of perfect awakening, is the Tathāgata of the response body.

VII. Three Tathāgatas: Dharma Body, Reward Body, and Response Body

Next are the three Tathāgatas. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Treatise says: “Understanding in accordance with the true mark of all dharmas and speaking in accordance with the true mark of all dharmas—therefore he is called Tathāgata.”

“Thus” is the suchness-object of Dharma. It is neither cause nor fruit. Whether or not a buddha appears, the nature and characteristics of all dharmas constantly remain as they are; pervading every place without difference, this is called “thus.” Unmoving yet arriving is called “come.” Speaking with reference to this is the Tathāgata of the Dharma body.

Wisdom corresponding to the suchness-object of Dharma rides the real path of suchness and comes to accomplish wondrous awakening. Wisdom accords with principle; from the side of principle it is called “thus,” and from the side of wisdom it is called “come.” This is the Tathāgata of the reward body. Thus the treatise says that understanding according to the Dharma’s characteristics is called Tathāgata.

When the suchness-object and suchness-wisdom unite, he can manifest the accomplishment of perfect awakening everywhere. Just as mercury combined with true gold can coat images of every color, qualities combined with the Dharma body can appear responsively everywhere. Manifesting the eight marks of attaining the Way and turning the wondrous Dharma wheel is the Tathāgata of the response body. Thus the treatise says that speaking according to the Dharma’s characteristics is called Tathāgata.

The Tathāgata of the Dharma body is named Vairocana, translated as “Pervading All Places.” The Tathāgata of the reward body is named Rocana, translated as “Pure and Full.” The Tathāgata of the response body is named Śākyamuni, translated as “Crossing the Scorching Reef.” Of these three Tathāgatas, none can be taken alone.

The Great Sutra says that the Dharma body alone is not great nirvāṇa, prajñā alone is not great nirvāṇa, and liberation alone is not great nirvāṇa. Only when all three dharmas are complete are they called the secret treasury and named great nirvāṇa. The three cannot be made into one, nor into three separate things; they cannot be arranged vertically or horizontally. Only the perfect survey of all three dharmas establishes the provisional name Tathāgata.

The Brahmā’s Net Sutra concludes the teaching of the Avataṃsaka: it takes the lotus platform as Origin and the lotus leaves as Trace, speaking thus for one class of conditions, yet Origin and Trace cannot be separated. The Sutra for Resolving Doubts During the Semblance Dharma concludes the Nirvāṇa Sutra: beings sometimes see Śākyamuni as Vairocana and sometimes as Rocana. Their earlier conditions differ and therefore what they see differs; the Buddha himself is not split into three. The Contemplation of Samantabhadra concludes the Lotus Sutra: it says that Śākyamuni is named Vairocana. These are different names for the same Buddha, not different bodies. Gathering the intent of the scriptures, one should know clearly that the three buddhas are neither one nor different.

VIII. Although the Chapter Does Not State Their Names, It Possesses the Meanings of the Three Buddhas

Someone asks: This chapter does not list the names of the three buddhas. Why can it be explained in this way?

The answer says: Although it does not state their names, it possesses their meanings.

The scripture says that it is neither thus nor different and that it is not as beings in the three realms see the three realms. This is not a partial “thus” but reveals the perfect “thus,” and is the meaning of the Tathāgata of the Dharma body.

The scripture also says that the Tathāgata knows and sees the characteristics of the three realms as they really are. This is suchness-wisdom corresponding to the suchness-object; the knowledge and vision of knowledge of all modes are the Buddha eye. This is the meaning of the Tathāgata of the reward body.

The scripture further says that the Buddha sometimes shows his own body and affairs and sometimes shows the bodies and affairs of others. This is the meaning of the Tathāgata of the response body.

If one speaks only of the three Tathāgatas as inherent virtues, they become horizontal. If one speaks only of the three as cultivated virtues, they become vertical. Placing Dharma first, reward second, and response third also makes them vertical. The present scripture perfectly teaches the three Tathāgatas as neither vertical nor horizontal. Even the vertically or horizontally arranged three Tathāgatas are not the present meaning; how much less the Tathāgatas taught in the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings?

Scriptures before the Lotus also spoke of the Perfect Tathāgata, but those teachings still belonged to the manifested Trace. The three Tathāgatas now clarified by opening the Trace and revealing the Origin differ permanently from those in other scriptures.

