道元正法眼藏的一元思維(英譯) (6) 佛性(4)

《佛性》永平道元禪師 (英譯) (4)

大溈山大圓禪師，有時示眾曰：「一切眾生無佛性。」

聽聞此語之人天(眾生)中，有喜悅之大根機者，亦有驚疑之輩眾。釋尊所說者，「一切眾生悉有佛性」也。大溈之所道者，「一切眾生無佛性」也。「有」「無」之言理，極相殊異。道得知當否，須當疑之。然則，唯「一切眾生無佛性」之言於佛道為長也。鹽官「有佛性」之語，雖相似於古佛同展一只手，然仍尚為一條拄杖兩人升也。今大溈不然，此是一條拄杖吞兩人也。況國師為馬祖之徒，大溈是馬祖之徒孫！然法孫於師翁為老大也，法子於師父之道為年少也。今大溈所道之理致，以「一切眾生無佛性」為理致。尚不言曠然繩墨之外，以自家屋裡之經典，故有如是受持。更須摸索，一切眾生如何是佛性？如何有佛性？若有佛性，是為魔儻，似將來魔子一枚強加於一切眾生。佛性若是佛性，眾生亦即是眾生也。非眾生從本以來具足佛性。設求具足，然佛性乃非始來之宗旨也。莫言張公吃酒李公醉。若自有佛性者，則更非眾生。既有眾生，終非佛性。是故百丈曰：「說眾生有佛性，亦謗佛法僧。說眾生無佛性，亦謗佛法僧。」然則，言有佛性，言無佛性，皆成謗也。雖成謗，然非謂不必道取也。且問你，大溈，百丈且聽著。謗則非無，佛性說得也未？設若說得，即挂碍說著。有說著，即與聞者同參。復須向大溈問曰：設若道得「一切眾生無佛性」，然未說一切佛性無眾生，未說一切佛性無佛性，況乎說一切諸佛無佛性者，夢也未見在。試舉看！

大溈山大圓禪師，有時對大眾說：「一切眾生無佛性。」聽聞此語的人天(眾生)中，有喜悅的大根機者，亦有驚疑的輩眾。釋尊所說的，「一切眾生悉有佛性」。而大溈禪師卻說是，「一切眾生無佛性」。「有」「無」的兩種說法，極相殊異。這些說法是否適當，應當要懷疑參究。然則，唯「一切眾生無佛性」的說法於佛道較長久。鹽官齊安國師「有佛性」的話，雖相似於釋尊的說法，然仍尚為一條拄杖兩人升(真空不礙妙有，妙有不障真空)。今大溈不然，此是一條拄杖吞兩人(實相無相，心行滅處)。何況國師為馬祖的徒弟，大溈是馬祖的嫡傳徒孫！然而法孫對於師翁仍為老大，因法子傳承師父的法，可算是年少的師父。今大溈所說的極致道理，是以「一切眾生無佛性」。姑且不說大溈對佛法的法度廣大通曉，就以自家屋裡嫡傳的經典，所以對這些嫡傳的正法能謹記於心，實踐於行。而更須要摸索，一切眾生如何是佛性？如何有佛性？如果執著眾生有佛性(把眾生與佛性看成兩頭)，就是為魔儻，佛性像是魔子一枚強加於一切眾生。如果這樣看成兩頭，有佛性只是因佛性有而有，那眾生也是因眾生有而有，就不是眾生從本以來就具足佛性的。假設是眾生求而具足佛性，但這佛性就並非是本來俱足。這樣眾生與佛性看成一體中的兩個，就變成張公吃酒李公醉的錯亂。若是自有佛性的主體，則就不是眾生。既然有眾生的主體，終就不該又是佛性。所以百丈說：「說眾生裡有佛性，是毀謗佛法僧。說眾生裡無佛性，亦是謗佛法僧。」然而說有佛性，說無佛性，(把佛性當成一個實質有)都是毀謗。雖然成了毀謗，但還是必須說清楚。讓我問你，大溈、百丈且聽著。毀謗這事並非沒有，佛性可不可以落入名相來說？假設可以言說，就會著於名相的挂碍。有著於名相，那說的與聞的就都落入名相有的錯誤。又須向大溈問說：假設說「一切眾生無佛性」，但沒有說明一切佛性無眾生(眾生是業識所起的虛妄相)，也沒有說明一切佛性無佛性(佛性不落入有無)，更況乎沒有說明一切諸佛無佛性的，並沒有把佛性的意義說透。(眾生是佛性的現成，但眾生也因識而異，所以眾生不是佛性。且眾生與佛性，不能看成實質有且不變的兩頭。眾生與佛性，更不能以名相、有無來言說思慮。)

The Chan Master Dayuan of Mt. Dagui once addressed the assembly, saying, “All living beings have no buddha nature.”62

