呵謬解第三
Chapter 3: Misunderstanding
念佛三昧名三昧王。境界甚深卒難究竟。古今師授互有不同。至於天台其說大備。慈恩賢首各引其長。企仰禪宗亦極明顯。但後學淺陋莫得指歸。尚未升堂。焉能入室。尋門未得。異見多途。遂將禪宗六祖大師壇經說淨土處。暗地搏量隨語生解。便謂本無淨土。不必求生。而不知我大師非但所說隨機。實乃義符經旨。縱隨其語但言淨土不必生。亦不說無淨土。淨土既有。生理昭然。何故初機執指為月。若依大師所云。迷人念佛求生於彼。悟人自淨其心。又云。東方人但心淨即無罪。雖西方人。心不淨亦有愆。東方人造罪念佛求生西方。西方人造罪念佛求生何國。凡愚不了。不識身中淨土。願東願西。悟人在處一般。又言淨土遠近但隨眾生善根不同。而佛土焉有遠近之異。是謂不必求生也。然要眾生永斷十惡八邪。具修十善八正。又令妙識心地性王不離此身。但迷悟有異。若悟則能行慈悲喜捨。能淨平直等善。即是觀音勢至釋迦彌陀。若迷則分別人我。邪心虛妄塵勞之殊。即是須彌海水之境。龍鬼地獄之黨。今詳大師旨意。但能心淨則隨處皆淨。實與維摩會上佛。足按地變穢為淨。其諸大眾各各自見坐寶蓮華。義實無二。則經所謂隨其心淨即佛土淨。其說明矣。大師之辯豈不稱可佛心深符經旨。但聖人說法遮表不同。其有位未至於此者。不可引彼遮詮而自誑也。況一大藏教或說遮詮一切皆非。何必求生。或說表詮。一切皆是。必當求生。此二法說同出佛口。義無有殊。豈可偏執遮詮之說。頓棄表詮求生之義耶。若果直謂於土不必捨穢取淨而但淨其心者。則大師亦當謂人但淨心而已。不必令人斷諸惡業而修善行也。今既令人斷惡行善。則必於土捨穢取淨。其義益明。故佛說遮詮之時。正欲顯於表詮令求生。說表詮時。正是依於遮詮知無生。故知曹溪令人因心先淨則報境自淨。不令求生遮詮也。盧山令人佛報境淨則因心自淨。教必求生表詮也。然佛祖說法因果不二。非前非後。二義未甞相離。雖使人所入不同。而法體本一。奈何今人纔聞遮詮之說謂是。便謂表詮之談為非。自生退障。良可憫傷。不知大師作此遮詮不必求生之說。正是顯於表詮令求生淨土故也。又如釋尊一代聖教諸部歷談。無非一味。而於顯說法中。定多讚顯說。於密說義中。必特稱密說。各宗當部而置別談。然佛豈無別談妙於此者。蓋欲應機使眾會受持。得以一志無猶豫也今像季中扶宗樹教。豈無抑揚之時。六祖既欲弘一行三昧。理宜杜絕諸乘。盧山特欲闡念佛三昧。使之橫超直截。正當圓攝群機。後學豈可妄生二見。宜詳審之。又謂東方西方之人心淨無罪不淨有愆者。正謂東方惡境麁強。佛已滅度。不能心淨。如俗在家。火宅萬煎。縱修亦失。譬如小石入水即沈。故必求生西方。彌陀聖眾現在。境勝行深。逃子既回。佛親誨益。如出家在寺。善緣具足決不退轉故。生彼國心淨無愆。如彼大石乘船入水不沈故也。又東方西方理本一體。彼佛國土非但境勝。其佛現在能除愆罪。心必清淨聖地可階。故必遠勝娑婆。須求生也。若是根勝如曹溪會中者。尚能入生死大海。尋聲救苦教化眾生。何必求生。其或道力未充。妄効先覺。自不求生。教人亦不求生。譬如救溺。無船彼此俱溺。可奈何哉。又我大師實弘禪宗之六祖。所說豈非闡揚少室之禪。乃云心平何勞持戒。行直何用修禪。若依此語。則謂不必持戒修禪矣。而不知心若平則我待物無不乎。物我既乎。豈可殺他自養。盜彼自利。分男女相而行非行。語不真實。而更飲酒使醒醉異時。心平既無此犯戒之相。則一切戒皆在其中。豈可全不持戒與劫殺人等而云心平。是知作此心平何勞持戒之語。正是顯於大戒也。禪字乃是梵語。此翻靜慮。或翻正定。或翻一行三昧。豈有行直之人其心慮而不靜。其住定而不正。其行有不一者。是知何用修禪之語。正是顯於深禪也。大師行超天人之表。道隆像季之間。恐後學著法泥跡。於戒體中。說何勞持戒之語。於禪境中。說何用修禪之言。例此則知。亦於必當求生淨土法中。而說不必求生之語也。後學猶轉泥跡。謂實不必求生。愚之甚也。蓋大師所說反勸也。諸祖所談順讚也。非順則無以啟進修之路。非反則不顯圓頓之修。反勸順讚。悉應當時之機。無有實法。如云逢佛殺佛。豈真殺佛乎。若殺佛之語是實。則文殊仗劍。亦是真殺佛乎。苟隨古人之語。不求古人之心。謂實不必求生者。正所謂醍醐上味為世所珍。遇斯等人翻成毒藥矣。是故大師稱彼三諦圓妙之理。於有生中說無生。於無證中說修證。二邊叵得。中道不存。合教乘圓頓法門。坦然明白。如揭日月於昏衢。無不蒙照。而謂禪宗於念佛三昧淨土旨趣有所未盡。可乎。若夫河西綽公。長安善導。信源禪師。智覺慈覺。豈非繼其後者。皆能遠稟遺音。力弘斯道。道珍。懷玉。行業厥彰。圓照諸師其驗益著。況今禪林為病僧念誦。及荼毘十念稱佛名號。俾其往生事載典章。餘風尚在。更奚惑焉。
The Buddha Remembrance Samadhi is called the King of Samadhis. Its depth is profound and difficult to fully comprehend. Throughout history, teachers have passed down different interpretations. Among them, Tiantai's teachings are the most comprehensive, while Cien and Xianshou each drew on their strengths. The Zen school's emphasis is also exceedingly clear. However, later students, with their shallow understanding, fail to find the right direction. Not yet having entered the hall, how could they reach the inner chamber? Unable