鐔津文集 13.45

13.45

評曰。唐高僧神清。不喜禪者。自尊其宗。乃著書而抑之曰。其傳法賢聖間以聲聞。如迦葉等。雖曰回心。尚為小智。豈能傳佛心印乎。即引付法藏傳曰。昔商那和修告優波毱多曰。佛之三昧辟支不知。辟支三昧聲聞不知。諸大聲聞三昧餘聲聞不知。阿難三昧我今不知。我今三昧汝亦不知。如是三昧皆隨吾滅。又有七萬七千本生經。一萬阿毘曇。八萬清淨毘尼。亦隨我滅。固哉清也。徒肆己所愛惡而不知大謬先聖。吾始視清書。見其校論三昧。雖文詞不佳。蓋以其善記經書不別理義端由而不即非之。及考其禪宗之說。問難凡數番。輒採流俗所尚。及援書傳。復不得其詳。余初謂此非至論。固不足注意。徐思其所謂迦葉等。豈能傳佛心印。尤為狂言。恐其熒惑世俗。以增後生末學之相訾。不已。乃與正之。非好辯也。大凡萬事理為其本而迹為末也。通其本者故多得之。束其末者故多失之。若傳法者數十聖賢雖示同聲聞而豈宜以聲聞盡之哉。經曰。我今所有無上正法等悉以付囑摩訶迦葉。竟大般涅槃。傳曰。我今所有大慈大悲四禪三昧無量功德而自莊嚴。而迦葉比丘亦復如是。又謂毱多為無垢相好。佛又謂僧伽難提。乃過去娑羅王如來降跡為祖。如此之類甚眾。豈非聖人欲扶其法互相尊敬而示為大小耶。楞伽所謂三種阿羅漢者。一曰得決定寂滅聲聞阿羅漢。一曰增修菩薩行阿羅漢。一曰應化佛所化阿羅漢。此阿羅漢以本願善根方便力故。現諸佛土生大眾中。莊嚴諸佛大會。故若大迦葉傳法數十聖賢者。豈非應化佛所化之阿羅漢者也。然佛所化者宜其所有四禪三昧無量功德與如來不異也。不異乎如來而傳佛心印。孰謂其不然乎。若商那和修曰。阿難三昧而我不知。我今三昧汝亦不知。斯恐其有所抑揚耳。未可謂其必然。經曰。入遠行地已得無量三昧。夫入遠行地者。蓋七地菩薩也。七地菩薩尚能得無量三昧。而化佛豈盡不能也。然佛之所傳心印與餘三昧者。宜異日而道哉。夫心印者。蓋大聖人種智之妙本也。餘三昧者。乃妙本所發之智慧也。皆以三昧而稱之耳。心印即經之謂三昧王之三昧者也。如來所傳乃此三昧也。清以謂餘三昧邪。其所謂七萬七千本生經。一萬阿毘曇。八萬清淨毘尼。亦隨我滅。此余未始見於他書。獨付法藏傳云。爾尚或疑之。假令其書不謬。恐非謂其傳法聖賢不能任持而然也。是必以後世群生機緣福力益弱而不勝其教。以故滅之。方正像末法三者之存滅。亦隨世而法污隆焉。曷嘗為其弘法聖賢而致正末邪。嗚呼學者不求經不窮理。動謬聖人之意為其說。雖能編連萬世事。亦何益乎。書曰。記問之學不足為人師。清之謂也歟。

