楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 卷一 · 建立誹謗·善知心意識

On the head of a hare there was, from the first, no horn. Yet should you insist, with one firm bite, that it has a horn, that horn grows out of thin air — this is "adding." And should you, because it has no horn, go so far as to say the hare itself is not there either, then you have "subtracted" too far. Sentient beings, looking at this world of body and mind, spend a whole lifetime turning between just these two: either they plant a "being" by force, or they sweep clean into a "nothing."

Add a portion, and it is eternalism; take a portion away, and it is annihilation. The adding-upward is called affirmation, the subtracting-downward is called denial. You take what is underfoot to be solid ground, but it is a stretch of ocean; you take that ocean to be dried up, to be empty, but not for a single moment has it ever ceased. Neither extreme has seen the one thing: that all of this is but one stretch of measure manifested by one's own mind, here and now.

The World-Honored One breaks both these extremes to the last, yet does not leave one fallen into an empty nothing. He turns his hand and points out a wish-fulfilling jewel: the jewel itself does not stir, yet according to conditions it shines forth, and the manifold colors appear, the buddha-fields and their great assemblies all within it. This mind of yours is just the same — recognize it clearly, and the objective realm binds you no more, but rather manifests according to you. What is broken is that pair of hands forever set on adding and subtracting; what is established is this brightness that was, from the first, able to manifest the myriad forms.

Now enter this passage, and look: over this whole life, what you have added and what you have subtracted — on which stretch of ocean, after all, was the adding done, and which single drop was it that you subtracted?

Technical terms of this division (affirmation, denial, affirming-as-existent-what-is-not-existent, the aggregates-elements-sense-fields, particular and shared mark, mind-mentation-consciousness, the five dharmas, the intrinsic natures, the twofold no-self, the manifestation-only of one's own mind, the wish-fulfilling jewel, the seven kinds of emptiness, non-arising, non-duality, being apart from the mark of intrinsic nature) are kept as they stand.

〔Question〕Mahāmati asks for the teaching on the aspect of affirmation and denial · the World-Honored One speaks in verse

At that time the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! That aspect of 'affirmation' and 'denial' — would that you would teach it to me. So that I and the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas might be apart from the two-extreme evil view of 'affirmation' and 'denial,' and might swiftly realize unsurpassed perfect awakening. Having awakened, we should then be apart from the affirmation that falls into 'eternalism' and the denial that falls into 'annihilation,' and should deny the true dharma no more."

At that time the World-Honored One, having received the bodhisattva Mahāmati's request, spoke in verse:

　　Affirmation and denial, these two —　truly neither has left the measure of mind;
　　the body and its enjoyments, once affirmed,　even one's own mind cannot truly know them;
　　only from folly, from being without wisdom,　come this affirmation and this denial.

At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to make the meaning of this verse plain once more, told Mahāmati: "There are four kinds of 'affirming-as-existent-what-is-not-existent.' Which four? They are: the affirmation of a mark that is not existent, the affirmation of a view that is not existent, the affirmation of a cause that is not existent, and the affirmation of a nature that is not existent. These are called the four kinds of affirmation. As for what is called 'denial': it means that, upon that affirmed dharma, one seeks it and obtains nothing whatever; contemplating beyond one's measure, one thereupon gives rise to denial. This is called the aspect of affirmation and denial.

The four kinds of affirming what is not existent · apart from the two-extreme evil view

