大慧普覺禪師語錄 14.2.1

14.2.1

黃德用請普說，師云：「邵武高士黃端夫，信向佛乘知有此事，捐家財起菴一所，以圜悟揭名，屢有書來乞，分楊岐一枝佛法去。 彼為眾生作大利益，雲門不敢容易諾之，又託吳元昭學士再三懇禱，亦未敢輕許。 不幸端夫忽爾化去，聞啟手足時，呼其二子，再三囑之曰：『若為吾於雲門，請得一本分住菴人，則死無遺恨矣。 』言訖長往。 二子不忘遺訓，求元昭學士撰疏，遣專使請彌光禪人作菴主，見其至誠，遂令應命。 今德用昆仲，特詣當菴揮金辦供，命山僧普說，舉揚宗旨，以答諸聖加被之恩。 且喚甚麼作宗旨？ 宗旨又如何舉揚？ 近代佛法可傷，邪師說法如恒河沙，各立門風，各說奇特，逐旋揑合疑誤後昆，不可勝數。 參禪者既不具擇法眼，為師者又道眼不明，以至如是。 雲門初與元昭不相識，頃在江西見渠跋所施《華嚴．梵行品》，自言於〈梵行品〉有悟入處，不疑天下老師舌頭。 那時已得其要領，即與兄弟說：『此人只悟得箇無梵行而已，已被邪師印破面門了也，雲門若見，須盡力救，他。 』及乎在長樂相見，便來咨問入室，即時將渠悟入處只兩句斷了曰：『公所悟者，永嘉所謂豁達空撥因果，莽莽蕩蕩招殃禍耳。 』更為渠引〈梵行品〉中錯證據處曰：『於身無所取、於修無所著、於法無所住，過去已滅、未來未至、現在空寂，無作業者、無受報者，此世不移動、彼世不改變，此中何法名為梵行？ 梵行從何處來？ 誰之所有？ 體為是誰？ 由誰而作？ 為是有、為是無？ 為是色、為非色？ 為是受、為非受？ 為是想、為非想？ 為是行、為非行？ 為是識、為非識？ 如是觀察，梵行法不可得故。 若依此引證，謂無梵行是真梵行，則是謗大般若，入地獄如箭射。 』更為渠說，而今諸方邪師輩，各各自言：『得無上菩提。 』各說異端，欺胡謾漢，將古人入道因緣，妄生穿鑿，或者以無言無說、良久默然，為空劫已前事，教人休去歇去，歇教如土木瓦石相似去，又怕人道坐在黑山下鬼窟裏，隨後便引祖師語證據云：『了了常知故，言之不可及。 歇得如土木瓦石相似時，不是冥然無知，直是惺惺歷歷，行住坐臥，時時管帶，但只如此修行，久久自契本心矣。 』或者以脫去情塵，不立窠臼為門戶，凡古人公案舉了，早會了也。 或師家問不是心，不是佛，不是物，爾作麼生會？ 便云：『和尚不妨惺惺。 』或云：『和尚甚麼處去來？ 』或云：『不可矢上更加尖。 』或云：『謾却多少人。 』或再舉一遍云：『不是心，不是佛，不是物。 』凡問他古人因緣，皆向舉起處承當，擊石火閃電光處會，舉了便會了，凡有所問皆不受，喚作脫灑自在得大快樂。 或者以三界唯心，萬法唯識為主宰，引一類古人相似處作證明，以眼見耳聞為得力處，凡通入處，未有不由見物而悟者，未有不由聞聲而悟者，凡有施設，倣効古人相似處，有人問話，只黏定學家問頭便答，謂之言下合無生，正如福州人聯麻相似，喚作綿密不落情塵。 如僧問古德：『如何出得三界去？ 』云：『把將三界來，為爾出。 』或云：『喚甚麼作三界？ 』或云：『會得這僧問頭，出三界也不難。 』如僧問法眼：『如何是曹源一滴水？ 』答云：『是曹源一滴水。 』慧超咨和尚：『如何是佛？ 』答云：『汝是慧超。 』引如此之類作證，乃全是全不是。 又如論藥山夜間示眾云：『我有一句子，待特牛生兒，即向汝道。 』有僧出眾云：『特牛已生兒也，自是和尚不道。 』藥山云：『點燈來。 』其僧便歸眾。 後來法燈出語云：『且道，生底是牯牛？ 是牸牛？ 』自代云：『雙生也。 』商量時亦作言下作無生會。 藥山云：『我有一句子，待特牛生兒』，便是道了也。 所以這僧領得，便出來道：『特牛已生兒也，自是和尚不道。 』直是綿密不露鋒鋩。 法燈徵云：『且道，生底是牯牛？ 是牸牛？

Huang Deyong requested a general discourse. The master said: "The retired scholar Huang Duanfu of Shaowu had faith toward the Buddha Vehicle and knew of this matter. He donated his family property to establish a hermitage, named it after Yuanwu, and repeatedly sent letters begging to share a branch of Yangqi's Buddhadharma. Because he was making great benefits for sentient beings, Yunmen did not dare to grant it lightly. He also entrusted the Academician Wu Yuanzhao to plead earnestly time and again, yet still I did not dare grant it casually. Unfortunately, Duanfu suddenly passed away. I heard that when he was about to die, he called his two sons and repeatedly instructed them, saying: 'If you can invite a genuine hermitage-dweller from Yunmen for me, then I shall die without regret.' Having spoken, he departed forever. His two sons did not forget their father's dying wish; they asked Academician Yuanzhao to draft a statement and sent a special envoy to invite the Chan practitioner Miguang to serve as the master of the hermitage. Seeing their utter sincerity, I then had him comply with the request. Now Deyong and his brother have come specially to this hermitage, generously donating funds to provide offerings, and requesting this mountain monk to give a general discourse and uphold the ancestral tenets in order to repay the grace of the protective blessing of all the sages. And yet, what is called the ancestral tenets? How are the ancestral tenets upheld? The Buddhadharma of recent times is deplorable: heterodox teachers preach the Dharma like the sands of the Ganges, each setting up their own sectarian style, each speaking of the marvelous and extraordinary, successively fabricating views to delude and mislead later generations beyond count. Those who investigate Chan do not possess the eye for choosing the Dharma, and those who act as teachers have unclear eyes of the Way, resulting in such a state. At first, Yunmen did not know Yuanzhao. Later, in Jiangxi, I saw the postscript he provided for the 'Brahmacārya Chapter' of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, in which he claimed that he had an awakening through the 'Brahmacārya Chapter' and did not doubt the tongues of the old masters in the world. At that time I already grasped his main drift, and immediately said to the brethren: 'This person has only awakened to having no brahmacārya, nothing more. He has already had his face smashed by a heterodox teacher's seal. If Yunmen meets him, I must make every effort to save him.' When we met in Changle, he promptly came to consult and enter my room. Thereupon, I shattered his point of awakening with just two sentences, saying: 'What you have awakened to is what Yongjia called "rashly declaring emptiness while casting aside cause and effect, recklessly inviting calamities and misfortune." ' Furthermore, I cited for him the passage in the 'Brahmacārya Chapter' that he had mistakenly used as evidence, saying: '“With respect to the body, nothing is grasped; with respect to cultivation, there is no clinging; with respect to phenomena, there is no abiding. The past has already ceased, the future has not yet arrived, and the present is empty and tranquil. There is no agent of karma and no receiver of retribution; this world does not shift, and that world does not alter. Among these, what phenomenon is called brahmacārya? From where does brahmacārya come? To whom does it belong? Whose essence is it? By whom is it performed? Is it existent or non-existent? Is it form or non-form? Is it sensation or non-sensation? Is it perception or non-perception? Is it conditioning or non-conditioning? Is it consciousness or non-consciousness? Observing in this way, the phenomenon of brahmacārya cannot be apprehended.” If based on this you cite evidence claiming that having no brahmacārya is true brahmacārya, that is slandering the great prajñā, and you will enter hell as swiftly as a shot arrow.' Furthermore, I told him: 'Nowadays, the various heterodox teachers in all quarters each say for themselves, "I have attained unsurpassed bodhi." Each speaks of unorthodox views, deceiving both the Hu and the Han, arbitrarily distorting and forcing interpretations onto the ancient masters' causes and conditions for entering the Way. Some take having no words and no speech, remaining silent for a long time, as the matter before the empty kalpa; they instruct people to cease and desist, desisting until they resemble earth, wood, tiles, and stones. Yet fearing that people will say they are sitting in the ghost caves beneath the black mountain, they then immediately cite the words of the Patriarchs as proof, saying: "Because it is clearly and constantly known, words cannot reach it. When one has desisted until one is like earth, wood, tiles, and stones, it is not a matter of dark obliviousness; it is thoroughly awake and distinctly vivid. Walking, standing, sitting, lying down, attend to it at all times. Merely cultivate like this, and after a long time you will naturally tally with the fundamental mind." Others take shedding emotional defilements and not