弘明集 9
English (machine translation) 9
- Language
- English
9.1
Compiled by the Vinaya Master Śramaṇa Sengyou of Jianchu Monastery in Yangdu of the Liang
9.2
Record on the Meaning of the Spirit's Illumination Attaining Buddhahood Established by the Emperor of the Great Liang (with preface and commentary by Shen Ji of Wuxing)
Xiao Chen's Refutation of Fan Zhen's Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit
Cao Siwen's Refutation of Fan Zhen's Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit (together with two memorials and the imperial responses)
9.3
Record on the Meaning of the Spirit's Illumination Attaining Buddhahood Established by the Emperor of the Great Liang (with preface and commentary by Shen Ji of Wuxing)
9.4
The spiritual path is dark and silent; Confucius indeed terminated speech concerning it. The wondrous principle of mental factors is what the Royal Scribe also did not expound. This was not because the sages' wisdom was incomplete, but because the immediate sentiments were difficult to instruct with profound speech. Therefore, when the profound and Confucian thinkers of former ages discussed it, they omitted past karma; and the eloquent debaters of later generations also had their arguments hindered regarding future lives. If one is not possessed of the utmost contemplation in the world, how could one comprehend it in detail? Thus, deluded people, hearing that the conscious spirit is uninterrupted, deem it entirely permanent; hearing that mental thoughts are not permanent, they deem it entirely severed. Saying it is severed, they are confused about its eternal nature; saying it is permanent, they are bewildered by its severed function. Bewildered by its severed function, they doubt the root on account of the function, asserting that in the root it can be extinguished; doubting the function on account of the root, they assert that in the function it never alters. None can investigate with refinement, mutually giving rise to partial attachments, thereby causing the naturally endowed awakened nature to drown in frivolous discourse.
9.5
Our Sage Sovereign, endowed with the dark tally, governs this great treasure of awakening. Anticipating Heaven, he establishes standards; observing the people, he institutes transformation. Fearing that disjointed sophistry would fabricate doctrines running rampant, and that none could untangle the subtle thread of intricate silk, the bequeathed writings of the Śākya teaching would soon be lost. Therefore, he composed this elegant treatise to promote the supreme scriptures. I, Shen Ji, early contemplating the emptiness of the body, harbored my mind in the inner teaching. Whenever partaking of the Dharma sound, I forgot sleep and food. Yet dull affections are hard to enlighten, and coming upon the principle, many were my doubts. Regarding the great doctrine of Buddha-nature, the path of my heart was utterly bewildered. Now that the Heavenly Inquiry has extended afar, I participated equally in receiving and beholding it; ten thousand nights obtained opening, and a thousand darknesses turned to eternal dawn. The doubts that were dispelled piecemeal all became lucidly penetrating. I venture to reflect that when fact and principle harmonize, there is no entity not cognized; when function conforms to the Dao, what mind is not discerning? Thus moving clouds lingering still respond to the harmony of beautiful tones; swimming fish leaping still appreciate the cadence of clear strings. How much more so when the subtlety of entering the spirit issues from the Heavenly Heart! This is why your subject dances and stamps his feet, unable to contain himself. Venturing on my shallow attainments, I have respectfully made this commentary. How could a cone and tube exhaust Heaven's profundity? My hope is merely that entrenched doubts might thereby be resolved. Undertaking practice is rooted in establishing faith. (Subject Ji says: An ignorant heart in darkness must generate great brightness. Brightness does not arise abruptly; its arising must be due to practice. Practice does not cultivate itself; cultivation must be due to faith. Faith is the mind that relies on teachers and leans on principle without divergence. Therefore, the five faculties take the one faith as their root, and the four faiths take non-divergence as their principal tenet. Once principal faith is established, the myriad goods naturally proceed; practicing good creates the fruit: this is called practice.) Faith being established is due to right understanding. (Subject Ji says: If heterodoxy and orthodoxy are not distinguished, what can faith be taken in? Therefore, the root of establishing faith relies on right understanding.) When understanding is right, external heterodoxy cannot disturb it. (Subject Ji says: When the single mind is upright, the myriad heterodoxies are extinguished. Hence one knows that if right view is harbored within, external heterodoxy cannot move it.) When faith is established, internal consciousness has no doubt. (Subject Ji says: Consciousness is the mind. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra states: 'Mind, thought, and consciousness are one in essence but different in name.' When the mind has believed, what doubt can there be?) Yet that upon which faith and understanding rely has its guiding principle. (Subject Ji says: 'To rely' means to lean upon. When settling the mind has a root, the branch practices naturally follow. The statement that there is a root is revealed in the sentence below.) What is it? The source, spirit-illumination, takes non-interruption as its essence; pure spirit must return to the wondrous fruit. (Subject Ji says: If spirit had an end, how could it be called spirit? Therefore, the sūtra says: 'I see that when the dead have their corporeal form broken and their material substance transformed, their spirit is not extinguished. Following good and evil actions, misfortune and fortune pursue them naturally.' This is precisely the meaning of non-extinction and non-interruption. If it transformed identically with grass and trees, how could it be pure? Because it is uninterrupted, it ultimately returns to the wondrous culmination. Relying with the mind on this ground, touching upon principle all is clear. Clear in the multitude of principles, what practice is not accomplished? This is what is meant by the guiding principle of faith and understanding.) The wondrous fruit's essence is ultimate and eternally abiding; pure spirit cannot avoid impermanence. (Subject Ji says: The wondrous fruit's understanding of principle is already complete, so its essence alone is extremely eternal; pure spirit has not yet fulfilled its practice, hence it cannot avoid shifting and changing.) Impermanence is that which perishes before and arises after, not abiding for a kṣaṇa. (Subject Ji says: Kṣaṇa is the sound of the country of Tianzhu, the name for the utmost rapidity. Arising and instantly perishing, how could it abide? Thus