Among the humans and devas hearing this, there are those of great capacities who rejoice and no lack of those who are alarmed and dubious. What Śākyamuni, the Honored One, says is “all living beings in their entirety have the buddha nature”; what Dagui says is “all livings beings have no buddha nature.” There is a big difference between the meanings of “have” and “have no,” and which saying is correct should have been doubted. Nevertheless, “all living beings have no buddha nature” is superior on the way of the buddha. Yanguan’s saying, “have the buddha nature,” while it seems to extend a hand with the old buddha, is still “one staff borne by two people(means: truth-vacuity is truth-Dharma).”63  But here, Dagui is not like that: he is “one staff swallowing up two people(means: truth-Dharma is out of consciousness).” Moreover, the National Master is the child of Mazu, while Dagui is the grandchild of Mazu. Nevertheless, the dharma grandchild is an elder in the way of his master’s father, while the dharma child is a youth in the way of his master father. What Dagui says here by way of explication is “all living beings have no buddha nature.” He has not said that it is “a vastness beyond the line of ink”: he has this way of receiving and maintaining a scripture within the quarters of his own house.64 We should grope further: how could all living beings be the buddha nature or have the buddha nature? Any that have the buddha nature must be minions of Māra; they bring in a son of Māra and try to pile him on “all living beings.” As the buddha nature is the buddha nature, so living beings are living beings. The point is that living beings are not endowed from the start with a buddha nature; and even though they seek to provide themselves with one, the buddha nature will not newly arrive. Do not say that “When Mr. Chang drinks wine, Mr. Li gets drunk. (means: it is impossible one body within another body)” Where there is inherently a buddha nature, that is not a living being; where there is already a living being, that will not eventually be a buddha nature.65  Hence, Baizhang said, “To talk of living beings having the buddha nature is to slander the buddha, dharma, and saṅgha; to talk of living beings having no buddha nature is to slander the buddha, dharma, and saṅgha.” Therefore, both saying “have the buddha nature” and saying “have no buddha nature” become a slander. Though we say they become a slander, this does not mean one should not say them. Now, let us ask you, Dagui and Baizhang: we should ask a bit, it is not that there is no slander, but have you talked of the buddha nature or not? If you have talked of it, it delimits the talk; and where there is talking, it should “study together” with hearing. Again, we should say to Dagui: you may be able to say, “all living beings have no buddha nature,” but you do not say, “all buddha natures have no living being”; you do not say, “all buddha natures have no buddha nature.” Much less have you seen, even in your dreams, “all buddhas have no buddha nature.” Try taking this up.66

百丈山大智禪師示眾云：「佛是最上乘，是上上智。是佛道立此人，是佛有佛性，是導師。是使得無所碍風，是無碍慧。於後能使得因果，福智自由。是作車，運載因果。處於生不被生所留，處於死不被死所碍，處於五陰如門開，不被五陰碍。去住自由，出入無難。若能恁麼，不論階梯勝劣，乃至蟻子之身，但能恁麼，盡是淨妙國土，不可思議。」

百丈山大智禪師告示大眾說：「佛道是最高明圓滿的教法，是超乎常人的智慧。在這成就佛道的人，可說是佛性展現的佛，是足以當人天的導師。這成就佛道可有處世無碍智慧，不為八風所碍。也能明瞭現前因緣，福德智慧不受拘束。佛道成就可像是車子，是運載因果，而不是被因果所駕御(即是說佛道成就，不再落入二元運作的主客、內外、時間和空間。所以沒有一個主體『我』，隨著因緣變遷。雖是無我，然不碍因緣法的現起，所以是運載因果。)。雖處於五蘊身的生成，成就佛道不被生成的五蘊身(色受想行識)所拘留(不著於生)，五蘊身雖處於死壞，成就佛道不被死所滅(不著於死)，成就佛道處於五陰身如五處門開，不被五陰身所阻碍。成就佛道則離去或留住於五陰身是自由的，現出、隱入也無難。若能成就佛道，不論五陰受身處凡聖位階，乃至於是蟻子身，只要能處成就佛道，則所處之身盡是淨妙國土，不可思議。」

The Chan Master Dazhi of Mt. Baizhang addressed the assembly saying, Buddha is the supreme vehicle; it is the highest wisdom; it is this person established on the way of the buddha; it is the buddha that has the buddha nature; it is the guide; it is making use of an unobstructed style; it is the unobstructed wisdom. Hence, it can make use of cause and effect, and is free in merit and wisdom; it forms the cart that carries cause and effect. In life, it is unarrested by life; in death, it is unobstructed by death. In the five aggregates, like a gate opening, it is unobstructed by the five aggregates: it goes and stays freely, leaves and enters without difficulty. If it can be like this, it is not a matter of rank or stage, superiority or inferiority, even down to the body of an ant; if it is simply like this, everything is the pure and wondrous land, inconceivable.67

此即百丈之道處也。所言五蘊者，即今之不壞身也。今之造次者，門開也，不被五陰碍也。使得生而不被生所滯，使得死而不被死所碍。切莫徒愛生，切莫亂畏死。既為佛性之處在，動著、厭卻者，外道也。認得現前之眾緣，使得無碍之風，此乃最上乘，「是佛」也。是佛之處在，即是淨妙國土也。

這即是百丈禪師的說道處。所說五蘊，即是所說的不壞身(佛道公案現成)。所說的魯莽因緣，像是五處門開遇緣現起，成就佛道不被此五陰(色受想行識)所碍著。使得遇生的因緣時，而不被生所滯留，使得遇死的因緣時，而不被死所碍滅。落入二元的我執相有，就會徒愛生成，亂畏死滅。既然是佛性的現成，遇緣而被生起我相的擾動執著、或我相的厭卻緣起，都是外道的行徑。認得現前的眾因緣，能運載因果而無碍，此乃是最高明圓滿的教法，「是佛」。是成就佛道的公案現成，即是淨妙國土。

This is Baizhang’s statement. The “five aggregates” are this body that “won’t be destroyed”; this hurried act is “a gate opening,” is “unobstructed by the five aggregates.” In making use of life, it is not arrested by life; in making use of death, it is not obstructed by death. Do not futilely love life; do not irrationally fear death! Since they are the locus of the buddha nature, to be moved by them or to reject them is an alien path. To recognize the conditions right before one is “making use of the unobstructed style.” This is “this buddha” that is “the supreme vehicle.” The place of “this buddha” is “the pure and wondrous land.”68

