禪源諸詮集都序 1.12

English (machine translation) 1.12

Language: English

1.12.1

The Collection of Writings on the Source of Chan compiles what has been stated by the various masters to explain and express the fundamental source and principle of the Chan gate in words, phrases, and verses, collecting them into a single canon to bequeath to future generations. Therefore, this general title has been given to it. 'Chan' is an Indic word; in full it is called dhyāna. In China it is translated as 'cultivation of thought,' and is also called 'quiet contemplation.' Both are common designations for concentration and wisdom. 'Source' refers to the originally awakened true nature of all sentient beings; it is also called the buddhadhātu, and also called the mind-ground. To awaken to it is called wisdom; to cultivate it is called concentration. Concentration and wisdom are jointly designated as dhyāna. Because this nature is the fundamental source of Chan, it is called the 'source of Chan.' It is also called the 'principle and practice of dhyāna': this fundamental source is the principle of Chan; forgetting emotional attachments and tallying with it is the practice of Chan. Therefore it is called principle and practice. However, the writings of the various masters collected here for the most part discuss the principle of Chan and rarely discuss the practice of Chan, so for the present it is entitled 'The Source of Chan.' Nowadays there are those who simply designate the true nature as Chan; this is failing to grasp the import of principle and practice, and moreover failing to distinguish the sounds of China and India. However, it is not that there is a substance of Chan separate from the true nature. It is merely that when sentient beings are confused about the true and unite with dust, it is called distraction; when they turn away from dust and unite with the true, only then is it called dhyāna concentration. If one discusses the original nature directly, it is neither true nor false, with neither turning away nor uniting, neither concentration nor distraction—who can speak of Chan? Furthermore, this true nature is not only the source of the Chan gate, it is also the source of the myriad phenomena, hence it is named the dharmatā. It is also the source of the delusion and awakening of sentient beings, hence it is named the tathāgatagarbha and the ālayavijñāna (found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra). It is also the source of the myriad virtues of the Buddhas, hence it is named the buddhadhātu (in sūtras such as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra). It is also the source of the myriad practices of the bodhisattvas, hence it is named the mind-ground (the chapter on the mind-ground Dharma-gate in the Brahma Net Sūtra says: 'It is the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the root of the bodhisattva path, and the root of the assembly of all Buddha-sons'). The myriad practices do not go beyond the six pāramitās, and the Chan gate is merely one among the six, standing as the fifth. How could one simply designate the true nature as a single practice of Chan? Yet the single practice of dhyāna concentration is the most divine and wondrous, able to arouse the anāsrava wisdom upon the nature. All wondrous functions, myriad virtues, and myriad practices, even down to supernatural powers and radiance, all arise from concentration. Therefore, students of the three vehicles who wish to seek the noble path must cultivate Chan; apart from this there is no gate, apart from this there is no path. Even as far as reciting the Buddha's name and seeking birth in the Pure Land, one must also cultivate the Chan of the sixteen contemplations, as well as the Buddha-remembrance samādhi and the pratyutpanna-samādhi. Furthermore, the true nature is neither defiled nor pure, with no difference between ordinary beings and sages; Chan, on the other hand, has the shallow and the deep, with distinct gradations and ranks. Cultivating with divergent views, admiring what is above and repressing what is below, is the Chan of non-Buddhists. Cultivating with correct faith in cause and effect, yet still with desire and aversion, is the Chan of ordinary beings. Cultivating with awakening to the principle of the emptiness of self and partial truth is the Chan of the Hīnayāna. Cultivating with awakening to the true principle revealed by the two emptinesses of self and phenomena is the Chan of the Mahāyāna (the above four categories all have the differences of the four forms and the four formless [absorptions]). If one suddenly awakens to one's own mind as originally pure, fundamentally without defilements, with the nature of anāsrava wisdom fundamentally complete in itself, this mind being the Buddha, ultimately without difference, and cultivates relying on this, it is the Chan of the Supreme Vehicle. It is also called the pure Chan of the Tathāgatas, also called the one-practice samādhi, and also called the tathatā-samādhi. This is the root of all samādhis. If one can cultivate it thought after thought, one will naturally and gradually attain hundreds of thousands of samādhis. What has been transmitted successively down the line of Bodhidharma is this Chan. Before Bodhidharma arrived, what the various masters of old understood were all the former four dhyānas and eight attainments; all eminent monks who cultivated them obtained efficacy. Nanyue and Tiantai caused people to rely on the principle of the three truths to cultivate the three cessations and three contemplations; although their doctrinal teaching is the most perfect and wondrous, nevertheless their entry gates and stages are still only the active forms of those former Chans. Only that which Bodhidharma transmitted is suddenly identical to the Buddha's substance, completely different from the various gates. Therefore, those who follow and practice it find it difficult to grasp its import: if they grasp it, they become sages and swiftly realize bodhi; if they lose it, they turn into heretics and swiftly fall into misery. The ancestral master transformed ignorance and guarded against error, so for a time it was transmitted person to person. Later generations already having something to rely upon, it was allowed to shine like a thousand lamps with a thousand illuminations. When the teaching had lasted long, flaws arose and errors were many, so among students of the sūtras and treatises, suspicions and slanders also became numerous. Originally, when the Buddha spoke the sudden teaching and the gradual teaching, Chan opened up the sudden gate and the gradual gate; the two teachings and the two gates tally with each other. Nowadays, lecturers exclusively display the gradual meaning, while Chan practitioners exclusively spread the sudden school. When Chan and the lecture tradition meet, they are as estranged as Hu and Yue. I, Zongmi, do not know what I did in past lives to perfume and obtain this mind: before being liberated myself, wishing to untie the bonds of others; forgetting body and life for the sake of the Dharma; pitying others more keenly than my own vital spirit (as it is said in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: 'If one is bound oneself, to be able to untie the bonds of others is without basis.' Yet desiring to desist, I cannot, which proves that it is difficult to alter from past lifetimes). I constantly lament that people differ from the Dharma, and the Dharma has become a sickness for people. Therefore I have separately composed commentaries on the sūtras, vinaya, and treatises, greatly opening the gates of morality, concentration, and wisdom, revealing that sudden awakening assists gradual cultivation, and verifying that the masters' sayings accord with the Buddha's intent. The intent having been thoroughly shown from root to branch, the texts became so vast and extensive as to be difficult to search through. Although there are many who study casually, few hold firm to the purpose. Furthermore, when traces involve names and marks, who can distinguish gold from brass? In vain I exhausted myself without seeing any resonant response in capacities. Although the Buddha said that the increase of compassion is [bodhisattva] practice, I personally worried that attachments and views would be difficult to guard against. Thereupon, I left the assembly and entered the mountains to practice concentration and balance wisdom, resting contemplation in all for a calculated total of ten years (saying 'in all' because in the interim I was summoned by imperial decree into the palace and stayed in the capital for three years, after which I submitted a memorial requesting to return to the mountains). Subtle habitual sentiments: their arising and ceasing were revealed in quiet wisdom. Differentiated principles of the Dharma: their array was seen in the empty mind. Just as in a hollow gap the sunlight reveals fine dust tossing about, or at the bottom of a clear pool reflections appear lucid and clear—how could this be compared to the foolish Chan of emptily guarding silence, or the wild wisdom of merely searching the text? However, it was originally because of understanding one's own mind that I distinguished the various teachings, and thus had earnest feeling for the mind school; and it was also because of distinguishing the various teachings that I understood the cultivation of the mind, and thus was reverent toward the doctrinal teachings. Doctrinal teaching is the sūtras and treatises left behind by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas; Chan is the phrases and verses stated by the various kalyāṇamitras. But the Buddha's sūtras unfold broadly, gathering the assembly of the great thousand [worlds] and the eight classes of beings; Chan verses are summarized and concise, approaching the capacity of this single region. Gathering the vast assembly makes it drifting and hard to rely upon; approaching the capacity points directly and is easy to apply.

