佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄 3.3

3.3

智門若是應機接物。猶較些子。若是截斷眾流。千里萬里。且道這蓮花。出水與未出水。是一是二。若恁麼見得。許爾有箇入處。雖然如是。若道是一。顢頇佛性儱侗真如。若道是二。心境未忘落在解路上走有什麼歇期。且道古人意作麼生。其實無許多事。所以投子道爾但莫著名言數句。若了諸事自然不著即無許多位次不同。爾攝一切法。一切法攝爾不得。本無得失夢幻如許多名目不可強與他安立名字。誑諕爾諸人得麼。爾諸人問故所以有言。爾若不問。教我向爾道什麼即得。一切事。皆是爾將得來。都不干我事。古人道。欲識佛性義當觀時節因緣。不見雲門舉僧問靈雲云。佛未出世時如何。雲竪起拂子。僧云。出世後如何。雲亦竪起拂子。雲門云。前頭打著。後頭打不著。又云不說出與不出。何處有伊問時節也。古人一問一答。應時應節無許多事。爾若尋言逐句。了無交涉。爾若能言中透得言。意中透得意。機中透得機。放令閑閑地。方見智門答話處。問佛未出世時如何。牛頭未見四祖時如何。斑石內混沌未分時如何。父母未生時如何。雲門道。從古至今。只是一段事。無是無非。無得無失。無生與未生。古人到這裏。放一綫道有出有入。若是未了底人。扶籬摸壁。依草附木。或教他放下。又打入莽莽蕩蕩荒然處去。若是得底人。二六時中。不依倚一物。雖不依倚一物。若露一機一境。作麼生摸索他。這僧問道。蓮花未出水時如何。智門云。蓮花。便只攔問一答。不妨奇特。諸方皆謂之顛倒語。那裏如此。不見嵒頭道。常貴未開口已前。猶較些子。古人露機處。已是漏逗了也。如今學者。不省古人意。只管去。理論出水與未出水。有什麼交涉。不見僧問智門。如何是般若體。門云。蚌含明月。僧云如何是般若用。門云。兔子懷胎。看他如此對答。天下人討他語脈不得。或有人問夾山道。蓮花未出水時如何。只對他道。露柱燈籠。且道與蓮花是同是別。出水後如何。對他道。杖頭挑日月。脚下太泥深。爾且道是不是。且莫錯認定盤星。雪竇忒殺慈悲。打破人情解。所以頌出。

If Zhiman were responding to dynamic conditions to engage with beings, that would be somewhat close. But if it is cutting off the myriad streams, it is thousands and tens of thousands of miles away. Tell me, as for this lotus flower, are its emerging from the water and its not yet emerging from the water one or two? If you can see it like this, I grant that you have an entry. Even so, if you say they are one, you blur the Buddha-nature and homogenise suchness. If you say they are two, mind and object are not yet forgotten, and falling along the path of conceptual understanding, what rest could you ever have? Tell me, what was the ancient's intention? In reality there is no such clutter of matters. Therefore Touzi said: You need only avoid attaching to names and phrases. If you comprehend all things, naturally there is no attachment and no manifold different ranks. You encompass all dharmas; all dharmas cannot encompass you. Originally there is no gain or loss; names like dreams and illusions are so numerous that one cannot forcibly assign names to them. Could they deceive you people? Because you people ask, therefore there are words. If you did not ask, what would I have to say to you? All matters are brought along by you; none of it concerns me. An ancient said: If you wish to know the meaning of Buddha-nature, you should observe the causes and conditions of the time. Have you not seen: Yunmen cited a monk asking Lingyun, "What about before the Buddha appeared in the world?" Lingyun held up his whisk. The monk said, "What about after he appeared in the world?" Lingyun also held up his whisk. Yunmen said: "The former hit the mark; the latter did not hit the mark." He also said: "Without speaking of appearing or not appearing, where would there be a time for his asking?" When the ancients asked and answered, they responded to the time and season without such clutter of matters. If you trace words and pursue phrases, there is no connection at all. If in words you can penetrate beyond words, in meaning penetrate beyond meaning, and in dynamic action penetrate beyond dynamic action, letting yourself rest in leisure, only then will you see the place of Zhiman's answer. When asked, "What about before the Buddha appeared in the world?" "What about before Niutou met the Fourth Ancestor?" "What about inside the mottled stone before chaos was divided?" "What about before father and mother gave birth?" Yunmen said: "From antiquity to the present, it is just a single matter—no right and no wrong, no gain and no loss, no being born and not being born." When the ancients reached here, they opened a pathway of emerging and entering. If one is an unenlightened person, one leans against fences and grasps walls, relies on grasses and attaches to trees; or if told to let go, one falls again into a vast, desolate place. If one is an enlightened person, through the twelve periods of the day, one does not rely upon a single thing. Although not relying upon a single thing, if he reveals a dynamic action or a realm, how could one grope after him? This monk asked, "What about when the lotus flower has not yet emerged from the water?" Zhiman said, "A lotus flower." Cutting off the question with a single answer, it is certainly extraordinary. All quarters call it reversed speech—how could it be like that? Have you not seen Yantou say: "Always valuing what is prior to opening the mouth is somewhat close." Where the ancients revealed dynamic function was already a leak. Scholars nowadays do not understand the ancient's meaning; they merely go on discussing emerging from the water and not yet emerging from the water—what connection is there? Have you not seen: A monk asked Zhiman, "What is the substance of prajñā?" Man said, "A clam holding the bright moon." The monk said, "What is the function of prajñā?" Man said, "A hare conceiving a fetus." Look at him answering like this: people across the world cannot trace his line of words. Someone asked Jiashan, "What about when the lotus flower has not yet emerged from the water?" He merely answered him, "The bare pillar and the lantern." Tell me, is this the same as or different from the lotus flower? "What about after emerging from the water?" He answered him, "The tip of the staff carries the sun and the moon; underfoot the mud is extremely deep." Tell me, is it or is it not? Do not mistakenly recognize the zero mark on the steelyard. Xuedou was excessively compassionate and broke through people's emotional understanding; therefore he brought out his verse: