---
title: "天隱和尚語錄 · 復答三峰漢月藏公書問并判語"
description: "天隐和尚语录是明代高僧天隐圆修的说法开示集由弟子通问等人编撰。全书收录了天隐圆修在禅修实践、佛法义理方面的精要阐述反映了明末禅宗临济宗的修行风貌与思想精髓。作为明末禅宗的重要文献该书不仅展现了天隐圆修直指人心、注重实修的禅风也对后世禅学发展产生了深远影响是研究明清佛教史与禅宗思想的重要典籍在佛教文献中具有较高的学术与修行参考价值。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn2fy5b4mdtl4047ciro786"
---

### 復答三峰漢月藏公書問并判語

> Reply to Master Sanfeng Hanyue Zang’s Letter and Verdict

三峰云：承大教以一心為宗師答：你還跳得出麼？印定萬法，以一拈花為單傳之法，答：西天東土亦如是。此外並無餘法。而一拈之內亦並無餘蘊，答：你那裏摸索？便以一棒一喝一句梨棗東來西去，你出我入互相活脫，不滯機用，謂之殺活縱橫。答：你不達古人方便，死了不得活。以五宗為此外另立之門庭，答：自生分別。故不欲盡明其說，而將就彀用於今時則已。答：將謂你鑿壁偷光。故逢著祖宗嫡骨之要，皆意思問放過。答：呵呵大笑。若人舉著，還他一箇絡索二字，答：未舉先知。自己立在無人對證處。答：瞎漢。今日被不肖問著，便東塗西抹，說些四無頭果子阿母話支塞，答：尚且不會。又要立在上風。答：可見你有人我相。此非支塞過便了者。不肖正為舉世如此，答：則恐你還不識。痛承小釋迦再來，畢竟要與臨濟出口毒氣耳。答：未到你在。今復有問，願和尚真實答我，答：從來不妄語。幸勿遮遮掩掩，說半開合話，方好流布諸方。答：諸方早已見矣。救得正法，重新光顯。答：何曾隱晦來。若又是前來話柄，則不敢求搜索也。答：不識好惡在。一問：兩派分岐旁出繁興，皆以所得淺深教化。且道兩派分岐，是所分何等岐？講何等事？兩派可有深淺否？答：諜諜迷源，話頭也不識。如何是他深處？如何是他淺處？答：待你腳跟點地方知。且道旁岐所說是何等法，遂判為非正？答：你也出不得。正者說何法，遂判為正支？淺深之旨可得聞乎？答：看取老僧上下文。次問：來教云馬大師單提向上，百丈再參而末後一喝，黃檗因聞不覺吐舌，纔明大師大機大用，故施棒以接臨濟。且道馬大師既單提向上，百丈於扭鼻處已明得。哭笑卷蓆，大師已印過他會也。又印過子深明昨日事矣。為甚麼還弄這些子，而至豎拂掛拂之最後方震聲一喝，而百丈方悟得三日耳聾耶？若道此處纔明一喝，他前師印資呈皆落妄語矣。答：錯。若前來都是，又何必一喝而方貴耶？答：錯錯。前之扭鼻哭笑，獨非機與用乎？至一喝而方明大機大用，答：你未夢見在。大字遂成重見疊出，一何勞叨若此哉？答：轉見不堪。黃檗吐舌明得大機之用，而百丈讚其超師，且道他超處在於何所？答：放你三十棒。亦不可糊塗也。答：自領去。承教如人發藥只欲救病，今來書云只有三頓痛棒，未聞有兩頓四頓之旨。答：𧄼。此語在臨濟則可，在黃檗則不可。何故？若黃檗恁麼為人，已成實法了也。請問為何在檗則可？意者以非實法故。答：以楔出楔。若言非實法者，此是謾他臨濟也。答：我也知你作實法會。而臨濟恁麼會，黃檗禪已成實法乎，答，以己方人，埋沒先聖。是則臨濟何足貴？而小釋迦於溈山處極口讚嘆，而將此身心奉臨濟以報佛恩耶？抑錯之甚矣甚矣。豈不爾思室是遠而。答：親言出親口。承教臨濟至大愚言下點破悟徹根源。他既是悟得一句一喝一棒的，又何說他悟徹根源？遠之遠矣。答：你未知落處在。且道如何是根源處耶？答：待你徹後見。又云：握萬世之綱宗。且道何者為綱宗？亦不可不識也。答：再參三十年與你道。又云：開四賓主。且道他兩人對面說話，何者是賓？答：照顧腳下。何者是主？答：賞罰分明。何為賓中賓？答：闍黎切忌道著。何為主中主？答：老僧決不謾你。四料簡者，何為料？答：想你不識。何為簡？答：門外漢。料簡作麼？答：恐你瞞頇。又云：一句具三玄。請問何者為一句中之第一、答：倚天長劍。第二、答：威風凜凜。第三玄？答：全提正令誰敢當鋒。何者為第一要、答：杲日當天。二要、答：虛空霹靂。三要？答：風馳電捲不留剩跡。不可塗糊，隨語生解，象病冤鬼。答：恰是。說一句支塞過，不肖必不肯輕放也。答：面皮厚多少。又云：三玄三要以簡邪正。此語天教說出，賴不得也。答：掩耳偷鈴。且道如何是邪正處？答：一分少你不得。如何是簡他邪正處？答：簡了也。豈可忽哉？答：寐語在。若不過意思間說箇總歸一心，答：謗佛謗法謗僧。便是果子說話，便是座主奴也。答：老僧不如你，音者聲之外者也。曹洞一宗想非和尚茶飯，不必言矣。答：扯東蓋西。中峰、千巖，且待辨明，已上諸說方好點簡，答：劍去久矣。不然徒虛爭耳。答：果然。此事實曾三思方立大論，答：未知之咎也。雖千佛列祖出世，皆欣欣合掌者，答，可憐生。但當世之所不容，答：可知禮也？佛法欲滅，正謂此也。答：難道。通公之說，實屬未知之咎，敬為懺謝。答：墮也。但其言溷指旁岐，實不通旁岐之理、有犯正宗，不得不為力誅之，以存佛祖也。答：負也。承教及觀所著《五宗原始》於圓相七佛由來，五宗各出一面，正宗先出，四宗是已而竟言相續，答：大妄語漢。其餘旁出莫不悉備者，則又似數曹洞為旁出也。訛矣。答：昧。又言：夫既不悟宗旨，所傳何事耶？請問一喝一句一棒轉轉弄此謾人者，即是宗旨乎？答：你還跳得出麼？又云：公千辛萬苦參訂將來，猶恐後學反以圓相為躲跟，柰何卻成窠臼。此說大為可笑。答：下士聞道。若圓相成了躲跟窠臼，則我金粟大師一棒亦成了躲跟窠臼乎？答：自語相違漢。麻三斤、乾屎橛亦成躲跟窠臼乎？答：過。而和尚《磬山集》上道：「蒼天蒼天，太平盡唱無生曲，引得巖前石虎吟。」亦成躲跟窠臼矣。答：你那見他著實處？吁人可欺乎？佛祖可欺乎？直心道場何可若此也。答：作賊人心虛。久聞和尚心如虛空，答：也不消得。今日竟將一夕雷雨崩擊一上，答：青天白日。想大慈不我怪也。答：放過則不可。不肖多所未知，幸垂示我。至禱至禱。

> Sanfeng said: "You inherited the great teaching, taking the single mind as the core," \*Master's reply: "Can you leap out of it?"\* "Sealing and affirming all dharmas, taking the single flower-grasp as the sole transmission," \*Reply: "So it is in the West and the East."\* "Beyond this there is no other dharma. And within that single flower-grasp there is no hidden remainder," \*Reply: "Where are you fumbling?"\* "Then you use a staff, a shout, a phrase, coming and going, giving and taking, each side lively and unhindered, not stuck in any contrivance—this is called 'killing and reviving, freely crisscrossing.'" \*Reply: "You don't grasp the ancients' skillful means. Dead, and can't be brought back to life."\* "Regarding the Five Houses as separate gates established beyond this," \*Reply: "You create divisions yourself."\* "So you don't wish to clarify their teaching fully, and think it enough to make do for now," \*Reply: "I thought you had bored through the wall to steal the light."