廬山蓮宗寶鑑 1.2

1.2

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.