佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄 3.36

3.36

到這裏。也不消即心不即心。不消非心不非心。直下從頂至足。眉毛一莖也無。猶較些子。即心非心。壽禪師謂之表詮遮詮。此是涅槃和尚法正禪師也。昔時在百丈作西堂。開田說大義者。是時南泉已見馬祖了。只是往諸方決擇。百丈致此一問。也大難酬。云從上諸聖。還有不為人說底法麼。若是山僧。掩耳而出。看這老漢一場懡㦬。若是作家。見他恁麼問便識破得他。南泉只據他所見。便道有。也是孟八郎。百丈便將錯就錯。隨後道作麼生是不為人說底法。泉云。不是心。不是佛。不是物。這漢貪觀天上月。失却掌中珠。丈云。說了也。可惜許。與他注破。當時但劈脊便棒。教他知痛痒。雖然如是。爾且道什麼處是說處。據南泉見處。不是心不是佛不是物。不曾說著。且問爾諸人。因什麼却道。說了也。他語下又無蹤迹。若道他不說。百丈為什麼却恁麼道。南泉是變通底人。便隨後一拶云。某甲只恁麼。和尚又作麼生。若是別人。未免分疎不下。爭柰百丈是作家。答處不妨奇特。便道。我又不是大善知識。爭知有說不說。南泉便道箇不會。是渠果會來道不會。莫是真箇不會。百丈云。我太殺為爾說了也。且道什麼處是說處。若是弄泥團漢時。兩箇淈淈𣸩𣸩。若是二俱作家時。如明鏡當臺。其實前頭二俱作家。後頭二俱放過。若是具眼漢。分明驗取。且道作麼生驗他。看雪竇頌出云。

Coming to this point, there is no need for 'identical to mind' or 'not identical to mind', nor for 'neither mind nor non-mind'. Directly from head to foot, not a single eyebrow remains—this still counts for something. 'Identical to mind' and 'non-mind' are what Chan Master Yanshou called 'positive explanation' and 'negative explanation'. This is Master Fazheng, Master Niepan. In former times he was the Western Hall leader at Baizhang, opening fields and expounding great meanings. At that time Nanquan had already seen Mazu, and was merely travelling to various places for decisive resolution. When Baizhang posed this question, it was also exceedingly difficult to answer, saying: 'From antiquity down, among all the sages, is there still a Dharma that has not been spoken for people?' Were it this mountain monk, I would cover my ears and walk out, letting this old fellow face total embarrassment. If he were an adept, upon seeing him question like that, he would see through him immediately. Nanquan merely went by his own insight and said 'There is'—he too was an impulsive fellow. Baizhang then went along with the mistake and followed up saying: 'What is the Dharma that has not been spoken for people?' Nanquan said: 'It is not mind, it is not Buddha, it is not things.' This fellow, greedy to gaze at the moon in the sky, lost the pearl in his palm. Baizhang said: 'You have spoken it.' What a pity! He explicated it for him. At that moment, he should have just struck him across the back with a staff to let him know pain and itch. Even though it is like this, tell me: where was the spoken place? According to Nanquan's insight, 'not mind, not Buddha, not things' had never touched upon speech. Let me ask you all: why did [Baizhang] instead say, 'You have spoken it'? In his words there was no trace. If you say he did not speak, why did Baizhang say that? Nanquan was a person of adaptability, so he pressed right after: 'I am only thus; how is it with the Master?' Had it been anyone else, he could not avoid failing to explain it away. But how could it be helped that Baizhang was an adept? The place where he answered was extraordinary indeed; he said: 'I am not a great kalyāṇamitra either; how would I know whether there is speaking or no speaking?' Nanquan then said: 'I do not understand.' Did he truly understand and say 'I do not understand', or did he truly not understand? Baizhang said: 'I have spoken all too much for you.' Tell me, where was the spoken place? If they were fellows playing with mud balls, both were muddy and muddled. If both were adepts, it was like a bright mirror on its stand. In fact, earlier both were adepts; later, both let it pass. If one is a person with the eye, verify it clearly. Tell me, how do you verify them? Look at Xuedou's eulogy: