禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.3

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."