寶王三昧念佛直指 1.50

1.50

釋迦如來所垂念佛法門，統法界群機而無外者也，實文殊普賢所證大人境界。天台四明判與華嚴法華同部，味屬醍醐，即禪宗所謂單傳直指之道。永明四料簡中謂「無禪有淨土，萬修萬人去。但得見彌陀，何慮不開悟。」誠向上一路也。奈何今人因於名利所謀不遂其志，乃作色長歎而自悔云：「噫！我平生一切都罷了。參禪非我所望，不知且念些阿彌陀佛以度生世。苟不折本，足矣。」於是反怠其身，曾未深省。倘或忽遇些些兒得志趣，便自無量惡作依舊一時現前，莫之能禦也。念佛如此，何益之有？今詳其見，彼謂參禪雖妙而難，如造萬間大廈；念佛雖麁且易，如作一隙草窟。見地若此，譬如饑世得遇大王百味珍饍，認作草菜之食；以如意珠王，視為魚目。可不哀哉？不知禪佛二門，發行雖異，到家一著，其理是同。當知所以發行異者，如參禪，枯來即是，不著佛求。然若自不能具正知見，又不遇正知見人，縱不退轉，多入魔道，無佛力救護故也。若念佛，一切不取，惟念彼佛，雖無正解及師友開發，但直信有佛身土，發志即生，縱滯邪小，亦還於正，有彌陀願力救護故也。是名發行有異，非謂法門地位深淺有異也。是知參禪即念佛、念佛即參禪，禪非佛不得往生、佛非禪不得觀慧，念佛參禪豈有二致？若知此義，則當乘彼功名富貴得志之時，一刀割斷，即便猛發大心力行斯道，於世所有妻子寶貨頭目髓腦乃至身命不自悋惜，決志求生。豈可直待悔吝失節不得已之際，以此最上法門但作草窟魚目小道之見，以苟且之法而欲修之，可傷可惜甚矣。若能因是悔吝，從公一時放下，生大乘寶所之見，辨決定不退轉心。譬如隨風順流之舟更加櫓棹，豈不疾有所至？何幸如之。問：若是，則禪書有云：如何是佛？答乾屎橛。答麻三斤。云我當時若見，一棒打殺，與狗子喫，貴圖天下太平。乃至魔來也殺，佛來也殺。且道與念佛三昧尊敬戀慕畏愛渴仰之心及到家之旨，如何同耶？答：念佛者，本持念彼西方極樂世界報身阿彌陀佛也。此佛報身有無量相好光明化佛菩薩聲聞願力功德，不可具說。此為佛身。又佛所依境，有諸寶池地樹幢網欄臺鈴旛華水等一切莊嚴，此為國土。然彼佛以身為土、以土為身，身土無礙、心境圓通，或彼或此同一受用，乃至蘊入界處一切諸法，直至無上菩提，及能殺所殺之義，一切時一切處無障無礙、非縛非脫，縱橫逆順皆即彌陀清淨色身。何以故？心即境、境即心，身即土、土即身，生即佛、佛即生，此即彼、彼即此，及青黃赤白之色、眼耳鼻舌之根，如是諸法或心或身，亦一一無不自在、無不解脫。尚不間於婬怒癡是梵行、塵勞儔是法侶，何特乾屎橛、麻三斤非是佛耶？此既是佛，何須於淨地上特地示現降生，剜肉做瘡，起度生想？如此正好一棒打殺與狗子喫，却省得許多作模作樣；六年苦行，降魔說法，於無生滅平等法中唱生唱滅、賣弄千端，攪動世界、惱亂一切，使平地上死人無數，豈不天下太平。咦到這裏，切忌錯會。不得動著，動著則喫我手中痛棒有分。若謂此說是曹溪門下搕𢶍堆頭觸著得底，且未曾夢見在，我早打折爾驢腰間，恐不容汝如此計較。答：亦不外此計較。又汝莫謂計較有心、計較無心。我幾曾計較來？問：只此早是計較了。答：我適來說什麼底？問者不會，良久又問：若一切是佛，則糞箕苕帚皆可酬彼所問，何特以極劣乾屎橛而作答耶？答：既一切是佛，則門窓戶闥目前諸境皆可為問，何特取是勝之佛而為問耶？故知問者心地本純、太取其高，而答者欲破彼執，反取其劣耳。若知屎橛非劣，則佛亦且非優，豈可謂彼語有不同，而妄認禪佛為異行哉？問：此念佛法門若如此奇特，與少室指心成佛之說、台宗觀心觀佛之談，初無有異。可謂不出一念顯三千妙法，而三觀宛然不離萬法，究一真如門而一心頓了。且教我鈍根後學之人，如何修行得相應去？答：但肯發行，何慮不成。譬如空谷之間有聲皆答，聲大則大鳴、聲細則細響，隨彼發聲無不克應。正如樂國以三輩九品攝受眾生，亦隨其根利鈍深淺邪正遲速而導之，應生何品無遺機矣。如谷應聲高低共作，若能勤加精進必不唐捐。又況時無先後，何嫌鈍根？以是義故，則知一切法門即一法門、一法門即一切法門，豈特禪佛不二？舉釋迦一代施化之道，不出念佛一法門矣。又此法門量廣大，故攝機無外，何間愚智之根？奉勸後賢，於此法門莫生異見。

The Dharma-gate of buddha-mindfulness bequeathed by the Tathāgata Śākyamuni encompasses all capacities in the dharmadhātu without leaving out any; it is truly the realm of great persons verified by Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra. Siming of Tiantai classified it as belonging to the same category as the Avataṃsaka and Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, its flavor being that of clarified butter; it is precisely what the Chan lineage calls the path of direct pointing through single transmission. In Yongming's Fourfold Evaluation, it says: 'Without Chan but with the Pure Land, ten thousand practice and ten thousand go; if one only gets to see Amitābha, what worry is there about not awakening?' It is truly the path leading upward. Yet why is it that nowadays, when people fail to fulfill their ambitions due to thwarted pursuits of fame and gain, they change countenance, sigh deeply, and regretfully say to themselves: 'Alas! In this life of mine, everything has come to an end. Investigating Chan is beyond my hopes; I know only to chant a bit of "Amitābha Buddha" to pass this life. If I at least do not take a loss, that will suffice'? Thereupon, conversely, they become indolent in body and never deeply reflect. If by chance they suddenly meet with some slight success in their ambitions, then their immeasurable misdeeds immediately manifest all at once as before, and nothing can ward them off. Practicing buddha-mindfulness in this manner, what benefit could there be? Examining their views now, they say that investigating Chan, though wondrous, is difficult—like constructing a vast mansion of ten thousand rooms; whereas buddha-mindfulness, though coarse, is easy—like digging a little hollow in the grass. With an understanding such as this, it is as if, in a time of famine, one encountered the king's delicacies of a hundred flavors and took them for food of grass and greens, or looked upon the king of wish-fulfilling jewels and regarded it as a fish's eye. How could this not be lamentable? They do not know that though the two gates of Chan and the Buddha differ in starting out on practice, in arriving home, their principle is identical. One should know the reason why their starting out on practice differs: in investigating Chan, where it has withered away is just it, without seeking after the Buddha; yet if one cannot personally possess right view, and does not encounter someone of right view, then even if one does not retrogress, one will mostly enter the demonic paths, because there is