緇門警訓 8.92

8.92

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?