to find the gate, they create many divergent views. They take the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, the great master of the Zen school, where it discusses the Pure Land, and secretly measure it with their own minds, interpreting the words literally. They then claim that there is fundamentally no Pure Land and that there is no need to seek rebirth there. They fail to realize that our great master not only taught according to the capacities of his listeners, but his words truly accord with the sutras' intent. Even if he said one need not seek rebirth in the Pure Land, he never said there is no Pure Land. Since the Pure Land exists, the principle of seeking rebirth is clear. Why then do beginners grasp at the finger pointing at the moon and mistake it for the moon itself?
According to the master's teaching: "Deluded people chant the Buddha's name and seek rebirth in the Pure Land, while awakened people purify their own minds." He also said, "If people in the East purify their minds, they are without offense. Even if people in the West have impure minds, they have transgressions. If people in the East commit offenses and chant the Buddha's name to seek rebirth in the West, where would people in the West who commit offenses seek rebirth?" Unenlightened and foolish people, not understanding this, fail to recognize the Pure Land within their own bodies, and so they yearn for the East or the West. For awakened people, anywhere is the same. He also said that the nearness or distance of the Pure Land depends on the different roots of goodness in sentient beings; how could the Buddha land itself be near or far? This is what is meant by saying one need not seek rebirth. However, he also required sentient beings to forever cut off the ten evils and eight deviations, and to cultivate the ten goodnesses and eight right practices. He also taught them to wondrously realize that the king of the nature—the mind—does not depart from this very body. The only difference is between delusion and awakening. If awakened, one can practice kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, and can purify uprightness and impartiality—these are Guanyin, Shizhi, Shakyamuni, and Amitabha. If deluded, one discriminates between self and other, giving rise to deviant thoughts, illusory mental defilements—this is the realm of Mount Sumeru and the great sea, the company of dragons, ghosts, and hell-beings.
