[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [緇門警訓](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023) › 8.92 # 緇門警訓 8.92 緇門警訓 8.92 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.92](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8.92) 蒙以所修金剛經相示。幸得隨喜一遍。近世士大夫肯如左右留心內典者。實為希有。不得意趣則不能如是信得及。不具看經眼則不能窺測經中深妙之義。真火中蓮也。詳味久之不能無疑耳。左右詆諸聖師翻譯失真。而汩亂本真。文句增減違背佛意。又云。自始持誦即悟其非。欲求定本是正舛差。而習偽已久雷同一律。暨得京師藏本。始有據依。復考繹天親無著論頌。其義脗合遂泮然無疑。又以長水孤山二師皆依句而違義。不識左右敢如是批判。則定嘗見六朝所譯梵本。盡得諸師翻譯錯謬。方始泮然無疑。既無梵本。便以臆見刊削聖意。則且未論招因帶果。毀謗聖教墮無間獄。恐有識者見之却如左右。檢點諸師之過。還著於本人矣。古人有言。交淺而言深者招尤之道也。某與左右素昧平生。左右以此經求印證。欲流布萬世。於眾生界中種佛種子。第一等好事。而又以某為箇中人。以箇中消息相期於形器之外。故不敢不上稟。昔清涼國師造華嚴疏。欲正譯師訛舛。而不得梵本。但書之于經尾而已。如佛不思議法品中。所謂一切佛有無邊際身。色相清淨普入諸趣。而無染著。清涼但云佛不思議法品上卷第三葉第十行。一切諸佛舊脫諸字。其於經本脫落。皆注之于經尾。清涼亦聖師也。非不能添入及減削。止敢書之于經尾者。識法者懼也。又經中有大琉璃寶。清涼曰。恐是吠琉璃。舊本錯寫亦不敢改。亦只如此。注之經尾耳。六朝翻譯諸師非皆淺識之士。翻譯場有譯語者。有譯義者有潤文者。有證梵語者。有正義者。有唐梵相校者。而左右尚以為錯譯聖意。左右既不得梵本。便妄加刊削。却要後世人諦信不亦難乎。如論長水依句而違義。無梵本證。如何便決定以其為非。此公雖是講人。與他講人不同。嘗參琅琊廣照祥師。因請益琅琊首楞嚴中富樓那問佛清淨本然云何忽生山河大地之義。琅琊遂抗聲云。清淨本然云何忽生山河大地。長水於言下大悟後方披襟自稱座主。蓋座主多是尋行數墨。左右所謂依句而不依義。長水非無見識。亦非尋行數墨者。不以具足相故得阿耨菩提。經文大段分明。此文至淺至近。自是左右求奇太過。要立異解。求人從己耳。左右引無著論云。以法身應見如來非以相具足故。若爾如來雖不應以相具足見。應相具足為因得阿耨菩提。為離此著故。經言。須菩提。於意云何。如來可以相成就得阿耨菩提。須菩提。莫作是念等者。此義明相具足體非菩提。亦不以相具足為因也。以相是色自性故。此論大段分明。自是左右錯見錯解爾。色是相緣起。相是法界緣起。梁昭明太子謂莫作是念。如來不以具足相故得阿耨菩提。三十二分中以此分為無斷無滅分。恐須菩提不以具足相。則緣起滅矣。蓋須菩提初在母胎即知空寂。多不住緣起相。後引功德施菩薩論。末後若相成就是真實有。此相滅時即名為斷。何以故。以生故有斷又怕人不會。又云。何以故。一切法是無生性。所以遠離斷常二邊。遠離二邊是法界相。不說性而言相。謂法界是性之緣起故也。相是法界緣起故。不說性而言相。梁昭明所謂無斷無滅是也。此段更分明。又是左右求奇太過。強生節目耳。若金剛經可以刊削。則一大藏教凡有看者各隨臆解。都可刊削也。如韓退之指論語中畫字為晝字。謂舊本差錯。以退之之見識。便可改了。而只如此論在書中何也。亦是識法者懼爾。圭峯密禪師造圓覺疏鈔。密於圓覺有證悟處。方敢下筆。以圓覺經中一切眾生皆證圓覺。圭峯改證為具。謂譯者之訛而不見梵本。亦只如此論。在疏中不敢便改正經也。後來泐潭真淨和尚撰皆證論。論內痛罵圭峯。謂之破凡夫臊臭漢。若一切眾生皆具圓覺而不證者。畜生永作畜生餓鬼永作餓鬼。盡十方世界都盧是箇無孔鐵鎚。更無一人發真歸元。凡夫亦不須求解脫。何以故。一切眾生皆已具圓覺。亦不須求證故。左右以京師藏經本為是。遂以京本為據。若京師藏本從外。府州納入。如徑山兩藏經。皆是朝廷全盛。時賜到。亦是外州府經生所寫。萬一有錯。又却如何改正。左右若無人我。定以妙喜之言為至誠。不必泥在古今一大錯上。若執己見為是。決欲改削。要一切人唾罵一任刊板印行。妙喜也只得隨喜讚歎而已。公既得得遣人以經來求印可。雖不相識以法為親故。不覺忉忉怛怛相觸忤。見公至誠所以更不留情。左右決欲窮教乘造奧義。當尋一名行講師。一心一意與之參詳教。徹頭徹尾。一等是留心教網也。若以無常迅速生死事大己事未明。當一心一意尋一本分作家。能破人生死窠窟者。與伊著死工夫廝捱。忽然打破漆桶。便是徹頭處也。若只是要資談柄。道我博極群書無不通達。禪我也會。教我也會。又能檢點。得前輩諸譯主講師不到處。逞我能我解。則三教聖人都可檢點。亦不必更求人印可。然後放行也。如何如何。 > I am honoured that you have shown me your revised edition of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra, and I was fortunate enough to rejoice in reading through it once. In recent times, it is truly rare for a scholar-official to be willing, like yourself, to pay close attention to the inner scriptures. Without grasping their essential purport, one could not attain such faith; without possessing the eye for reading scriptures, one could not fathom their profound and subtle meaning. You are truly a lotus amidst fire! Yet after savoring it in detail for a long time, I cannot be without doubts. You condemn the various holy masters for deviating from the true original in their translations and thereby confusing the authentic truth, and for adding to and subtracting from the words and phrases contrary to the Buddha's intent. You also say that from the very beginning of your chanting it you realized its errors, and wishing to find a definitive text to correct the discrepancies, yet finding that corrupt habits had long been followed uniformly by everyone, it was only when you obtained the canon edition from the capital that you had a basis upon which to rely; you further examined and traced the verses of the commentaries by Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, and their meanings coincided, so that your doubts were entirely dissolved. You also consider both Masters Changshui and Gushan to have followed the sentences while contradicting the meaning. I do not know how you dare make such criticisms. You must surely have seen the Sanskrit manuscripts translated during the Six Dynasties and thoroughly grasped the translation errors of the various masters, before your doubts could begin to be dissolved. Since you have no Sanskrit manuscripts and merely cut and edit the holy intent according to your own subjective opinions, leaving aside for the moment that you will invite causes and incur fruits—slandering the holy teachings and falling into the Avīci hell—I fear that discerning persons who see this will, just as you have done, scrutinize the faults of the masters and lay them right back upon yourself! An ancient said: 'To speak deeply where acquaintance is shallow is the way to invite blame.' I have never met you in my life. You have sought confirmation from me for this sūtra, wishing to circulate it for myriad generations to plant the seeds of buddhahood within the realm of sentient beings—a matter of the highest goodness. Moreover, you consider me someone inside this matter, expecting from me something beyond physical forms and vessels; therefore, I dare not fail to report this to you. Long ago, when National Preceptor Qingliang composed his commentary on the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, he wished to correct the errors of the translators, but since he could not obtain the Sanskrit manuscript, he merely recorded them at the end of the sūtra. For instance, in the chapter on the 'Inconceivable Qualities of the Buddha', where it says, 'All buddhas have boundless bodies, their forms and appearances are pure, universally entering all destinies without contamination,' Qingliang merely noted: 'In the chapter on the Inconceivable Qualities of the Buddha, fascicle one, leaf three, line ten, the word “all” before “buddhas” was omitted in the old text.' In all cases where characters were omitted from the text of the sūtra, he noted them at the end of the sūtra. Qingliang was also a holy master; it was not that he was incapable of adding to or pruning it, but the reason he only dared to write it at the end of the sūtra was that those who understand the Dharma are filled with awe! Furthermore, where the sūtra has 'great lapis lazuli jewel', Qingliang said: 'I fear it should be vaiḍūrya. The old text copied it erroneously, yet I dare not alter it.' It was just like this: he merely noted it at the end of the sūtra. The masters who translated during the Six Dynasties were not all men of shallow understanding. In the translation halls there were those who translated the words, those who translated the meaning, those who polished the prose, those who certified the Sanskrit, those who rectified the meaning, and those who collated the Chinese and the Sanskrit; yet you still consider them to have mistranslated the holy intent. Since you have not obtained the Sanskrit manuscript, you have presumptuously added and cut away, yet you expect later generations to believe it with certainty—is this not difficult? As for your arguing that Changshui followed the sentences while contradicting the meaning, without the proof of a Sanskrit manuscript, how can you definitively determine him to be wrong? Although this gentleman was an expositor, he was different from other expositors. He once called upon Master Langye Guangzhao Xiang. Asking Langye for guidance on the meaning in the Śūraṅgama-sūtra where Pūrṇa asks the Buddha: 'Being fundamentally pure and natural, how did mountains, rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise?', Langye then raised his voice and said: 'Being fundamentally pure and natural, how did mountains, rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise?' Changshui attained great awakening at these words, and only after that did he open his lapels and call himself a lecture master. For lecture masters mostly track lines and count ink-marks, which is what you call 'following the sentences rather than the meaning.' Changshui was not without insight, nor was he one who tracked lines and counted ink-marks. 