The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra says that, in order to show the accomplishment of unsurpassed great awakening, three kinds of awakening are revealed. First is the awakening of the response and transformation buddha, manifested according to what beings should see, as when the sutra says that the Buddha left the Śākya palace. Second is the awakening of the reward buddha: the ten grounds are fulfilled and permanent nirvāṇa is attained, as when the sutra says that the Buddha actually attained buddhahood immeasurable and boundless kalpas ago. Third is the awakening of the Dharma buddha, the unchanging pure nirvāṇa of tathāgata-garbha, as when the sutra says that the Tathāgata knows and sees the characteristics of the three realms as they really are. The scripture possesses their meanings and the treatise states their names. Without the preceding explanation, how could scripture and treatise be brought into convergence?

IX. Three Meanings of Lifespan, Measure, and Three Lives

Next, “lifespan and measure” are explained.

“Lifespan” has the meaning of receiving and sustaining without interruption. First, true suchness does not obstruct any dharma and is therefore called receiving. Second, object and wisdom correspond and are therefore called receiving. Third, the hundred-year lifespan obtained as the retribution of a single period continues without interruption and is therefore called receiving. The three meanings must not be conflated.

“Measure” means explanatory measurement. The word applies across multiple circumstances and has no fixed, exclusive basis. The Dharma Tathāgata is measured and explained through principle as life; the reward Tathāgata through wisdom as life; the response Tathāgata through the principle of corresponding to beings’ conditions as life. These three lives can be explained and measured as measurable, immeasurable, or neither measurable nor immeasurable.

For the Tathāgata of the Dharma body, principle serves as life: whether or not a buddha appears, nature and characteristics constantly remain as they are. It is discussed neither in terms of object and wisdom corresponding nor in terms of earlier and later continuity, so it can be called neither measurable nor immeasurable. The scripture’s “neither thus nor different, neither false nor real” precisely measures and explains the Dharma body’s life according to principle.

For the Tathāgata of the reward body, wisdom serves as life: suchness-wisdom conforms to the suchness-object; the object gives rise to wisdom as reward, and wisdom merges with the object as receiving. Since the object is immeasurable and boundless, constantly abiding and never becoming extinct, wisdom is likewise. It is like a lid corresponding to the size of its box. The scripture says that the Buddha’s wisdom-power is thus, attained through long cultivation, that its wisdom-light shines without measure, and that its lifespan endures for innumerable kalpas. This measures and explains the wisdom-life of the Tathāgata of the reward body.

For the Tathāgata of the response body, correspondence with conditions serves as life: when beings’ conditions are long, the response body manifests the same length; when their conditions are short, it manifests the same brevity. 〔The remainder is abbreviated.〕 Long and short arise from the conditions of the beings there; what fixed relation do they have to the response body itself? The text says that he repeatedly manifests birth and repeatedly manifests extinction, and at times declares different names and greater or lesser ages. This measures and explains the condition-corresponding life of the response buddha.

X. The First Quartet: Measure and Immeasurability

The meaning is now recast at another level.

First, the Dharma body is neither measure nor immeasurability. Second, the reward body is measurable before the vajra mind and immeasurable after passing beyond the vajra mind. Third, the response body is measurable when manifested according to conditions. Fourth, because the function of response continues without interruption, it is immeasurable.

In the general explanatory measure, three of the four propositions belong to sages and one to ordinary beings. To judge both measurability and impermanence indiscriminately as meanings of the Buddha cannot stand. The former accounts merely imposed the two slanders of increase and decrease upon the Buddha. If that is not Māra’s teaching, what is it?

XI. The Second Quartet: Permanence and the Remaining Propositions

The meaning of the four propositions of measure has been revealed. For those who still do not understand, the four propositions beginning with permanence are used for further analysis: first they are assigned separately, then explained universally of each body.

In the separate assignment, first is neither permanent nor impermanent: the ultimate principle of the double negation is the Dharma body. Second is permanent: this is the reward body. Reward-wisdom united with its object is actually neither simply permanent nor impermanent, but here its right wisdom is taken as perfect, unborn and unextinguished, and beyond the stage before the vajra mind; hence permanence is taken as the reward body. Third is both permanent and impermanent: this is the response body. Its responsive function is inexhaustible and therefore also permanent; it repeatedly announces nirvāṇa and is therefore also impermanent. Fourth is impermanent: the progressive increase of wisdom’s function before the vajra mind, down to ordinary beings’ births, deaths, appearances, and disappearances, all belong to impermanence.

Thus each of the three buddhas receives one proposition and ordinary beings share one. This is a differentiated assignment according to the Distinct Teaching.

If explained universally and perfectly, every Tathāgata possesses all four propositions.

The four propositions of the Dharma body: neither permanent nor impermanent means simultaneously breaking the inverted views of ordinary beings and sages; permanent means permanent like open space; impermanent means lacking the ordinary beings’ inversion of birth and death; both permanent and impermanent means quiescent and yet illuminating both.