\* "Thus whenever you encounter the vital marrow of the patriarchs, you deliberately skip over it," \*Reply: "Ha ha, great laughter."\* "If someone raises it, you toss back the word 'tangled,'" \*Reply: "Known before it's even raised."\* "Planting yourself where no one can challenge you," \*Reply: "Blind fellow."\* "Today, pressed by this unworthy one, you smear about east and west, spouting some headless, tail-less nonsense to fend me off," \*Reply: "You still don't understand."\* "While trying to stand on the high ground," \*Reply: "Clearly you still have notions of self and other."\* "This isn't something you can just fend off and be done with. This unworthy one, precisely because the whole world is like this," \*Reply: "I'm afraid you still don't recognize it."\* "Humbly carrying the burden of the Little Śākyamuni's return, I must finally release the poisonspent from Línjì's mouth," \*Reply: "You're not there yet."\* "Now I have further questions—may the Master answer me truthfully," \*Reply: "I have never spoken falsely."\* "Do not hide and hedge, speaking half-open words, so that it may be spread everywhere," \*Reply: "Everyone has already seen it."\* "To rescue the true Dharma and make it shine anew," \*Reply: "When was it ever hidden?"\* "If you again serve up the same old talk, I won't bother to hunt for more," \*Reply: "You don't know good from bad."\* First question: The two branches diverged, and side lineages flourished, each teaching according to its shallow or deep attainment. Tell me: when the two branches diverged, what exactly diverged? What matter are they discussing? Do the two branches have shallow and deep levels or not? \*Reply: "Babble, babble—you've lost the source. You don't even recognize the huàtóu."\* What is their depth? What is their shallowness? \*Reply: "Once your heels touch the ground, you'll know."\* And what dharma do the side branches teach, that they are judged unorthodox? \*Reply: "You can't get out either."\* What dharma does the orthodox one teach, that it is judged the main line? Can I hear how this shallow-deep principle works? \*Reply: "Look at the old monk's above and below."\* Second question: Your letter says that Master Mǎ simply pointed directly to the ultimate, that Bǎizhàng, after a second interview, was awakened by the final shout; that Huángbò, hearing it, stuck out his tongue, and only then understood the great function and great workings of the Master; therefore he used the staff to receive Línjì. But tell me: if Master Mǎ pointed directly to the ultimate, then Bǎizhàng, at the nose-twisting moment, already understood. He wept and laughed, rolled up the mat—the Master had already confirmed he understood. And he even confirmed that the boy understood the previous day's matter. Why then all this business—raising the whisk, hanging the whisk, and finally the great shout—before Bǎizhàng awoke and was deaf for three days? If you say it was only then that he understood one shout, then all the previous confirmations of master and disciple were lies. \*Reply: "Wrong."\* If all that came before was correct, then why was one shout so precious? \*Reply: "Wrong, wrong."\* Was the nose-twisting, the weeping and laughing, not itself function and workings? If only through one shout does he understand the great function and great workings, \*Reply: "You haven't even dreamed of it."\* Then the word "great" becomes repetitious, redundant. Why so tiresome? \*Reply: "Ever more unbearable."