黃檗在南泉茶堂內坐。南泉問黃檗：「定慧等學，明見佛性。此理如何？」黃檗云：「十二時中不依倚一物始得。」南泉云：「莫便是長老見處麼？」黃檗曰：「不敢。」南泉云：「漿水錢且致，草鞋錢叫什麼人還。」黃檗便休。所謂「定慧等學」之宗旨者，即若定學不碍慧學，於等學之處，無有明見佛性，乃於明見佛性之處而有定慧等學之學也。道取「此理如何」，比如道取「明見佛性，為誰所作」，亦當同義也。黃檗曰：「十二時中不依倚一物」之宗旨者，即謂十二時中雖處十二時中，然不依倚也。不依倚一物，是即十二時中故，佛性明見也。此十二時中，是何時節到來耶？是何國土耶？今云之十二時，當是人間之十二時耶？他那裏有十二時耶？是白銀世界之十二時且來耶？設若此土，設若他界，然不依倚也。既是十二時中，當不依倚。

黃檗禪師與南泉禪師的這則公案。所謂「定慧等學」的意義，是指若定學(止)不碍慧學(觀)，在止觀均等的狀態，仍有我執識是無法有明見佛性，但是於明見佛性時(法不屬於我的時節)，必是止觀均等的狀態。「此理如何」這句話，就像是在問「明見佛性，為誰所作」。黃檗說：「十二時中不依倚一物」的意義，就是說十二時中雖處於十二時中的流相(時間相、壽者相是二元運作的產物)，然行履不依著倚附落入壽者相。不依著倚附一物(心不隨物轉，即無我相、眾生相)，且是(十二時中，的一時相)不落入我相、壽者相，這是佛性明見。這種(十二時中)不落入壽者相的是時間一相，這是甚麼樣的時節？這是甚麼樣的境界(國土)？現在所說的十二時，當是人間的十二時呢？還是他方世界的十二時呢？還是白銀世界(一如相)的十二時呢？設若此是人間，或設若是他方世界，若是落入二元運作的世界，處這種二元世界就必須是不依著倚附，不落入我相、壽者相。因為白銀世界(一如相)是無時間相的一元境界。既然是(十二時中)時間一相，當然是不落入我相、壽者相的。

 Huangbo was sitting Nanquan’s tea hall. Nanquan asked Huangbo, “‘Studying meditation and wisdom equally, one clearly sees the buddha nature’ — what about this principle?”     Huangbo said, “You only achieve it when you don’t rely on a single thing throughout the twelve times.”     Nanquan said, “Isn’t this the elder’s viewpoint?”     Huangbo said, “Not at all.”     Nanquan said, “Leaving aside the money for the rice water, whom can I get to pay back the money for the straw sandals?”     Huangbo desisted.69 The essential point of “meditation and wisdom studied equally” is not that, since studying meditation does not interfere with studying wisdom, we “without clearly see the buddha nature” where they are studied equally: it is that we have a study that is “meditation and wisdom studied equally” where we “clearly see the buddha nature.” He says, “what about this principle?” This is like saying, for example, “by whom is “clearly seeing the buddha nature” done? Another saying would also be, “when buddha and nature are studied equally, one clearly sees the buddha nature — what about this principle?”70  Huangbo says, “you don’t rely on a single thing throughout the twelve times.” The essential point of this is that, although “throughout the twelve times” is located “thoughout the twelve times,” it is “not relying”: because “not relying on a single thing” is “throughout the twelve times,” the buddha nature is clearly seen. This “throughout the twelve times” — in which time does it arrive? In which land? This “twelve times” — is it the twelve times among humans? Are there twelve times over there? Have the twelve times of the silver world (uniform in color, one dimensional) come to us for a while? Whether it is this land, whether it is other worlds, it is “not relying.” Since it is “throughout the twelve times,” it must be “not relying.”71

所謂「莫便是長老見處麼」者，如言「恐不便謂此是見處」。設若道取長老見處麼，然不得回頭看作是自己之見處。雖的當於自己，然非黃檗。黃檗未必只是黃檗自己，蓋以長老見處為露回回故。

「莫便是長老見處麼」這句話，就像是說「恐不便謂此是見處」。假設說是「長老見處」，然不得回頭看作是自己的見處，因為是「見處」又落入頭腦的二元慮知。雖然是該當於自己的現成當下說的，然並非黃檗這因緣相(一合相，但非一相)。黃檗這因緣相未必就是黃檗本來面目，這是因為「長老見處」是露回回的現成(不掉入第二頭，即不落入頭腦的二元性慮知)。

“Isn’t this the elder’s viewpoint?” is like saying, “Aren’t you saying this is your viewpoint?” Though he says, “is it the elder’s viewpoint?” he should not turn his head, thinking it must refer to himself. It may be accurate of himself, but it is not Huangbo, and Huangbo is not necessarily merely himself; for the “elder’s viewpoint” is “exposed everywhere.”72

黃檗曰：「不敢。」此言於宋土，意謂當問取自己之能力時，雖欲言能力之為能，然說不敢也。所以，不敢之道，非不敢也；此道得不可計之是道取也。長老見處雖是長老，長老見處雖為黃檗，然道取時，當為不敢也。當如一頭水軲牛出來道牛牛。如是道取者，即是道取也。道取之宗旨，更又為道取之道取，當試道取看。

黃檗說：「不敢。」此句話於宋朝，意思是說：當人家問自己的能力時，雖然心想說有這能力，但會客氣說不敢。所以，說不敢，並非不敢；這是種可以說得道，但不一定是做得到的。所以「長老見處」雖是黃檗的知見，「長老見處」的能知者雖就是黃檗，但在言說時，應當是說不敢(因為這是要用做到去呈現的)。所謂「做到」的意思，就如同一頭水軲牛出來說：「牛牛」。這種「做到」的呈現，即是說道得(即是以用來呈現的)。「道取」的意義，更進一步的是能做到，且能解說的(即具有解脫與解脫知見)，應當試著說說看。

Huangbo says, “Not at all.” Regarding this term: in the land of the Song, when asked about one’s own ability, even while saying an ability is one’s ability, one says, “not at all.” Therefore, saying “not at all” does not mean “not at all,” and we should not reckon that this saying is saying that. “The elder’s viewpoint” may be that of an elder, “the elder’s viewpoint” may be that of Huangbo; but in speaking of it, he should say, “not at all. (because to say should be to do)” He should be a water buffalo coming up and saying, “moo, moo.” Saying it like this is saying it. The point of what he is saying, we should try to say by another saying that also says it.73

南泉曰：「漿水錢且致，草鞋錢叫什麼人還？」謂：漿水錢暫且不說，草鞋錢讓誰來付？此道取之意旨，須當久久力盡生生世世而參究！漿水錢之如何暫且不管，當留心勤學草鞋錢為何管得。行腳之年月，踏破幾多草鞋。今當云：「如不還錢，未著草鞋。」又可云：「兩三兩。」當是如此道得，當是如此宗旨。「黃檗便休。」此休也，非不被肯認而休，亦非不肯而休。本色之衲子，則不然也。當知休理有道者，如笑裡有刀也。此是佛性明見，粥足飯飽也。

南泉說：「漿水錢且致，草鞋錢叫什麼人還？」是說：漿水錢(指遇善知識時的下工夫的多少)暫且不說，草鞋錢(指自己所應下的功夫多少)讓誰來付？這種說法的意旨，須當久久力，盡生生世世而參究！當留心勤學這漿水錢的如何暫且不管(因名師因緣難遇)，草鞋錢為何管得。在探詢佛法，參訪善知識行腳的年月，踏破多少草鞋。到今日應當說：「如果不還錢，不可穿著草鞋(即自己沒下功夫，不可到處去雲遊參訪)。」又可云：「兩三兩(即草鞋錢只許花費少許)。」應當是如此說，應當是這個意義(即到處參訪佛法，只落入對佛法的聽聞、言說。真正的佛法是要下功夫做到)。「黃檗便休。」這是停下辯駁，並非不被認可而停下辯駁，亦非不認可這說法而不辯駁。具一元性思維的衲僧，就是知道不用辯駁。所以當知道「不辯駁」的，就像是笑裡有刀。這是佛性明見，具足於日常行履的功夫。

Nanquan said, “Leaving aside the money for the rice water, whom can I get to pay back the money for the straw sandals?” What he is saying is, “Putting aside for the moment the cost of your rice water, who can I get to return the cost of your sandals.” The meaning of this saying, we should investigate for a long time, exhausting life after life. We should put our minds to and diligently study why he is not for the moment concerned about the “the money for the rice water,” and why he is concerned about “the money for the straw sandals.” [The question is,] how many straw sandals has he worn out in his years of pilgimage? He should say, “If I hadn’t returned the money, I wouldn’t have put on the straw sandals.” Or he should say, “Two or three pair.” This should be his saying; this should be his point.74 “Huangbo desisted.” This means he “desisted”: it does not mean that, not being affirmed, he desisted; or, not affirming, he desisted. A patch-robed one of true colors (means: Monk who understand the principle of Buddha dharma) is not like that. We should realize that there is speech within desisting, like “the blade within the laugh.” This is “the gruel is enough, the rice is enough,” of the buddha nature clearly seen.75

舉此因緣，溈山問仰山曰：「莫是黃檗構他南泉不得麼？」仰山曰：「不然。須知黃檗有陷虎之機。」溈山云：「子見處，得恁麼長？」大溈之所道，即謂昔黃檗豈非構不得南泉耶？仰山曰：「黃檗有陷虎之機。」既是陷虎，當捋虎頭。陷虎捋虎，異類中行。明見佛性也，開一只眼。佛性明見也，失一只眼。速道速道！佛性見處，得恁麼長？是故，半物全物，是不依倚也。百物千物，不依倚也。百時千時，不依倚也。是故曰：「籮籠一枚，時中十二。依倚不依倚，如葛藤依樹。天中及全天，後頭未有語。」

舉出這公案，溈山問仰山說：「難道是黃檗說法構不上南泉嗎？」仰山說：「不然。須知黃檗有陷虎的機關。」溈山說：「法子所見處，得知佛性甚麼長處？」大溈所說的，即是說：昔黃檗哪裡會構不上南泉呢？仰山說：「黃檗有陷虎的機關。」既然是要陷虎，就應當捋虎頭重點(即是說黃檗知道，「辯駁」又落入言說的錯誤，所以直接的呈現就是閉嘴「做」的休)。這種陷虎捋虎的行履，是異於凡類的行履。因是明見佛性，可開一只眼呈現(指有言說)。而以失一只眼(指不言說)呈現，也是佛性明見。這就是說「佛性見處，得恁麼長？」。 佛性的現成(一元境界)，與半物全物(內外、主客的我相、人相二元分別)，是不相關的。與百物千物(眾生相、空間相)，不相關的。與百時千時(壽者相、時間相)，不相關的。所以說：「籮籠一枚，時中十二。依倚不依倚，如葛藤依樹(大千世界像是籮籠一枚的一元境，時間是一相(無壽者相)。佛性的現成是萬象(法)，是依著因緣法的此有故彼有，此無故彼無，如葛藤依樹而生；雖是如此，仍是法住法位)。天中及全天(一元境的法是無空間相，無前面後面，起點即是終點，這是因為古代祖師不知道現代的微積分語言，可以描素無空間相，空間距離的概念呈現圓，或無限小)，後頭未有語(是言語道斷)。」

 Raising this episode, Guishan asked Yangshan, “Doesn’t this mean that Huangbo couldn’t catch that Nanquan?”     Yangshan said, “Not so. You should realize that Huangbo has the ability to trap a tiger.     Guishan said, “Your viewpoint is thus better?”76

Dagui’s words say, “At that time, Huangbo could not catch Nanquan.” Guishan says, “Huangbo has the ability to trap a tiger.” If he has trapped the tiger, he should pet the tiger’s head. Trapping a tiger and petting the tiger, he moves among other species. Clearly seeing the buddha nature, he opens one eye; The buddha nature clearly seeing, he loses one eye. Speak! Speak!

