四明尊者教行錄 4.141

4.141

吾祖法智尊者，始因錢唐奉先清師製《珠指》，解十不二門總在一念之文為真心，別分色心之言為俗諦。改色心門造，謂體用為造，謂體同，改內外門，三千即空即假即中，為即空即中。凡改二十來字。天台昱師注不二門，立唯觀不思議境，消一念三千唯色唯心為真諦。法智憫而救之，所以《指要》之所由作，故序云或示或注著述云云。是此也。清師又立生佛三千為事造，心法三千為理造。而不知三法各具事理。如《指要》破曰：據他所釋，心法是理，唯論能具能造。生佛是事，唯有所具所造。則心造之義尚虧，無差之文永失。又序曰：事理未明，解行無託。此皆破於清公也。然《指要》之中正明觀心達妄之道，闢他山外觀真之非。文引煩惱即菩提、生死即涅槃二句，為發心立行之本，因此揀示達磨門下三人得道淺深。可大師云：本無煩惱，元是菩提。達磨曰：得吾髓。法智評之曰：可師之見意縱階，此語且未圓。凝禪師謂《指要》所引差錯，從而辨之。乃準《祖堂》及《傳燈錄》，當時可師但禮三拜，依位而立，而不曾有本無煩惱等言。凝公如此扶救，毀斥法智云是道聽途說，非為正論。殊不知，法智準圭峯後集而示，到此凝公自當結舌服膺。柰何後書倔強不已，今更就彼書辨之。若將可大師無言依位而立，便是顯圓頓者，且身子云：吾聞解脫之中無有言說。《大品》云：若有一法過涅槃，我亦說如幻。又有無言童子、淨名杜口等。今問：此諸無言而與可師無言，為同為異？請端的示之，切莫通謾。又如《阿含》，外道問佛：不問有言無言。如來踞座，外道讚云：世尊大慈，開我迷雲。即禮三拜而退。阿難問佛：外道得何法而退？佛言：如快馬見鞭影，即著正路也。《祖堂》引為圓頓第一則語，天台判此為小乘三藏，若望圓頓猶霄壤焉。故知不可纔見無言便謂真證也。當時四明太守直閣林公見二師諍議不已，因請法智於《指要》下和融之語。法智不得而辭，遂改之（《指要》舊文曰：此乃又超得髓之說也。可師之見意縱階，此語且未圓。問：今明圓教，豈不論斷惑證理及翻迷就悟耶？若論者，何異持育之解？答：秖如可師，豈不斷惑翻迷，豈亦同前二耶？故知凡分漸頓，蓋論能斷能翻之所以爾。○《指要》新改曰：然汝所引達磨印於可師，本無煩惱，元是菩提等。斯乃圭峰異說，致令後人以此為極，便棄三道唯觀真心。若據《祖堂》，自云二祖禮三拜，依位而立。豈言煩惱菩提一無一有耶？故不可以圭峰異說而格今家妙談爾）。況達磨西來，以《楞伽》四卷授可大師，且曰：籍教悟宗。仁者依此修行，自得度世。荊溪甞判《楞伽》階天台別教，以經云一切眾生自心現流之義。大慧菩薩問：是頓是漸？佛答是漸。既言是漸，安得指為頓耶？準此，則法智所評信不誣矣。今謹錄當時議書五番，非但令後昆睹《指要》新舊二文來力，抑亦不昧先時辨論之因起也。

