傳法正宗論卷上
Orthodox Discourse on the Transmission of the Dharma, Volume 1
宋藤州東山沙門釋契嵩著
Written by Shi Qisong, a monk from Dongshan in Tengzhou, Song Dynasty
第一篇
Chapter 1
隋唐來。達磨之宗大勸。而義學者疑之。頗執付法藏傳。以相發難。謂傳所列但二十四世。至師子祖而已矣。以達磨所承者非正出於師子尊者。其所謂二十八祖者。蓋後之人曲說。禪者或引寶林傳證之。然寶林亦禪者之書。而難家益不取。如此呶呶。雖累世無以驗正。吾嘗病之。因探二傳。竊欲質其是非。及觀所謂付法藏傳者。蓋作於後魏出乎真君毀佛之後。梵僧吉迦夜所譯。視其各傳品目而祖代若有次第。及考其文。則師資授受。與其所出國土姓氏。殊無本末其稍詳者。乃其旋採於三藏諸部。非其素爾也。大凡欲為書序人世數前後。必以其祖禰父子親相承襲為之効。又其人姓族州土。與其事之所以然。皆不失端倪。使後世取信。乃謂之史傳。今其書則謂之傳。其事則不詳。若其序彌遮迦多佛陀難提比羅長老。至于婆修槃陀。摩拏羅。鶴勒那。夜奢。與師子羅漢者七祖師。皆無其師弟子親相付受之義。而佛陀難提鶴勒那與師子三祖。最闕前傳。既不見所授。而後之傳但曰次付次有復有某比丘云云。付受果不分明詳備。又何足為之傳而示信於後世耶。其傳師子比丘。謂罽賓國王邪見。因以利劍斬之。頭中無血。唯乳流出。相付法人於此便絕。吾謂此說大不然也。嘗試評之。如其為迦葉傳曰。佛垂滅度告大迦葉云。我將涅槃。以此深法用囑累汝。汝當於後敬順我意。廣宣流布無令斷絕。然則後世者。既承佛而為之祖。可令其法絕乎。又掬多傳謂。其意欲涅槃。特以提多迦未誕。待其生付法方化。其傳迦那提婆謂。以法勝外道。遂為外道弟子所害。提婆乃忍死。說其夙報。以法付羅睺羅方絕。今師子既如掬多提婆為之祖。豈獨便死而不顧法耶。夫承如來作出世之大祖。非聖人不可預焉。今師子預之。是必聖人也。安有聖人而不知死於夙報。知其死又奚肯不預命。而正傳其法使之相襲為後世之師祖邪。縱其傳法相承之緣止此聖人。亦當預知以告其絕。苟不知其死而失傳失告。又何足列於祖而傳之乎。與之作傳。固宜思之。假令梵本素爾。自可疑之。當留其闕以待來者。烏得信筆遽為是說起後世諍端以屈先聖。可不懼乎傳燈錄曰。昔唐河南尹李常者。嘗得三祖璨師舍利。一日飯沙門落之。因問西域三藏僧犍那曰。天竺禪門祖師幾何。犍那曰。自大迦葉至乎般若多羅。凡有二十七祖。若敘師子尊者傍出。達磨達之四世自二十二人。總有四十九祖。若自七佛至此璨大師。不括橫枝。凡三十七世。常復問席間耆德曰。余嘗視祖圖。或引五十餘祖。至于支派差殊宗族不定。或但空有其名者。此何以驗之。適有六祖弟子號智本禪師者。對曰。此因後魏毀教。其時有僧曇曜。於倉黃中單錄乎諸祖名目。持之亡於山野會文成帝復教。前後更三十年。當孝文帝之世。曇曜遂進為僧統。乃出其所錄。諸沙門因之為書。命曰付法藏傳(付法藏傳。亦云。曇曜所撰)其所差逸不備。蓋自曇曜逃難已來。而致然也。以吾前之所指其無本末者。驗今智本之說。誠類採拾殘墜所成之書。又其品目曰。某付某果。所謂單錄。非其元全本者也。若寶林傳者。雖其文字鄙俗序致煩亂不類學者著書。然其事有本末。世數名氏亦有所以。雖欲竊取之及原其所由。或指世書。則時所無有。或指釋部。又非藏經目錄所存。雖有稍合藏中之云者。亦非他宗之為。余常疑其無證。不敢輒論。會於南屏藏中適得古書號出三藏記者。凡十有五卷。乃梁高僧僧祐之所為也。其篇曰薩婆多部相承傳目錄記。祐自序其端云。唯薩婆多部。偏行於齊土。蓋源起天竺流化罽賓。前聖後賢重明疊耀。自大迦葉至乎達磨多羅。凡歷二卷。總百餘名。從而推之。有曰婆羅多羅者。與乎二十五祖。婆舍斯多之別名同也(其義見於本傳)有曰弗若蜜多者。與乎二十六祖。不如蜜多同其名也。