T51n2080_傳法正宗論

大正藏第 51 冊 No. 2080 傳法正宗論

No. 2080

傳法正宗論捲上

宋藤州東山沙門釋契嵩著

第一篇

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于師子尊者。其所謂二十八祖者。蓋后之人曲說。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。乃其旋采於三藏諸部。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效。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。至於婆修槃陀。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

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

《傳法正宗論》捲上

宋代藤州東山沙門釋契嵩著

第一篇

自隋唐以來，達磨（Bodhidharma）宗派大為興盛，但義理學者對此有所懷疑，他們常常依據《付法藏傳》（Fu Fa Zang Zhuan）來提出質疑。他們認為，《付法藏傳》所列的傳承世系只有二十四世，到師子（Simha Bhiksu）祖師為止。他們認為達磨所承接的法脈並非直接出自師子尊者，所謂的二十八祖，是後人牽強附會的說法。禪宗學者有時會引用《寶林傳》（Bao Lin Zhuan）來證明，但義理學者更加不採信。如此爭論不休，即使經過很多世代也無法驗證真偽。我對此一直感到困惑，因此研究了這兩部典籍，想辨明其中的是非。我發現所謂的《付法藏傳》，是後魏時期，在真君（Tai Wu Di）毀佛之後，由梵僧吉迦夜（Jijia Ye）所翻譯的。觀察其各傳的品目，祖師的世代似乎有次第，但考察其內容，師徒之間的傳授，以及他們所出自的國土姓氏，都沒有一個完整的脈絡。其中稍微詳細的，也只是從三藏（Tripiṭaka）的各個部分採擷而來，並非其原本就有的。一般來說，要為書籍敘述人世的先後順序，必須以祖父、父子之間親密的傳承關係作為依據。而且，這些人的姓氏、族群、州土，以及事情的來龍去脈，都不能失去線索，這樣才能使後世信服，才能稱之為史傳。現在這部書稱為『傳』，但事情卻不詳細。例如，彌遮迦（Mijiajia）、多佛陀難提（Duofo Tuonanti）、比羅長老（Piluo Zhanglao），直到婆修槃陀（Posupantuo）、摩拏羅（Monaluo）、鶴勒那（Helena）、夜奢（Yeshe），以及師子羅漢（Shizi Luohan）這七位祖師，都沒有師徒之間親身傳授的意義。而佛陀難提、鶴勒那與師子這三位祖師，尤其缺乏之前的傳承記載。既然沒有看到他們接受傳授的記錄，之後的傳記只是說『依次傳付』、『又有某比丘』等等，傳授的情況並不分明詳備。這樣的傳記，又怎麼能讓後世信服呢？

【English Translation】 English version

Treatise on the Orthodox Transmission of the Dharma, Volume 1

Composed by釋契嵩 (Shi Qisong), a Shramana of Dongshan in Teng Prefecture during the Song Dynasty

Part 1

Since the Sui and Tang dynasties, the Bodhidharma (達磨, Damo) school has greatly flourished, but scholars of doctrine doubt it, often relying on the Fu Fa Zang Zhuan (付法藏傳, Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury) to raise questions. They argue that the lineage listed in the Fu Fa Zang Zhuan only extends to twenty-four generations, ending with the master Simha Bhiksu (師子, Shizi). They believe that the Dharma lineage inherited by Bodhidharma did not directly originate from the venerable Simha, and that the so-called twenty-eight patriarchs are later, far-fetched additions. Chan (禪) scholars sometimes cite the Bao Lin Zhuan (寶林傳, Record of the Treasure Grove) to prove it, but doctrinal scholars are even less inclined to accept it. Such debates continue endlessly, and even after many generations, there is no way to verify the truth. I have always been troubled by this, so I studied these two texts, wanting to discern the right and wrong. I discovered that the so-called Fu Fa Zang Zhuan was written in the Later Wei period, after Emperor Tai Wu (真君, Zhenjun) destroyed Buddhism, and was translated by the梵僧 (Fan Seng) monk Jijia Ye (吉迦夜). Observing the categories of each transmission, the generations of patriarchs seem to have an order, but examining its content, the transmission between master and disciple, as well as the countries and surnames from which they came, do not have a complete context. The slightly more detailed parts are merely excerpts from various parts of the Tripiṭaka (三藏, Sanzang), and were not originally part of it. Generally speaking, to write a book narrating the sequence of human generations, it is necessary to base it on the close transmission relationships between grandparents, fathers, and sons. Moreover, the surnames, clans, states, and lands of these people, as well as the reasons for the events, must not lose their clues, so that later generations can believe it, and it can be called a historical record. Now this book is called a 'record' (傳, Zhuan), but the events are not detailed. For example, Mijiajia (彌遮迦), Duofo Tuonanti (多佛陀難提), the elder Piluo (比羅長老), up to Posupantuo (婆修槃陀), Monaluo (摩拏羅), Helena (鶴勒那), Yeshe (夜奢), and the Arhat Simha (師子羅漢), these seven patriarchs do not have the meaning of personal transmission between master and disciple. And the three patriarchs, Duofo Tuonanti, Helena, and Simha, especially lack previous transmission records. Since there is no record of them receiving transmission, the subsequent biographies only say 'transmitted in sequence', 'there is also a certain Bhiksu', etc., and the circumstances of the transmission are not clearly and thoroughly explained. How can such a biography convince later generations?

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。汝當於后敬順我意。廣宣流佈無令斷絕。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。茍不知其死而失傳失告。又何足列于祖而傳之乎。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

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於師子比丘的記載說，迦濕彌羅（Kashmir）國王心懷邪見，用利劍斬殺了師子比丘。師子比丘的頭中沒有流血，只有乳汁流出。因此，佛法傳承到此就斷絕了。我認為這種說法非常不合理。讓我嘗試評論一下。如果像迦葉（Kasyapa）的傳記所說，佛陀臨近涅槃時告訴摩訶迦葉（Mahakasyapa）說：『我將要涅槃了，我將這深奧的佛法囑託給你。你應當在以後恭敬地遵循我的意願，廣泛地宣揚流佈，不要讓它斷絕。』既然如此，後世的祖師，既然是繼承佛陀而成為祖師的，怎麼能讓他們所傳的佛法斷絕呢？又如掬多（Kukkuta）的傳記所說，他本想涅槃，但因為提多迦（Dhitika）還沒有出生，所以等待他出生后才傳法教化。再如迦那提婆（Kanadeva）的傳記所說，他用佛法戰勝了外道，結果被外道的弟子所殺害。迦那提婆忍受著死亡，說這是他前世的業報，然後將佛法傳給羅睺羅（Rahula）后才去世，這樣佛法才沒有斷絕。現在師子比丘既然像掬多和迦那提婆一樣是祖師，難道會獨自死去而不顧佛法的傳承嗎？能夠繼承如來（Tathagata）而成為出世間的大祖師，不是聖人是無法預先做到的。現在師子比丘能夠預先做到，那麼他必定是聖人。怎麼會有聖人不知道自己會因為前世的業報而死呢？即使知道自己會死，又怎麼會不預先安排，而正確地傳承佛法，使佛法相傳，成為後世的師祖呢？縱然佛法相傳的因緣只到這位聖人為止，也應當預先知道並告知佛法會斷絕。如果不知道自己會死，而導致佛法失傳，也沒有告知後人，又怎麼能將他列為祖師來傳頌呢？為他作傳，實在應該仔細思考。假如梵文字來就是這樣記載的，也可以懷疑它。應當保留這個疑問，等待後人來解決。怎麼能輕率地相信這種說法，引起後世的爭論，而委屈了先聖呢？難道不應該感到害怕嗎？《傳燈錄》中說，以前唐朝的河南尹李常，曾經得到三祖僧璨（Sengcan）大師的舍利。有一天，他齋僧時，舍利掉落在地上。於是他問西域的三藏僧人犍那（Jianna）說：『天竺禪門的祖師有多少位？』犍那說：『從大迦葉到般若多羅（Prajnatara），共有二十七位祖師。如果算上師子尊者（Simha）旁出的達磨達（Dharmata）的四世，總共有四十九位祖師。如果從七佛到這位僧璨大師，不包括橫出的旁支。』

【English Translation】 English version: The record about the Bhikkhu Simha states that the King of Kashmir, holding wrong views, killed him with a sharp sword. No blood flowed from Simha's head, only milk. Thus, the transmission of the Dharma was cut off. I think this is very unreasonable. Let me try to comment on it. If, as the biography of Kasyapa says, when the Buddha was about to enter Nirvana, he told Mahakasyapa: 'I am about to enter Nirvana, and I entrust this profound Dharma to you. You should respectfully follow my will in the future, widely propagate and spread it, and do not let it be cut off.' In that case, how can the Dharma transmitted by the later generations of patriarchs, who inherited the Buddha and became patriarchs, be cut off? Also, as the biography of Kukkuta says, he originally wanted to enter Nirvana, but because Dhitika had not yet been born, he waited for him to be born before transmitting the Dharma and teaching. Furthermore, as the biography of Kanadeva says, he defeated the heretics with the Dharma, and as a result, he was killed by the disciples of the heretics. Kanadeva endured the pain of death, saying that this was the retribution of his past karma, and then transmitted the Dharma to Rahula before passing away, so that the Dharma was not cut off. Now that Bhikkhu Simha, like Kukkuta and Kanadeva, is a patriarch, how could he die alone without regard for the transmission of the Dharma? To be able to inherit the Tathagata and become a great patriarch of the world, it is impossible for a non-sage to foresee this. Now that Bhikkhu Simha can foresee this, then he must be a sage. How could a sage not know that he would die because of the retribution of his past karma? Even if he knew he would die, how could he not make arrangements in advance, and correctly transmit the Dharma, so that the Dharma would be passed on and become the master of later generations? Even if the cause and condition of the Dharma transmission only reached this sage, he should have known in advance and informed that the Dharma would be cut off. If he did not know that he would die, and as a result, the Dharma was lost, and he did not inform his descendants, how could he be listed as a patriarch to be praised? When writing his biography, one should think carefully. If the Sanskrit text was originally recorded in this way, it can also be doubted. This question should be reserved for later generations to solve. How can one rashly believe this statement, causing disputes in later generations, and wronging the former sages? Shouldn't one be afraid? The 'Transmission of the Lamp' says that in the past, Li Chang, the magistrate of Henan in the Tang Dynasty, once obtained the relics of the Third Patriarch, Master Sengcan. One day, when he was offering food to the monks, the relics fell to the ground. So he asked the Tripitaka monk Jianna from the Western Regions: 'How many patriarchs are there in the Chan school of India?' Jianna said: 'From Mahakasyapa to Prajnatara, there are a total of twenty-seven patriarchs. If we include the four generations of Dharmata, who branched out from the Venerable Simha, there are a total of forty-nine patriarchs. If we count from the Seven Buddhas to this Master Sengcan, not including the side branches.'

