[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) › [禪源諸詮集都序](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015) › 1.12.2 # 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.2 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.2) 今之纂集意在斯焉。 問夫言撮略者。 文須簡約。 義須周足。 理應撮束多義在少文中。 且諸佛說經皆具法（法體）義（義理）因（三賢十地三十七品十波羅蜜）果（佛之妙用）信（信法）解（解義）修（歷位修因）證（證果）雖世界各異化儀不同。 其所立教無不備此。 故華嚴每會每位。 皆結十方世界悉同此說。 今覽所集諸家禪述。 多是隨問反質旋立旋破。 無斯綸緒。 不見始終。 豈得名為撮略佛教。 答佛出世立教與師隨處度人。 事體各別。 佛教萬代依馮。 理須委示。 師訓在即時度脫。 意使玄通。 玄通必在忘言。 故言下不留其迹。 迹絕於意地。 理現於心源。 即信解修證。 不為而自然成就。 經律疏論。 不習而自然冥通。 故有問修道。 即答以無修。 有求解脫。 即反質誰縛。 有問成佛之路。 即云本無凡夫。 有問臨終安心。 即云本來無事。 或亦云此是妄此是真。 如是用心。 如是息業。 舉要而言。 但是隨當時事應當時機。 何有定法名阿耨菩提。 豈有定行名摩訶般若。 但得情無所念。 意無所為。 心無所生。 慧無所住。 即真信真解真修真證也。 若不了自心但執名教欲求佛道者。 豈不現見識字看經元不證悟。 銷文釋義唯熾貪嗔耶。 況阿難多聞總持。 積歲不登聖果。 息緣反照。 暫時即證無生。 即知乘教之益。 度人之方。 各有其由。 不應於文字而責也。 問既重得意不貴專文。 即何必纂集此諸句偈。 答集有二意。 一有雖經師授而悟不決究。 又不逢諸善知識處處勘契者。 今覽之遍見諸師言意。 以通其心以絕餘念。 二為悟解了者欲為人師。 令廣其見聞增其善巧。 依解攝眾答問教授也。 即上云。 羅千界即漭蕩難依。 就一方即指的易用也。 然又非直資忘言之門。 亦兼垂禪教之益。 非但令意符於佛。 亦欲使文合於經。 既文似乖而令合實為不易。 須判一藏經大小乘權實理了義不了義。 方可印定諸宗禪門各有旨趣不乖佛意也。 謂一藏經論統唯三種。 禪門言教亦統唯三宗（各在下文別釋）配對相符方成圓見。 問今習禪詮何關經論。 答有十所以。 須知經論權實方辨諸禪是非。 又須識禪心性相方解經論理事。 一師有本末馮本印末故。 二禪有諸宗互相違阻故。 三經如繩墨楷定邪正故。 四經有權實須依了義故。 五量有三種勘契須同故。 六疑有多般須具通決故。 七法義不同善須辨識故。 八心通性相名同義別故。 九悟修頓漸言似違反故。 十師授方便須識藥病故。 初言師有本末者。 謂諸宗始祖即是釋迦。 經是佛語。 禪是佛意。 諸佛心口必不相違。 諸祖相承根本是佛親付。 菩薩造論始末唯弘佛經。 況迦葉乃至毱多弘傳皆兼三藏。 提多迦已下。 因僧諍律教別行。 罽賓國已來。 因王難經論分化。 中間馬鳴龍樹悉是祖師。 造論釋經數千萬偈。 觀風化物無定事儀。 未有講者毀禪禪者毀講。 達摩受法天竺躬至中華。 見此方學人多未得法。 唯以名數為解事相為行。 欲令知月不在指法是我心。 故但以心傳心不立文字。 顯宗破執。 故有斯言。 非離文字說解脫也。 故教授得意之者。 即頻讚金剛楞伽云。 此二經是我心要。 今時弟子彼此迷源。 修心者以經論為別宗。 講說者以禪門為別法。 聞談因果修證。 便推屬經論之家。 不知修證正是禪門之本事。 聞說即心即佛。 便推屬胸襟之禪。 不知心佛正是經論之本意（前敘有人難云。 禪師何得講說。 余今以此答也）今若不以權實之經論對配深淺禪宗。 焉得以教照心以心解教。 二禪有諸宗互相違反者。 今集所述殆且百家。 宗義別者猶將十室。 謂江西荷澤北秀南侁牛頭石頭保唐宣什及稠那天台等。 立宗傳法互相乖阻。 有以空為本。 有以知為源。 有云寂默方真。 有云行坐皆是。 > The intention behind this present compilation lies precisely in this. Question: Now, as for 'summarising', the text must be concise and the meaning must be complete; in principle, many meanings should be gathered into few words. Furthermore, when the Buddhas speak sūtras, they are all complete with the Dharma (the substance of the Dharma), the meaning (the doctrinal meaning), the cause (the three grades of sages, the ten bhūmis, the thirty-seven auxiliaries to bodhi, and the ten pāramitās), the fruit (the marvelous function of the Buddha), faith (faith in the Dharma), understanding (understanding the meaning), cultivation (cultivating the causes through the stages), and realization (realizing the fruit). Although the worlds are diverse and the modes of conversion differ, the doctrinal teachings established by them never lack these. Therefore, at each assembly and each stage in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, it is concluded that all the worlds of the ten directions speak in this same way. Now, viewing the gathered writings of the various Chan masters, most of them merely respond to questions by questioning back, establishing something only to demolish it immediately; there is no such thread of continuity, and one sees neither beginning nor end. How can this be called a summary of the Buddhist teaching? Answer: The Buddha's appearance in the world to establish the doctrinal teaching and a master's saving people wherever he is are distinct in substance. The Buddhist teaching is a reliance for ten thousand generations; its principle must be explained in detail. A master's instruction aims at immediate liberation; its intent is to bring about profound penetration. Profound penetration necessarily depends on forgetting words; therefore, no trace is left behind in the words. When traces are ended in the realm of intention, the principle appears in the source of the mind. Then faith, understanding, cultivation, and realization are naturally accomplished without effort; the sūtras, vinaya, commentaries, and treatises are naturally penetrated in secret without study. Thus, if one asks about cultivating the Way, he replies that there is no cultivation. If one seeks vimokṣa, he questions back, 'Who binds you?' If one asks about the path to Buddhahood, he says that originally there are no ordinary beings. If one asks about calming the mind at the time of death, he says that fundamentally there