Now, examining the master's essential meaning: if one's mind is pure, then everywhere is pure. This truly accords with the Vimalakirti Sutra, where the Buddha pressed the ground with his foot, transforming filth into purity, and the great assembly each saw themselves sitting on precious lotus blossoms. The meaning is fundamentally the same. This is what the sutra means by: "When the mind is pure, the Buddha land is pure." The teaching is clear. Does not the master's argument accord with the Buddha's mind and deeply correspond to the sutras' intent?
However, when sages teach the Dharma, they use both negating and affirming expressions. For those whose attainment has not yet reached this level, they must not use the negating expressions to deceive themselves. Moreover, throughout the entire Buddhist canon, sometimes negating expressions are used, saying all is not so, why seek rebirth? Sometimes affirming expressions are used, saying all is so, one must seek rebirth. These two types of teachings both come from the Buddha's mouth, and their meaning is not contradictory. How can one cling one-sidedly to the negating expressions and suddenly discard the affirming meaning of seeking rebirth?
If one truly says there is no need to abandon the impure and seek the pure land, but only purify the mind, then the master would also have said that people only need to purify their minds, and there would be no need to tell them to cut off evil deeds and cultivate good practices. But since he did tell people to cut off evil and practice good, then one must, with respect to the land, abandon the impure and seek the pure. This meaning is even clearer.
Therefore, when the Buddha spoke in negating terms, he precisely intended to reveal the affirming teaching, to encourage seeking rebirth. When he spoke in affirming terms, he was precisely relying on the negating teaching, to show that there is no birth. Thus, we know that Caoxi [the Sixth Patriarch] taught people to first purify their minds, and then the retribution environment would naturally be pure; this is the negating teaching, not encouraging seeking rebirth. Lushan [Master Huiyuan] taught that when the Buddha's retribution environment is pure, then the causal mind is naturally pure; this teaching necessarily encourages seeking rebirth, the affirming teaching.
However, the Buddhas and Patriarchs teach that cause and effect are not two, neither before nor after. These two meanings have never been separate. Although people enter through different gates, the Dharma substance is originally one. Why is it that people today, upon hearing a negating teaching, immediately consider it correct, and then declare the affirming teaching wrong? They create their own obstacles and regressions. This is truly pitiful.
They do not understand that the master's negating statement about not needing to seek rebirth was precisely meant to reveal the affirming teaching that one should seek rebirth in the Pure Land. It is like the Buddha's single lifetime of teachings: all the various discourses in the different schools are but one single flavor. Yet, in the exoteric teachings, he often praised exoteric teachings; in the esoteric teachings, he would specifically praise esoteric teachings. Each school focuses on its own text and sets aside other discussions. But did the Buddha not have other discourses superior to these? It is because he wanted to respond to capacities, enabling the assemblies to receive and uphold the teachings, and to focus with single-minded resolve without hesitation.
Now, in this degenerate age, those who uphold the schools and establish the teachings must have times of praise and blame. Since the Sixth Patriarch wished to propagate the Single Practice Samadhi, it was fitting for him to exclude the other vehicles. Since Lushan specifically wanted to elucidate the Buddha Remembrance Samadhi, enabling direct and swift transcendence, it was proper for him to comprehensively embrace all types of beings. How can later students arbitrarily create dual views? They should examine this carefully.
As for his statement that people in the East and West with pure minds have no offense, and with impure minds have transgressions: this precisely means that the evil environment of the East is coarse and powerful. The Buddha has already entered parinirvana. People cannot purify their minds. Like lay people at home, burning in the burning house, even if they cultivate, they still fail. This is like a small stone that sinks immediately when placed in water. Therefore, one must seek rebirth in the West. There, Amitabha Buddha and the holy assembly are presently present. The environment is superior, the practice profound. When the prodigal son returns, the Buddha personally teaches and benefits him. This is like a monk in a monastery, with all wholesome conditions complete, who will never regress. Thus, born in that land, one's mind is pure and without transgression, like a great stone that, placed on a ship, does not sink in water.