Vimalakīrti lamented: 'Monks, right at this moment there are birth, aging, and cessation!') If the mind, using the mind to climb upon conditioning, necessarily has its preceding consciousness differ from the succeeding one, this would depart together with the object; who then would become a Buddha? (Subject Ji says: The mind moving in accord with objects is its external function. Although the succeeding continues the preceding, it is ultimately not the real discourse. Hence one knows that the nature of the spirit-consciousness is clear, still, and unmoving. Because it is clear, still, and unmoving, it ultimately returns to the wondrous fruit.) The sūtra says: 'The mind is the direct cause, ultimately achieving the fruit of Buddhahood.' (Subject Ji says: Speaking briefly of the cause of Buddhahood, its meaning has two aspects: the first is called the conditioning cause; the second is called the direct cause. The conditioning cause is the myriad goods; the direct cause is the spirit-consciousness. The myriad goods possess the efficacy of assisting and eliciting, hence they are called the conditioning cause; the spirit-consciousness is its direct root, hence it is called the direct cause. Since it says 'ultimately achieving the fruit of Buddhahood', this verifies that non-interruption is evident.) It also says: 'If ignorance transforms, it turns into illumination.' Examining the intent of this sūtra, the principle can be sought. How so? The mind is the root of function; the root is one, while the functions are distinct. Distinct functions naturally have flourishing and decline, while the nature of the one root does not move. (Subject Ji says: Rinsing away dust and defilement, the root consciousness then is bright. Brightness and darkness exchanging is what is called 'transforming'. It is not to say that the former goes and the latter comes.) The one root is ignorance, [which is] spirit-illumination. (Subject Ji says: Spirit-illumination is fundamentally dark, hence it takes ignorance as its cause.) Inquiring into the appellation 'ignorance', it is not the name for great void; insentient earth and stones, how could they be called 'ignorance'? (Subject Ji says: Discerning good and evil, without mind it cannot be known; clearly examining right and wrong, without affection it cannot be recognized. Great void is insentient, hence it does not distinguish folly and wisdom; earth and stones have no mind, how could they discern understanding and delusion? Hence one knows that understanding and delusion abide in possessing a mind, and folly and wisdom reside in possessing consciousness. Since it is called 'ignorance', the meaning lies herein.) Therefore, one knows that while thought-deliberation ought to be illuminated, the essence cannot avoid delusion; delusion-deliberation not knowing is therefore called 'ignorance'. (Subject Ji says: Illumination is the original nature, so it ought to be illuminated. Consciousness defiled by external dust, internally it cannot avoid delusion; deluded and not understanding, it is thereupon called 'ignorance'. Arising from this, it received the name; how could the purport be empty?) Yet upon the essence of ignorance there is arising and perishing; arising and perishing are its distinct functions, while the meaning of the mind of ignorance does not alter. (Subject Ji says: Once there is its essence, there is its function. Speaking of function is not the essence; discussing essence is not the function. Function has flourishing and decline; essence has no arising or perishing.) Fearing that seeing its functions differ, one would immediately say the mind is extinguished along with the object, (Subject Ji says: The confused are deluded about its essence and function, hence they constantly harbor suspicions. Why? Essence and function are neither separated nor identical. Divorced from essence, there is no function, hence it is said to be 'not separated'; the meaning of function is not essence, hence it is said to be 'not identical'. Seeing their non-separation, they are deluded about their non-identity; deluded about their non-identity, they immediately say the mind is extinguished along with the object.) therefore, following the name 'ignorance', the designation of 'abiding stage' is added below it. This reveals that ignorance is precisely spirit-illumination; the nature of spirit-illumination does not shift. (Subject Ji says: Ignorance being tied to 'abiding stage' is surely to reprimand their deluded consciousness; yet the multitude embracing delusion have never understood it.) How is this known to be so? For instance, the preceding mind commits the weighty evil of the Uninterrupted [hell], and the succeeding consciousness raises the wondrous good of Neither-Conception[-nor-Non-Conception]. The principles of good and evil are vastly distant, and the preceding and succeeding are extremely apart from one another. If these functions truly lacked a single root, how could they be continuous like this? (Subject Ji says: If there were not a single root, function would have nothing to rely upon. Yet the confused see that their categories continue as one, hence great good is cited to reprimand their delusion about continuation.) Thus one knows that the preceding evil perishes of itself while the deluded consciousness does not move; the succeeding good, though arisen, does not alter the dark mind. (Subject Ji says: It has never diminished its root through the arising and perishing of good and evil.) Therefore, the sūtra states: 'If it is accompanied by all defilements and fetters, it is named ignorance; if it is accompanied by all wholesome dharmas, it is named illumination.' Is this not the nature of mind-consciousness being one while differing according to conditions? (Subject Ji says: If good and evil arise reciprocally, how could they be called 'accompanied'? Yet people constantly face these words while continually misunderstanding their purport. Therefore, he cites this essential passage to instruct the confused multitude.) Hence one knows that arising, perishing, shifting, and changing requite past causes, while good and evil alternatingly decline and arise from present objects. (Subject Ji says: Arising and perishing are caused by past karma, not made so by present objects; good and evil arise from present objects, not made so by past karma.) Yet the mind is their root, never differing. (Subject Ji says: Although the reasons for function are not the same, their essence does not differ.) Because its root of function is uninterrupted, the principle of becoming a Buddha is radiant; because it shifts and declines according to objects, that birth-and-death can be exhausted is evident. (Subject Ji says: Becoming a Buddha being radiant supports its root; birth-and-death being exhaustible is due to its function. If there were function without a root, it would be extinguished and not succeed; if there were a root without function, success would have nothing to extinguish.)
