人天眼目 5.26

5.26

問曰。天台尊者一心三觀法門。與祖師意如何。答曰。子若不問吾難以言也。吾甞見教中云。吾有正法眼藏付囑大迦葉。且不在三乘五教之內。原佛祖之教。皆有傳授。昔聞大師。於藏中得龍樹所造中論。覽至第四卷。破諸法性有定性則無因果等事。如頌曰。因緣所生法。我說即是空。亦名為假名。亦名中道義。次頌云。未曾有一法不從因緣生。是故一切法。無不是空者。繇此述一心三觀。曰空曰假曰中。若據教意。大凡一偈。皆有四句以成其意耳。智者離為三觀似枝蔓。又未詳傳授。因此便言。遠稟龍樹。以樹為祖。近稟思大則可知矣。若間世承稟。吾恐後世必有聰利之人。空看佛經。自稟釋迦。豈其然乎。良繇智者具大福德智慧辯才。累為帝師故。成一家之說。辭博理微。而後世子孫。稱傳祖教。乃番毀師子尊者。親付法與婆舍斯多。以至此土六祖傳衣付法。以為邪解。嗚呼吾若備論。即成是非。子自詳之。

He asked: 'What about the Dharma gate of the three contemplations in one mind of the Venerable of Tiantai compared to the intention of the ancestral masters?' He answered: 'If you had not asked, it would be difficult for me to speak of it. I have seen it said in the doctrinal teachings: "I have the treasury of the true Dharma eye, which I entrust to Mahākāśyapa," and it is not within the Three Vehicles and Five Teachings. Originally, the teachings of the Buddhas and patriarchs all had transmission. Formerly I heard that the Great Master [Zhiyi] obtained the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* composed by Nāgārjuna from the canon. Reading up to the fourth fascicle, which refutes all dharmas having a fixed nature, showing that if there were a fixed nature there would be no causes and conditions, etc., as the verse says: "Dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, / I say are precisely emptiness; / they are also termed provisional designations, / and are also the meaning of the Middle Way." The next verse says: "Never has there been a single dharma / that does not arise from causes and conditions; / therefore among all dharmas, / there is none that is not empty." From this he composed the three contemplations in one mind, termed emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. If one relies on doctrinal purport, generally a single verse has four lines to complete its meaning. Zhiyi separated them into three contemplations, which seems like branching vines, and the transmission is not clear. Because of this, it is said that he received it remotely from Nāgārjuna, taking Nāgārjuna as ancestor, while closely he received it from Master Si—which can be known. If succession can skip generations, I fear that in later generations there will surely be clever people who merely read Buddhist sūtras and claim to receive it directly from Śākyamuni! How could that be right? Simply because Zhiyi possessed great merit, wisdom, and eloquence, and repeatedly served as imperial preceptor, he established the doctrine of a single school, with vast language and subtle principle. Yet his latter-day descendants, claiming to transmit the patriarchal teachings, conversely malign the Venerable Simha's personal transmission of the Dharma to Basiasita, and even regard the transmission of the robe and conferral of Dharma to the Sixth Patriarch in this land as heterodox understanding. Alas! If I discuss it fully, it will become an argument. Discern it for yourself.'