Le Hoang Da
Independent Philosopher & Buddhist Scholar
Many branches, one source.
I. Diversity and the Question of Unity in Mahāyāna Buddhism
Few religious traditions display internal diversity as structurally and historically as Mahāyāna Buddhism. Across centuries and cultural worlds, Mahāyāna unfolded into a rich constellation of doctrinal systems, contemplative paths, ritual forms, and philosophical interpretations—at times so distinct that they appear to belong to separate intellectual universes. This diversity is not merely superficial variation in practice; it reflects differing ontological assumptions, soteriological models, and hermeneutical strategies concerning the nature of reality and liberation.
East Asia provides a particularly vivid illustration. Within a single civilizational sphere, Tiantai articulated an integrative system grounded in the Lotus Sutra and the doctrine of the Threefold Truth; Huayan developed a profound cosmology of interpenetrating dependent origination; Sanlun advanced a Madhyamaka-inspired deconstruction of conceptual fixation; Faxiang systematized Yogācāra analyses of consciousness; Chan shifted emphasis toward direct realization beyond textual mediation; Pure Land traditions foregrounded faith and vow in relation to Amitābha. Beyond China, Tibetan Buddhism cultivated distinct yet internally coherent traditions such as Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelug, each preserving its own philosophical synthesis and ritual corpus. In Japan and Korea, Tendai, Shingon, Zen, Jōdo, Nichiren, and Seon further diversified the landscape. From a historical standpoint, diversity is not an anomaly within Mahāyāna; it is constitutive of its development.
Yet this richness gives rise to a philosophical tension. If Mahāyāna encompasses multiple doctrinal frameworks and paths to awakening, what secures their coherence? Is “Mahāyāna” merely a retrospective designation for heterogeneous movements, or does a deeper principle underlie its multiplicity? The question becomes especially acute in light of the doctrine of Ekayāna—the “One Vehicle.” How can a tradition marked by internal differentiation simultaneously affirm unity without collapsing difference? Does unity require homogenization, or might difference itself presuppose a more fundamental consistency?
Within the East Asian reception of the Lotus tradition, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra came to occupy a distinctive position in this debate. In China and Japan, it was frequently read together with the Lotus Sutra and the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra, forming what later tradition referred to as the “Threefold Lotus Sutra” (法華三部經). In this liturgical and doctrinal configuration, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra functioned as a prologue that prepares the ontological and hermeneutical ground for the revelation of the One Vehicle in the Lotus Sutra. From the perspective of modern textual scholarship, however, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra is regarded as an independent Mahāyāna scripture—likely of relatively late composition—and not an original component of the Indian Lotus Sutra. Distinguishing between traditional reception and historical textual formation allows us to acknowledge its doctrinal role while maintaining critical precision.
It is precisely at the intersection of multiplicity and unity that the Innumerable Meanings Sutra acquires philosophical significance. Rather than treating diversity as a problem to be resolved through reduction, the text grounds multiplicity in a deeper ontological claim: “Innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma; the one Dharma is without form.” In this formulation, plurality is not accidental but structural. Because the Dharma is without fixed characteristics, it does not yield a single rigid expression; it unfolds into inexhaustible meanings, teachings, and pedagogical responses. Unity, in this view, does not stand in opposition to multiplicity. It is the very condition that renders multiplicity possible.
This article examines that proposal in three stages. First, it analyzes the ontological assertion that the “one Dharma” is formless, clarifying emptiness beyond a merely negative interpretation. Second, it explores how formlessness gives rise to “innumerable meanings,” not as fragmentation but as responsive adaptability to diverse capacities and conditions. Finally, it considers how this logic converges in the doctrine of the One Vehicle—not as the suppression of plurality, but as the horizon within which plurality becomes intelligible.
Read in this way, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra is not merely an ancillary text within the Lotus tradition; it is a sustained reflection on how unity and diversity may coexist without coercion. The issue at stake is not only historical or sectarian. It concerns a broader philosophical vision in which emptiness functions as the condition for harmonious plurality.
II. The One Dharma as Formlessness — The Ontological Ground of the Sutra
The intellectual core of the Innumerable Meanings Sutra is crystallized in a concise yet philosophically weighty declaration:
“Innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma; the one Dharma is without form.”