no power of the Buddha to rescue and protect. In buddha-mindfulness, one grasps nothing at all and only is mindful of that Buddha; even without correct understanding and without being opened up by teachers and friends, if one simply and directly believes in the Buddha's body and land and sets one's will, one will immediately attain rebirth; even if one lingers in the heterodox and lesser, one will still return to the correct, because there is the rescue and protection of Amitābha's vow-power. This is called a difference in starting out on practice; it does not mean there is a difference in depth between the Dharma-gates and stages. From this one knows that investigating Chan is itself buddha-mindfulness, and buddha-mindfulness is itself investigating Chan; without the Buddha, Chan cannot attain rebirth, and without Chan, the Buddha cannot attain contemplative wisdom. How could there be two different paths between buddha-mindfulness and investigating Chan? If one knows this meaning, one should take advantage of the very time when one is successful in fame and wealth to cut it off with a single sword-stroke, immediately and vigorously generate the great mind, strive to practice this path, and with regard to all wife, children, treasures, head, eyes, marrow, brain, and even life in the world, feel no stinginess or regret, and firmly resolve to seek rebirth. How could one wait until the helpless moment of regret, stinginess, and loss of integrity, and with this supreme Dharma-gate merely hold the views of a grass-hollow and a fish-eye, wishing to cultivate it with a slipshod method? This is deeply pitiable and lamentable. If, relying on this regret, one puts it all down at once from the public ground, conceives the view of the Mahāyāna treasure-house, and resolves on a mind of definitive non-retrogression—just like a boat going with the wind and current that adds sculls and oars—how could it not swiftly arrive at its destination? What fortune could compare to this? Question: If so, then the Chan texts say: 'What is the Buddha? Answer: A dried shit-stick.' 'Answer: Three pounds of flax.' And: 'Had I seen him then, I would have struck him dead with one blow and fed him to the dogs, in the hope of peace in the world.' And even: 'If a demon comes, kill him; if a Buddha comes, kill him.' Tell me, then: how is that the same as the mind of respect, yearning, awe, love, and thirsting reverence in the buddha-mindfulness samādhi, and the essential point of arriving home? Answer: The practitioner of buddha-mindfulness originally upholds mindfulness of the saṃbhogakāya Amitābha Buddha of that Western World of Sukhāvatī. This Buddha's saṃbhogakāya possesses immeasurable marks and signs, radiance, transformation buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, vow-power, and virtues, which cannot be fully described. This is the Buddha's body. Furthermore, the realm upon which the Buddha relies has all manner of adornments, such as jeweled ponds, grounds, trees, banners, nets, railings, terraces, bells, pennants, flowers, and water. This is the land. Yet that Buddha takes the body as the land and the land as the body; body and land are unimpeded, and mind and realm are fully interfused; either that or this is the identical fruition. Even the aggregates, sense-fields, elements, and all phenomena up to unsurpassed bodhi, as well as the meaning of that which can kill and that which is killed—at all times and in all places they are without obstruction and unimpeded, neither bound nor liberated; whether longitudinal or horizontal, contrary or favorable, all are none other than Amitābha's pure form-body. Why is this? The mind is the realm, the realm is the mind; the body is the land, the land is the body; sentient beings are the Buddha, the Buddha is sentient beings; this is that, that is this; and colors like blue, yellow, red, and white, and sense-faculties like eyes, ears, nose, and tongue—such phenomena, whether mind or body, are also every one of them without exception at ease and liberated. It does not even discriminate against lust, anger, and delusion being the brahma-conduct, or the companions of afflictive dusts being companions of the Dharma; why particularly should a dried shit-stick or three