禪源諸詮集都序 1.16.3

1.16.3

心如牆壁可以入道。 豈不正是坐禪之法。 又廬山遠公與佛陀耶舍二梵僧所譯達摩禪經兩卷。 具明坐禪門戶漸次方便。 與天台及佚秀門下意趣無殊。 故四祖數十年中脇不至席。 即知了與不了之宗。 各由見解深淺。 不以調與不調之行而定法義。 偏圓但自隨病對治。 不須讚此毀彼（此注通前敘。 有人問難余云。 何以勸坐禪者。 余今以此答也）二密意破相顯性教（據真實了義。 即妄執本空更無可破。 無漏諸法本是真性。 隨緣妙用永不斷絕。 又不應破。 但為一類眾生執虛妄相障真實性難得玄悟。 故佛且不揀善惡垢淨性相一切呵破。 以真性及妙用不無。 而且云無。 故云密意。 又意在顯性。 語乃破相。 意不形於言中。 故云密也）說前教中所變之境既皆虛妄。 能變之識豈獨真實。 心境互依空而似有故也。 且心不孤起。 託境方生。 境不自生。 由心故現。 心空即境謝。 境滅即心空。 未有無境之心。 曾無無心之境。 如夢見物似能見所見之殊。 其實同一虛妄都無所有。 諸識諸境亦復如是。 以皆假託眾緣無自性故。 未曾有一法不從因緣生。 是故一切法無不是空者。 凡所有相皆是虛妄。 是故空中無色。 無眼耳鼻舌身意。 無十八界。 無十二因緣。 無四諦。 無智。 亦無得。 無業。 無報。 無修。 無證。 生死涅槃平等如幻。 但以不住一切無執無著而為道行。 諸部般若千餘卷經。 及中百門等。 三論廣百論等。 皆說此也（智度論百卷。 亦說此理。 但論主通達不執。 故該收大小乘法相㳷同後一真性宗）此教與禪門泯絕無寄宗全同。 既同世尊所說菩薩所弘。 云何漸門禪主及講習之徒。 每聞此說。 即謗云。 撥無因果。 佛自云。 無業無報。 豈邪見乎。 若云佛說此言自有深意者。 豈禪門此說無深意耶。 若云我曾推徵覺無深意者。 自是汝遇不解之流。 但可嫌人。 豈可斥法。 此上一教據佛本意雖不相違。 然後學所傳多執文迷旨。 或各執一見彼此相非。 或二皆泛信渾沌不曉。 故龍樹提婆等菩薩。 依破相教廣說空義。 破其執有令洞然解於真空。 真空者是不違有之空也。 無著天親等菩薩。 依唯識教廣說名相。 分析性相不同染淨各別。 破其執空令歷然解於妙有。 妙有者是不違空之有也。 雖各述一義而舉體圓具。 故無違也。 問若爾何故已後有清辨護法等諸論師互相破耶。 答此乃是相成。 不是相破。 何者。 以末學人根器漸鈍互執空有故。 清辨等破定有之相。 令盡徹至畢竟真空。 方乃成彼緣起妙有。 護法等破斷滅偏空意存妙有。 妙有存故。 方乃是彼無性真空。 文即相破。 意即相成（敘前疑南北禪門相競今於此決也）由妙有真空有二義故。 一極相違義。 謂互相害全奪永盡。 二極相順義。 謂冥合一相舉體全攝。 若不相奪全盡無。 以舉體全收故極相違方極順也。 龍樹無著等就極順門故相成。 清辨護法等據極違門故相破。 違順自在成破無礙。 即於諸法無不和會耳。 哀哉此方兩宗後學經論之者。 相非相斥不異仇讐。 何時得證無生法忍。 今頓漸禪者亦復如是。 努力通鑒勿偏局也。 問西域先賢相破。 既是相成。 豈可此方相非便成相嫉。 答如人飲水冷暖自知。 各各觀心各各察念。 留藥防病不為健人。 立法防奸不為賢士。 三顯示真心即性教（直指自心即是真性。 不約事相而示。 亦不約心相而示。 故云即性。 不是方便隱密之意。 故云顯示也）此教說一切眾生皆有空寂真心。 無始本來性自清淨（不因斷惑成淨。 故云性淨。 寶性論云。 清淨有二。 一自性清淨。 二離垢清淨。 勝鬘云。 自性清淨心難可了知。 此心為煩惱所染。 亦難可了知。 釋云。 此心超出前空有二宗之理。

"When the mind is like a straight wall, one can enter the Way"—is this not precisely the method of sitting dhyāna? Furthermore, the two scrolls of the *Dharmatrāta Dhyāna Sūtra* translated by Master Yuan of Mount Lu together with Buddhabhadra and another Indian monk fully elucidate the progressive stages and upāya for entering the gate of sitting dhyāna, which are no different in drift and purport from those under Tiantai or Xiu. Thus the Fourth Patriarch did not let his ribs touch the mat for several decades. Hence we know that the schools of the definitive and the non-definitive each depend on the depth or shallowness of understanding; one cannot determine doctrinal tenets on the basis of whether one's practice involves harmonization or non-harmonization. The partial and the perfect merely counter and cure in accordance with the ailment; there is no need to praise this one and disparage that one. (This note connects to the preceding narrative: someone raised an objection to me, asking, "Why do you encourage sitting dhyāna?" I now answer with this.) Second is the teaching that refutes phenomenal marks to reveal the nature through implicit intent. (According to the true and definitive meaning, deluded grasping is fundamentally empty, so there is nothing further to refute; all anāsrava dharmas are fundamentally the true nature, whose wondrous function following conditions never ceases, and thus they should not be refuted either. It is only because a certain class of sentient beings grasps illusory marks, which obstructs the true nature and makes profound awakening difficult to attain, that the Buddha—without distinguishing between good and evil, defiled and pure, nature and phenomenal marks—scolds and refutes them all. Because the true nature and its wondrous function are not non-existent, and yet he calls them non-existent, it is called "implicit intent." Moreover, the intent lies in revealing the nature, but the words merely refute phenomenal marks; since the intent is not manifested in the words, it is called "implicit.") It explains that since the objective realms transformed by the preceding teachings are all false and unreal, how could the transforming consciousness alone be real? This is because mind and realm mutually depend on each other, being empty yet appearing as existent. Furthermore, the mind does not arise in isolation; it