大慧普覺禪師語錄 15.2.3

15.2.3

這箇老子軟頑，又撞著這僧軟頑，粘住便問：『無心可用，阿誰成佛？ 』國師曰：『無心自成佛，成佛亦無心。 』僧曰：『佛有大不可思議，為能度眾生。 若也無心，阿誰度眾生？ 』國師曰：『無心是真度生，若見有生可度者，即是有心，宛然生滅。 』僧曰：『今既無心，能仁出世說許多教跡，豈可虛言。 』國師曰：『佛說教亦無心。 』僧曰：『說法無心，應是無說。 』國師曰：『說即無，無即說。 』僧曰：『說法無心，造業有心否？ 』國師曰：『無心即無業。 今既有業，心即生滅，何得無心？ 』僧曰：『無心即成佛，和尚即今成佛未？ 』國師曰：『心尚自無，誰言成佛？ 若有佛可成，還是有心，有心即有漏，何處得無心？ 』僧曰：『既無佛可成，和尚還得佛用否？ 』國師曰：『心尚自無，用從何有？ 』僧曰：『茫然都無，莫落斷見否？ 』國師曰：『本來無見，阿誰道斷？ 』僧曰：『本來無見，莫落空否？ 』國師曰：『無空可落。 』僧曰：『有可墮否？ 』國師曰：『空既是無，墮從何立？ 』僧曰：『能所俱無，忽有人持刀來取命，為是有是無？ 』國師曰：『是無。 』僧曰：『痛否？ 』國師曰：『痛亦無。 』僧曰：『痛既無，死後生何道？ 』國師曰：『無死無生亦無道。 』僧曰：『既得無物自在，飢寒所逼，若為用心？ 』國師曰：『飢即喫飯，寒即著衣。 』僧曰：『知飢知寒，應是有心。 』國師曰：『我問汝有心，心作何體段？ 』僧遲疑良久，覓心與飢寒體段，了不可得，遂依實供通曰：『心無體段。 』國師曰：『汝既知無體段，即是本來無心，何得言有？ 』僧曰：『山中逢見虎狼，如何用心？ 』國師曰：『見如不見，來如不來，彼即無心，惡獸不能加害。 』僧曰：『寂然無事，獨脫無心，名為何物？ 』國師曰：『名金剛大士。 』」師喝一喝云：「好人不肯做，却要屎裏臥。 僧曰：『金剛大士有何體段？ 』國師曰：『本無形段。 』」師云：「何不早恁麼道？ 僧曰：『既無形段，喚何物作金剛大士？ 』國師曰：『喚作無形段金剛大士。 』僧曰：『金剛大士有何功德？ 』國師曰：『一念與金剛相應，能滅殑伽沙劫生死重罪，得見殑伽沙諸佛，其金剛大士功德無量，非口所說、非意所陳，假使殑伽沙劫住世說，亦不可得盡。 』這僧當下大悟，如睡夢覺、如蓮華開。 似這般底便是金剛圈、栗棘蓬。 爾若吞不得、透不得，不見古人行履處，定起謗無疑。 透得這裏，方能作大舟航，不著此岸、不著彼岸、不住中流。 善知識下得這般脚手，入得這般窠窟，方始為得人師家。 若不具許多差別眼目，如心性解路上得箇入處底，定不愛擊石火閃電光，却愛這般說話，又却錯做實法會了。 如一機一境一棒一喝上得箇入處底，定不愛這般說話，又是錯會了。 真所謂所見不同互有得失。 教中所謂菩薩見水如甘露，天人見水如瑠璃，凡夫見水是水，餓鬼見水如膿血是也。 或有箇愛高禪底衲子，出來道：『妙喜有如是等見耶？ 』即向他道：『逢人但恁麼舉。 』所以正法眼藏中收，僧問忠國師：『古德云：青青翠竹盡是法身，欝欝黃華無非般若。 有人不許，云是邪說； 亦有信者，云不思議。 不知若為？ 』國師曰：『此蓋普賢文殊境界，非諸凡小而能信受，皆與大乘了義經意合。 故《華嚴經》云：「佛身充滿於法界，普現一切群生前，隨緣赴感靡不周，而恒處此菩提座。 」翠竹既不出於法界，豈非法身乎？ 又《般若經》云：「色無邊故般若亦無邊。 」黃華既不越於色，豈非般若乎？ 深遠之言，不省者難為措意。 』又華嚴座主問大珠和尚曰：『禪師何故不許青青翠竹盡是法身，欝欝黃華無非般若？ 』珠曰：『法身無像，應翠竹以成形； 般若無知，對黃華而顯相。 非彼黃華翠竹而有般若法身。

"This old fellow was stubborn and obstinate, and he happened upon this monk who was also stubborn and obstinate, who stuck to him and immediately asked: 'If there is no mind to use, who becomes a buddha?' The National Teacher said: 'Having no mind, one naturally becomes a buddha; becoming a buddha is also having no mind.' The monk said: 'Buddhas possess great inconceivability because they can deliver sentient beings. If there is no mind, who delivers sentient beings?' The National Teacher said: 'Having no mind is truly delivering beings. If you see that there are beings to be delivered, that is having a mind, distinctly undergoing arising and ceasing.' The monk said: 'Now since there is no mind, the Sage of the Śākyas appeared in the world and expounded so many traces of teaching—could that have been in vain?' The National Teacher said: 'The Buddha's expounding of teachings was also without mind.' The monk said: 'Expounding the Dharma without mind should mean having no exposition.' The National Teacher said: 'Exposition is itself nothingness; nothingness is itself exposition.' The monk said: 'If expounding the Dharma is without mind, is creating karma with mind?' The National Teacher said: 'Having no mind is having no karma. Now that you have karma, your mind arises and ceases—how could it be without mind?' The monk said: 'Having no mind is becoming a buddha; has the Venerable now become a buddha or not?' The National Teacher said: 'Even mind itself does not exist; who speaks of becoming a buddha? If there were a buddha to become, that would still be having a mind; having a mind is having outflows—how could you attain no-mind?' The monk said: 'Since there is no buddha to become, does the Venerable still attain the function of a buddha or not?' The National Teacher said: 'Even