大慧普覺禪師語錄 30.9

30.9

蒙以所修《金剛經》相示，幸得隨喜一遍。近世士大夫，肯如左右留心內典者，實為希有。不得意趣，則不能如是信得及，不具看經眼，則不能窺測經中深妙之義，真火中蓮也。詳味久之，不能無疑耳。左右詆諸聖師翻譯失真，而汩亂本真，文句增減，違背佛意。又云：「自始持誦，即悟其非。」欲求定本是正舛差，而習偽已久，雷同一律。暨得京師藏本，始有據依，復考繹天親無著論頌，其義脗合，遂泮然無疑。又以長水、孤山二師，皆依句而違義。不識左右敢如是批判，則定甞見六朝所譯梵本，盡得諸師翻譯錯謬，方始泮然無疑。既無梵本，便以臆見刊削聖意，則且未論招因帶果毀謗聖教墮無間獄，恐有識者見之，却如左右檢點諸師之過，還著於本人矣。古人有言：「交淺而言深，招尤之道也。」某與左右素昧平生，左右以此經求印證，欲流布萬世於眾生界中種佛種子，此是第一等好事。而又以某為箇中人，以箇中消息相期於形器之外，故不敢不上稟。昔清涼國師造《華嚴疏》，欲正譯師訛舛，而不得梵本，但書之于經尾而已，如〈佛不思議法品〉中所謂：「一切佛有無邊際身，色相清淨，普入諸趣而無染著。」清涼但云：「〈佛不思議法品〉上卷，第三葉第十行，『一切諸佛』舊脫『諸』字。」其餘經本脫落，皆註之于經尾。清涼亦聖師也，非不能添入及減削，止敢書之于經尾者，識法者懼也。又經中有大瑠璃寶，清涼曰：「恐是吠瑠璃，舊本錯寫。」亦不敢改，亦只如此註之經尾耳。六朝翻譯諸師，皆非淺識之士，翻譯場有譯語者，有譯義者，有潤文者，有證梵語者，有正義者，有唐梵相校者，而左右尚以為錯譯聖意。左右既不得梵本，便妄加刊削，却要後人諦信，不亦難乎？如論長水依句而違義，無梵本證，如何便決定以其為非？此公雖是講人，與他講人不同，甞參瑯瑘廣照禪師，因請益瑯瑘《首楞嚴》中富樓那問佛：「清淨本然，云何忽生山河大地之義？」瑯瑘遂抗聲云：「清淨本然，云何忽生山河大地？」長水於言下大悟，後方披襟自稱座主。蓋座主多是尋行數墨，左右所謂依句而不依義。長水非無見識，亦非尋行數墨者。不以具足相故得阿耨菩提，經文大段分明，此文至淺至近，自是左右求奇太過，要立異解求人從己耳。左右引無著論云：「以法身應見如來，非以相具足故。若爾，如來雖不應以相具足見，應相具足為因，得阿耨菩提。」為離此著故，經言：「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以相成就得阿耨菩提？須菩提！莫作是念」等者，此義明相具足體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色自性故。此論大段分明，自是左右錯見錯解爾。色是相緣起，相是法界緣起，梁昭明太子謂：「莫作是念，如來不以具足相故，得阿耨菩提。」二十二分中，以此分為無斷無滅分，恐須菩提不以具足相則緣起滅矣。蓋須菩提初在母胎，即知空寂，多不住緣起相。後引功德施菩薩論末後，若相成就是真實有，此相滅時即名為斷，何以故？以生故有斷。又怕人不會，又云：「何以故？一切法是無生性，所以遠離斷常二邊。」遠離二邊，是法界相，不說性而言相，謂法界是性之緣起故也。相是法界緣起故，不說性而言相，梁昭明所謂無斷無滅是也。此段更分明，又是左右求奇太過，彊生節目爾。若《金剛經》可以刊削，則一太藏教凡有看者，各隨臆解都可刊削也。如韓退之指《論語》中「畫」字為「畫」字，謂舊本差錯。以退之之見識，便可改了，而只如此論在書中。何也？亦是識法者懼爾。圭峯密禪師，造《圓覺疏鈔》，密於《圓覺》有證悟處，方敢下筆，以《圓覺經》中「一切眾生皆證圓覺」，圭峯改「證」為「具」，謂譯者之訛，而不見梵本，亦只如此論在疏中，不敢便改正經也。後來泐潭真淨和尚，撰《皆證論》，論內痛罵圭峯，謂之破凡夫臊臭漢，若一切眾生皆具圓覺而不證者，畜生永作畜生，餓鬼永作餓鬼，盡十方世界都盧是箇無孔鐵鎚，更無一人發真歸元，凡夫亦不須求解脫。何以故？一切眾生皆已具圓覺，亦不須求證故。左右以京師藏經本為是，遂以京本為據。若京師藏本，從外州府納入，如徑山兩藏經，皆是朝廷全盛時賜到，亦是外州府經生所寫。萬一有錯，又却如何改正？左右若無人我，定以妙喜之言為至誠，不必泥在古今一大錯上。若執己見為是，決欲改削，要一切人唾罵，一任刊版印行，妙喜也只得隨喜讚歎而已。公既得得遣人，以經來求印可，雖不相識，以法為親，故不覺忉忉怛怛相觸忤，見公至誠，所以更不留情。左右決欲窮教乘造奧義，當尋一名行講師，一心一意與之參詳，教徹頭徹尾，一等是留心教網也。若以無常迅速，生死事大，己事未明，當一心一意，尋一本分作家，能破人生死窠窟者，與伊著死工夫廝崖，忽然打破漆桶，便是徹頭處也。若只是要資談柄，道我博極群書無不通達，禪我也會，教我也會，又能檢點得前輩諸譯主講師不到處，逞我能我解，則三教聖人都可檢點，亦不必更求人印可，然後放行也。如何如何。

I received the Vajracchedikā that you have revised and shown to me, and had the good fortune to rejoice in reading it through. Among modern literati, someone willing to pay attention to inner scriptures as you have done is indeed rare. Without grasping its purport, one cannot develop such faith; without possessing the eye to read the sutras, one cannot fathom the deep and wondrous meaning in the scriptures. Truly, this is a lotus in fire. Yet after pondering it at length, I cannot be without doubts. You impugn the holy masters of translation for failing to render the true text, confounding the original reality, adding and omitting phrases, and running contrary to the Buddha’s intent. You also say: 'Ever since I began reciting it, I realized its errors.' Wishing to seek a definitive edition to correct the errors, you found that because people had long been accustomed to spurious texts, all were identical without variance; but when you obtained the capital’s canon edition, you finally found a basis, and further examined and traced the treatises and verses of Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, finding their meanings in total accord, whereupon your doubts were dissolved. Furthermore, you consider that both Masters Changshui and Gushan followed the phrases while violating the meaning. I wonder, for you to dare make such criticisms, you must have seen the Sanskrit manuscripts translated during the Six Dynasties and thoroughly discovered the translation errors of those masters before your doubts were dissolved. But having no Sanskrit manuscript, to prune and edit the holy meaning based on subjective opinions—setting aside for now the incurring of causes and effects, slandering the holy teachings, and falling into the Avīci Hell—I fear that when people of discerning vision see it, rather than your examination of the faults of those masters, [the faults] will instead fall back upon yourself. An ancient said: 'To speak deeply to one with whom one’s acquaintance is shallow is the way to incur resentment.' I have never met you in my life. You have sought my confirmation with this sutra, wishing to circulate it for myriad generations to plant buddha-seeds in the realm of sentient beings; this is a good deed of the highest order. Moreover, taking me as an insider and anticipating news of the matter beyond physical forms, I therefore dare not refrain from speaking my mind. Long ago, when National Preceptor Qingliang composed the Huayan Commentary, he wished to correct the translators' errors, but having no Sanskrit manuscript, he merely recorded them at the end of the sutra. For instance, regarding what is said in the 'Chapter on the Inconceivable Dharmas of the Buddha': 'All buddhas have limitless bodies, their forms pure, universally entering all realms without defilement and attachment,' Qingliang merely said: '"Chapter on the Inconceivable Dharmas of the Buddha", upper fascicle, third leaf, tenth line: in "all buddhas" the older version omits the word "all".' All other omissions in the scripture editions were annotated at the end of the sutra. Qingliang was also a holy master; it was not that he could not add or delete, but that he only dared write them at the end of the sutra, because one who understands the Dharma fears it. Also, regarding the scripture's mention of 'a great lapis lazuli jewel', Qingliang said: 'I fear it should be vaidūrya; the old edition miswrote it.' Yet he did not dare alter it, and only annotated it at the end of the scripture like this. The translation masters of the Six Dynasties were none of them men of shallow understanding: the translation bureau had translators of words, translators of meaning, polishers of style, certifiers of Sanskrit, verifiers of meaning, and collators of Chinese and Sanskrit; yet you still consider them to have mistranslated the holy meaning. When you have not obtained the Sanskrit manuscript and yet rashly prune and edit, expecting later people to believe it implicitly—is that not difficult? As for your claim that Changshui followed the phrases and violated the meaning, without a Sanskrit manuscript to verify, how can you definitively declare him wrong? Although this master was an expositor, he was unlike other expositors: he once studied under Chan Master Langye Guangzhao. When asking Langye about the Śūraṅgama passage where Pūrṇa asked the Buddha: 'If it is fundamentally pure, why do mountains, rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise?', Langye raised his voice and said: 'If it is fundamentally pure, why do mountains, rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise?' Changshui experienced great awakening at those words, and only later undid his collar and called himself a lecture master. Lecture masters mostly chase lines and count ink—what you call following the phrases and not the meaning. Changshui was not without insight, nor was he one who chased lines and counted ink. 'Not by virtue of complete marks is anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi attained'—this scriptural text is exceedingly clear. This passage is most shallow and plain; it is simply that you seek novelty to excess, wishing to establish a divergent interpretation and get others to follow you. You quote Asaṅga's commentary: 'One should see the Tathāgata through the dharmakāya, not because of the completeness of marks. If so, although the Tathāgata should not be seen through the completeness of marks, the completeness of marks should serve as the cause to attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi.' To abandon this attachment, the sutra says: 'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi by the perfection of marks? Subhūti, do not form such a thought,' and so on. This meaning clarifies that the substance of complete marks is not bodhi, nor does one take complete marks as the cause, because marks are the intrinsic nature of form. This commentary is exceedingly clear; it is simply your own mistaken view and mistaken interpretation. Form is the dependent origination of marks, and marks are the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu. Crown Prince Zhaoming of Liang said: 'Do not form such a thought that the Tathāgata, not by virtue of complete marks, attains anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi.' Among the thirty-two sections, he took this section as the section on neither annihilation nor cessation, fearing that if Subhūti thought it is not by complete marks, then dependent origination would be annihilated. For when Subhūti was originally in his mother's womb, he already knew empty tranquility and mostly did not dwell on the marks of dependent origination. Later, citing the end of Bodhisattva Guṇaprabha's commentary: 'If the perfection of marks is truly existent, when these marks perish it is called annihilation. Why? Because having been born, there is annihilation.' And fearing people would