念佛三昧寶王論 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Feixi of Caotang Monastery on Mount Zige under the Tang

3.2

Gate 14: Being Mindful of Past Buddhas with Identity of Cause and Fruit

Question: Regarding mindfulness of the present buddhas with single-minded focus on one realm, I have already heard the profound meaning. The buddha who is contemplated exhausts the mystery and reaches the ultimate sanctity, so the honorific title of 'Tathāgata' is fitting; but the person capable of buddha-mindfulness merely peers down at the true gate and still abides in an ordinary station—how can such a person presume to claim identity with the Rightly Awakened One?

3.4

I reply: The *Guanfo sanmei hai jing* says: 'The buddha who is contemplated is like a lion king that has emerged from the womb, a metaphor for the fruit of buddhahood; the person capable of buddha-mindfulness is like a lion king still in the womb, a metaphor for a son of the Buddha.' Though cause and fruit differ, their majestic spiritual power is continuous; in terms of their buddhahood, what further difference is there? To expect a lion still in the womb to already roar, pounce, and subdue others is something that has never occurred! Once it has emerged from the womb, one can wait on tiptoe [for it to do so]; how could it ever be lacking? Thus cause and fruit are identical—this is the first meaning. Furthermore, the *Mahābherīhāraka Sūtra* says: 'Just as King Prasenajit was at war with an enemy state and was struck by a poisoned arrow, suffering unbearably. Hearing that there was a fine medicine named Poison-Dispeller, the king smeared the drum with the medicine and struck it with a mallet, causing the poisoned arrow to spring out at the sound and the wound to heal as before. If one hears the name of Śākyamuni Buddha and hears the name of a monk who has faith in the Vaipulya teachings, this can cause the arrows of the three poisons within the body to spring out at the sound. Therefore this sūtra is named the Great Dharma Drum.' Śākyamuni is the past buddha, the fruit; the monk is the Vaipulya follower, the cause. The eradication of sin is identical—this is the second meaning. Although these two sūtras do not speak of having attained the ultimate sanctity, receiving benefits upon hearing the names is no different from the Buddha. Therefore, the five-fascicle *Fahua sanmei shizi zhuan* states: 'In the Sui dynasty, the Great Dhyāna Master Si of Nanyue had a disciple, Dhyāna Master Dashan. When he attained the samādhi of loving-kindness and compassion, Zheng Sengguo, the governor of Hengyang, who was not ordinarily a man of deep faith, once happened to go hunting and surrounded several dozen deer. He said to the district magistrate Chen Zhengye: "You, sir, constantly praise Dhyāna Master Dashan for possessing the power of loving-kindness and compassion; what can he do about these deer?" Zhengye thereupon led several of his attendants to recite together in one voice: "Namo Dhyāna Master Dashan!" At that moment, the herd of deer flew through the air and escaped.' How is this any different from Avalokiteśvara's spiritual power? Dashan was as renowned as Zhizhe at that time. If one does not slight the words of the holy ones, then the buddha-mindfulness samādhi's subduing of māras and quelling of disasters is like gold in the smelter! How could one allow twilight and dawn to pass by without practicing it?

3.5

Gate 15: Buddha-Mindfulness Without Mind with Dual Cultivation of Principle and Phenomena

3.6

Question: Regarding the circular mindfulness of the three times or exclusively facing one direction, I have respectfully heard the subtle meaning. All of these involve mindfulness and thought, arising and ceasing; how can they agree with the purport of the *Sūtra of the Questions of Pravaranṛpati*, which cultivates buddha-mindfulness with a mind that has nothing to be mindful of?

3.7

I reply: Regarding the teaching of non-thought, many people weep at the crossroads; without refined and precise investigation, one may still fear losing one's way. I shall now distinguish it by means of the gates of principle and phenomena. Speaking of the gate of principle, it is true non-thought. An explanation says: 'Both being and non-being are fundamentally non-existent in this very thought! Why is this? The Buddha arises from thought, and mind itself is the Buddha; just as a blade does not cut itself and a finger does not touch itself, the Buddha is not a buddha of itself, and the mind is not a mind of itself. How could one establish mind outside of the Buddha, or establish the Buddha outside of mind? Since the Buddha is not existent, how could the mind be existent? Buddha-mindfulness without mind—its meaning is clear!' Therefore, worldly people say that buddha-mindfulness entails thought, whereas I say that buddha-mindfulness is non-thought. What further confusion could there be? Moreover, thought is itself emptiness—how could there be thought? Emptiness is not the extinction of thought—how could there be non-thought? The nature of thought is inherently empty—how could there be arising and ceasing? Furthermore, 'a mind that has nothing to be mindful of' is due to having no place of abiding; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' is to give rise to that mind. 'A mind that has nothing to be mindful of' proceeds from the root of non-abiding; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' establishes all phenomena. 'A mind that has nothing to be mindful of' means that thought is itself empty; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' means that emptiness is itself thought. Existence that is not different [from emptiness]—this clarifies the Middle Way! Dual quiescence is called śamatha; dual illumination is called vipaśyanā. When calm and discernment are not balanced, it is not correct contemplation. How could it obtain the name of samādhi? Now, illuminating yet ever quiescent, it is a mind that has nothing to be mindful of; quiescent yet ever illuminating, one cultivates buddha-mindfulness. The Tathāgata's realization of the samādhi of quiescence and illumination is the ultimate stage of the buddha-mindfulness samādhi. Therefore it is clear that this samādhi can generate the King of Śūraṅgama and the Lion's Roar samādhis! As the verse on breaking through marks in the *Bodhisattva-buddhānusmṛti-samādhi Sūtra* says:

3.8

'Mindful of the Buddha's true golden color,
Abiding peacefully in a mind free of attachment,
Contemplating phenomena: what is called a buddha?
Gathering the mind in continuous succession;
The golden color is not the Tathāgata,
And the other four aggregates are likewise so;
Apart from form there is no Tathāgata;
Conception and consciousness should be known accordingly.
This is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One's
Most supreme and quiescent abode,
Well able to extinguish all
Heretical false views of non-Buddhists,
Like a dragon king pouring down rain,
Whose moisture extends to everything.'

3.9

This sūtra clarifies the six perfections and myriad practices: there is not a single dharma that is not the buddha-mindfulness samādhi.

3.10

Question: The gate of principle has been concluded. I request that you show the gate of phenomena, so that students may attain true non-thought, accord with the perfection of wisdom, and open up the profound dhyāna-concentration of the markless Great Vehicle—would this not be expansive?

3.11

I reply: How far apart are principle and phenomena? Previously I explained the principle that is identical to phenomena; now I explain the phenomena that are identical to principle. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'For people of dull faculties, the Buddha spoke of all dharmas as empty and quiescent, because their movements give rise to grasping views; for people of sharp faculties, he spoke of the major and minor marks of all buddhas, just as a lotus is not defiled by dust.' Thus Subhūti, foremost in understanding emptiness among the Hīnayāna, was without name and without mark; yet when he received the prediction of his future attainment of buddhahood, his title was the Tathāgata Name-and-Mark. If one is not of the Great Vehicle, one constantly fears that sound, fragrance, taste, and touch will take advantage of one; having no time even to flee, how would one dare to stroll in the gardens of names and marks? Having penetrated names and marks, he therefore obtained the Buddha's prediction. Speaking of the gate of phenomena: the Buddha arises from the mind, which is simply the non-thought of the pratyutpanna; when the ultimate realm issues from oneself, the Lotus comes spontaneously without haste. 'A mind that has nothing to be mindful of' cuts off all chaotic thoughts; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' skillfully thinks upon one buddha. Thus the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'If a person learns archery, with long practice he becomes skillful; later, even without deliberate mind, every arrow shot hits the mark. If a person wishes to enter the one-practice samādhi, let him follow the direction of a buddha, exclusively recite his name in thought after thought continuously, and right within thought he will see the buddhas of the three times. Just like practicing archery, once perfected, without deliberate mind every shot hits the mark.' Is this not non-thought? Why so? Therefore the *Bhadrapāla* says: 'Mindfully persevere without resting, and the Buddha will manifest.' The *Yingluo jing* says: 'The Path is called one mind; many thoughts are not the Path.' The *Dhyāna-samādhi Sūtra* says: 'When a bodhisattva sits in meditation, he is not mindful of anything at all; he is mindful only of one buddha, like the golden king of Mount Sumeru in the cool, clear ocean, and he is mindful of the dharmakāya of merits in the same way.'

