佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄 3.36

3.36

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: