[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) › [佛祖歷代通載](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036) › 10.67 # 佛祖歷代通載 10.67 佛祖歷代通載 10.67 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10.67) 石室論曰。宋司馬文正公曰。文中子云。佛聖人也。審如文中子之言。則佛之心可見矣。弟今言禪者。好為隱語以相迷。大言以相勝。使學者倀倀然益入於迷妄。因廣文子之意。作解禪頌六首。果如此言雖中國亦可行矣。不然則吾所不知也。其卒章曰。言為百世師。行為天下法。為賢為大聖。是名佛菩薩。噫文正公繼孔孟荀楊為大賢者也。庸有不知佛哉。觀其頌則文正公平生所為。皆佛菩薩之心也。特禪之一法。雖吾門亦標表以為教外別傳。自非積三二十年息心絕慮。則莫能究其旨。謂之隱語大言。似是而實非也。何則東臯子猶以伏羲畫卦泄道之密漏神之機分張太和磔裂元氣使知者不知大朴散矣。矧不立文字之禪。直指人心。於語言形迹之表。詎可常程義理而求其言說耶。是不獨文正公。文中子楊孟諸賢。未暇留神。吾徒傳教大法師輩。固有不知而興謗者。故先德云。千人萬人中撈摝一箇半箇而已。夫豈易信也哉。 > The Commentary of Shishi says: Duke Wen Zheng, Sima \[Guang\] of the Song dynasty, said: Master Wenzhong said, 'The Buddha is a sage.' If it is truly as Master Wenzhong says, then the Buddha's mind can be perceived. But those today who speak of Chan love to use hidden language to confuse one another, and boastful words to outdo each other, causing students to wander aimlessly and fall further into delusion and falsity. Therefore, expanding upon Master Wenzhong's meaning, I have composed six eulogies explaining Chan. If it is indeed as these words say, then it can certainly be practiced even in China; otherwise, it is something I do not know. His final stanza says: His words are the teacher of a hundred generations, / His conduct is the standard for the realm; / He who is a worthy and a great sage, / Is called a Buddha and Bodhisattva. Alas, Duke Wen Zheng followed Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, and Yang Xiong as a great worthy; how could he not have known the Buddha? Observing his eulogy, all that Duke Wen Zheng did throughout his life was indeed the mind of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. It is merely that the single teaching of Chan is distinguished even within our own school as a separate transmission outside the teachings; unless one calms the mind and severs discursive thought for twenty or thirty years, one cannot fathom its import. To call it hidden language and boastful words seems correct on the surface, but is actually mistaken. Why so? Even Master Donggao considered Fuxi's drawing of the hexagrams to have disclosed the secret of the Way, leaked the mechanism of the divine, divided the Great Harmony, and lacerated the primordial qi, causing the knowing not to know and the Great Simplicity to scatter. How much more so for Chan, which does not establish written words and points directly to the human mind? Beyond language and formal traces, how could one seek its spoken discourse through ordinary doctrine? This is not only true of Duke Wen Zheng, Master Wenzhong, Yang Xiong, and Mencius, who lacked the leisure to focus their attention on it; even among our own fellows, those great Dharma masters who transmit the teachings have naturally been ignorant of it and given rise to slander. Therefore, an ancient virtuous one said: 'Among thousands and tens of thousands of people, we dredge up only one or half a person.' How could it ever be easy to believe? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10.66) - [Next: 10.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10.68) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036~en-mt.10.67) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.10.67) · Pramāṇa