3.12

Question: If you say that non-thought is samādhi, one should directly transcend to non-thought; why take a circuitous route and employ thought?

3.13

I reply: "The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* says: 'Use a wedge to extract a wedge'; a common proverb says: 'Set a thief to catch a thief.' Now, in using mindfulness to stop mindfulness, what could be amiss? Moreover, when mindfulness becomes practiced and mature, it completes itself without deliberation and requires no effort! It is like the sword dancer who flourishes his sword, suddenly flinging it into the blue clouds and catching it on the back of his scabbard without ever missing; or Cook Ding dismembering an ox, where the movement of his blade found only emptiness, its sound harmonising with the Dance of the Mulberry Forest. Is this not a clear illustration of mindfulness when mature? Therefore the *Awakening of Faith* says: 'If one knows that although there is speaking, there is no one who can speak nor anything that can be spoken; and although there is mindfulness, there is no one who can be mindful nor anything that can be minded—this is termed "accordance." If one is free from mindfulness, this is termed "attaining entry."' 'Attaining entry' refers to the suchness samādhi! Furthermore, the stage of no-mindfulness resides in wondrous enlightenment, for it means thoroughly comprehending the characteristic of the mind's initial arising. Yet speaking of knowing this initial characteristic—the so-called 'no-mindfulness'—is not even known by bodhisattvas of the ten grounds. But people today have not yet stepped onto the ten faiths, yet they fail to rely on the Great Being Aśvaghoṣa to enter from speaking into non-speaking, and from mindfulness into no-mindfulness. Truly, one fears that admiring a towering terrace while scorning the accumulation of earth, or seeking the collar by turning the skirt upside down—how could that ever succeed? The *Sūtra of the Foremost Śūraṅgama of All Bodhisattvas' Myriad Practices Crowned by the Great Buddha* says: 'The Dharma Prince Mahāsthāmaprāpta, together with fifty-two bodhisattvas of his same order, immediately arose from their seats, bowed their heads at the Buddha’s feet, and addressed the Buddha, saying: "I recall that in the past, kalpas ago as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, there was a buddha who appeared in the world named Boundless Light. Twelve tathāgatas succeeded one another in a single kalpa; the final buddha was named Outshining the Light of Sun and Moon. That buddha taught me the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi. Suppose there are two persons: one focuses solely on remembering, while the other focuses solely on awaiting. If these two persons meet, it is as though they did not meet; if they see each other, it is as though they did not see each other. But if both remember each other, and their mutual remembering and mindfulness run deep, then even from life to life they will be like form and shadow, never straying apart. The tathāgatas of the ten directions are compassionate toward sentient beings and mindful of them just as a mother remembers her child. If the child runs away, though she remembers, what does it avail? If the child remembers the mother just as the mother remembers the child, mother and child across successive lives will not be separated or far apart. If the minds of sentient beings remember the Buddha and are mindful of the Buddha, in the present or in the future they will certainly see the Buddha! They will not be far from the Buddha; without relying on expedient means, their minds will naturally open, just as one scented with incense retains a fragrance on their body—this is named 'Adornment with Fragrance and Light.' In my original causal stage, with the mind of buddha-mindfulness I entered the forbearance of non-arising. Now in this realm, I gather practitioners of buddha-mindfulness and lead them to return to the Pure Land. The Buddha asks about complete penetration: having no preference, I gather in all six sense faculties, maintain pure mindfulness in unbroken succession, and attain samādhi—this is foremost."'"

3.14

Gate Sixteen: Comprehending the Mind and Its Objects So That Vikalpa Does Not Arise

3.15

Question: "If one does not comprehend the mind and its conditions, the two vikalpas immediately arise. Now, by retaining the buddha that is minded and the mind that is capable of minding, is that not indeed the two vikalpas?"

