禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.2

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.