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。至於支派差殊宗族不定。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。于倉黃中單錄乎諸祖名目。持之亡于山野會文成帝復教。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。前聖后賢重明疊耀。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

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：慧能又問席間的年長有德之人：『我曾經檢視祖師的圖譜，有的記載五十多位祖師，但是支派差異很大，宗族關係也不確定，有的甚至只有空名。這該如何驗證呢？』恰好有六祖弟子，名叫智本禪師，回答說：『這是因為後魏時期毀壞佛教，當時有位僧人曇曜，在倉促之中只記錄了各位祖師的名目，帶著這些記錄逃亡到山野。後來文成帝恢復佛教，前後經歷了三十年。到了孝文帝時期，曇曜被提拔為僧統，於是拿出他所記錄的內容，各位沙門因此寫完成的書，命名為《付法藏傳》（《付法藏傳》，也說是曇曜所撰寫）。其中錯漏不全，大概是自從曇曜逃難以來造成的。』『以我之前所指出的那些沒有來龍去脈的記載，驗證現在智本的說法，確實像是採拾殘缺不全的內容所編成的書。而且其中的品目說：某某傳給某某果位，這所謂單單記錄，不是原本的完整版本。』『如果說《寶林傳》這本書，雖然文字粗俗，敘述煩亂，不像學者寫的書，但是其中的事情有來龍去脈，世系名號也有根據。即使想要竊取其中的內容，追溯它的來源，有的指向世俗的書籍，但是當時沒有這些書籍；有的指向佛教經典，又不在藏經目錄之中。雖然有稍微符合藏經中的說法，也不是其他宗派所為。我常常懷疑它沒有證據，不敢輕易評論。』恰好在南屏藏中得到一本古書，名為《出三藏記集》，共有十五卷，是梁代高僧僧祐所撰寫的。其中的一篇名為《薩婆多部相承傳目錄記》。僧祐在序言中說：『只有薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部），在齊地特別流行，它的源頭起源於天竺（India），流傳到罽賓（Kashmir）。前代的聖賢和後代的賢人都非常重視它。從大迦葉（Mahakasyapa）到達磨多羅（Dharmatara），總共經歷了二卷，一百多位。』從這裡推斷，有叫做婆羅多羅（Bharadvaja）的，與第二十五祖婆舍斯多（Vasubandhu）的別名相同（其中的含義見於本傳）；有叫做弗若蜜多（Buddhamitra）的，與第二十七祖般若多羅（Prajnatara）的名字相似。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, Huineng asked the senior and virtuous monks present, 'I have examined the ancestral lineage charts, and some record more than fifty patriarchs, but the branches differ greatly, and the clan relationships are uncertain. Some even have only empty names. How can this be verified?' Coincidentally, a disciple of the Sixth Patriarch, named Zen Master Zhiben, replied, 'This is because of the persecution of Buddhism during the Later Wei Dynasty. At that time, there was a monk named Tan Yao, who hastily recorded only the names of the patriarchs and fled with these records into the mountains. Later, Emperor Wencheng restored Buddhism, after a period of thirty years. During the reign of Emperor Xiaowen, Tan Yao was promoted to Sanghatathera (僧統), and he presented what he had recorded. The monks then wrote a book based on it, named Fu Fa Zang Zhuan (付法藏傳) (The Fu Fa Zang Zhuan, also said to be written by Tan Yao). It is incomplete due to errors and omissions, probably caused since Tan Yao's escape.' 'Regarding those records without beginning or end that I pointed out earlier, verifying Zen Master Zhiben's statement, it does indeed seem like a book compiled from picking up incomplete fragments. Moreover, the categories within it say: So-and-so transmitted to so-and-so a certain fruit. This so-called single record is not the original complete version.' 'As for the Baolin Zhuan (寶林傳), although its language is crude and its narrative is confusing, unlike a book written by scholars, the events within it have a beginning and an end, and the lineage names have a basis. Even if one wanted to steal its content and trace its origin, some point to secular books, but these books did not exist at that time; some point to Buddhist scriptures, but they are not found in the Tripitaka catalog. Although there are statements that slightly match those in the Tripitaka, they are not from other schools. I have often suspected that it lacks evidence and have not dared to comment lightly.' It happened that in the Nanping (南屏) collection, I found an ancient book called Chu San Zang Ji Ji (出三藏記集), consisting of fifteen volumes, written by the eminent Liang Dynasty monk Sengyou (僧祐). One of its chapters is titled Sarvastivada Samgraha Parampara Sutra Nidana (薩婆多部相承傳目錄記). Sengyou said in the preface: 'Only the Sarvastivada (薩婆多部, Everything Exists School), is particularly popular in the land of Qi, its origin arising in India (天竺) and spreading to Kashmir (罽賓). The sages of the past and the virtuous of the future all highly value it. From Mahakasyapa (大迦葉) to Dharmatara (達磨多羅), it spans two volumes, totaling over a hundred names.' From this, it can be inferred that Bharadvaja (婆羅多羅) is the same as the alternate name of the twenty-fifth patriarch, Vasubandhu (婆舍斯多) (the meaning of which is found in the original biography); Buddhamitra (弗若蜜多) is similar to the name of the twenty-seventh patriarch, Prajnatara (般若多羅).

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。如商那和修。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。后賢未絕。制傳以補闕。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。而人至於今稱之。然其人長於齊而老於梁。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。存於大藏周天下。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。嘗往罽賓國。于其國之象白山。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於洛邑。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。譯出衆經及諸祖付受事蹟。傳於中國。以此驗知。中國先有祖事。非權輿于付法藏傳耳。然支疆譯出其事。至乎拓跋燾誅沙門。歷百九十餘年矣。而支疆之說固已傳於世也。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。后之人不能尋其所以。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。覆文詞鄙俚飾說過當。故令學者愈不信之。又云。有罽賓

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『子祖傍出之徒』（非正統傳承的旁支）。支疆因此詢問師子尊者之後，佛法的興衰情況。達磨達回答說：『如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）的佛法傳給大迦葉（Mahakasyapa，釋迦牟尼十大弟子之一），一直到我的老師師子大師（Simha Bhiksu，印度禪宗第24祖）。然而，我的老師知道自己必定會遇害，所以在未死之前，預先將正法傳給我的同學，南天竺（South India）的沙門（Sramana，出家修道者）婆舍斯多（Vasista，印度古代聖人），也叫婆羅多那（Bharatanatha）。（《寶林傳》記載，北天竺（North India）稱其為婆羅多羅（Bharatarara），與三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典總稱）的記載相同。這裡稱作多那（Dhana），大概是翻譯時存在方言差異。）並且授予袈裟作為信物，然後就派遣他離開了。他在那個國家和人民中大力弘揚佛法。』支疆說：『我認識這個人。』支疆於是說起前魏陳留王曹奐（Cao Huan，三國時期魏國皇帝）在世時來到洛邑（Luoyang，古都）的事情。最初住在白馬寺（White Horse Temple，中國第一座佛教寺廟）。當時魏國政權正處於危難之中，曹奐為此憂慮，多次向支疆詢問國家興亡之事。支疆都用隱晦的語言回答。因此，他與沙門曇諦（Dharmatrata）和康僧鎧（Kang Senghai）等人一起，翻譯出眾多佛經以及諸位祖師傳法的事蹟，傳入中國。由此可以得知，中國先前就有關於祖師傳承的事情，並非始於《付法藏傳》（Fu fazang zhuan，佛教典籍）。然而，支疆翻譯出這些事蹟，到拓跋燾（Tuoba Tao，北魏皇帝）誅殺沙門，已經過去一百九十多年了。而支疆的說法早已在世間流傳。我估計在這一百九十多年間，必定還有人將這些事蹟傳來中國，祖師的數量也增加了，肯定不止二十五位了。只是無法辨別是誰傳來的而已。（我最近根據禪宗的經驗推斷，當時肯定增加了祖師的數量。）大概吉迦夜（Giyakaya）和曇曜（Tan Yao），在毀佛之後，憑藉舊有的版本，先將這些事蹟與眾多佛經混雜在一起，憑藉國家的勢力來宣揚。那時即使有私下流傳這些事蹟的人，也不如曇曜所發佈的那麼顯著。後人不能探尋其中的原因，只是看到這些事蹟沒有儲存在經藏中，就認為是虛假的說法。而且後世天下多次經歷治亂，即使有人得到這些事蹟，也可能因為南北相隔，或者時間久遠，這些書籍原本就沒有題目，或者翻譯者的名字也遺失了。將這些事蹟寫完成的書的人，又文辭鄙俗，誇張失實，所以讓學者更加不相信。』又說：『有罽賓（Kashmir，古印度地名）……』

【English Translation】 English version 『Those who are from the side branches of the ancestral lineage.』 Therefore, Zhi Jiang inquired about the rise and fall of the Dharma after the Simha Bhiksu (Lion Master). Dharmata replied: 『The Dharma of the Tathagata (Thus Come One, an epithet of the Buddha) was transmitted to Mahakasyapa (Great Kasyapa, one of the ten major disciples of Sakyamuni Buddha), and then to my teacher, the great master Simha Bhiksu (Lion Monk, the 24th Patriarch of Indian Zen). However, my teacher knew that he would inevitably be killed, so before his death, he preemptively transmitted the Dharma to my fellow practitioner, the Sramana (ascetic) Vasista (ancient Indian sage) of South India, also known as Bharatanatha. (The 『Baolin Zhuan』 records that in North India, he is called Bharatarara, which is the same as the Tripitaka (Three Baskets, the general term for Buddhist scriptures). Here it is called Dhana, probably due to dialect differences in translation.) He also gave him a kasaya (monk's robe) as a token of faith, and then sent him away. He greatly promoted Buddhism in that country and among those people.』 Zhi Jiang said: 『I know this person.』 Zhi Jiang then spoke of the time when Cao Huan (Emperor of Wei during the Three Kingdoms period), the King of Chenliu of the Former Wei Dynasty, came to Luoyang (ancient capital). He initially resided in the White Horse Temple (the first Buddhist temple in China). At that time, the Wei regime was in danger, and Cao Huan was worried about it, and repeatedly asked Zhi Jiang about the rise and fall of the country. Zhi Jiang answered in obscure language. Therefore, he, along with the Sramanas Dharmatrata and Kang Senghai, translated many Buddhist scriptures and the deeds of the transmission of Dharma by the patriarchs, and introduced them to China. From this, it can be known that China had previous accounts of the ancestral transmission, and it did not originate with the 『Fu fazang zhuan』 (Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury, a Buddhist text). However, from the time Zhi Jiang translated these events to the time Tuoba Tao (Emperor of the Northern Wei Dynasty) executed the Sramanas, more than one hundred and ninety years had passed. And Zhi Jiang's statement had long been circulating in the world. I estimate that during these one hundred and ninety years, there must have been people who transmitted these events to China, and the number of patriarchs has also increased, certainly more than twenty-five. It's just that it's impossible to identify who transmitted them. (I recently inferred from the experience of Zen that the number of patriarchs must have increased at that time.) Probably Giyakaya and Tan Yao, after the destruction of Buddhism, relied on the old versions to first mix these events with many Buddhist scriptures, and promoted them with the power of the state. At that time, even if there were people who privately transmitted these events, it was not as significant as what Tan Yao published. Later generations could not explore the reasons for this, and simply saw that these events were not preserved in the canon, and considered them to be false statements. Moreover, in later generations, the world repeatedly experienced periods of order and chaos, and even if someone obtained these events, it may be because of the separation between the north and the south, or because of the long passage of time, these books originally had no titles, or the names of the translators were also lost. Those who wrote these events into books, again used vulgar language and exaggerated and untrue statements, so that scholars became even more unbelieving.』 It also said: 『There is Kashmir (ancient place name in India)……』

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。復指達磨其所承于般若多羅。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。而楊炫之名系集亦云。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。西域傳授之事蹟者。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。其本皆承述于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。薩婆多部源起于天竺。而流化于罽賓。罽賓國者。蓋師子祖所化之地。亦其遇害於此。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。祐于其國遂得之為書。但亡其譯人之名耳。不然則祐何從而傳耶。茍謂震旦禪者為之。而祐之時何嘗稍有達磨之徒耶。又何出乎薩婆多部