3.16

I reply: "The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* says: 'When one comprehends the mind and its objects, vikalpa does not arise.' The non-arising mind is precisely that which is completely distanced from that which characterizes and that which is characterized. As I now contemplate the various marks—the thousand-spoke wheels, the myriad-character svastika, the dark-blue eyes, and the white ūrṇā—all are my own mind; there is no buddha to be grasped. Since conditions do not exist, how could the mind exist? Thus the thought that characterizes and the buddha that is characterized are naturally distanced! How could one abide in the two vikalpas? This is what past sages knew and transmitted to one another: that vikalpa lacks intrinsic nature—it is here that one awakens to it! Furthermore, just as when contemplating the real mark of the Buddha, so it is when contemplating one's own body: every object encountered is real; no mind is not buddha. The principle of the Middle Way pervades all things; how could it rest merely on a buddha taken as an objective condition? It is also explained: 'If someone has an ink spot on their nose and faces a clear mirror, and the person hates the ink spot but merely wipes the mirror, can [the spot] be removed? If when facing pleasing and displeasing, right and wrong among external objects, one does not comprehend one's own mind but merely blames the objects, can [that delusion] be removed?' It is not as good as washing away the ink spot of discrimination on one's own nose—then the single mirror is completely clean! The myriad objects are all real! Grasping a stone turns it into a jewel! Sentient beings are themselves buddhas! Hence the *Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks* states: 'In the Qi dynasty, the lay devotee Xiang sent a letter of goodwill to Dhyāna Master Huike, saying: "Shadows arise from form, and echoes follow sound. To chase shadows and fatigue the body is not to know that the body is the root of the shadow; to raise one's voice to stop an echo is not to recognise that the voice is the root of the echo. To eliminate defilements while seeking nirvāṇa is like avoiding the body while seeking its shadow; to leave sentient beings while seeking the buddha-nature is like silencing the voice while searching for an echo. Hence we know that delusion and awakening share a single path; folly and wisdom are not distinct. From the nameless, names are made; due to those names, right and wrong arise. From the non-principled, principles are made; due to those principles, disputes break out. Illusions and transformations are not real: who is right? Who is wrong? False and empty without substance: what is empty? What exists? Thus we come to know that to gain is to gain nothing, and to lose is to lose nothing. Before I have the chance to visit and converse with you, I briefly express these thoughts, hoping you will reply." Dhyāna Master Huike took up his brush to resolve the doubts and replied to the lay devotee, saying: "Explaining this true Dharma, all accords with reality, / tallying with the profound, true principle; in the end it is no different from the source. / When deluded, a maṇi-jewel is called broken tile; / suddenly awakening to oneself, it is the true pearl. / Ignorance and wisdom are equal and no different; / one should know that all dharmas are just suchness. / To destroy the views of those two types, / I compose this letter expressing these thoughts: / contemplate the body and the Buddha as without distinction; / what need is there to seek further for that remainderless [nirvāṇa]?"' These two superior men, relying on Great Master Bodhidharma's practice in accordance with the Dharma, exercised their minds in principle contemplation; both were being mindful of the supreme truth of the Middle Way, the dharmakāya Buddha. One certainly does not leave mindfulness behind to preserve no-mindfulness, nor abandon arising to establish non-arising. If one says that leaving them behind establishes something separate, this is failing to comprehend that defilement is itself nirvāṇa and that sentient beings are themselves buddhas—how could one awaken to broken tile being itself a true pearl? Since leaving them behind is impossible, mindfulness of the Buddha is itself true no-mindfulness; rebirth is itself true non-arising. When it is thus, its meaning shines brightly, like an autumn sky clearing and the bright moon emerging from the clouds. How could this be like the fool who looks at the finger rather than the moon?"

3.17

Gate Seventeen: Seeking the Liberation of the Buddhas Within Mental Activity

3.18

Question: "That mindfulness of the Buddha is called true no-mindfulness and rebirth is called true non-arising is indeed believable. The *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* says: 'Where should the liberation of the buddhas be sought? It should be sought within the mental activities of all sentient beings.' Since it says 'sought within all mental activities,' why not seek it within one's own mind, instead of seeking it in an external buddha?"

