寶王三昧念佛直指 1.42

1.42

念佛三昧名三昧王，境界甚深卒難究竟，古今師授互有不同，至於天台其說大備，慈恩、賢首各引其長，企仰禪宗亦極明顯。但後學淺陋莫得指歸，尚未升堂焉能入室？尋門未得，異見多途，遂將禪宗六祖大師《壇經》說淨土處，暗地搏量隨語生解，便謂本無淨土，不必求生。而不知我大師非但所說隨機，實乃義符經旨。縱隨其語，但言淨土不必生，亦不說無淨土。淨土既有，生理昭然。何故初機執指為月；若依大師所云：迷人念佛求生於彼，悟人自淨其心。又云：東方人但心淨即無罪，雖西方人心不淨亦有愆。東方人造罪念佛求生西方，西方人造罪念佛求生何國？凡愚不了，不識身中淨土，願東願西；悟人在處一般。又言淨土遠近但隨眾生善根不同，而佛土焉有遠近之異？是謂不必求生也。然要眾生永斷十惡八邪、具修十善八正，又令妙識心地性王不離此身，但迷悟有異，若悟則能行慈悲喜捨、能淨平直等善，即是觀音、勢至、釋迦、彌陀。若迷則分別人我，邪心虛妄塵勞之殊，即是須彌海水之境、龍鬼地獄之黨。今詳大師旨意，但能心淨則隨處皆淨，實與維摩會上佛足按地變穢為淨，其諸大眾各各自見坐寶蓮華，義實無二。則經所謂隨其心淨即佛土淨，其說明矣。大師之辯豈不稱可佛心、深符經旨？但聖人說法遮表不同，其有位未至於此者，不可引彼遮詮而自誑也。況一大藏教，或說遮詮，一切皆非，何必求生；或說表詮，一切皆是，必當求生。此二法說同出佛口，義無有殊，豈可偏執遮詮之說，頓棄表詮求生之義耶？若果直謂於土不必捨穢取淨而但淨其心者，則大師亦當謂人但淨心而已，不必令人斷諸惡業而修善行也。今既令人斷惡行善，則必於土捨穢取淨，其義益明。故佛說遮詮之時，正欲顯於表詮令求生；說表詮時，正是依於遮詮知無生。故知曹溪令人因心先淨，則報境自淨，不令求生，遮詮也；盧山令人佛報境淨，則因心自淨，教必求生，表詮也。然佛祖說法因果不二、非前非後，二義未甞相離，雖使人所入不同，而法體本一。奈何今人纔聞遮詮之說謂是，便謂表詮之談為非，自生退障，良可憫傷。不知大師作此遮詮不必求生之說，正是顯於表詮令求生淨土故也。又如釋尊一代聖教，諸部歷談無非一味，而於顯說法中定多讚顯說，於密說義中必特稱密說，各宗當部而置別談，然佛豈無別談妙於此者？蓋欲應機使眾會受持，得以一志無猶豫也。今像季中扶宗樹教，豈無抑揚之時？六祖既欲弘一行三昧，理宜杜絕諸乘；盧山特欲闡念佛三昧，使之橫超直截，正當圓攝群機。後學豈可妄生二見？宜詳審之。又謂東方西方之人心淨無罪、不淨有愆者，正謂東方惡境麁強，佛已滅度，不能心淨，如俗在家，火宅萬煎，縱修亦失。譬如小石入水即沈，故必求生西方。彌陀聖眾現在，境勝行深，逃子既回，佛親誨益，如出家在寺，善緣具足，決不退轉，故生彼國心淨無愆，如彼大石乘船入水不沈故也。又東方西方理本一體，彼佛國土非但境勝，其佛現在能除愆罪，心必清淨、聖地可階，故必遠勝娑婆，須求生也。若是根勝如曹溪會中者，尚能入生死大海、尋聲救苦教化眾生，何必求生，其或道力未充，妄効先覺，自不求生，教人亦不求生。譬如救溺無船，彼此俱溺。可奈何哉？又我大師實弘禪宗之六祖，所說豈非闡揚少室之禪，乃云心平何勞持戒、行直何用修禪。若依此語，則謂不必持戒修禪矣。而不知心若平，則我待物無不乎。物我既乎，豈可殺他自養、盜彼自利、分男女相而行非行、語不真實、而更飲酒使醒醉異時？心平既無此犯戒之相，則一切戒皆在其中。豈可全不持戒與劫殺人等而云心平？是知作此心平何勞持戒之語，正是顯於大戒也。禪字乃是梵語，此翻靜慮，或翻正定、或翻一行三昧。豈有行直之人其心慮而不靜、其住定而不正、其行有不一者？是知何用修禪之語，正是顯於深禪也。大師行超天人之表、道隆像季之間，恐後學著法泥跡，於戒體中說何勞持戒之語，於禪境中說何用修禪之言。例此則知，亦於必當求生淨土法中而說不必求生之語也。後學猶轉泥跡，謂實不必求生，愚之甚也。蓋大師所說反勸也，諸祖所談順讚也，非順則無以啟進修之路，非反則不顯圓頓之修。反勸順讚，悉應當時之機，無有實法。如云逢佛殺佛，豈真殺佛乎？若殺佛之語是實，則文殊仗劍亦是真殺佛乎？苟隨古人之語、不求古人之心，謂實不必求生者，正所謂醍醐上味為世所珍，遇斯等人翻成毒藥矣。是故大師稱彼三諦圓妙之理，於有生中說無生、於無證中說修證，二邊叵得、中道不存，合教乘圓頓法門，坦然明白；如揭日月於昏衢，無不蒙照。而謂禪宗於念佛三昧淨土旨趣有所未盡，可乎？若夫河西綽公、長安善導、信源禪師、智覺慈覺，豈非繼其後者？皆能遠稟遺音、力弘斯道；道珍、懷玉，行業厥彰；圓照諸師，其驗益著。況今禪林為病僧念誦，及荼毘十念稱佛名號，俾其往生，事載典章。餘風尚在，更奚惑焉？

The buddha-mindfulness samādhi is called the king of samādhis. Its realm is exceedingly profound, difficult to fathom to the end. The transmissions of masters past and present have differed from one another. Coming down to Tiantai, the explanation was fully provided; Ci'en and Xianshou each adduced their own strengths; and looking up to the Chan school, it is likewise extremely clear. However, later students are shallow and vulgar, failing to grasp the true direction; having not yet ascended the hall, how could they enter the inner chamber? Failing to find the entrance, their differing views take manifold paths. Thereupon, seizing upon where the Great Master, the Sixth Patriarch of the Chan school, spoke of the Pure Land in the Platform Sūtra, they secretly reckon and formulate understandings according to his words, asserting that originally there is no Pure Land and that one need not seek rebirth. Yet they do not realize that what our Great Master said was not only spoken in accordance with capacities, but in fact its meaning accords with the purport of the sūtras. Even following his words, he merely said one need not be reborn in the Pure Land, nor did he say that there is no Pure Land. Since the Pure Land exists, the principle of rebirth is self-evident. Why do beginners grasp at the pointing finger and mistake it for the moon? As the Great Master stated: 'Deluded people practice buddha-mindfulness seeking rebirth there; awakened people purify their own minds.' He also said: 'If an Easterner only purifies their mind, they are without guilt; even if a Westerner's mind is impure, they still have transgressions. When an Easterner commits sins, they practice buddha-mindfulness seeking rebirth in the West; when a Westerner commits sins and practices buddha-mindfulness, what land do they seek rebirth in? Ordinary fools do not comprehend and do not recognize the Pure Land within their own bodies, wishing for the East or wishing for the West; for awakened people, every place is the same.' He also said that the distance of the Pure Land only depends on the different good roots of sentient beings, for how could the Buddha's land have a distinction of far or near? This is what is meant by 'need not seek rebirth.' Yet he demanded that sentient beings forever cut off the ten evils and eight heterodoxies, and fully cultivate the ten virtues and the eightfold noble path; and he further caused them to wonderfully recognize that the nature-king of the mind-ground is not separate from this body. It is only that delusion and awakening differ: if one is awakened, then one can practice loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, and can purify virtues such as evenness and straightforwardness—which are none other than Avalokiteśvara, Mahāsthāmaprāpta, Śākyamuni, and Amitābha. If one is deluded, then one discriminates between self and others; the distinctions of heterodox minds, delusion, and worldly afflictions are none other than Mount Sumeru, the ocean waters, the hordes of dragons, ghosts, and hells. Now, scrutinizing the Great Master's purport: if one can only purify one's mind, then every place is pure. This in truth does not differ in meaning from when the Buddha in the Vimalakīrti assembly pressed the earth with his toe, transforming defilement into purity, so that each member of the great assembly saw themselves seated on a jeweled lotus flower. Thus what the sūtra calls 'In accordance with the purity of their minds, the Buddha-land is pure'—its explanation is clear! How could the Great Master's eloquence not match the Buddha's mind and deeply accord with the purport of the sūtras? However, in the holy one's expounding of the Dharma, the apophatic and cataphatic differ; those whose station has not reached this level must not cite that apophatic teaching to deceive themselves. Moreover, throughout the entire canon of teachings, sometimes he spoke apophatic teachings: all are negated—why must one seek rebirth? Sometimes he spoke cataphatic teachings: all are affirmed—one must certainly seek rebirth. These two modes of teaching both came from the Buddha's mouth; their meaning is without distinction. How could one cling exclusively to the apophatic teaching and abruptly discard the cataphatic meaning of seeking rebirth? If one were truly to say directly that with regard to the lands, one need not reject defilement and choose purity, but only purify one's mind, then the Great Master should also have told people merely to purify their minds and that they need not sever bad karma and cultivate good conduct. Now, since he caused people to sever evil and practice good, then with respect to lands, they must reject defilement and choose purity—the meaning becomes all the clearer. Therefore, when the Buddha spoke apophatic teachings, he precisely intended to reveal cataphatic teachings to cause them to seek rebirth; when he spoke cataphatic teachings, he was precisely relying on apophatic teachings to realize non-birth. Thus know that Caoxi's causing people to first purify their causal mind so that their rewarded realm would naturally be pure, not telling them to seek rebirth, is the apophatic teaching; Mount Lu's causing people to have the pure rewarded realm of the Buddha so that their causal mind would naturally be pure, instructing that they must seek rebirth, is the cataphatic teaching. Yet the Buddha and patriarchs expounded the Dharma with cause and effect non-dual, neither before nor after; the two meanings have never been separated. Although they cause people to enter by different ways, the essence of the Dharma is fundamentally one. Alas, contemporary people, as soon as they hear the apophatic teachings, deem them right and