禪林寶訓 2.69

2.69

In Venerable Guiyun Ben's 'Essay Disputing Flattery', it is said: 'Duke Fu Zheng (Bi) of our dynasty inquired into the Way with Chan Master Touzi Yong. His letters and verses totaled fourteen sheets of paper, inscribed on steles along the walls of the two corridors of Hongfu Monastery in Taizhou. This clearly shows how strict the seniors were in presiding over the Dharma, and how sincere the princes and nobles were in their faith in the Way. The Duke of Zheng was an important minister of the state; that in his later years he turned his mind toward this shows that Yong must have greatly surpassed others. [The Duke] said of himself that he was awakened and inspired by Yong. Among the literati, those who genuinely believed in this Way could forget their age and humble their status, putting forth fierce vigor, determined to achieve thorough realization before resting. Such were Vice Minister Yang Danian and Commandant Li Hewen, who met such great elders as Guanghui Lian, Shimen Cong, and Ciming, engaging in inspiring exchanges with them, which are clearly seen throughout the Chan writings. Yang Wuwei's relation to Baiyun Duan, and Zhang Wujin's to Doushuai Yue, both cracked the pass, struck the rhythm, and thoroughly realized the source and depths; they did not act casually. In recent times, Vice Minister Zhang Wugou, Assistant Administrator Li Hanlao, and Academician Lü Juren all visited the Old Man of Miaoxi, entering his hall and room, calling each other friends of the Way beyond the world. Their likes and dislikes, adversity and compliance, swept like thunder and lightning, stripping away worldly inhibitions; those who watched gathered their robes, stepped back, and could hardly fathom their depths. Yet when gentlemen seek one another in the borders of leisure and quietude, they intend only to rest their minds in Chan stillness and bring forth what they inherently possess. Later generations do not see the models of past virtuous masters, but dedicate themselves to flattery and crookedly seek advancement and prominence. Whenever someone is recommended as abbot and named an elder, they often write calling cards referring to themselves as "monks of the gate," revering their predecessors as "benefactors," and taking the goods of the cāturdiśa to wrap as gifts and offer in flattery. Discerning people pity and laugh at them, yet they remain complacent without shame. Alas! We sons of the Śākya, śramaṇas, with a single water jar and a single bowl, move like clouds and fly like birds; we are not pressed by cold and hunger, nor do we cherish wives, children, jade, and silk. Yet should we bend our waists, hold brooms, and act miserable, cramped, and nervous, bringing such shame and humiliation upon ourselves? Calling someone "benefactor" arises from one's private interests and has no basis whatsoever. One ignorant fool sings it first, and a hundred ignorant fools chime in after; competing to offer such reverence is truly the depth of vulgarity! Nothing weakens moral transformation more than flatterers; it is truly the beginning of treachery, deceit, and hypocrisy. Even if upright people and righteous scholars are subtly infiltrated by it, they will trap themselves in unrighteousness and lose their virtue beyond salvation. How can this not be sorrowful? Bhikṣus who destroy the Dharma, gathering demonic energy, are deceitful and arrogant as ever; they deceitfully display the bodily marks of a kalyāṇamitra, pointing to the great elders of the monastic groves as their teachers and lineages, and flattering the nobles in power as their patrons. They extend unsolicited reverence, opening the path to destroying the Dharma: white-robed laymen mount the seats while [monks] bow down beneath them, completely violating the sacred regulations and greatly disgracing the style of the lineage. The decline of our Way has reached its extreme in this. Alas! Heaven's punishment and ghosts' ledgers—even ten thousand deaths could not redeem it. Are they not flatterers? Chan Master Song's *Origin of the Teaching* says: "Ancient eminent monks did not consider themselves subjects when meeting the Son of Heaven. When mentioned in imperial edicts, they were called 'Duke' or 'Master.' When the imperial chariot arrived at the gate of Sengyuan of Mount Zhong, he remained on his seat and did not welcome it. When the Son of Heaven arrived at Xunyang and summoned Huiyuan of Tiger Brook, he did not come down from the mountain. The people of that time treated them with respect and honored their virtue; therefore the Way of the sages flourished. Those of later generations who admire such eminent monks, when associating with ministers and grand masters, cannot even receive the courtesy accorded to a lower officer; in stepping forward or retiring, they are not as self-contented as ordinary people. How much less could they see the Son of Heaven as Sengyuan did, or remain composed like Huiyuan? Hoping for the revival of our Way and the cultivation of our people—how could that be possible? If the teaching is preserved without needing such people, what benefit is there in preserving it?" Over this, I have never failed to shed tears. In the dingyou year of the Chunxi era, I resigned from affairs at Xian'en and resided in a small valley at the western hills of Pingtian. Because what I have recently seen and heard contains much falsehood and the ancient style has withered, my words are insufficient to carry weight; I merely write this to warn myself' (from *Conglin Shengshi*).