西方合論 1.10

1.10

香光子聞而太息曰：「若汝所言，止圖口角圓滑，不知一舉足將墜于火坑也。生死無常，轉盻即至，如何熟記宗門見成相似之語，以為究竟？都云：『我已成佛，不必念佛。』若約理而言，世間一蚤一虱，皆具有如來清淨覺體，無二無別。乃至諸佛成等正覺，證大涅槃，本體未嘗增得一分；眾生墮三塗，趨生死海，本體未嘗減却一分。如如之體，常自不動；生死涅槃，等是妄見；亦無如來，亦無眾生。於此證入，亦無能證之人，亦無所證之法，泯絕心量，超越情有；大地無寸土，佛之一字，向何處安著？至於進修法門，於無修證中修證，於無等級中等級，千差萬別。雖位至等覺，尚不知如來舉足下足之處。從上祖師，所以呵佛斥教，一切皆遮者，止因人心執滯教相，隨語生解，不悟言外之本體，漫執語中之方便；一向說心說性、說空說幻、說頓說漸、說因說果，千經萬論無不通曉；及問渠本命元辰，便將經論見成語言抵對，除却見成語言，依舊茫然無措，所謂數他家寶，已無分文。其或有真實修行之人，不見佛性，辛苦行持，如盲無導，止獲人天之果，不生如來之家。於是諸祖知其流弊，遂用毒手，剗其語言、塞其解路、拶其情識，令其苦參密究，逆生滅流，生滅情盡，取捨念空，始識得親生父母、歷劫寶藏。却來看經看教，一一如道家中事；然後如說進修，以佛知見，淨治餘習。拜空花之如來，修水月之梵行，登陽焰之階級，度谷響之眾生，不取寂證，是謂佛種。正如杲日當空行大王路，不同長夜趨走攀荊墮棘，豈謂一悟之後即同極果，如供奉問岑大虫：『果上涅槃，天下善知識證否？』岑曰：『未證。』奉曰：『何以未證？』岑曰：『功未齋於諸聖。』奉曰：『若爾，何得名為善知識？』岑曰：『明見佛性，亦得名為善知識也。』弘辨禪師曰：『頓明自性，與佛同儔。然有無始染習，故假對治，令順性起用，如人喫飯不一口便飽。』溈山曰：『初心從緣，頓悟自理，猶有無始曠劫習氣未能頓淨，須教渠淨除現業流識，即修也。不可別有法，教渠修行趣向。』若論諸祖師為人之處，壁立萬仞，大火聚中，觸之即爛；刀鎗林裡，動著便燒；未曾開口，已隔千里萬里，至機緣之外，平實商量，未甞盡絕階級，盡遮修行。《傳燈錄》中分明詳悉。大慧中峰，言教尤為緊切，血誠勸勉，惟恐空解著人，墮落魔事。何曾言一悟之後，不假修行，頓同兩足之尊，盡滿涅槃之果？後世不識教意，不達祖機，乃取喝佛罵祖破膽險句，以為行持。昔之人為經論所障，猶是雜食米麥，不能運化；後之人飽記禪宗語句，排因撥果，越分過頭，是日取大黃巴豆，以為茶飯也。自誤誤人，弊豈有極？是以纔入此門，便輕十方如來，莫不自云：『無佛可成，無行可修。』見人念佛，則曰：『自性是佛。』見人修淨土，則曰：『即心是淨。』言參禪則尊之九天之上，言念佛則蹂之九地之下。全不思參禪念佛，總之為了生死，同是出苦海之橋梁，越界有之寶筏，事同一家，何勝何劣？參門之中，所悟亦有淺深；念佛之眾，所修亦有高下，如何執定參者即是上根，念者便為中下？