The four propositions of the reward body: neither permanent nor impermanent means wisdom merging with the object; permanent means surpassing the two vehicles; impermanent means lacking the inversion of birth and death; both permanent and impermanent means being able to illuminate both.

The four propositions of the response body: neither permanent nor impermanent means neither merely reward body nor a saṃsāric ordinary body; permanent means constantly corresponding in response; impermanent means corresponding with impermanent conditions; both permanent and impermanent means preserving both aspects.

Since ordinary beings receive the one proposition of impermanence in the separate explanation, they too may universally be said to possess four propositions. Yet ordinary beings possess only the inherent principle and do not yet possess even the names of the four propositions, much less their actual practice and function. This can be understood from what precedes without awaiting further explanation.

One body is the three bodies, yet it is neither a single body nor mutually separate bodies. One should know that the body of one Buddha possesses the lifespan qualities of every body. As beings elicit manifestations according to conditions, the long and short they see differ.

XII. Winter, Spring, Summer, and Three Similes

The Great Sutra says that ordinary beings and the two vehicles see the Buddha’s lifespan like a winter day, bodhisattvas see it like a spring day, and only a buddha seeing a buddha can see a lifespan immeasurable like a summer day.

Why is this? Ordinary beings stand on ground wholly covered by obstruction, dimmed by cataracts. Although the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings have severed the four abiding delusions, they have not seen the middle way. Even when they leave behind fragmentary birth and death and receive a body of Dharma-nature, they have not broken ignorance. What they attend upon in that land is still the superior response body. Thus the two vehicles see only a winter day.

When bodhisattvas have not yet ascended to a ground or entered an abode, what they see is the same as before. If they have broken through one part of ignorance and received one part of the Dharma body, a permissive designation grants that they see the lifespan of the reward body; a stricter withdrawal says that it remains only the superior response body. Because they have not exhausted the source of the reward body or reached the ultimate of Dharma-nature, the Buddha’s lifespan they see is still like a spring day.

Only a buddha with a buddha exhausts Dharma-nature and its source; the lifespan of the Dharma body they see is like a summer day.

The Great Sutra also gives three similes. First, open space is foremost among all permanent dharmas, and the Tathāgata is foremost among all lifespans. This compares the Dharma body’s lifespan, without beginning or end and with nature and characteristics limpidly settled, as unlike response and reward. Second, four rivers all enter the great sea. This compares the myriad good deeds cultivated for the reward body, all of which elicit the Buddha’s reward and enter the sea of lifespan. Third, Lake Anavatapta sends forth four great rivers. This compares the response body’s lifespan emerging from the Dharma and reward bodies and following the long and short spans of beings.

The explanatory measurement made by this chapter universally clarifies all three bodies; in its specific referent, however, its center is the reward body. Why? Because the meaning is convenient and the text converges.

“Convenient in meaning” means that the wisdom of the reward body can merge upward and accord downward, and that the Dharma, reward, and response bodies are thereby fully complete. “Convergence in the text” means that the sutra says the Buddha attained buddhahood an immensely distant time ago and can therefore benefit beings in past, present, and future. What is attained is the Dharma body; what attains is the reward body; because Dharma and reward unite, beings can be benefited. Thus the text converges. Inferred from these points, the chapter’s proper intent is to discuss the qualities of the reward-body Buddha.

XIII. Multiple Accounts of Origin and Trace

Moreover, the manifold qualities of the Dharma, reward, and response bodies were all long accomplished beneath the tree at the original-time site of awakening; this is called Origin. The three bodies manifested as accomplished during the intermediate period and today at the site of quiescence are called Trace.

In other scriptures’ accounts of Origin and Trace, the Dharma and reward bodies accomplished at the site of quiescence are Origin, and the superior and inferior response bodies arising from them are Trace. The present scripture instead calls all three bodies accomplished at the site of quiescence and during the intermediate period Trace, and calls the three bodies attained at the site of awakening in the distant original past Origin. It therefore differs from the other scriptures.

An ancient worthy says: “Without Origin, there is no basis for extending the Trace; without Trace, there is no means to reveal the Origin. Though Origin and Trace differ, they are an inconceivable unity.” The root treatise points out that Master Sengzhao’s statement originally refers to the Origin at the site of quiescence.

Moreover, there are several accounts of Origin and Trace at the site of quiescence.

First, nirvāṇa can be taken as Origin and response arising from reality as Trace. Both Trace and Origin are empty and both words and thought are cut off; therefore they are called an inconceivable unity.

Second, the conventional can be taken as Origin and response arising from the conventional as Trace. Trace and Origin are both profound and vast, and those at lower stages cannot reach their bounds through words or thought; therefore they are called an inconceivable unity.