有曰不若多羅者。與乎二十七祖。般若多羅同其名也。有曰達磨多羅者。與乎二十八祖。菩提達磨法俗合名同也(其義見於本傳)其他祖同者。若曰掬多堀。或上字同而下異。或下字異而上同。或本名反而別名合者。如商那和脩。曰舍那婆斯之類是也。此蓋前後所譯梵僧。其方言各異而然也。唯婆舍而下四祖師其同之尤詳。其第一卷目錄所列。凡五十三人。而此四祖最相聯屬。而達磨處其末。此似示其最後世之付受者也。其所列員數之多者。蓋祐公前後所得諸家之目錄。不較其同異。一皆書之。雜以阿難師子尊者所傍出諸徒。故其繁也如祐序曰。先傳同異。並錄以廣聞。後賢未絕。製傳以補闕。然其大略與寶林傳傳燈錄同也。若祐公者。以德高當時。推為律師。學而有識。而人至于今稱之。然其人長于齊而老于梁。所聞必詳。今其為書亦可信矣。以之驗師子比丘雖死。而其法果有所傳。婆舍而下四祖其相承不謬。不亦大明乎。傳燈所載誠有據也。嗚呼祐之書。存于大藏周天下。其幾百年也。而未始得其所發。將古人之不見乎。而至人之德其晦明亦有數耶。然吾考始譯斯事者。前傳皆曰。初由中天竺國沙門號支疆梁樓。甞往罽賓國。於其國之象白山。會達磨達比丘。其人老壽出於常數。乃師子祖傍出之徒。支疆因以師子之後其法興衰問之。達磨達曰。如來之法傳大迦葉。以至吾師子大師。然吾師知自必遇害。未死預以法正付我同學南天竺沙門婆舍斯多。亦名婆羅多那(寶林傳云。北天竺則呼為婆羅多羅。與三藏記並同。此云多那。蓋譯有楚夏耳)復授衣為信。即遣之。其國其人方大為佛事于彼。支疆曰。然我識其人也。支疆遂以前魏陳留王曹奐之世至于洛邑。初館白馬寺。時魏室方危。奐憂之。數從問其興亡。支疆皆以隱語答之。因會沙門曇諦康僧鎧輩。譯出眾經及諸祖付受事跡。傳于中國。以此驗知。中國先有祖事。非權輿於付法藏傳耳。然支疆譯出其事。至乎拓跋燾誅沙門。歷百九十餘年矣。而支疆之說固已傳于世也。吾料其百九十餘年之間。必復有傳其事而東來者。祖數益添。已不止於二十五年矣。但不辯其傳來何人耳(吾近以禪經驗。當時添祖數必矣)蓋吉迦夜曇曜。當其毀教之後。資舊本先為其書雜眾經。以其國勢揚之。其時縱有私傳其事者。固不如曇曜所發之顯著也。後之人不能尋其所以。徒見其不存於藏中。即謂曲說。又後世天下數更治亂。雖復得之者。或南北相絕。或歲月益遠。其書既素無題目。或譯人之名亦亡。以之為書者。復文詞鄙俚飾說過當。故令學者愈不信之。又云。有罽賓沙門那連耶舍者以東魏孝靜之世至鄴。而專務翻譯。及高氏更魏稱齊。乃益翻眾經。初與處士萬天懿譯出尊勝菩薩無量門陀羅尼經。因謂天懿曰。西土二十七祖亦尊此經。復指達磨其所承於般若多羅。謂此土繼其後者法當大傳。乃以讖記之。復出已譯祖事。與天懿正之。而楊衒之名系集亦云。耶舍嘗會此東僧曇啟者于西天竺。共譯祖事為漢文。譯成而耶舍先持之東來。然與支疆之所譯者。未嘗異也。夫自七佛至乎二十五祖婆舍斯多者。其出於支疆之所譯也。益至乎二十七祖與二十八祖達磨多羅。西域傳授之事迹者。蓋出於耶舍之所譯也。推寶林傳燈二書。至於曇曜其始單錄之者。其本皆承述於支疆耶舍二家之說也。但後世人人筆削異耳。曰支疆何以得如此之詳耶。曰支疆中天竺人也。其去師子尊者之世至近。而相見婆舍斯多。又得與達磨達論之。故其所知備也。若出三藏記者。蓋別得其傳於齊梁之間耳。僧祐曰。薩婆多部源起於天竺。而流化於罽賓。罽賓國者。蓋師子祖所化之地。亦其遇害于此。祐之言詳也。又曰。此部偏行於齊土者。祐齊人也。是必西人先達磨東來。而傳之於齊。祐於其國遂得之為書。但亡其譯人之名耳。不然則祐何從而傳耶。苟謂震旦禪者為之。而祐之時何嘗稍有達磨之徒耶。又何出乎薩婆多部。而律者書之乎。大凡辯事。必以理推必以迹驗。而然後議其當否。反是雖有神明如蓍龜。將如之何。昔神清譏禪者。迺曰。達磨聞其二弟子被秦人擯之廬山。乃自來梁。梁既不信。以望氣遂之于魏因引師子尊者死時當此齊世。而達磨遣二弟子適屬乎晉。