establishing conventions as their approach; whenever an ancient master's gong'an is cited, they claim they have already understood it. Or when the master asks, "It is not mind, it is not buddha, it is not a thing—how do you understand it?" they immediately say, "The Venerable Monk might as well be awake." Or they say, "Where has the Venerable Monk come from?" Or they say, "One must not add a sharp point atop an arrow." Or they say, "How many people have you deceived?" Or they recite it once more, saying, "It is not mind, it is not buddha, it is not a thing." Whenever they are asked about the ancient masters' causes and conditions, they all take responsibility at the point of citation, understanding it at the striking of flint-sparks or the flash of lightning. Once it is cited, they have already understood it; whatever is asked, they do not entertain it at all, calling this carefree, uninhibited, and attaining great bliss. Others take the principle that the triple world is mind-only and the ten thousand phenomena are consciousness-only as their primary doctrine, citing a class of similar cases among ancient masters as proof. They take seeing with eyes and hearing with ears as the locus of strength; among all points of penetration, there are none that do not awaken through seeing things, and none that do not awaken through hearing sounds. Whenever they make any provisions, they imitate similar points among the ancient masters; when someone asks a question, they merely stick fast to the practitioner's question and answer, calling it "concurring with the unborn upon the words," just like people of Fuzhou splicing hemp, calling it seamless and not falling into emotional defilements. As when a monk asked an ancient worthy: "How does one escape the triple world?" He replied: "Bring the triple world here, and I will escape it for you." Or one said: "What do you call the triple world?" Or one said: "If you understand this monk's question, escaping the triple world is not difficult either." As when a monk asked Fayan: "What is a drop of water from the Caoxi source?" He answered: "It is a drop of water from the Caoxi source." Huichao asked the Venerable Monk: "What is the Buddha?" He replied: "You are Huichao." Citing things of this sort as evidence is either completely right or completely wrong. Furthermore, consider the discussion of Yaoshan giving instruction to the assembly at night, saying: "I have a phrase; when the bull gives birth to a calf, I will speak it to you." A monk came out of the assembly and said: "The bull has already given birth to a calf; it is just that the Venerable Monk does not speak it." Yaoshan said: "Bring a lamp." The monk then returned to the assembly. Later, Fadeng spoke out, saying: "Tell me, is the one born a bull calf or a heifer calf?" Speaking on their behalf, he said: "Twins were born." When deliberating, they also understand it as the unborn upon the words. When Yaoshan said, "I have a phrase; when the bull gives birth to a calf," that was already speaking it. Therefore, this monk grasped it and immediately came forward, saying: "The bull has already given birth to a calf; it is just that the Venerable Monk does not speak it." It is truly seamless, revealing no sharp edges. Fadeng questioned: "Tell me, is the one born a bull calf or a heifer calf?"