The complexity of this argument is a reflection of the theme of universality and particularity . Ch ' eng － kuan , following Fa － tsang , argued that the principle , as a universal , was indivisible , but manifest in things or particulars ( 事 ) . This is what the neo － Confucians later called “ the principle is one but particulars are divided 理 一分殊 . Hua － yen compared this to the single principle of the moon reflected in the myriad rivers . But , it is contended , if principles or universals can be mutually identical , surely they must be divisible . This was the conundrum faced by the Korean commentators on Ûisang ' s theme , who assumed principles or universals had to be unitary . It remained an enduring problem of contradiction for them . They unfortunately were diverted from Ûisang ' s intended sense by the theories of Hui － yüan and Ch ' eng － kuan , who had adopted the presupposition from Chu Tao － sheng 竺 道 生 ( ?－ 434 ) that principle is indivisible . But the Ti － lun 地 論 school had recognised that there were many principles or divisions therein . Chih － yen , at least late in his life , and his pupil Ûisang , accepted this Ti － lun teaching . The shift in the meaning of “ principle " misled these later commentators .