is nothing the matter. Or he also says, 'This is delusion, this is truth; use the mind in this way, cease karma in this way.' To state the essential: it is merely responding to the circumstances of that moment and adapting to the capacity of that moment. How could there be a fixed dharma called anuttarā bodhi? How could there be a fixed practice called mahāprajñā? As long as passions have nothing they contemplate, intention has nothing it does, the mind has nothing it generates, and prajñā has nowhere it abides, that is true faith, true understanding, true cultivation, and true realization. If one does not understand one's own mind but merely clings to nominal teachings to seek the Buddha Way, do we not visibly see that those who recognize words and read sūtras fundamentally do not realize awakening, and that in parsing the text and explaining the meaning they only inflame greed and anger? Moreover, although Ānanda had great learning and dhāraṇī, he did not attain the noble fruit for many years; yet when he stilled external conditions and reflected inward, in a brief moment he realized non-arising. Thus we know that the benefit of the vehicles and teachings and the methods of saving people each have their reasons; one should not blame them for their words. Question: Since you value grasping the meaning and do not prize exclusive focus on texts, why is it necessary to compile these verses and lines? Answer: The compilation has two intentions. First, there are those who, although they received instruction from a master, have not settled their awakening with certainty, nor have they met various kalyāṇamitras to examine and verify it in various places; now, by reading this, they will everywhere see the words and meanings of the various masters, thereby opening their minds and cutting off remaining thoughts. Second, for those whose awakening and understanding are clear and who wish to be masters to others, it causes their knowledge and experience to be broad and increases their skillfulness, so that they may gather the assemblies and answer questions and instruct them in accordance with their understanding. This is what was said above: 'To spread across a thousand realms is vast and difficult to rely upon; to settle on one direction makes it precise and easy to apply.' Furthermore, it does not only assist the gate of forgetting words, but also bestows the benefit of Chan and the doctrinal teachings together. It not only makes the intention accord with the Buddha, but also seeks to make the text harmonize with the sūtras. Since the texts appear to conflict, making them harmonize is truly not easy. One must classify the whole canon of sūtras into the provisional and real principles of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the definitive meaning and the non-definitive meaning; only then can one verify and determine that the various Chan gates each have their purport and do not contradict the Buddha's intent. That is to say, the whole canon of sūtras and treatises is unified into only three kinds, and the spoken teachings of the Chan gates are also unified into only three schools (each explained separately below); when they are paired and correspond to each other, only then is a complete view accomplished. Question: Now, when studying the writings of Chan, what does that have to do with the sūtras and treatises? Answer: There are ten reasons. One must know the provisional and real in the sūtras and treatises before one can distinguish the right and wrong of the various Chans; also, one must recognize the nature and phenomenal marks of the mind in Chan before one can understand the principle and phenomena in the sūtras and treatises. First, masters have the root and the branches, because one relies on the root to verify the branches. Second, Chan has various schools, because they conflict with and obstruct one another. Third, the sūtras are like the carpenter's line, because they set the standard for the correct and the deviant. Fourth, the sūtras have the provisional and the real, because one must rely on the definitive meaning. Fifth, pramāṇas are of three kinds, because verification must be identical. Sixth, doubts