 The buddha nature’s viewpoint is “thus better.” Therefore, a half thing or a whole thing is “not relying”; a hundred thousand things are “not relying”; a hundred thousand times are “not relying.” Therefore, we say, A single snare (means: great chiliocosm), throughout the times twelve. Relying and not relying, like climbing vines depend on the tree. Throughout the heavens and the whole of heaven; afterwards, he had no words.77

有僧問趙州真際大師：「狗子還有佛性也無？」此問之意趣，須當明究。狗子者，即狗犬也。非問取彼有佛性，亦非問取無，乃問取「鐵漢又學道耶？」雖誤遇毒手，怨恨深重，然此乃三十年來，更見半個聖人之風流也。趙州曰：「無。」聞此語，當有學習之方路。佛性自稱之無當恁麼，狗子自稱之無亦當恁麼道。旁觀者所喚作之無，亦當恁麼道。其「無」必有消石之日。

有僧人問趙州真際大師：「狗子還有沒有佛性？」此問的意趣，須當明瞭參究。狗子，就是狗犬。僧人不是要問狗有佛性、無佛性，乃是要問「鐵漢又學道耶？」(即佛性現成的狗仔，是否仍可學習佛道呢?)雖然此僧人要悔恨，誤遇趙州毒手，然此公案乃更見到半個聖人三十年的教化風範(趙州從諗，唐代禪師，南泉普願門下，住趙州城東觀音院教化三十餘年，時人尊稱他為「趙州古佛」。)。趙州說：「無。」聽聞這話，應當想有學習的路徑。佛性自稱的『無』(即佛向上的妙有、真如法)，應當是『恁麼』(指法現成的當下，但非法相)，狗子自稱的『無』，亦當說是『恁麼』。旁觀者所喚作之『無』，亦當說是『恁麼』。其『無』(就是「恁麼』)必有露回回現成的時節。

A monk asked the Great Master Zhenji of Zhaozhou, “Does a dog have the buddha nature?”78

We should be clear about the meaning of this question. The term gouzi means “dog.” He is not asking whether it has the buddha nature; he is not asking whether it does not have the buddha nature: he is asking whether “the man of iron (means: sentient being)” also studies the way. Although he may regret having mistakenly encountered a “poison hand,” it is in the style of “seeing half a holy one after thirty years.”79

Zhaozhou said, “No.”  There is a route we should study when we hear this said. The “no (means: truth-Dharma)” that the buddha nature calls itself should be said like this; the “no” that the dog calls itself should be said like this; the “no” by which the onlooker calls it should be said like this. There will be a day when this “no” just melts the stone.80

僧曰：「一切眾生皆有佛性，狗子為什麼無？」此語之宗旨，謂一切眾生若無，佛性亦應無，狗子亦當無，其宗旨作麼生？狗子佛性，為何待無哉？趙州曰：「為他有業識在。」此道之旨，謂「為他有之」者，即「業識」也。雖「業識有」，「為他有」，然狗子無，佛性無也。業識不會狗子，狗子為何會佛性哉？設若雙放雙收，然此，尚是業識之始終也。

僧人說：「一切眾生皆有佛性，狗子為什麼會沒有？」此語的意義，是說一切眾生若虛無，佛性亦應該是虛無，狗子也當虛無，這意義是怎樣的呢？狗子的佛性，為何是沒有呢？趙州說：「因為狗子有業識在。」這句話的意義，是說「為他有之」，即是「業識」(即因業識的緣起，而有狗子這法相)。雖「業識有」，「為他有」，然而狗子是虛無，佛性也是虛無。業識不知現成是狗子，狗子為何會知道是佛性的現成呢？設若雙放雙收(或是說狗子雖覓業識不可得，然狗子仍是當下緣起法現成)，然而此仍是落在狗子是業識的現成(即未達體悟諸法是佛性的現成)。

The monk said, “All living beings have the buddha nature. Why doesn’t the dog have it?”81

The point of what he says is that, if “all living beings” are “no,” “the buddha nature” must also be “no,” “the dog” must also be “no” — what about this point? Why should the buddha nature of the dog depend on “no”?82

Zhaozhou said, “Because it has karmic consciousness.”  The meaning of these words is that, while “because it has” is “karmic consciousness,” and “having karmic consciousness” is “because it has,” they are the “no” of the dog, the “no” of the buddha nature. Karmic consciousness does not understand the dog; so how could the dog meet the buddha nature? Whether we disperse the pair or collect the pair, it is still karmic consciousness from beginning to end.83

趙州有僧問：「狗子還有佛性也無？」此問取，當為此僧構得趙州之道理。然則佛性之問取道取，乃佛祖之家常茶飯也。趙州曰：「有。」此「有」之樣子，非教家之論師所云之「有」，亦非有部所論之「有」也。須當進前學習佛有。佛有者，趙州有也。趙州有者，狗子有也。狗子有者，佛性有也。僧曰：「既有，為什麼卻撞入這皮袋？」此僧之道得，乃問取今有耶？古有耶？既有耶？「既有」者，雖言相似於「諸有」，然「既有」乃孤明也。「既有」者，當撞入耶？當不撞入耶？撞入這皮袋之行履，乃非徒然蹉跎之功夫。