immediately deem the cataphatic discourse wrong, generating obstacles of retrogression for themselves, which is truly pitiable! They do not realize that the Great Master's formulating this apophatic discourse of not needing to seek rebirth was precisely to reveal the cataphatic teaching to cause them to seek rebirth in the Pure Land. Furthermore, throughout Śākyamuni's lifetime of holy teachings, the extensive discourses of the various divisions were all of a single flavor; yet in the open teachings, he certainly praised the open teachings extensively, and in the esoteric meanings, he necessarily commended the esoteric teachings in particular. Each lineage takes its own division as primary and sets aside other discourses; yet could the Buddha have lacked other discourses more wondrous than these? It was to respond to capacities so that the assembly would accept and uphold it, enabling them to be of single-minded resolve without hesitation. Now in this Semblance and Final Age, when upholding the lineage and establishing the doctrine, could there not be times of suppression and praise? Since the Sixth Patriarch wished to propagate the one-practice samādhi, in principle he ought to block the various vehicles; Mount Lu specifically wished to elucidate the buddha-mindfulness samādhi to make it leap across horizontally and cut directly through, appropriately gathering in all capacities completely. How could later students generate dualistic views? One should examine this carefully. Furthermore, as for his statement that people of the East and West are without guilt if their minds are pure, and have transgressions if their minds are impure: this refers precisely to the fact that in the East, evil conditions are coarse and strong, the Buddha has already entered parinirvāṇa, and people cannot purify their minds; it is like being a layperson living at home, scorched by the manifold fires of the burning house, where even if one cultivates, one still loses it. It is like a small stone sinking as soon as it enters the water; therefore one must seek rebirth in the West. Amitābha and the holy assembly are present now; the realm is superior and practice is deep; once the runaway child returns, the Buddha instructs and benefits him in person; it is like leaving home to dwell in a monastery, fully endowed with wholesome conditions, never retrogressing. Therefore, born in that land, one's mind is pure and without transgression, just like a great stone boarding a boat does not sink upon entering the water. Moreover, the East and the West are fundamentally of one essence in principle; that Buddha's land not only has superior realms, but that Buddha is present now and able to eradicate transgressions and guilt, so that the mind is certain to be pure and the holy stages can be climbed. Thus it is far superior to Sahā, and one must seek rebirth. If one possesses superior roots like those in Caoxi's assembly, one can still enter the great ocean of birth and death, hearing the cries and rescuing from suffering, transforming sentient beings—why would one need to seek rebirth? But if one's power of the Way is not yet sufficient and one recklessly imitates the awakened predecessors, neither seeking rebirth oneself nor teaching others to seek rebirth, it is like attempting to rescue the drowning without a boat: both will drown together. What can be done about that? Furthermore, our Great Master was truly the Sixth Patriarch who propagated the Chan school. Could what he said not elucidate the Chan of Shaoshi? Yet he said: 'If the mind is even, what need is there to keep the precepts? If conduct is straightforward, what use is cultivating Chan?' If one follows these words, one would say there is no need to keep precepts or cultivate Chan. Yet they do not realize that if the mind is even, then