遂以其年代相違而折之。夫師子之死也。乃當前魏廢帝齊王之世(以甲歷計之。當在丁卯。寶林傳誤云己卯)齊王者。亦魏王曹芳所封之號也。清輒以為後之南齊(注清之書亦曰南齊)其所謂被擯於秦人者。蓋佛馱跋陀也。跋陀誠達磨法門之猶子也。謂聞其被擯遂自來梁。夫祖師所來。乃順大因緣以傳佛心印。豈獨以二弟子被擯而至耶。此言非理。清安可輒取以資其相非。然斯不足裁也。若清曰。但祖師之門天下歸仁焉。禪德自高。寧俟傳法然後始為宗教者歟。清之言苟簡也。昔如來將化。謂大迦葉曰。吾以正法眼付囑於汝。汝宜傳之勿使斷絕。然則大聖人欲其以正法相承。自我為萬世之宗。以正眾證。以別異道。非小事也。今曰寧俟傳法以為宗教。豈吾徒之謂乎。而必執付法藏傳。以辯二十八祖者。謂後世之曲說。又不能曉達磨多羅是其法俗合名。以謂非今菩提達磨者。何其未之思也。夫讀書不能辯其道之真偽。究其事之本末。曷異乎市人鬻書。雖更萬卷何益其所知。清自謂能著書發明而學也。如是之不詳。豈謂高識乎。若寶林傳。其所載諸祖之傳受相承名氏異同。與其所出之國土者。大體與他書同。果是也。吾有取焉。但其枝細他緣張皇過當。或煩重事理相反。或錯誤差舛。殆不可按。是必所承西僧。泛傳不審而傳(去聲)之者不能裁之。吾適略而不取也。亦禪者朴略。學識不臻。乃輒文之迂疎倒錯。累乎先聖真迹不盡信於世。其雖欲張之。而反更弛之。夫著書以垂法於無窮。固亦聖賢之盛事也。安可妄為後世之徒好欲自名。竊取古人之物。而競為其說。如此者何限。吾常為之太息。雖不能高文慷慨。皆欲剗眾煩雜使大聖人之道廓然也。適以禪律諸家之書。探其事實。修而正之。其理不當而其言冗偽者。則削之。其舊雖見而不甚備者。則採其所遺以廣之。斷自釋迦如來至此第六祖大鑑禪師。總三十四聖者。如來則為之表。次聖則為之傳。及大鑑之後法既廣傳。則為分家略傳諸祖。或橫出其徒者。則為旁出傳。其人有論議。正宗得其實者。則為之宗證傳。與其前後所著之論。凡四十餘篇。并其祖圖。勒為十二卷。命曰傳法正宗記。
From the Sui and Tang dynasties onward, the lineage of Bodhidharma flourished greatly, yet scholars of doctrine doubted it. Many clung to the *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission* to raise objections, claiming that the lineage listed therein only numbered twenty-four generations, ending with the Venerable Simha. They argued that Bodhidharma's inheritance did not truly come from the Venerable Simha, and that the so-called twenty-eight patriarchs were later fabrications by Chan practitioners. Some Chan followers cited the *Baolin Zhuan* as evidence, but since the *Baolin Zhuan* was also a Chan text, critics dismissed it all the more. Such endless disputes, persisting for generations, lacked any means of verification. I have long been troubled by this.