趙州有僧人問他：「狗子還有沒有佛性？」這樣的問話，應當說此僧人構得上趙州的道理。然則佛性義理的問答，乃是祖師們的平常法語。這次趙州說：「有。」(這裡是指法相是因法性而有)這說「有」的樣子，非經教家的論師所說的「有」，亦非一切有部所論的「有」。須當進前學習「佛性有」。所謂「佛有」，即是趙州有。而「趙州有」，即是狗子有。「狗子有」，即佛性有。僧人說：「既然是佛性有，為什麼卻撞入這身軀皮袋？」這僧人所說的，乃是在問這「佛有」是今有呢？還是古有呢？還是「既有」呢？所謂「既有」，雖說相似於「諸有」，然而「既有」乃是孤明(即有單一主體意識)。這「既有」，是應當撞入呢？還是不應當撞入呢？撞入這身軀皮袋的行履，乃是非偶然失足跌落的(即因業識而有)。

A monk asked Zhaozhou, “Does the dog have the buddha nature?”84 The reason for this question must be for this monk to catch Zhaozhou. Thus, talking about and asking about the buddha nature is the “everyday tea and rice” of the buddhas and ancestors.85 Zhaozhou said, “Yes.” The form of this “yes” is not the “being” of the treatise masters of the teaching houses, not the “being” discussed by the Existence school. We should go on to study the being of the buddha. The being of the buddha is the being of Zhaozhou; the being of Zhaozhou is the being of the dog; the being of the dog is the being of the buddha nature.86 The monk said, “Since it already has it, why does it still force entry into this bag of skin?”87  In this monk’s saying, in asking whether it is present being, past being, or “already being,” though we may say “already being” resembles the various [other types of] being, “already being” shines alone. Should “already being” “force entry” or should it not “force entry”? There is no concerted effort that idly overlooks the conduct of “forcing entry into this bag of skin.” (means: karmic consciousness is the cause of “already being”)

趙州曰：「為他知而故犯。」此語為世俗之言語流布於世上，然今此是趙州之道得也。所說者：知而故犯。此道得，不予疑著者當少。今「人」之一字雖難以明究，然「人」之一子亦用不得也，況乎「欲識庵中不死人，豈離只今這皮袋？」不死人設是阿誰，然何時莫離此皮袋耶？故犯非必是入皮袋，撞入這皮袋不必是知而故犯。以「知而」故，當有「故犯」也。須知此故犯焉能覆藏脫體之行履？說之為撞入也。脫體之行履，其正當覆藏時，亦覆藏於自己，亦覆藏於他人。雖然如是，且莫言尚未解脫，驢前馬後之漢。況乎云居高祖曰：「直饒學得佛法邊事，早是錯用心了也。」然則，半枚學佛法邊事，雖久錯來，日深月深，然此當是撞入這皮袋之狗子也。雖為知而故犯，當為有佛性也。

趙州說：「因為他知道而且故意犯的。」這話成為世俗的言語流布於世上，至今這已是趙州的得道禪語。所說的：「知而故犯」。對此得道禪語，不懷疑著的人當少。今日對「人」這一字雖難以明瞭究竟，然而「人」的一丁點兒也用不得，況乎這字用在，「欲識庵中不死人，豈離只今這皮袋？」。句中「不死人」是指誰呢？而且何時不離此皮袋呢？然而，故意犯的非必定是入皮袋，撞入這皮袋不必是知道而且故意犯的。(即是說「不死人」這佛性的現成，是唯識而有法相，法相卻是因業識而異，所以非必是入皮袋相。因是「業識有」，所以不是知而故犯。) 因為「知而」(識有)，即當有「故犯」(皮袋相的現成)。須知此皮袋相的現成，怎能覆藏佛性的現成？故意說他為撞入。法是佛性的現成，正當佛性的現成時，法的當下不落入二元性的我相(主客關係)、人相(內外關係)。雖然是這樣，但不要說是尚未解脫，像是驢前馬後(身分卑下，聽人使喚，指三界眾生)的人。何況雲居高祖(善悟禪師)說：「直饒學得佛法邊事，早是錯用心了也。(因為法是當下作用的現成，不是頭腦慮知可得的)」然而，只能略知且有錯誤的學習佛法邊事，工夫日深月深成就業識的積累，這因緣當是撞入這皮袋的狗子現成。雖然為知而故犯，但應當為是有佛性的現成。

Zhaozhou said, “Because it knowingly commits an intentional crime.” These words may have long circulated in the world as a secular expression, but here they are Zhaozhou’s saying. What they say is that, knowing, it intentionally transgessed. Not a few must have had doubts about this saying. The term “being”(karmic consciousness) here may be difficult to clarify, but “the word ‘being’ is not necessary.” Still more, “if you wish to know the undying being in the hermitage, how could you leave this present bag of skin?” Whoever the “undying person” is, when would it leave the bag of skin?89 “Committing an intentional crime” is not necessarily “entering the bag of skin; “forcing entry into this bag of skin” is not necessarily “knowingly committing an intentional crime”: because it is “knowingly,” there must be “the commission of an intentional crime.” We should realize that this “commission of an intentional crime” may have covered and concealed the conduct of the body cast off. This is spoken of as “forcing entry.” The conduct of the body cast off, at the very time it is covered and concealed, is covered and concealed in the self and covered and concealed in others. Nevertheless, though this may be the case, do not say it has not escaped — “the guy ahead of the ass and behind the horse. (adage, means: living beings)” Moreover, as the Eminent Ancestor Yunju says, “Studying the marginal matters of the buddha dharma, you’ve already misused your mind.”90