Third, the middle can be taken as Origin and response arising from the middle as Trace. In both Trace and Origin, the path of language is cut off and the activity of mind extinguished; therefore they are called an inconceivable unity.

Moreover, these three are neither three nor one. Neither three nor one is Origin, while appearing as three and one is Trace. In both, the path of language is cut off and the activity of mind extinguished, and so they are an inconceivable unity.

It is not known which Origin and Trace the other masters designate as an inconceivable unity. The root text next says “now gathering into four rounds.” These four rounds still concern only the inconceivable unity within the Trace; the present chapter points distantly to the three and four inconceivable rounds of the original ground as Origin. From that Origin it extends the Trace, and by means of that Trace it reveals the Origin. Though Origin and Trace differ, they are an inconceivable unity. How could Origin and Trace of this kind fail to differ from the various scriptures? How could they fail to differ from the other masters?

XIV. Why Are the Various Stages and Practices All Gathered into the Sea of Lifespan?

Someone asks: The scriptures each explain stages and practices, some extensively and some briefly. The Avataṃsaka Sutra speaks of forty-one stages, and the Jeweled Necklace Sutra of fifty-two; their names and meanings are extensive. The present scripture contains none of this from beginning to end. How can it be said to differ from them?

The answer says: Suppose people in the world cultivate various enterprises, accumulate various treasures, and seek various ranks. If they have no life, of what use are property and rank?

The Great Sutra says: Suppose an elder has a son. A physiognomist predicts that the child bears the marks of a short life and cannot inherit the family estate. Once the parents know this, they disregard him like grass.

Dharma gates are likewise. Cultivating various causes, attaining various fruits, manifesting various supernormal powers, transforming various beings, teaching various dharmas, and liberating various persons—the six are successively gathered into the sea of the Tathāgata’s lifespan. The essentials within the sea are Dharma-nature, wisdom, and response. At the end the root treatise also places beside them throat, lapel, eye, and xi (“shoe-thong”), asking rhetorically how the essentials indicated by the two lists could differ.

When lifespan and measure are mentioned, we readily think only of a number: how many years or kalpas did the Buddha live, and does that span ultimately end? Yet the “Lifespan of the Tathāgata” chapter makes precisely this intuition unusable. The Buddha says that he attained buddhahood in the distant past, yet manifests birth and extinction in response to beings; he says that he constantly abides without extinction, yet also speaks of different names, greater or lesser ages. If measure is read only as a ruler for length, either permanence is distorted or manifestation is made false.

Zhizhe therefore does not rush to give one answer. He begins with five divergent interpretations and then expands the two attachments to permanence and impermanence into four explanations. Only after loosening both sides does he ask who the Tathāgata is, what lifespan means, and at what level measure operates. What the entire passage must resolve is not merely how long the Buddha lives, but how the lifespan qualities of the Dharma, reward, and response bodies can stand at once amid distant, unceasing permanence and the long and short manifested according to conditions.

I. If All Five Masters Discuss Lifespan, Why Not Choose One at Once?

Each of the five ancient interpretations grasps an aspect that cannot be ignored. Master Rui uses lifespan, divided bodies, Samantabhadra, and Prabhūtaratna to speak of what does not fall within number, is not newly produced, and does not become extinct. Daolang north of the Yellow River sees true and transformed, existing and disappearing, within one Dharma body. Master Guan of the Practice Ground distinguishes the impermanence of the Trace from the permanence of the Origin by quieting the Trace and clarifying the Origin. The anonymous annotator says that the Dharma body lies beyond survival and death, long and short life, and is not encompassed by form and years. Zhu Daosheng presses responsive form to the point of having no real fixed form, so that ancient and present, long and short, both dissolve and remain according to conditions.

These are not five unrelated answers. All attempt to answer the same difficulty: if one looks only at the visible form-body, the Buddha seems to attain, become extinct, and possess an age; but if one says only that the Dharma body transcends long and short, why does the sutra repeatedly speak of distant and near, lifespan, and manifestation? Each school sees one face and thereby makes the other still more conspicuous.

After listing the five, Zhizhe does not announce a winner. He turns instead to the opposition between earlier and recent masters. Earlier masters generally infer permanence from immeasurability; recent masters infer impermanence from measurability; the perplexed person directly equates “measure” with impermanence. This turn is crucial: if measure necessarily means finite, permanence cannot be spoken; if immeasurability necessarily excludes manifestation, the sutra’s births, extinctions, long spans, and short spans cannot be spoken either. The two sides’ mutual grip exposes the narrow premise they share.