9.6
Refutation of the Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit (Preface)
9.7
Xiao Chen
9.8
My maternal cousin Fan Zizhen composed the Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit to demonstrate that there is no Buddha. He considered himself able to crush the mouths of the multitude with his debate and subdue a thousand people daily. In my mind there were still doubts. I merely wished to diminish his hesitation and inquire into what he had not awakened to. In the treatise up to the present, what is maintained is corporeal form and spirit, and what is contested is subtle principle. As for the ancestral temples established for the spring and autumn filial sacrifices, he considers them to be the Sages' establishing teachings and setting up rituals through the way of the spirits to guard against the foolish. Du Bo drawing his bow and Boyou donning armor, he again claims that strange beings naturally exist between heaven and earth, and that it is not that dead humans become ghosts. If so, one cannot interrogate him with the Odes and Documents or verify it with past events. One can only debate their separation and union within corporeal form and spirit. If corporeal form and spirit are of one essence, with no difference in their existence and extinction, then Master Fan's vigorous stride and metal ramparts would be far beyond reach. If the wondrous spirit and material substance diverge, and their emergence and destruction are distinct, then I will overcome the foe and obtain distinction, and my capable task will be complete. Furthermore, although I clarify that there is a Buddha, my realization of the Buddha is not identical to that of the common world. I concurrently state my original intent, appending it to the left of the treatise.
9.9
Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit (The questions and answers are the words of the host and guest of the original treatise; the objections are what is asked now)
9.10
Question: You say that the spirit is extinguished. How do you know that it is extinguished?
9.11
Answer: The spirit is precisely the corporeal form; the corporeal form is precisely the spirit. Therefore, when the corporeal form exists, the spirit exists; when the corporeal form declines, the spirit is extinguished.
9.12
Question: Corporeal form is the designation for what is insentient. Spirit is the name for what is sentient. Sentience and insentience differ in fact. In principle, spirit and corporeal form do not permit being one. That corporeal form and spirit are identical is something not heard of.
9.13
Answer: Corporeal form is the material substance of the spirit; the spirit is the function of the corporeal form. Thus corporeal form refers to its material substance, and spirit speaks of its function. Corporeal form and spirit cannot differ from each other.
9.14
Objection: Now, if you discuss corporeal form and spirit having a unified essence, there should be proof of their non-separation. Yet you merely state that the spirit is the corporeal form, the corporeal form is the spirit, and that corporeal form and spirit cannot differ from each other. This is debate without evidence, departing from reliable analogy. Relying on dreams, I will now demonstrate that corporeal form and spirit cannot share a single essence. When a person sleeps, their corporeal form is a non-sentient thing, yet experiences are perceived: this is what the wandering spirit encounters. The spirit does not stand alone; it must rely on the vessel of corporeal form, just as a person cannot dwell in the open and must have a house. But the vessel of corporeal form is an impure, dark substance, and the house is an enclosed, obstructive place. When the spirit turns back inside the corporeal form, its consciousness becomes faint and muddled; therefore it takes its perceptions to be dreams. When a person returns inside a house, their spirit is temporarily obstructed; therefore it takes brightness to be obscurity. Indeed, people sometimes dream of soaring into the void or traveling ten thousand li far away. If this is not the journey of the spirit, could it be that the corporeal form went? Since the corporeal form did not go, and if the spirit moreover did not depart, how could such things occur? If you say these are visions generated by thought: when someone is fast asleep, their body is like rigid wood and their breath like cold ash; calling them, they do not hear; stroking them, they do not feel. If you say that the spirit and the corporeal form are equal, then both inside and outside would be weary together. Since [the body] does not receive sounds and sights from without, how could thoughts arise from within? From this, it can be decisively known that the corporeal form is at rest while the spirit gallops. Furthermore, consider all manner of dreams: some contradict the norm with strange encounters (such as Zhao Jianzi dreaming of a boy singing naked, 'Ke Wu ru Zou', or the minor officer of Jin dreaming of carrying the duke up to heaven and carrying the duke out of the latrine); some are impossible according to reason (such as Lü Yi dreaming of shooting the moon and hitting it, or the Queen of Wu dreaming of her intestines coming out and wrapping around the Changmen gate); some foretell what has not yet manifested (such as Lü Jiang dreaming of heaven naming her son Yu, or the people of Cao dreaming of gentlemen scheming to appoint Cao); some borrow analogous figures (such as Cai Mao dreaming of losing grain, signifying 'rank' (zhi), or Wang Jun dreaming of three knives, signifying 'province' (zhou)); some are about things non-existent in reality (such as a northern barbarian dreaming of a boat, or a Yue native dreaming of riding a horse); some are sometimes verified and sometimes not (the Yin ancestor dreaming of obtaining Fu Yue, and Han Emperor Wen dreaming of acquiring Deng Tong were verified; unverified instances are manifold and not recorded in full). These are all subtle transformations of the spirit, unfathomable in the dark and the bright, easily communicated by intuitive grasp but hard to examine by discursive reasoning. If you do not grant that the spirit wanders, and insist on seeking it inside the corporeal form, I fear that while this lumpish [body] conceals the soul within, it is entirely cut off from sights and meetings without. Even if you assist your case with the six types of dreams and supplement it with conditions of mental thoughts, rationally it still cannot be so.
9.15
Question: The spirit is indeed not the material substance, and the corporeal form is indeed not the function. On what basis is it argued that they cannot be different?
9.16
Answer: Their names are distinct, but their essence is one.
9.17
Question: Since their names are already distinct, how can their essence be one?
9.18
Answer: The relation of the spirit to material substance is like that of sharpness to a blade; the relation of corporeal form to function is like that of a blade to sharpness. The name 'sharpness' is not 'blade', and the name 'blade' is not 'sharpness'. Nevertheless, apart from sharpness there is no blade, and apart from a blade there is no sharpness. One has never heard of a blade perishing while its sharpness remains; how could one allow that the corporeal form perishes while the spirit persists?
9.19
Objection: Now, that a blade possesses sharpness is the merit of the whetstone; thus it can sever scaly dragons in the water and cut down rhinos and tigers on land. If its sharpness is exhausted and its utility spent, its tip and edge must be broken and transformed into a blunt blade. When this happens, sharpness is destroyed while the blade remains; this corresponds to the spirit perishing while the corporeal form remains. Why say that apart from sharpness there is no blade, and that though the names are distinct their essence is one? Since blade and sharpness do not perish together, corporeal form and spirit do not die together. Although you draw an analogy from the familiar, it truly contradicts principle.
9.20
Question: Blade and sharpness may perhaps be as your argument says, but for corporeal form and spirit the principle is not so. Why do I say this? The material substance of wood lacks sentience; the material substance of a human has sentience. Since humans have a material substance like wood and also have sentience different from wood, does not wood possess one [of these] while humans possess both?
9.21
Answer: Strange words indeed! If a human had a material substance like wood to serve as corporeal form, and had a sentience different from wood to serve as spirit, then it would be as your argument says. But now, human material substance is a material substance with sentience; wood's material substance is a material substance without sentience. Human material substance is not wood's material substance, and wood's material substance is not human material substance. How could there be a material substance like wood that also possesses a sentience different from wood?
9.22
Question: The reason a human's material substance differs from wood's material substance is simply that it has sentience. If a human lacks sentience, how does he differ from wood?
9.23
Answer: Humans do not have an insentient material substance, just as wood does not have a sentient corporeal form.
9.24
Question: Is not the physical corpse of the dead an insentient material substance?
9.25
Answer: It is an insentient material substance.
9.26
Question: If so, then humans indeed have a material substance like wood, and also have a sentience different from wood.
9.27
Answer: The dead have a material substance like wood, but lack a sentience different from wood. The living have a sentience different from wood, but lack a material substance like wood.
9.28
Question: Are not the bones of the dead the physical body of the living?
9.29
Answer: The living corporeal form is not the dead corporeal form; the dead corporeal form is not the living corporeal form. Their distinctions have already changed. How could the physical body of a living person be the skeletal remains of a dead person?
9.30
Question: If the physical body of the living is not the skeletal remains of the dead, then the skeletal remains of the dead should not originate from the physical body of the living. If they do not originate from the physical body of the living, then whence did these skeletal remains come?
9.31
Answer: The physical body of the living transforms into the skeletal remains of the dead.
9.32
Question: Although the physical body of the living transforms into the skeletal remains of the dead, is it not that because of life there is death? Hence one knows that the dead body is still the living body.
9.33
Answer: Just as because of a flourishing tree it transforms into a withered tree, can the material substance of a withered tree be the essence of a flourishing tree?
9.34
Question: A flourishing body transforms into a withered body, and the withered body is just the flourishing body; just as the body of raw silk transforms into the body of spun thread, and the body of spun thread is just the body of raw silk. What error is there in this?
9.35
Answer: If withered is flourishing and flourishing is withered, then when flourishing it should wither away, and when withered it should bear fruit. Furthermore, a flourishing tree should not transform into a withered tree, because flourishing would already be withered, and what is withered transforms no further. Moreover, if flourishing and withered are one, why not be withered first and flourish later? Why must it flourish first and wither later? Raw silk and spun thread exist at the same time, so they cannot serve as an analogy.
9.36
Question: When the living corporeal form passes away, it should instantly and completely vanish. Why does it instead take on a dead corporeal form that lingers without end?
9.37
Answer: Because the essence of arising and ceasing necessarily has its sequence. What arises suddenly must perish suddenly; what arises gradually must perish gradually. Those that arise suddenly are gusts and torrential downpours; those that arise gradually are animals and plants. Having the sudden and having the gradual is the principle of things.
