《坐禪箴》永平道元禪師 (英譯) (1)
藥山弘道大師坐次有僧問:“兀兀地思量個什麼?”師云:“思量個不思量底。” 僧云:“不思量底如何思量?”
師云:“非思量。” 證取大師如是之道,須參學兀坐,須正傳兀坐!兀坐乃佛道所傳之參究也。兀兀地思量,雖非藥山一人,然藥山之道是其一也,謂“思量個非思量底”也。有思量之為皮肉骨髓者,有不思量之為皮肉骨髓者。
藥山弘道大師上席坐,有僧問:「兀兀地思量個什麼?」弘道大師說:「思量個不思量底。」 僧說:「不思量底如何思量?」
弘道大師說:「非思量。」 要親證大師的這種說法,須參學「兀坐」(單純沉穩的坐禪),須正傳「兀坐」!「兀坐」乃佛道所傳的參究方法。兀兀地思量,雖不是藥山一人的法教,然而藥山的法教是其中之一,這法教是所謂的「思量個非思量底」。佛法有思量的法門教法的,有不思量的法門教法的。
Once, when the Great Master Hongdao
of Yueshan was sitting [in meditation], a monk asked him, "What are you
thinking of, [sitting there] so fixedly?" The master answered, "I'm
thinking of not thinking." The monk asked, "How do you think of not
thinking?" The Master answered, "Nonthinking." <2> Verifying that such are the words of the Great Master, we should study fixed sitting, we should participate in the
correct transmission of fixed sitting. This is the investigation of
fixed sitting transmitted in the way of the buddha. Although he is not alone in
"thinking fixedly", Yueshan's words are singular: "thinking of
not thinking". Thinking is the very "skin, flesh, bones and
marrow"; "not thinking" is the very skin, flesh, bones and
marrow. <3>
僧云:“不思量底如何思量?”誠“不思量底”之謂雖久,然此更是“如何思量”也。兀兀底而無思量乎?兀兀底向上,因何而不過哉?若非賤俗之愚輩,當有問著、思量(何謂)兀兀地之力量。
僧云:「不思量底如何思量?」誠然「不思量底」的說法雖然已經很久,然而這是更要「如何思量」?是兀兀底而無思量嗎?兀兀底探詢佛向上,因何而過不了這關呢?若非賤俗的愚輩,應當有問著、思量,何謂『兀兀地』的力量?
"The monk asked, 'How do you
think of not thinking?'" Indeed, while "not thinking" may be
old, here it is "how do you think"? Could there be no
"thinking" in sitting "fixedly"? How could [it] fail to
penetrate beyond sitting "fixedly"? If we are not the sort of fool
that "despises what is near", we ought to have the strength, we ought
to have the "thinking", to question sitting "fixedly". <4>
大師云:“非思量。”使用所云之非思量雖(透如)玲瓏,然思量個不思量底,則必用非思量也。非思量中有誰人,誰人乃保任我。兀兀地雖是我,然但非思量,乃帶頭兀兀地也。兀兀地雖是兀兀地,然兀兀地如何思量兀兀地?是故,兀兀地者,非佛量,非法量,非悟量,非會量也。藥山如是單傳,自釋迦牟尼佛直下已是三十六代也。由藥山向上尋之,於三十六代則有釋迦牟尼佛也。如是正傳,已有思量個不思量底也。
弘道大師說:「非思量。」使用所說的非思量雖是透如玲瓏,然而要思量個不思量底,則必須是用非思量。非思量中有識(見聞覺知)的作用,所以是有人(有情識)在,而這人乃是保持任用這『我』(眾生有情)。所以兀兀地有見聞覺知作用,雖然顯示是『我』在,然而這只是無主觀意識分別參與的非思量,乃是帶著頭腦單純沉穩的『我』在(即不落入意識二元分別影像、念頭)。兀兀地雖然是兀兀地,然而兀兀地如何思量兀兀地?所以,「兀兀地」,非佛量,非法量,非悟量,非學會量。藥山弘道大師如是親自相續傳授,自釋迦牟尼佛直下已經是三十六代。由藥山向上探尋,於三十六代則有釋迦牟尼佛。這樣子的正傳,早已有思量個不思量底的法教。
"The master answered,
'Nonthinking'." Although the employment of "nonthinking" is
"crystal clear", when we "think of not thinking", we
always use "nonthinking". There is someone in
"nonthinking", and this someone maintains us. Although it is we who
are sitting "fixedly", [our sitting] is not merely
"thinking": it presents itself as sitting "fixedly".
Although sitting "fixedly" is sitting "fixedly", how could
it "think" of sitting "fixedly"? Therefore, sitting
"fixedly" is not the "measure of the buddha", not the
measure of the dharma, not the measure of awakening, not the measure of
comprehension. <5>
The single transmission of this
sitting "fixedly" by Yueshan represents the thirty-sixth generation
directly from the Buddha Shâkyamuni: if we trace beyond Yueshan thirty-six
generations, there is the Buddha Shâkyamuni. In what was thus correctly
transmitted there was already "thinking of not thinking". <6>
然則,近年愚昧杜撰之徒曰:“功夫坐禪,得胸襟無事了,便是平穩地也。”此見解,尚不及小乘之學者,較人天乘亦劣也,爭奈稱學佛法之漢!現在大宋國,恁麽功夫之人多。祖道荒蕪,可悲矣!
然而,近年愚昧杜撰的僧徒說:「功夫坐禪,得胸襟無事了,便是平穩地也。」這種見解,尚不及小乘的學者,也比人天乘劣,爭奈稱學佛法的漢子!現在大宋國,這樣下功夫的人多。佛祖正道荒蕪,可悲啊!
Recently, however, some stupid
illiterates say, "Once you attain [the state in which] the breast is
without concerns, the concentrated effort at seated meditation is peace and
tranquility." <7> This view does not compare
with that of the scholastics of the Lesser Vehicle; it is inferior even to the
Vehicle of Men and Gods. How could one [who holds such a view] be called a
person who studies the buddha dharma? At present, there are many such
practitioners in the land of the Great Sung. How sad that the way of the
ancestors has become overgrown.
又有一類漢云:“坐禪辦道是初心晚學之要機,必非佛祖之行履。(言):‘行亦禪,坐亦禪,語默動靜體安然。’但莫拘於只今之功夫。”自稱臨濟餘流之輩,多此見解也。乃因佛法正命之疏傳,故恁麽道也。何是初心?孰非初心?初心安於何處?
又有一類的漢子說:「坐禪辦道是初心晚學的要機,必非佛祖的行履。又說:『行亦禪,坐亦禪,語默動靜體安然。』但莫拘於當下的功夫。」自稱臨濟餘流的後輩,大多持此見解。乃是因佛法正命的疏漏傳承,所以才有這種說法。甚麼是初心?孰非初心?初心是安於何處?
Then there is another type of
person [who says,] "To pursue the way in seated meditation is a function
essential for the "beginner's mind and the latter-day student", but
it is not necessarily an observance of the buddhas and ancestors. 'Walking is
Zen, sitting is Zen; whether in speech or silence, motion or rest, the
substance is at ease.' <8> Do not adhere solely to the
present concentrated effort [of seated meditation]." Many of the type
calling itself a branch of the Linji [lineage] are of this view. It is because
they are deficient in transmitting the right life of the buddha-dharma that
they speak thus. What is the "beginner's mind"? Where is there no
"beginner's mind"? Where do we leave the "beginner's mind"?
須知學道所定之參究者,即坐禪辦道也。其榜樣宗旨者,有不求作佛之行佛。行佛更非作佛,故公案現成也。身佛更非作佛,籮籠若打破,則坐禪不礙作佛。正當恁麽時,千古萬古,共有入佛入魔之力。退步進步,自有滿溝滿壑之量也。
須要知道學佛道所定的參學研究的,即是坐禪辦道。這所榜樣的意義,是種不求作佛的行佛。是行佛更非作佛,所以是(當下是佛)公案現成的。是身證佛(身佛一如),而不是身在作佛(能行是身,所行是佛的兩頭),能夠把二元運作的籮籠打破,則是修證一如,坐禪不礙作佛。正當恁麽(一元性的心法一如)時,千古萬古,共同有入佛入魔的威力。萬象佛法的生滅,自有滿溝滿壑(無所不在)的量。
Be it known that, for studying the
way, the established [means of] investigation is pursuing the way in seated
meditation. The essential point of its standard is [the understanding] that
there is a practice of a buddha that does not seek to make a buddha. Since the
practice of a buddha is not to make a buddha, it is the realization of the
kôan. The embodied buddha does not make a buddha; when "the baskets and
cages" are broken, a seated buddha does not interfere with making a
buddha. At just such a time, from one thousand, from ten thousand ages past, we
originally have the power "to enter into Buddha and enter into Måra".