in treating things I am completely even toward all. Once things and self are even, how could one kill others to nourish oneself, steal from them to benefit oneself, differentiate male and female forms to engage in misconduct, speak untruthfully, or drink alcohol causing oneself to be sober and drunk at different times? Since an even mind lacks these characteristics of precept-breaking, all precepts are contained within it. How could one utterly disregard the precepts, committing robbery and murder, and yet claim that the mind is even? Thus know that uttering these words, 'If the mind is even, what need is there to keep the precepts,' was precisely to reveal the Great Precepts. The word *chan* is Sanskrit; here it is translated as 'quiet contemplation,' or as 'right concentration,' or as 'one-practice samādhi.' How could someone of straightforward conduct have thoughts that are not quiet, abide in concentration that is not right, or have conduct that is not unified? Thus know that the words 'what use is cultivating Chan' precisely reveal deep Chan. The Great Master's conduct surpassed heaven and humanity; his Way flourished in the Semblance and Final Age. Fearing that later students would grasp at teachings and become stuck in traces, within the precept-essence he spoke the words 'what need is there to keep the precepts,' and within the realm of Chan he spoke the words 'what use is cultivating Chan.' By this analogy, know that he also spoke the words 'need not seek rebirth' within the Dharma of definitely needing to seek rebirth in the Pure Land. Yet later students cling even more stubbornly to the traces, asserting that one truly need not seek rebirth—how utterly foolish! What the Great Master spoke was paradoxical exhortation, whereas what the various patriarchs expounded was direct praise. Without the direct, there is no way to open the path of advancing in practice; without the paradoxical, one cannot reveal the round and sudden cultivation. Paradoxical exhortations and direct praise all respond to the capacities of the time; there is no fixed Dharma. Just as it is said, 'Meeting the Buddha, kill the Buddha'—could one truly kill the Buddha? If the words 'kill the Buddha' were literal, then when Mañjuśrī held the sword, was he also truly killing the Buddha? If one merely follows the words of the ancients without seeking their intent, asserting that one truly need not seek rebirth, it is just as is said: the supreme flavor of clarified butter is treasured by the world, but encountering such people, it turns instead into poison! Therefore, the Great Master accorded with that round and wonderful principle of the three truths, speaking of non-birth in the midst of birth, speaking of cultivation and realization in the midst of non-realization; the two extremes cannot be grasped, and the middle way does not remain. In accord with the round and sudden teachings of the doctrine, it is clear and obvious, like raising the sun and moon over a dark crossroad, leaving nothing unilluminated. And to say that the Chan school falls short regarding the purport of the buddha-mindfulness samādhi and the Pure Land—how could that be acceptable? As for Master Daochuo of Hexi, Shandao of Chang'an, Chan Master Xinyuan, Zhijue, and Cijue, were they not successors who followed them? All were able from afar to receive the transmitted sound and vigorously propagate this Way; Daozhen and Huaiyu made their practice and actions illustrious, and the verifications of masters such as Yuanzhao became all the more apparent. Furthermore, today in Chan monasteries chanting for sick monks and the ten recitations invocation of the Buddha's name at cremations to enable their rebirth are matters recorded in the regulations. The remaining custom still persists; what further doubt could there be?