大慧普覺禪師語錄 30.9

30.9

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?