Stepping forward and back (the change of the dharmas),
its measure fully "fills the ditches and clogs the moats (adage, means: omnipresent)". <9>
江西大寂禪師,因參學南嶽大慧禪師,密受心印以來,常坐禪焉。南嶽有時行至大寂所,問:“大德,坐禪圖個什麼?”此問,須靜靜功夫參究!何以故?比之參禪,當有向上之圖乎?比之參禪,當有格外所圖之道乎?一切不可圖乎?坐禪之當時,乃問著現成什麼圖乎?須(如是)審細功夫(參究)!由之愛雕龍,當進之而愛真龍。須學習雕真龍共有(呼)雲(降)雨之能。莫貴遠,莫賤遠,須慣熟於遠。莫賎近,莫貴近,須慣熟於近。勿輕目,勿重目,勿重耳,勿輕耳,當令耳目聰明矣!
江西大寂馬祖禪師,因參學南嶽大慧禪師,密受正法心印以來,常常坐禪。南嶽有一次行至大寂處所,問:「大德,你坐禪的目的是什麼?」這一問題,須靜靜下功夫參究!何以故?想想參禪,應當有追求佛向上的目的嗎?想想參禪,應當有格外追求的佛道法門嗎?還是一切不可有目的呢?坐禪地當下,乃是就問著現成什麼目的嗎?須如是審細下功夫參究!要像葉公因愛雕龍(求作佛)的心,當進而愛真龍(行佛行)。應須學習雕真龍共有呼雲降雨的能耐(指御心而不隨二元分別轉)。學佛不要落入二元分別而對法有遠、近好惡,須習慣純熟於恁麼(一元性運作)不撿擇法的遠、近好惡。對於六塵見色、聞聲也應該不要落入二元分別,有好惡輕重的撿擇,應當令耳目根識聰明任運(即聽就是聽、看就是看,隨法的緣起,但不要落入意識分別)!
When the Chan master Daji of
Jiangxi was studying with the Chan master Dahui of Nanyue, after intimately
receiving the mind seal, he always practiced seated meditation. Once Nanyue
went to Dajii and said, "Worthy one, what are you figuring to do, sitting
there in meditation?"<10>
We should give concentrated effort
to the investigation of this question. Does it mean that there must be some
"figuring" above and beyond seated meditation? Is there not yet a
path to be "figured" outside the bounds of seated meditation? Should
there be no "figuring" at all? Or does it ask what kind of
"figuring" occurs at the very time we are practicing seated
meditation? We should make concentrated effort to understand this in detail.
Rather than love "the carved dragon", we should go on to love the
real dragon. We should learn that both the carved and the real dragons have the
ability [to produce] clouds and rain. Do not "value what is far
away", and do not despise it; become completely familiar with it. Do not
"despise what is near at hand", and do not value it; become
completely familiar with it. Do not "take the eyes lightly", and do
not give them weight. Do not "give weight to the ears", and do not
take them lightly. Make your eyes and ears clear and sharp. <11>
江西云:“圖作佛。”此道,須明達之!所道取之作佛,當如何?是佛之作佛而道取為作佛麼?是道取佛作佛而為作佛麼?是道取佛之一面出、兩面出而為作佛麼?圖作佛乃脫落,脫落之為圖作佛麼?作佛雖乃萬般,葛藤於此圖而道取為圖作佛麼?
江西大寂禪師回答說:「坐禪目的是期望成道作佛。」這樣的說法,須明了通達!所說的「作佛」,應當是如何?是已經是佛性現成的作佛,而說在作佛嗎?是嘴巴上說是佛作佛,而為作佛嗎?是能說出成就佛道的一、兩法門,而為作佛嗎?期望作佛乃是脫落萬法,脫落萬法的目的是為作佛嗎?作佛雖是有萬種,因為這『圖』(目的)而有煩惱葛藤,才說為企圖作佛嗎?