pounds of flax not be the Buddha? Since these are the Buddha, why was it necessary to deliberately manifest descent and birth upon the clean ground, carving flesh to make a wound and giving rise to the thought of saving beings? In this case, it is indeed fitting to strike him dead with one blow and feed him to the dogs, thereby saving so much posturing: six years of asceticism, subduing Māra and preaching the Dharma, crying out birth and crying out cessation within the equal Dharma that has neither birth nor cessation, displaying thousands of contrivances, stirring up the world and disturbing everything, causing countless people to die on level ground—would that not make for peace in the world? Aha! Coming to this point, take absolute care not to misunderstand! You must not stir; if you stir, you will surely take the painful stick from my hand. If you say that this discourse was picked up from the trash heap under Caoxi's gate, you have not even dreamed of it yet; I would have broken your donkey's waist long ago, fearing that you would not be allowed to calculate like this. Answer: It is also not outside of this calculation. Furthermore, do not say that calculation has a mind or calculation has no mind. When did I ever engage in calculation? Question: Just this is already calculation. Answer: What was I talking about just now? The questioner did not understand. After a long while, he asked again: If everything is the Buddha, then a dung basket or a broom could answer his question; why particularly answer with an utterly base dried shit-stick? Answer: Since everything is the Buddha, then doors, windows, gates, and all realms before one's eyes could be the question; why particularly take the superior 'Buddha' to make the question? Therefore we know that the questioner's mind-ground was originally naive and aimed too high, while the respondent wished to break his attachment and instead took what was base. If one knows that a shit-stick is not base, then the Buddha is also not superior. How can one say that their words are not the same, and falsely consider Chan and the Buddha to be different practices? Question: If this Dharma-gate of buddha-mindfulness is so extraordinary, it has no difference at all from Shaoshi's teaching of pointing to the mind to become a Buddha, or the Tiantai school's discourse on contemplating the mind and contemplating the Buddha. It can be said that without departing from a single thought, the three thousand wondrous phenomena are revealed; the three contemplations are vividly present without departing from the ten thousand phenomena; investigating the single gate of tathatā, the single mind is頓suddenly understood. Pray, teach us people of dull faculties and later learning: how should we practice so as to achieve accord? Answer: If one is only willing to start out on practice, what worry is there of not accomplishing it? For example, in an empty valley, wherever there is a sound there is an echo: a loud sound makes a loud echo, a subtle sound makes a subtle resonance; in accord with the sound emitted, it never fails to respond. Just as the Land of Bliss gathers in sentient beings through the three grades and nine ranks, it also guides them in accord with whether their faculties are sharp or dull, deep or shallow, heterodox or correct, slow or fast; whichever rank they ought to be born into, no capacity is left behind. Just as the valley echoing the sounds produces both high and low together, if one can diligently apply vigorous effort, it will certainly not be in vain. Moreover, time has neither before nor after; why dislike dull faculties? For this reason, one knows that all Dharma-gates are the one Dharma-gate, and the one Dharma-gate is all Dharma-gates; how could it be only that Chan and the Buddha are not two? If we bring up the way Śākyamuni carried out transformation throughout his lifetime, it does not go beyond the single Dharma-gate of buddha-mindfulness. Furthermore, the capacity of this Dharma-gate is vast and great, so it gathers in all capacities without leaving any out; how could it discriminate between the faculties of the foolish and the wise? I respectfully urge later worthy ones not to give rise to divergent views regarding this Dharma-gate.