This statement both poses and resolves a paradox. If “innumerable meanings” refers to the inexhaustible diversity of teachings, the “one Dharma” might easily be misconstrued as a foundational substance—an ultimate metaphysical ground standing behind all differentiation. Yet the sutra immediately forecloses that interpretation by identifying the “one Dharma” as “formless.”
Here, “one” does not signify an isolated unit or a principle of ontological uniformity. It is not a supreme entity concealed behind the phenomenal world. Rather, “one” is defined precisely by the absence of determinate characteristics. The one Dharma is formless—that is, it bears no fixed configuration, is not confined by essential attributes, and cannot be grasped as a self-subsisting substance.
This point is decisive. If the “one Dharma” were understood as a fixed essence, it could only generate expressions that are uniform or derivative. If, however, the “one Dharma” is formless, it does not close off the possibilities of manifestation; it constitutes an openness. It is precisely this absence of fixation that renders emergence possible. Formlessness is not nihilism; it is freedom from confinement within any particular form.
Such an interpretation avoids two familiar extremes in the understanding of emptiness. The first is to construe “emptiness” as total negation, as sheer non-existence. The second is to reify emptiness as a metaphysical entity replacing other substances. The sutra follows neither path. In declaring that “the one Dharma is formless,” it does not transform formlessness into a thing; it underscores instead the non-fixed character of all dharmas.
Within this framework, the “one Dharma” is no longer a rigid ontological starting point but a principle of transformability. It is not “one” in opposition to “many,” but the condition that allows multiplicity to arise without forfeiting relational coherence. Precisely because it lacks fixed characteristics, it does not restrict its manifestations to a single structural pattern.
This clarifies why the sutra places the “one Dharma” prior to “innumerable meanings.” If the ground were a determinate entity, diversity could only appear as subordinate variation. But if the ground is formless, diversity is not a diminution of truth; it is the manner in which truth expresses itself across differing historical and existential conditions.
Formlessness, moreover, is not a state detached from the phenomenal world. It does not lie outside phenomena; it is the non-fixed character of phenomena themselves. Thus, formlessness does not negate the appearance of forms; it negates only their self-subsistence and rigidity. Forms may arise, but they are never absolutized.
Philosophically, the assertion that “the one Dharma is formless” may be read as a claim that reality does not possess a single rigid structure. It opens a perspective in which flexibility, contingency, and non-fixity become the fundamental characteristics of all manifestation. Unity, in such a view, is not grounded in homogenization but in a shared absence of fixed essence.
At precisely this point, the transition to Section III becomes possible: if the “one Dharma” is formless, then “innumerable meanings” cease to be puzzling. They become necessary. Diversity is not a deviation from the principle; it is the natural expression of that principle.
III. From Formlessness to Innumerable Meanings — The Necessary Consequence of Openness
If the “one Dharma” is defined as formless, the next step in the sutra is not an arbitrary assertion but an internal consequence:
“Innumerable meanings arise from the one Dharma.”
This proposition should not be read as a poetic metaphor but as a logical structure. “Innumerable meanings” is not placed alongside formlessness as a parallel concept; it is articulated in a generative relation to it. That is, precisely because the “one Dharma” is formless, “innumerable meanings” can arise.
First, the notion of “meaning” (artha) requires clarification. “Meaning” does not refer merely to linguistic signification; it denotes the unfolding of the Dharma within concrete contexts: teachings articulated according to differing capacities, skillful means adapted to circumstances, and interpretive frameworks formed within particular traditions. In other words, “meaning” is the concrete mode in which truth manifests within history and lived experience.
If the ground of all dharmas is formless—lacking fixed self-nature—then no single expression can monopolize truth. No form of articulation possesses absolute authority. This does not dissolve truth; on the contrary, it enables multiple expressions without contradiction. Because the Dharma is not confined within a singular structural pattern, it can be articulated in innumerable forms.
The logical structure may be summarized as follows:
- If the Dharma possessed a fixed essence → only one valid mode of expression would be possible.
- If the Dharma is formless → no single mode of expression can claim finality.