1.12.2

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.

1.12.3

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."

1.12.4

comprehensively answers the previous doubts, thoroughly resolving them all. (Below, following the corresponding points of meaning in the text, notes are added one by one to point them out and answer these various objections. To see where the answers are, one must examine the notes.) Seventh, 'Dharma' and 'meaning' differ, and one must distinguish them well: Whoever wishes to clearly understand the nature and phenomenal marks of all dharmas must first distinguish 'dharma' and 'meaning'. If one understands the meaning in reliance on the dharma, the meaning is clear; if one explains the dharma by means of the meaning, the dharma becomes prominent. Now, let us temporarily explain this with mundane things. Suppose true gold, according to conditions such as a craftsman, is made into bracelets, armlets, bowls, cups, and various vessels; the nature of the gold definitely does not change into copper or iron. The gold is the dharma; not changing and following conditions are the meanings. If someone asks, 'What thing is said to be unchanging? What thing follows conditions?', one should only answer, 'Gold.' This serves as an analogy for the doctrines of the entire canon of sūtras and treatises: they only speak of the mind. The mind is the dharma; everything [else] is its meanings. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma.' Yet immeasurable meanings are subsumed under only two kinds: first, unchanging; second, following conditions. The various sūtras only say that this mind, following the conditions of delusion and awakening, becomes defiled or pure, ordinary or holy, afflicted or awakened, contaminated or uncontaminated, and so forth. They also only say that at the very time this mind is defiled, pure, and so forth, it has originally never changed, being constantly and naturally quiescent, real, suchness, and so forth. If someone asks, 'What dharma is said to be unchanging? What dharma follows conditions?', one should only answer, 'The mind.' Unchanging is the nature; following conditions is the phenomenal mark. One should know that nature and phenomenal marks are both meanings pertaining to the one mind. The reason the two schools of the nature and of phenomenal marks currently disparage each other is entirely because they do not recognize the true mind. Whenever they hear the word 'mind', they assume it refers merely to the eight consciousnesses, not knowing that the eight consciousnesses are merely the meaning of following conditions upon the true mind. Therefore Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa took the one mind as the dharma, and the two gates of suchness and arising-and-ceasing as the meanings. The treatise says: 'In reliance on this mind the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed.' The mind as suchness is the substance; the mind as arising and ceasing is the phenomenal marks and function. It only says that because this mind is not empty or false, it is called 'true' (tatha); because it does not change, it is called 'such' (tā). For this reason, the treatise repeatedly says 'the mind as suchness' and 'the mind as arising and ceasing'. Contemporary Chan practitioners mostly do not recognize the meanings; therefore they merely call the mind 'Chan'. Lecturers mostly do not recognize the dharma; therefore they merely explain meanings based on names. When attachments arise following names, it is difficult to reconcile and harmonize them. Hearing 'mind', they think it shallow; hearing 'nature', they call it profound. Or they conversely take nature as the dharma and mind as the meaning. Therefore, one must contrast them with the sūtras and treatises of the three schools: once the dharma and its meanings are clarified, when they simply return to the one mind, naturally there will be no dispute. Eighth, the mind pervades both nature and phenomenal marks, where the names are identical but the meanings differ: The various sūtras sometimes disparage the mind as a thief, ordering it to be eliminated; or praise the mind as Buddha, encouraging its cultivation. Sometimes they speak of wholesome minds, unwholesome minds, pure minds, defiled minds, greedy minds, angry minds, compassionate minds, and sympathetic minds; or say the mind arises relying on objects, or that objects arise from the mind; or say quiescence is the mind, or that conceptual thought is the mind, and so forth in various contradictions. If one does not contrast and reveal them through the various schools, how could a reader of the sūtras distinguish them? Does there happen to be many kinds of minds, or is there only a single kind of mind? Now I will briefly indicate their names and substances. Broadly speaking of 'mind', there are briefly four kinds, with distinct Sanskrit terms and different translations: First, hṛdaya, translated here as the physical heart (ròutuánxīn), which is the heart among the five viscera in the body (detailed as explained in the Huangting Jing and the Wuzang Lun). Second, the mind of conceptual thinking (yuánlùxīn), which refers to the eight consciousnesses, because they can each conceptually deliberate their own portion of objects (visible matter is the object of the eye consciousness, up to the physical body with sense faculties, seeds, and the container world being the object of the ālayavijñāna; each takes one portion as object, hence it is said 'its own portion'). These eight each have the distinction of wholesome and unwholesome mental factors (caitasika). In the various sūtras, all these mental factors are collectively called 'mind', referring to wholesome mind, unwholesome mind, and so forth. Third, citta, translated here as the accumulative mind (jíqǐxīn), which is solely the eighth consciousness, because it accumulates seeds and gives rise to active manifestations (the Huangting Jing and the Wuzang Lun designate it as the spirit (shén); non-Buddhist paths in the Western lands regard it as the self; all are this consciousness). Fourth, *hṛdaya (gānlìtuóyē), translated here as the firm and solid mind, also called the genuine and solid mind, which is the true mind. However, the eighth consciousness has no separate substance of its own; it is simply the true mind, which, through lack of awakening, has the meanings of being combined and uncombined with various delusions. That which has the meaning of being combined can contain defilement and purity, and is designated as the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna). That which is uncombined, its substance being constantly unchanging, is designated as tathatā. Both are entirely the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 'Quiescence is named the one mind; the one mind is the tathāgatagarbha.' The tathāgatagarbha is also the dharmakāya while wrapped in defilement, as spoken in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra. Thus we know that the four kinds of mind are fundamentally of the same substance. Therefore the Ghanavyūha Sūtra says: 'The Buddha taught the tathāgatagarbha (the name of the dharmakāya while wrapped in defilement) / to be the ālaya (the repository consciousness). / Those of poor wisdom cannot know / that the repository is the ālaya consciousness. (Those who hold that tathatā and ālaya are of different substances are those of poor wisdom.) / The Tathāgata's pure garbha / is the worldly ālayavijñāna; / like gold and finger rings, / there is ultimately no distinction.' (Finger rings and so forth are an analogy for the ālaya; gold is an analogy for tathatā; both are called tathāgatagarbha.) Although they are of the same substance, the meanings of truth and falsity are distinct, and the root and branch also differ. The first three are phenomenal marks; the last one is the nature. That phenomenal marks arise relying on the nature indeed has its reason; that phenomenal marks are reconciled to return to the nature is not without cause. Nature and phenomenal marks are unhindered; both are the one mind. If one is deluded about it, one bumps one's face facing a wall; if one awakens to it, the ten thousand dharmas are reflected before a mirror. If one merely searches through texts and sentences, or trusts one's own subjective mind, how could one comprehend and reconcile the nature and phenomenal marks of this one mind? Ninth, awakening and cultivation, sudden and gradual, appear opposite yet correspond: In the various sūtras, treatises, and Chan traditions, it is sometimes said that first, by gradual cultivation when the work is accomplished, one is suddenly awakened; sometimes it is said that one must first suddenly awaken and only then cultivate gradually; sometimes it is said that due to sudden cultivation one gradually awakens; sometimes it is said that both awakening and cultivation are gradual; sometimes it is said both are sudden; and sometimes it is said that the Dharma has neither sudden nor gradual, but sudden and gradual depend on spiritual capacity. Such teachings each have their significance. Speaking of being opposite: if awakening is attaining Buddhahood and inherently lacking afflictions, which is called 'sudden', then one should not cultivate to sever them; how can one further speak of gradual cultivation? Gradual cultivation means afflictions are not yet exhausted, causal practices are not yet complete, and fruitional virtues are not yet fulfilled; how could it be called 'sudden'? Sudden is not gradual; gradual is not sudden; hence they are said to be opposite. When reconciled below, sudden and gradual will not only not contradict each other, but conversely assist each other. Tenth, the transmission between master and disciple requires knowing the medicine and the illness:

1.12.5

That is to say, the upāyas handed down from the past all first reveal the fundamental nature, and only then instruct one to cultivate dhyāna in reliance on that nature. The nature is not easily awakened to, mostly because of clinging to phenomenal marks. Therefore, wishing to reveal the nature, one must first break attachments. As for the upāyas of breaking attachments, ordinary and holy must both be extinguished, and merit and demerit equally dispelled. Precepts are without violating and without keeping; dhyāna is without stability and without distraction. The thirty-two marks are all flowers in the sky; the thirty-seven factors are entirely dreams and illusions. The aim is to make the mind have no attachments, and only then can one cultivate dhyāna. Later students of shallow understanding then merely cling to these words as the ultimate path. Furthermore, because in the gate of practice people are often lax, they then extensively explain aversion and attraction, disparaging and rebuking greed and anger, praising diligence and frugality, regulating the body and regulating the breath, and coarse and fine stages. Later people hearing this again become confused about the function of original awakening, and completely cling to phenomenal marks. Only those of sharp faculties and firm determination who serve their masters from beginning to end attain the essential meaning of awakening and cultivation. Those of shallow and frivolous nature think it sufficient upon hearing merely one point; further relying on petty intellect, they act as teachers to others. Failing to fathom the root and branch, they mostly form one-sided attachments. Consequently, disciples of the sudden and gradual gates view each other as bitter enemies, and the southern and northern schools oppose each other like Chu and Han. The admonition of washing the feet and the analogy of feeling the elephant are verified here! Does my present work wish to set up a separate collection to harmonize them? Its essential purpose lies in the three dots of the letter 'i'. If the three dots are separate, they do not form the letter 'i'; if the three schools are in conflict, how can one become a Buddha? Thus we know that if one wishes to recognize the medicine and illness in the transmission, one must see that the three schools do not conflict, and one must understand the three kinds of Buddhist doctrinal teachings. (Earlier, it was related that someone objected, 'How can a Chan master deliver lectures?' I now answer all these difficulties with these ten points. Therefore, at the outset I already related that the patriarchs in the Western regions all propagated the sūtras and treatises.)

Linked texts (1)

禪源諸詮集都序 — Classical Chinese