緇門警訓 7.36

7.36

近辱書誨。且以禪教之說。見教讀之深有開慰。而向來亦嘗有所開示。適以多事不能與師周旋。今復有言自非見愛之深。孰能以此相警。顧我愚昧何足知之。然師所言者余竊疑焉。於如來方便之道。似執一偏。猶有人我之見。以我為是以人為非。於佛法中是為大病。人我不除妄談優劣。只為戲論。爭之不已遂成謗法。未獲妙果先招惡報。不可不慎。但能於先佛一方便門。精進修行行滿功圓。自然超脫。不必執我者為是。以餘為非也。修行淨土。佛及菩薩皆所稱嘆。在家出家往生非一。況今末法之中修此門者可謂捷徑。然於是中間亦須洗去根塵。摧折我慢。於其他種種法門。雖非正修行路。隨力隨分亦加欽信。豈可妄論優劣。自為高下。達磨西來不立文字直傳心印。一花五葉自曹溪來。悟此法者如稻麻竹葦。在李唐時。世主尊崇如事師長。以至於今師授不絕。特未可以優劣議也。若必欲引教家義目。定其造證。謂如是修者方入某地。如是行者方登某位。真所謂描畫虛空。徒自勞耳。故經云。如人數他寶自無半錢分。於法不修行多聞亦如是。願師屏去知見。勿論其他。專心自修於淨業也。某每與師談。見師多斥不立文字之說。使此說非善。則達磨必不西來。二祖必不肯斷臂求之也。今禪家文字遍滿天下。此乃末流自然至此。何足怪耶。娑婆世界眾生知見種種差別。非可以一法而得出離。故佛以方便設種種法門使其東西南北縱橫小大。皆可修行。皆可證入。華嚴會上文殊師利蓋嘗問於覺首言。心性是一云何見有種種差別。問於德首言。如來所悟惟是一法。云何乃說無量諸法。問於智首言。於佛法中智為上首。如來何故或讚布施。或讚持戒。或讚堪忍。以至或復讚歎慈悲喜捨。終無有以一法而得出離者。咸有頌答。是師之朝夕所誦者也。斯理必深明之。夫受病既殊處方亦異。今以手足之疾服某藥而愈。他人病在腹心而責其不進手足之藥。乃以治腹心之劑為非可乎。楞嚴會中二十五行獨推觀音。豈可便優觀音而劣諸菩薩神仙外道。於我法中皆為邪見。然華嚴知識或在外道。或為人王。或為淫女引導眾生。若以正修行者為是。則善財所參勝熱婆須蜜女無厭足王等。皆可指為非也。千經萬論止為眾生除病。病去藥除。何須無病而自炙。此心垢重故修淨因。淨垢若亡復何修證。三界無住何處求心。四大本空佛依何住。衣中之寶只為衣纏。衣若壞亡珠當自現。聊敘鄙見以復來誨。或別有可教者。更垂一言。幸甚。慎勿支離蔓衍以成戲論也。邇來四大輕安否。所苦不下食。今復差退否。某隨緣過日。只求無事耳未間。千萬珍重。

Recently I was honoured by your letter of instruction, in which you further taught me with the doctrines of Chan and the teachings. Reading it brought me great opening and comfort. Previously I had also received some instruction from you, but just then, occupied with many affairs, I was unable to interact with you, Master. Now that you have spoken again, who could thus admonish me were it not for the depth of your affection? Considering my foolishness and ignorance, how could I be worthy to understand it? Yet concerning what you have said, Master, I venture to hold some doubts. Regarding the Tathāgata's path of expedient means, you seem to grasp one side, still harboring the views of self and other, taking oneself to be right and others to be wrong. Within the Buddha-dharma, this is a great illness. Without eliminating self and other, to talk recklessly of superiority and inferiority is merely frivolous discourse. If disputing it does not cease, it ultimately becomes slandering the Dharma; before attaining the wondrous fruit, one first invites evil retribution. One must not fail to be cautious! If one can only, in one expedient gate of the former Buddhas, cultivate diligently until one's practice is full and merits are complete, one will naturally transcend and attain liberation; one need not cling to what is one's own as right and take the rest to be wrong. As for cultivating the Pure Land, Buddhas and bodhisattvas all praise it; whether lay or monastic, those who attain rebirth are not few. Moreover, in this latter-day Dharma, for those who cultivate this gate it can be called a shortcut. Yet within this, one must also wash away the sense organs and dusts, and break down egotistical arrogance. As for the other various dharma-gates, though they are not one's main path of practice, according to one's strength and capacity one should also treat them with admiration and faith. How could one recklessly discourse on superiority and inferiority, arbitrarily setting up high and low? Bodhidharma came from the West without establishing words, directly transmitting the mind-seal; one flower with five petals came from Caoxi, and those who awakened to this Dharma were as numerous as rice plants, hemp, bamboo, and reeds. In the Tang dynasty, the rulers of the world venerated them as serving their masters, down to the present day without interruption of transmission between master and disciple. It certainly cannot be judged in terms of superiority and inferiority. If one must cite the doctrinal categories of the doctrinal schools to determine their attainment and realization, saying that one who cultivates like this only then enters such-and-such a ground, or one who practices like this only then ascends to such-and-such an abode, this is truly what is called painting empty space—toil in vain! Therefore a sutra says: 'Just as a man counting another's treasures does not have half a coin himself; so it is with much learning when one does not practice the Dharma.' I hope that you, Master, will cast aside intellectual views, not debate other matters, and single-mindedly cultivate yourself in pure karma. Whenever I converse with you, Master, I see you often reject the teaching of 'not establishing words'. If this teaching were not good, then Bodhidharma would surely not have come from the West, and the Second Patriarch would surely not have been willing to cut off his arm to seek it. Nowadays Chan writings fill the world; this is simply the natural development of the latter stream—what is there to be surprised at? The views of sentient beings in the Sahā world have various differences; they cannot attain transcendence through a single dharma. Therefore the Buddha, through expedient means, set up various dharma-gates so that whether east, west, south, north, vertical or horizontal, small or great, in all of them one can practice and in all of them one can enter realization. In the Avataṃsaka assembly, Mañjuśrī once asked Enlightenment-Chief (Bodhicitta-śīrṣa): 'The nature of mind is one; why is it seen to have various differences?' He asked Virtue-Chief: 'What the Tathāgata realized is only one dharma; why then does he preach immeasurable dharmas?' He asked Wisdom-Chief: 'In the Buddha-dharma, wisdom is foremost; why does the Tathāgata sometimes praise generosity, sometimes praise keeping precepts, sometimes praise patience, and even at times praise benevolence, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, with none ever attaining transcendence through a single dharma?' To all these there were verse responses; these are what you, Master, recite morning and evening. You must thoroughly understand this principle! When illnesses suffered are different, the prescriptions are also different. If someone has an ailment of the hands and feet and is cured by taking a certain medicine, can one reproach another person whose illness is in the heart and abdomen for not taking the medicine for the hands and feet, taking the remedy for the heart and abdomen to be wrong? In the Śūraṅgama assembly, among the twenty-five practices Avalokiteśvara alone was praised foremost; can one then elevate Avalokiteśvara and degrade the other bodhisattvas, divine immortals, and non-Buddhists? In our Dharma, all such are heterodox views. Furthermore, the spiritual friends in the Avataṃsaka sometimes appeared as non-Buddhists, sometimes as kings of men, sometimes as courtesans to guide sentient beings. If one takes only those of orthodox practice to be right, then the ones Sudhana visited, such as Jayoṣṇīṣa, Vasumitrā, and King Ananala, could all be designated as wrong. The thousands of sutras and ten thousand treatises are only for eliminating the illnesses of sentient beings. When the illness is gone, the medicine is discarded; what need is there to cauterize oneself when there is no illness? Because the defilements of this mind are heavy, one cultivates pure causes; if both pure and defiled are gone, what further cultivation or realization is there? In the three realms there is no abiding place; where would one seek the mind? The four elements are fundamentally empty; on what does the Buddha abide? The jewel in the garment is only bound by the garment; if the garment is ruined and gone, the pearl will naturally manifest itself. I have briefly related my humble views in reply to your instructions. If there is anything else you can teach me, please favour me with another word; I would be most fortunate. Be careful not to be disorganized and rambling so as to turn into frivolous discourse. Has your physical body been light and at peace recently? Has your trouble with not being able to eat improved now? I pass my days following conditions, seeking only to be free from affairs. For now, please take the utmost care of yourself.