四明尊者教行錄 4.133

4.133

正月二十四日，延慶院住持傳天台教觀比丘（知禮），謹修書復于天童景德堂頭禪師（侍者）。今月十八日，僧使齎到長書一緘。文理相高，經實俱贍，舒卷忘倦，珍荷彌多。但以夙事懺摩，全疎文學，將謀投報，預抱忸怩。然閱華詞，備諳雅旨。蓋以（知禮）早歲為解本宗十不二門，輒述《指要鈔》，編文紀事，聊資學眾之尋研。義淺詞荒，敢冀宗師之觀覽。其中所引，達磨門下三人得法淺深不同。尼總持云：斷煩惱證菩提。師云：得吾皮。道育云：迷即煩惱，悟即菩提。師云：得吾肉。慧可云：本無煩惱，元是菩提。師云：得吾髓。來書云：此語不契《祖堂》及《傳燈錄》，謂是道聽途說採乎鄙俚之談。而不知此出圭峯後集，裴相國（休）問禪法宗徒源流淺深，密禪師因為答釋，廣敘諸宗，直出傍傳源同派別。首云：達磨直出慧可，傍傳道育及尼總持。乃示三人見解親疎，故有斯語。此之後集印本見存，南北相傳流行不絕，曾逢點授因是得聞。而況有唐圭峯禪師，帝王問道、相國親承，和會諸宗，集成禪藏，製《禪源詮都序》兩卷，及茲後集，為世所貴，何為鄙俚之談？豈是道聽途說？此乃禪門自生矛盾，固非講士敢此譏呵。只如《祖堂》亦是人師集錄，誰是誰非，言何容易？夫法本無說，說必被機。機發在緣，緣有賓主，故諸聖人抑彼揚此、是一非諸。補處逸多尚受折於維摩詰，上首尸利甘負屈於菴提遮，豈補處納言、上首暗理？蓋知緣不在己，是以功讓於他。以至正像法中，華竺宗主空有更破、性相互非，業禪者屢斥尋文、傳教者或譏暗證，皆為進於初學，欲使深於本宗。《智論》立悉檀被機，禪經用四隨益物，設化之法大體合然。但以假名引令入實，不得其意，寧免生疑。來書又云：今或有師云：達磨之道但接下根未通上智。又云：悟即心之理，昧心外之法。未審此語何文所載？何處親聞？無求閭巷之音而構誣罔之說，道聽途說，事有所歸矣。且夫信行法行各有利根鈍根，唯色唯心豈分內法外法？剎那九世一念三千，理事俱融頻彰指要。既蒙顧視，合察源流。願存為法之心，廣闡利人之道。俾信法根性從說默開明，無使達磨子孫獨能破立，智者宗裔全廢抑揚。則彼眾當機有趣真之路，令此宗來學絕入理之門。禪師悟徹一心，辯超千古，為佛祖之了使、作人天之導師，希開博濟之懷，勿任偏情之執。講懺之隙倉卒奉酬，幸無以朴野而見誚焉。不宣。延慶院住持傳天台教觀比丘（知禮）拜手上復。