- Therefore, formlessness necessarily opens onto innumerable expressions.
“Innumerable meanings,” in this sense, do not signify the fragmentation of truth but its dynamic movement within diverse conditions. They do not imply that truth changes arbitrarily; rather, they indicate that truth is not restricted to a single fixed formulation. Each “meaning” represents a way in which truth is received and expressed in relation to particular capacities and circumstances.
The sutra further emphasizes the differing capacities (adhiṣṭhāna or faculties) of sentient beings—each possessing distinct dispositions, conditions, and inclinations. Because capacities are innumerable, the teachings expounded are likewise innumerable. This indicates that “innumerable meanings” arise not only from ontological formlessness but also unfold at the pedagogical and practical level.
Here a twofold movement becomes visible. At a deeper level, formlessness prevents truth from being fixed; at the phenomenal level, the diversity of capacities requires truth to be articulated in multiple ways. These two movements converge in “innumerable meanings.” They are both the consequence of ontological openness and the responsive adaptability to concrete situations.
Yet a crucial point must be underscored: innumerable meanings do not imply chaos. Diversity does not entail detachment from the ground; it remains anchored in the “one Dharma.” Because all meanings arise from the one Dharma, they do not drift without orientation. They differ, but they do not sever their connection to the source. Openness does not abolish relationality; it renders relationality dynamic.
Thus, the structure of the sutra is not “one” opposed to “many,” but “one” as the open ground of the many. Innumerable meanings do not weaken the one Dharma; they render it historically alive. Within this relational structure, the diversity of Mahāyāna no longer appears as a problem requiring resolution; it emerges as the natural consequence of the principle of formlessness.
At this point, however, a new question arises: if innumerable meanings necessarily emerge from formlessness, what prevents such plurality from collapsing into relativism? This question will be addressed in the following section, where it becomes necessary to clarify that openness does not entail the absence of order.
IV. Formlessness Is Not Chaos — The Internal Coherence of Innumerable Meanings
From the preceding argument, a legitimate concern may arise: if the “one Dharma” is formless and from it arise “innumerable meanings,” does Mahāyāna risk sliding into a form of relativism in which all interpretations are equally valid and no internal criterion remains? If truth possesses no fixed form, does it lose structure and order?
This question must be taken seriously. Without clarification, the notion of formlessness may easily be misconstrued as a license for arbitrariness. Yet such a misunderstanding stems from conflating “non-fixity” with “absence of principle.” These are not equivalent.
When the sutra declares that “the one Dharma is formless,” what is negated is fixed self-nature—not relational causality. Formlessness does not abolish dependent origination; rather, it presupposes it. Precisely because dharmas lack immutable essence, they can interact, arise, and transform. If phenomena were fixed in their intrinsic nature, causality would be impossible. Formlessness, therefore, does not dissolve order; it relocates order within the dynamic structure of dependent origination rather than grounding it in a rigid substance.
Similarly, “innumerable meanings” does not imply that every interpretation is valid in the same manner. Each “meaning” arises in relation to specific capacities and circumstances. This implies an internal criterion: appropriateness. A teaching is meaningful insofar as it corresponds to the capacities of its audience and contributes to the alleviation of suffering. Openness is not arbitrariness; it is directed flexibility.
This orientation is not an abstract ideal but the concrete reality of human suffering: birth, aging, illness, and death; fear, loss, conflict; the experience of isolation in a fragmented world. These are the conditions to which the Dharma responds. If an interpretation or practice intensifies division, reinforces attachment, or generates further harm, then—regardless of its appeal to “innumerable meanings”—it remains embedded in causal patterns that perpetuate suffering. Conversely, a teaching that diminishes fear, cultivates compassion, and clarifies ignorance manifests formlessness appropriately within a given context.
At this point, it becomes clear that Mahāyāna openness does not entail the relaxation of standards. The criterion does not derive from a fixed metaphysical essence but from the structure of causality and the orientation toward liberation. Because actions produce consequences, the selection of skillful means entails responsibility. Causality, in this sense, becomes the living foundation of ethics within a formless world.