Therefore, I examined both texts, seeking to clarify their truth and falsehood. Upon reviewing the *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission*, I found it was compiled during the Northern Wei dynasty, after Emperor Taiwu's persecution of Buddhism, and translated by the Indian monk Guṇabhadra. Looking at its chapter headings, the patriarchal generations seem to follow a sequence. However, examining the text itself reveals that the accounts of master-disciple transmissions, along with the countries and surnames involved, lack any coherent origin or development. The slightly more detailed sections appear to have been hastily compiled from various Tripitaka texts, not from an established tradition.
Generally, when composing a book that chronicles a lineage through generations, one must base it on the verifiable succession from father to son, ancestor to descendant. The clans, regions, and the reasons behind events must all be traceable, allowing later generations to trust it—this is what constitutes a historical biography. The current work calls itself a "biography," yet its accounts are not detailed. For instance, the entries for the seven patriarchs from Micchaka, Buddhanandi, Pīṭhala, up to Vasubandhu, Manorhita, Haklenayaśas, and the Arhat Simha lack any clear meaning of direct master-disciple transmission. The accounts of Buddhanandi, Haklenayaśas, and Simha are particularly deficient. Their predecessors are not clearly identified, and subsequent transmissions merely state, "next it was transmitted to," or "then there was a certain bhikṣu," and so on. If the transmissions are neither clear nor complete, how can they serve as a credible biography for later generations?
The biography of the bhikṣu Simha states that the king of Kapiśa, holding wrong views, beheaded him with a sharp sword, but no blood flowed from his neck—only milk. With this, the transmission of the Dharma was cut off. I believe this account is greatly mistaken. Let me analyze it: The biography of Mahākāśyapa says that as the Buddha was nearing parinirvāṇa, he told Mahākāśyapa, "I am about to enter nirvāṇa. I entrust this profound Dharma to you. After my passing, respectfully uphold my intention, widely proclaim and spread it, and do not let it be cut off." If later generations inherit the Buddha's Dharma and become patriarchs, how could they allow the Dharma to be severed? Again, the biography of Upagupta says he intended to enter nirvāṇa but waited for the birth of Dhītika to transmit the Dharma before passing away. The biography of Āryadeva says that after defeating non-Buddhists in debate, he was killed by a disciple of a non-Buddhist. Āryadeva endured his death, explained his past karma, transmitted the Dharma to Rāhulata, and only then passed away. Since Simha, like Upagupta and Āryadeva, was a patriarch, how could he simply die without regard for the Dharma? One who inherits the Tathāgata's work and becomes a great patriarch in the world must be a sage; no ordinary person could presume to such a role. Since Simha assumed this role, he must have been a sage. How could a sage not know he would die due to past karma? And if he knew, why would he not make arrangements beforehand to properly transmit the Dharma, ensuring its continuation for future generations as master and patriarch? Even if the karmic conditions for transmitting the Dharma ended with him, as a sage, he should have known and declared it. If he did not know of his death and thus failed to transmit or declare it, how could he be listed among the patriarchs and have a biography? Those who composed his biography should have considered this. Even if the Sanskrit original was like this, it should be viewed with suspicion, leaving the gap for later generations to fill. How could they casually write such an account, creating disputes for later times and wronging the ancient sages? Should we not be cautious?