"Furthermore, Mahāmati! what is called 'the aspect of affirming a mark that is not existent'? It is that, upon the five aggregates, the eighteen elements, and the twelve sense-fields — which are without their particular mark and their shared mark — one nonetheless gives rise to reckoning and clinging, saying 'this is just so,' saying 'this is nothing other.' This is called the aspect of affirming a mark that is not existent. This affirmation of a mark that is not existent is a false imagining; it is the fault of falsity from beginningless time; it arises from the reckoning and clinging of the manifold habit-energies. Mahāmati! what is called 'the aspect of affirming a view that is not existent' is that, upon those five aggregates, eighteen elements, and twelve sense-fields, one affirms the views of a 'self,' a 'person,' a 'sentient being,' a 'life-span,' a 'nourisher,' a 'man,' and the like — this is called the aspect of affirming a view that is not existent. Mahāmati! what is called 'the aspect of affirming a cause that is not existent' is that the very first consciousness is in truth arisen from no cause, and thereafter too is unreal, illusion-like, and originally non-arising; it is only from the eye-faculty meeting with the form-object and the eye-consciousness-element, together with the continuity of the preceding moment, that it arises — and having arisen, and being real, it then perishes again. This is called the aspect of affirming a cause that is not existent. Mahāmati! what is called 'the aspect of affirming a nature that is not existent' is that, upon space, upon cessation, upon parinirvāṇa, upon what is not made by any doing, one reckons and clings that it has a 'nature' and sets it up as an affirmation. These are in truth apart from 'having nature' and also apart from 'having no nature'; all dharmas are like hare's horns and horse's horns (fundamentally without, yet falsely reckoned), like the aspect of falling hairs appearing (falsely seen by a film-covered eye), apart from 'being' and also apart from 'non-being' — this is called the aspect of affirming a nature that is not existent. This affirmation and this denial are both the false imagining of the foolish common person; they are because one is unable to contemplate skillfully the manifestation-only of one's own mind — this is not the state of the noble and worthy. Therefore one ought to be apart from this evil view of affirmation and denial, and train well.

Fully knowing mind, mentation, consciousness · making all sorts of forms of images

"Furthermore, Mahāmati! the bodhisattva-mahāsattva fully knows the aspects of mind, mentation, consciousness, the five dharmas, the intrinsic natures, and the twofold no-self, and heads toward the ultimate. For the sake of settling sentient beings he makes all sorts of forms of images, just as the false-imagining nature manifests in dependence upon dependent-arising. It is like that wish-fulfilling jewel which mirrors forth the manifold colors: it universally manifests all the buddha-fields of all the buddhas, manifests the great assemblies of all the Tathāgatas, and sentient beings, all within it, hear and receive the teaching of the scripture. That is to say, all dharmas are like an illusion, like a dream, like light and shadow, like the moon in water; and upon all dharmas he is apart from arising-and-ceasing, apart from annihilation-and-eternalism, and apart too from the dharma of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; thus does he realize a hundred thousand kinds of samādhi, up to a hundred thousand koṭis of nayutas of samādhis. Having won the samādhis, he then roams the buddha-fields and makes offerings to the buddhas. He is born in the palaces of the various heavens, and there proclaims the Three Jewels — the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. He manifests the buddha-body, surrounded by great assemblies of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas, and by the manifestation-only of his own mind he liberates sentient beings, expounding in discrimination the principle that 'the outer object has no nature,' and causing sentient beings, one and all, to be far apart from the views of 'being,' 'non-being,' and the rest."

At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to proclaim this meaning once more, spoke in verse:

　　This world is but what the measure of mind manifests;　let the buddha-son contemplate it so.
　　A body of every kind and sort,　apart from the doings of contrivance,
　　then wins the power of the spiritual penetrations,　sovereign and accomplished.

At that time the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati again made request of the Buddha, saying: "Would that the World-Honored One would expound for us: that all dharmas are empty, are non-arising, are non-dual, are apart from the mark of intrinsic nature. When I and the rest of the bodhisattva host have awakened to this 'empty, non-arising, non-dual, apart from the mark of intrinsic nature,' we should then be apart from the false imagining of 'being' and 'non-being,' and should swiftly realize unsurpassed perfect awakening."

The seven kinds of emptiness · non-arising · non-duality · apart from the mark of intrinsic nature

At that time the World-Honored One told the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati: "Listen well! Listen well! And ponder it well. Now I shall for your sake expound it, adding discrimination at length."

Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "Very good, World-Honored One! I shall surely listen to and receive your teaching."