Jiangxi said, "I'm figuring to
make a buddha." We should clarify and penetrate this saying. What does he
mean by saying "make a buddha"? Is he saying "make a
buddha" is to be made a buddha by the buddha? Is he saying "make a
buddha" is to "make a buddha" of the buddha? Is he saying
"make a buddha" is one or two faces of the buddha emerging? Is it
that "figuring to make a buddha" is "sloughing off", and [that
what is meant here is a] "figuring to make a buddha" as [the act of]
sloughing off? Or is he saying by "figuring to make a buddha" that,
while there are ten thousand ways to "make a buddha", they become
entangled in this "figuring"? <12>
當知大寂之道,謂坐禪必是圖作佛也,坐禪必是作佛之圖也。圖者,當先于前於作佛,亦當後於作佛,作佛之為正當恁麼時也。且問:此一圖以幾許之作佛為葛藤?此葛藤,當更纏葛藤。是時,盡作佛之條條葛藤,必為盡作佛之端的,皆是條條之圖也。不可回避一圖。回避一圖時,喪身失命也;喪身失命時,一圖之葛藤也。
應當知道大寂禪師的佛道,所說坐禪必定是期望作佛,坐禪必是作佛的企圖。這企『圖』,應當先前於作佛,也當後於作佛,是作佛的正當恁麼時。姑且說說看:這一企『圖』(即例如成就佛道的法門有萬種),以多少的作佛是為葛藤煩惱?這些葛藤煩惱,應當更糾纏著葛藤。當下,盡是作佛的條條葛藤(即這些法門的法,雖是葛藤,也都是公案現成的當下),但也必為盡作佛的端的,皆是條條的『圖』(目的)。不可回避一『圖』(目的)。回避一圖時,喪身失命(即失去法門的存在作用);若是喪身失命(無成就佛道企圖的法門)時,這法門即是葛藤。
It should be recognized that Daji's
saying means that seated meditation is inevitably "figuring to make a
buddha", seated meditation is inevitably the "figuring" of
"making a buddha". This "figuring" must be prior to
"making a buddha"; it must be subsequent to "making a
buddha"; and it must be at the very moment of "making a buddha".
Now what I ask is this: How many [ways of] "making a buddha" does
this one "figuring" entangle? These entanglements, moreover, must themselves
"intertwine" with entanglements. At this point, entanglements, as
individual instances of the entirety of "making a buddha", are always
direct expressions of that entirety, are all individual instances of
"figuring (the ways of "making a buddha")".
We should not avoid this one "figuring". When we avoid the one
"figuring", we "destroy our body and lose our life." When
we destroy our body and lose our life, this is the entanglement of the one
"figuring". <13>
時南嶽取一磚于石上磨。大寂遂問曰:“師作什麼?”
誠然,誰不見是磨磚?誰見是磨磚?然則磨磚者,乃如是問取“作什麼”來也。“作什麼”者,必是磨磚也。此土他界雖異,然磨磚當有未尚休止之宗旨。非但不能決定自己之所見為自己之所見,一定還有須向萬般作業參學之宗旨。可知如見佛而不知佛,不會佛,見水亦不知水,見山而不知山也。見眼前之法,倉猝以為更不可有通路者,非佛學也。
時南嶽大慧禪師取一磚於石上磨。大寂遂問說:「師父作什麼?」 誠然,誰沒看到是磨磚?而是誰見到這磨磚而起疑心的?然而就是『磨磚的』(指有心作佛),才會如是問到「作什麼」目的。這「作什麼」的,必定是磨磚(下功夫作佛)。此土、他界雖然不同,然而磨磚(指下功夫探詢真理)當有尚未休止的意義。所以非但不能決定自己的所見為自己的所見,一定還有須向萬般作業(法門)參學的意義。可知如見佛而不知佛,不會佛,見水亦不知水,見山而不知山。見眼前的法,倉猝以為更不可有通路的人,不是學佛的。
At this point, Nanyue took up a
tile and began to rub it on a stone. At length, Daji asked, "Master, what
are you doing?" <14> Who indeed could fail to
see that he was "polishing a tile"? Who could see that he was
"polishing a tile"? Still, "polishing a tile" has been
questioned in this way: "What are you doing?" This "what are you
doing?" is itself always "polishing a tile". This land and the
other world may differ, but [in both] there is the essential message that
"polishing a tile" never ceases. Not only should we avoid deciding
that what we see is what we see, we should be firmly convinced that there is an
essential message to be studied in all the ten thousand activities. We should
know that, just as we may see the buddha without knowing or understanding him,
so we may see water and yet not know water, may see mountains and yet not know
mountains. The precipitate assumption that the phenomena before one's eyes
offer no further passage is not the study of the buddha. <15>
南嶽曰:“磨作鏡。”此道之意旨,須明究之!(言)磨作鏡者,必有道理,有現成之公案,不可為虛設。磚雖是磚,鏡雖是鏡,當知力究磚之道理,有許多榜樣也。古鏡也,明鏡也,皆應由磨磚而得作鏡。若不知諸鏡由磨磚而來,則無佛祖之道得,無佛祖之開口,不得見聞佛祖之出氣矣。
南嶽大慧禪師說:「磨作鏡。」這樣說的意義,須明了參究!所說『磨作鏡』,必然有其道理,有現成的公案,不可當為虛設。磚雖是磚,鏡雖是鏡,當知用力於參究磚的道理,有許多這樣的榜樣。古鏡啦,明鏡啦,皆應是由磨磚(下功夫)而得有作鏡用的。若不知道諸鏡是由磨磚功夫而來,則不得佛祖的法道,沒有得到佛祖的開示,不得見聞佛祖的行儀呢。
Nanyue said, "I'm polishing
this to make a mirror." We should be clear about the meaning of these
words. There is definitely a reason for "polishing [a tile] to make a
mirror": there is the "kôan of realization"; this is no mere
empty contrivance. A "tile" may be a "tile" and a
"mirror" a "mirror", but when we vigorously investigate the
principle of "polishing", we shall find there are many standard
models. The "old mirror" and the "bright mirror" -- these
are "mirrors" made through "polishing a tile". If we do not
realize that these "mirrors" come from "polishing a tile",
then the buddhas and ancestors have no utterance; the buddhas and ancestors do
not open their mouths, and we do not perceive the buddhas and ancestors
exhaling. <16>
大寂曰:“磨磚豈得成鏡耶?”誠然,磨磚之鐵漢雖不假他人之力量,然磨磚不成鏡。成鏡雖聻,然是疾速也!南嶽曰:“坐禪豈得作佛耶?”明知有坐禪非待作佛之道理,有作佛不拘坐禪之宗旨。大寂云:“如何即是?”今之道取雖一條相似於問著這頭,然亦問著那頭之即是也。比如當知親友相見於親友之時節。于我親友者,則於他亦是親友也。“如何即是”者,乃一時之出現也。
大寂禪師說:「磨磚豈得成鏡呢?」誠然,磨磚的鐵漢雖不假他人的力量,然而磨磚不會成鏡(鐵漢,指有情識,才即是鏡)。成鏡雖如不可知的聻,然而是迅疾速成的!南嶽大慧禪師說:「坐禪豈得作佛呢?」大慧禪師明知有坐禪不是等待作佛的道理,有作佛不拘於坐禪的意義。大寂禪師說:「如何即是?」今日這句話的說法,雖然像是問著這頭的(坐禪豈得作佛)「如何?」,然也是答著那頭的(坐禪即是作佛)「即是」。好比如當知道親友相見於親友的時節。對我來說是親友的,則對他來說也是親友。這句「如何、即是」,乃是一時的現成。
Daji said, "How can you
produce a mirror by polishing a tile?" Indeed, though [the one who is]
"polishing a tile" be "a man of iron (means:
karmic consciousness of sentient being)", who does not borrow another's power, "polishing a
tile" is not "producing a mirror". Even if it is "producing
a mirror", it must be quick about it. Nanyue replied, "How can you
make a buddha by sitting in meditation (zazen)?" This is clearly
understood: there is a reason that sitting in meditation does not await
"making a buddha"; there is nothing obscure about the essential point
that "making a buddha" is not connected with sitting in meditation. Daji
asked, "Then, what is right?" Although this saying resembles a simple
question about this, it is also asking about that "rightness".
Consider, for example, the occasion when one friend meets another: the fact
that he is my friend means that I am his friend. "What" and
"right" emerge simultaneously. <17>
南嶽曰:“如人駕車,車若不行,打車即是,打牛即是?” 且云“車若不行”者,如何是車行?如何是車不行?比如水流是車行乎?水不流是車行乎?流者,當曰水之不行也,水之行當亦有不流也。是故,若參究“車若不行”之言,則當既參究有不行,又當參究無不行,以時節故也。“若不行”之言,非偏道取不行。謂“打車即是,打牛即是”,當既有打車,又當有打牛乎?打車、打牛當是相等耶?不相等耶?世間雖無打車之法,凡夫亦無打車之法,然知佛道有打車之法者,是為參學之眼目也。即便學得(佛道)有打車之法,然不可與打牛一等,須審細功夫參究!打牛之法世間雖常有,然佛道之打牛則須更尋問、參究。打牛者,是打水牯牛乎?是打鐵牛乎?是打泥牛乎?當是鞭打麼?當是盡界打麼?當是盡心打麼?當是打迸髓麼?當是拳頭打麼?當有拳打拳,當有牛打牛。
南嶽大慧禪師說:「如人駕車,車若不行走,是打車呢,還是打牛呢?」 而且說的是「車若不行走」,如何是『車(真如法)』的行走(緣起法用,即法相)?如何是『車』的不行走(無法用)?比如『水(指識水)流』(指有情識心的緣起法用),水流是法用嗎?還是水不流是法用呢?若這『流』,說是水的不行(無法用),那水的行(法用)應當是有不流的。所以,若參究「車若不行」這句話,則當既參究『有不行』(無法用),又當參究『無不行』(法用),是因法有時節因緣。而「若不行」這句話,非偏於說無法用(這句話也說明法用)。所謂「打車即是,打牛即是」,當既有打車(依佛性對真如法恁麼運作),又當有打牛(指識性對緣起法的一、二元性運作)嗎?打車、打牛當是相等的嗎?不相等的嗎?世間雖無打車的法,凡夫亦無打車的法,然知道佛道有打車的法的(指恁麼的真如法運作),是為有參學佛道的見識。即便學得佛道有打車的法,然不可與打牛一等,須審細功夫參究!打牛的緣起運作法,世間雖常有(指落入二元性的),然佛道的打牛(指緣起法依一元性運作)則須更尋問、參究。這『打牛(識心緣起法)』的,是打水牯牛(第一頭─依他起法)呢?是打鐵牛(無頭─圓成實法)呢?是打泥牛(第二頭─遍計執法)呢?當是打到骨髓迸裂(無我相)嗎?當是鞭打(無人相)嗎?當是盡界打(無眾生相)嗎?當是盡心打(無壽者相)嗎?當是拳頭(擎拳豎指,直下會得)打嗎?應當是有拳打拳(見佛性識殺佛性識),有牛打牛(見魔(有情識)殺魔)。
Nanyue replied, "When someone
is driving a cart, if the cart doesn't go, should he beat the cart or beat the
ox?" <18> Now, when he says, "if
the cart doesn't go", what does he mean by the cart's "going"
or the cart's "not going"? For example, is water's flowing (water means: karmic consciousness; water's flowing means the merit of the karmic
consciousness) the cart's "going", or
is water's not flowing the cart's going? We can say that flowing is water's
"not going", and it should also be that water's "going" is
not its flowing. Therefore, in investigating the saying, "if the cart
doesn't go", we should approach it both in terms of "not going"
and in terms of not "not going"; for it is time. The saying,
"if [the cart] doesn't go" is not saying simply that it does not go. <19> "Should he beat the
cart or beat the ox?" Should there be "beating the cart" as well
as "beating the ox"? Are "beating the cart" and
"beating the ox" the same or are they not the same? In the world,
there is no method of "beating the cart (truth-dharma)";
but, though commoners have no method of "beating the cart", we know
that on the way of the buddha there is a method of "beating the
cart"; this is the very eye of study. Even though we study that there is a
method of "beating the cart", it should not be equivalent to
"beating the ox (Dependent origination-dharmas)";
we should make detailed, concentrated effort [on this point]. Even though the
method of "beating the ox" is common in the world, we should go on to
investigate and study "beating the ox" on the way of the buddha. Is
this "ox-beating" the water buffalo (Dependent origination-dharmas)?
Or "ox-beating" the iron bull (truth-dharma)? Or "ox-beating" the
clay ox (unfounded-dharmas)? Is this beating with a whip? Is
it beating with the entire world? Beating with the entire mind? Is this to beat
out the marrow? Is it to beat with the fist? There should be the fist beating
the fist; there should be the ox beating the ox. <20>
“大寂無對”,此語不可枉然磋過。有抛磚引玉,有回頭換面。此“無對”,更不可攙奪。南嶽又示云:“汝學坐禪,為學作坐佛?”須參究此道取,當辦取祖宗之要機。謂不知“學坐禪”之端的之如何,而知“學坐佛。”以非正嫡之兒孫故,如何道取學坐禪之是學坐佛哉?實知初心之坐禪者,是最初之坐禪也;最初之坐禪者,是最初之坐佛也。
「大寂禪師無語與對」,這句話不可枉然磋過。有抛磚引玉,有回頭換面的功德。這句「無對」,更不可輕易放過(因為恁麼的運作是不落入語言文字的,如果知道是這道理而採取『無對』,那整個公案就回頭換面了。)。南嶽大慧禪師又訓示說:「你學坐禪,是為了學作坐佛嗎?」須參究這句話的道理,當辦認取得祖宗的機要。所謂不知道「學坐禪」的端倪是如何,然而知道是「學坐佛。」因為是非正嫡的兒孫,如何能說明「學坐禪」就是「學坐佛」呢(這裡道元禪師暗指南嶽禪師才不知道『坐禪』才是嫡傳的正法)?實知初心的坐禪者,即是最初的坐禪;最初的坐禪者,是最初的坐佛(即是修證一如,即心坐禪,即心是佛)。
Daji had no response. We should not
idly miss [the import of] this. [In it,] there is "throwing out a tile to
take in a jade"; there is "turning the head and reversing the
face". By no means should we do violence to his "no response"
here. <21> Nanyue went on, "Are
you studying seated meditation or are you studying seated buddha?" We
should investigate this saying and discern the essential function of the
ancestral lineage. Even without knowing the actual meaning of "studying
seated meditation", we do know here that it is "studying seated
buddha". Who but a scion of correct descent could say that "studying
seated meditation" is "studying seated buddha"? We should know
indeed that the "seated meditation" of the beginner's mind is the
first "seated meditation", and the first "seated
meditation" is the first "seated buddha".
