Brief Record of the Five Patriarchs of the Dharmadhatu School (法界宗五祖略記) · Introduction to Brief Records of the Fifth Patriarch of the Dharmadhatu School (No. 1530-A 法界宗五祖略記引) · Thus have I heard - Illuminating Buddhist Wisdom with AI

庚申夏。予在七佛閣。繙藏經并閱僧史。一日詢華嚴五祖於慈雲百亭法師。及聞其說。竊有疑焉。因而請編五祖行實。未至旬。法師輯為略記一卷。覈之。始覺僧史乖舛也。明矣。且如三祖賢首大師。傳謂登封丙申。詔師講新經。感口光震地。勅十德為師受戒。今按新經。乃證聖乙未年方譯。聖歷己亥年始畢。豈未譯而先講耶。況三祖咸亨庚午歲削染。承旨便講。至登封丙申。越二十七年。祖年五十四歲。道滿天下。方與受戒。恐無是理。乃至以還源觀。訛為杜順和尚作。觀國師壽止七十。審如是。則史鑑記載之謬。甚彰灼矣。後又究略記所本。曰。初二祖出會玄。三祖詳崔傳。四五祖載諸䟽。披驗之。毫無差忒也。葢佛以心法傳於諸祖。諸祖以心法弘於法界。盡未來際。化化不絕。其道蹟可無徵乎。無徵。人不信矣。又何從而倣傚之。豈不有忝於佛祖也哉。今而後。知扶植佛教者。全在於諸祖。學習祖道者。全在於典章。則此一記。非小補矣。遂命刻以公諸所好。俾見聞隨喜者。慎勿以此為贅語而忽之也。

In the summer of the year Gengshen, I was at the Seven Buddhas Pavilion, studying the Buddhist canon and reading historical records of the monastic tradition. One day, I inquired about the five patriarchs of the Huayan School from Dharma Master Bai Ting of Ciyun. After hearing his explanation, I still had doubts. So I asked him to compile biographies of the five patriarchs. Within ten days, the Master had compiled a brief record in one volume. Upon verification, I realized that the monastic histories contained clear errors.

For example, the biography of the Third Patriarch, Master Xianshou, states that during the Bing Shen year of the Deng Feng era, an imperial decree ordered the Master to lecture on the newly translated sutra. It is said that light emanated from his mouth and shook the earth, and the Emperor commanded ten virtuous masters to ordain him. But according to the new sutra's translation history, the translation began in the Yi Wei year of the Zheng Sheng era and was completed in the Ji Hai year of the Sheng Li era. How could the Master have lectured on a sutra that had not yet been translated? Moreover, the Third Patriarch had become a monk in the Geng Wu year of the Xian Heng era. If he received an imperial order to lecture immediately after ordination, then by the Bing Shen year of the Deng Feng era—twenty-seven years later—he would have been fifty-four years old and renowned throughout the land. Would it still have been necessary to ordain him under such circumstances? That seems highly unlikely.

Furthermore, the treatise *Returning to the Source* was mistakenly attributed to Master Du Shun. The National Master is recorded as having lived only seventy years. If that is true, then the errors in both historical records and chronicles are glaringly obvious.

Later, I examined the sources used for the brief record. It stated that the first two patriarchs' information came from the *Compilation of the Profound*, the third patriarch's details from Cui’s biography, and the fourth and fifth patriarchs' accounts were drawn from various commentaries. Upon verification, these sources were completely accurate, without any discrepancy.

The Buddha transmitted the mind-dharma to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs propagated that mind-dharma throughout the Dharma realm. This lineage continues endlessly, transformation after transformation, throughout the future. Can we do without evidence of their deeds and teachings? Without evidence, people would not believe, and how then could they emulate them? Would that not be a disservice to the Buddhas and patriarchs?

From now on, we should understand that the support of the Buddhist teachings relies entirely on the patriarchs, and learning the patriarchs' path depends entirely on their recorded teachings. Therefore, this brief record is no small contribution. I have arranged for it to be printed and shared with those interested. May those who see or hear it and rejoice in it, regard it not as superfluous words, and never take it lightly.