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沙門那連耶舍（Śramaṇa Narendrayaśas，一位僧侶的名字）在東魏孝靜帝時期來到鄴城，專門從事翻譯工作。等到高氏取代東魏，建立北齊后，他翻譯了更多的佛經。起初，他與隱士萬天懿一起翻譯了《尊勝菩薩無量門陀羅尼經》。他因此對萬天懿說：『西土（指印度）的二十七位祖師也尊崇這部經。』他又指出了菩提達摩（Bodhidharma）從般若多羅（Prajñātara）那裡繼承的法脈，並說：『在這個地方（指中國）繼承他的人，佛法應當會廣泛傳播。』於是用預言的方式記錄了這件事。他又整理了已經翻譯的祖師事蹟，與萬天懿一起校正。楊炫之的《洛陽伽藍記》也記載說，那連耶舍曾經在西天竺（印度）與東魏僧人曇啟相遇，共同將祖師的事蹟翻譯成漢文。翻譯完成後，那連耶舍先帶著譯本東來。然而，他所翻譯的內容與支疆（可能是指來自邊疆地區的譯者）所翻譯的內容，並沒有什麼不同。從七佛（過去七佛）到二十五祖婆舍斯多（Vasiasita），這些祖師的事蹟都出自支疆的翻譯。至於二十七祖和二十八祖菩提達摩多羅（Bodhidharmatara），關於西域（中亞或印度）傳授的事蹟，大概是出自那連耶舍的翻譯。推究《寶林傳》和《傳燈錄》這兩本書，以及曇曜最初單獨記錄的內容，它們的原本都承襲了支疆和那連耶舍兩家的說法。只不過後世的人們在文字上有所修改罷了。有人問：『支疆為什麼能知道得如此詳細呢？』回答說：『支疆是中天竺（印度中部）人。他距離師子尊者（Simha）的時代很近，並且見過婆舍斯多，又能夠與菩提達摩達論佛法，所以他所知道的非常詳盡。』至於出自三藏（Tripitaka）記者的記載，大概是從齊梁時期另外得到的傳承。僧祐說：『薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）起源於天竺，而在罽賓（Kashmir）流傳開來。罽賓國，是師子祖所教化的地方，他也是在那裡遇害的。』僧祐的說法很詳細。他又說：『這個部派偏重於在齊國流傳。』僧祐是齊國人。這一定是菩提達摩之前有西域人來到東土，並將薩婆多部的教義傳到了齊國。僧祐在他的國家因此得到了相關的書籍，只是遺失了翻譯者的名字罷了。不然的話，僧祐又從哪裡得到這些傳承呢？如果說是震旦（中國）的禪者所作，那麼在僧祐的時代，哪裡有什麼菩提達摩的門徒呢？又怎麼會出自薩婆多部呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The Śramaṇa Narendrayaśas (a monk's name) arrived in Ye during the reign of Emperor Xiaojing of the Eastern Wei Dynasty and devoted himself to translation work. After the Gao family replaced the Eastern Wei and established the Northern Qi Dynasty, he translated even more Buddhist scriptures. Initially, he translated the 'Uṣṇīṣa Vijaya Dhāraṇī Sūtra' with the recluse Wan Tianyi. He then said to Wan Tianyi, 'The twenty-seven patriarchs of the Western Lands (India) also revered this scripture.' He also pointed out that Bodhidharma inherited the Dharma lineage from Prajñātara, saying, 'The one who succeeds him in this land (China) will greatly propagate the Dharma.' Thus, he recorded this event in a prophetic manner. He also compiled the already translated accounts of the patriarchs and corrected them with Wan Tianyi. Yang Xuanzhi's 'Luoyang Jialan Ji' also records that Narendrayaśas once met the Eastern Wei monk Tanqi in West India and jointly translated the accounts of the patriarchs into Chinese. After the translation was completed, Narendrayaśas first brought the translation eastward. However, what he translated was no different from what Zhijiang (possibly a translator from the border region) translated. From the Seven Buddhas (past seven Buddhas) to the twenty-fifth patriarch Vasiasita, the accounts of these patriarchs all came from Zhijiang's translation. As for the twenty-seventh patriarch and the twenty-eighth patriarch Bodhidharmatara, the accounts of transmission in the Western Regions (Central Asia or India) probably came from Narendrayaśas's translation. Examining the 'Baolin Zhuan' and the 'Transmission of the Lamp', as well as what Tan Yao initially recorded separately, their originals all inherited the accounts of Zhijiang and Narendrayaśas. It is only that later generations have modified the texts. Someone asked, 'How could Zhijiang know so much in detail?' The answer is, 'Zhijiang was a person from Central India. He was close to the time of Simha, and he had seen Vasiasita and was able to discuss the Dharma with Bodhidharmatara, so he knew very well.' As for the records from the Tripitaka recorders, they probably obtained a separate transmission during the Qi and Liang Dynasties. Saṅghavarman said, 'The Sarvāstivāda (Everything Exists School) originated in India and spread in Kashmir. The country of Kashmir is where the patriarch Simha taught, and it was also where he was killed.' Saṅghavarman's statement is very detailed. He also said, 'This school is particularly prevalent in the Qi Dynasty.' Saṅghavarman was a person from the Qi Dynasty. It must have been that before Bodhidharma, a person from the Western Regions came to the East and transmitted the teachings of the Sarvāstivāda to the Qi Dynasty. Saṅghavarman therefore obtained the relevant books in his country, but the name of the translator was lost. Otherwise, where would Saṅghavarman have obtained these transmissions? If it is said that it was done by Chan practitioners in China, then in Saṅghavarman's time, where were there any disciples of Bodhidharma? And how could it have come from the Sarvāstivāda?

。而律者書之乎。大凡辯事。必以理推必以跡驗。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。乃曰。達磨聞其二弟子被秦人擯之廬山。乃自來梁。梁既不信。以望氣遂之於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。乃目前魏廢帝齊王之世(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。清輒以為后之南齊(注清之書亦曰南齊)其所謂被擯于秦人者。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。清之言茍簡也。昔如來將化。謂大迦葉曰。吾以正法眼付囑于汝。汝宜傳之勿使斷絕。然則大聖人慾其以正法相承。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

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那麼，律宗的著述是這樣的嗎？大凡辯論事情，必須用道理來推斷，必須用證據來驗證，然後才能議論其是否恰當。反過來，即使有像蓍草、龜甲這樣靈驗的神明，又能怎麼樣呢？過去，釋神清譏諷禪宗的人，就說：『菩提達摩聽說他的兩個弟子被秦人驅逐到廬山，就親自來到梁朝。梁朝既然不相信他，他就望氣而逃到魏國。』他還引用師子尊者去世時正當北齊時代，而菩提達摩派遣兩個弟子的時候卻屬於晉朝，於是用年代不符來駁斥禪宗。師子尊者去世的時候，正當北魏廢帝齊王的時代（用甲子歷來計算，應當在丁卯年，而《寶林傳》錯誤地說是己卯年）。齊王，也是魏王曹芳所封的稱號。神清竟然認為是後來的南齊（神清的書中也說是南齊）。他所說的被秦人驅逐的，大概是佛馱跋陀（Buddhabhadra）了。佛馱跋陀確實是菩提達摩法門的侄子。說菩提達摩聽說他被驅逐就親自來到梁朝，祖師的到來，乃是順應大的因緣來傳佛的心印，難道僅僅因為兩個弟子被驅逐才來的嗎？這種說法不合道理。神清怎麼可以隨便拿來作為他互相非難的資本呢？然而這還不足以責備他。如果神清說：『只要是菩提達摩的門下，天下都會歸於仁義，禪德自然高尚，難道要等到傳法之後才開始成為宗教嗎？』神清的言論也太簡單了。過去，如來佛將要涅槃的時候，對摩訶迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）說：『我將正法眼藏付囑給你，你應當傳下去，不要使它斷絕。』既然如此，那麼大聖人想要用正法互相傳承，以自己作為萬世的宗師，用來證明大眾，用來區別不同的外道，這不是小事啊。現在說『難道要等到傳法之後才成為宗教嗎？』難道說的是我們這些禪宗弟子嗎？一定要執著于《付法藏傳》，來辯論二十八祖的事情，說是後世的曲解，又不能明白達磨多羅（Dharmatrata）是他的法名和俗名的合稱，就認為不是現在的菩提達摩，這是多麼沒有思考啊！讀書不能辨別其中道理的真偽，探究事情的本末，和市井小民賣書有什麼區別呢？即使讀了萬卷書，又有什麼益處呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Is that how the writings of the Vinaya school are? In general, when discussing matters, one must reason with logic and verify with evidence before judging whether it is appropriate. Conversely, even with oracles as reliable as milfoil stalks or tortoise shells, what can be done? In the past, Shen Qing ridiculed those of the Chan school, saying, 'Bodhidharma heard that his two disciples were banished to Mount Lu by the people of Qin, so he came to the Liang dynasty himself. Since the Liang dynasty did not believe him, he fled to the Wei kingdom by observing the qi. ' He also cited that when Venerable Simha died, it was during the Northern Qi dynasty, while Bodhidharma sent his two disciples during the Jin dynasty, thus refuting Chan by pointing out the discrepancy in dates. The death of Venerable Simha occurred during the reign of Emperor Fei of Northern Wei, the King of Qi (calculated by the Jiazi calendar, it should be in the year Dingmao, while the Baolin Zhuan mistakenly states it as Jimao). The King of Qi was also a title conferred by Cao Fang, the King of Wei. Shen Qing mistakenly believed it to be the later Southern Qi (Shen Qing's book also refers to it as Southern Qi). The one he mentioned as being banished by the people of Qin was probably Buddhabhadra. Buddhabhadra was indeed a nephew in the Dharma lineage of Bodhidharma. To say that Bodhidharma came to the Liang dynasty himself upon hearing of his banishment, the Patriarch's arrival was to follow the great cause and condition to transmit the mind-seal of the Buddha. Was it solely because the two disciples were banished that he came? This statement is unreasonable. How could Shen Qing casually use it as capital for his mutual criticism? However, this is not enough to blame him. If Shen Qing said, 'As long as one is a disciple of Bodhidharma, the world will return to benevolence and righteousness, and Chan virtue will naturally be noble. Does one have to wait until after the Dharma transmission to become a religion?' Shen Qing's words are too simplistic. In the past, when the Tathagata was about to enter Nirvana, he said to Mahākāśyapa, 'I entrust the treasury of the Right Dharma Eye to you. You should transmit it and not let it be cut off.' Since this is the case, the Great Sage wanted to inherit the Right Dharma with each other, to take himself as the master of all ages, to prove the masses, and to distinguish different heterodox paths. This is no small matter. Now to say, 'Does one have to wait until after the Dharma transmission to become a religion?' Is this referring to us Chan disciples? To insist on the Fu Fa Zang Zhuan to argue about the twenty-eight patriarchs, saying it is a distortion of later generations, and not understanding that Dharmatrata is a combination of his Dharma name and secular name, and thus thinking it is not the current Bodhidharma, how thoughtless is this! If one cannot distinguish the truth and falsehood of the principles in reading, and investigate the beginning and end of things, what is the difference between selling books like a commoner in the market? Even if one has read ten thousand volumes, what benefit is there to one's knowledge?

。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。亦禪者樸略。學識不臻。乃輒文之迂疏倒錯。累乎先聖真跡不盡信於世。其雖欲張之。而反更弛之。夫著書以垂法于無窮。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。皆欲刬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。則采其所遺以廣之。斷自釋迦如來至此第六祖大鑒禪師。總三十四聖者。如來則為之表。次聖則為之傳。及大鑒之後法既廣傳。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。並其祖圖。勒為十二卷。命曰傳法正宗記。

第二篇(此篇並后卷二篇是續作)

余昔引出三藏記所載四祖師者。以質付法藏傳之謬。遂為書。迄今七年矣。然出三藏記所錄者概見

耳。猶恐其未能斷天下之茍諍。適睹禪經及修行地不凈觀經序。而傳法眾聖。果二十八祖備矣。婆舍斯多而下四祖師。其名昭然若揭日月。僧祐所錄誠有根本。而吉迦夜闕傳。益不足考也。學者相黨其讻讻亦可息矣。夫禪經者。蓋出於菩提達磨。而佛馱跋陀羅所譯。廬山慧遠法師序之(本經其序。或亡出遠名。進出三藏記見之最詳也)不凈觀經其序亦宋僧慧觀之所著。達磨者如來直下之相承者也。佛馱跋陀羅乃佛大先之弟子。而達磨法門之猶子也。慧遠法師蓋承于佛馱跋陀。慧觀又跋陀之弟子者也。其所說其祖與宗固宜詳而備之也。禪經曰。佛滅度后尊者大迦葉。尊者阿難。尊者末田地。尊者舍那婆斯(此即商那和修也)尊者優波崛(即掬多也)尊者婆須蜜。尊者僧伽又(靈隱藏經。于僧伽下寫為又字。初即取其又字之義。后見他處經。寫曰僧伽羅叉。乃省前又字悟耳。然僧伽羅叉。即吾宗師子祖旁出之祖也。辯在吾解誣之文內甚詳)尊者摩拏羅(吾嘗辯此。當是稱二十五祖婆羅多羅。其謂又尊者。是必以二十五祖又承二十四祖師子。其相繼未嘗絕也。今其經本或云。達磨多羅。蓋後世傳寫之誤也。若達磨多羅即是其說經之人。乃不若多羅傳法之弟子也。豈有弟子說法。而先於其師自稱尊者邪。寫為達磨多羅者。亦字

【現代漢語翻譯】關於『耳』（指對禪宗傳承的疑問），我仍然擔心它無法平息天下那些無謂的爭論。恰好讀到《禪經》和《修行地不凈觀經序》，發現傳法的歷代聖賢，確實有二十八位祖師的完整記載。尤其是婆舍斯多（Vasubandhu）以下的四位祖師，他們的名字像日月一樣昭然若揭。僧祐（Sengyou）的記錄確實有其根本依據。而吉迦夜（Gīkāyana）的傳承缺失，更顯得無從考證。那些結黨營私、喧囂不止的學者們，也該停止爭論了。《禪經》這部經書，大概是出自菩提達磨（Bodhidharma）之手，由佛馱跋陀羅（Buddhabhadra）所翻譯，廬山慧遠（Huiyuan）法師作序（這部經的序，或許已經遺失，慧遠的名字也消失了，在《出三藏記》中記載的最為詳細）。《不凈觀經》的序，也是宋朝僧人慧觀（Huiguan）所著。達磨（Bodhidharma）是如來（Tathagata）直接傳承的繼承者。佛馱跋陀羅（Buddhabhadra）是佛大先（Buddhasena）的弟子，而達磨（Bodhidharma）的法門，也可以說是佛馱跋陀羅（Buddhabhadra）的侄子。慧遠（Huiyuan）法師是繼承了佛馱跋陀（Buddhabhadra）的教法，慧觀（Huiguan）又是跋陀（Bhadra）的弟子。他們所說的祖師和宗派，自然應該詳細而完備。《禪經》中說：佛陀（Buddha）滅度后，有尊者大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa），尊者阿難（Ānanda），尊者末田地（Madhyāntika），尊者舍那婆斯（Śāṇavāsa）（也就是商那和修（Śāṇakavāsa）），尊者優波崛（Upagupta）（也就是掬多（Gupta）），尊者婆須蜜（Vasumitra），尊者僧伽（Saṃgha）（《靈隱藏經》中，在『僧伽』（Saṃgha）字下寫了一個『又』字，最初就是取這個『又』字的意義。後來看到其他地方的經書，寫的是『僧伽羅叉』（Saṃgharakṣa），才明白是省略了前面的『又』字。然而，僧伽羅叉（Saṃgharakṣa）就是我們宗派師子祖（Siṃha）旁出的祖師。辨析在我的《解誣論》中非常詳細），尊者摩拏羅（Maṇāra）（我曾經辨析過，這應當是稱第二十五祖婆羅多羅（Bharata）。他們所說的『又尊者』，必定是以第二十五祖又繼承了第二十四祖師子（Siṃha），他們的相繼傳承從未斷絕。現在這部經本或者寫著『達磨多羅』（Dharmatara），大概是後世傳抄的錯誤。如果達磨多羅（Dharmatara）就是說經的人，那就不如多羅（Tara）傳法的弟子了。難道有弟子說法，卻先於他的老師自稱尊者的嗎？寫成達磨多羅（Dharmatara）的人，也是錯字

【English Translation】 Regarding 'ear' (referring to doubts about the Chan lineage), I still fear that it cannot quell the frivolous disputes of the world. I happened to read the 'Zen Sutra' and the preface to the 'Sutra on Contemplation of Impurity in the Practice Ground', and found that the successive sages who transmitted the Dharma indeed have a complete record of twenty-eight patriarchs. Especially the four patriarchs from Vasubandhu (婆舍斯多) onwards, their names are as clear as the sun and moon. Sengyou's (僧祐) records do have their fundamental basis. And the missing transmission of Gīkāyana (吉迦夜) makes it even more impossible to verify. Those scholars who form factions and clamor endlessly should also stop arguing. This 'Zen Sutra' was probably written by Bodhidharma (菩提達磨), translated by Buddhabhadra (佛馱跋陀羅), and prefaced by Dharma Master Huiyuan (慧遠) of Mount Lu (the preface to this sutra may have been lost, and Huiyuan's name has also disappeared; it is recorded in the most detail in the 'Records of the Translation of the Tripitaka'). The preface to the 'Sutra on Contemplation of Impurity' was also written by the Song Dynasty monk Huiguan (慧觀). Bodhidharma (達磨) is the direct successor of the Tathagata (如來). Buddhabhadra (佛馱跋陀羅) was a disciple of Buddhasena (佛大先), and Bodhidharma's (達磨) Dharma gate can also be said to be Buddhabhadra's (佛馱跋陀羅) nephew. Dharma Master Huiyuan (慧遠) inherited the teachings of Buddhabhadra (佛馱跋陀羅), and Huiguan (慧觀) was also a disciple of Bhadra (跋陀). The patriarchs and sects they speak of should naturally be detailed and complete. The 'Zen Sutra' says: After the Buddha (佛陀) passed away, there were Venerable Mahākāśyapa (大迦葉), Venerable Ānanda (阿難), Venerable Madhyāntika (末田地), Venerable Śāṇavāsa (舍那婆斯) (that is, Śāṇakavāsa (商那和修)), Venerable Upagupta (優波崛) (that is, Gupta (掬多)), Venerable Vasumitra (婆須蜜), Venerable Saṃgha (僧伽) (the 'Lingyin Hidden Sutra' writes the word 'again' under the word 'Saṃgha' (僧伽), initially taking the meaning of this word 'again'. Later, seeing the scriptures in other places, it was written 'Saṃgharakṣa' (僧伽羅叉), and then it was understood that the previous word 'again' was omitted. However, Saṃgharakṣa (僧伽羅叉) is the patriarch of our sect's Siṃha (師子) lineage. The analysis is very detailed in my 'Treatise on Dispelling Falsehood'), Venerable Maṇāra (摩拏羅) (I have analyzed this before, this should be referring to the twenty-fifth patriarch Bharata (婆羅多羅). What they call 'again Venerable' must be that the twenty-fifth patriarch again inherited the twenty-fourth patriarch Siṃha (師子), their successive transmission has never been broken. Now this scripture or writes 'Dharmatara' (達磨多羅), probably a mistake in later transcriptions. If Dharmatara (達磨多羅) is the one who speaks the sutra, then it is not as good as Tara's (多羅) disciple who transmits the Dharma. How can a disciple speak the Dharma and call himself a venerable before his teacher? The person who wrote Dharmatara (達磨多羅) is also a typo

與婆羅多羅相近故也。古德亦有辯此。謂是摩拿羅。恐亦未然。今且從先德耳)乃至尊者不若蜜多羅(但多蜜字與傳燈錄諸說異耳)諸持法者。以此慧燈次第傳授。我今如其所聞而說是義。若夫禪經所稱尊者大迦葉者。此吾正宗之第一祖者也。其曰乃至尊者不若蜜多羅者。此吾正宗之第二十七祖者也。與其弟子說經之者達磨多羅者。乃吾正宗之第二十八祖者也。以寶林傳燈眾說。所謂二十八十祖者。相與較其名數未曾差也。禪經不以其次第。而一一稱乎諸祖之名者。必當時欲專說法。略之而然也。但示其首末之人。則余祖在乎其中可知也。修行地不凈觀經序曰。傳此法至罽賓(罽賓。即師子祖所化之國也)轉至富若蜜多(即不如蜜多也)富若蜜多亦盡諸漏。具足六通。后至其弟子富若羅(即般若多羅也)亦得應真。此二人于罽賓中為第一教首(按寶林傳燈云。此二尊者。盛化東天竺南天竺。此云爲罽賓教首。必罽賓僧從。推仰其人。為承法之宗首也。或恐二人亦嘗來往罽賓國也)富若蜜多去世已五十餘年。弟子去世二十餘年(慧觀乃跋陀弟子也。此二人。同終於宋。今慧觀經序。推其承法宗祖。與跋陀廬山所譯並同。但其經題目輒異。又推富若蜜多富若羅二祖。師入滅之年。與寶林傳燈二書。前後相差。詳此或慧觀于

跋陀之後重譯其經之文。而自序之。或承其泛傳。謂富若羅入滅。遂以書之。或寶林慧觀所聞于西僧者。其部類宗計各不同。或五竺泛傳不的。或傳至此土。年代賒遠。重經滅教。而傳寫者。誤至其差舛耶。但取其承法宗祖真正入滅之年。雖稍差亦不甚妨。如眾家說佛生日不等。豈可便謂非吾佛也。按慧皎傳云。跋陀終在元嘉六年。而慧觀元嘉十三年方制勝鬘經序。知慧觀沒在跋陀之後)曇摩多羅菩薩(即達磨多羅也)與佛陀斯那(即佛大先者也)俱共咨得高勝宣行法本。佛陀斯那化行罽賓為第三訓首(其序亦與遠公序皆見於出三藏記第九卷)若慧觀所謂富若蜜多者。亦吾正宗之二十六祖也。所謂富若羅者。亦吾正宗之二十七祖也。所謂曇摩多羅菩薩者。亦吾正宗之二十八祖也。所謂佛陀斯那者。即菩提達磨同稟之佛大先者也。其所謂傳此法至罽賓。轉至富若蜜多者。蓋謂二十四師子祖始傳至於罽賓。而更自二十五祖婆舍斯多。展轉而至乎二十六祖矣。其不必皆列乎。師子斯多二祖師之名者。文欲略也。但二書文字稍異。或具或略。與今宗門眾說小差。蓋其譯有楚夏耳。按慧皎高僧傳云。佛馱跋陀羅。受業于大禪師佛大先者也(傳或為光字等誤也)始在罽賓。以僧智嚴所請。遂與之東來。初詣羅什于長安。每與什議論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：跋陀之後有人重新翻譯了他的經典，並且自己作序。或許是承襲了他廣泛流傳的說法，認為富若羅（Punyaratha，尊者名）已經入滅，所以用文字記錄下來。或者是寶林寺的慧觀法師從西域僧人那裡聽來的。這些經典的版本和宗義各有不同。或許是印度各地流傳的說法不夠準確，或許是傳到中國后，年代久遠，經歷了滅佛的時期，抄寫的人錯誤地導致了差異。但是隻要選取他們所承襲的宗法祖師真正入滅的年份，即使稍有差異也不妨礙大局。就像各家說法佛陀生日不一樣，難道就可以說那不是我們的佛陀了嗎？根據慧皎的《高僧傳》記載，跋陀在元嘉六年圓寂，而慧觀在元嘉十三年才撰寫《勝鬘經序》，可知慧觀去世在跋陀之後。曇摩多羅菩薩（Dharmatara，菩薩名，也寫作達磨多羅）與佛陀斯那（Buddhasena，尊者名，也寫作佛大先）共同請教得到高深殊勝的宣揚佛法的根本。佛陀斯那在罽賓弘揚佛法，是第三位訓首（他的序和鳩摩羅什的序都可以在《出三藏記集》第九卷中看到）。如果慧觀所說的富若蜜多（Punyamitra，尊者名）是我們的正宗第二十六祖。那麼，所謂的富若羅（Punyaratha，尊者名）就是我們的正宗第二十七祖。所謂的曇摩多羅菩薩（Dharmatara，菩薩名）就是我們的正宗第二十八祖。所謂的佛陀斯那（Buddhasena，尊者名）就是菩提達磨所稟承的佛大先。他們所說的將此法傳到罽賓，再傳到富若蜜多（Punyamitra，尊者名），大概是指第二十四祖師子（Simha，尊者名）開始傳到罽賓，然後從第二十五祖婆舍斯多（Vasasita，尊者名）輾轉傳到第二十六祖。不一定都要列出師子（Simha，尊者名）和斯多（Vasasita，尊者名）這兩位祖師的名字，是因為文字想要簡略。只是這兩本書的文字稍微不同，有的詳細，有的簡略，和現在禪宗的說法略有差異，大概是因為翻譯有地域性的差異。根據慧皎《高僧傳》記載，佛馱跋陀羅（Buddhabhadra，尊者名）師從於大禪師佛大先（Buddhasena，尊者名）（傳記中或許有寫成光字等錯誤），最初在罽賓，因為僧人智嚴的請求，就和他一起來到東方。最初在長安拜訪鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，尊者名），經常和鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，尊者名）討論佛法。