not understand, it further says: 'Why? All dharmas are of an unborn nature, and therefore far transcend the two extremes of annihilation and permanence.' Transcending the two extremes is the mark of the dharmadhātu; it speaks not of nature but of mark because the dharmadhātu is the dependent origination of the nature. Because marks are the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu, it speaks not of nature but of mark; this is what Zhaoming of Liang called neither annihilation nor cessation. This section is even clearer; again it is simply that you seek novelty to excess and forcibly create complications. If the Vajracchedikā could be pruned and edited, then anyone reading the entire Great Canon could prune and edit it according to their own subjective understanding. Just as Han Tuizhi pointed out that the character 'hua' (畫) in the Analects should be 'hua' (劃), saying the old edition was mistaken. With Tuizhi’s discernment, he could have altered it, yet he only discussed it in his writing like that. Why? It is also because one who understands the Dharma fears it. Chan Master Guifeng Zongmi composed the Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment; only when he had verification and awakening regarding the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment did he dare set brush to paper. Because the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says 'all sentient beings all realize perfect enlightenment', Guifeng changed 'realize' to 'possess', saying it was an error by the translator; yet not having seen the Sanskrit manuscript, he only discussed it in his commentary and did not dare alter the scripture itself. Later, Venerable Letan Zhenjing composed the Treatise on 'All Realize', fiercely berating Guifeng in the treatise, calling him a stinking fellow who broke into ordinary worldliness: 'If all sentient beings all possess perfect enlightenment without realizing it, beasts would forever be beasts, hungry ghosts would forever be hungry ghosts, and the entire worlds of the ten directions would completely be an iron hammer without a hole, with no one ever bringing forth truth and returning to the source, nor would ordinary beings need to seek liberation. Why? Because all sentient beings would already possess perfect enlightenment and would not need to seek realization.' You consider the capital's canon edition to be correct, and so rely on the capital's edition. But the capital's canon editions were sent in from outer prefectures; just like the two canons at Jingshan, both bestowed by the imperial court in its heyday, which were also written by scribes in outer prefectures. If by chance there is an error, how would you correct it? If you have no notions of self and other, you will certainly take Miaoxi’s words as utmost sincerity, and not cling stubbornly to a single great error of past and present. If you cling to your own view as correct, determined to alter and prune it, inviting everyone’s spittle and curses, and let it be carved onto printing blocks and published, Miaoxi can only rejoice and praise it. Since you took the trouble to send a person with the sutra seeking confirmation, although we are unacquainted, being intimate through the Dharma I have unwittingly spoken on and on, offending you; seeing your utmost sincerity, I have held nothing back. If you are determined to fathom the doctrinal vehicles and penetrate their profound meanings, you should seek a lecturer of renowned practice, wholeheartedly study and consult with him, and understand it thoroughly from head to tail—this is equally a way to pay attention to the net of the teachings. If, because impermanence is swift and birth and death are of great consequence, your own affair is not yet illuminated, you should wholeheartedly seek an authentic adept who can shatter the nest of birth and death, engage in dead-earnest effort with him to grind away, and suddenly break the lacquer bucket—that is the place of thorough breakthrough. If you merely want to provide talk for conversation, saying 'I have extensively studied all books and comprehend everything, I understand Chan and I understand the teachings, and I can also inspect where former translation masters and lecturers fell short, flaunting my own ability and my own understanding'—then the sages of the Three Teachings can all be scrutinized, and there is no need to ask another for confirmation before proceeding. What do you think? What do you think?