道取坐禪而云:“若學坐禪,禪非坐臥。”今所言者,即坐禪者坐禪也,非坐臥。自單傳坐禪乃非坐臥以來,無限之坐臥者,即是自己也。何尋命脈之親疏?何論孰迷孰悟?誰覔智斷?
祖師說明坐禪時說:「若學坐禪,禪非坐臥。」所以今日所說的,『坐禪』即是指『禪定』,非坐臥行儀。自佛祖親自相續傳授坐禪乃非坐臥以來,無限的修行人以坐臥為禪定的,其實當下即是自己的修證一如,是不落入思量,一元性的佛性現成、修證一如。哪裡須要追尋命脈的親疏?哪裡須要討論孰迷孰悟?誰尋覓智斷?
In speaking of this
"seated meditation", [Nanyue] said, "If you're studying seated
meditation, meditation is not sitting or reclining." <22>What he says here is that
"seated meditation" is "(seated) meditation"; it is not "sitting or
reclining". From the time the fact that it is not "sitting or
reclining" has been singly transmitted [to us], [our] unlimited
"sitting or reclining" is our own self (seated
meditation is making a Buddha). Why should we inquire about close
or distant familial lines? How could we discuss delusion and awakening? Who
would seek wisdom and eradication? <23>
南嶽云:“若學坐佛,佛非定相。” 道取所謂之道取,則恁麽也。如“坐佛”之為一佛二佛者,乃因其以“非定相”為莊嚴也。今道取“佛非定相”,即是道取佛相也。以非定相為佛故,則坐佛更難回避。是故,佛以非定相為其莊嚴,故若學坐禪,即是坐佛也。誰於無定法中取捨非佛?取捨佛哉?取捨先由脫落後而為坐佛也!
南嶽大慧禪師說:「若學坐佛,佛非有一定形相。」要說明這道理,則是恁麽的運作。如「坐佛」的為一佛、二佛差別法相,乃因為是「非定相」(乃是眾生的業識依真如法位緣起的差別相,但『有』就是佛性的公案現成)為佛性現成莊嚴相。今日所說明的「佛非定相」,即是說佛相。因為佛是非定相,則「坐佛」的差別法相更難回避。所以,佛以非定相為其佛性現成莊嚴,所以若學坐禪,現成即是坐佛。於坐禪一元性當下無人我,誰於無定法中取捨非佛、佛呢?所以先脫落二元性運作的取捨撿擇後,而即為一元性修證一如的坐佛!