The Buddha told Mahāmati: "As for what is called 'the emptiness of emptiness' — it is just the very place of the false-imagining nature. Mahāmati! it is for the sake of those who reckon and cling to the false-imagining nature that 'empty, non-arising, non-dual, apart from the mark of intrinsic nature' is taught. Mahāmati! that emptiness, stated in brief, has seven kinds. They are: the emptiness of mark, the emptiness of the nature that is intrinsic nature, the emptiness of what is conditioned, the emptiness of the unconditioned, the emptiness that is all dharmas being apart from speech, the emptiness of the great emptiness of the supreme-meaning noble wisdom, and this-and-that emptiness. What is called 'the emptiness of mark'? It means that the particular mark and the shared mark of all dharmas are empty, on account of contemplating that they come to be by successive accumulation; discriminating them, there is no self-nature, and their particular mark and shared mark alike do not arise. Self and other, the two, are alike without self-nature, and so the mark does not abide — therefore it is said that the mark of all dharmas is empty. This is called the emptiness of mark. What is called 'the emptiness of the nature that is intrinsic nature'? It means that one's own nature, the intrinsic nature, is fundamentally non-arising — this is called the emptiness, of all dharmas, of the nature that is intrinsic nature. Therefore it is said, the emptiness of the nature that is intrinsic nature. What is called 'the emptiness of what is conditioned'? It means that the five aggregates are apart from 'self' and 'what belongs to self,' and are brought to be by causes, by the karma one does, and by expedient means. This is called the emptiness of what is conditioned. Mahāmati! it is just this emptiness of what is conditioned, wherein, through the successive dependent-arising, the self-nature is fundamentally without self-nature — this is called the emptiness of the unconditioned. What is called 'the emptiness that is all dharmas being apart from speech'? It means that the false-imagining nature is fundamentally without speech, and so all dharmas are apart from speech — this is called the emptiness that is all dharmas being apart from speech. What is called 'the emptiness of the great emptiness of the supreme-meaning noble wisdom of all dharmas'? It means that, having realized the noble wisdom of self-awakening, the fault-habit-energy of all views is emptied — this is called the emptiness of the great emptiness of the supreme-meaning noble wisdom of all dharmas. What is called 'this-and-that emptiness'? It means that, in that one place there being not this one thing, it is said to be empty of it — this is called this-and-that emptiness. Mahāmati! it is as with the lecture-hall of Mṛgāra's Mother: there being within it no elephants, horses, oxen, sheep, and the like, yet it not being without the community of bhikṣus, it is thereby said that hall is empty. This is not to say that the hall's 'hall-nature' is emptied, nor to say that the bhikṣus' 'bhikṣu-nature' is emptied, nor to say that in some other place there are no elephants or horses — this is called the particular mark of all dharmas. It is just that, in that one place there being not that one thing, this is called this-and-that emptiness. These are the seven kinds of emptiness. This this-and-that emptiness is the coarsest and shallowest kind among the emptinesses, and you ought to be far apart from it. Mahāmati! it is neither self-arising nor non-arising, save at the time of abiding in samādhi — this is called non-arising. Apart from intrinsic nature is likewise just non-arising. Apart from the moment-by-moment continuity of the flux of intrinsic nature and the manifesting of the differing-nature, all dharmas are apart from intrinsic nature; therefore it is said, all dharmas are apart from intrinsic nature. What is called 'non-duality'? It means that all dharmas are like cold and hot, like long and short, like black and white (set up in mutual dependence). Mahāmati! all dharmas being non-dual is not that outside of nirvāṇa there is separately that birth-and-death, nor that outside of birth-and-death there is separately that nirvāṇa. It is only because their differing aspects each have their nature (that duality is provisionally said to be), and this is called non-duality. As with nirvāṇa and birth-and-death, so too are all dharmas. Therefore 'empty, non-arising, non-dual, apart from the mark of intrinsic nature' — one ought to train well in this."

At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to proclaim this meaning once more, spoke in verse:

　　I ever teach this one dharma, 'emptiness,'　to keep [beings] far from annihilation and eternalism;
　　birth-and-death, though illusion-like, dream-like,　yet the retribution of that karma is not destroyed.
　　Space and nirvāṇa,　and that 'cessation' — these two are so as well;
　　the foolish give rise to false imagining upon them,　but the noble are apart from 'being' and 'non-being.'