3.19

I reply: "You say that the supreme, wondrous dhyāna of buddhānusmṛti-samādhi is not sought within mental activity. That is not so! Let me clarify this for you. The mind's activity acts in three spheres: first, acting in wholesome spheres, which is the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, the best of the wholesome, the heaven among heavens; second, acting in unwholesome spheres, which refers to all evil spheres such as greed, anger, and delusion; third, acting in neutral spheres, meaning that the mind does not abide and does not condition the wholesome or the unwholesome. If one speaks of the nature of principle, principle pervades the preceding three; but speaking of according with principle, only the wholesome sphere is retained. The sūtra says: 'What is called grasping at a self is defilement; not grasping at a self is purity.' This means that failing to comprehend that the substance of dharma-nature is free from stinginess and greed, one acts contrary to dharma-nature and does not practice giving; or even if giving, one abides in giving and cannot relinquish giving—how is this not defilement? If one can comprehend and accord with dharma-nature, practicing the perfection of giving without the marks of stinginess or giving, perfectly according with principle—how is this not purity? The unwholesome and the neutral conflict with dharma-nature and cannot be joined together with the wholesome. Therefore King Viśeṣacinti asked the Buddha: 'How does a bodhisattva penetrate the perfection of dhyāna?' The Buddha told the great king: 'When a bodhisattva mahāsattva learns the perfection of prajñā and practices the perfection of dhyāna, he should observe what sphere this mind acts in: whether in wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral spheres. If it acts in wholesome spheres, he diligently cultivates it, just as a lotus flower does not retain water droplets, and he does not abide for a moment in the sea of unwholesome ones.' According to these golden words, how could one fail to reject the unwholesome and the neutral? Thus, according with principle, the wholesome mind acts in wholesome spheres, and through blazing buddha-mindfulness, liberation is found within mental activity. If one says that the mental activity of buddha-mindfulness is not liberation, how could the two kinds of mental activity—unwholesome and neutral—ever possess it? Regarding such liberation: if deluded about it, one is stranded for vast kalpas; if awakened to it, one realizes it as easily as turning over one's palm. The clear mirror for practicing dhyāna is truly right here. The Tathāgata, Hero of the World, examined those various samādhis and took the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi to be the king among dhyānas; all other samādhis that rely on conditions or have counterparts are merely the samādhis of common fellows. However, the Jewel King Samādhi does not abide in the mark of superiority nor in the mark of inferiority; the mark of wrong or right, the mark of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, the mark of defilement or bodhi, the mark of stillness or disturbance, the mark of attaining perfect enlightenment, the mark of delivering sentient beings, the mark of sitting at the bodhimaṇḍa, or the mark of non-attainment—in all such marks, it does not abide at all, just like waking from a dream, entirely without coming or going. Therefore the *Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'Neither going nor coming is the Buddha.' When it is thus, even the Middle Way is set aside; how could it abide in the extremes? As the verse in the *Sūtra on the Inaction of All Seas* says:

3.20

"Just as a person in a dream
attains the Buddha's path and delivers sentient beings,
yet here there is no path and no sentient beings—
the dharma-nature of the Buddha is also like this.
Sitting at the bodhimaṇḍa, there is nothing to be attained;
if nothing is attained, then it does not exist.
Clarity and ignorance share the same single mark;
one who knows this is a World-Honored One.
The nature of sentient beings is itself bodhi;
the nature of bodhi is itself sentient beings.
The bodhisattva host is also non-dual;
one who knows this is a World-Honored One."

3.21

Gate Eighteen: The Offerings of the Three Karmas Truly Expressing Reverence

3.22

Question: "We have already heard the marvelous exposition of the contemplation gates of samādhi. Regarding the offerings of the three karmas after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, how great are the merits presented?"

