[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) › 1.12.3 # 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.3 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.12.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.3) 有云見今朝暮分別為作一切皆妄。 有云分別為作一切皆真。 有萬行悉存。 有兼佛亦泯。 有放任其志。 有拘束其心。 有以經律為所依。 有以經律為障道。 非唯汎語而乃礭言。 礭弘其宗礭毀餘類。 爭得和會也。 問是者即收。 非者即揀。 何須委曲和會。 答或空或有。 或性或相。 悉非邪僻。 但緣各皆黨己為是。 斥彼為非。 彼此礭定。 故須和會。 問既皆非邪。 即各任礭定。 何必會之。 答至道歸一精義無二。 不應兩存。 至道非邊了義不偏。 不應單取。 故必須會之為一令皆圓妙。 問以氷雜火勢不俱全。 將矛刺盾功不雙勝。 諸宗所執既互相違。 一是則有一非。 如何會令皆妙。 答俱存其法俱遣其病。 即皆妙也。 謂以法就人即難。 以人就法即易。 人多隨情互執。 執即相違。 誠如氷火相和矛盾相敵故難也。 法本稱理互通。 通即互順自然。 凝流皆水鐶釧皆金故易也。 舉要而言。 局之則皆非。 會之則皆是。 若不以佛語各示其意各收其長。 統為三宗對於三教。 則何以會為一代善巧俱成要妙法門。 各忘其情同歸智海（唯佛所說即異而同。 故約佛經會三為一）三經如繩墨揩定邪正者。 繩墨非巧。 工巧者必以繩墨為憑。 經論非禪。 傳禪者必以經論為準。 中下根者但可依師。 師自觀根隨分指授。 上根之輩悟須圓通。 未究佛言何同佛見。 問所在皆有佛經。 任學者轉讀勘會。 今集禪要何必辨經。 答此意即其次之文。 便是答此問也。 四經有權實須依了義者。 謂佛說諸經。 有隨自意語。 有隨他意語。 有稱畢竟之理。 有隨當時之機。 有詮性相。 有頓漸大小。 有了義不了義。 文或敵體相違義必圓通無礙。 龍藏浩汗何見旨歸。 故今但以十餘紙都決擇之。 令一時圓見佛意。 見佛意後即備尋一藏。 即句句知宗。 五量有三種勘契須同者。 西域諸賢聖所解法義。 皆以三量為定。 一比量。 二現量。 三佛言量。 量者。 如度量升斗量物知定也。 比量者。 以因由譬喻比度也。 如遠見煙必知有火。 雖不見火亦非虛妄。 現量者親自現見。 不假推度。 自然定也。 佛言量者。 以諸經為定也。 勘契須同者。 若但憑佛語不自比度證悟自心者。 只是泛信。 於己未益。 若但取現量自見為定。 不勘佛語。 焉知邪正。 外道六師親見所執之理修之亦得功用自謂為正。 豈知是邪。 若但用比量者。 既無聖教及自所見。 約何比度。 比度何法。 故須三量勘同方為決定。 禪宗已多有現比二量。 今更以經論印之則三量備矣。 六疑有多般須具通決者。 數十年中頻有經論大德。 問余曰。 四禪八定皆在上界。 此界無禪。 凡修禪者。 須依經論引取上界禪定而於此界修習。 修習成者。 皆是彼禪。 諸教具明。 無出此者。 如何離此別說禪門。 既不依經即是邪道。 又有問曰。 經云。 漸修祇劫方證菩提。 禪稱頓悟剎那便成正覺。 經是佛語。 禪是僧言。 違佛遵僧。 竊疑未可。 又有問曰。 禪門要旨無是無非。 塗割怨親不嗔不喜。 何以南能北秀水火之嫌。 荷澤洪州參商之隙。 又有問曰。 六代禪宗師資傳授禪法。 皆云。 內授密語外傳信衣。 衣法相資以為符印。 曹溪已後不聞此事。 未審今時化人說密語否。 不說則所傳者非達摩之法。 說則聞者盡合得衣。 又有禪德。 問曰。 達摩傳心不立文字。 汝何違背先祖講論傳經。 近復問曰。 淨名已呵宴坐。 荷澤每斥凝心。 曹溪見人結跏曾自將杖打起。 今問。 汝每因教誡即勸坐禪。 禪菴羅列遍於巖壑。 乖宗違祖。 吾竊疑焉。 余雖隨時各已酬對。 然疑者千萬。 愍其未聞。 況所難之者情皆遍執。 所執各異。 彼此互違。 因決申疑復增已病。 故須開三門義。 評一藏經。 > Some say: "From morning to night, discriminating and acting are completely delusory." Some say: "Discriminating and acting are completely true." Some maintain all the ten thousand practices; some eliminate even the Buddha. Some give free rein to their intent; some restrain their minds. Some take the sūtras and vinaya as their support; some take the sūtras and vinaya as obstacles to the path. These are not merely casual remarks, but adamantly asserted words. Adamantly promoting their own lineages and adamantly disparaging other types—how could they be reconciled? > Question: "Those that are right should be accepted, and those that are wrong should be excluded. Why is an elaborate reconciliation necessary?" > Answer: "Whether emptiness or existence, whether the nature or phenomenal marks, none of them are heterodox. It is only because each sides with their own as right and denounces the other as wrong, with each firmly entrenched, that reconciliation is required." > Question: "Since none are heterodox, let each be left to its firm stance. Why must they be reconciled?" > Answer: "The ultimate path returns to unity, and the subtle principle is without duality—the two cannot both be preserved \[as opposites\]. The ultimate path is not an extreme, and the definitive meaning is not one-sided—one cannot take merely a single side. Therefore, they must be reconciled into one so that all become completely subtle." > Question: "If ice is mixed with fire, their forces cannot both remain intact; if one strikes a shield with a spear, neither can simultaneously triumph. Since what the various lineages grasp at mutually contradicts, if one is right then the other is wrong. How can they be reconciled so that all are subtle?" > Answer: "By preserving their Dharma and expelling their defects, all become subtle. That is to say: to accommodate the Dharma to people is difficult; to accommodate people to the Dharma is easy. People mostly cling to their mutual views according to emotional attachment; once they cling, contradiction arises. It is truly like ice and fire coming together, or spear and shield opposing each other—hence it is