At that time the World-Honored One again told the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati: "Mahāmati! this 'empty, non-arising, non-dual, apart from the mark of intrinsic nature' universally enters all the scriptures of all the buddhas. Whatever scriptures there are, all teach this one meaning. The scriptures, all of them, are for the sake of the minds-that-hope of sentient beings, discriminated and taught and their meaning displayed to them; yet this meaning does not, in truth, reside just in the speech. It is like that thirsty deer that, seeing the imagining of a mirage, is deceived and deluded. The deer, upon that mark of the mirage, reckons and clings that it has a 'water-nature'; yet there is no water there at all. Just so, the manifold dharmas taught in all the scriptures are for the sake of causing the foolish common person to give rise to gladness; that true noble wisdom does not reside just in the speech. Therefore one ought to rely upon the meaning, and not cling to the speech."

Beginning from a single question

Mahāmati's question asks for one thing only: that aspect of "affirmation" and "denial" — would that the World-Honored One would teach it, so that the bodhisattvas might be apart from these two-extreme evil views and swiftly realize awakening.

The question is plain, yet it points exactly at the two places where practice most easily loses its footing. Facing this world of body and mind, sentient beings have only two crooked roads: either to plant a "being" firmly in a place that was originally without it, or to sweep clean into a "nothing" what was originally not empty. The former is affirmation, the latter is denial; the one adds upward, adds until it becomes "eternalism," the other subtracts downward, subtracts until it becomes "annihilation." In answering this one question the World-Honored One first sets up the four kinds of affirmation and points out the aspect of denial, and then makes a turn — turns into "fully knowing mind, mentation, consciousness, the five dharmas, and the twofold no-self." This turn is precisely the joint at which the Laṅkā, breaking the two extremes, walks into the mind-ground of consciousness-only. So with this passage the first thing to see clearly is: where the adding is done, where the subtracting is done, and on what ground both the adding and the subtracting come to nothing.

The four kinds of affirmation: taking a thing that was without, and forcibly seeing it as with

The World-Honored One says affirmation has four: mark, view, cause, and nature. The headings are four, but the root of the disease is one — all of them are "affirming as existent what is not existent," taking what was originally without its own particular and shared mark and forcibly making upon it a view of "being." Zonglei reads this passage and cuts it to the quick: what is called affirming what is not existent is just "fundamentally without, yet forcibly making a view of being." This one phrase, "fundamentally without, forcibly set up," is the whole binding-thread of these four affirmations.

See how it adds, all the way up. The affirmation of mark is, upon the three categories — the five aggregates, the eighteen elements, the twelve sense-fields — which are without particular or shared mark, to reckon and cling that "this is just so, this is nothing other," forcibly planting a real mark upon them. The affirmation of view is, beneath these three categories, to plant yet another "self," "person," "sentient being," "life-span," "man" — body and mind are plainly no more than the gathering and scattering of dharmas, yet one insists on setting up within them a self that presides. The affirmation of cause is to take the consciousness that is originally without cause, illusion-like and non-arising, and call it a real generating-cause. The affirmation of nature is to take even space, nirvāṇa, and cessation — those things not made by any doing — and reckon that they have a real "nature." The four disease-aspects differ, and what is added differs; but the way of the adding is one: to fill a place that is empty and make it solid.

Turn the mirror of consciousness-only upon it, and this is exactly those four words, "the imagined nature." The clung-to mark is existent to feeling but not existent in principle — to the false feeling it stands there as if existent, but in principle it has nothing whatever to rest on. That the three categories are without particular or shared mark is "not existent in principle"; that one forcibly reckons them as existent, reckons a self, reckons real cause and real nature, is "existent to feeling." The Laṅkā here does not yet speak the name "the imagined nature," yet the disease it points to is exactly the first layer of falsity that consciousness-only would have one recognize: that real world you take yourself to see is a layer painted on by the false feeling of one's own mind.

Denial: seeking and not obtaining, sweeping it into an utter nothing

What was added wrongly must be gathered back; but gather too far, and one falls into another pit. This is denial.

The aspect of denial the scripture states clearly: upon that affirmed dharma one seeks it and obtains nothing whatever, and thereupon, contemplating beyond one's measure, gives rise to denial. Zonglei traces the course of this step in the mind very finely: a person seeks within the dharma he has affirmed, cannot find it, and so simply makes an "imagining of emptiness," saying it is all nothing. See — this person is not one who fails to apply effort; he too "contemplates," but his contemplating has lost its measure. Zonglei points it open by borrowing the words of another Laṅkā translation: this is "not contemplating well," being unable to understand that true emptiness is not mere emptiness, and so sweeping away the not-empty along with the rest.