The value of the ancient interpretations therefore lies not only in preserving multiple views, but also in showing that the question cannot be hastily sealed with one answer of long or short. Only after the different answers have fully appeared can the reader see that what must be loosened is the habit of locking “lifespan and measure” into a single way of speaking.

II. Why Are the Four Explanations Not a Compromise Between Two Sides?

Zhizhe expands the original alternatives of permanent and impermanent into four: actually measurable yet spoken of as immeasurable; actually immeasurable yet spoken of as measurable; actually immeasurable and spoken of as immeasurable; actually measurable and spoken of as measurable. This does not select a midpoint between permanence and impermanence. It examines “how things actually are” separately from “how the sutra speaks.”

In the first, there is actually a definite limit, although the name or discourse calls it immeasurable. In the second, it is actually immeasurable, although the teaching establishes a measure according to conditions. In the third, both actuality and discourse indicate immeasurability. In the fourth, both actuality and discourse disclose measurability. Once these four forms are opened, “spoken of as measurable” no longer automatically implies that its referent is ultimately finite, and “spoken of as immeasurable” no longer automatically implies that no present limit whatsoever is manifested.

Why distinguish so finely? Because the verbal teaching does not face only one kind of condition. The Buddha can speak according to what beings desire, what is suitable for them, what must be counteracted, or what they can awaken to. Differing teachings do not mean that realities conflict. They first mean that the words which convey meaning are working upon different people.

The snipe-and-clam simile therefore does not encourage a third party to profit from two opponents. By gripping one another, the two sides give Zhizhe an opportunity to reveal four forms: the question is not whether to stand with permanence or impermanence, but that both sides have already diminished the meanings the chapter title can hold. Beginning with these four explanations, measure again becomes explanatory measurement rather than a numerical verdict of finitude.

III. If One Scripture Says Less, May That Side Be Discarded?

Someone may accept the principle yet still ask for scriptural proof: if permanence is real, where is it explicitly stated? Zhizhe’s answer first separates that which conveys from that which is conveyed. Words are like a bridge or road: their function is to bring one to a destination. If one has followed the teaching in words and understood its purport but continues to circle around the relative abundance of phrases, one mistakes the means that leads to meaning for the destination.

This is not permission to leave scripture and improvise freely. Quite the contrary, Zhizhe immediately uses the differing amounts of text in two scriptures to correct one another. Because the Nirvāṇa Sutra takes future permanence as its purport, it says much on that side; because buddhahood attained in the distant past is not its principal purport, it says less. Because the Lotus Sutra takes buddhahood attained in the distant past as its purport, it says much about dust-particle kalpas; it says less about future permanence. More and less follow what each scripture principally reveals, and do not mean that a teaching stated less often may be annulled.

This answer avoids two dangers at once. If one attends only to meaning and disregards every explicit text, interpretation readily loses its scriptural basis. If one decides by word count alone, the many will overpower the few. Zhizhe lists passages such as the constant abiding of the characteristics of the world, “I constantly abide here,” and “constantly on Vulture Peak” precisely to show that less does not mean none and that what is not the principal purport is not therefore nonexistent.

The same principle governs the three virtues. Someone says that if the Dharma body is explained, prajñā and liberation should also be explained. Zhizhe does not invent a chart detached from the passage. He answers from what is already present: provisional and real wisdom disclose prajñā; manifestations in the three periods disclose liberation; true mark and the original ground disclose the Dharma body. The requisite meanings are already in the text, although their names do not always appear together in a neatly parallel form.

IV. Why Move from Two Bodies of the Tathāgata to Three?

In explaining the chapter title, Zhizhe first says that Tathāgata is a common name of all buddhas of the ten directions and three periods, of the Buddha of the Origin and the Buddha of the Trace; he then says that the chapter is now to measure and explain the qualities of the three buddhas of the original ground. This turn brings the question back from “How long does the Buddha live?” to “At which level is the Buddha body under discussion?” Without a clear referent, every number of years becomes confused.

The two Tathāgatas begin with riding the path of suchness as it really is and coming to accomplish perfect awakening. When object and wisdom unite, and illumination of the object moves from not exhausting its source to exhausting it, cause and fruit can be established: this is the Tathāgata of the true body. Coming into the three existences through wisdom of reality and manifesting perfect awakening according to beings is the Tathāgata of the response body. These two first distinguish awakening in accord with principle from manifestation within the world, so that the years of responsive appearance are not directly taken as the whole of the true body.

