佛祖統紀 50.8

50.8

世尊鶴林法付迦葉。二十四傳至於師子。或曰。二十八傳至於達磨。磨在梁時始來東土。於六度中特以禪名。雖云頓示豈無方便。雖云不立文字初傳則有楞伽。後五六葉則尚般若。覽教照心不在茲乎。自迦葉十三傳曰龍樹。著大智度論。譯傳震旦。則有北齊文禪師。一覽斯文即悟中觀之旨。以傳南岳。岳傳之天台。天台悟法華三昧。始開拓義門。定而三止。慧而三觀。曰具。曰即。曰一念三千。其所歸宗曰法華。則華嚴阿含方等般若。攝六度融萬行。開而顯之無非法華佛慧之道。暨傳之章安縉雲東陽左溪。至於荊溪。於是智者之教悉載於書。而一歸於正矣。荊溪傳滿。滿傳脩（當云荊溪傳邃邃傳脩）脩傳外。外傳琇。琇傳竦。竦傳寂。寂傳通。通傳禮。是為四明。於時此教特盛。異同亦多。龍象重望未易柔服。一言之辨勤乎十返。如不觀真心唯觀陰妄。至今稱之為是。後世何為而欲異其說乎。仰惟智者之為智也。大矣哉。三觀單複之旨。實著乎圓覺。十境互發之論。方見乎楞嚴。智者先言之於隋。此經後譯之於唐。雖欲不信其可得乎（瑩公清話。楞嚴本在西域。智者聞之。忍死以候。既而入滅期逼。遺記之曰。此經入漢吾不得見之矣。當有宰官身菩薩。以文章翻譯佛語。又數百年。當有肉身比丘以吾教判此經歸中道）所謂靈山親聞者。此亦其躅歟。故其教東及日本。西返天竺。未之與抗也。或曰教外別傳不知教無等等。何外之有。傳授圓成何別之有。或曰不立文字。不知文字非真非妄。乃以何者為文字。嘗求乎其人矣。前乎智者導其教者。曰梁傅大士。北齊稠禪師。後來推尊而贊之者。曰南山律師。韶壽諸師（韶國師壽禪師）密弘而取證者。永嘉真覺。雖異途而不敢不贊者。賢首藏師。或叛去而竊用其義者清涼觀師。公為異同。而自立己意者慈恩基師。唯圭峯密私用其言。而專以四禪八定次第之學。何異兒戲以侮耆德。善乎梁敬之之言曰。佛法以天台為司南。柳子厚曰。佛道愈遠異端競起。惟天台得其傳。又曰。傳道益微言禪最病。今之空空。愚夫縱傲自我者。皆誣禪以亂其教。冐乎囂昏放乎淫荒。吾將合馬鳴龍樹之道焉。唯是明智。其生既晚異端益肆。積德於躬。無辨於彼。將自屈服。我言則光。顧予何者。輒與斯事。竊少聞大道於圓照禪師。且有言曰。他日勉讀經教後三十年果遇明智。獲聞一家性具之旨。視彼暗證禪師文字法師乘壞驢車。無力以正之。則不敢不自勉。