3.23

I replied: "Now, when discussing making offerings to the ocean of the dharmadhātu, purifying the three karmas throughout the myriad practices is in every case called an offering; how much more so when wandering thoughts contemplate the true realm—how could that not be an offering? The Nayamukha says: 'Contemplate all dharmas: whether permanent or impermanent, neither can be apprehended.' Widely making offerings to all tathāgatas—is this not clear? Furthermore, while the Tathāgata was in the world, solemn offerings expressing sincerity were all described as clouds of flowers and oceans of incense pervading realms as numerous as fine dust motes, yet were still regretted as too few. That the Great Beings entered contemplation and employed visualization—taking Mount Sumeru as the lamp wick, the great ocean as the oil dish, and, still not having fully unfolded their deep veneration, burning their golden bodies to offer to the stūpa of Pure Brightness, the flames of the golden body illuminating the ten directions—Sarvasattvapriyadarśana Bodhisattva is an example of this. Yet people today merely defer to their own minds, or point from afar to flowering trees, violating the etiquette of making offerings—how deep is their arrogance! You asked: 'When the Buddha was in the world and after his passing, which presentation brings greater merit?' Let me try to clarify it. Consider Ding Lan, who carved wood in his hall, serving it with warmth and care as if his parents were present; his name shines in the historical records, and down to this day people call him a truly filial son. When the Tathāgata was in the world, radiating like a golden mountain with magnificent marks blazing, who that beheld him would not give rise to the intention toward the Way? To present flowers and extend devotion—was that not easy? But once the Hero of the World concealed his traces and the moon sank behind layered mountains, people no longer behold his true countenance, only transmitting the palm leaves. Before his sculpted and painted images, to give rise to the unsurpassable intention and to be able to present a single flower—such resolve and such a mind are truly worthy of praise! Having such devotion as this—is it not difficult? The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'Even presenting a single flower brings rebirth in the Akṣobhya realm.' Thus, a single incense, a single flower, a single lamp, a single tune of music, and food and drink—for those who with all their heart delight in presenting them to the buddhas of the three times, these are the wondrous cause of the Pure Land and the very beginning of attaining sageliness; how could one make light of this matter and not abide by it? If one abandons this practice and listens to groundless talk—offering mind-flowers, lighting mind-lamps, burning mind-incense, and bowing to a mind-buddha—seeking right awakening in this way, how is it any different from displaying a monkey's clever tricks, or holding on to the longing for a plum grove? When told to wear mind-clothes and eat mind-food, such people endlessly refuse; yet when it comes to the six perfections and myriad practices, why do they banish them into a mind of emptiness-view? The fault of speech that points merely to mind and emptiness is like this; one cannot fail to be cautious! In the True Word school (mantranaya), the yoga contemplative practices are also based on the phenomenal gate to manifest outward forms, not solely deferring to mind, always solemnly presenting incense and flowers throughout the six periods without omission."

3.24

Chapter 19: Presenting Flowers Without Characteristics: The Reciprocal Retribution of Faith and Slander

3.25

A question asks: "Flowers are phenomena; where is the principle in them? Where lies the reciprocal retribution of having faith versus slandering?" I replied: "Flowers are themselves the principle; form is itself emptiness. Regarding the retribution of faith, the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra says: 'Long ago, there was a prince named Abhaya, who held a lotus flower in his hands and offered it to Ratnagarbha Buddha. The Buddha said: "Because you have imprinted the lotus flower upon empty space, I now grant you the name Ākāśamudrā. When you become a buddha in the future, your realm will be named Padmā, and your buddha name will be Padmottama—you are that one."' Both the land and the buddha were named according to the lotus flower offered in the past, in order to make clearly understood the principle that practicing the cause produces the fruit. Why then discourage the presentation of flowers of the dāna-pāramitā, wishing instead to adhere separately to signlessness? Regarding the retribution of slander, the Mahāvaipulya Dhāraṇī Sūtra states: 'Long ago there was a monk named Śuddhamati who abode in right view and held flowers in offering; there was another monk named Dharmācāra who abode in wrong view, had attained the four dhyānas through sitting, and constantly claimed that the emptiness doctrine of prajñā was supreme. He slandered the Dharma Master Śuddhamati, saying: "The flowers Śuddhamati receives are not used for offerings, but for his own enjoyment." Due to this single remark, for sixty thousand lifetimes he was constantly devoid of the tongue-faculty, and even upon attaining buddhahood he still resided in the five corruptions.' Who was that person? It was Śākyamuni himself! The Buddha said: 'People of little learning who make two different assertions within my Dharma will, after death, fall into hell for many hundreds of thousands of kalpas. If with evil eyes one looks upon a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no eyes; if with an evil mouth one slanders a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no tongue.' If one could become a bodhisattva merely by cultivating the single prajñāpāramitā, then when in the past King Kāśi practiced the bodhisattva conduct, he relinquished his beloved body, head, eyes, marrow, and brain. At that time, did this king lack wisdom? Thus we know that the six pāramitās should all be fully cultivated; to grasp one and reject the rest is māra's work. How could one cast aside the dāna-pāramitā of offering flowers, and through an ill-conceived grasp of emptiness arrogantly despise the true signlessness of prajñā? The retribution of having no tongue brings calamity upon oneself. The Tathāgata cited his own past fault precisely because he wished sentient beings not to overturn their carts in the same old ruts. A single flower being like this, so too with all images of clay and wood, sūtras on bamboo and silk, tonsured monks and nuns, the presiding Triple Jewel, and the trainings in morality, calm, and discernment—regardless of whether they are fields of merit or not, all are worthy of veneration. For all to enter the ocean of offerings to the dharmadhātu through the true three karmas—what could be objectionable about this? Why should one wish to omit it? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka verse says:

3.26

"‘If a person, at stūpas and shrines, / before jeweled images and painted forms, / with flowers, incense, banners, and canopies, / makes offering with a reverent mind, / or even with a single slight sound, / all have already realized the Buddha Way.’"

3.27

Chapter 20: The Ten Thousand Goods Converging to All Form Samādhi

3.28

A question asks: "Now, offering an ever-bright lamp brings rebirth in the palaces of the sun and moon; flowers, incense, banners, and canopies are no different from lamps, all being the blessings of birth in heaven. Yet the text says 'all have already realized the Buddha Way'—why is the recompense so profound?"

3.29

I replied: "When an emperor travels in state, with ten thousand carriages and a thousand officials, down to the foot soldiers, all bear the character 'Imperial'; anyone who offends the imperial guard faces instant death. But when the imperial carriage returns to the palace and the foot soldiers are dismissed, returning to their villages, if one of them should claim the character 'Imperial', he likewise faces instant death. The foot soldiers are the same, yet life and death differ; it is because of the distinction in dependent origination that there is such favor or disgrace. Previously, if flowers, canopies, incense, and lamps had not encountered the imperial guard of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra's royal decree, their retribution would indeed have been in the heavenly palaces. But now, encountering the Jewel King of Samādhi, they serve as its royal escort, and even presenting a single flower ensures that all have already realized the Buddha Way. This is because the buddha-seed arises from conditions; principle and teaching make it so! It is also like birds flying toward Sumeru, which all take on the same color, or waters flowing to the great ocean, having no further distinct names. Therefore, in the 'Assembly of Mañjuśrī’s Universal Gate' of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, when gods, dragons, and the eight classes, along with those in hell, animals, forms, sounds, scents, and all the myriad phenomena are gathered, all are samādhi; this is like a hair tip containing the great ocean, or a mustard seed admitting Mount Sumeru—is it the spiritual power of the hair or the mustard seed? Rather, it is the spirit that spiritualizes them. Thus we know that understanding is like the eyes, while practice is like the feet: when understanding is correct, practice is correct; when understanding is false, practice is false. The shallow and deep of māra and buddha both depend on understanding. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'One who is lax in precepts is not called lax; one who is lax in the vehicle is called lax.' 'Vehicle' is the name for wisdom and understanding. If one practice is like this, the myriad practices are all the same. The Lotus samādhi is none other than the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi. For this reason the Tathāgata named this superior concentration the Jewel King of Samādhi, the Storehouse of Light, the Pearl of Eradication of Transgressions, the Lamp for False Views, the Guide for Those Lost on the Road, the Golden Seal of the Prince, the Treasure Trove of the Poor Man, the Samādhi of Emptiness, the Noble Samādhi, the True Contemplation of Dhāraṇī, the Wish-Fulfilling Jewel of the Supreme Contemplation, Buddha-Nature, Dharma-Nature, Saṅgha-Nature, the Superior Expedient of the Inexhaustible Treasury, the Light of Great Wisdom, the Samādhi of Contemplating Dharmas to Extinguish Evil, and so on. Thus we know that teaching, principle, practice, and fruit—the eighty-four thousand pāramitā gates—are all alternative names for the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi. When it is thus, presenting a single flower universally serves the dust-mote lands of the three times, and being mindful of a single Buddha-essence pervades the heroes of future worlds. It is like using the great earth as a shooting target—how could an arrow be released without hitting the mark? If it were not so, one would incur the rebuke in the Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā Sūtra of fearing emptiness while abandoning emptiness, and practicing emptiness while seeking emptiness."