The three Tathāgatas clarify the same level more finely. The Dharma body is the object of suchness with which wisdom accords; whether or not a buddha appears, its nature and characteristics constantly remain as they are. The reward body is the wisdom of suchness that accords with that object: from principle it is named “thus,” and from wisdom it is named “come.” Through the union of the suchness-object and suchness-wisdom, the response body can everywhere manifest the accomplishment of the Way and turn the Dharma wheel. Dharma, reward, and response are not three mutually isolated buddhas; they are the root treatise’s threefold disclosure of the object to which one conforms, the wisdom that conforms, and the function responsive to conditions.

The treatise next invokes the secret treasury in which all three dharmas are complete precisely to prevent taking one body alone. Taking only the Dharma body readily leaves wisdom and responsive function outside it. Taking only the reward body readily forgets the principle with which wisdom accords. Taking only the response body readily treats form responsive to conditions as the whole Buddha. The three bodies cannot be severed, but neither can they be effaced into one undifferentiated term.

Thus, although the chapter does not directly label the names of the three buddhas, the treatise establishes their meanings from the scriptural text itself: knowing and seeing what is “neither thus nor different” discloses the Dharma body; knowing and seeing reality as it is discloses the reward body; showing one’s own or another’s body and affairs discloses the response body. This is an interpretation expressly made by the root treatise, not the later imposition of three-body terminology upon the chapter.

V. If Lifespan Has Three Meanings, What Serves as Life for Each Body?

Zhizhe first explains lifespan through the meaning of receiving and gives three levels. True suchness does not obstruct the dharmas, and so is called receiving. Object and wisdom correspond, and so this too is called receiving. The hundred years of a single period of retribution continue without interruption, and this too is called receiving. At different levels the same word “lifespan” can mean unobstructedness, correspondence, or the continuity of one period. If only the third is kept, there is no way to speak of the lifespan of the Dharma and reward bodies; if only the first is kept, the long and short span of one response-body period is erased.

Measure means explanatory measurement and applies across different kinds of life; it has no one fixed and exclusive value. For the Dharma Tathāgata, principle serves as life; for the reward Tathāgata, wisdom serves as life; for the response Tathāgata, correspondence with conditions serves as life. The three lives respectively concern principle, wisdom, and function responsive to conditions, and this order is stated by the root treatise itself.

Life according to principle in the Dharma body is not discussed in terms of correspondence or of earlier and later continuity; it cannot simply be assigned to the measurable or immeasurable. In the wisdom-life of the reward body, wisdom accords with an immeasurable object: as the object is immeasurable, the wisdom corresponding to it is likewise immeasurable, just as the lid matches the size of its box. Life according to conditions in the response body follows the conditions of those transformed: long conditions elicit long, and short conditions elicit short. Because long and short arise on the side of what beings elicit, they cannot establish a permanently fixed span for the response body itself.

The easiest confusion here is this: since the three bodies are inseparable, may their three lives be interchanged at will? The treatise does not say so. It first sets out principle, wisdom, and conditions one by one according to Dharma, reward, and response, and only later integrates the three bodies. Separation clarifies the meaning of each life; later integration prevents the three from being treated as unrelated. If one hurries to proclaim unity before distinguishing them, the responsive body’s conditioned length may be used to limit the Dharma body. If one separates them and never integrates them, one Buddha is cut into three.

VI. Why Give the Four Propositions of Permanence After the Four Propositions of Measure?

The first quartet directly distinguishes the three bodies through measure and immeasurability: the Dharma body is neither; the reward body is measurable before the vajra mind and immeasurable afterward; the response body is measurable according to conditions and immeasurable in its uninterrupted function. This quartet first establishes how each body stands in relation to measure and also shows that the terms measurable and immeasurable cannot by themselves determine superiority.

Something remains unresolved, so the treatise next gives the four propositions of permanence and the rest: neither permanent nor impermanent, permanent, both permanent and impermanent, and impermanent. In the separate explanation, the double negation is the Dharma body; permanence belongs to the reward body; both permanence and impermanence belong to the response body; impermanence extends from before the vajra mind down to ordinary beings. Each of the three buddhas receives one proposition, and ordinary beings share one, preserving clear boundaries.

This is still not the final step. In the universal explanation, every Tathāgata possesses all four propositions. The Dharma body possesses them through permanence like open space, absence of ordinary beings’ inverted birth and death, the double negation that breaks the two sides of ordinary and sage, and quiescence that nevertheless illuminates both. The reward body possesses them through wisdom’s merging with the object, surpassing the two vehicles, absence of inverted birth and death, and capacity to illuminate both. The response body possesses them through being neither reward nor saṃsāric, constantly corresponding in response, corresponding with impermanence, and preserving both aspects.