mind itself does not exist; where would function come from?' The monk said: 'If all is utterly non-existent, wouldn't that fall into nihilism?' The National Teacher said: 'Fundamentally there are no views; who speaks of annihilation?' The monk said: 'Fundamentally there are no views—would that not fall into emptiness?' The National Teacher said: 'There is no emptiness into which one could fall.' The monk said: 'Is there anything one can tumble into?' The National Teacher said: 'Since emptiness is non-existent, where could tumbling be established?' The monk said: 'Subject and object are both non-existent. If someone suddenly came holding a blade to take your life, would that be existent or non-existent?' The National Teacher said: 'It is non-existent.' The monk said: 'Would there be pain?' The National Teacher said: 'Pain is also non-existent.' The monk said: 'Since pain is non-existent, into which destiny will one be born after death?' The National Teacher said: 'There is no death, no birth, and no destiny.' The monk said: 'Since you have attained ease with nothing existing, when pressed by hunger and cold, how do you apply your mind?' The National Teacher said: 'When hungry, eat rice; when cold, put on clothes.' The monk said: 'Knowing hunger and knowing cold should be having a mind.' The National Teacher said: 'I ask you: if you have a mind, what form or structure does the mind have?' The monk hesitated for a long while; seeking the form and structure of the mind and of hunger and cold, he could not find them at all. Thereupon he truthfully confessed, saying: 'Mind has no form or structure.' The National Teacher said: 'Since you know it has no form or structure, it is fundamentally without mind—how can you say it exists?' The monk said: 'When encountering tigers and wolves in the mountains, how should one apply the mind?' The National Teacher said: 'See as though not seeing; let them come as though not coming. When you are without mind, vicious beasts cannot inflict harm.' The monk said: 'Silent and without affairs, solitary and unbound without mind—what is this called?' The National Teacher said: 'It is called the Vajra Great Being.'" The Master gave a shout and said, "Refusing to be a good person, he insists on wallowing in excrement! 'The monk said: "What form or structure does the Vajra Great Being have?" The National Teacher said: "Fundamentally it has no physical form." '" The Master said, "Why didn't you say so earlier? 'The monk said: "Since it has no physical form, what is called the Vajra Great Being?" The National Teacher said: "It is called the formless Vajra Great Being." The monk said: "What merits does the Vajra Great Being possess?" The National Teacher said: "In a single thought corresponding with the Vajra, one can extinguish the heavy transgressions of birth and death for kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and behold all the buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The merits of this Vajra Great Being are measureless—they cannot be spoken by the mouth, nor expressed by thought. Even if one were to dwell in the world and speak of them for kalpas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, they could never be exhausted."' This monk was enlightened on the spot, like awakening from a dream, like a lotus flower opening. Something like this is precisely a vajra trap and a chestnut burr. If you cannot swallow it and cannot penetrate it, failing to see the ancient ones' footsteps, you will definitely give rise to slander without doubt. Once you penetrate this, only then can you become a great ferryboat, not clinging to this shore, not clinging to that shore, and not staying in midstream. Only when a good friend of Chan can deploy such skill and enter into such a lair can he begin to be a teacher of people. If one does not possess such varied eyes—such as those who find an entry-way on the interpretive path of mind-nature—they definitely will not like sparks struck from stone or flashes of lightning, but will love this kind of speech, and yet will mistakenly understand it as real dharmas. As for those who find an entry-way upon a single dynamic action, a single state, a single blow, or a single shout, they definitely will not like this kind of speech, which is again a misunderstanding. Truly, it is what is called: 'Views differ, and each has its gains and losses.' In the teachings it is said: 'Bodhisattvas see water as sweet dew; devas see water as lapis lazuli; ordinary mortals see water as water; hungry ghosts see water as pus and blood.' If there is a patch-robed monk who loves lofty Chan and comes forward saying, 'Does Miaoxi hold such views as these?' I will simply say to him, 'Whenever you meet someone, just bring it up like this.' Therefore, contained in the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye: A monk asked National Teacher Zhong, 'An ancient worthy said: "The lush green bamboo is entirely the Dharma-body; the luxuriant yellow flowers are none other than prajñā." Some do not accept this, saying it is a heterodox teaching; there are also those who believe it, saying it is inconceivable. I do not know how it is.' The National Teacher said, 'This is indeed the realm of Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī; it cannot be believed and accepted by ordinary mortals and the Lesser Vehicle. It entirely accords with the intent of the Mahāyāna sutras of definitive meaning. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "The Buddha's body fills the dharmadhātu, universally appearing before all sentient beings; responding to conditions and according with affinities, there is nowhere it does not reach, yet it constantly abides on this bodhi-seat." Since the green bamboo does not fall outside the dharmadhātu, how could it not be the Dharma-body? Furthermore, the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Because form is boundless, prajñā is also boundless." Since the yellow flowers do not exceed form, how could they not be prajñā? These are profound and far-reaching words; those who do not understand will find it hard to comprehend their meaning.' Furthermore, a lecturer on the Avataṃsaka asked Venerable Dazhu, 'Why does the Chan master not accept that lush green bamboo is entirely the Dharma-body, and luxuriant yellow flowers are none other than prajñā?' Dazhu said, 'The Dharma-body is without form, yet it takes shape in response to green bamboo; prajñā is without knowing, yet it reveals its appearance in reflection of yellow flowers. It is not that those yellow flowers and green bamboo possess prajñā and the Dharma-body.'