The Bhagavat in the Crane Grove entrusted the Dharma to Mahākāśyapa. Through twenty-four transmissions it reached Āryasiṃha. Or it is said: through twenty-eight transmissions it reached Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma first arrived in this Eastern Land during the Liang dynasty. Among the six perfections, he took Chan as his special designation. Although it is said to show [the truth] suddenly, how could it be without expedient means? Although it is said not to establish words or letters, in its initial transmission there was the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, and after five or six generations it esteemed prajñā. Does examining the teaching to illuminate the mind not lie precisely here? Thirteen transmissions from Mahākāśyapa was Nāgārjuna, who composed the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. When it was translated and transmitted to Cīnasthāna, there was Chan Master Wen of the Northern Qi. In a single glance at this text, he instantly awakened to the purport of the Madhyamaka contemplation, transmitting it to Nanyue. Nanyue transmitted it to Tiantai. Tiantai awakened to the Lotus Samādhi and for the first time opened up the gate of doctrinal principles: for samādhi, the threefold cessation; for wisdom, the threefold contemplation; termed inherent, termed identical, termed the three thousand [realms] in a single thought-moment. That which he took as the primary source was the Lotus Sūtra. Thus the Avataṃsaka, Āgamas, Vaipulya, and Prajñā, subsuming the six perfections and fusing the ten thousand practices, when unfolded and revealed, are all none other than the path of the Lotus and the Buddha-wisdom. When transmitted to Zhāng'ān, Jinyun, Dongyang, and Zuoxi, down to Jīngxī, the teachings of Master Zhiyi were fully recorded in writings and uniformly brought back to orthodoxy. Jīngxī transmitted it to Man; Man transmitted it to Xiu (it should say: Jīngxī transmitted it to Sui, Sui transmitted it to Xiu); Xiu transmitted it to Wai; Wai transmitted it to Xiu; Xiu transmitted it to Song; Song transmitted it to Ji; Ji transmitted it to Tong; Tong transmitted it to Li: this was Siming. At that time this teaching flourished exceptionally, yet differences and commonalities were also manifold. The great dragons and elephants of towering renown were not easily subdued; a debate over a single word took ten laborious exchanges. Such as not contemplating the true mind but contemplating only skandhas and delusion—even today this is praised as correct. Why should later generations wish to alter his explanations? Reverently reflecting upon Zhiyi's wisdom—how immense it was! The purport of the threefold contemplation, singular and compound, is truly set forth in the Perfect Enlightenment Sūtra. The discourse on the mutual arising of the ten spheres only appears in the Śūraṅgama-sūtra. Zhiyi first spoke of them under the Sui dynasty; these scriptures were translated later under the Tang. Though one might wish not to believe it, how could that be possible? (The Pure Conversations of Venerable Ying: The Śūraṅgama was originally in the Western Regions. Zhiyi heard of it and clung to life waiting for it. When the time of his parinirvāṇa drew near, he left behind a record saying: 'When this scripture enters China, I will not be able to see it. There will be a bodhisattva in the body of an official who will translate the Buddha's words into eloquent literature. After several hundred more years, there will be a bhikṣu in the flesh who, using my teaching, will judge this scripture and return it to the Middle Way.') What is called 'personally hearing it at Vulture Peak'—are these not also its traces? Therefore, his teachings spread east to Japan and returned west to Tianzhu; nothing could rival them. Some say there is a 'special transmission outside the teachings,' not knowing that the teachings are unequalled—what 'outside' could there be? The transmission is perfectly accomplished—what 'special' could there be? Some say 'do not establish words and letters,' not knowing that words and letters are neither real nor illusory—then what do they take to be words and letters? I have once inquired into those figures. Those who guided this teaching before Zhiyi were Mahāsattva Fu of the Liang and Chan Master Chou of the Northern Qi. Those who subsequently revered and praised it were Vinaya Master Nanshan, and the various masters Shao and Shou (National Preceptor Shao and Chan Master Shou). The one who secretly propagated it and attained realization was Zhenjue of Yongjia. The one who, although taking a different path, did not dare not to praise it, was Master Zang of Xianshou. The one who rebelled against it yet plundered its doctrines was Master Guan of Qingliang. The one who publicly debated similarities and differences while independently establishing his own views was Master Ji of Cien. Only Zongmi of Guifeng secretly used his words while exclusively practicing the gradual study of the four dhyānas and eight samāpattis—how is that different from child's play insulting the venerable and virtuous? Excellent were the words of Liang Jingzhi: 'The Buddha Dharma takes Tiantai as its compass.' Liu Zihou said: 'As the Buddha's path receded further into the distance, heterodox factions arose in rivalry; only Tiantai obtained its true transmission.' He also said: 'As the transmission of the Way grew fainter, speaking of Chan became the greatest affliction. Today's empty, foolish men who indulge their arrogance all falsely defame Chan to throw its teachings into disarray, rushing into clamorous blindness and indulging in dissolute abandon. I shall unite with the path of Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna.' It is only Mingzhi who, having been born late when heterodoxies ran even more rampant, accumulated virtue in his person and refrained from arguing with them. When one is about to humble oneself, my words will illuminate him. But considering who I am, how dare I casually take part in this matter? In my youth, I stealthily heard the Great Way from Chan Master Yuanzhao, who said: 'In future days, exert yourself in studying the scriptures and teachings.' Thirty years later, I indeed met Mingzhi and was fortunate enough to hear the single school's doctrine of inherent nature. Seeing those blindly enlightened Chan masters and letter-bound Dharma masters riding in broken donkey-carts, utterly lacking the strength to correct them, I dared not fail to exert myself.