廬山蓮宗寶鑑 1.2

1.2

禪淨二門，分袒各幟，幾同敵國矣。慈覺賾禪師有營田開庫之喻，各隨所好皆得如心。此亦方便和會之談耳。二物可會，若本非二，和會奚為？夫禪有如來禪、祖師禪。祖師禪且置，佛語禪那，華言靜慮，所謂八禪八定也。念佛三昧曰一心不亂，都攝六根淨念相繼，非靜定耶？且念佛與唱佛不同，唱者口也、念者憶也，母憶子、子憶母，口乎？心乎？所念之佛栴檀耶？閻浮檀金耶？毘首羯磨所作耶？應身耶？報身耶？法身耶？過去佛耶？現未佛耶？淨土在西方耶？舉足下足即道場耶？《觀經》金口所宣，而曰「是心作佛，是心是佛」，故觀心即觀佛也，觀佛即念佛也。極而言之，念本無念、佛亦無佛，能念空、所念亦空，如來禪即祖師禪也。故大勢至念佛無生，觀世音反聞自性，二菩薩似各一圓通，而同在安養，左右彌陀接引東土。明乎即淨即禪、眾聖一揆，而後來釋子分張門戶，譬之祖宗房屋原只一間，而子孫于中牆壁夾斷、插籬種棘不相往來，其為執迷顛倒極矣。或難言：三聖接引，則淨土在西方明矣。得無與自性惟心之旨相矛盾乎？余曰：彌陀者，眾生之彌陀也。眾生者，彌陀之眾生也。極樂者，彌陀之惟心也。惟心者，眾生之極樂也。故識自性惟心之旨，謂西方有彌陀，可謂東土皆彌陀亦可；謂法報身是佛，可謂丈六劣應身與毘首羯磨所作是佛亦可；謂念過去佛，可謂念現來一切佛亦可。而又何禪淨之分別為耶？《蓮宗寶鑑》一書，乃廬山優曇和尚所集，標真正譌尋香討根，實淨土之指南也。因屬楞嚴白法師刻而傳之，而僭為之引。

The two gateways of Chan and Pure Land have set up separate camps and raised their own banners, becoming almost like rival states. Chan Master Cijue Ze made the analogy of farming fields and opening storehouses: when each follows their own inclination, both attain their wish. Yet this is merely an expedient harmonising discourse. Two things can be harmonised, but if fundamentally they are not two, why harmonise them? Now, Chan includes Tathāgata dhyāna and patriarchal dhyāna. Setting aside patriarchal dhyāna for the moment, what the Buddha called dhyāna is translated into Chinese as 'quiet contemplation', the so-called eight dhyānas and eight concentrations. As for the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, it is said: 'with one mind unconfused, gathering in all six sense faculties, with pure thoughts continuing uninterrupted.' Is this not quietude and concentration? Furthermore, practicing buddhānusmṛti is not the same as merely chanting the Buddha['s name]. Chanting is of the mouth, while anusmṛti is recollecting: like a mother recollecting her child and a child recollecting its mother—is this of the mouth or of the mind? And is the Buddha recollected made of sandalwood? Or of Jāmbūnada gold? Was he crafted by Viśvakarman? Is he the nirmāṇakāya? The saṃbhogakāya? The dharmakāya? Is he a Buddha of the past, or a Buddha of the present or future? Is the Pure Land in the West, or is the place of enlightenment right beneath one's feet every time one lifts and plants them? The Guan jing, proclaimed from the golden mouth [of the Buddha], says: 'This mind becomes Buddha; this mind is Buddha.' Therefore, contemplating the mind is precisely contemplating the Buddha, and contemplating the Buddha is precisely buddhānusmṛti. Taken to the ultimate, recollection is fundamentally non-recollection, and the Buddha is also no-Buddha; the agent of recollection is empty, and the object of recollection is also empty. Tathāgata dhyāna is patriarchal dhyāna. Thus Mahāsthāmaprāpta attained non-arising through buddhānusmṛti, while Avalokiteśvara turned hearing back toward his own nature. These two bodhisattvas seem each to have their own complete penetration, yet they abide together in Sukhāvatī, flanking Amitābha to guide sentient beings of the Eastern Lands. If one clearly grasps that Pure Land is Chan and that all the holy ones share a single standard, then the later disciples of the Śākya who split into distinct factions and schools are just like descendants in an ancestral house that originally had only a single hall, who build internal partition walls, erect fences, and plant brambles to cut off contact with one another—their delusion and confusion are extreme indeed! Someone might object: 'If the Three Holy Ones guide beings, then the Pure Land is clearly in the West. Does this not contradict the purport that one's own nature is Mind-only?' I reply: Amitābha is the Amitābha of sentient beings. Sentient beings are the sentient beings of Amitābha. Sukhāvatī is the Mind-only of Amitābha. Mind-only is the Sukhāvatī of sentient beings. Therefore, if one understands the purport of one's own nature and Mind-only, to say that Amitābha is in the West is acceptable, and to say that the entire Eastern Land is Amitābha is also acceptable; to say that the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are the Buddha is acceptable, and to say that the sixteen-foot inferior nirmāṇakāya or the images made by Viśvakarman are the Buddha is also acceptable; to say that one recollected a past Buddha is acceptable, and to say that one recollected all Buddhas of the present and future is also acceptable. Why then make distinctions between Chan and Pure Land? This book, the Precious Mirror of the Lotus School, was compiled by Master Youtan of Mount Lu. It distinguishes the authentic from the spurious, traces the scent back to the root, and is truly a compass for the Pure Land. Entrusted to Dharma Master Bai of the Śūraṅgama [Monastery] to carve onto blocks and circulate, I have presumptuously written this introduction for it.