長沙景岑和尚集會上，有竺尚書問曰：「蚯蚓斬為兩斷，兩頭俱動。未審佛性在阿那個頭？」師云：「莫妄想。」書云：「爭奈動何？」師云：「只是風火未散。」今尚書問所曰之「蚯蚓斬為兩斷」者，當決定未斬時為一斷乎？佛祖之家常，不恁麼也。蚯蚓本非一斷，亦非蚯蚓被斬而為兩斷。一、兩之道取，須功夫參學！所言「兩頭俱動」之「兩頭」，以未斬之前為一頭耶？以佛向上為一頭耶？「兩頭」之語，不關尚書之會與不會，意在莫捨此話語也。已斬為兩斷，是一頭？而或更有一頭？曰其動謂俱動，定動智拔，皆應為動。

景岑和尚與竺尚書的公案中，尚書所問的「蚯蚓斬為兩斷」，應當先決定蚯蚓未斬時為一斷(一全然相)嗎？但這在佛祖的法義，不是這樣子的。蚯蚓本非一斷，也不是蚯蚓被斬而為兩斷(兩個全然相)。這一、兩斷的說法，須下功夫參學！所說的「兩頭俱動」的「兩頭」，是說未斬前的為一頭嗎？還是說「佛向上」(指真如法)為一頭嗎？「兩頭」的說法，並不關乎尚書的會與不會佛祖的法義，用意是不要忽略這話語。蚯蚓已斬為兩斷，是一頭有佛性？還是兩頭都有佛性？而且說蚯蚓兩斷的動是謂「俱動」，但止、觀、般若、妄想，皆應為動(佛性的用)。

  In the community of the Reverend Changsha Jingcen, the Minister Zhu asked, “When you cut a worm in two pieces, both of them move. I don’t understand, in which one is the buddha nature?”     The master said, “Don’t have deluded ideas.”     The minister said, “What do you make of their moving?”     The master said, “It’s just that the wind and fire haven’t dispersed.”91

The minister says here “cut a worm in two pieces”: is he certain that, before one cuts it, it is one piece? In the everyday life of the buddhas and ancestors, this is not so: from the beginning, the worm is not one piece, nor is it two pieces when one cuts it. We should make concerted effort and study the word “one piece.” In saying “both of them move,” by “both,” does he mean there is one before we cut it? Does he mean that there is one “beyond the buddha”? Whether or not the minister understands or does not understand the words “both of them,” we should not discard his words. Is it that, while the two cut parts are one, there is a further one? In speaking of the movement, he says “both move”: “concentration moves them and wisdom uproots them (Stopping, insight, wisdom, delusion)” are both this “movement.”92

「未審佛性在阿那個頭？」蓋當曰：「佛性斬為兩斷，未審蚯蚓在阿那個頭？」此道取，須審細參學之。所謂「兩頭俱動，未審佛性在阿那個頭？」者，當謂若是俱動，則不堪佛性之處在乎？或當曰俱動者，雖動者共動之，然佛性之所在當為其中那一頭？師曰：「莫妄想。」此宗旨當作麼生？謂莫妄想也！然則，是謂兩頭俱動而無妄想耶？非妄想耶？或言唯佛性無妄想耶？此乃不及佛性之論，亦不及兩頭之論，但道取無妄想耶？復須參究！

「未審佛性在阿那個頭？」應當是說：「佛性斬為兩斷，未審蚯蚓在阿那個頭？」這種問法，須審細參學。所謂的「兩頭俱動，未審佛性在阿那個頭？」，應當說若是俱動，則有沒有佛性的地方嗎？或應當說俱動的意思，雖然是動，但是共動的，若是這樣佛性應當在其中那一頭？景岑和尚說：「莫妄想。」這句話的意義是甚麼呢？即是說不要落入頭腦慮知的錯誤！然而這句話，是說兩頭俱動而且無頭腦慮知嗎？還是說是非頭腦慮知呢？或是說唯有佛性，是無頭腦慮知的錯誤呢？這是不關佛性的議論，亦不關蚯蚓兩頭的議論，只是說不要落入頭腦慮知的錯誤呢？復須參究！

 “I don’t understand, in which one is the buddha nature?” This saying, we should examine in detail. He should say, “When the buddha nature is cut in two pieces, I don’t understand, in which one is the worm?”93 “Both of them move; in which one is the buddha nature?” Is he saying that, if both of them move, they are unfit as the location of the buddha nature? Or is he saying that, although, since both move, the movement moves in both, in which [movement] is the location of the buddha nature?

  “The master said, ‘Don’t have deluded ideas.’” What should we make of his point here? He says, “Do not have deluded ideas.” So, is he saying that, “when both of them move,” they have no deluded ideas? Or saying that they are not deluded ideas? Or saying just that the buddha nature has no deluded ideas? Or, without discussing the buddha nature or discussing “both,” is he just saying that there are no deluded ideas. We should study all these.

