傳法正宗記 5.50

5.50

評曰。佛法被震旦四百八十四年至乎達磨。而聖人之教益驗。其道益尊。故曰菩提達磨之功德。抑又至於摩騰法蘭。曰何以然。曰教雖開說者萬端。要其所歸。一涅槃妙心而已矣。夫妙心者。雖眾經必使離乎名字分別。而為之至。然而後世未嘗有能如此而為之者。及達磨始不用文字不張門戶。直以是而傳之。學者乃得以而頓至。是不亦教之益驗乎。其心既傳。而天下知務正悟言性命者。皆推能仁氏之所說為之至當。不亦其道益尊乎。余甞以是比夫孟子之有德於儒者。夫孟子之前。儒之教豈無道哉。蓋其道蘊而未著。及軻務專傳道。而儒益尊顯。或曰。續僧傳以壁觀四行。為達磨之道。是乎非耶。曰壁觀婆羅門者。蓋出於流俗之語也。四行之說。豈達磨道之極耶。夫達磨之徒。其最親者慧可也。其次道副道育。古今禪者所傳可輩之言。皆成書繁。然盈天下。而四行之云亦未始概見。獨曇琳序之耳。然琳於禪者亦素無稱。縱曇琳誠得於達磨。亦恐祖師當時且隨其機而方便云耳。若真其道。則何秖以慧可拜已歸位而立。云汝得吾髓。此驗四行之言。非其道之極者也。夫達磨之道者。乃四禪中諸佛如來之禪者也。經曰。觀如來禪者。謂如實入如來地故。入內身聖智相三空三種樂行故。成辦眾生所作不可思議。若壁觀者。豈傳佛心印之謂耶。然達磨之道至乎隋唐已大著矣。為其傳者自可較其實而筆之。安得輒從流俗而不求聖人之宗。斯豈謂善為傳乎。曰傳謂達磨六被毒藥。乃菩提流支之所致。然乎。曰此蓋為寶林傳者未之思也。楊衒之堅問祖師不已。而為其說偈。事豈有先明言而後發讖耶。為是說者。蓋後世以流支嘗屈論於達磨意其為之。假令少驗於讖。亦恐當時黨流支者。竊作昔刺客。有為北宗之徒而往害六祖大鑒。是豈秀師之意耶。方之流支不亦顯乎。吾故鄙而不取。或曰。子謂達磨四祖所見於僧祐三藏記者。然祐死於天監之十七年。而達磨當普通元年而方至於梁。豈有其人未至先為之書耶。不然何其年祀前後之相反乎。曰然。實祐先為之書而達磨後至也。若達磨者得法化其天竺既已六十年矣乃東來。東來三載方至乎梁。是蓋西人傳其事。先達磨而至。祐之流得以為書也。祐既承其傳而為之。宜其書前而人後也。

An appraisal says: The Buddhadharma had covered China for four hundred and eighty-four years up to Bodhidharma, when the holy teachings became even more verified and their Way even more revered. Therefore it is said that the merit of Bodhidharma was equal even to that of Moteng and Falan. If asked why this is so, I reply: Although teachings have branched into myriad avenues, their destination is simply the one wondrous mind of nirvāṇa. As for this wondrous mind, although all sūtras inevitably require parting from names and distinctions to attain it, in later generations there was never anyone capable of doing so. Only when Bodhidharma began not using written words and not establishing sectarian gates, directly transmitting this, were students able to arrive at it suddenly. Is this not a case of the teachings becoming even more verified? Once this mind was transmitted, all throughout the realm who knew to apply themselves to correct awakening and discuss nature and life-destiny exalted what Śākyamuni taught as the utmost truth. Is this not a case of his Way becoming even more revered? I have often compared this to Mencius's virtue among the Confucians. Before Mencius, did the teachings of Confucius lack the Way? It was just that their Way was contained and not yet prominent. When Ke devoted himself exclusively to transmitting the Way, Confucianism became even more revered and manifest. Someone said: "The Xu gaoseng zhuan takes wall contemplation and the four practices to be Bodhidharma's Way. Is this correct or not?" I say: "Wall-contemplating brāhmaṇa" came from common worldly parlance. How could the doctrine of the four practices be the culmination of Bodhidharma's Way? Among Bodhidharma's disciples, the closest was Huike, followed by Daofu and Daoyu. The words of Huike and his peers transmitted by ancient and modern Chan practitioners have filled voluminous books throughout the world, yet mention of the four practices has never generally appeared; only Tanlin wrote a preface for it. But Tanlin was never celebrated among Chan practitioners. Even if Tanlin truly received it from Bodhidharma, I fear the Patriarchal Master at that time merely used it as an expedient in accordance with capacity. If it were truly his Way, why did he say "You have attained my marrow" only when Huike bowed and returned to his place to stand? This proves that the words of the four practices are not the culmination of his Way. Bodhidharma's Way is the dhyāna of the Buddhas and Tathāgatas among the four dhyānas. The sūtra says: "Contemplating the Tathāgata dhyāna means entering the Tathāgata ground as it truly is, entering the holy wisdom marks of the inner body, the three empties, and the three kinds of blissful practice, thereby accomplishing the inconceivable deeds of living beings." How could something like wall contemplation be called the transmission of the Buddha-mind seal? Yet by the Sui and Tang, Bodhidharma's Way had already become greatly renowned. Those who wrote his biography should have examined the truth and recorded it; how could they arbitrarily follow vulgar hearsay without seeking the sacred lineage? How could this be called writing a good biography? Someone asked: "The biography says Bodhidharma was poisoned six times, which was caused by Bodhiruci. Is this so?" I say: This was because the author of the Baolin zhuan failed to consider it. Yang Xuanzhi persistently questioned the Patriarchal Master without ceasing, so he spoke a verse for him. How could an event be spoken of clearly beforehand and prophesied only afterwards? Those who make this claim do so because later generations, seeing that Bodhiruci had once been bested in debate by Bodhidharma, presumed he did it. Even if it matched the prophecy slightly, I fear that at that time partisans of Bodhiruci secretly acted as the assassins of old—just as some disciples of the Northern school went to harm the Sixth Patriarch Dajian; could that have been the intention of Master Xiu? Compared with Bodhiruci, is it not obvious? Thus I despise it and do not adopt it. Someone said: "You mention the account of Bodhidharma as the Fourth Patriarch seen in the record of Tripiṭaka Master Sengyou; yet Sengyou died in the seventeenth year of Tianjian, while Bodhidharma only arrived in Liang in the first year of Putong. How could a book have been written about a person before he arrived? Otherwise, why are the years reversed before and after?" I say: Indeed, Sengyou truly wrote his book first and Bodhidharma arrived later. As for Bodhidharma, having attained the Dharma, he transformed Tianzhu for sixty years before coming east. Traveling east for three years, he only then arrived in Liang. This was because westerners transmitted his deeds and arrived before Bodhidharma, so Sengyou and his peers were able to compile their books. Since Sengyou received their transmission and composed it, it is fitting that his book came before the person arrived.