四明尊者教行錄 4.137

4.137

二月初七日，延慶院住持傳天台教觀比丘（知禮），再裁書于天童堂上大禪師（丈室）。比者累接真緘，頗彰深意。前書謂：《指要》所引三人得法全不據文，乃是道聽途說，採乎鄙俚之談。蓋由不曉斯文出自圭峯後集，只齊曾見非彼所聞，故以長書責無實證。今知所出，合恥鮮聞，如何却斥圭峯棄乎援據。噫！過而不改，斯成過也。且如《指要》所引，非無所以。蓋智者立法華絕待十妙、止觀圓頓十乘，以煩惱即菩提、生死即涅槃二句之文而為剛格。誠非二法相合名即，故不可以斷證明之。亦非一法翻轉名即，故不可以迷悟示之。煩惱非定本無，菩提非定本有，故用煩惱即菩提等，絕其言詮、寂其思慮，俾妙解圓明、妙行密契、妙理頓顯故也。柰以天台宗教陵遲之際，圭峯後集流衍來吳，禪講之徒多所宗尚。咸云：達磨印於二祖，本無煩惱元是菩提，方為得髓。智者所說既同道育之解，乃成得肉之言。鄙僧忝嗣台宗，得無傷痛？況聞點授，粗見否臧，遂於《指要》文中對揚厥旨，何任唇吻之便而浪有所譏。且夫分宗受法，傳教接人。人據圭峯難於本教，豈不依教而返破之？斯皆扶樹本宗，勉勵初學。證悟之際，彼此豈存？前所謂設化之法大體合然，悉檀被機、四隨益物，不得其意，信有狐疑。洎觀捐身斷臂之心，如負芒剌之語，後五百歲能幾人乎？省己扶宗，既能如此；於他護法，豈得周遮。幸冀禪師博覽本宗，善揚祖道，無得阻他，釋難便成，立我化功。蒙索報音，詎可緘默。不宣。延慶院住持傳天台教觀比丘（知禮）稽首再白。

On the seventh day of the second month, the bhikṣu transmitting Tiantai doctrinal teaching and contemplation and Abbot of Yanqing Cloister, [Zhi]li, again pens this letter to the Abbot's Room of the Great Chan Master presiding over Tiantong. Recently I have received your genuine letters one after another, clearly displaying profound intentions. Your previous letter claimed that the three individuals attaining the Dharma cited in the *Zhiyao [chao]* had no textual basis at all, being merely hearsay gathered from vulgar street-talk. This was because you did not know that this text comes from the *Later Collection* of Guifeng; you merely equated what you had seen with what you had not heard, and therefore rebuked me in a long letter for lacking actual proof. Now that you know its source, you ought to feel shame at the narrowness of what you had heard; why do you instead reproach Guifeng and discard the textual citation? Alas! 'To err and not correct it—this is truly an error.' Furthermore, the citation in the *Zhiyao [chao]* was not without reason. Zhizhe established the ten absolute wonders of the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* and the ten vehicles of the perfect and sudden stopping and contemplation, taking the two sentences 'defilement is none other than awakening' and 'samsara is none other than nirvāṇa' as the structural framework. It is truly not that two phenomena joining together is called 'is none other than'; hence it cannot be demonstrated by severance and realization. Nor is it that one phenomenon turning around is called 'is none other than'; hence it cannot be shown by delusion and awakening. Defilements are not definitively fundamentally non-existent, and awakening is not definitively fundamentally existent; therefore we use 'defilement is none other than awakening' and so forth to cut off verbal formulation, still conceptual thought, and cause wondrous understanding to be perfectly bright, wondrous practice to be secretly conjoined, and wondrous principle to be suddenly manifest. But during the period when the Tiantai school's teachings were in decline, the *Later Collection* of Guifeng spread into the Wu region, and many followers of Chan and doctrinal lecturing came to venerate it. They all said: 'Bodhidharma confirmed the Second Patriarch with "fundamentally without defilement, originally awakening," and only this was getting the marrow. What Zhizhe taught was the same as Daoyu's understanding, which only amounted to getting the flesh.' As a humble monk unworthily continuing the Tiantai lineage, could I not feel sorrow and pain? Furthermore, having heard oral instruction and possessing a rough sense of right and wrong, I accordingly expounded this purport in the text of the *Zhiyao [chao]*. How could I merely indulge glib speech and cast reckless criticism? Moreover, dividing into lineages, receiving the Dharma, transmitting teachings, and receiving trainees: when people rely on Guifeng to challenge our teaching, can we not rely on our teaching to refute them in return? These are all matters of bolstering our school and encouraging beginners. At the moment of realization, how could 'this' and 'that' persist? What I said before—that the method of establishing conversion on the whole is like this, with the four siddhāntas adapting to capacities and the four followings benefiting sentient beings—if one misses the intention, one naturally has doubts. When I see your words about the spirit of abandoning the body and cutting off an arm being like carrying thorns on the back, how many people in the latter five hundred years can do so? Since you can examine yourself and uphold your own lineage in this way, how could you be evasive toward others' protection of the Dharma? I earnestly hope that you, Chan Master, will read broadly within your own tradition and skillfully propagate the ancestral way, without hindering others; when solving difficulties you will thereby succeed, establishing our converting merit. Having been asked for a reply, how could I remain silent? Respectfully submitted. The bhikṣu transmitting Tiantai doctrinal teaching and contemplation and Abbot of Yanqing Cloister, [Zhi]li, bows his head and writes again.