9.38
Objection: The treatise says that human material substance has sentience and wood's material substance lacks sentience. Is this not because humans recognize cold and warmth, feel pain and itching, live when nurtured, and die when harmed? But wood is also like this: in spring it flourishes, in autumn it withers; planted, it must live, uprooted, it must die. How can you call it insentient? Now human material substance is just like wood: when the spirit remains, the corporeal form stands; when the spirit departs, the corporeal form falls into ruin. Standing is the flourishing tree; falling into ruin is the withered tree. How do you argue that this is not the sentience of the spirit, but instead claim that the material substance has sentience? All of the myriad beings have sentience through the spirit; none have sentience through material substance. It is only that the nature of plants and insects barely perceives flourishing and withering, life and death, whereas the consciousness of living human beings comprehends security and danger, benefit and harm. Why say that humans do not have a material substance like wood to serve as corporeal form, and also have a sentience different from wood to serve as spirit? Thus corporeal form and spirit are two, and their dwelling places can be distinguished. It is simply that wood receives an uneven qi of yin and yang, while humans contain the refined illumination of a singular soul. Their perception may be alike, but their spirits are different. The debate on skeletal remains and physical bodies, and the discussion of the transmission of life and death, have already been determined in principle, and [your claims] are unprecedented in affairs. What is the use of your tortuous arguments?
9.39
Question: If corporeal form is spirit, are the hands and other parts also spirit?
9.40
Answer: They are all parts of the spirit.
9.41
Question: If all are parts of the spirit, the spirit ought to be capable of deliberation, so the hands and other parts should also be capable of deliberation.
9.42
Answer: The hands and other parts have the sentience of pain and itching, but lack deliberation about right and wrong.
9.43
Question: Are sentience and deliberation one or different?
9.44
Answer: Sentience is deliberation. Shallow, it is sentience; deep, it is deliberation.
9.45
Question: If so, there should be two deliberations. Since there are two deliberations, are there two spirits?
9.46
Answer: The human body is only one; how could the spirit be two?
9.47
Question: If it cannot be two, how can there be the sentience of pain and itching and also the deliberation about right and wrong?
9.48
Answer: Just as hands and feet, though different, together constitute one person; so right and wrong, pain and itching, although different, also together constitute one spirit.
9.49
Question: Deliberation about right and wrong does not pertain to the hands and feet; to what does it pertain?
9.50
Answer: Deliberation about right and wrong is governed by the organ of the heart.
9.51
Question: Is the organ of the heart the heart among the five viscera, or not?
9.52
Answer: It is.
9.53
Question: What distinction is there among the five viscera such that the heart alone possesses deliberation about right and wrong?
9.54
Answer: How do the seven apertures differ, yet their assigned functions are not equal?
9.55
Question: Deliberation and thought have no fixed direction; how do you know they are governed by the organ of the heart?
9.56
Answer: When the heart is diseased, thought goes awry; therefore one knows that the heart is the root of deliberation.
9.57
Question: How do you know it is not lodged in the part of the eyes and the like?
9.58
Answer: If deliberation could be lodged in the part of the eyes, why should the eyes not be lodged in the part of the ears?
9.59
Question: The essence of deliberation has no root, therefore it can be lodged in the part of the eyes; the eyes have their own root, so they need not be lodged in another part.
9.60
Answer: Why should the eyes have a root while deliberation has no root? If it had no root in my corporeal form and could be lodged anywhere in a different place, then Zhang A's feelings could be lodged in Wang B's body, and Li C's nature could be entrusted to Zhao D's corporeal form. Is that so? It is not so.
9.61
Objection: The treatise says that corporeal form and spirit are not different, and that the hands and other parts are all parts of the spirit. This implies that the spirit takes the corporeal form as its essence: if the essence is intact, the spirit is intact; if the essence is damaged, the spirit is deficient. What is the spirit? It is consciousness and deliberation. Now, some people have severed hands or feet or mutilated flesh, yet their wisdom and thoughts are not disordered, just as Sun Bin had his kneecaps amputated yet his military strategy grew even brighter, and Lu Fu had his wrists severed yet his Confucian learning only became more serene. This is sharp proof that spirit and corporeal form are separated, and that the corporeal form being harmed does not impair the spirit. The spirit merely employs wisdom to direct things and relies on organs to communicate illumination. Seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting each have what they rely upon, while thought and consciousness return to the organ of the heart. For example, a person has a house: the eastern pavilion welcomes the worthy, the southern veranda invites sunlight, the northern window summons wind, and the western lattice reflects the moon; the master sits upright under the roof's central eaves to gather the utility of these four things. If it were as your argument says, that mouth, nose, ears, and eyes each have a part of the spirit, then if one eye were diseased, the spirit of sight would be destroyed and both eyes should go blind; if one ear were afflicted, the spirit of hearing would be damaged and both ears should become deaf. But in reality this is not so. From this one knows that the spirit takes [the form] as an organ, not as its essence.
9.62
It also says that the heart is the root of deliberation and deliberation cannot be lodged in other parts. If you refer to the mouth, eyes, ears, and nose, this argument holds. But if you refer to another person's mind, it is not so. Although ears and nose share this same body, they cannot be mixed together, because the organs they govern are not the same, and the functions of these organs are each different. Another's mind, although in that corporeal form, can interact [with mine], because their spiritual principles are equally subtle and their consciousness and deliberation are of equal efficacy. Therefore the Book of Documents states: 'Open your heart and moisten my heart.' The Book of Songs says: 'Another person has a mind; I measure it.' Duke Huan of Qi took the strategies of Guan Zhong as his model; the Founding Emperor of Han employed Zhang Liang's plans. These are all cases of taking what is rooted in my corporeal form and lodging it in another's part. Why say that Zhang A's feelings cannot be entrusted to Wang B's body, and Li C's nature cannot be lodged in Zhao D's corporeal form?
9.63
Question: The corporeal form of a sage is like the corporeal form of an ordinary person, yet there is the distinction between ordinary and sage. Therefore one knows that corporeal form and spirit are different.
9.64
[Fan Zhen] replied: This is not so. Pure gold can reflect, but impure gold cannot reflect. Would the pure gold that can reflect ever possess the impure material substance that cannot reflect? Furthermore, how could the spirit of a sage be lodged in the capacity of an ordinary person? Nor is there an ordinary person's spirit lodged in the body of a sage. Therefore, Shun had the features of eight-colored [eyebrows] and double pupils, and the Yellow Emperor and Gaoyao had the appearance of a dragon's face and a horse's mouth. These are the differences in physical exterior. Bi Gan's heart had seven apertures side by side, and Jiang Wei's gall bladder was as large as a fist. These are the distinctions in mental organs. Therefore, the differentiations of sages always transcend ordinary categories. Not only does their Dao transform the multitude of beings, but their corporeal forms also surpass all existent things. That ordinary persons and sages share the same physical essence is something I do not dare accept.
9.65
The questioner asked: You say that the form of a sage must differ from that of an ordinary person. May I ask: Yang Huo resembled Zhongni (Confucius), and Xiang Ji resembled the Emperor Shun. Shun and Xiang, Confucius and Yang, their wisdom differed while their forms were identical. What is the reason for this?
9.66
[Fan Zhen] replied: Min stone resembles jade yet is not jade; the yu bird resembles the phoenix yet is not a phoenix. Things truly have such cases, and it is naturally so with human beings. Xiang [Yu] and Yang [Huo] resembled them in appearance but not in reality; because their mental organs were not equal, their outward appearance was of no benefit.
9.67
The questioner asked: That ordinary persons and sages differ in physical form and capacities may be granted. But sages reach the ultimate perfection; in principle they are non-dual, yet they possess different appearances. Yang and Wen differed in their looks; the spirit is not bound to physical appearance. Here this becomes even clearer.
9.68
[Fan Zhen] replied: Sage and sage are identical; they are identical in their sagely capacities, yet their capacities need not be identical [in appearance]. It is like horses having different coats yet being equally swift, or jades having different colors yet being equally beautiful. Therefore, the jade of Jin's Ji and the jade of Chu's He had equal value worth cities; the Linliu and Daoli horses both could run a thousand li.
9.69
The questioner asked: I have heard that form and spirit are not two; when the form perishes, the spirit is extinguished, which in principle should indeed be so. May I ask: The classic says, 'Ancestral temples were established for them, and they were presented with offerings as ghosts.' What does this mean?
9.70
[Fan Zhen] replied: This is the sage's teaching being so: it is the means by which to accord with the hearts of filial sons and to encourage those of neglectful and shallow disposition. 'Spiritualizing it and making it illustrious'—this is what it means.
9.71
The questioner asked: Boyou appeared clad in armor, and Pengsheng appeared as a boar; the ancient classics record these matters. Could it merely be setting forth a teaching?
9.72
[Fan Zhen] replied: Anomalies and specters are vast and vague; some seem to exist, some do not. In principle, those who die are many, yet they do not all become ghosts. Why would only Pengsheng and Boyou be able to do so? Appearing now as a man, now as a boar—they were not necessarily the scions of Qi and Zheng.
9.73
The questioner asked: The *Book of Changes* states, 'Therefore one knows the conditions of ghosts and spirits, which resemble Heaven and Earth without contradiction.' It also says, 'Carrying a wagon of ghosts.' What do these mean?
9.74
[Fan Zhen] replied: There are birds and there are beasts—this is the distinction between flying and running. There are humans and there are ghosts—this is the distinction between the dark and the bright. But that humans perish to become ghosts, and ghosts perish to become humans—this I do not know.
9.75
[The guest] objected: The treatise says, 'How could the spirit of a sage be lodged in the capacity of an ordinary person? Nor is there an ordinary person's spirit lodged in the body of a sage.' Now Yang Huo resembled Zhongni, and Xiang Ji resembled the Emperor Shun; this is precisely an ordinary person's spirit lodged in the body of a sage. Min stone and jade, the yu bird and the phoenix cannot serve as an analogy. For min stone is of itself called min stone, while jade is truly named jade; the yu is called yu bird, while the phoenix is called the divine phoenix. Their names already differ, and their appearances also fail to match their reality. Now Shun had double pupils, and Xiang Yu also had double pupils; there were not two different names like min and jade, but one only saw their double pupils resembling each other. Furthermore, Nüwa had a serpent's body, and Gaoyao had a horse's mouth; not only did sagely spirits enter into ordinary vessels, but they even came to dwell in the bodies of insects and beasts. This distinct difference between form and spirit, their difference in illumination and darkness, becomes all the more evident here! If form and spirit were one, and in principle cut off from past causes, then a sage should give birth to a sage, and a worthy must produce a worthy; the brave, the cowardly, the foolish, and the wise would all resemble their origin, being shaped by form and spirit and nurtured by the single qi. Then one could not have the sagacious Yao and the obstinate Danzhu, or the blind and stubborn Gu Sou and the sagely Shun. The treatise also says: 'Sages are identical in sagely qi, yet their vessels need not be identical, just as horses differ in coat yet are equally swift.' Now is the coat itself the vessel of swiftness? When horses share the same coat color yet differ in being nags or thoroughbreds, it shows that the coat is not a sign of swiftness, just as the body is not a sagely vessel. The human corporeal frame has no distinction of ordinary or sage, but has differences in durability and fragility; thus an enduring spirit resides in an enduring substance, while a fleeting spirit stays in a transient body. It is merely this and nothing more. What was meant earlier by 'the body of a sage' directly referred to the physical forms of Confucius and Shun, not that their capacities possessed sagely wisdom. This is not a contradictory argument; do not approach this confusion.