are of many kinds, because one must thoroughly resolve them all. Seventh, the Dharma and its meaning are distinct, because one must skillfully distinguish them. Eighth, the mind penetrates nature and phenomenal marks, because the names are identical but the meanings differ. Ninth, awakening and cultivation have the sudden and the gradual, because their words seem to contradict each other. Tenth, the instructions and upāya of masters must recognize the medicine and the illness. First, that masters have the root and the branches means that the primary ancestor of all schools is Śākyamuni. Sūtras are the Buddha's words; Chan is the Buddha's intent. The mind and mouth of the Buddhas certainly do not conflict with each other. The root inherited by the successive patriarchs was directly transmitted by the Buddha himself. The treatises composed by bodhisattvas from beginning to end only propagate the Buddha's sūtras. Moreover, from Kāśyapa down to Upagupta, their transmission all encompassed the Tripiṭaka. From Dhitika onward, due to monastic disputes, the vinaya and teachings were transmitted separately. From the realm of Jibin onward, due to royal persecution, the sūtras and treatises diverged in their conversions. In between, Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna were both patriarchs; they composed treatises to explain the sūtras amounting to tens of millions of verses. Observing the customs to convert beings, their practices and forms were not fixed. Never was there a lecturer who reviled Chan, nor a Chan practitioner who reviled lecturing. Bodhidharma received the Dharma in India and personally came to China. Seeing that the students of this land mostly had not attained the Dharma, and only took names and numbers as understanding and external practices as cultivation, he wished to make them know that the moon is not the finger and that the Dharma is one's own mind. Therefore, he only transmitted mind with mind without establishing texts. To reveal the school and break attachment, he spoke these words; it was not that he taught vimokṣa apart from words. Therefore, when instructing those who grasped the meaning, he repeatedly praised the Diamond and Laṅkāvatāra Sūtras, saying, 'These two sūtras are the essentials of my mind.' Nowadays, disciples on both sides are confused about the source: those who cultivate the mind take the sūtras and treatises to be a separate school, and those who lecture take the Chan gate to be a separate dharma. Hearing talk of cause, fruit, cultivation, and realization, they relegate it to the house of sūtras and treatises, not knowing that cultivation and realization are precisely the primary business of the Chan gate. Hearing talk of 'this mind is the Buddha', they relegate it to the Chan of private opinion, not knowing that mind and Buddha are precisely the original intent of the sūtras and treatises. (Previously in the preface someone raised the objection, 'How can a Chan master deliver lectures?' I now answer with this.) If one does not now pair the provisional and real sūtras and treatises with the shallow and deep Chan schools, how can one illuminate the mind with the doctrinal teachings and understand the doctrinal teachings with the mind? Second, that Chan has various schools that conflict with one another means that the writings collected in this present compilation encompass nearly a hundred houses, and those whose sectarian principles differ are still nearly ten traditions: namely, Jiangxi, Heze, Northern Xiu, Southern Shen, Niutou, Shitou, Baotang, Xuanshi, and also Chou, Tian, Tiantai, and others. Establishing schools and transmitting the Dharma, they conflict with and obstruct one another: some take emptiness as the root, some take awareness as the source; some say that silence alone is true, some say that walking and sitting are both it. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.12.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.1) - [Next: 1.12.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.3) - [Up: 1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015~en-mt.1.12.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.2) · Pramāṇa