[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003) › 10.23 # 佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄 10.23 佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄 10.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10.23) 長慶保福在雪峯會下。常互相舉覺商量。一日平常如此說話云。寧說阿羅漢有三毒。不說如來有二種語。梵語阿羅漢。此云殺賊。以功能彰名。能斷九九八十一品煩惱。諸漏已盡。梵行已立。此是無學阿羅漢位。三毒即是貪嗔癡。根本煩惱。八十一品。尚自斷盡。何況三毒。長慶道。寧說阿羅漢有三毒。不說如來有二種語。大意要顯如來無不實語。法華經云。唯此一事實。餘二則非真。又云。唯有一乘法。無二亦無三。世尊三百餘會。觀機逗教。應病與藥。萬種千般說法。畢竟無二種語。他意到這裏。諸人作麼生見得。佛以一音演說法。則不無長慶要且未夢見如來語在。何故大似人說食終不能飽。保福見他平地上說教遂問。作麼生是如來語。慶云。聾人爭得聞。這漢知他幾時。在鬼窟裏作活計來也。保福云。情知爾向第二頭道。果中其言。却問師兄作麼生是如來語。福云。喫茶去。鎗頭倒被別人奪却了也。大小長慶。失錢遭罪。且問諸人。如來語還有幾箇。須知恁麼見得。方見這兩箇漢敗缺。子細檢點將來。盡合喫棒。放一線道與他理會。有底云。保福道得是。長慶道得不是。只管隨語生解。便道有得有失。殊不知。古人如擊石火。似閃電光。如今人不去他古人轉處看。只管去句下走。便道長慶當時不便用。所以落第二頭。保福云。喫茶去。便是第一頭。若只恁麼看。到彌勒下生。也不見古人意。若是作家。終不作這般見解。跳出這窠窟。向上自有一條路。爾若道聾人爭得聞有什麼不是處。保福云喫茶去。有什麼是處。轉沒交涉。是故道。他參活句。不參死句。這因緣與遍身是通身是因緣一般。無爾計較是非處。須是爾脚跟下。淨裸裸地。方見古人相見處。五祖老師云。如馬前相撲相似。須是眼辨手親。這箇公案。若以正眼觀之。俱無得失處。辨箇得失。無親疎處。分箇親疎。長慶也須禮拜保福始得。何故這箇些子。巧處用得好。如電轉星飛相似。保福不妨牙上生牙。爪上生爪。頌云。 > When Changqing and Baofu were in Xuefeng's assembly, they often brought up cases together and discussed them. One day in an ordinary conversation they spoke like this: "Better to say that an arhat has the three poisons than to say that the Tathāgata has two kinds of words." In Sanskrit, 'arhat'; here translated as 'slayer of thieves'. It is named after its function: able to sever the eighty-one grades of afflictions (nine times nine); all outflows are already exhausted, and the pure conduct has already been established—this is the stage of the arhat beyond learning. The three poisons are greed, hatred, and delusion. If even the eighty-one grades of fundamental afflictions are severed, how much more so the three poisons? Changqing said: "Better to say that an arhat has the three poisons than to say that the Tathāgata has two kinds of words." The general idea was to reveal that the Tathāgata speaks no untrue words. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true." It also says: "There is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle; there are neither two nor three." In more than three hundred assemblies, the Bhagavat observed the faculties to dispense teachings, gave medicine according to the illness, and expounded the Dharma in thousands of ways; yet in the end he had no two kinds of words. His intention reached this point. How do all of you understand this? When the Buddha expounded the Dharma with a single voice, it was indeed so; but Changqing had not yet even dreamed of the Tathāgata's words. Why? It is very much like someone speaking of food never being able to become full. Baofu saw him expounding doctrine on level ground and thereupon asked, "What are the Tathāgata's words?" Changqing said, "How could a deaf person hear?" Who knows how long this fellow had been making a living inside a demon's cave! Baofu said, "I knew very well that you were speaking toward the secondary!" In the end his words proved true. Changqing then asked his elder brother, "What are the Tathāgata's words?" Baofu said, "Go drink tea." The spearhead was instead snatched away by someone else! Both great and small Changqing lost their money and suffered punishment. Let me ask all of you: how many Tathāgata's words are there really? You must understand in this way before you can see where these two fellows failed. If we scrutinize it closely, both deserved a beating with the staff. Leaving a single path open for them to understand: some say that what Baofu said was right and what Changqing said was wrong, merely giving rise to understanding by following words, and immediately say that there is gain and loss. Little do they know that the ancients were like sparks struck from stone, like a flash of lightning. People nowadays do not look at where the ancients turned; they merely run after the words and say that Changqing did not function instantly at that time, and therefore fell into the secondary; while Baofu's saying "Go drink tea" is precisely the primary. If you only look at it like this, even when Maitreya descends to be born, you will still not see the intention of the ancients. If you are an adept, you will never make such a view. Leaping out of this nest, there is naturally a transcendent path. If you say, "'How could a deaf person hear?'—what is wrong with it? 'Go drink tea'—what is right with it?", you will be all the more irrelevant. Therefore it is said: "They study living phrases; they do not study dead phrases." This story is just like the story of "throughout the body" and "the whole body"; there is no place for you to calculate right and wrong. Only when you are completely naked and clear right beneath your heels will you see the place where the ancients met one another. Our old teacher Wuzu said: "It is just like wrestling in front of a horse; your eyes must be sharp and your hands must be nimble." If this gong'an is viewed with the true eye, in neither is there gain or loss. If you distinguish gain and loss, where there is no intimacy or estrangement you make a division of intimate and estranged. Changqing too must bow to Baofu before he can succeed. Why? This little bit was used well at the clever spot, just like lightning turning and a meteor flying. Baofu may well be said to have grown teeth upon teeth and claws upon claws. The verse says: > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10.22) - [Next: 10.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10.24) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003~en-mt.10.23) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2003.10.23) · Pramāṇa