【English Translation】 English version: After Buddhabhadra, someone re-translated his sutras and wrote a preface himself. Perhaps it was based on his widely circulated teachings, believing that Punyaratha (name of a venerable one) had already passed away, so it was recorded in writing. Or it was what the monk Huiguan of Baolin Temple heard from Western monks. These versions and doctrines of the sutras are different. Perhaps the sayings circulating in various parts of India were not accurate enough, or perhaps after being transmitted to China, the years were long, and it experienced the period of Buddhist persecution, and the scribes mistakenly caused the differences. However, as long as the year of the true passing away of the patriarchal master of the Dharma lineage they inherited is selected, even if there is a slight difference, it does not hinder the overall situation. Just like the various schools say that the Buddha's birthday is different, can it be said that it is not our Buddha? According to Hui Jiao's 'Biographies of Eminent Monks', Buddhabhadra passed away in the sixth year of the Yuanjia era, while Huiguan wrote the preface to the 'Shrimala Sutra' in the thirteenth year of the Yuanjia era, so it can be known that Huiguan passed away after Buddhabhadra. Bodhisattva Dharmatara (name of a Bodhisattva, also written as Dharmatara) and Buddhasena (name of a venerable one, also written as Buddha Dasena) jointly consulted and obtained the profound and excellent fundamental of propagating the Dharma. Buddhasena propagated the Dharma in Kashmir and was the third training leader (his preface and Kumarajiva's preface can be seen in the ninth volume of 'Collection of Records from the Tripitaka'). If Punyamitra (name of a venerable one) mentioned by Huiguan is our 26th patriarch of the orthodox lineage. Then, the so-called Punyaratha (name of a venerable one) is our 27th patriarch of the orthodox lineage. The so-called Bodhisattva Dharmatara (name of a Bodhisattva) is our 28th patriarch of the orthodox lineage. The so-called Buddhasena (name of a venerable one) is Buddha Dasena, whom Bodhidharma inherited from. Their saying that this Dharma was transmitted to Kashmir and then to Punyamitra (name of a venerable one) probably means that the 24th patriarch Simha (name of a venerable one) began to transmit it to Kashmir, and then it was transmitted from the 25th patriarch Vasasita (name of a venerable one) to the 26th patriarch. It is not necessary to list the names of the two patriarchs Simha (name of a venerable one) and Vasasita (name of a venerable one), because the text wants to be brief. It's just that the texts of these two books are slightly different, some are detailed, some are brief, and there are slight differences from the current Zen sayings, probably because the translation has regional differences. According to Hui Jiao's 'Biographies of Eminent Monks', Buddhabhadra (name of a venerable one) studied under the great Zen master Buddhasena (name of a venerable one) (the biography may have errors such as writing the character 'light'), initially in Kashmir, at the request of the monk Zhiyan, he came to the East with him. Initially, he visited Kumarajiva (name of a venerable one) in Chang'an and often discussed the Dharma with Kumarajiva (name of a venerable one).

。相得甚善。嘗謂什曰。君所釋不出人意。而致高名何邪。什曰。吾年老故爾。何必能稱美談。尋為秦僧以事茍排跋陀。遂來廬山遠法師。為其致書解擯。因從之譯出禪經。僧祐出三藏記傳跋陀亦曰。于廬山與遠公譯出禪數諸經。今國朝印本禪經。其端題曰東晉三藏佛馱跋陀羅譯。此明其與遠公同譯是也。所謂跋陀受業于大禪師佛大先者。佛大先本二十七祖般若多羅受法之弟子。與菩提達磨蓋同嗣之弟兄也。故遠公序禪經曰。今之所譯出。自達磨多羅與佛大先。其人西域之雋禪訓之宗。寶林傳曰。佛大先乃跋陀之弟子。菩提達磨始亦學小乘禪觀于跋陀。后與大先皆稟法于般若多羅。若夫大小乘互為其師弟子。如鳩摩羅什般頭達多之類。西域多有。豈達磨等始亦稍問禪觀于跋陀。其後跋陀卻悟大法于達磨耶。而致二書之言如是也。然彼雖小法。亦恐聖人示必有師承耳。若記傳謂達磨乃觀音垂跡。方七歲即知四韋陀典五明集慕法。遂博通三藏。尤工定業。又何必資學於人耶。夫寶林傳之說。與禪經誠相近。但其序致似倒耳。或寶林西僧傳之者未精乎。以禪經斷之。理無師傳其弟子之經也。今跋陀傳譯達磨禪經。而跋陀乃達磨之徒。吾固以慧皎遠公之言為詳。推此則跋陀果佛大先之弟子。而達磨之法侄。慧觀經序亦曰。曇摩

【現代漢語翻譯】他們相處得很好。曾經對鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva，意為『童壽』）說：『你所翻譯的並沒有超出人們的意料，卻獲得瞭如此高的名聲，這是為什麼呢？』鳩摩羅什說：『我年紀大了，所以這樣，何必一定要能說出美好的言辭呢？』後來，有秦地的僧人因為一些事情排擠跋陀（Buddhabhadra，意為『覺賢』），於是他來到廬山拜訪遠法師（慧遠），慧遠為他寫信解除了排擠。因此，跋陀跟隨慧遠一起翻譯出了禪經。僧祐在《出三藏記傳》中記載，跋陀也說：『在廬山與遠公一起翻譯出了禪數諸經。』現在國朝（南朝）印行的禪經，其開頭的題記寫著『東晉三藏佛馱跋陀羅譯』。這說明他是與遠公共同翻譯的。所謂跋陀從大禪師佛大先（Buddhatrata）那裡接受教業，佛大先本是第二十七祖般若多羅（Prajñātāra）接受佛法的弟子，與菩提達磨（Bodhidharma）大概是同門師兄弟。所以遠公在《禪經序》中說：『現在所翻譯出來的，來自達磨多羅（Dharmatrata）與佛大先，他們是西域傑出的禪師，是禪訓的宗師。』《寶林傳》中說，佛大先是跋陀的弟子，菩提達磨最初也向跋陀學習小乘禪觀，後來與佛大先都從般若多羅那裡接受佛法。至於大小乘互相作為師弟的情況，像鳩摩羅什和般頭達多（Paṇḍitadatta）之類，在西域有很多。難道達磨等人最初也稍微向跋陀請教過禪觀，其後跋陀卻從達磨那裡領悟了大法嗎？所以兩本書的說法是這樣的。然而，即使是小法，恐怕聖人示現也必定有師承關係。如果《記傳》說達磨是觀音菩薩垂跡顯現，七歲時就知道四韋陀典和五明，一心向慕佛法，於是博通三藏，尤其擅長禪定，又何必向人學習呢？《寶林傳》的說法，與《禪經》確實很接近，但其順序似乎顛倒了。或許《寶林傳》的西域僧人傳述得不夠精細吧？以《禪經》來判斷，道理上沒有師父傳授其弟子的經典。《今跋陀傳譯達磨禪經》，而跋陀乃達磨之徒。我始終認為慧皎和遠公的說法更為詳細。由此推斷，跋陀確實是佛大先的弟子，而達磨是他的法侄。慧觀的《經序》也說，曇摩（Dharma）

【English Translation】 They got along very well. He once said to Kumārajīva (meaning 'Childhood'), 'What you translate does not exceed people's expectations, yet you have gained such a high reputation. Why is that?' Kumārajīva said, 'I am old, that's why. Why must I be able to speak beautiful words?' Later, a monk from Qin (state) ostracized Buddhabhadra (meaning 'Awakened Sage') for some reason, so he came to Mount Lu to visit Dharma Master Yuan (Huiyuan), who wrote a letter for him to resolve the ostracism. Therefore, Buddhabhadra followed Huiyuan to translate the Dhyana Sutra. Sengyou recorded in 'Chu Sanzang Ji Ji' that Buddhabhadra also said, 'At Mount Lu, I translated various Dhyana and Numerical Sutras with Master Yuan.' The currently printed Dhyana Sutra of the dynasty (Southern Dynasties) has the title 'Translated by Tripiṭaka Buddhabhadra of the Eastern Jin Dynasty.' This shows that he translated it together with Master Yuan. It is said that Buddhabhadra received teachings from the great Dhyana master Buddhatrata, who was originally a disciple of the twenty-seventh patriarch Prajñātāra, and was probably a fellow disciple of Bodhidharma. Therefore, Master Yuan said in the preface to the Dhyana Sutra, 'What is now translated comes from Dharmatrata and Buddhatrata, who are outstanding Dhyana masters from the Western Regions and masters of Dhyana teachings.' The 'Baolin Zhuan' says that Buddhatrata was a disciple of Buddhabhadra, and Bodhidharma initially studied Hinayana Dhyana meditation with Buddhabhadra, and later both received the Dharma from Prajñātāra. As for the situation where Mahayana and Hinayana serve as teachers and disciples to each other, like Kumārajīva and Paṇḍitadatta, there are many in the Western Regions. Could it be that Dharma and others initially consulted Buddhabhadra about Dhyana meditation, and later Buddhabhadra realized the great Dharma from Dharma? That's why the two books say this. However, even if it is a minor Dharma, I am afraid that the manifestation of a sage must have a lineage of teachers. If the 'Ji Zhuan' says that Dharma is a manifestation of Avalokiteśvara, who knew the four Vedas and five sciences at the age of seven, and aspired to the Dharma, then he was well-versed in the Tripiṭaka, especially skilled in Samadhi, why would he need to learn from others? The statement in the 'Baolin Zhuan' is indeed very close to the Dhyana Sutra, but its order seems to be reversed. Perhaps the Western Region monks who transmitted the 'Baolin Zhuan' were not precise enough? Judging from the Dhyana Sutra, there is no reason for a teacher to transmit the sutras of his disciple. 'Now Buddhabhadra transmits and translates the Dhyana Sutra of Dharma', and Buddhabhadra is a disciple of Dharma. I always believe that the statements of Huijiao and Master Yuan are more detailed. From this, it can be inferred that Buddhabhadra is indeed a disciple of Buddhatrata, and Dharma is his Dharma nephew. Hui Guan's 'Sutra Preface' also says that Dharma

羅以是法要傳與婆陀羅也(婆陀羅。即跋陀羅也。寶林傳但稱跋陀。指般若多羅。現在南天竺。未見其傳法。寶林未可為據)今佛馱跋陀。傳其諸父之經。列其祖師之名氏。固亦親矣不謬也。寶林傳曰。佛馱跋陀嘗謂遠法師云。西土已有二十七祖。而不若多羅方化于南天竺國者。此其效也(不若多羅尚在達磨未繼世作祖故未稱之)佛馱跋陀傳云。跋陀既為秦僧所擯。遂與其弟子慧觀等四十餘人俱發。神智從容初無異色。驗此則慧觀序述其宗祖。抑亦得之於跋陀也。詳其序意。則不凈觀經宜與禪經一也。但未見其元本。不即裁之。考跋陀譯經之時。方在晉安義熙七八年之間。而菩提達磨來梁。適在普通之初。其歲數相前後。不啻百年。是蓋達磨壽考出于常數而然也。故梁武碑達磨曰。厥壽百五十歲(續高僧傳亦如此云)梁帝蓋以人事而言之耳。若其死葬而復提只履西歸。又安可以歲數而計其壽考邪。吾嘗推跋陀譯經之年。而達磨當是方二十七歲耳。酌其演說禪經。固在其已前矣。序曰。西域之俊禪訓之宗者。是必跋陀知其聖人與世有大因緣當襲禪祖。預與遠公言之也。然跋陀自亦不測之人。宜其知達磨之聖人也。若非傳法眾聖。其事蹟始自支疆梁樓譯出為書曰續法傳。會拓跋燾毀教。支疆之書遂逸。其後有曇曜吉迦夜輩