Nanyue said,"If you're
studying seated buddha, buddha is no fixed mark." <24> Such is the way to say a
saying. That the "seated buddha" is like one or two buddhas is
because he has adorned himself with "no fixed mark". When [Nanyue]
says here that "buddha is no fixed mark", he is speaking of
the mark of the buddha. Since he is a buddha of "no fixed mark", the
"seated buddha" is difficult to avoid. Therefore, since it is adorned
with this "Budddha is no fixed mark", "if you're studying seated
meditation" is a "seated buddha". "In a nonabiding
dharma", who would "grasp or reject" [anything] as not the
buddha? Who would "grasp or reject" it as the buddha. It is because
it has already sloughed off "grasping and rejecting" that it is a
"seated buddha." <25>
南嶽云:“如若坐佛,即是殺佛。” 謂若更參究“坐佛”,即有“殺佛”之功德。“坐佛”之正當恁麽時,即是“殺佛”也。殺佛之相好光明者,若欲尋之,則必當坐佛也。殺之言,雖等同於凡夫之語,然又偏不可與凡夫之語同。又須參究坐佛之為殺佛者有什麼形段?撚舉佛之功德已是殺佛,更當參學我等之殺人、未殺人。
南嶽大慧禪師說:「如若坐佛,即是殺佛。」
即是說若更參究「坐佛」(指證入),即有「殺佛」(不落入識心分別的法相,即證入一元性就無性與相之分)的功德。「坐佛」的正當心法一如恁麽時,即是「殺佛」。若欲尋求「殺佛」佛性現成莊嚴的相好光明,則必當坐佛。『殺』這個字,雖等同於凡夫的語言,然又偏不可與凡夫的語言相同。又須參究以『坐佛』法門,成就為『殺佛的』有什麼行相?捻舉佛的一元性功德法相已是有「殺佛」的功德,更當參學我等落入二元性我執識心的殺人、未殺人。
Nanyue says, "If you're
studying seated buddha, this is killing buddha." This means that, in
further investigating "seated buddha", there is the virtue of
"killing buddha". The very moment of a "seated buddha" is
"killing buddha". Indeed, when we pursue it, the marks and signs and
the radiance of "killing buddha" will always be a "seated
buddha". Although the word kill here is identical with the term used by
commoners, it is not simply the same as the [usage of the] commoner. Moreover,
we must investigate in what form it is that a "seated buddha" is
"killing buddha". Taking up the fact that "killing buddha"
is a virtue of the buddha, we should study whether we are killing people or not
killing people. <26>
“若執相者,非達其理。” 謂“執坐相”者,即是捨坐相、觸坐相也。此道理者,謂既將坐佛,不得不執坐相也。以不得不執坐相故,設若執坐相之為玲瓏,然當“非達其理”也。恁麽之功夫,謂脫落身心。未曾坐禪人,不有如此之道也。打坐時有矣,打坐人有矣,打坐佛時有矣,學坐佛時有矣。但是人之坐臥之坐者,非此打坐佛也。人之坐,雖自相似於坐佛、佛坐,然如有人作佛,有作佛人也。作佛人雖有,然一切人者,則非作佛,佛非一切人。以一切佛但非一切人故,人必不是佛,佛必不是人,坐佛者,亦如是矣!
「若執著法相的,則不能通達這佛法道理。」 所謂「執著坐相」的,即是捨棄坐相、觸著坐相。這道理,即是所謂既將坐佛,不得不執坐相。因為是不得不執坐相,設若執坐相時為玲瓏明徹,然而應當是「非達其理」(不落入識心分別)。恁麽一元性的修證一如功夫,即是所謂『脫落身心』。未曾坐禪的人,不會有如此的佛道。有打坐的時節,有人的打坐,有打坐佛時節,有學坐佛時節。但是人的坐臥的坐的,不是這打坐佛的坐。人的坐,雖是相似於坐佛、佛坐,然而如有人(我相)作佛,有作佛的人。佛道雖有成就而為作佛的人,然一切落入有我相人的,則非作佛,因為佛非一切人(我相)。就因為一切佛是不落入一切有我相人,所以有我相人必不是佛,佛必不是有我相人,『坐佛』這事,也是一樣不落入一切有我相人!
"If you grasp the mark of
sitting, you're not reaching its principle." To "grasp the mark of
sitting" here means to "reject the mark of sitting" and touch "the
mark of sitting". The reason for this is that, in being a "seated
buddha", we cannot not "grasp the mark of sitting". Since we
cannot not "grasp the mark of sitting", though "grasping the
mark of sitting" is crystal clear, we are "not reaching its principle".
Such concentrated effort is called "sloughing off body and mind." <27> Those who have never sat do not have these words: they belong to the time
of sitting and the person who sits, to the sitting buddha and the study of the
sitting buddha. The sitting of a person's sitting and reclining is not this
sitting buddha. Although a person's sitting naturally resembles a "seated
buddha", or a buddha's sitting, it is like a person's "making a
buddha", or the person who makes a buddha: though there are people who
make buddhas, not all people (thought of self) make buddhas, and buddhas
are not all people. Since all buddhas are not simply all people, a person is
not necessarily a buddha, and a buddha is not necessarily a person. A
"seated buddha" is also like this.
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
沒有留言:
張貼留言