「爭那動何」之謂者，乃道取若動之，則更加佛性一枚乎？或道著動之即非佛性乎？謂「風火未散」者，即當令佛性出現。是佛性耶？是風火耶？佛性與風火，不得言俱出；不得言一出一不出，不得言風火即佛性。故長沙未言蚯蚓有佛性，未云蚯蚓無佛性。只道取「莫妄想」，只道取「風火未散」。佛性之活計，當卜度長沙之道。風火未散之言語，須當靜靜下功夫參究！「未散」者，有何道理？謂道取風火既集而散期未至，曰之為未散乎？非然也。風火未散，即佛說法；未散風火，乃法說佛。比喻說一音法之時節到來也。說法之一音者，到來之時節也。法者，一音也，以一音之法故。

「爭那動何」的意思，是說若是會動的，則可以說是有佛性嗎？或是說會動的即非佛性嗎？所說「風火未散」(四大物質性未滅)，即是令佛性現成的。是佛性所成就的呢？還是風火物質所成就的呢？佛性與風火，不可說兩者一起作用；不可說一個作用一個沒作用，也不可說風火即佛性。故景岑和尚未說蚯蚓有佛性，也未說蚯蚓無佛性。只是說「莫妄想」，只是說「風火未散」。佛性的義理，當參究景岑和尚的說法。「風火未散」的言語，須當靜靜下功夫參究！所說的「未散」，有何道理？是說風火既集(即四大物質成就肉體的一合相，真如法)而散期未至，稱它為未散嗎？並非這樣的(即真如法是法住法位)。「風火未散」(四大物質所顯現的法性的靜相)，即是佛性的說法現成；「未散風火」(四大物質所顯現的法用的動相)，乃是法相呈現佛性的用。比如說「一音法」的時節因緣現前(如聽到A的音，在空氣中的震動的用)。說法的「一音」相，現前而顯其用。這裡的法，就是「一音」相，這是因為呈現的是「一音」的法用。

 “What do you make of their moving?” Is this saying that, since they are moving, we should add another layer of buddha nature on top of them? Is it trying to say that, since they are moving, they are not the buddha nature?94  To say “the wind and fire haven’t dispersed” is to make the buddha nature appear. Should we take it as the buddha nature? Should we take it as the wind and fire? We should not say that the buddha nature and the wind and fire both emerge; we should not say that one emerges and one does not emerge; we should not say that the wind and fire are themselves the buddha nature. Therefore, Changsha does not say that the worm has the buddha nature; he does not say that the worm has no buddha nature. He simply says, “Don’t have deluded ideas”; he says, “the wind and fire haven’t dispersed.” We should calculate the way of life of the buddha nature by the saying of Changsha; we should quietly make concerted efforts on the words “the wind and fire haven’t dispersed.” What is the reasoning behind his saying “undispersed”? Does “undispersed” mean he is saying that the wind and fire have been collected and have not yet reached the point when they will be dispersed? This cannot be the case. “The wind and fire haven’t dispersed” is the buddha preaching the dharma; “the wind and fire haven’t dispersed” is the dharma preaching the buddha. It is like the arrival of the time when a single sound preaches the dharma; it is the time of the arrival of the single sound that is the preaching (virtue) of the dharma. The dharma is a single sound; for it is the virtue of a single sound.95

又，以為佛性乃生時有，死時乃無者，最為少聞薄見也。生時亦是有佛性，是無佛性也。死時亦是有佛性，是無佛性也。若論風火之散與未散，佛性亦當有散與未散。設使散時，亦當是佛性有，佛性無。設使未散時，亦當有佛性，無佛性。然則邪執佛性因動不動而在不在，因識不識而神不神，以知不知而性不性者，外道也。無始劫來，痴人多以識神為佛性，為本來人，笑殺人也。更道取佛性者，雖不拖泥帶水，蓋牆壁瓦礫是也。向上道取時，作麼生是佛性？還委悉麼？三頭八臂。

又，如果以為佛性是生時有，死時就沒有，是對佛法最為少聞薄見的。生時亦是有佛性，也是無佛性。死時亦是有佛性，也是無佛性。(這是說佛性的現成是用，如果沒有緣起用，佛性就不可討論有無。就像是光的特性，光被看到是在動時的用；光在靜止時，質量為零，也就是說靜止的光是不存在的；也就是不可討論有無)。若是論風火物質的散與未散，佛性也當有散與未散。設使肉體物質散時，亦當是佛性有動用、佛性無動用。設使肉體物質未散時，亦當有佛性動用、無佛性動用。然而邪執佛性因動用、不動用，而說佛性有或沒有，以覺識的有無，而說靈魂的有無，以覺知的有無，而說佛性的有無，這是外道的知見。無始劫來，痴人多以意識慮知的靈魂為佛性，以為是本來人，可笑至極。外道又有說到佛性的，雖不拖泥帶水，大都也是無關緊要的牆壁瓦礫。要談佛向上事時，甚麼是佛性？還知道麼？佛性啊! 是三頭八臂的(神通廣大，本領出眾)。

Again, to think that the buddha nature exists only at the time of birth and not at the time of death is [a case of] little learning and slight understanding. The time of birth “has the buddha nature” and “has no buddha nature”; the time of death “has the buddha nature” and “has no buddha nature.” If we discuss the dispersal and non-dispersal of the wind and fire, it would be the dispersal and non-dispersal of the buddha nature. The time that it disperses must be the buddha nature existing, must be the buddha nature not existing; the time that it has not dispersed must be having the buddha nature, must be having no buddha nature. Despite this, to cling falsely to [the views that] the buddha nature exists or does not exist depending on whether it is moving on not moving, or it is spirit or is not spirit depending on whether it is conscious or not conscious, or it is the nature or is not the nature depending on its knowing or not knowing — this is an alien path. “From beginningless kalpas,” “the deluded,” “acknowledging the knowing spirit,” have taken it as the buddha nature, have taken it as “the original person” — what a laugh! To say something further about the buddha nature, although we need not be “covered with mud and soaked with water,” it is “fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles.” When we say something beyond this, what is the buddha nature? Is everything clear? “Three heads and eight arms. (adage, means: to have great magic power)”96

參考資料：

(1) 《正法眼藏》  道原 著 ， 何燕生 譯註， 宗教文化出版社

(2) 《Shōbōgenzō》 http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/intro.html