Our ancestor, the Venerable Fazhi, initially composed the *Zhiyao chao* because Master Qing of Fengxian Monastery in Qiantang had composed the *Zhuzhi*, in which he interpreted the passage 'the ten non-dual gates are entirely in a single moment of thought' as the true mind, and the words distinguishing form and mind as the conventional truth. He altered the 'gate of form and mind' [from having the sense that 'both have the capacity to] generate' to stating that essence and function constitute generation, meaning that their essence is identical; and he altered the 'internal and external gate' [from] 'the three thousand are identical to emptiness, identical to conventional existence, and identical to the middle' to 'identical to emptiness and identical to the middle.' In total, he changed around twenty characters. Master Yu of Tiantai annotated the *Non-Dual Gates*, establishing the contemplation solely of the inconceivable object, and resolving 'a single thought with its three thousand [realms] is solely form, solely mind' as the ultimate truth. Fazhi felt pity and sought to rescue [the teaching], which was why the *Zhiyao chao* was composed; hence the preface says, 'whether displaying or commenting, works have been composed,' and so forth. This refers to that. Master Qing also established that the three thousand of sentient beings and buddhas are generated by phenomenal affairs, while the three thousand of the mind-dharma are generated by principle. Yet he did not know that the three dharmas each possess both principle and phenomenal affairs. As the *Zhiyao chao* refutes: 'According to his explanation, the mind-dharma is principle, treating solely what possesses and what generates; sentient beings and buddhas are phenomenal affairs, treating solely what is possessed and what is generated. Then the meaning of mind-generation is still deficient, and the text on non-differentiation is lost forever.' The preface also states: 'When phenomenal affairs and principle are not clarified, understanding and practice have no reliance.' These are all refutations of Master Qing. However, in the *Zhiyao chao*, where he directly clarifies the path of contemplating the mind and realizing delusions, and exposes the error of others who look outside the mountain to contemplate the true, the text cites the two phrases 'affliction is bodhi' and 'birth-and-death is nirvāṇa' as the basis for generating the mind and establishing practice. In doing so, he distinguished and displayed the shallow and deep realizations of the Way among the three disciples under Bodhidharma. Master Ke said, 'Originally there is no affliction; fundamentally it is bodhi.' Bodhidharma said, 'You have obtained my marrow.' Fazhi evaluated this, saying: 'Even if the intent of Master Ke's view has stages, this statement is not yet complete.' Chan Master Ning considered what was cited in the *Zhiyao chao* to be mistaken, and subsequently disputed it. Relying on the *Zutang ji* and the *Chuandeng lu*, [he pointed out that] at that time Master Ke merely made three bows and stood in his place, never having uttered words like 'originally there is no affliction.' Supporting and defending [the Chan lineage] in this manner, Master Ning reviled and denounced Fazhi, saying that it was hearsay and not a correct account. Little did he realize that Fazhi had based his presentation on Guifeng's *Later Collection*; at this point, Master Ning ought naturally to have held his tongue and submitted in admiration. Yet why was he so unyielding in his subsequent letters? Now let us dispute him further based on that letter. If one takes Great Master Ke's standing in his place without words as revealing the perfect and sudden, consider that Śāriputra said, 'I have heard that within liberation there is no speech.' The *Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* states, 'If there were any dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would still say it is like an illusion.' There is also the Wordless Boy, Vimalakīrti keeping silent, and so forth. Now I ask: are these various instances of wordlessness identical to or different from Master Ke's wordlessness? Please demonstrate this precisely, and do not evade with vague prevarications! Furthermore, as in the *Āgama*, an outsider asked the Buddha, 'I do not ask about the spoken, nor do I ask about the wordless.' The Tathāgata sat upright on his seat; the outsider praised him, saying, 'The World-Honoured One with great compassion has cleared away my clouds of delusion!' He then made three bows and withdrew. Ānanda asked the Buddha, 'What dharma did the outsider attain that made him withdraw?' The Buddha said, 'Like a swift horse seeing the shadow of the whip, he instantly took the correct path.' The *Zutang ji* cites this as the foremost dialogue of the perfect and sudden; yet Tiantai judges this as the Hīnayāna Tripiṭaka [teaching]. When viewed in comparison to the perfect and sudden, they are as far apart as heaven and earth. Thus one knows that one cannot, upon merely seeing wordlessness, immediately declare it to be true realization. At that time, the Prefect of Siming, Secretariat Academician Lord Lin, seeing the two masters' endless dispute, accordingly requested Fazhi to append conciliatory words to the *Zhiyao chao*. Unable to refuse, Fazhi then altered it. (The old text of the *Zhiyao chao* read: 'This even surpasses the explanation of obtaining the marrow. Even if the intent of Master Ke's view has stages, this statement is not yet complete. Question: Now when clarifying the perfect teaching, do we not discuss severing delusion to realize principle, and overturning delusion to approach awakening? If so, how does it differ from the understanding of Zongchi and Daoyu? Answer: Just as with Master Ke, did he not sever delusion and overturn delusion? Was he also identical to the former two? Thus one knows that whenever gradual and sudden are distinguished, it is precisely because of the means by which one can sever and overturn.' ○ The newly revised text of the *Zhiyao chao* states: 'However, you cite Bodhidharma sealing Master Ke with 'Originally there is no affliction; fundamentally it is bodhi,' and so on. This is Guifeng's deviant explanation, which led later people to take this as the ultimate, thereby abandoning the three paths and contemplating only the true mind. According to the *Zutang ji*, it merely says the Second Patriarch made three bows and stood in his place. Did it ever say affliction and bodhi are one non-existent and the other existent? Therefore, one must not use Guifeng's deviant explanation to evaluate our school's wondrous discourse.') Moreover, when Bodhidharma came from the west, he transmitted the four-fascicle *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* to Great Master Ke, saying: 'Rely on the teaching to awaken to the doctrine. If you, noble one, cultivate practice according to this, you will naturally attain deliverance.' Jingxi once judged the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* to belong to the Tiantai separate teaching, because of the sūtra's statement on the meaning of the flowing forth of the manifestation of all sentient beings' own minds. Bodhisattva Mahāmati asked: 'Is it sudden or gradual?' The Buddha answered that it is gradual. Since it is said to be gradual, how can it be designated as sudden? Relying on this, Fazhi's evaluation is truly not without foundation. Now I respectfully record the five exchanges of letters of debate from that time, not only to let later generations perceive the origins and efficacy of the new and old texts of the *Zhiyao chao*, but also so that the causes and origins of the earlier debate are not obscured.