This one loss consciousness-only sees most truly. To break the "fundamentally without" of the imagined nature is right; but if, following the momentum, one sweeps away too the "not-nothing" of the dependent nature and the truly-perfected nature, then one has leapt out of the pit of superimposition into the pit of denial. The former pit takes the false to be real; the latter pit takes the not-empty to be annihilated. Affirmation is to take the ocean for a patch of solid ground; denial is to pronounce even the ocean dried up — neither has seen that this world of body and mind is but one stretch of manifestation-only of one's own mind. And so, right where the four affirmations are fully told, the scripture binds it up in one line: this affirmation and this denial are both the foolish common person's not contemplating well the manifestation-only of his own mind — this is not the state of the noble and worthy. The one phrase "manifestation-only of one's own mind" points out at once the root of the disease at both extremes: it is neither an outer object really existent that can be added to, nor an annihilated nothing that can be subtracted from — it is only mind manifesting.

Hare's horn and falling hairs: the one stroke that lets both extremes fall away

The World-Honored One, in breaking these two extremes, does not rely on reasoning alone; he hands over two similes, and with one stroke pares away both ends, "being" and "non-being."

The first is the horn of hare and horse. On the head of a hare or a horse there was originally no horn, yet you insist it has a horn — this horn is added out of thin air, and to add it is affirmation. But if, because it has no horn, you go on to say "even the hare and horse are not," then you have subtracted too far. The horn is without, the hare and horse are not without; the nature reckoned is just like this hare's horn: to say it is existent is a false adding, and to say that even that on which it rests is likewise without is a false subtracting. The second is the aspect of falling hairs. The eye has taken a film, and one sees strand upon strand of tangled hairs drifting down in the air; those hairs are plainly appearing before the eye, yet in truth there is no such thing. If you cling that they are really existent hairs, that is affirmation; if, because they are false, you say "even the seeing and the seen, all of it, is nothing," that is denial. The marvel of this falling-hairs simile lies just here: it appears yet is not existent — appearing right there before your eye, and yet not truly there. Neither extreme can settle upon it.

These two similes set the four words "apart from being and non-being" before the eyes for one to see. The dharma reckoned is like the fundamental non-being of the hare's horn, and so it cannot be added to as if really existent; it is like the false appearing of the falling hairs, and so it cannot be subtracted from as if utterly nothing. The reason consciousness-only sets up "the threefold naturelessness" to answer to the three natures is precisely for the sake of this one stroke: naturelessness of mark breaks the "being" you add upon the imagined; naturelessness of arising and naturelessness in the ultimate sense guard the "not-nothing" of the dependent and the true, keeping you from sweeping it all into annihilation. The hare's horn removes your eternalism, the falling hairs preserve the not-empty — one simile, a double edge, and both extremes are sent away together.

The wish-fulfilling jewel: after all is broken, the mind that can manifest

If one only breaks, on and on, a person begins to doubt: since affirmation is not-so and denial too is not-so, is not practice, in the end, an empty nothing at all? Yet it is precisely after breaking both extremes to the last that the World-Honored One turns out a great functioning — and this is the true place where this passage comes to rest: fully knowing mind, mentation, consciousness, the five dharmas, and the twofold no-self.

What is broken is the clinging of false adding and false subtracting; what is established is that mind which was, from the first, able to manifest. Since the bodhisattva fully knows this mind-mentation-consciousness — the store consciousness as mind, deliberation as mentation, the cognizing of objects as consciousness — he knows that all objective realms are but one stretch of the manifestation-only of his own mind, and so he is no longer bound by objects, but can rather raise up their functioning from mind. The scripture gives a most beautiful simile: like that wish-fulfilling jewel which mirrors forth the manifold colors. The jewel itself does not stir; according to conditions it manifests the manifold colors, universally manifesting all the buddha-fields, the great assemblies of all the Tathāgatas, and sentient beings, all within it, hearing the dharma. The bodhisattva who has realized the manifestation-only of his own mind is just like this jewel: he manifests bodies of every kind and sort, roams the buddha-fields, proclaims the Three Jewels, and manifests the buddha-body, by the manifestation-only of his own mind alone liberating sentient beings, causing all sentient beings to be apart from the views of the two extremes, "being" and "non-being."