9.76
The questioner asked: What practical benefit is there in knowing this extinction of the spirit?
9.77
[Fan Zhen] replied: Buddhism harms government, and śramaṇas corrupt customs; like rising winds and spreading mists, their agitation never rests. I lament their abuses and wish to rescue those who are drowning. Now, what is the reason that people exhaust their wealth to give to monks and ruin their estates to rush after the Buddha, yet do not care for their relatives or pity the destitute? It truly stems from a deep self-interest and a shallow concern to aid living beings. Thus, when an infinitesimal amount touches an impoverished friend, stinginess appears in one's expression; but when thousands of bushels are cast before wealthy monks, joy and delight spread across one's face and hair. Is this not because monks promise an abundant harvest, while friends offer no return for leftover sheaves? Their pursuit of charity is not about relieving urgency; their establishment of merit must be for themselves. Deluded by murky sayings, they are frightened by the torments of Avīci; enticed by vacuous words, they rejoice in the bliss of Tuṣita. Therefore, they abandon scholar's robes and put on monk's robes; they discard sacrificial vessels and line up bowls and alms-jars. House after house abandons its loved ones; person after person terminates their lineage. This results in armies being depleted in the ranks, administrative offices standing empty of officials, grain being exhausted by idle wanderers, and goods being drained on earth and timber. The reason why treacherous villains are emboldened and praise is given to the powerful is solely due to this! This current does not cease; this disease is boundless. If one understands that fashioning and molding are endowed by nature, and that the myriad things are equally produced by spontaneous transformation—suddenly existing of themselves, indistinctly becoming nothing; not hindered when coming, not pursued when going—then riding upon the Heavenly Principle, each will rest content in its nature: commoners will take pleasure in their fields, and gentlemen will preserve their quiet simplicity. Plowing to eat, the food can never be exhausted; raising silkworms to weave, the clothing can never be used up. Those below have surplus to serve their superiors; those above practice non-action to govern their inferiors. One can preserve life, nourish parents, cultivate oneself, and help others; one can rectify the state and establish a hegemon-monarch through this Dao!
9.78
[The guest] objected: The existence or non-existence of the Buddha rests on whether the spiritual principle endures or perishes. Since there are past arguments on this, I shall speak briefly for now. Today, I specifically point out its harms and benefits, and discuss its advantages and disadvantages, in order to rectify your excessive words, sir. You say: 'The Buddhists corrupt customs, damage moral transformation, waste wealth, and diminish labor.' If certain people do this, it is not the fault of the Buddha. The Buddha's establishment of the teaching was fundamentally based on cherishing life, detesting killing, cultivating goodness, and prioritizing charity. Cherishing life does not simply mean desiring the proliferation of birds and beasts, but taking the human spirit as paramount. Detesting killing—how could it mean pardoning fugitives without distinction? It means judging and investigating with compassion. Cultivating goodness does not necessarily require gazing at the sixteen-foot form, but considers loyalty and trustworthiness supreme. Prioritizing charity does not casually cause the exhaustion of wealth on earth and timber, but considers relieving emergencies as excellence. If lineages are terminated, then the Dharma-seed will surely not be transmitted; if everyone builds Buddhist monasteries, there will also be no land for cultivation. Even ordinary people still know this, so how could our Maitreya take pleasure in such things? Nowadays, stubborn śramaṇas and confused secular people do not give coarse clothes to those who are cold, nor grant bran and beans to those who are hungry; instead, they compete to gather ignorant monks and vie to construct numerous Buddhas. Relatives are abandoned and ignored; ancestral offerings are neglected and uncultivated. Fine silks are shredded upon banners, and red gold is tied down beneath stupas, calling this a field of merit and anticipating retributive karma. These people have not deeply comprehended the Buddha nor understood the subtlety of the Dharma. Although they call the Buddha 'Buddha', how could they know the true intent of taking refuge in the Buddha? Though they designate monks as 'monks', how could they comprehend the purpose of relying on the Saṅgha? In these cases, the spirit will not bestow blessings; I do not approve of them either. Now, the methods of the Six Schools each have their degenerations: Confucianism erred in being eccentric, Mohism erred in being narrow-minded, Legalism erred in being harsh, and the School of Names erred in deceit. All of this was caused by later exponents losing the transmission and falling into delusion. Today, you do not execute Confucius and Mo Di for eccentricity and narrow-mindedness, nor hold Han Fei and Deng Xi accountable for harshness and deceit, but exclusively condemn our Tathāgata and disparage this Right Awakening. This is like being enraged at wind and waves and destroying the boat and oars! Nowadays, rebellious persons and worthless scoundrels deceive sovereign and parents above and betray their peers below; some do not fear manifest laws, yet suddenly fear the dark tribunals; dreading the fierceness of Yama and fearing the cruelty of Ox-Head, they then repent their defilements and evil, and transform themselves toward goodness. This is its benefit! Furthermore, the principle of sin and merit should not differ from worldly teachings nor run contrary to human nature. If there is one who serves his sovereign with loyalty, attends to his parents with pure filial piety, and acts with trust toward friends—if such a person, because of a single flaw, had his virtue obscured, was spurned, and merely because of harming an insect or fish were plunged into hell, this would certainly not be so. In loyalty, none surpassed Yi Yin; in filial piety, none was greater than Zeng Can. Lord Yi slaughtered an animal to feed Tang; Master Zeng cooked a bird to nourish Dian. If both were equally driven to boiling cauldrons and jointly pushed onto trees of blades, then great merit would be drowned by minor faults, and serving superiors would conflict with bestowing kindness on subordinates. In the past, when Mizi hijacked a carriage, he was still pardoned from execution because of broad righteousness. Alas, could one say that the Spiritual Master is inferior to the Lord of Wei? Therefore, one knows that this is a prevention against cruel men, not an admonition for benevolent men. If you can observe that the transgressions of those wayward people do not lie with the Buddha, discern that these fortunes and misfortunes are instructional expedients, resolve to extinguish the branches to honor the root without uprooting the root to exhaust the branches, and contemplate forgetting the self to propagate the Dharma rather than subordinating the Dharma to benefit the self—then though he may be called 'not a Buddha', I will surely call him a Buddha!
