會異同
Comparing Differences
此經與餘經，有名同義同而意別者，首楞嚴三昧經是也。有名別而義意俱同者，圓覺經是也。有名別義同而意別者，法華經是也。有名別義意俱同不可連類者，涅槃經是也。又有文同義意不同相懸若霄壤者，莊子是也。盖首楞嚴三昧經同以徤相分別為義，彼但為深位菩薩出假入中而說，故佛告堅意菩薩：首楞三昧非初地等菩薩之所能得，唯有十地乃能得之。乃具列百種三昧，惟初脩治心猶如虗空，二觀察現在眾生諸心初心可脩，若第三分別眾生諸根利鈍，第四決定了知眾生因果，去至第一百入大滅度而不永滅，皆初心絕分，非名同義同而意別乎？若圓覺之為經，名雖不同，而圓覺即圓通同詮一理，奢摩他等三名同詮一行，但所談名相出沒不同、廣略有異，蓋非熟楞嚴無以脩圓覺，非熟圓覺無以脩楞嚴，學者當以二經相參而看可也。法華與此經義同意別者，佛之知見也。蓋一代時教統為法華佛知見而設，獨楞嚴一經明佛知見最親，而謂之意別者，法華雖曰諸佛如來為大事因緣開示悟入佛之知見，經文初未甞見一言道及此義，此在意而不□義故也。曷為意？佛之本懷也。曷為本懷？佛之知見也。盖佛之出世本為此事，其柰眾生機器未堪，故不得已，於一實相，作十界隔歷說，於一佛乘，作五乘差別說。雖示九界，而意不在九，人不知此意，而各保證所見不同，縱令菩薩得見實報莊嚴之相，謂之不暢本懷可也。雖云五乘，而意不在五，人不知此意，而各各保證所入不同，縱令眾生成菩薩道，謂之不暢本懷可也。或大隔於小(華嚴)，或大所不用(阿含)，或聞大而證小(方等般若)，或聞小而證大(阿含)，或互相知(不定)，互不相知(秘密)，俱非佛意，謂之不暢本懷可也。假使餘經有文義富於法華，而不談佛意，亦謂之不暢本懷可也。盖佛意要在同一座席，共一道味，以一味雨潤於人華，所謂無小無大，同歸法界，人人成佛而後已。分明暢言，欲令眾生開示悟入，佛之知見，不在茲乎？故楞嚴與法華，義同而意別，涅槃與此經，義意俱同，而不可連類者，此經所談常住真心，與四種律儀同，涅槃扶律談常，然有文通義通，收通歸別之例，具如下文教相章中說，謂之不可連類。此經與莊子名同者，如二卷出指非指，四卷何藉劬勞肯綮脩證？盖房相筆授此經時，用此方文字潤色，其實文同而義意不同。盖此經樹可指，而見不可指，指皆是見，而無樹者，指皆是樹，而無是見者，由其在迷，不能雙泯乎是非，故有可指非指之辨。若由是真精玅覺明性，則是非雙泯，指與非指俱忘，故能出指非指。彼齊物論言：世間是非，皆從彼此上生。聖人不由照之於天，亦因是也。是亦彼也，彼亦是也。彼亦一是非，此亦一是非。果且有彼是乎哉？果且無彼是乎哉？彼是莫得其偶，謂之道樞。樞始得其環中，以應無窮。是亦一無窮，非亦一無窮也。故曰：莫若以明。然後發明所以因是之故，而曰：以指喻指之非指，不若以非指喻指之非指。以馬喻馬之非馬，不若以非馬喻馬之非馬也。天地一指也，萬物一馬也。莊子蓋以彼之是，即我之是也。人惟不肯以己度人，執於有我，決意是我非彼。物論之所以不齊，職由於是。故以指喻指之非指，是以我指之是，而喻人指之非，不可也。不知彼之指亦指，安得以其不在我手，而遂謂之非指哉？不若就彼而反觀之。他若有言，亦將謂我指為非指矣。如此反覆相喻，彼我之間，同於自是，均相非。果且有是乎？果且非是乎？但見無有是者，無不是者，而是非於是乎泯矣。喻馬非馬，亦復如是。是則彼均是非於環中之天，謂之道樞。原其所宗，一氣而已。與今經菩提妙淨明體，見與見緣，并所想相，如虗空花，本無所有，云何有是非？是何啻霄壤之相，懸乎肯綮之語。彼明養生之主，故引庖丁解牛，以明始臣之解牛之時，所見無非牛者。三年之後，未甞見全牛也。方今之時，臣以神遇而不以目視，官知止而神欲行。依乎天理，批大郤，導大窾，因其固然。技經肯綮之未甞，而況大軱乎？庖丁之意，言臣之所好道也，非技也。技進而精，至於自然而然。不知其然，則不得以技名之，而名之曰道。當初學解牛之時，目中所見無非牛者。三年之後，則見牛之筋脉骨節，各有虗度，可以游刃，不見其為全牛云云。盖喻初學道時，人間世務，看不破，覷不透，只見萬事叢挫，擺脫不開。功夫純熟之後，則見事各有理，理有固然。純而應之，大大小小，全不費力。道者何？養生之主也。養生之道，學至於此，可為至矣。若比夫此經，菩提之為道，至於精純，而能了達見與見緣，并所想相，如虗空花，本無所有。當其歷緣對境，一味道體。故曰：汝但不隨分別，世間三種相續。三緣斷故，三因不生，則汝心中演若達多，狂性自歇。歇即菩提，不從人得，何藉劬勞肯綮脩證？此正圓覺所謂居一切時，不起妄念，豈藉劬勞肯綮哉？古德所謂用其文，不取其意是也。近世弘經人，多不達此意，至有以楞嚴比莊子，金剛比老子。無怪乎口義副墨，言佛一大藏教，都從莊子中演出。既棄金以擔麻，復認麻以為金，可不哀哉！
This sutra differs from other sutras in that it can share the same name and same general meaning, but the intention is different — the Shurangama Samadhi Sutra is an example. Others share different names but the same meaning and intention — the Complete Enlightenment Sutra is an example. Still others have different names and meanings, but the same intention — the Lotus Sutra is an example. And then there are those with different names, meanings, and intentions that cannot be classified together — the Nirvana Sutra is an example. There are also texts with the same words but vastly different meanings, as different as heaven and earth — the Zhuangzi is an example.