The *Chuandeng Lu* records: In the past, during the Tang dynasty, Li Chang, the Governor of Henan, once obtained relics of the Third Patriarch, Sengcan. One day, while hosting a meal for monks, he asked the Indian Tripitaka master Jianna: "How many patriarchs are there in the Indian Chan school?" Jianna replied: "From Mahākāśyapa to Prajñātāra, there are twenty-seven patriarchs. If we include the collateral lineages from the Venerable Simha and the four generations from Dharmatrāta, there are twenty-two, making a total of forty-nine patriarchs. Counting from the Seven Buddhas to Patriarch Sengcan here, excluding collateral branches, there are thirty-seven generations in total." Li Chang further asked the senior virtuous ones present: "I have seen lineage charts that sometimes list over fifty patriarchs, with discrepancies in branches and uncertainty in lineages, or even names with no substance. How can this be verified?" It happened that a disciple of the Sixth Patriarch, the Chan master Zhi Ben, was present and replied: "This is because during the persecution of Buddhism in the Northern Wei, a monk named Tan Yao, in the midst of chaos, hastily recorded only the names of the patriarchs and fled with them into the mountains. When Emperor Wencheng restored Buddhism, about thirty years had passed, during the reign of Emperor Xiaowen. Tan Yao then advanced to become *Saṅgha* Overseer and produced his records. Monks subsequently compiled them into a book titled *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission* (The *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission* is also said to have been compiled by Tan Yao). The discrepancies and omissions likely arose from Tan Yao's flight during the persecution." Based on my earlier observation of its lack of coherence, verifying it against Zhi Ben's account, it indeed resembles a book pieced together from scattered remnants. Moreover, its chapter headings, stating "so-and-so transmitted to so-and-so," seem to be mere lists, not the complete original text.
As for the *Baolin Zhuan*, although its language is crude and its narrative disorderly, unlike a work by a true scholar, its accounts have a beginning and end, and the generations, names, and reasons are provided. Although I wanted to adopt it, tracing its sources revealed references to secular books that did not exist at the time, or to Buddhist texts not found in the canonical catalogs. Even where it somewhat matches existing canon, it does not belong to other schools. I have often doubted its lack of evidence and dared not discuss it lightly. Later, in the Nanping canon, I happened upon an ancient text titled *A Record of the Translation of the Tripitaka*, in fifteen volumes, compiled by the eminent monk Sengyou of the Liang dynasty. One chapter is called "A Record of the Transmission Lineage of the Sarvāstivāda School." In his preface, Sengyou states: "Only the Sarvāstivāda school spread widely in the land of Qi. It originated in India and flourished in Kapiśa, with sages and worthies shining forth in succession." From Mahākāśyapa to Dharmatrāta, it spans two volumes, listing over a hundred names. Examining it, we find: "Bharatara" matches the alternate name of the Twenty-fifth Patriarch, Basiasita (See the meaning in his biography); "Punyamitra" matches the name of the Twenty-sixth Patriarch, Punyamitra; "Prajñātāra" matches the name of the Twenty-seventh Patriarch, Prajñātāra; "Dharmatrāta" matches the combined monastic and secular name of the Twenty-eighth Patriarch, Bodhidharma (See the meaning in his biography). Other patriarchs with matching names include: "Kṣudra" (or similar), where the first character matches but the second differs, or the second differs but the first matches, or the original name is reversed but the alternate matches—such as "Śāṇavāsin" matching "Śāṇavāsin," etc. This is likely due to differences in dialect among the Indian monks who translated the texts at different times. Particularly detailed are the matches for the four patriarchs from Basiasita onward. The first volume's catalog lists fifty-three individuals, with these four patriarchs closely linked, and Dharmatrāta at the end, seemingly indicating the final transmission. The large number of names is probably because Sengyou compiled various lineage lists he obtained, without reconciling differences, and included all, mixing in collateral disciples from Ānanda and the Venerable Simha, hence the complexity. As Sengyou's preface states: "Earlier accounts, whether similar or different, are recorded to broaden knowledge; later worthies, not yet extinct, compose biographies to fill gaps." However, its general outline aligns with the *Baolin Zhuan* and *Chuandeng Lu*. Sengyou, highly virtuous in his time, was esteemed as a Vinaya master, learned and discerning, and is still praised today. He lived through the Qi and Liang dynasties, so his information must be detailed. His work can thus be trusted. Using it to verify, even though the bhikṣu Simha died, the Dharma was indeed transmitted; the four patriarchs from Basiasita onward inherited it without error—is this not clearly evident? The *Chuandeng Lu*'s records are indeed well-founded.