The separate and universal explanations are not two answers that cancel one another. The separate protects the distinctive doctrinal place of each body; the universal protects one body as the three bodies, neither one nor different. With only the separate, the three bodies may be cut apart. With only the universal, the distinct functions of Dharma, reward, and response may become confused. By placing separation first and universality afterward, the treatise allows distinction and integration each to do its work.

Ordinary beings receive the proposition of impermanence in the separate explanation and may also be said universally to possess all four, but the treatise immediately limits the statement: they possess only the inherent principle and do not yet possess even the names and actual functions of the four propositions. This prevents a reader from confusing inherent principle with accomplished practice merely because the terms apply universally. Universality does not abolish stages, and integration does not mean that every function has already been actualized.

VII. Why Do Some See Winter and Others Spring or Summer in the Same Buddha-Lifespan?

From one body possessing three bodies, the treatise turns to the long and short lifespan elicited by beings according to conditions. Winter, spring, and summer do not divide the Buddha’s lifespan into three objective seasons; they indicate the short, intermediate, and long seen by different beholders. Ordinary beings are dimmed by obstructing cataracts, and the two vehicles, though freed from some obstructions, still see only the superior response body: this is winter. Bodhisattvas who break through one part of ignorance and receive one part of the Dharma body may, by a permissive description, be said to see the reward body; by a stricter withdrawal of that designation, what they see is still the superior response: this is spring. Only buddhas exhaust nature and its source and see the lifespan of the Dharma body like summer.

“Granting” and “withdrawing” especially show the care of the treatise’s language. The same vision may permissively be named the reward body and, under a stricter withdrawal, still be named superior response. This is not wavering between two bodies. It expressly marks that, before the source of the reward body has been exhausted, a name may be granted according to the qualities disclosed and must also be withdrawn according to what has not yet been fully realized.

Three similes next make the orientations of the three bodies’ lifespans more concrete. Open space is foremost among permanent dharmas, and the Tathāgata’s lifespan is foremost among beings: this discloses the Dharma body without beginning or end. Rivers enter the sea: this discloses the myriad good deeds eliciting and entering the sea of the reward body’s lifespan. Four rivers flow from Lake Anavatapta: this discloses the response body emerging from Dharma and reward and following the long and short conditions of beings.

The root treatise finally gives its own judgment: universally, the chapter measures and explains all three bodies; specifically, its proper intent is the reward body. The reason is not a separate standard but two points already stated in the passage. In meaning, the wisdom of the reward body can merge upward and accord downward, completing the qualities of all three bodies. In the text, buddhahood attained in the distant past enables benefit in all three periods; what is attained is the Dharma body, what attains is the reward body, and the union of Dharma and reward enables benefit to beings. Both the universal and specific readings are stated by the root treatise and neither may be taken alone.

VIII. How Can the Sea of Lifespan Gather the Various Stages and Practices?

When the treatise turns to Origin and Trace, it first names the three bodies long accomplished at the original-time site of awakening the Origin, and the three bodies accomplished in the intermediate period and today the Trace. It contrasts this with other scriptures, which take Dharma and reward at the site of quiescence as Origin and responses arising from them as Trace. The difference is not whether the terms Origin and Trace occur, but which point is designated the Origin.

It then gives multiple accounts of Origin and Trace at the site of quiescence: nirvāṇa as Origin and response arising from reality; the conventional as Origin and response arising from the conventional; the middle as Origin and response arising from the middle; and finally neither three nor one as Origin, with both three and one as Trace. In every round, the inconceivable unity is described as the path of words cut off and the activity of mind extinguished. These levels occur successively in the root treatise and cannot be assigned further names in advance by importing a later commentary.

The final question returns to the stages and practices in various scriptures. If other scriptures extensively teach forty-one or fifty-two stages and the present scripture says little about their names, how can the present scripture be distinctive? Zhizhe does not supply another hierarchy. He answers with a short-lived son: without life, manifold property and rank cannot be inherited or used.

The same applies to Dharma gates. Cultivating various causes, attaining various fruits, manifesting various powers, transforming various beings, teaching various dharmas, and liberating various persons—all six, with none omitted, enter the sea of the Tathāgata’s lifespan. This does not say that causes, fruits, powers, beings, teachings, and persons liberated lack distinctions; it says that they cannot arise, continue, and benefit others apart from life.

Only here does the full depth of “measure” appear. It does not seek the largest number for the Buddha, nor does it reject every long and short span in the name of immeasurability. It measures and explains life according to principle, wisdom-life, and life according to conditions; it distinguishes Dharma, reward, and response while making one body possess the three. The sea receives the many streams and also lets them flow. The sea of lifespan is therefore not one more item added beside stages and practices, but the basis upon which manifold causes, fruits, and works of benefiting beings can unfold.