To explain: The Shurangama Samadhi Sutra uses the same term "firm and distinguishing contemplation" in meaning, but it is taught specifically for high-level Bodhisattvas leaving the conventional and entering the absolute. Thus, the Buddha tells Firm-Minded Bodhisattva: "The Shurangama Samadhi cannot be attained by Bodhisattvas of the first stage or lower; only those at the tenth stage can attain it." It then lists one hundred kinds of samadhi. The first involves training the mind to be like empty space, and the second involves observing the minds of all living beings — both are possible for beginners. However, the third, distinguishing the sharp and dull faculties of beings, and the fourth, definitively knowing the causes and effects of beings, through to the hundredth, entering great extinction without being permanently extinguished, are all beyond the reach of beginners. So isn't this a case of same name and same general meaning, but different intention?
As for the Complete Enlightenment Sutra, though its name differs, Complete Enlightenment and Perfect Penetration both explain the same principle. The three meditation methods — Calmness, Contemplation, and Samadhi — all cultivate the same single practice. However, its presentation of names and concepts differs in appearance and in its breadth or brevity. Thus, one must be familiar with the Shurangama Sutra to cultivate the Complete Enlightenment Sutra, and vice versa. Students should study them together.
The Lotus Sutra shares the same meaning but differs in intention from this sutra — that shared meaning is the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Indeed, the entire teachings of one era were established for the sake of the Lotus Sutra's Buddha-knowledge. But among all scriptures, only the Shurangama Sutra explains the Buddha's knowledge and vision most directly. Why do I say it differs in intention? Although the Lotus Sutra says that all Buddhas and Tathagatas, for the sake of the great matter, reveal, disclose, and help beings realize the Buddha-knowledge and vision, nowhere in the sutra does it explicitly discuss this meaning. It rests in intention, not in the words. What is this intention? It is the Buddha's original intention. What is that original intention? It is the Buddha's knowledge and vision. The Buddha appeared in the world precisely for this matter. But living beings' capacities were unready, so he had to, within the one true reality, teach ten realms as separate; within the one Buddha-vehicle, teach the five vehicles as distinctions. Although he showed the nine realms, his intention was not in those nine. People do not understand this intention, so they cling to what they see differently. Even if Bodhisattvas see the glorious reward manifestation, it can be said this does not fulfill the original intention. Although he spoke of the five vehicles, his intention was not in them. People do not understand this, so they cling to their respective levels of attainment. Even if all beings achieve Buddhahood through the Bodhisattva path, it can be said this does not fulfill the original intention. Sometimes the Greater Vehicle is blocked by the Lesser (Avatamsaka Sutra), sometimes it is not used (Agamas), sometimes beings hear the Greater Vehicle but realize the Lesser (Vaipulya and Prajna sutras), sometimes they hear the Lesser but realize the Greater (Agamas), sometimes they know each other (variable teaching), sometimes they don't (secret teaching). None of these reflect the Buddha's intention; it can be said they did not fulfill it. Even if other sutras had richer words and meaning than the Lotus Sutra but didn't discuss the Buddha's intention, it could be said they didn't fulfill it. The Buddha's intention was that everyone — in the same seat, sharing one taste, with the rain of one flavor moistening the flowers of humanity — regardless of Lesser or Greater, would all return to the Dharma-realm. He clearly declared it, wanting beings to realize the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Isn't this the point? So the Shurangama Sutra and the Lotus Sutra share the same meaning but differ in intention.
The Nirvana Sutra and this sutra share both the same meaning and intention, but they cannot be classified together. This sutra discusses the eternal true mind, which is the same as the four kinds of discipline. The Nirvana Sutra supports discipline while discussing permanence. However, there is a pattern: some sections are connected in words and meaning, others include or distinguish the universal and particular. This is detailed in the chapter on teaching classifications. Therefore, I say they cannot be classified together.