Alas! Sengyou's work has been preserved in the canon for centuries, yet its significance remained undiscovered. Were the ancients unaware of it? Does the virtue of the supreme ones have its own timing for obscurity and clarity? However, my investigation into the initial translation of these matters reveals that earlier accounts state: Initially, the Indian monk Zhi Jianglianglou traveled to Kapiśa and met the bhikṣu Dharmatrāta on Mount Xiangbai. Dharmatrāta was exceptionally long-lived, a collateral disciple of Patriarch Simha. Zhi Jiang asked about the flourishing and decline of the Dharma after Simha. Dharmatrāta replied: "The Tathāgata's Dharma was transmitted from Mahākāśyapa to my master, the great master Simha. However, my master knew he would be harmed and, before his death, properly transmitted the Dharma to my fellow student, the South Indian monk Basiasita, also known as Bharatara (The *Baolin Zhuan* says in North India he was called Bharatara, matching the *Record of the Tripitaka*. Here it is 'Bharatara,' likely a dialect variation in translation). He also gave him the robe as a token and sent him away. That person is now greatly propagating the Buddha's teachings there." Zhi Jiang said: "Then I know that person." Zhi Jiang then came to Luoyang during the reign of Cao Huan, Prince of Chenliu of the Wei dynasty, initially staying at Baima Temple. At that time, the Wei court was in crisis, and Cao Huan, concerned, repeatedly asked about its rise and fall. Zhi Jiang answered with cryptic language. He met monks like Tan Di and Kang Senghui, translating various sutras and the accounts of patriarchal transmissions, spreading them in China. This verifies that China had knowledge of patriarchal matters before the *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission*.
However, Zhi Jiang translated these accounts, and by the time Tuoba Tao persecuted Buddhism, over 190 years had passed. Zhi Jiang's account had already spread. I surmise that during those 190 years, there must have been others who transmitted these matters eastward, adding to the patriarchal count, already exceeding twenty-five. However, it is unclear who brought them (I recently verified through Chan texts that the patriarchal count was indeed increased at that time). Likely, Guṇabhadra and Tan Yao, after the persecution, based their work on old texts, compiling them with other sutras and promoting them through state power. Even if there were private transmissions at the time, they could not match the prominence of Tan Yao's publication. Later generations, unable to trace the origins, seeing they were not in the canon, dismissed them as fabrications. Moreover, subsequent periods of turmoil meant that even if such texts were found, they might be separated by north-south divisions or lost over time. Since these texts lacked titles and sometimes even the translators' names, and those who compiled them used crude language and exaggerated claims, scholars increasingly distrusted them.
It is also said: The Kapiśa monk Narendrayaśas arrived in Ye during the Eastern Wei under Emperor Xiaojing, focusing on translation. When the Gao family replaced Wei with Qi, he translated more sutras. Initially, with the lay scholar Wan Tianyi, he translated the *Sutra of the Unfailing Dhāraṇī of the Honored Victorious Bodhisattva*, telling Tianyi: "The twenty-seventh patriarch in the West also revered this sutra." He also pointed out that Bodhidharma inherited from Prajñātāra, saying his successors in this land would greatly propagate the Dharma, leaving prophetic records. He also produced his translated patriarchal accounts for Tianyi to correct. Yang Xuanzhi's *Records of Monasteries* also states that Yaśas met the eastern monk Tan Qi in India, jointly translating patriarchal accounts into Chinese. After translation, Yaśas brought them east first. However, they did not differ from Zhi Jiang's translations.
Thus, from the Seven Buddhas to the Twenty-fifth Patriarch Basiasita, the accounts stem from Zhi Jiang's translation. As for the Twenty-seventh and Twenty-eighth Patriarchs, Dharmatrāta, and the transmission events in the Western Regions, they likely come from Yaśas' translation. Examining the *Baolin Zhuan* and *Chuandeng Lu*, and Tan Yao's initial lists, their sources ultimately derive from the accounts of Zhi Jiang and Yaśas, though later generations edited them differently.
Why did Zhi Jiang have such detailed knowledge? Zhi Jiang was from Central India, close in time to the Venerable Simha, met Basiasita, and discussed with Dharmatrāta, so his knowledge was comprehensive. The *Record of the Tripitaka* likely obtained its transmission separately during the Qi and Liang periods. Sengyou said: "The Sarvāstivāda school originated in India and flourished in Kapiśa." Kapiśa was where Patriarch Simha taught and died—Sengyou's words are detailed. He also said: "This school spread widely in the land of Qi." Sengyou was from Qi, so Westerners must have come east before Bodhidharma and transmitted it in Qi; Sengyou then obtained it and compiled it into a book, though the translator's name was lost. Otherwise, how could Sengyou have transmitted it? If one claims Chan practitioners in China fabricated it, in Sengyou's time, there were hardly any followers of Bodhidharma. How could it emerge from the Sarvāstivāda school and be recorded by Vinaya masters?