'Not on account of fully endowed marks does one attain anuttara-bodhi'—the text of the sūtra is broadly clear. This passage is extremely shallow and proximate. It is simply that you seek novelty to excess and wish to establish a divergent interpretation, seeking to make others follow you. You quote Asaṅga's commentary: 'One should see the Tathāgata through the dharmakāya, not on account of the endowment with marks. If so, although the Tathāgata should not be seen through the endowment with marks, the endowment with marks should serve as the cause for attaining anuttara-bodhi. In order to abandon this attachment, the sūtra says: “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata attain anuttara-bodhi through the perfection of marks? Subhūti, do not form such a thought,” and so forth.' This meaning clarifies that the substance of the endowment with marks is not bodhi, nor does it serve as the cause through the endowment with marks, because marks are the intrinsic nature of form. This commentary is broadly clear; it is simply your own mistaken view and mistaken interpretation. Form is the dependent origination of marks; marks are the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu. Crown Prince Zhaoming of the Liang said: 'Do not form such a thought that the Tathāgata, not on account of the fully endowed marks, attains anuttara-bodhi.' Among the thirty-two sections, he made this the section on 'Non-Interruption and Non-Annihilation', fearing that if Subhūti held that it was not on account of fully endowed marks, then dependent origination would be annihilated. For when Subhūti was originally in his mother's womb, he already knew emptiness and stillness, and mostly did not abide in the marks of dependent origination. Later, you quote the commentary by Bodhisattva Guṇaprabha: 'Finally, if the perfection of marks were truly existent, when these marks perish it would be called annihilation. Why? Because being born, there is annihilation.' And again fearing that people would not understand, it says: 'Why? All phenomena have the nature of non-arising, and therefore they are far removed from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence. Being far removed from the two extremes is the mark of the dharmadhātu.' It does not speak of 'nature' but speaks of 'mark', meaning that the dharmadhātu is the dependent origination of the nature. Because marks are the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu, it does not speak of nature but speaks of mark. This is what Crown Prince Zhaoming of the Liang meant by 'non-interruption and non-annihilation'. This passage is even clearer; again it is simply that you seek novelty to excess, forcibly fabricating knots and joints! If the Vajracchedikā-sūtra could be cut and edited, then throughout the entire great canon of teachings, anyone who reads it could cut and edit it according to their own subjective interpretations! For example, Han Tuizhi pointed to the character hua ('to draw') in the Analects as being zhou ('daytime'), stating that the old text was mistaken. With Tuizhi's insight, he could easily have changed it, yet why did he merely discuss it like this in his writings? It is also because those who understand the law are filled with awe! When Chan Master Guifeng Zongmi composed his commentary and subcommentary on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, he only dared to set pen to paper because he had attained realization regarding the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment. Because