。復綴完成的書。其所載或全或闕。更後世周武唐武宗毀教。其書又亡。又後世者雖復採拾各以為書。而全闕益差。古今辨此雖眾。援引煩雜皆不足斷。不若以今禪經與慧觀之序證之為詳。然世之所執以諍吾宗門者其最推付法藏傳耳。今考其書。蓋成於後魏延興之二年。而佛馱跋陀所譯禪經。乃出於晉安義熙七八年之間。而義熙前于延興已六十二載矣(譯禪經在義熙七八年。蓋按僧祐出三藏記跋陀傳云。至廬山自夏迄冬。譯出禪經。即以義熙八年。遂適荊州。慧皎高僧傳亦云。跋陀至廬山停歲許。復西適江陵。付法藏傳后出於延興二年。即見於其書之端)如此則禪經誠先見於南朝。而付法藏傳后出於北朝毀教之後耳。今獨執其一方。后出補亡之書。以抗其先見之全本者。可為當乎。說者曰。支疆梁樓先作續法傳。元有二十五祖。至婆舍斯多。謂傳法之人不自師子比丘即絕。又曰。吉弗煙與曇曜。同時別修此為五明集(蓋廣乎付法藏傳者也。吉弗煙亦吉迦夜也)亦謂有二十七世。不止於師子祖而已矣。其所以闕者。蓋曇曜初遇魏武毀法之難。倉卒單錄奔竄山澤。而亡之也。以今禪經與慧觀之序所備二十八祖。驗其所謂元有之者。果是而相傳不謬也。其過誠由曇曜之所致也。五明集亦不復見。雖有稍得之者。或別命其名目。如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：重新綴輯完成的書，但其中記載的內容或完整或殘缺。後來經歷了周武帝和唐武宗毀壞佛教，這些書籍又遺失了。再後世的人們雖然重新收集整理，各自編撰完成的書，但完整和殘缺的情況更加不同。古今辨析此事的人很多，但引用的資料繁雜，都不能做出決斷。不如用現在的《禪經》和《慧觀序》來驗證，這樣就比較詳細了。然而，世人用來爭論我們宗門的最推崇《付法藏傳》罷了。現在考察這本書，大約完成的書於後魏延興二年。而佛馱跋陀（Buddhabhadra，意為覺賢）所翻譯的《禪經》，是出自晉安義熙七八年之間。義熙年間比延興年間早六十二年（翻譯《禪經》在義熙七八年，大概是根據僧祐《出三藏記》中跋陀的傳記所說，他到廬山從夏天到冬天，翻譯出了《禪經》，就在義熙八年，於是前往荊州。《慧皎高僧傳》也說，跋陀到廬山停留了一年左右，又向西前往江陵。《付法藏傳》后出於延興二年，這在書的開頭就可見到）。這樣說來，《禪經》確實先出現在南朝，而《付法藏傳》后出於北朝毀壞佛教之後。現在只執著於一方，用后出的補遺之書，來對抗先前出現的完整版本，可以算是恰當嗎？有人說，支疆（不確定，可能是人名或地名）和梁樓（不確定，可能是人名或地名）先寫了《續法傳》，原先有二十五祖，到婆舍斯多（Vasubandhu，意為世親）為止，說傳法的人從師子比丘（Simha Bhiksu，意為師子比丘）之後就斷絕了。又說，吉弗煙（不確定，可能是人名）和曇曜（僧人名）同時分別編修此書，作為《五明集》（大概是擴充《付法藏傳》的內容。吉弗煙也寫作吉迦夜）。也說有二十七世，不止於師子祖。他們之所以缺失，大概是曇曜當初遇到魏武帝毀壞佛法的災難，倉促間只記錄了一部分，奔逃到山澤之中，因此遺失了。用現在的《禪經》和《慧觀序》所記載的完備的二十八祖，驗證他們所說的原先有的，確實是這樣，而且相傳沒有錯誤。他們的過失確實是由曇曜造成的。《五明集》也不再見到，即使有稍微得到一些的，或者另外命名了它的名目，比如...

【English Translation】 English version: It was re-compiled into a book, but the content recorded therein was either complete or incomplete. Later, after Emperor Wu of Zhou and Emperor Wuzong of Tang destroyed Buddhism, these books were lost again. Although later generations re-collected and reorganized them, compiling them into books, the completeness and incompleteness became even more different. Many people in ancient and modern times have analyzed this matter, but the cited materials are complicated and cannot be conclusive. It is better to verify it with the current 'Zen Sutra' (Chan Jing) and the 'Preface to Insight' (Huiguan Xu), which would be more detailed. However, what the world most admires to argue against our sect is the 'Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury' (Fu Fa Zang Zhuan). Now, examining this book, it was probably completed in the second year of Yanxing in the Later Wei Dynasty. And the 'Zen Sutra' translated by Buddhabhadra (Buddhabhadra, meaning 'Wise and Auspicious') came from the seventh and eighth years of Yixi in the Jin Dynasty. The Yixi period was sixty-two years earlier than the Yanxing period (the translation of the 'Zen Sutra' was in the seventh and eighth years of Yixi, probably according to the biography of Buddhabhadra in Sengyou's 'Records of the Translation of the Tripitaka', he went to Mount Lu from summer to winter, and translated the 'Zen Sutra', and in the eighth year of Yixi, he went to Jingzhou. Huijiao's 'Biographies of Eminent Monks' also says that Buddhabhadra stayed at Mount Lu for about a year and then went west to Jiangling. The 'Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury' was later produced in the second year of Yanxing, which can be seen at the beginning of the book). In this case, the 'Zen Sutra' did appear earlier in the Southern Dynasties, while the 'Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury' appeared later in the Northern Dynasties after the destruction of Buddhism. Now, only clinging to one side, using the later-appearing supplementary book to oppose the earlier-appearing complete version, can it be considered appropriate? Some say that Zhi Jiang (uncertain, possibly a person's name or place name) and Liang Lou (uncertain, possibly a person's name or place name) first wrote the 'Continuation of the Dharma Transmission' (Xu Fa Zhuan), which originally had twenty-five ancestors, up to Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu, meaning 'Heavenly Relatives'), saying that the transmission of the Dharma had ceased after Simha Bhiksu (Simha Bhiksu, meaning 'Lion Monk'). It is also said that Jifu Yan (uncertain, possibly a person's name) and Tan Yao (a monk's name) simultaneously compiled this book separately, as the 'Collection of Five Luminaries' (Wu Ming Ji) (probably expanding the content of the 'Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury'. Jifu Yan is also written as Jijiaye). It is also said that there were twenty-seven generations, not just the Simha ancestor. The reason why they were missing is probably that Tan Yao encountered the disaster of Emperor Wu of Wei destroying the Dharma, and in a hurry, he only recorded a part of it, fleeing to the mountains and marshes, and therefore lost it. Using the complete twenty-eight ancestors recorded in the current 'Zen Sutra' and the 'Preface to Insight', verifying what they said was originally there, it is indeed so, and the transmission is not mistaken. Their fault was indeed caused by Tan Yao. The 'Collection of Five Luminaries' is no longer seen, and even if some are slightly obtained, they are named differently, such as...

寶林傳。聖胄集之類。又不列譯人之名氏。後世復不能考其實。但以曇曜先綴集者。輒與吉迦夜兩出其名。然迦夜之書非其正本。固可見矣。學者不識但視其書曰。師子比丘為罽賓國王邪見。因以利劍斬之。頭中無血唯乳流出。相付法人於此便絕。乃以為然。殊不料昔之學輩黨宗。故為此說相蔑。以起後世者不信。假令其實無相付法之人。而識者直筆。但不書其承法之者。而人亦自見其闕矣。何必輒書其便絕耶。然其言酷且俗。誠滅教之後不逞者。幸其前傳亡本。因師子之事。而妄為之嗣。托乎梵僧吉迦夜之名以行。然吉迦夜亦名吉弗煙。諸家謂其嘗著五明集。不止乎二十四世。以此驗付法藏傳。托之迦夜不其然乎。縱曇曜當時不為亦周武毀教之後。而其人輒作必矣。不爾則禪經與出三藏記皆備。而此何特無耶。吾謂其謬書可焚也(即付法藏傳)。

傳法正宗論捲上大正藏第 51 冊 No. 2080 傳法正宗論

傳法正宗論卷下

宋藤州東山沙門釋契嵩著

第三篇

客有謂余曰。我聞正宗以心傳心而已矣。而子必取乎禪經何謂也。曰吾取禪經。以其所出祖師名數備有微旨合吾正宗。廬山大師祖述正宗尤詳。而慧觀之序亦然。吾書之推以為證耳。吾非學禪經而專以為意也。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：像《寶林傳》、《聖胄集》之類的書籍，又不列出翻譯者的姓名，後人也無法考證其真實情況。只是因為曇曜（Tanyao，人名）先前編纂整理，就總是把他的名字和吉迦夜（G迦夜，人名）的名字並列。然而吉迦夜的書並非原本，這是顯而易見的。學者們不明白這一點，只是看書上說：師子比丘（Simha Bhiksu，人名）因為罽賓國（Kashmir）國王的邪見，被用利劍斬首，頭中沒有血，只有乳汁流出，相傳的佛法傳承因此斷絕。他們就信以為真。實在沒有料到，過去的學派爲了宗派之爭，故意這樣說來互相詆譭，以致後世的人不相信。即使實際上沒有相傳佛法的人，有見識的人也會如實記載，只是不寫明繼承佛法的人，人們自然也會看到其中的缺失。何必一定要寫明傳承斷絕呢？而且，這種說法既殘酷又庸俗，一定是滅佛之後那些不懷好意的人，趁著之前的傳記版本缺失，借師子比丘的事情，而妄自編造的傳承，假託梵僧吉迦夜的名義來推行。然而，吉迦夜也叫吉弗煙（G弗煙，人名），各家都說他曾經寫過《五明集》，不止於二十四世。以此來驗證《付法藏傳》，假託吉迦夜之名，難道不是這樣嗎？即使曇曜當時沒有做這件事，周武帝（Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou）毀佛之後，這樣的人也一定會做的。不然的話，禪經和《出三藏記》都記載完備，為什麼唯獨《付法藏傳》沒有記載呢？我認為這種錯誤的記載應該焚燬（指《付法藏傳》）。

《傳法正宗論捲上》大正藏第 51 冊 No. 2080 《傳法正宗論》

《傳法正宗論卷下》

宋藤州東山沙門釋契嵩（Shi Qisong，人名）著

第三篇

有客人對我說：『我聽說正宗是以心傳心而已，而您一定要引用禪經，這是為什麼呢？』我回答說：『我引用禪經，是因為其中所記載的祖師名號完備，而且其中蘊含的微妙旨意與我的正宗相合。廬山大師（Mount Lu Master）對正宗的闡述尤其詳細，慧觀（Huiguan，人名）的序言也是如此。我寫書引用它們，是爲了作為論證而已。我並非學習禪經，而專門以此為意。』

【English Translation】 English version: Books like the 'Baolin Zhuan' (寶林傳, Baolin Record) and 'Shengzhou Ji' (聖胄集, Collection of Holy Lineages) do not list the names of the translators, and later generations cannot verify their authenticity. It is only because Tanyao (曇曜, a person's name) compiled and organized them earlier that his name is always listed alongside that of G迦夜 (迦夜, a person's name). However, G迦夜's book is not the original, which is obvious. Scholars do not understand this and simply read in the book that Simha Bhiksu (師子比丘, a person's name) was beheaded with a sharp sword due to the heretical views of the king of Kashmir (罽賓國), and that no blood flowed from his head, only milk, and that the transmission of the Dharma was thus cut off. They believe this to be true. They did not expect that past schools deliberately said this to slander each other for the sake of sectarian disputes, so that later generations would not believe it. Even if there were actually no people who transmitted the Dharma, knowledgeable people would record it truthfully, simply not writing down the person who inherited the Dharma, and people would naturally see the shortcomings. Why must it be written that the transmission was cut off? Moreover, this statement is both cruel and vulgar, and must have been fabricated by those ill-intentioned people after the destruction of Buddhism, taking advantage of the missing versions of previous biographies, using the story of Simha Bhiksu, and falsely creating a lineage, under the name of the Brahmin monk G迦夜. However, G迦夜 is also called G弗煙 (弗煙, a person's name), and various schools say that he once wrote the 'Five Vidyas Collection' (五明集), which is more than twenty-four generations. Using this to verify the 'Fu Fa Zang Zhuan' (付法藏傳, Record of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury), is it not the case that it is falsely attributed to G迦夜? Even if Tanyao did not do this at the time, such a person would definitely do it after Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou (周武帝) destroyed Buddhism. Otherwise, the Chan Sutras and the 'Chu San Zang Ji' (出三藏記, Record of the Translation of the Tripitaka) are all complete, so why is the 'Fu Fa Zang Zhuan' uniquely missing? I think this erroneous record should be burned (referring to the 'Fu Fa Zang Zhuan').