Why do I say this sutra and the Zhuangzi share the same words? For example, in roll two, it discusses "pointing" and "not pointing"; in roll four, it discusses "why rely on arduous toil and skill in cultivation?" This is because when Minister Fang edited this sutra in Chinese, he embellished it with Chinese language. The words are similar, but the meanings differ. In the sutra, a tree can be pointed at, but seeing cannot be pointed at. Pointing is all seeing, but there is no point-er; pointing is all tree, but there is no seen. Because of confusion, one cannot let go of both right and wrong, giving rise to the debate of "pointing" versus "not-pointing." But if one accesses the true, essential, wonderful, clear nature, then right and wrong are both transcended, and both pointing and not-pointing are forgotten. Thus, one can go beyond both.
The Zhuangzi's "Discussion on Making All Things Equal" says: Right and wrong in the world come from the duality of "this" and "that." The sage does not depend on this but reflects on them by Heaven, and is guided by "this." "This" is also "that"; "that" is also "this." "That" has its right and wrong; "this" has its right and wrong. Is there really a "this" and "that"? Is there truly no "this" or "that"? When "this" and "that" no longer have their opposite, that is called the pivot of the Way. The pivot begins to function when it is centered, responding to the endless changes. Right is endless; wrong is also endless. Therefore it says: "Better to use clarity." Then it explains the reason for "being guided by this," saying: "To use a finger to illustrate that a finger is not a finger is not as good as using a non-finger to illustrate that a finger is not a finger. To use a horse to illustrate that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to illustrate that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and Earth are one finger; ten thousand things are one horse." Zhuangzi is saying that what another person considers right is what I also consider right. People are only unwilling to judge others by themselves; they cling to self and insist on being right and others wrong. This is why discussions of things are out of harmony. So using my finger's rightness to point out another's finger as wrong won't work. I don't see their finger is also a finger; how can I call it "not a finger" just because it's not on my hand? Better to reverse and look from their perspective. If they speak, they will also say that my finger is not a finger. Through this back-and-forth comparison, in "that" and "this," both are equally self-righteous and mutually critical. Is there really a right? Is there really a wrong? Only when there is neither right nor wrong does the distinction cease. The analogy of the horse and not-horse is the same. This means both de-emphasized right and wrong in the center of Heaven — that is called the pivot of the Way.
But examining what Zhuangzi reveres, it is merely one primeval energy [Qi]. In contrast, the sutra speaks of the "pure, wonderful, bright essence of Bodhi," seeing and seeing-objects, and all perceived and imagined appearances are like flowers in empty space — fundamentally non-existent. So why would there be right and wrong? The divergence is like heaven and earth! As for the phrase "skill in cultivation": Zhuangzi explains the master of life-nourishing. He uses the story of Cook Ding cutting up an ox to explain that when the cook first began cutting up oxen, he saw nothing but the whole ox. After three years, he no longer saw a whole ox. At the present, he meets it with his spirit and doesn't use his eyes. His conscious knowledge stops but his spirit acts. Following Heaven's principle, he splits apart the great joints and guides the knife through the great cavities. He follows what is naturally so. He has never touched the condensing membranes and congealed sinews, let alone large bones. Cook Ding's point: "What I love is the Way, which goes beyond mere skill." When skill advances to subtlety, it becomes natural; he doesn't know how it happens. Thus, it's no longer called skill but the Way. Initially, when learning to cut oxen, his eyes saw nothing but the whole. After three years, he saw the sinews, bones, and joints — each with open spaces for the knife. He no longer saw them as a whole. This metaphorically means: in the beginning of learning the Way, one cannot see through worldly affairs; one sees only the clutter of things and can't let go. Once skill matures, one sees that each thing has its inherent principle. Responding naturally, great or small, takes no effort at all. What is the Way? It is the master of life-nourishing. When one learns the Way to this point, it is perfect.
Now compare this to the sutra: Bodhi, as the Way, when refined, can realize that seeing, objects of seeing, and all perceived forms are like flowers in empty space — fundamentally non-existent. When encountering conditions and objects, one is always in the taste of the Way. Therefore, it says: "If you do not follow the arising of discrimination regarding the three kinds of continuations of the world, and if the three conditions are severed, the three causes will not arise. Then, in your mind, the madness of The Fig Tree Man will spontaneously cease. Cessation itself is Bodhi; it is not attained from others. Why rely on arduous toil and skillful cultivation?" This is exactly what the Complete Enlightenment Sutra means by "at all times, do not give rise to false thoughts." So why would one need "arduous toil" and "skill"? As the ancient masters said: "Use their words but not their meaning."
In recent times, many Buddhist practitioners do not understand this; some even compare the Shurangama Sutra to the Zhuangzi and the Diamond Sutra to the Laozi. No wonder commentators claim that the entire Buddhist canon was derived from the Zhuangzi. Having abandoned gold to carry hemp, they then mistake hemp for gold. How pitiful!