In general, when debating matters, one must reason logically and verify with evidence before judging right or wrong. Otherwise, even with divination like turtle shells and stalks, what can be done? In the past, Shen Qing criticized Chan practitioners, saying: "Bodhidharma heard that his two disciples were rejected by people of Qin on Mount Lu, so he came to Liang. When Liang did not believe him, observing the energy, he went to Wei." He cited that the Venerable Simha died during the Southern Qi, while Bodhidharma sent his two disciples during the Jin, thus arguing a chronological conflict. However, Simha's death occurred during the reign of Cao Fang, Prince of Qi of the Wei dynasty (Calculating by the calendar, it should be in the year *dingmao*. The *Baolin Zhuan* mistakenly says *jimao*). Prince Qi was a title granted by Cao Fang of Wei. Shen Qing mistakenly thought it referred to the later Southern Qi (His annotation also says Southern Qi). The so-called "rejected by people of Qin" refers to Buddhabhadra. Buddhabhadra was indeed a Dharma nephew of Bodhidharma's lineage. To say Bodhidharma came to Liang because he heard of their rejection—the patriarch's coming was due to great karmic conditions to transmit the Buddha's mind-seal; how could it be merely because two disciples were rejected? This argument is unreasonable; how could Shen Qing use it to support his criticism? However, this is not worth considering.
Shen Qing also said: "In the patriarch's school, all under heaven turn to benevolence. The virtue of Chan is inherently lofty; must it await transmission of the Dharma to become a teaching?" Shen Qing's words are careless. When the Tathāgata was about to pass away, he told Mahākāśyapa: "I entrust the True Dharma Eye to you. You must transmit it and not let it be cut off." Thus, the great sage intended the proper Dharma to be inherited, making himself the ancestor for ten thousand generations, to rectify the assembly and distinguish it from other paths—this is no small matter. To say "must it await transmission of the Dharma to become a teaching"—is this what we followers mean? To insist on the *Biographies of the Dharma Transmission* to debate the twenty-eight patriarchs, calling later accounts fabrications, and not understanding that Dharmatrāta is a combined monastic and secular name, thus claiming it is not the present Bodhidharma—how thoughtless! If one reads books but cannot discern the truth or falsity of the Way, nor investigate the origins and development of events, how is one different from a market bookseller? Even reading ten thousand volumes, what benefit is there to one's knowledge? Shen Qing claimed to write books to elucidate and learn, yet his understanding is so incomplete—can this be called profound insight?
As for the *Baolin Zhuan*, its accounts of patriarchal transmissions, names, and countries largely match other books. Where it is correct, I adopt it. However, its trivial details, excessive elaboration, contradictions, or errors make it unreliable. This must be due to inheriting from Indian monks who transmitted vaguely, and the compilers being unable to edit properly. I thus omit such parts. Also, Chan practitioners, being simple and lacking scholarly refinement, often wrote in a convoluted, error-prone manner, causing the true traces of the ancient sages not to be fully trusted by the world. Though intending to promote, they instead undermined. Writing books to transmit the Dharma eternally is a noble endeavor of sages and worthies. How can later generations recklessly seek fame, appropriating ancient matters and competing with theories? Such cases are countless. I often sigh over this. Though unable to write with lofty elegance, I wish to cut through the clutter, making the Way of the great sages clear.
Thus, based on Chan, Vinaya, and other texts, I have examined the facts, revised and corrected them. Where the reasoning is flawed and the language verbose or false, I have cut it. Where the old accounts exist but are incomplete, I have supplemented them with missing details. Starting from Śākyamuni Tathāgata to the Sixth Patriarch, the Great Mirror Chan Master, I have compiled thirty-four sages. For the Tathāgata, I provide a chronology; for subsequent sages, biographies. After the Great Mirror, as the Dharma spread widely, I give brief biographies of patriarchs by branch, including collateral lineages. For those with discussions that verify the orthodox tradition, I provide testimonial biographies. Together with earlier and later treatises, over forty chapters, and lineage charts,