鐔津文集 13.47

13.47

評曰。唐續高僧傳謂。可遭賊斷臂。與余書云。曷其異乎。曰余考法琳碑曰。師乃立雪數宵。斷臂碎身營求開示（亦曰投地碎身顧其開示）然為僧傳者與琳同時。琳之說與禪書合而宣反之。豈非采聽之未至乎。抑亦從邪說而妄非之乎。故其書不足為評（亦云不可憑。亦云不在詳評。然各有旨也）。

Critical evaluation: The Tang Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks states that Ke was attacked by bandits and had his arm severed. How does this differ from what my book says? I reply: I examined Falin's stele inscription, which states: 'The Master stood in the snow for several nights, severing his arm and bruising his body to seek instruction.' (It also says: 'throwing his body to the ground and bruising it, looking for his instruction.') The author of the Biographies of Eminent Monks was contemporary with Falin. Falin's account agrees with the Chan texts, whereas Daoxuan's contradicts it. Is it not that his investigation was incomplete? Or did he follow perverse theories and recklessly deem it wrong? Therefore, his book is insufficient to rely on. (It is also said to be untrustworthy, and also said not to warrant detailed evaluation; each statement has its own purport.)