Formlessness, therefore, does not lead to chaos; it leads to responsibility. The non-fixed nature of dharmas renders transformation possible while making consequences real. In a universe structured by dependent origination, every articulation carries weight. The diversity of Mahāyāna thus does not constitute a loose aggregation but a flexible yet coherent structure anchored in the common ground of the “one Dharma.”
It is precisely this grounding that prevents “innumerable meanings” from collapsing into relativism. Diversity is permitted, yet not severed from the orientation toward liberation. Difference is acknowledged, yet not converted into mutual negation. Formlessness opens the space of expression, but it does not exempt beings from the consequences of their choices.
On this foundation, the next step becomes intelligible: if innumerable meanings remain anchored in a shared principle, then their convergence in the doctrine of the One Vehicle is no longer an act of coercion but a recognition of a unity already present within diversity.
V. From Innumerable Meanings to the One Vehicle — Unity Without Coercion
If “innumerable meanings” arise from the “one Dharma,” and if every expression remains grounded in the foundation of formlessness, a further question naturally emerges: how can such plurality converge in the doctrine of the One Vehicle without forfeiting its flexibility?
In many common interpretations, the “One Vehicle” (Ekayāna) is easily understood as a reduction: multiple paths ultimately collapse into a single exclusive route. Yet within the argumentative structure of the Innumerable Meanings Sutra, the One Vehicle does not negate diversity; rather, it discloses the shared ground that makes diversity possible.
If the “one Dharma” is formless, then all teachings, interpretations, and traditions lack fixed self-nature. They exist as contingent manifestations of the same ground. Their differences are not differences between separate substances but differences among modes of expression. Understood in this way, convergence toward the One Vehicle is no longer an act of elimination but an act of recognition.
The One Vehicle, therefore, is not an organizational framework imposed upon plurality; it is the depth already present within plurality itself. Because all meanings “arise from the one Dharma,” they are not ultimately severed from one another at the foundational level. Convergence need not be produced through coercion; it becomes evident when the formlessness of all dharmas is seen clearly.
This clarification is crucial: the One Vehicle does not entail homogenization. It does not require all traditions to resemble one another in ritual form, doctrinal articulation, or linguistic expression. It requires only that skillful means not be reified into ultimate reality. When teachings are understood as provisional manifestations of a shared formless ground, they may differ without excluding one another.
In this sense, the One Vehicle may be regarded as the logical consequence of formlessness. If dharmas possessed fixed self-nature, they could not converge; each would stand as an independent entity. But if dharmas are formless, no ontological boundary prevents relational coherence. Unity is not constructed from without; it arises from the absence of intrinsic separation.
From this perspective, the notion of the “one Dharma” in the Innumerable Meanings Sutra should not be read as a contradiction within Buddhist thought but as a deepening of an intuition already present in the early Buddhist teaching of dependent origination. Dependent origination denies fixed self-nature at the level of phenomena; emptiness renders that denial explicit and universal. If dependent origination undermines intrinsic essence at the phenomenal level, emptiness articulates this insight as a comprehensive ontological principle. The One Vehicle, in this light, does not replace dependent origination but unfolds its most far-reaching implications.
The movement from formlessness to innumerable meanings and from innumerable meanings to the One Vehicle thus forms not a series of disconnected claims but a coherent progression. Formlessness renders diversity possible; diversity, when freed from attachment, reveals its underlying unity. The One Vehicle does not stand in opposition to innumerable meanings; it is the horizon within which their true nature becomes intelligible.
VI. Reading the Sutra as Method — The Structure of Innumerable Meanings and Hermeneutical Depth
If the Innumerable Meanings Sutra were read merely as a doctrinal text, its significance might be confined to the explicit content it conveys. Yet within its own conceptual architecture, “innumerable meanings” is not solely an ontological claim; it is simultaneously a hermeneutical principle.
When the sutra declares that innumerable meanings arise from the one formless Dharma, it speaks not only about the structure of reality but also about the structure of meaning. If the ground is formless, every articulation is provisional and skillful. No single interpretation may legitimately claim absoluteness; yet neither is any interpretation excluded, provided it orients itself toward the transformation of suffering.