\* Huángbò stuck out his tongue, understanding the function's working; Bǎizhàng praised him as surpassing his teacher. Tell me, where exactly is his surpassing? \*Reply: "I'll give you thirty blows."\* This cannot be glossed over. \*Reply: "Take it yourself."\* Your teaching says that when someone gives medicine, it's only to cure illness. Now your letter says "there were only three fierce blows; I've never heard of the principle of two or four." This saying applies to Línjì, but not to Huángbò. Why? If Huángbò taught people this way, he would have turned it into a fixed dharma. I ask: why does it apply to Huángbò? Because it's not a fixed dharma, you think? \*Reply: "Driving out a wedge with a wedge."\* If you say it's not a fixed dharma, that's deceiving Línjì. \*Reply: "I know you take it as fixed dharma."\* But if Línjì understood it that way, did Huángbò's Zen then become fixed dharma? \*Reply: "Measuring others by yourself, you bury the ancient sages."\* If so, what's so precious about Línjì? And why did the Little Śākyamuni praise him so highly at Wéishān, offering body and mind to Línjì to repay the Buddha's kindness? What a great error, a great error! Do you not think of it? The room is far away indeed. \*Reply: "Intimate words come from an intimate mouth."\* Your teaching says Línjì was awakened at Dàyú's word, penetrating the root source. Since he was awakened to one phrase, one shout, one staff-blow, why say he penetrated the root source? Far, far off. \*Reply: "You don't yet know where it lands."\* Tell me, what is this root source? \*Reply: "After you've penetrated, you'll see."\* You also say: "Grasping the essential teaching of ten thousand generations." What is this essential teaching? One must recognize it. \*Reply: "Practice for another thirty years, then I'll tell you."\* You also say: "Opening the four guest-host \[relationships\]." Tell me, when those two spoke face to face, which was guest? \*Reply: "Watch your step."\* Which was host? \*Reply: "Rewards and punishments are clear."\* What is guest-within-guest? \*Reply: "Monk, don't say it."\* What is host-within-host? \*Reply: "The old monk would never deceive you."\* The four alternatives—what is "weighing"? \*Reply: "I doubt you know."\* What is "choosing"? \*Reply: "An outsider."\* What is weighing and choosing for? \*Reply: "Fearing you might be sloppy."\* You also say: "One phrase contains three mysterious gates." Tell me, in that one phrase, what is the first, \*Reply: "The sky-leaning long sword."\* second, \*Reply: "Majestic and awe-inspiring."\* and third mystery? \*Reply: "Raising the true command—who dares face its edge?"\* What is the first essential, \*Reply: "The bright sun in the sky."\* the second essential, \*Reply: "Thunder in empty space."\* and the third essential? \*Reply: "Wind-driven lightning, leaving no trace behind."\* You cannot gloss over this, generating interpretations from words, like an elephant with a sickness, a wronged ghost, \*Reply: "Exactly so."\* Or fending me off with one phrase. This unworthy one will never let it go lightly. \*Reply: "How thick is your face?"\* You also say: "The three mysteries and three essentials are to distinguish the deviant from the correct." Heaven itself made you say that—you can't deny it. \*Reply: "Covering your ears to steal the bell."\* Tell me, where is the deviant and the correct? \*Reply: "You can't be off by even a bit."\* Where is the act of distinguishing them? \*Reply: "Already distinguished."\* Can this be neglected? \*Reply: "Talking in your sleep."\* If you don't go beyond saying, in an offhand way, that everything returns to one mind, \*Reply: "Slandering Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha."\* Then it's just fruit-seller talk, then you're a doctrinal teacher's slave. \*Reply: "The old monk is not your equal. Sound is what lies beyond the voice."\* As for the Cáodòng school, I suppose it's not your Master's fare; no need to discuss it. \*Reply: "Tugging the east to cover the west."\* As for Zhōngfēng and Qiānyán, wait until they're clarified before you can criticize the above views. \*Reply: "The sword has been gone for a long time."\* Otherwise it's just empty quarreling. \*Reply: "Indeed."\* This matter I have truly considered three times before establishing this great argument, \*Reply: "The fault of ignorance."\* Even if a thousand Buddhas and all patriarchs appeared in the world, they would all joyfully put their palms together, \*Reply: "Pitiful."\* But the world of our time cannot tolerate it, \*Reply: "Do you know propriety?"\* "When the Dharma is about to perish, it is precisely because of this." \*Reply: "Hard to say."\* Master Tōng's words truly stem from the fault of ignorance—I respectfully repent for him. \*Reply: "Fallen."\* But his words indiscriminately lump together the side branches, and truly fail to understand their principle yet offend against the orthodox line. I must forcefully refute them, to preserve the Buddhas and patriarchs. \*Reply: "You've taken a loss."\* Your teaching, and my reading of your \*Origins of the Five Houses\*, regarding the round sign and its origin from the Seven Buddhas—the five houses each emerge from one side, with the orthodox house first, then the other four—and you say they continue in sequence, \*Reply: "A great liar."\* Then you count Cáodòng as a side branch. That's an error. \*Reply: "Deluded."\* You also say: "If one has not awakened to the essential teaching, what then is transmitted?" I ask you: this one shout, one phrase, one staff-blow, endlessly played and used to fool people—is that the essential teaching? \*Reply: "Can you leap out of it?"\* You also say: "You endured a thousand hardships to investigate and settle this, yet fear later students will take the round sign as a dodge. But instead it becomes a nest." This is quite laughable. \*Reply: "Inferior people laugh at the Way."\* If the round sign becomes a nest or a dodge, then our Master's staff-blow—does it become a dodge and a nest too? \*Reply: "Self-contradictory fellow."\* "Hemp three pounds," "a dry shit-stick"—do these become dodges and nests too? \*Reply: "Over the top."\* And in your own \*Qìngshān Collection\*, you wrote: "Heavens! Heavens! The Great Peace sings a birthless song, drawing forth the stone tiger's roar before the cliff." Does that also become a dodge and a nest? \*Reply: "Can you see where he truly lands?"\* Alas! Can people be deceived? Can Buddhas and patriarchs be deceived? The mind of directness is the place of practice—how can it be like this? \*Reply: "A thief's heart is timid."\* I have long heard that the Master's mind is like empty space, \*Reply: "No need for that."\* And today a sudden thunderstorm has struck, \*Reply: "In broad daylight."\* I trust the Great Compassionate One will not be angry with me. \*Reply: "I cannot let you off."\* This unworthy one has much he does not know. May you be gracious and instruct me. I pray fervently, I pray fervently.