Through the Eye of the Wenjuji

Zhanran divides the whole passage into two great areas: first citing ancient masters for a general explanation, then properly explaining the chapter title. He subdivides the first into the masters’ divergent interpretations, provisionally granting those masters in order to break the recent account, the proper explanation through four propositions, and analytical questions and answers 〔0327b25–0327b28〕. This outline illuminates the movement of Zhizhe’s text: the five masters are not opening ornament and the four explanations are not a sudden insertion; ancient accounts, the two attachments, four explanations, and questions together bring the reader to the proper explanation of Tathāgata, lifespan, and measure.

For the five masters, Zhanran identifies what each obtains and misses, finally judging that each gains only a partial meaning and that most take the Dharma body as ultimate without exhausting the wording of the Lotus Treatise 〔0328b15–0328b16〕. He also expressly identifies the “recent master” of the root treatise as Guangzhai 〔0328b22–0328b24〕. Both the identification and the general judgment belong only to the Mirror. If transferred into the root text without attribution, they would make readers think that Zhizhe himself had already named and individually judged the masters here.

In explaining the two and three Tathāgatas, Zhanran says that the two are true and response and the three are Dharma, reward, and response. He further explains that the root treatise does not separately name a transformation body because transformation and response are, in a preliminary sense, broadly the same in substance 〔0329c06–0329c07〕. He then develops Dharma, reward, and response through the object to which one conforms, the wisdom that conforms, and the function that benefits beings 〔0330a08–0330b20〕. These amplifications clarify the relation among the three bodies but cannot be presented sentence by sentence as the root treatise’s own words.

In the lifespan-and-measure passage, Zhanran marks seven levels under the word measure: first establishing three propositions, then using four propositions to resolve the three bodies, integrating the three bodies, clarifying conditioned response, distinguishing according to the bodies, judging Origin and Trace, and finally answering questions 〔0330c29–0331a05〕. He says that the four propositions first follow the order of the bodies rather than the order of the propositions 〔0331b07〕, and concludes the integration through one body being the three 〔0331c13〕. This Mirror perspective protects the root treatise’s separation first and integration afterward; it must not instead be turned into a mechanically parallel grid for every passage.

For winter, spring, summer, and the three similes, Zhanran further explains why what bodhisattvas on the grounds see may be granted the name reward yet have that name withdrawn as superior response, and he identifies the passage’s proper intent through the original reward body’s merging upward with the Dharma-origin and according downward with the capacities of beings 〔0331c17–0331c24〕. Here the Mirror unfolds the root treatise’s compressed phrases. Because the root itself already speaks of granting and withdrawing, convenience in meaning, and convergence in the text, its exposition should be grounded in those statements without borrowing the later commentary to construct a second criterion.

The Mirror also adds four sets of questions and answers: whether distant attainment can also be called skillful means 〔0329a24–0329b05〕; whether the two and three bodies in this chapter encompass the ten bodies of the Avataṃsaka 〔0329c08–0329c17〕; whether all three buddhas point to the original ground 〔0330c17–0330c24〕; and how the Dharma body can illuminate if it is the object 〔0331c06–0331c07〕. These questions can pursue implications left compressed by the root treatise, but none appears in Zhizhe’s text. If the exposition uses them, it must preserve their attribution to Zhanran rather than rewrite the root treatise’s own sequence of questions through later ones.

Layering is most crucial at the end. Zhanran interprets the three rounds as the three truths and adds one mind for the fourth 〔0332a16–0332a18〕. He also correlates Dharma-nature, wisdom, and response with the Dharma, reward, and response bodies 〔0332b08–0332b09〕, and says that the four similes of throat, lapel, eye, and xi (“shoe-thong”) collectively point to the three bodies of the original ground 〔0332c03–0332c05〕. The root treatise itself only lists three and four rounds, three essential terms, and four simile terms; it does not state these correlations. The Mirror may therefore illuminate the final sentence, but must remain the Mirror. In particular, because the three terms and four similes differ in number, even the Mirror provides no one-to-one table.

Zhanran finally says that the six occurrences of zhongzhong (“various”), fall within cause and fruit, one’s own practice and transforming others, and he takes the three bodies of the original ground as the essential basis of the various bodies taught in the scriptures 〔0332b01–0332c05〕. This makes the conclusion in the sea of lifespan more visible: it does not flatten the dharmas but identifies the essential basis from which their causes, fruits, and other-benefiting functions proceed. The Mirror’s development and the root treatise’s sea simile illuminate one another. When the former is attributed, it helps the reader see more deeply; when poured backward into Zhizhe’s own speech, it obscures the movement by which the root treatise naturally gathers the six “various” into the sea of lifespan.