the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment states that 'all sentient beings have already realized perfect enlightenment', Guifeng altered 'realized' to 'possessed', calling it an error of the translator, yet not having seen the Sanskrit manuscript, he merely discussed it like this in his commentary and dared not directly alter the scripture itself. Later, Upādhyāya Letan Zhenjing composed the Treatise on All Realizing, in which he bitterly rebuked Guifeng, calling him a 'stinking fellow who destroys ordinary people': 'If all sentient beings merely possess perfect enlightenment without realizing it, animals would forever remain animals and hungry ghosts would forever remain hungry ghosts; the entire worlds of the ten directions would completely be an iron hammer without a hole, with not a single person ever manifesting the true and returning to the source! Nor would ordinary people need to seek liberation. Why? Because all sentient beings already possess perfect enlightenment and would have no need to seek its realization.' You consider the canonical edition from the capital to be correct and have accordingly relied on the capital edition. If the capital edition was submitted from external commanderies and prefectures—just as the two canons of Mount Jingshan were bestowed during the height of the imperial court's prosperity, which were also copied by scripture scribes in external prefectures and commanderies—if by any chance there were errors, how would you correct them? If you are free from self and other, you will surely take Miaoxi's words as utter sincerity; there is no need to remain stuck in this one great mistake of past and present. If you hold fast to your own view as correct, determined to alter and prune it, and wish to be spat upon and cursed by everyone, you are entirely free to carve the printing blocks and circulate it—Miaoxi can only rejoice and praise you from afar. Since you have taken the trouble to send someone with the sūtra to seek my confirmation, although we are not acquainted, because we are close through the Dharma, I have unwittingly been verbose and offensive. Seeing your utter sincerity, I have therefore withheld nothing. If you are determined to fathom the scriptural vehicles and reach their profound meaning, you should seek out a lecturer of distinguished conduct and single-mindedly examine the teachings with him, thoroughly from head to tail; this is one way of paying attention to the net of teachings. If, on account of impermanence being swift, birth and death being great, and your own matter being unresolved, you should single-mindedly seek an authentic adept who can smash the lairs and traps of birth and death for people, and struggle through deadly efforts alongside him; when you suddenly smash the lacquer bucket, that is precisely the place of thoroughness! If you merely wish to furnish materials for conversation, saying, 'I have read extensively across all books and understand everything; I understand Chan and I understand the teachings; and I can scrutinize where former translation masters and lecturers could not reach,' flaunting your ability and your understanding, then even the sages of the three teachings could be scrutinized by you! Nor would you need to seek confirmation from others before putting it into circulation! How about it? How about it? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.91](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8.91) - [Next: 8.93](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8.93) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023~en-mt.8.92) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8.92](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2023.8.92) · Pramāṇa