On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, the bhikṣu propagating the Tiantai doctrinal teaching and contemplation and abbot of Yanqing Cloister, [Zhili], respectfully writes this letter in reply to the Chan Master at the head of the hall of Tiantong Jingde (attendants). On the eighteenth of this month, a monastic messenger delivered a long letter. Its literary style and principle are both elevated, and its scriptural references and substantial arguments are fully abundant; rolling and unrolling it, I forgot weariness, and my appreciation grew ever greater. However, because I have long been occupied with repentance rituals and am entirely neglectful of literary composition, as I set about composing a reply, I felt embarrassed beforehand. Yet, reading your elegant words, I have fully grasped your refined intentions. In my early years, in order to explain my school's Ten Non-Dual Gates, I ventured to compose the Zhiyao chao, compiling texts and recording matters, merely to aid the search and study of fellow students. Its meaning is shallow and its phrasing uncultivated; how could I have dared to expect a lineage master's perusal? Among what was cited therein, it is said that the three persons under Bodhidharma attained the Dharma to varying depths: the nun Zongchi said, 'Severing afflictions, one realizes bodhi,' and the master said, 'You have attained my skin'; Daoyu said, 'Delusion is affliction; awakening is bodhi,' and the master said, 'You have attained my flesh'; Huike said, 'Originally there are no afflictions; fundamentally it is bodhi,' and the master said, 'You have attained my marrow.' Your letter states that these words do not accord with the Zutang [ji] and the Chuandeng lu, and claims they are hearsay from the road, gathered from vulgar talk. Yet you do not know that this comes from the Later Collection of Guifeng. When Prime Minister Pei [Xiu] inquired about the origins, lineages, depths, and shallows of the Chan traditions, Chan Master [Zong]mi answered and explained it for him, extensively recounting the various lineages, showing direct transmissions and collateral branches, and their common origin and distinct streams. At the outset he states: 'Bodhidharma's direct line was Huike, and his collateral transmission went to Daoyu and the nun Zongchi.' He then illustrated the intimacy or distance of the three persons' insights, and therefore these words were recorded. The printed edition of this Later Collection still exists, and has been transmitted and circulated continuously in both North and South; having once received it through punctuation and instruction, I thereby came to hear of it. What is more, Chan Master Guifeng of the Tang was questioned on the Way by emperors, and the Prime Minister personally received his teachings; he harmonized the various traditions, compiled them into the Chan Canon, and authored the two-fascicle General Preface to the Collection of Expressions of the Chan Source and this Later Collection, which are prized by the world. How could this be vulgar talk? How could it be hearsay from the road? This is a contradiction arising from within the Chan school itself; it is certainly not something a doctrinal lecturer would dare criticize. As for the Zutang [ji], that too was compiled by a human teacher; who is right and who is wrong—how can it be easily asserted? Indeed, the Dharma originally has no preaching; preaching must respond to capacities. When capacities are stimulated, it depends on conditions, and conditions have guest and host. Therefore, the various sages deprecate that and extol this, affirming one and negating the others. The Successor Ajita was still rebuked by Vimalakīrti, and the Foremost Śrī willingly accepted defeat from Āmradāśikā. Was it that the Successor was slow of speech, or the Foremost blind to principle? It was simply because they knew the conditions did not lie with them, and therefore yielded the merit to the other. Even in the True and Semblance Dharma eras, the masters of China and India mutually refuted emptiness and existence, and the nature and characteristic traditions negated each other; practitioners of Chan repeatedly disparaged text-seeking, while transmitters of doctrine sometimes mocked silent realization. All of this was done to advance beginners and lead them to go deep into their own school. The Dazhidu lun establishes the siddhāntas to respond to capacities, and the Chan sūtras employ the four conformities to benefit beings; the methods of establishing conversion are generally of this sort. They merely use provisional designations to lead beings into the real; if one fails to grasp their intent, how can one avoid giving rise to doubt? Your letter also says: 'Furthermore, nowadays there are some masters who say: "Bodhidharma's way only receives those of inferior faculties, and does not reach the highest wisdom." They also say: "He awakened to the principle that mind itself [is Buddha], but was blind to phenomena outside the mind."' I wonder in what text these words are recorded, or where they were personally heard? Do not seek out the talk of alleys and fabricate slanderous statements; hearsay from the road indeed has its proper origin. Moreover, both faith-followers and Dharma-followers have sharp and dull faculties; in 'mind-only' and 'form-only', how could one divide internal phenomena from external phenomena? An instant contains the nine times, and a single thought comprises the three thousand; both principle and phenomena are interfused, as has been repeatedly shown in the Zhiyao [chao]. Having received your attention, you ought to investigate their source and stream. I hope you will preserve a mind dedicated to the Dharma and broadly expound the way of benefiting others, enabling those of faculties rooted in faith or Dharma to be enlightened through speech or silence, without letting the descendants of Bodhidharma alone establish and refute, while the scions of Zhizhe entirely abandon extolling and deprecating. Otherwise, while those people have capacities with a road toward the truth, students of this school would be cut off from the gate of entering the principle. Chan Master, your awakening penetrates the one mind, and your eloquence surpasses a thousand ages; you are an accomplished emissary of the buddhas and patriarchs, a guide for humans and devas. I hope you will open a mind of broad salvation, and not give way to one-sided attachments. In a hasty interval between lecturing and repentance, I offer this reply, hoping you will not ridicule it as crude and rustic. I do not elaborate further. Respectfully replied by the bhikṣu propagating the Tiantai doctrinal teaching and contemplation and abbot of Yanqing Cloister, [Zhili], bowing with hands raised.