This jewel-simile follows right upon the blade's-edge of the foregoing breaking of clinging. There, with the hare's horn and the falling hairs, was broken your falsity of "a real object outside the mind"; here, with the jewel, is shown the functioning of "the object is just mind manifesting." It is one and the same "mind-only": in the breaking, one sees that it has no real object to be added to or subtracted from; in the establishing, one sees that it can, according to conditions, manifest all things without losing its sovereignty. So to fully know mind-mentation-consciousness is not to have added yet again a real consciousness to cling to — it is fully known together with the five dharmas and the twofold no-self: the five dharmas gather in the whole of the objects contemplated, the twofold no-self sends away the whole of the self that grasps; the grasper once sent away, what is manifested is sovereign. This one "fully knowing" is the turning of the contemplation that breaks the two extremes into the wisdom that can manifest the myriad kinds.

The thirsty deer and the mirage: all the scriptural teachings are but the speech that points at the moon

After the turn into the mind-ground of consciousness-only, the scripture at its close adds one more simile, and nails the measure of the whole passage fast — even this very speech of "empty, non-arising, non-dual" is not to be clung to as real.

The World-Honored One says: this meaning of empty, non-arising, non-dual universally enters all the scriptures of all the buddhas; yet the teaching of all the scriptures is set up in discrimination according to the minds-that-hope of sentient beings, and the meaning does not, in truth, reside just in the speech. It is like the thirsty deer seeing a mirage. The sunlight steams the ground, and seen from afar it is like a stretch of rippling water; the deer, thirsting to the utmost, is certain there is water there, and rushes on with all its might, and coming near — there is not a single drop. Where is the deer's error? Its error is in reckoning and clinging that the mark of the mirage has a "water-nature" — that mark is existent (there really is a stretch of shimmering light), but the water-nature is without (there is no water there).

This simile turns the disease of the foregoing "affirmation" back upon the speech: sentient beings, reading scripture and hearing dharma, most easily reckon and cling upon the marks of the letters a real meaning, as the deer reckons and clings a water-nature upon the mirage. And so the Buddha enjoins: rely upon the meaning, and cling not to the speech. Looked at through the mirror of consciousness-only, this is still the old disease of "fundamentally without, yet forcibly set up," only this time the adding is done upon language — taking the finger that points at the moon for the moon itself. There, it broke your adding of a real object upon the three categories; here, it breaks your adding of a real meaning upon the teaching-dharma. A whole Laṅkā, from the head down to here, breaks throughout the one same hand: that hand which is forever wanting to plant a "being," by force, in an empty place.

Onward Transmission

The threefold division of mind-mentation-consciousness this passage establishes, and the sense of transcending the two extremes, the later Yogācāra treatises take up one by one. The one that takes it up most directly is that treatise which gathers Yogācāra to its consummation — when it fixes the three names mind, mentation, consciousness, it cites the Laṅkā's gāthā straight as its warrant: the store consciousness is termed mind, deliberation is termed mentation, the cognizing of objects is termed consciousness. This passage's threefold "fully knowing mind, mentation, consciousness," come into the treatise, is just the eighth store consciousness, the seventh manas, and the first six cognizing objects — the three transformations; the three names the Laṅkā here points out become the very skeleton of the consciousness-doctrine of Yogācāra. Further down, the Thirty Verses open this threefold division with the first transformation, the second transformation, and the third transformation, and the eight consciousnesses listed among the mind-dharmas of the Hundred Dharmas set out the place of these eight — all rooted in this passage's scriptural source, "fully knowing mind-mentation-consciousness."

Chan reception sources must remain stratified. Jingjue T2837 records Bodhidharma telling Huike to practice in reliance on the four-scroll Laṅkā and thereby attain deliverance〔T85n2837 1284c24–25〕; Daoxuan T2060 records entrustment of the four-scroll Laṅkā〔T50n2060 0552b20–22〕. The formula "it may seal the mind" belongs to the Song preface〔T16n0670 0479c10–13〕. This movement may therefore be read within later Chan reception, but the Song formula cannot be backfilled into Tang sources and the movement cannot be declared Patriarchal Chan’s unique foundation.