difficult. The Dharma originally accords with principle and interpenetrates; when it penetrates, mutual harmony is natural. Frozen or flowing, all is water; rings or bracelets, all are gold—hence it is easy. To state the essential: if restricted, all are wrong; if reconciled, all are right. If one does not use the Buddha's words to demonstrate each of their intents and gather each of their merits, uniting them into three lineages corresponding to the three teachings, how could they be reconciled as the skillful means of an entire lifetime, together becoming essential, subtle Dharma-gates, each forgetting their attachments and jointly returning to the ocean of wisdom? (Only what the Buddha spoke is identical in its differences; therefore, based on the Buddhist sūtras, the three are reconciled into one.) > Third, the sūtras are like the carpenter's line, determining what is heterodox and what is orthodox. The carpenter's line is not the skill itself, yet the skilled artisan must rely upon it. The sūtras and treatises are not dhyāna, yet those who transmit dhyāna must take the sūtras and treatises as their standard. People of medium and lower capacities may simply rely on a master; the master observes their faculties and instructs them accordingly. Those of superior capacity must achieve an all-pervading awakening; if they have not investigated the Buddha's words, how could they share the Buddha's vision? > Question: "Buddhist sūtras exist everywhere, left to scholars to recite, examine, and harmonize. In compiling these essentials of Chan now, why must you distinguish the sūtras?" > Answer: "The meaning of this is found in the passage that follows, which specifically answers this question. > Fourth, the sūtras have the provisional and the real, and one must rely on the definitive meaning. That is, among the various sūtras spoken by the Buddha, there are words spoken according to his own intent, words spoken according to the intent of others, words according with the ultimate principle, words adapting to the capacity of the moment, words explaining the nature or phenomenal marks, words of sudden or gradual, Great or Small \[Vehicles\], and words of definitive or non-definitive meaning. The texts may diametrically oppose each other, but the meaning is necessarily all-pervading and unimpeded. The Dragon Canon is vast and boundless—how could one see its ultimate drift? Therefore, now with merely a dozen or so sheets \[of paper\], I decisively resolve them altogether, enabling one to see the Buddha's intent completely all at once. After seeing the Buddha's intent, one may thoroughly explore the entire canon and understand the lineage's tenets in every phrase. > Fifth, there are three kinds of pramāṇa, and verification must align them. The Dharma principles understood by the worthy and noble sages of the Western Regions are all determined by the three pramāṇas: first, inference (anumāna); second, direct perception (pratyakṣa); and third, the authoritative testimony of the Buddha's words (āptāgama). A pramāṇa is like a measuring rule, peck, or bushel, which measures an object to know its definite quantity. Inference means inferring by means of reasons and similes. For instance, seeing smoke in the distance, one definitely knows there is fire; although one does not see the fire, it is not false. Direct perception means seeing directly in person without relying on deduction; it is naturally settled. The authoritative testimony of the Buddha's words means taking the various sūtras as the standard. As for verification needing to align them: if one merely relies on the Buddha's words and does not infer for oneself to awaken to and realize one's own mind, it is only superficial faith, of no benefit to oneself. If one merely adopts direct perception and takes one's own vision as definitive without verifying it against the Buddha's words, how