四明尊者教行錄 4.135

4.135

正月二十八日，天童山景德禪寺住持傳法比丘（子凝）再修書奉白于延慶教主法智大師。（堂下子凝）聞夫意淺則言疎、思深則言訒。前所獻言者，且欲大師削去傳聞，自扶本教，再垂來示，徵引源流。徒知出於圭峯，問因相國，三宗辨異，未盡所長。殊不知，知解宗徒祖師昔記，循其泛說詎愜通懷。彼《禪源詮》云：達磨九年面壁，蓋為絕緣。由是祖師獨斷乃云：知之一字是眾妙之門。今達磨所傳唯靈知而已，至於深推荷澤、輕視牛頭，矛盾之言洋洋于外。既曰曾逢點授，合具雌黃，何異採鄙俚之言資脣吻之解。且夫達磨之得二祖，亦猶思大之有智者，垂範作則，千古皎如。儻智者之言教成非，而達磨之子孫亦謬，豈容緘默，須議師承。非之則謗因謗緣空招捺落，是之則正人正己信奉謳和，豈謂相國親承、帝王問道？北宗神秀四帝國師，藉勢恃權，其風自弭。來書又云：補處逸多尚受折於維摩詰，上首尸利甘負屈於菴提遮，蓋知緣不在己，是以功讓於他。若如是，則雖曉抑揚，罔窮實際；苟云功讓，未喻下懷。又云：業禪者屢斥尋文，傳教者或譏暗證，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。此者深思，誰之咎歟？剛云破立，以過疣人。豈不云一念三千剎那九世，禪教之旨何理不臧。《思益經》云：說法有二種，若聖說法、若聖默然。何必有說滯言、無說乖旨？實惟不二，非任偏情。昔人截耳捐身，引腸斷臂，斯有由矣。不然，賈有餘勇，恃死不迴。山人每一經心，如負荊刺。願吾大師力扶像運、深察源流，無使正法澆漓、人情美順。唯宗高範，是振淳風。知事懺摩必無虛日，再形鄙抱，專候斥呵。不宣。天童山景德禪寺住持傳法比丘（子凝）頓首再白上。

On the twenty-eighth day of the first month, the bhikṣu transmitting the Dharma and Abbot of Jingde Chan Monastery on Mount Tiantong, [Zi]ning, respectfully writes once more to present this letter to the Teacher of the Doctrine at Yanqing, the Great Master Fazhi. [I, Zi]ning, [standing] below your hall, have heard that when meaning is shallow words are loose, but when thoughts run deep words are halting. What I previously offered was simply wishing that you, Great Master, would prune away mere hearsay and uphold your own school's teaching; yet in the presentation you have sent back, you adduce sources and lineages. You merely know that this derives from Guifeng and was occasioned by the Chancellor's inquiry, but in discerning the distinctions among the three lineages, you have not grasped their true caliber. Little did you realize that the patriarchal masters of old recorded those disciples of intellectual understanding; if one follows their vague talk, how could it satisfy a mind of comprehensive penetration? That *Chanyuan quan* states: 'Bodhidharma's nine years of facing the wall were simply to cut off external conditioning.' Thereupon the patriarchal master made his independent judgment, saying: 'The single word "knowing" is the gateway to all wonders.' What Bodhidharma transmitted today is solely spiritual knowing; as for pushing forward Heze and making light of Niutou, such contradictory statements abound in the open. Since you say that you have received direct instruction, you ought to apply critical appraisal; how does this differ from gathering vulgar street-talk to assist glib explanations? Furthermore, Bodhidharma's gaining the Second Patriarch is just like Master Sida having Zhizhe: setting down a model and standard, clear and bright for a thousand ages. If Zhizhe's doctrinal teaching were made out to be wrong, or Bodhidharma's descendants were also in error, how could one remain silent? One must evaluate the ancestral transmissions. If one rejects them, by slandering causes and conditions one needlessly incurs a fall into hell; if one affirms them, by correcting others and oneself one faithfully chants in harmony. How could it be merely about a Chancellor personally receiving instruction or emperors seeking the Way? Shenxiu of the Northern lineage was the National Teacher of four emperors, yet when relying on prestige and clinging to power, his tradition withered of itself. Your letter also states: 'The One in the Next Life, Ajita, was still refuted by Vimalakīrti, and the foremost Śrī willingly conceded defeat to Āmrapālī; this was because they knew the conditions did not lie with themselves, and therefore yielded the merit to another.' If so, then although one understands deprecation and praise, one fails to fathom the true reality; if one simply says it is 'yielding the merit,' one has not comprehended my humble mind. You also state: 'Those practicing Chan repeatedly deride textual study, and those transmitting the teachings sometimes ridicule blind realization; this is to lead natures oriented to faith or Dharma to open up understanding through speech or silence, so that Bodhidharma's descendants are not alone in refuting and establishing, nor do the descendants of Zhizhe entirely abandon deprecation and praise.' When this is deeply pondered, whose fault is it? To insist on refuting and establishing is to fault others as blemishes. Do we not say that in a single thought-moment are the three thousand realms, and in a kṣaṇa are the nine times? In the tenets of both Chan and the doctrinal teachings, what principle is not good? The *Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā Sūtra* states: 'There are two ways of teaching the Dharma: noble speech, and noble silence.' Why must speech be stuck in words, or wordlessness violate the purport? Truly it is non-dual; one should not indulge one-sided bias. When the ancients cut off ears, gave up their bodies, drew out their intestines, and severed their arms, there was indeed a reason for this. Otherwise, it would merely be reckless bravery, facing death without turning back. Whenever this mountain monk reflects on this, it is like carrying thorns on my back. I wish that you, my Great Master, would vigorously sustain the seminal period of the Semblance Dharma, deeply examine the sources and streams, and prevent the True Dharma from degenerating while human feelings follow smoothly along. Only by following the exalted model can the pure wind be stirred up. Knowing that your practice of repentance leaves no day idle, I once more express my humble feelings, awaiting your rebuke. Respectfully submitted. The bhikṣu transmitting the Dharma and Abbot of Jingde Chan Monastery on Mount Tiantong, [Zi]ning, bows his head and writes again.