arises only by relying on the realm. The realm does not arise of itself; it manifests only because of the mind. When the mind is empty, the realm fades away; when the realm is extinguished, the mind is empty. There has never been a mind without a realm, nor has there ever been a realm without a mind. Just as in a dream one sees things, appearing to have the distinction of the capable-of-seeing and the seen, yet in reality they are identically false and unreal, completely non-existent. The various consciousnesses and objective realms are also like this. This is because they all falsely rely on diverse conditions and lack self-nature (svabhāva). There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, there is no dharma that is not empty. Whatever has phenomenal marks is illusory; therefore, within emptiness there is no form, no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no eighteen realms; no twelve links of dependent origination; no four noble truths; no wisdom and no attainment; no karma and no retribution; no cultivation and no realization. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally like an illusion. One takes only non-abiding in anything and freedom from grasping and attachment as the practice of the Way. The more than a thousand fascicles of the various Prajñā texts, as well as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, *Śataka*, *Dvādaśamukha*, *Catuḥśataka*, and so on, all teach this. (The hundred fascicles of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* also teach this principle; however, its author thoroughly penetrated without attachment, and thus it subsumes the phenomenal marks of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, seamlessly according with the final school of the single true nature.) This teaching is completely identical with the school of absolute extinction and non-reliance in the Chan tradition. Since it is identical with what was spoken by the World-Honoured One and propagated by the bodhisattvas, why is it that whenever the Chan masters of the gradual gate and students of doctrinal study hear this teaching, they slander it, saying that it negates cause and effect? The Buddha himself said: "There is no karma and no retribution"—could that be a wrong view? If you say that the Buddha had his own profound meaning in uttering these words, could it be that this statement in the Chan tradition lacks profound meaning? If you say, "I once investigated it and perceived no profound meaning," that is simply because you met people who did not understand. You may blame the person, but how could you reject the Dharma? Although the preceding teaching does not contradict the Buddha's original intent, later students who transmitted it mostly grasped the letter and lost the meaning; either each grasped a single view and negated the other, or both uncritically believed them in a muddled and unenlightened way. Therefore, bodhisattvas such as Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva relied on the teaching of refuting phenomenal marks to broadly explain the meaning of emptiness, refuting their clinging to existence so as to lead them to clearly understand true emptiness. True emptiness is an emptiness that does not contradict existence. Bodhisattvas such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu relied on the Vijñaptimātra teaching to broadly explain names and characteristics, analyzing the differences between nature and phenomenal marks and distinguishing defilement from purity, refuting their clinging to emptiness so as to lead them to clearly understand wondrous existence. Wondrous existence is an existence that does not contradict emptiness. Although each expounded a single aspect, the entire substance was completely possessed, and therefore there is no contradiction. Question: If so, why did later treatise masters like Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla refute each other? Answer: This is in fact mutual fulfillment, not mutual refutation. Why is this? Because the faculties of later students gradually grew dull, and they mutually grasped emptiness and existence. Bhāviveka and others refuted the marks of definite existence so as to thoroughly penetrate to ultimate true emptiness; only then is their wondrous existence of dependent origination established. Dharmapāla and others refuted annihilistic, one-sided emptiness out of an intention to preserve wondrous existence; because wondrous existence is preserved, it is precisely their true emptiness of non-nature. The texts indeed refute each other, but the intent is mutual fulfillment. (The previous doubt concerning the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Chan schools is resolved here.) This is because wondrous existence and true emptiness have two meanings: First, the meaning of extreme contradiction, which means mutually destroying and completely depriving until nothing remains. Second, the meaning of extreme accordance, which means blending into a single mark, with the entire substance completely subsuming [the other]. If they did not completely deprive each other until nothing remained, there would be no means for the entire substance to completely subsume [the other]; therefore, only by being extremely contradictory are they extremely accordant. Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, and others approached it from the gate of extreme accordance, and thus they mutually fulfilled each other. Bhāviveka, Dharmapāla, and others based themselves on the gate of extreme contradiction, and thus they mutually refuted each other. Contradiction and accordance are freely mastered; establishment and refutation are unimpeded; thus regarding all dharmas there is nothing that is not reconciled. How lamentable that later students of the scriptures and treatises of the two schools in this land reject and denounce each other no differently from bitter enemies! When will they ever attain the patience of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattikadharmakṣānti)? The sudden and gradual Chan practitioners of today are also like this. Strive to comprehensively examine this and do not be one-sided or narrow! Question: Since the mutual refutation of the ancient sages in the Western Regions was in fact mutual fulfillment, how could the mutual rejection in this land be merely mutual jealousy? Answer: Like a person drinking water, one knows for oneself whether it is cold or warm. Each person must contemplate their own mind and examine their own thoughts. Medicine is kept to prevent disease, not for healthy people; laws are established to guard against villainy, not for virtuous men. Third is the teaching that explicitly reveals the true mind as the nature. (It directly points to one's own mind as the true nature itself. It is revealed neither with reference to phenomenal matters nor with reference to the marks of the mind; hence it is called "as the nature itself." It is not an implicit intent of upāya; hence it is called "explicitly reveals.") This teaching says that all sentient beings have an empty and quiescent true mind, which has fundamentally from the beginningless [past] been intrinsically pure by nature. (It is not that it becomes pure through severing delusion; hence it is called "pure by nature." The *Ratnagotravibhāga* says: "Purity is of two kinds: first, intrinsic purity; second, purity through separation from defilement." The *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra* says: "The intrinsically pure mind is difficult to understand; that this mind is defiled by afflictions is also difficult to understand." The commentary says: "This mind transcends the principles of the previous two schools of emptiness and existence.")