四明十義書 1.6

1.6

十義書之所由作者，有宋景德之前，《光明玄》廣略二本並行於世。錢唐慈光恩師製記曰《發揮》，專解略本，謂廣本有十法觀心，乃後人擅添爾。天台重解帝王之文輒評，謂有四失：一曰理乖、二曰義疎、三曰詞鄙、四曰事誤，廣破如《續遺記》也。有二弟子即錢唐奉先清師、嘉禾靈光敏師，共構難詞造二十條，輔成師義共廢廣本。錢唐寶山善信法師，奉書敦請法智評之。法智遜云：「夫評是議非則近於諍競，非我志也。矧以二師學解有聞，盡吾宗之先達，奚可率爾而拒之哉。」信法師重請曰：「法鼓競鳴，何先何後。夫當仁不讓於師，況餘人乎。」堅讓不免，故有《扶宗》釋難之作，專救廣本十種觀心，兼斥不解發軫揀境之非、觀成歷法之失。錢唐梵天昭師、孤山碼碯圓師，皆奉先之門學也，乃撰《辨訛》驗釋難之非，救《發揮》之得。法智存謙光之禮，撰問疑書詰之，昭師不遜有答疑書之復。法智復有詰難書之徵，昭師構五義之答。法智復作問疑書之責，昭師稽留逾年，法智復有覆問書之催答，昭師有今之釋難，翻成不腆之文矣。往復各五，綿歷七年，攢結前後十番之文，共成今十義書之作。復有二百重詰，不出前後五番墮負、四番轉計。初指約教正釋，便屬理觀觀心。法智斥云：以教代觀，不意翻成有觀無教。二轉計云：須知理觀直觀真心，光明當體翻謂妄法。法智斥云：觀心在迷却謂屬真，當體果法却謂屬妄。三轉計救真心之一失，改真心名為法性。意謂法性通真通妄，以隨緣混之，輔為事理二造。心屬非真非妄，生佛是真是妄。救前真心，亦不專真專妄也。以不專妄故，斥法智之拒也。四轉計云：十乘妙理為所觀境。法智破云：應三障四魔為能觀觀耶？轉計即墮負矣。并初根本，共成五番也。又法智引重明陰境難之，昭公伏曰：止觀觀陰，有失撿尋。仲尼云「法語之言，能無從乎。改則為貴，今為改之也。」法智進獎云：上人粗有性靈，能分科節，何不盡矣。捨短從長、見巧知陋，今伏膺觀陰，因誰得知耶？景德四年，孤山圓師為昭師輪下之席端也。法智遣住東掖山，神昭大師本如在輪下，日馳十義書并二百問往錢唐詰之。會稽什公希望輔之翼之共辨矣。孤山觀二公之論辨如面敵，必重席也，自謂義龍安肯伏鹿，遽白錢唐守，答以公據，不為遣也。雖然止重論席。別行玄雖魔燒佛經，且不能燒性德之善也，故常住教卷焉可絕滅耶。今有宋熈寧相去八十餘年，此文重興，盛行於世。浙右學斆講習此文者眾，故得僝工鏤板，代學者傳寫之勞。住永嘉法明院第一代孫繼忠，指授門人，以寫印二本對之評之。其義其中，法句欠剩、文字舛謬，昔趨廣智之庭每蒙以提耳指掌，今約義斷文輒濫評定或有臧否。冀同學同見者，更為學者指南耳。熈寧九年仲冬月既望日序。