Critical evaluation: The eminent Tang monk Shenqing disliked Chan practitioners. Exalting his own school, he authored a work disparaging them, saying: 'The sages who transmitted the Dharma included Śrāvakas among them. Figures such as Kāśyapa, even though they are said to have converted their minds [to the Mahāyāna], still possessed only lesser wisdom. How could they transmit the Buddha's mind-seal?' He then cited the Account of the Transmission of the Dharmapiṭaka, which states: 'Formerly, Śāṇakavāsa told Upagupta: "The samādhis of the Buddha are unknown to Pratyekabuddhas; the samādhis of Pratyekabuddhas are unknown to Śrāvakas; the samādhis of the great Śrāvakas are unknown to ordinary Śrāvakas. I do not understand Ānanda's samādhi now, and you do not understand my samādhi now. Such samādhis will all perish with me. Furthermore, seventy-seven thousand Jātaka sūtras, ten thousand Abhidharmas, and eighty thousand pure Vinayas will also perish with me."' How narrow-minded was Qing! He merely gave free rein to his personal preferences and aversions, without realizing that he committed a grave error against the ancient sages. When I first looked at Qing's book, I saw his comparative discussions of samādhi. Although his phrasing and rhetoric were unpolished, because he was good at memorizing sūtras and treatises without distinguishing the fundamentals of principle and meaning, I did not immediately refute him. But when I examined his discourse on the Chan school—raising objections over several rounds—he continually gathered the fashions of the vulgar world, and when he cited writings and chronicles, he failed to grasp their details. At first, I considered that this was not a consummate argument and certainly unworthy of attention. Yet upon reflecting slowly on his claim that Kāśyapa and the others could not transmit the Buddha's mind-seal, it was especially wild speech. Fearing that it would bewilder the world and fuel unending mutual slander among younger and lesser students, I thereupon corrected it. It was not out of a love for debating. In general, regarding the ten thousand things, principle is the root, while traces are the branches. Those who penetrate the root attain much; those who are bound to the branches lose much. As for the several dozen sages and worthies who transmitted the Dharma, although they manifested similarities to Śrāvakas, how could it be right to limit them completely as Śrāvakas? A sūtra says: 'I now entrust all of the unsurpassed true Dharma and the like that I possess to Mahākāśyapa,' and then entered the Mahāparinirvāṇa. The chronicle says: 'All the great loving-kindness, great compassion, the four dhyānas, samādhis, and immeasurable merits that I now possess adorn myself, and so too is it for the monk Kāśyapa.' Moreover, it says that Upagupta was unblemished in his marks and signs. The Buddha also said that Saṃghanandi was a manifestation of the past Tathāgata King Sāla descending as a patriarch. Such instances are exceedingly numerous. Is it not that the sages, wishing to uphold their teachings, showed mutual respect while manifesting distinctions of great and small? What the Laṅkāvatāra calls the three kinds of arhats are: first, the Śrāvaka-arhat who has attained definitive extinction; second, the arhat who progressively cultivates the bodhisattva practices; third, the arhat transformed by an apparitional Buddha. Such arhats, by the power of their fundamental vows, good roots, and skillful means, appear in various Buddha lands and are born amidst the great assemblies to adorn the grand convocations of all Buddhas. Thus, for Mahākāśyapa and the several dozen sages and worthies who transmitted the Dharma, are they not arhats transformed by apparitional Buddhas? Furthermore, as transformations of Buddhas, it is fitting that their four dhyānas, samādhis, and immeasurable merits are no different from those of the Tathāgata. Not being different from the Tathāgata, when they transmit the Buddha's mind-seal, who could say that it is otherwise? As for Śāṇakavāsa's statement, 'I do not understand Ānanda's samādhi, and you do not understand my samādhi now,' this was probably an expression of modesty and praise; it cannot be taken as absolute. A sūtra says that upon entering the Far-Reaching Ground, one attains immeasurable samādhis. Now, one who enters the Far-Reaching Ground is a bodhisattva of the seventh stage. If a bodhisattva of the seventh stage can still attain immeasurable samādhis, could a transformed Buddha be entirely unable to do so? However, the mind-seal transmitted by the Buddha and the other samādhis should be discussed as different things. The mind-seal is the wondrous root of the Great Sage's omniscient wisdom. The other samādhis are the wisdoms arising from that wondrous root. Both are simply called 'samādhis.' The mind-seal is what the sūtras call the samādhi of the king of samādhis. What the Tathāgata transmitted is precisely this samādhi. Did Qing take it to be the other samādhis? As for his statement that 'seventy-seven thousand Jātaka sūtras, ten thousand Abhidharmas, and eighty thousand pure Vinayas will also perish with me,' I have never seen this in other texts; only the Account of the Transmission of the Dharmapiṭaka states it, and even this might be doubted. Even assuming that the book is not mistaken, I fear it does not mean that the sages and worthies transmitting the Dharma were unable to preserve and maintain them. It must be because the capacities, conditions, and meritorious power of future sentient beings would grow weaker and unable to bear such teachings, and therefore they perished. Just as the existence and extinction of the True, Semblance, and Final Dharma periods wax and wane along with the defilement and flourishing of the world, how could the True and Final Dharma periods ever be caused by the sages and worthies propagating the Dharma? Alas! Scholars who do not study the sūtras and do not fathom principle rashly distort the intent of the sages in making their arguments. Even if they can compile the affairs of ten thousand generations, what benefit is there? The Book of Rites says: 'Learning based merely on memorizing and asking questions is not enough to make one a teacher.' Does this not refer to someone like Qing?