9.79
*Refutation of Secretariat Fan's Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit*, by Cao Siwen. / First refutation of the extinction of the spirit (together with memorial and imperial decree with response).
9.80
Fan's first reply. / Second refutation of the extinction of the spirit (again with memorial and imperial decree with response).
9.81
*Refutation of Secretariat Fan's Treatise on the Extinction of the Spirit*
9.82
Cao Siwen
9.83
The treatise says: The spirit is the form; the form is the spirit. Therefore, when the form exists, the spirit exists; when the form perishes, the spirit is extinguished.
9.84
[Cao Siwen] objected: The form is not identical to the spirit; the spirit is not identical to the form. They combine to produce function, but combining is not being identical. In life, they combine to produce function; in death, the form remains while the spirit departs. How do we know this? In ancient times, Zhao Jianzi was ill for five days and did not recognize people; Duke Mu of Qin awakened only after seven days. In both cases, their spirits roamed in the realm of the Lord on High, and the Lord bestowed upon them the vast music of the Jun Heaven. Was this not their forms remaining while their spirits roamed? If, as your treatise states, the spirit is extinguished when the form is extinguished, then form and spirit should inevitably accompany each other like form and shadow. However, when the form was ill, the spirit should also have been ill; why was the form unaware of people while the spirit alone roamed with the Lord on High, rejoicing in the vast music of the Jun Heaven? When one sleeps, the soul interacts [with dreams]; thus [Zhuangzi's] spirit roamed as a butterfly—this is the form and the spirit separating. When he awoke, the form opened up, and abruptly he was Zhou—this is the form and the spirit uniting. The spirit and the form have separation and union: when united, they form a single body; when separated, the form dies and the spirit departs. Therefore, when Yanling lost his son, he said, 'The flesh and bones return to the earth, but the soul and qi go everywhere.' This means that the form stops while the spirit does not stop. Thus the clear evidence of the classics and histories is brilliant and manifest! Being like this, how could it be that when the form stops, the spirit is extinguished?
9.85
The treatise says: The questioner said, 'The classic says: Ancestral temples were established for them, and they were presented with offerings as ghosts.' The explanation states: 'Ghosts do not exist; this is merely the teaching of the sages being so, as a means to convey the hearts of filial sons and to encourage those of neglectful and shallow disposition.'
9.86
The challenger says: What your treatise says at present are all statements of personal opinion, and are not the sage's intent. Please allow me to cite canonical records to prove the teaching of the sages. The Classic of Filial Piety says: 'Formerly, the Duke of Zhou performed the suburban sacrifice to Houji to correlate with Heaven, and performed the ancestral sacrifice to King Wen in the Hall of Light to correlate with the Lord on High.' If corporeal form and spirit are both extinguished, who would correlate with Heaven? Who would correlate with the Lord? Moreover, regarding 'having no ministers yet acting as if one had them,' Xuanni said: 'Can Heaven be deceived?' Now Ji has no spirit, yet he correlated Ji [with Heaven]—was Zhou Dan deceiving Heaven? If indeed there were no Ji, and he correlated him with Heaven in vain, then that would be deceiving Heaven, and furthermore deceiving people. This would mean the teaching of the sage is to teach deception and falsehood. If he established teachings through deception and falsehood, how would that express the heart of a filial son or encourage frivolous and petty minds? In tracing the treatise's purport, it takes the nonexistence of ghosts as its doctrine. Let me question it again: Confucius sacrificed vegetable broth and water-plant chestnuts to his ancestors. The Rites say: 'Music welcomes their arrival; grief accompanies their departure.' Since the spirit does not exist, what is there to welcome? Since the spirit does not exist, what is there to escort away? To welcome their arrival with music would be to feign joy on Kong's face; to escort them away in grief would be to shed empty tears from Qiu's body. In that case, the Master's sacrificial rites would be duplicity filling his mind and falsehood filling the ancestral hall. Could the teachings of the sages be like this? Why then do you say: 'Such is the teaching of the sages'?
First 86 of 113 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 弘明集 — 僧祐, Classical Chinese