師判云：子復三峰前來書，為彼判臨濟宗旨不達其理，妄肆臆說，欲置而不答，恐誤後學，獲罪於法門。故不徇情而據理言之。詎料彼有人我見，翻道子立在無人對證處說果子話。又道子要立在上風，足見三峰皆勝心也。子住山三十餘年，並不管分外事，因他驀刺書來，蓋不得已而應之耳。今彼復嘵嘵致辨於理，全違希圖，遮人耳目，愈增其醜。既知予宗一心拈花單傳之旨，而乃謂舉世如此者何也？殊不知三世諸佛亦如是，歷代祖師亦如是，天下善知識亦如是，何為硬執己見，翹然自負，以為異於人而謬判先聖宗旨？如所謂黃檗三頓痛棒，未聞有兩頓四頓之旨，發三玄三要，處處抱樁搖櫓必欲合此三法，逆推五祖接盧能以杖擊碓三下為臨濟張本，不論拈花單傳之旨，恐離了三法則落在心性禪裏。然則四料簡、四賓主、四喝，有何四法可據耶？若謂三玄三要根定三頓痛棒，則曹洞君臣五位又何從五法而接青原一脈乎？殊不知三頓痛棒本乎單傳之旨，若識厥旨，三玄三要著著現前，若道三玄三要意趣在拈花旨外而另有法，亦是心外取法矣，豈非埋沒我臨濟大師於空閒無用之地哉？不達此理，妄議古今尊宿，為抹殺宗旨，而單傳拈花一事，見余不肯是說，遂爾惡發濫言詆詈，令人目之皆可欣也，令人思之實可哀也。予觀三峰《傳衣註》云：「若必重自悟而抹殺相傳之法，必非悟心之士也。何以故？以其見有法故，見有法即與自心違故；既悟見有法，則所悟之心亦偽。」故余謂三峰如是說，則悟心之士不可分心分法，何故必執三法為宗旨，而妄判所悟單傳之旨者為一橛頭禪？且問他曾悟也未？若道悟，則不可取法，而反責悟心之士為抹殺相傳之法也。若道未悟，亦不可云既悟見有法，則所悟之心亦偽。故而反執法以貶諸方一悟便了、單傳拈花之旨也。可見三峰轉轉迷源，弗知顛倒，苟欲網羅當世學者，致令自語相違，處處乖張，言言失旨，予豈好辨哉？況三峰奚足與辨？誠恐後世無所據焉爾。彼云：「通公之說，實屬未知之咎，敬為懺謝。但其言溷指旁岐，實不通旁岐之理；有犯正宗，不得不為力誅之。」子曰：「此理明顯，尚自弗知，攖犯先覺，而況佛祖玄微奧旨全不細心，猶且矜誇三思，方立大論。更誣余似數曹洞為旁出。」是何言歟？予雖不敏，法門大綱難以掩目，正為三峰《五宗原》中云：「五宗各出一面，然有正宗第一先出，次則雲門、曹洞，其餘旁出道理極則，教家玄妙淵微莫不悉備。」又云：「此但人天小果有漏之因，如影隨形，雖有非實，豈非曹洞語乎？」此說皆出三峰之口，而昧已謾人，磬山可得而謾哉？凡閱三峰語句者，亦不可得而謾也。又云：「予書中言公千辛萬苦參訂將來，猶恐後學反以圓相為躲跟，奈何卻成窠臼。此說大為可笑。若圓相成了躲跟窠臼，則我金粟大師一棒，亦成躲跟窠臼乎？麻三斤、乾屎橛亦成躲跟窠臼乎？」此因予點破五宗各出一面之句故也。今且問他：能分得五宗一宗一宗，從何一面一面而出耶？若五宗實從這箇○圓相一面一面而出者，豈不成了躲跟窠臼乎？況此圓相，你那裏見他方所一面一面來？瞎漢，還聞塗毒鼓麼？又云：「一棒一喝轉轉弄此謾人者」，怪道他復竹菴書中竟駁為天然外道。爾弗思乎？今之海內，孰行棒？孰行喝？何故班班見於著而非之？況三峰今已繼此一棒了也，而且虛獎道我金粟大師一棒亦成躲跟窠臼乎？此非三峰語自乖乎？嘻！若果會得三玄三要之旨不出拈花單傳，何爭一棒一喝？乃至猿啼鳥噪，莫不發明三玄三要之旨也。驢鳴馬嘶，莫不發明三玄三要之旨也。魚歌牧唱，莫不發明三玄三要之旨也。風柯月楮，莫不發明三玄三要之旨也。所以塵說、剎說、眾生說無間歇，莫不發明三玄三要之旨也。嗚呼！若是抱死竿頭，直饒你把生鐵鑄就三玄三要之句掇向人前，猶是立地死漢。正所謂邪正在人，不在法也。且麻三斤、乾屎橛，你道曾流出什麼物來，也成躲跟窠臼了？可見又要贓誣先聖矣。而又將古人直指處，穿鑿話頭來相詰。知而故問乎？不知而問乎？予一一答之，請彼反之於心，已可欺也，佛祖不可欺也，天下後世更不可欺也。諸方自有明眼者在，何待予辨？

> The Master responded: "You wrote to me from Three Peaks, claiming that my judgment on the Linji lineage's core teaching was incorrect, and that I was merely voicing wild personal opinions. I had thought of not replying, but feared it might mislead future students and bring blame upon the Dharma community. So I set aside personal feelings and spoke according to reason. Unexpectedly, he harbors views of self and other, even claiming I'm 'speaking from a position where no one can challenge me' and 'trying to gain the upper hand.' This shows that Three Peaks is driven by competitive pride. I've lived in the mountains for over thirty years and never concerned myself with matters beyond my scope. It was only because he suddenly sent a provocative letter that I responded out of necessity. Now he persists in arguing, completely disregarding reason, trying to deceive people's eyes and ears, only further exposing his own faults. Since he claims to understand the single transmission of the Mind-Seal from the Flower Garland (where the Buddha held up a flower), why does he say the whole world is like this? He fails to realize that all Buddhas of the three times are thus, all ancestral masters are thus, and all good spiritual guides in the world are thus. Why stubbornly cling to his own views, proudly convinced he's different from others, wrongly judging the sages' core teachings? As for Huangbo's three heavy blows with his staff—was there ever mention of two blows or four blows? The 'Three Mysteries and Three Essentials'—he clings to them as if grasping a boat pole, insisting on combining these three dharmas. He even traces back to the Fifth Patriarch striking Huineng's millstone three times as a prelude to the Linji teaching, ignoring the single transmission of the flower. He fears that without these three dharmas, one would fall into 'mind-nature