3.30

The guest said: "When the physician departs, he leaves medicine; when the merchant travels, he entrusts gold. What former sages stored cannot be given except to the right person. I, your disciple, am benighted in the Way and ignorant in study, yet I have ventured to peer into the gate of samādhi, still hoping for anutpāda and ever aspiring to the proclamation of the One Reality. The profound import above is the treasure seal of the Dharma, shining simultaneously upon motion and stillness, seamlessly merging principle and phenomena. Giving rise to a single thought is wholly true, and following its categories expands it: those who utter 'Namo' all realize the Buddha Way; scattering flowers or snapping fingers, all transcend to bodhi. Wherever the King of Sūtras resides is inherently revered; when the cataract of the eye meets the golden probe, the film is removed. The meanings of these twenty gates are something I had never heard before! How fortunate I am to delight in washing away the transgression of despising sentient beings and to obtain free roaming in the land of jeweled adornment! I vow, without changing this body, to obtain the wondrous prediction of ghee and awaken to the fact that all future buddhas are none other than sentient beings. Thereupon I prostrated before the Prabhūtaratna Stūpa, and facing the lotus monk, together with my companion I universally contemplated the Honored Ones of the ten directions and fully contemplated the buddhas of the three times. Kneeling with palms joined, I spoke in praise:

3.31

"‘With single mind I recollect the past buddhas, / and also recollect all future World-Honored Ones; / as well as all heroes among men in the present, / and also study the Dharma they have spoken. / There is not a single buddha in the past, / nor any in the present or future; / only this pure, subtle, and wondrous dhyāna, / which cannot be spoken of, yet is spoken by those who realize it.’"

3.32

Treatise on the Jewel King of Buddha-Mindfulness Samādhi, Fascicle Three, End

3.33

Colophon to the Jewel King Treatise

3.34

The Master said: "When standing, see them standing before you; when in a carriage, see them leaning upon the crossbar—only then proceed." The Book of Han says: "When sitting, see Yao upon the wall; when eating, see Yao in the soup. Such is the way in which the Way cannot be parted from for an instant." Even so, this is merely the Way of the mundane realm. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: "If sentient beings remember the Buddha and are mindful of the Buddha, in the present or the future they will certainly see the Buddha; without relying on expedients, their minds will open of themselves." I say that cultivating the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi should also be like "standing before you", "leaning upon the crossbar", and seeing Yao. Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, one should always recollect and be mindful—why worry about not seeing the Buddha? This is truly the essential ford for leaving the world and attaining the Way! Those who cultivate this samādhi should take Sukhāvatī as their aim. For Amida's vow-power takes welcoming and guiding all living beings as its task, its great light shining everywhere, gathering them in without forsaking. All who hold mindfulness will attain rebirth—how broad is this benefit! How could it be merely an empty visualization like seeing Yao upon the wall or in the soup? On the third day of the eleventh month of the seventh year of Zhenghe, aboard a boat in the territory of Fuli, because I examined the Treatise on the Jewel King of Buddha-Mindfulness Samādhi by the Tang monk Feixi, I reflected upon the words of our Master and the Han historian, which accord with the Buddha's like matching tallies. I therefore recorded this upon this scroll, hoping to view it from time to time to spur myself on. May all who see and hear it also exert themselves! Respectfully written by Huang Bosi, Changru.

Linked texts (1)

念佛三昧寶王論 — Classical Chinese