can one know whether it is heterodox or orthodox? The six heterodox teachers directly saw the principles they held; practicing them, they also achieved functional effects and considered themselves orthodox—how could they know it was heterodox? If one uses only inference, lacking both the noble teaching and what is directly seen by oneself, on what basis would one infer, and what Dharma would one infer? Therefore, the three pramāṇas must align in verification before there is certainty. The Chan school already possesses an abundance of direct perception and inference; now, by further sealing them with the sūtras and treatises, the three pramāṇas are complete. > Sixth, doubts are manifold and must be fully resolved. Over several decades, venerable masters of the sūtras and treatises frequently asked me: "The four dhyānas and eight samāpattis all belong to the higher realms; there is no dhyāna in this realm. Anyone cultivating dhyāna must rely on the sūtras and treatises to draw upon the dhyāna-samādhi of the higher realms and cultivate it in this realm. Those whose cultivation succeeds all attain that dhyāna. All doctrinal teachings explain this clearly, and none go beyond it. How can you set aside this and preach a separate Chan gate? Since it does not rely on the sūtras, it is a heterodox path." Another asked: "The sūtras say that one must cultivate gradually for kalpas like grains of sand before realizing bodhi, whereas Chan claims that sudden awakening attains right awakening in a single instant. The sūtras are the words of the Buddha; Chan is the words of monks. To go against the Buddha and follow monks—I privately doubt this is acceptable." Another asked: "The essential purport of the Chan gate has no right and no wrong; whether an enemy or kin applies sandalwood paste or cuts into \[the flesh\], it has neither anger nor joy. Why then is there hostility like water and fire between Nanneng and Beixiu, and estrangement like the stars Shen and Shang between Heze and Hongzhou?" Another asked: "When the master-disciple lines of the six generations of the Chan school transmitted the Chan Dharma, all said: 'Inwardly, transmit the secret words; outwardly, hand down the robe of faith. The robe and the Dharma support each other to serve as a tally and seal.' After Caoxi, one no longer hears of this matter. I do not know whether those transforming people nowadays speak secret words or not. If they do not, then what is transmitted is not the Dharma of Bodhidharma; if they do, then all who hear should receive the robe." Furthermore, a venerable Chan master asked: "Bodhidharma transmitted mind and did not establish written words. Why do you go against the ancestral master by lecturing on treatises and transmitting sūtras?" Recently, another asked: "Vimalakīrti already scolded quiet sitting; Heze continually rebuked fixing the mind; when Caoxi saw someone sitting cross-legged, he personally took a staff to beat them up. Now I ask: whenever you instruct, you encourage sitting in dhyāna; Chan hermitages stand in rows all across cliffs and valleys. This opposes the school and contradicts the ancestors; I privately doubt this." Although I have replied to each from time to time, those who doubt are thousands and tens of thousands. Pitying those who have not heard, and moreover, since all the objections raised are full of rigid attachments, with each holding to different views that mutually contradict, resolving one doubt only gave rise to another, further compounding their affliction. Therefore, it is necessary to open the meaning of the three gates and evaluate the entire canon." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.2) - [Next: 1.12.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.4) - [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.1.12.3) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.3) · Pramāṇa