Chan.' But then what about the 'Four Classifications,' 'Four Hosts and Guests,' and 'Four Shouts'—what four dharmas support those? If he insists the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials are rooted in Three Blows, then how did the Caodong school's Five Ranks transmit the Qingyuan lineage? He doesn't understand that the Three Blows arise from the single transmission itself. If one truly grasps that purpose, the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials are manifest in every action. To say the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials exist as separate dharmas beyond the flower transmission is to grasp at dharmas outside the mind—isn't that burying my great Master Linji in useless obscurity? Not understanding this, he recklessly criticizes ancient and modern masters, erasing the core teaching and the single transmission of the flower. When he saw I dismissed his theories, he flew into a rage with reckless words and abusive speech. Seeing this makes one smile; pondering it makes one pity him. I observed that in Three Peaks' 'Commentary on the Transmission Robe' he wrote: 'If one emphasizes self-realization while erasing the transmitted dharma, they cannot be a true awakened one. Why? Because they still see a dharma to grasp; seeing a dharma contradicts one's own mind; since they're awakened yet still see a dharma, their awakening itself is false.' So I say: if Three Peaks speaks thus, then awakened ones cannot split mind from dharma. Why then must he cling to three dharmas as the core teaching, wrongly judging those who realize the single transmission as practicing a 'one-sided, partial Chan'? Let me ask him: Has he awakened or not? If he says he's awakened, then he cannot grasp at dharmas, yet he contradicts himself by criticizing awakened ones for 'erasing the transmitted dharma.' If he says he's not awakened, then he cannot claim 'since one is awakened yet still sees a dharma, that awakening is false.' So he grasps at dharmas to denigrate others' single-practice awakening and the flower transmission. Clearly, Three Peaks keeps losing the source, confused and topsy-turvy. He tries to ensnare contemporary students, but his own words contradict themselves everywhere. Every phrase misses the mark. Do I delight in argument? Moreover, is Three Peaks even worth arguing with? My true concern is that future generations would have no reliable standard. He said: 'Master Tong's explanation indeed stems from ignorance, and I repent with gratitude. But his words muddle and point to side trails, without truly understanding side-trail principles; since they offend the orthodox lineage, I must vigorously refute them.' I reply: This principle is perfectly clear, yet he can't see it and offends the awakened ones. When it comes to the profound subtleties of the Buddhas and Patriarchs, he doesn't examine carefully at all, yet proudly claims to think deeply and then establishes grand theories. He even falsely accuses me of counting the Caodong school as a 'side transmission.' What a thing to say! Though I may not be clever, it's hard to close my eyes to the great framework of the Dharma. In his 'Origins of the Five Schools,' Three Peaks wrote: 'Each of the five schools emerges from one aspect, yet there is an orthodox first transmission, followed by Yunmen and Caodong. The remaining side schools' ultimate principles and the profound subtleties of doctrinal schools are all