Furthermore, the East and West are fundamentally one in principle. That Buddha land is not only superior in environment, but the Buddha is presently there and can remove transgressions. The mind will surely become pure, and the holy ground can be attained. Therefore, it is certainly far superior to the Saha world, and one must seek rebirth there. For those with superior capacities, like those in the Caoxi assembly, they can still enter the great sea of birth and death, seek out sounds and rescue those in suffering, and teach and transform sentient beings. Why should they seek rebirth? But if one's spiritual power is not yet sufficient, and one foolishly imitates the enlightened ones, not seeking rebirth oneself and teaching others not to seek rebirth, this is like trying to rescue someone drowning without a boat—both rescuer and rescued will drown together. What can be done?
Moreover, our great master is truly the Sixth Patriarch of the Zen school. Is what he taught not the elucidation of the Shaoshi [Bodhidharma's] Zen? He said, "If the mind is level, why bother with precepts? If conduct is upright, what need for meditation?" If one takes these words literally, one would say there is no need to observe precepts or practice meditation. But one fails to realize that if the mind is level, then my treatment of all things is level. If self and things are level, how could one kill others to sustain oneself, steal from others for one's own benefit, discriminate between men and women and commit immoral acts, speak untruthfully, or drink alcohol and become intoxicated? If the mind is level, without these characteristics of violating precepts, then all precepts are contained within. How could one completely ignore the precepts, become like murderers and robbers, and still claim the mind is level? Thus, we know that the statement "If the mind is level, why bother with precepts" is precisely revealing the great precepts.
The word "Chan" is Sanskrit, translated as "calm reflection," or "right concentration," or "Single Practice Samadhi." How could a person of upright conduct have a mind that is not calm in reflection, a concentration that is not right, or a practice that is not single? Thus, we know the statement "What need for meditation?" precisely reveals profound meditation.
The master's practice transcended the realm of gods and humans, and his virtue flourished in this degenerate age. Fearing that later students would become attached to the Dharma and cling to literal traces, he spoke of "why bother with precepts" within the context of the precepts, and "what need for meditation" within the context of meditation. By the same principle, we know that within the Dharma of necessarily seeking rebirth in the Pure Land, he also spoke of "no need to seek rebirth." Later students, however, continue to cling to the literal traces and claim that one truly need not seek rebirth. This is utter foolishness.
The master's words were a form of reverse encouragement. The Patriarchs' words were straightforward praise. Without the straightforward, there would be no way to open the path of advancement. Without the reverse, the perfect and sudden practice would not be revealed. Both reverse encouragement and straightforward praise respond to the capacities of the time; there is no fixed, ultimate Dharma. It is like saying, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha." Does this truly mean killing the Buddha? If the words about killing the Buddha were literal, then Manjushri raising his sword would also truly be killing the Buddha. If one follows the ancient words without seeking the ancient mind, and claims one truly need not seek rebirth, this is exactly what is meant by: "The finest flavor of ghee, treasured by the world, turns into poison when it meets such people."
Therefore, the master, expressing the wondrous principle of the Threefold Truth, spoke of no-birth within birth, and of cultivation and realization within non-attainment. Both extremes are ungraspable, and the Middle Way does not abide. This accords with the perfect and sudden Dharma gate of the teachings, clear and illuminating, like raising the sun and moon in a dark street, so that all are illuminated. How could one say that the Zen school has not fully expressed the meaning of the Buddha Remembrance Samadhi and the Pure Land?
What about the great masters of the West River, like Master Zhuo of the West River, Master Shandao of Chang'an, Master Xinyuan, Master Zhijue, and Master Cijue—were they not successors to this tradition? They all could inherit the remaining sound of this teaching from afar and vigorously promote this path. Daozhen and Huaiyu's practices were illustrious. The masters of the Yuanzhao school and others, their verification became even more evident. Moreover, in the Zen forests of today, when monks are ill, they recite the Buddha's name, and at cremation, the Ten Recitations are performed, calling upon the Buddha's name to ensure rebirth. This is recorded in the regulations and documents. This remaining custom is still present. How could there be any further doubt?