In this respect, the sutra does not merely transmit a doctrine; it establishes an intellectual posture:
- not to reify textual language as ultimate reality,
- not to equate interpretation with truth itself,
- not to absolutize skillful means into final ends.
“Innumerable meanings” thus becomes a hermeneutical principle: meaning is not exhausted by the letter of the text but unfolds through the depth of practice and transformation.
From this perspective, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra may be understood as affirming that the Mahāyāna scriptural system itself operates according to a structure of innumerable meanings—a structure in which meaning does not terminate at the surface of language but opens into layered dimensions of understanding. The text is not the endpoint of meaning but its point of departure. Meaning does not close within scriptural form; it continues to live in the interaction among reader, context, and the soteriological aim.
This feature contributes to the distinctive character of the Mahāyāna scriptural tradition. While other Buddhist textual systems often emphasize precision and the faithful preservation of canonical wording, Mahāyāna places greater weight on the generative openness of meaning as a consequence of formlessness. This difference is not oppositional but emphatic: Mahāyāna highlights the depth of expression, in which language functions as expedient means.
The structure of innumerable meanings thus explains not only the doctrinal diversity of Mahāyāna schools but also its remarkable cultural adaptability. Because meaning is not fixed at a single interpretive level, scriptures may be received and reinterpreted across diverse historical and cultural contexts while retaining a shared ground.
Yet this principle also demands reflexivity. If “innumerable meanings” is misunderstood as a warrant for arbitrariness, or if it is invoked to justify rigid positions, the spirit of the sutra is lost. Innumerable meanings is not intended to multiply closed stances; it is meant to soften them.
In this way, the Innumerable Meanings Sutra does more than clarify the relation among formlessness, innumerable meanings, and the One Vehicle. It proposes a method of reading and a mode of living: flexible yet oriented, open yet not chaotic, diverse yet not fragmented.
VII. When Innumerable Meanings Become Practice
If the Innumerable Meanings Sutra is understood merely as a philosophical text, it may be read and then set aside. Yet if the sutra truly affirms the structure of innumerable meanings as the foundation of the Dharma, the final question is no longer what the text says, but how we live with it.
Mahāyāna is a tradition of diversity. That diversity is not accidental; it reflects the formless structure of reality and the structure of innumerable meanings within meaning itself. Yet diversity becomes fruitful only when sustained by non-attachment. When skillful means are reified into ultimate essence, innumerable meanings lose their openness.
History shows that Buddhist communities have not infrequently fractured through attachment to doctrine, method, or particular modes of expression. When this occurs, difference ceases to be an expression of innumerable meanings and becomes instead a manifestation of subtle ego-clinging. It is precisely here that the teaching of the “one Dharma” acquires existential significance: not to reduce all traditions to a single uniform form, but to remind us that every articulation arises from a shared formless ground.
Recognizing this does not diminish the richness of diverse practices; it enables them to coexist without mutual negation. The One Vehicle, in this sense, is not an institutional structure but a depth of insight. It does not demand homogenization; it calls for the relinquishment of reification.
If innumerable meanings constitute the structure of the Dharma, then non-attachment must constitute the structure of the community. One may accumulate scriptural knowledge without embodying the spirit of formlessness, thereby erecting new boundaries in the name of orthodoxy. Conversely, when teachings are understood as provisional manifestations of a shared ground, diversity becomes an opportunity for dialogue rather than a cause of division.
The Innumerable Meanings Sutra, therefore, is not merely a prologue to the doctrine of the One Vehicle. It is a sustained reminder that truth does not reside in fixation but in transformative capacity. Innumerable meanings are not meant to multiply positions; they are meant to expand understanding and compassion.
At its deepest level, the One Vehicle does not negate innumerable meanings; it renders them transparent. And when that transparency is lived rather than merely affirmed, unity ceases to be a slogan and becomes an embodied experience.
Bibliography
Garfield, Jay L., trans. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hurvitz, Leon, trans. Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.
Kato, Bunno, Yoshiro Tamura, and Kojiro Miyasaka, trans. The Threefold Lotus Sutra. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1989.
Stone, Jacqueline I. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.
Suzuki, D. T. Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism. London: Luzac, 1907.
Swanson, Paul L. Foundations of T’ien-T’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2008.