The reason why the Letter on Ten Points was composed is that prior to the Jingde era of the Song dynasty, the expanded and abridged editions of the Guangming xuan circulated concurrently in the world. Master Ciguang En of Qiantang composed a commentary entitled Fahui that exclusively explained the abridged edition, asserting that the expanded edition's [section on] contemplating the mind through the ten dharmas was merely an unauthorized addition by later persons. Regarding Tiantai's re-explanation of the text on the kings, he rashly critiqued it, stating that it had four faults: first, deviation from principle; second, estrangement from meaning; third, vulgarity of phrasing; and fourth, error in factual details; these were extensively refuted, as found in the Xuyi ji. There were two disciples, namely Master Fengxian Qing of Qiantang and Master Lingguang Min of Jiahe, who together constructed challenging arguments and formulated twenty articles to support their teacher's position and jointly abolish the expanded edition. Dharma Master Baoshan Shanxin of Qiantang presented a letter earnestly requesting Fazhi to evaluate them. Fazhi declined, saying, 'Critiquing what is right and debating what is wrong borders on disputation; it is not my wish. Moreover, since these two masters are renowned for their learning and understanding and are all elders of our lineage, how could I rashly reject them?' Dharma Master Xin requested again, saying, 'When the Dharma drums clash, who comes first and who comes after? In practicing humaneness, one does not defer even to one's teacher, let alone to others!' Since firm refusal was impossible, there came about the composition of Fuzong Explaining the Difficulties, dedicated to rescuing the expanded edition's ten kinds of contemplating the mind, while concurrently rebuking the error of not understanding the selection of the object at the outset and the fault of contemplating accomplishment traversing the dharmas. Master Fantian Zhao and Master Gushan Manao Yuan of Qiantang were both disciples of Fengxian; they then composed Bian'e to inspect the faults of the Explanation of Difficulties and rescue the correctness of the Fahui. Fazhi, maintaining the etiquette of modesty, composed a Letter Inquiring into Doubts to interrogate them; Master Zhao, showing no modesty, replied with a Letter Answering Doubts. Fazhi again followed up with an interrogation in a Letter Questioning Difficulties, to which Master Zhao framed five points of response. Fazhi again composed a Letter Inquiring into Doubts to hold him accountable; Master Zhao delayed for more than a year, and Fazhi again sent a Letter Repeating the Inquiries to urge a reply, whereupon Master Zhao produced his current Explanation of Difficulties, which turned out to be a wretched piece of writing. The exchanges went back and forth five times each, spanning seven years; gathering and concluding the ten rounds of texts before and after, they together formed the present work, the Letter on Ten Points. There are also two hundred repeated interrogations, which do not go beyond the previous and subsequent five rounds of refutations and defeats, and four shifts of position. In the beginning, he indicated that the orthodox explanation according to the teachings simply belonged to contemplating the mind through principle contemplation. Fazhi rebuked him: 'Replacing contemplation with teaching, you have inadvertently ended up having contemplation without teaching.' In the second shift of position, [Zhao] said: 'One must know that principle contemplation directly contemplates the true mind, whereas the intrinsic essence of the Radiance is conversely called a deluded phenomenon.' Fazhi rebuked him: 'Contemplating the mind resides in delusion, yet you conversely call it true; the intrinsic essence is the fruition dharma, yet you conversely call it deluded.' In the third shift of position, to rescue this single error regarding the true mind, he changed the term 'true mind' to 'dharmatā.' His intention was that dharmatā pervades both the true and the deluded; confounding it with following conditions, he supplemented it with the two makings of phenomena and principle. Mind belongs to neither the true nor the deluded, while sentient beings and Buddhas are true or deluded. Rescuing his former 'true mind,' it was also not exclusively true nor exclusively deluded. Because it was not exclusively deluded, he rejected Fazhi's refutation. In the fourth shift of position, [Zhao] said: 'The wondrous principle of the ten vehicles is the object contemplated.' Fazhi refuted him: 'Should the three obstacles and four māras then be the contemplating contemplation?' With this shift of position, he fell into defeat. Together with the initial fundamental [argument], these make five rounds in all. Furthermore, Fazhi cited the re-clarification of the object of the aggregates to challenge him, and Master Zhao conceded, saying, 'In the Zhiguan, contemplating the aggregates, I was remiss in my investigation. Confucius said, "Can one fail to follow words of principled admonition? It is changing that is valued; now I change it."' Fazhi stepped forward to encourage him, saying, 'The Venerable has a bit of natural intelligence and can divide sections and rubrics; why not follow it to the end? Cast aside shortcomings and follow what is superior; seeing skill, recognize clumsiness. Now you submit to contemplating the aggregates—through whom did you come to know this?' In the fourth year of Jingde, Master Gushan Yuan held the foremost seat in Master Zhao's assembly. Fazhi dispatched Master Shenzhao Benru, who resided at Mount Dongye and was in his own assembly, to rush daily with the Letter on Ten Points and the two hundred questions to Qiantang to cross-examine them. Master Shi of Kuaiji hoped to support and assist them in debating together. Gushan, observing that the debate between the two masters was like facing an enemy, realized they would surely re-engage in debate; considering himself a dragon of doctrine, how could he submit to a deer? He hastily reported to the Prefect of Qiantang, replying with official warrants so as not to dispatch [his representatives]. Although they halted the debates, even if māras burn the Buddhist scriptures regarding the separately circulating Xuanyi, they still cannot burn the goodness of the inherent virtue of the nature; therefore, how could the scrolls of the eternal teaching ever be destroyed? Now, more than eighty years later in the Xining era of the Song, this text has been revived and flourishes widely in the world. In western Zhejiang, many scholars study and practice this text; thus we have engaged artisans to carve the printing blocks, sparing students the labor of transcribing. Jizhong, the first-generation descendant residing at the Faming Temple of Yongjia, instructed his disciples to compare and evaluate the manuscript and printed editions. Its meanings therein, the omission or redundancy of doctrinal phrases, and clerical errors—formerly, when attending the court of Guangzhi, I was frequently instructed by having my ears pulled and things pointed out in the palm; now, determining the text based on its meaning, I have rashly ventured to evaluate and determine what is good and bad. I hope that fellow students of the same view will further serve as guides for scholars. Preface on the day after the full moon of the mid-winter month, the ninth year of Xining [1076].