Xiangguangzi heard this and sighed deeply, saying: 'What you say aims only at verbal eloquence; you do not realise that with a single step you will fall into a pit of fire. Saṃsāra and impermanence arrive in the blink of an eye; how can you memorise the ready-made, superficial phrases of the Chan lineage and regard them as ultimate? All say: "I have already become a buddha; there is no need for buddhānusmṛti." If we speak according to principle, a single flea or louse in the world completely possesses the Tathāgata's pure enlightened essence, without any difference. Even when the buddhas attain samyaksaṃbodhi and realise great nirvāṇa, their original essence does not increase by a single fraction; when sentient beings fall into the three evil destinies and hasten into the ocean of saṃsāra, their original essence does not decrease by a single fraction. The essence of tathatā is constantly and naturally unmoving; saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally false views; there is neither Tathāgata nor sentient being. Entering into this realisation, there is also neither a person who can realise nor a dharma to be realised; mental measurements are obliterated and emotional existence transcended; across the great earth there is not an inch of soil—where could the single character "Buddha" be placed? As for the gates of practice and advancement, cultivating and realising within non-cultivation and non-realisation, grading within non-grading, there are thousands of differences and distinctions. Even those whose rank reaches samyaksaṃbodhi still do not know where the Tathāgata raises and lowers his feet. The reason past patriarchs scolded buddhas, denounced teachings, and negated everything was solely because people's minds clung stubbornly to doctrinal marks, producing understanding according to words, failing to awaken to the original essence beyond words, and recklessly grasping the skillful means within words. All along they spoke of mind and nature, of emptiness and illusion, of sudden and gradual, of cause and effect, understanding all of the thousands of sūtras and ten thousand treatises; but when asked about their fundamental life-source, they would match it with ready-made words from the sūtras and treatises; remove those ready-made words, and they remain bewildered and helpless—what is called counting another's treasure without a penny of one's own. Or there may be those who practice genuinely, yet not seeing the buddhadhātu, they practice with bitter hardship like the blind without a guide, merely obtaining the fruits of humans and devas and not being born into the house of the Tathāgata. Thereupon the patriarchs, knowing these shortcomings, used poisonous hands to cut down their words, block their paths of intellectual understanding, and press upon their emotional consciousness, causing them to investigate bitterly and penetrate deeply, going against the flow of arising and ceasing; when feelings of arising and ceasing are exhausted and thoughts of grasping and rejecting are empty, only then do they recognise their birth parents and the treasure store of countless kalpas. Turning then to view the sūtras and teachings, every single one is like a matter within one's own home; thereafter, one advances in practice as expounded, using the Buddha's knowledge and vision to purify and eradicate remaining habit-energies. Bowing to a Tathāgata of sky-flowers, cultivating pure conduct like the water's moon, ascending the stages of a mirage, and liberating sentient beings like valley echoes, not grasping the realization of quiescence—this is called the seed of buddhahood. It is just like the blazing sun high in the sky while treading the great king's highway, unlike running through the long night clutching thorns and falling into briars. How could it be said that immediately upon a single awakening one is identical to the ultimate fruit? Just as the Court Attendant asked Great Tiger Cen: 'Do all the good spiritual friends under heaven realise the nirvāṇa of the fruit?' Cen said: 'They have not realised it.' The Attendant said: 'Why have they not realised it?' Cen said: 'Their merit is not yet equal to that of the various sages.' The Attendant said: 'If so, how can they be called good spiritual friends?' Cen said: 'Clearly seeing the buddhadhātu, they may also be called good spiritual friends.' Chan Master Hongbian said: 'Suddenly understanding one's own nature, one is a peer of the Buddha. Yet there are beginningless defiling habits, so one must employ antidotes to make function arise in accordance with nature, just as a person eating does not become full with a single mouthful.' Guishan said: 'When a beginner relies on conditions and suddenly awakens to the fundamental principle, there are still beginningless habitual energies of countless kalpas that cannot be suddenly purified; one must teach them to purify and eliminate the flowing consciousness of present karma—this is cultivation. There cannot be another dharma taught to them for cultivation and direction.' If we consider where the patriarchs guided people, standing like a precipice of ten thousand cubits, in the midst of a great mass of fire which rots whatever touches it, in a forest of knives and spears which burns whatever moves against it; before one has opened one's mouth, one is already separated by thousands and tens of thousands of miles. Yet outside of dynamic encounters, when deliberating calmly and practically, they never completely abolished stages or completely negated cultivation. This is clear and detailed in the Jingde Chuandeng lu. The teachings of Dahui and Zhongfeng are especially urgent, urging with heartfelt sincerity, fearing only that empty intellectual understanding would attach to people and cause them to fall into māra-affairs. When did they ever say that after a single awakening, without relying on cultivation, one suddenly equals the Two-Footed Honoured One and completely fulfills the fruit of nirvāṇa? Later generations, not understanding the intent of the teachings and failing to fathom the dynamic functioning of the patriarchs, take the perilous phrases that scold buddhas and curse patriarchs, which shatter one's gall, and use them as their practice. People of the past were obstructed by sūtras and treatises, yet that was still like eating mixed grains of rice and wheat and failing to digest them; people of later times memorize Chan lineage phrases to the brim, rejecting causes and denying effects, overstepping their place and going too far—this is daily taking rhubarb and croton seeds as one's tea and rice. Deluding themselves and deluding others, how could the harm ever end? Therefore, no sooner do they enter this gate than they disparage the Tathāgatas of the ten directions, each saying: 'There is no buddha to become, no practice to cultivate.' Seeing someone practice buddhānusmṛti, they say: 'Svabhāva is the Buddha.' Seeing someone cultivate the Pure Land, they say: 'Mind itself is purity.' Speaking of investigating Chan, they exalt it above the nine heavens; speaking of buddhānusmṛti, they trample it beneath the nine earths. They completely fail to reflect that investigating Chan and buddhānusmṛti are both ultimately for ending saṃsāra; they are equally bridges to cross the ocean of suffering and precious rafts to transcend the realms of existence—their matter is of one family, so where is the superior and where is the inferior? Within the gate of investigation, awakening also has depths and shallows; among the practitioners of buddhānusmṛti, cultivation also has higher and lower grades. How can one rigidly assert that investigators are of superior capacity and reciters are of middling and lower capacity?