四明尊者教行錄 4.139

4.139

二月十四日，天童山景德禪寺住持傳法比丘（子凝），謹重致書于延慶堂上教主法智大師。（座下子凝）竊聞：屠保之內必有異人，講懺之中豈無通識，何勞往復再敘端倪。而大師《指要》雕文刻義，只曰相傳達磨門下三人得法而有淺深。（愚）既議之，豈可便責圭峯以求情實。所謂道聽途說，可曰相傳。果有後書，指為曲據，妄生穿鑿，合曉否臧。或達磨授二祖有本無之說，道育尼總持有斷煩惱之稱，則圭峯言之，而大師議之，斯亦可矣。既元無此說，擬剝何人，豈可逐浪隨流揚聲遏響？前云設化之道大體合然。斯未可也。大凡援引古今，存乎婉當。彼宗固執，可示斥呵，方謂抑揚昭乎義理。苟弘教者引佛經不當，亦須削之，如是則稱作人師、堪為教主，後生宗範千古不逾。所謂學而不思、傳而不習，斯之為恥。何恥鮮聞？來書又云：天台宗教陵遲之際，圭峯集流衍來吳，人據圭峯難於台教，豈不依教而返破之。斯皆扶樹本宗勉勵初學耳。甞試論之。原夫聖人立教示迷，情同蒭狗、智類氷壺。神遇之懷道無不在，豈同鄙俚有濫道途。常患學佛從師，未能忘筌離相。余與大師言議者，蓋存大師永永之道也。假使信任圭峯為是，須知迴顧《祖堂》無言。未墜本宗，尚猶焚軀煉指，豈同外道，非理赴火投崖。革故是宜，鼎新無爽。所依《止觀》十乘法華十妙，菩提煩惱信本無差。綱格之言，豈容繁剖。所謂過而不改，斯有歸矣。不宣。天童山景德禪寺住持傳法比丘（子凝）稽首上白。

On the fourteenth day of the second 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 seat, have heard it said: Among butchers and warders there must be remarkable persons, and amidst lectures and repentances how could there lack comprehensive insight? Why should we labor to go back and forth rehearsing preliminaries? Yet your *Zhiyao [chao]*, Great Master, chisels words and carves concepts, merely saying that according to tradition, among the three people under Bodhidharma who attained the Dharma there were differences of depth. Since I have already challenged this, how can you immediately blame Guifeng in seeking the true facts? What is called hearsay can be termed 'according to tradition.' If there really is a *Later Collection*, pointing to it as an oblique basis and rashly concocting interpretations, one ought to understand what is right and wrong. If Bodhidharma did confer on the Second Patriarch the doctrine of 'fundamentally non-existent,' and Daoyu and the nun Zongchi had the claim of 'severing defilements,' then for Guifeng to state it and you, Great Master, to discuss it would indeed be fine. Since fundamentally there was no such statement, whom are you intending to refute? How can you chase waves, follow currents, raise voices, and stifle sounds? Your previous statement that 'the way of establishing conversion on the whole is like this' is not acceptable. In general, when adducing citations ancient and modern, appropriateness and delicacy are what matter. If that school has stubborn clinging, one may demonstrate refutation; only then can deprecation and praise illuminate doctrinal principle. If one who propagates the teaching cites Buddhist sūtras inappropriately, they too must be pruned away; only in this way is one called a human teacher, capable of being a teacher of the doctrine, whose models for future generations remain unbroken for a thousand ages. It is said that 'learning without thinking, and transmitting without practicing'—this is what is shameful. Why should one be ashamed of having heard little? Your letter also states: 'During the period when the Tiantai school's teachings were in decline, the collection of Guifeng spread into the Wu region; when people relied on Guifeng to challenge the Tiantai teaching, can we not rely on our teaching to refute them in return? These are all matters of bolstering our school and encouraging beginners.' Let me try to discuss this. Originally, when the sages established teachings to instruct the deluded, their sentiment was like straw dogs, and their wisdom like an ice jug. When meeting the spirit, the Way is nowhere absent; how could it be like vulgar talk flooding the roads? I constantly worry that those who study Buddhism from a teacher cannot forget the trap and abandon appearances. My discussions with you, Great Master, are simply to preserve your eternal Way. Even if one were to trust Guifeng as correct, one must know to look back at the silence of the *Zutang [ji]*. Before their own schools had declined, [masters] still burned their bodies and scorched their fingers; how could this be like non-Buddhists unreasonably plunging into fire and throwing themselves off cliffs? Removing the old is fitting, and renewing the new brings no error. Regarding the ten vehicles of the *Stopping and Contemplation* and the ten wonders of the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* upon which you rely, awakening and defilements are truly fundamentally without distinction. How can words serving as a framework allow complicated dissections? As it is said, 'To err and not correct it'—here is where it belongs. Respectfully submitted. The bhikṣu transmitting the Dharma and Abbot of Jingde Chan Monastery on Mount Tiantong, [Zi]ning, bows his head and presents this.