included.' He further wrote: 'This is merely the small fruit of human and heavenly realms, a conditioned cause, like a shadow following form—though existing, not real.' Isn't that Caodong's own language? These statements come from Three Peaks' own mouth. He deceives himself and others—can Mount Qingshan be deceived? Anyone reading Three Peaks' words cannot be deceived either. He also said: 'In your letter, you claimed I toiled bitterly through countless investigations, yet feared future students might treat the circle symbol as a means of evasion—alas, it's become a trap.' This statement is utterly laughable. If the circle symbol became an evasion trap, then would my Master Golden Millet's single staff blow also become an evasion trap? Would 'three pounds of hemp' and 'dried shit-stick' also become traps?' This arose because I had pointed out the flaw in his statement about 'the five schools each emerging from one aspect.' Now I ask him: Can he actually distinguish each school, seeing from which aspect each one emerges? If the five schools truly emerge one by one from this circle symbol, hasn't it indeed become an evasion trap? Moreover, this circle symbol—where do you see it has directions and aspects? Blind fellow! Do you still hear the poison-drum sound? He further said: 'A single blow, a single shout—they keep playing tricks to deceive people.' No wonder in his reply to Bamboo Hermitage, he boldly refuted this as 'naturalist heresy.' Have you not considered? In the world today, who actually uses the blow? Who uses the shout? Why do you repeatedly write against them? Besides, Three Peaks has now himself inherited this single blow, yet vainly praises my Master Golden Millet while claiming that blow 'became an evasion trap'? Isn't Three Peaks contradicting himself? Ha! If he truly understood that the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials never depart from the single flower transmission, why would he argue over a single blow or shout? Even the cries of monkeys and songs of birds all express the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials. The braying of donkeys and neighing of horses all express them. Fishermen's songs and cowherds' chants all express them. Wind through branches, moonlight on paper—all express the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials. Thus, dust-preaching, land-preaching, and sentient-being-preaching continue without pause, all expressing the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials. Alas! If one clings to a dead stick, even forging the 'Three Mysteries and Three Essentials' from solid iron and presenting it before others, one remains a corpse standing upright. This is precisely what's meant: 'Right and wrong lie in the person, not in the teaching.' Look at 'three pounds of hemp' and 'dried shit-stick'—what do you think flowed out of them, that they've become evasion traps? Clearly, you're again framing the ancient sages! And then you dig up ancient masters' direct pointings, twisting them into gong'an-style riddles to challenge me. Are you asking knowingly, or asking out of ignorance? I answered each point. Let him reflect honestly within himself—he might deceive people, but he cannot deceive the Buddhas and Patriarchs, nor can he deceive the world and future generations. There are clear-eyed ones everywhere—what need is there for me to argue?"

## 天隱和尚語錄卷十一

> Volume 11 of the Recorded Sayings of Master Tianyin