'Chuan Fa Zheng Zong Lun, Volume 1' (傳法正宗論捲上, Treatise on the Orthodox Lineage of Dharma Transmission, Volume 1) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 51, No. 2080 'Chuan Fa Zheng Zong Lun' (傳法正宗論, Treatise on the Orthodox Lineage of Dharma Transmission)

'Chuan Fa Zheng Zong Lun, Volume 2' (傳法正宗論卷下, Treatise on the Orthodox Lineage of Dharma Transmission, Volume 2)

Written by Shi Qisong (釋契嵩, a person's name), a monk of Dongshan Temple in Tengzhou, Song Dynasty

Chapter 3

A guest said to me: 'I have heard that the orthodox lineage is transmitted mind-to-mind, so why must you quote the Chan Sutras?' I replied: 'I quote the Chan Sutras because the names of the patriarchs recorded in them are complete, and the subtle meaning contained therein is in accordance with my orthodox lineage. The Mount Lu Master (廬山大師) elaborated on the orthodox lineage in particular detail, and so does Huiguan's (慧觀, a person's name) preface. I quote them in my writing as evidence only. I am not studying the Chan Sutras and focusing on them exclusively.'

客曰。祖師之名數則見之矣。而廬山祖述尤詳者何謂也。曰按僧祐出三藏記所錄曰。廬山出修行方便禪經統序釋慧遠述。及考其序求其統之之意者。有曰。夫三業之興。以禪智為宗。有曰。理玄數廣道隱於文。則是阿難曲承音詔(其經本。或寫為音韶。蓋後世傳寫者之筆誤耳。余考遠公匡山集。見禪經統序。實云旨詔圭峰普賢行愿疏。亦稱旨詔。此必圭峰按周唐沙汰已前古本經序也。既言曲承旨詔。曲則細密之謂也。若云音詔。則其義豈為微密耶。慧觀法師不凈觀經序亦云。曲奉聖旨。不凈觀經即禪經也。愚初未敢輒改大藏國本之文。此後乃取旨詔為詳。請為百世之定準也)遇非其人。必藏之靈府。何者心無常規。其變多方。數無定象。待感而應。是故化行天竺。緘之有匠。幽關莫辟。罕窺其庭。從此而觀。理有行藏。道不虛授。良有以矣。如來泥洹未久。阿難傳其共行弟子末田地。末田地傳舍那婆斯。此三應真。咸乘至愿冥契于昔。功在言外經所不辯。必闇軌元匠(元匠喻佛也)孱焉無差。其後有優波崛。弱而超悟。智終世表。才高應寡。觸理從簡。八萬法藏所存唯要。五部之分始自於此。因斯而推。固知形運以廢興自兆神用。則幽步無跡妙動難尋涉粗生異。可不慎乎可不察乎。自茲以來感於事變懷其舊典。五部之

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：客人問道：『祖師的名號和世系已經瞭解了，但為什麼特別詳細地講述廬山慧遠大師的傳承呢？』我回答說：『根據僧祐《出三藏記》所記載，廬山有慧遠大師所著的《修行方便禪經統序》。考察這篇序言，探求其統攝之意，其中說到：『三業的興起，以禪定和智慧為根本。』又說：『理深奧玄妙，數量廣大，道隱藏在文字中。』這是因為阿難尊者委婉地領受了佛的旨詔（《禪經》的版本，有的寫作『音韶』，這大概是後世傳抄者的筆誤。我考察慧遠大師的《匡山集》，發現《禪經統序》確實說的是『旨詔』，圭峰宗密的《普賢行愿疏》也說是『旨詔』。這一定是圭峰宗密依據周朝和唐朝沙汰佛法之前的古本經序。既然說是委婉地領受了旨詔，『曲』就是細緻周密的意思。如果說是『音詔』，那麼它的意義怎麼能是微密呢？慧觀法師的《不凈觀經序》也說：『委婉地奉行聖旨。』《不凈觀經》就是禪經。我起初不敢輕易改動大藏經國家版本的文字，此後才採用『旨詔』作為更詳細的版本，作為百世的定準）。如果遇到不合適的人，佛法必定會隱藏在靈府中。為什麼呢？因為心沒有常規，它的變化多種多樣；數沒有固定的形象，等待感應而生。所以佛法在天竺傳播，被有匠心的人封藏起來，幽深的關隘沒有打開，很少有人能窺見其中的奧秘。從這裡來看，真理有顯現和隱藏，道不會輕易傳授，確實是有原因的。如來涅槃后不久，阿難將佛法傳給和他一起修行的弟子末田地，末田地傳給舍那婆斯。這三位應真阿羅漢，都憑藉著至高的願力，在冥冥之中與佛契合，他們的功德在言語之外，經典中沒有詳細記載，必定是暗中遵循佛的根本法則（根本法則比喻佛），絲毫沒有差錯。之後有優波崛多尊者，雖然年少卻超越常人，智慧終究超越世俗，才華高超但應機說法的情況很少。他接觸真理，提綱挈領，八萬法藏中只保留了最精要的部分。五部的劃分就是從他開始的。因此可以推斷，形體的執行會因為廢棄和興盛而顯現徵兆，精神的作用則幽深莫測，難以尋覓，稍微接觸粗淺的事物就會產生差異。能不謹慎嗎？能不仔細考察嗎？從這以後，人們感嘆於世事的變遷，懷念舊的經典，五部的……』

【English Translation】 English version: A guest asked: 'The names and lineages of the patriarchs are now understood, but why is the transmission of Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu described in such detail?' I replied: 'According to the records in Sengyou's 'Records of the Translation of the Tripitaka,' there is the 'Preface to the Comprehensive Explanation of the Sutra on the Methods of Practicing Dhyana,' written by Huiyuan of Mount Lu. Examining this preface and seeking its comprehensive meaning, it says: 'The arising of the three karmas is based on dhyana and wisdom.' It also says: 'The principle is profound and mysterious, the numbers are vast, and the Dao is hidden in the words.' This is because Venerable Ananda subtly received the Buddha's decree (the version of the 'Dhyana Sutra' is sometimes written as 'yin shao,' which is probably a scribal error of later copyists. I examined Master Huiyuan's 'Collected Works of Kuangshan' and found that the 'Preface to the Comprehensive Explanation of the Dhyana Sutra' indeed says 'zhi zhao,' and Guifeng Zongmi's 'Commentary on the Practices and Vows of Samantabhadra' also says 'zhi zhao.' This must be Guifeng Zongmi based on the ancient sutra preface before the suppression of Buddhism during the Zhou and Tang dynasties. Since it says that he subtly received the decree, 'qu' means meticulous and thorough. If it says 'yin zhao,' then how can its meaning be subtle? The 'Preface to the Sutra on Impure Contemplation' by Dharma Master Huiguan also says: 'Subtly following the holy decree.' The 'Sutra on Impure Contemplation' is the Dhyana Sutra. I initially did not dare to easily change the text of the national version of the Tripitaka, but later adopted 'zhi zhao' as a more detailed version, as a standard for hundreds of generations). If it encounters an unsuitable person, the Dharma will surely be hidden in the spiritual treasury. Why? Because the mind has no fixed rules, and its changes are diverse; numbers have no fixed image, waiting for a response to arise. Therefore, the Dharma spread in India, sealed by those with ingenuity, the deep pass was not opened, and few could glimpse its mysteries. From this, we can see that truth has manifestation and concealment, and the Dao will not be easily transmitted, and there is indeed a reason for this. Not long after the Nirvana of the Tathagata, Ananda transmitted the Dharma to his fellow practitioner Madyantika, and Madyantika transmitted it to Sanavasin. These three Arhats, all relying on their supreme vows, were in perfect harmony with the Buddha in the dark, their merits are beyond words, and the sutras do not record them in detail, they must be secretly following the fundamental laws of the Buddha (the fundamental laws are a metaphor for the Buddha), without the slightest error. Later, there was Venerable Upagupta, who, although young, surpassed ordinary people, and his wisdom ultimately surpassed the mundane, his talent was outstanding, but there were few cases of teaching according to the occasion. He touched the truth and grasped the essentials, retaining only the most essential parts of the eighty-four thousand Dharma teachings. The division of the five Agamas began with him. Therefore, it can be inferred that the operation of the body will show signs due to abandonment and prosperity, and the function of the spirit is deep and unpredictable, difficult to find, and slight contact with superficial things will produce differences. Can we not be cautious? Can we not examine carefully? From then on, people lamented the changes in the world and missed the old classics, the five Agamas...'

學並有其人。咸懼大法將頹。理深其慨。遂各述贊禪經。以隆其業(贊禪經。非經之文。乃其經之法要也)有曰。尋條求根者眾。統本運末者寡。或將暨而不至。或守方而未變。有曰。原夫聖旨非徒全其長。亦所以救其短。若然五部殊業。存乎其人。人不繼世。道或隆替。廢興有時。則互相升降。小大之目其可定乎。又達節善變出處無際。晦名寄跡無聞無示。若斯人者復不可以名部分。既非名部之所分。亦不出乎其外。別有宗明矣。有曰。今之所譯。出自達磨多羅與佛大先。其人西域之俊禪訓之宗。蒐集經要勸發大乘。有曰。非夫道冠三乘智通十地。孰能洞玄根於法身。歸宗一于無相。靜無遺照動不離寂者哉。今推此數端之說。豈非以阿難掬多曲承旨詔待其人而密相傳受。所謂功在言外經所不辯者。統吾釋迦文佛之一大教。其經者律者論者。其人之學是三者。莫不由此而為之至也。僧祐所謂統序者。此其所以然也。慧皎高僧傳。謂佛馱跋陀去秦。而會遠公于廬山。譯出禪數諸經。僧祐出三藏記傳跋陀亦曰。嘗與遠公譯此禪經。而遠公乃自跋陀傳其法要。跋陀則受之於達磨。故其序述乃如此之廣大微妙秘密者。蓋發明其經主之心耳。此所謂識吾正宗之詳者也。大宋高僧傳論禪科曰。夫法演漢庭。極證之名未著。風行廬阜

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：學習佛法並且能身體力行的人很少。大家都擔心佛法將要衰敗，深深地為此感慨。於是各自撰寫贊禪經的序言，來弘揚佛法（贊禪經，不是經文字身，而是經文的法要）。有人說：『尋章摘句、追求細枝末節的人很多，而能統攝根本、運用末節的人很少。』有些人將要到達目標卻最終未能到達，有些人固守一方卻未能改變。有人說：『探究聖人的旨意，不僅僅是爲了保全其長處，也是爲了彌補其短處。』如果這樣，五部（律藏的五部）各有不同的事業，取決於人。如果人不能世代相傳，佛法或許會興盛或衰敗。廢除和興起有時，那麼互相升降，大小的區分又怎麼能確定呢？又有人說，通達事理、善於應變，出仕和隱退都沒有定所，隱藏名聲、寄託軌跡，不為人知，也不顯露。像這樣的人，又不能用名分來區分。既然不是名分所能區分的，也不在名分之外。另有宗門闡明了這一點。有人說：『現在所翻譯的，出自達磨多羅（Dharmatrata，法救）和佛大先（Buddhasena）。他們是西域的俊傑，禪訓的宗師，蒐集經文要義，勸導啓發大乘。』有人說：『如果不是道德超越三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘），智慧通達十地（菩薩修行的十個階段），誰能洞察玄妙，根植於法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身），歸宗于無相（沒有具體形象的真理），靜止時沒有遺留的照見，行動時不離寂靜呢？』現在推究這幾方面的說法，難道不是阿難（Ananda，釋迦牟尼佛的十大弟子之一）和掬多（Gupta）委婉地接受旨意，等待合適的人而秘密地相傳嗎？這就是所謂的功勞在言語之外，經文所沒有詳細說明的。統攝釋迦文佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）的一大教法，經、律、論，學習這三者的人，沒有不由此而達到極致的。僧祐（Sengyou）所說的『統序』，就是這個原因。慧皎（Huijiao）《高僧傳》說，佛馱跋陀（Buddhabhadra，覺賢）離開秦地，在廬山與慧遠（Huiyuan）法師相會，翻譯出禪數諸經。僧祐《出三藏記傳》記載，跋陀也說，曾經與慧遠法師一起翻譯這部禪經，而慧遠法師是從跋陀那裡得到其法要，跋陀則從達磨（Dharma）那裡得到。所以他的序述如此廣大微妙秘密，大概是爲了闡明經主的心意。這就是所謂瞭解我們正宗的詳細情況的人。《大宋高僧傳》論禪科說：『佛法在漢朝傳播，極證（最高的證悟）的名聲還沒有顯著，風氣盛行於廬山。』

【English Translation】 English version: Few are those who study and practice the Dharma accordingly. Everyone fears that the Great Dharma is about to decline, and deeply laments this. Therefore, they each write prefaces praising the Dhyana Sutras to promote the Dharma (the 'praising Dhyana Sutras' are not the sutras themselves, but the essential points of the sutras). Some say: 'Many seek the branches and twigs, pursuing minor details, but few are those who can grasp the root and apply the branches.' Some are about to reach the goal but ultimately fail, while others cling to one side and fail to change. Some say: 'Exploring the intention of the sages is not only to preserve their strengths but also to remedy their weaknesses.' If so, the five divisions (of the Vinaya Pitaka) each have different tasks, depending on the people. If people cannot pass it down through generations, the Dharma may flourish or decline. Abolition and rise occur at times, so how can the distinctions between large and small be determined? Furthermore, some say that those who understand principles and are good at adapting, with no fixed place for serving or retiring, hide their names and entrust their traces, unknown and unrevealed. Such people cannot be distinguished by titles. Since they cannot be distinguished by titles, they are also not outside of titles. Another school clearly elucidates this. Some say: 'What is now translated comes from Dharmatrata (法救) and Buddhasena (佛大先). They are outstanding figures from the Western Regions, masters of Dhyana training, collecting the essentials of the sutras, encouraging and inspiring the Mahayana.' Some say: 'If one's morality does not surpass the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), and one's wisdom does not penetrate the Ten Bhumis (ten stages of Bodhisattva practice), who can perceive the profound, be rooted in the Dharmakaya (法身, the Dharma body of the Buddha), return to the source of the formless (the truth without concrete form), have no remaining illumination when still, and not be separated from stillness when moving?' Now, examining these statements, isn't it that Ananda (阿難, one of the ten great disciples of Sakyamuni Buddha) and Gupta subtly accepted the decree, waiting for the right person to secretly transmit it? This is what is meant by merit being beyond words, not detailed in the sutras. Comprehending the great teaching of Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦文佛), the Sutras, Vinaya, and Shastras, those who study these three do not fail to reach the ultimate through this. What Sengyou (僧祐) calls 'comprehensive preface' is the reason for this. Huijiao's (慧皎) 'Biographies of Eminent Monks' says that Buddhabhadra (佛馱跋陀, Juexian) left the Qin region and met with Master Huiyuan (慧遠) at Mount Lu, translating various Dhyana and numerical sutras. Sengyou's 'Records of the Translation of the Tripitaka' records that Bhadra also said that he once translated this Dhyana Sutra with Master Huiyuan, and Master Huiyuan obtained its essential points from Bhadra, who obtained them from Dharma. Therefore, his preface is so vast, subtle, and secret, probably to elucidate the mind of the sutra's master. This is what is meant by those who understand the details of our orthodox school. The 'Treatise on Dhyana' in the 'Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Song Dynasty' says: 'The Dharma spread in the Han Dynasty, but the name of ultimate realization was not yet prominent, and the trend flourished at Mount Lu.'

。禪那之學始萌。佛馱什秦擯而來。般若多晉朝而至。時遠公也密傳坐法。深斡玄機漸染施行。依違祖述。其所曰依者。謂其依法要也。違者謂其違教跡也。驗此而遠公傳縣要于跋陀。豈不果爾耶(傳家所用佛馱般若。此二人似皆至廬山。則遠公密傳者。果得之於誰。以僧祐慧皎二傳所列。亦不見有般若同至之說。然傳家所引。彼書恐末端審。寧公亦少思之。今以其譯經斷。而遠公當傳於跋陀。跋陀則得於達磨。慧觀序明之詳。然其般若多似與二十七祖名相近。以傳記證則二十七祖未聞來晉。亦只滅在天竺。若其聖人忽來忽往。果先曾以通而來。為達磨禪宗張本。此在聖人則不可測也。不然則實自有一般若多。或諸祖支派者。先來露此禪旨也。后或有以此事蹟論。請以吾注正之)當遠公之時。達磨未至。密傳極證之說。而華人未始稍聞。廬山雖自得之。輒發則駭眾而謗生。料不可孤起。會其出經遂因而發之。然其說益玄。與其經之文或不相類。其意在其經之秘要耳。不宜專求于區區三數萬文字之間而已矣。若其曰阿難曲承旨詔不類其經。而首稱大迦葉者。是必特欲明阿難傳佛經教之外而別受此之玄旨也。不爾則何輒與經相反耶。慧觀之序。其大概雖與廬山之說同。而其經題目與始說經之人。曖昧不甚辯。吾不盡推以為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：禪那（Dhyana，禪定）之學開始萌芽。佛馱什（Buddhasena）從秦地被排斥而來，般若多（Prajnatara）在晉朝時到達。當時遠公（慧遠大師）也秘密傳授坐禪的方法，深入地掌握玄妙的機理，逐漸地薰染施行。其中有所依從，也有所違背。所說的『依』，是指依從佛法的要義；所說的『違』，是指違背經教的表象。以此來驗證，遠公將心要傳授給跋陀（Buddhabhadra），難道不是這樣嗎？（傳家所用的佛馱和般若，這二人都好像到過廬山。那麼遠公秘密傳授的，果真是從他們那裡得到的嗎？根據僧祐和慧皎的傳記所列，也不見有般若一同到達的說法。然而傳家所引用的，那些書籍恐怕不夠嚴謹審慎，寧公也應該稍微思考一下。現在根據他翻譯的經典來判斷，遠公應當是傳授給了跋陀，跋陀則是從達磨（菩提達摩）那裡得到的。慧觀的序言對此說明得很詳細。然而那個般若多，似乎與二十七祖的名號相近。用傳記來考證，二十七祖沒有聽說過來到晉朝，也只是在天竺滅度。如果聖人忽來忽往，果真曾經以神通而來，為達磨的禪宗奠定基礎，這在聖人來說是不可測度的。不然的話，就確實另有一位般若多，或者是諸祖的支派，先來顯露這個禪宗的宗旨。以後或許有人用這件事蹟來評論，請用我的註釋來糾正它。）當遠公的時代，達磨還沒有到來，秘密傳授極證的說法，而華人從未稍微聽聞過。廬山雖然自己領悟了，但隨便發表就會使眾人驚駭而產生誹謗，料想不能獨自興起。恰逢其翻譯經典，於是就藉此機會而發表。然而他的說法更加玄妙，與經典上的文字或許不相似，他的意思在於經典中的秘要罷了，不應該只在區區三數萬文字之間尋求。如果說阿難（Ananda）曲意承旨，詔令的內容與經典不相似，而首先稱讚大迦葉（Mahakasyapa），這必定是特別想要說明阿難在傳佛經教之外，還另外接受了這個玄妙的宗旨。不然的話，為什麼總是與經典相反呢？慧觀的序言，它的大概意思雖然與廬山的說法相同，但是它的經典題目與開始說經的人，含糊不清，我不能完全推翻它。

【English Translation】 English version: The study of Dhyana (Zen meditation) began to sprout. Buddhasena was rejected and came from the Qin region, and Prajnatara arrived during the Jin Dynasty. At that time, Master Yuan (Huiyuan) also secretly transmitted the method of seated meditation, deeply grasping the subtle mechanisms, gradually influencing and implementing it. There was adherence and also deviation. The so-called 'adherence' refers to adhering to the essential meaning of the Dharma; the so-called 'deviation' refers to deviating from the appearance of the teachings. Verifying this, Master Yuan transmitted the essential heart to Buddhabhadra, isn't that so? (The Buddhasena and Prajnatara used by the family tradition, both of them seem to have been to Mount Lu. Then, was what Master Yuan secretly transmitted truly obtained from them? According to the biographies listed by Sengyou and Huijiao, there is no mention of Prajnatara arriving together. However, what is quoted by the family tradition, those books are probably not rigorous and prudent enough, Ning Gong should also think about it a little. Now, judging from the scriptures he translated, Master Yuan should have transmitted it to Buddhabhadra, and Buddhabhadra obtained it from Dharma (Bodhidharma). Huiguan's preface explains this in detail. However, that Prajnatara seems to be similar to the name of the Twenty-seventh Patriarch. Using biographies to verify, the Twenty-seventh Patriarch has not been heard of coming to the Jin Dynasty, and only passed away in Tianzhu (India). If the sages come and go suddenly, and truly came with supernatural powers, laying the foundation for Dharma's Zen school, this is immeasurable for the sages. Otherwise, there is indeed another Prajnatara, or a branch of the patriarchs, who came to reveal the essence of this Zen school first. Later, perhaps someone will comment on this event, please correct it with my annotations.) At the time of Master Yuan, Dharma had not yet arrived, and the saying of secretly transmitting the ultimate realization, the Chinese had never heard of it even slightly. Although Mount Lu realized it on its own, casually publishing it would shock the public and give rise to slander, it was expected that it could not arise alone. Coincidentally, he was translating scriptures, so he took the opportunity to publish it. However, his saying is even more profound, and may not be similar to the words in the scriptures, his meaning lies in the secret essence of the scriptures, and should not be sought only in the mere tens of thousands of words. If it is said that Ananda (Ananda) bent his will to accept the decree, and the content of the decree is not similar to the scriptures, and first praises Mahakasyapa (Mahakasyapa), this must be specifically to explain that Ananda, in addition to transmitting the Buddha's teachings, also received this profound essence separately. Otherwise, why is it always contrary to the scriptures? Huiguan's preface, its general meaning is the same as the saying of Mount Lu, but its scripture title and the person who started speaking the scripture, are vague and unclear, I cannot completely overturn it.

篤論但善慧觀。備殊祖師名數與吾正宗類。又以其曰阿難曲奉聖旨流行千載。又曰曇摩羅以此法要傳與浮陀羅。浮陀羅與佛陀斯那。愍此旃丹無真習可師。遂流此法至東州。此似最近吾宗也。然當慧觀之時。佛法入震旦。已三百七十餘載矣。其所傳來者洪經大論殆亦備矣。何藉一不凈觀經而為之師耶。其謂無真習可師。正以中華未始真有極證秘密之法。為此學教者之師軌耳。曰何謂禪經有微旨合吾之正宗乎。曰禪經曰。佛言。欲求阿鼻三摩耶(元注云。此是見道之名也)當作達磨摩那斯伽邏。常觀其實義。以聖行刀斷除陰賊。莫如劣夫不能報仇為彼所害。乃至一切賢聖。皆應勤修如是正觀。為現法樂故。為後世作大明故。斷一切苦本故。饒益眾生故。況于凡夫空無所得。而自放逸不勤修習。其下乃解曰。達磨謂世間第一法也。摩那斯伽邏謂一經心。譯者義言思惟。夫禪經凡二卷。自初及終皆華言。唯此見道與世第一法一經心者。獨用梵語。秘而不譯。吾意經家如是乃含佛微旨。特欲以秘密感悟超拔。其循此而思惟道者耶。故其次此即列佛敕曰。常觀真實義。若其所謂當以聖行刀斷除陰賊者。按智度論云。十六聖行刀。其義不離三解脫門也。然三解脫門通大小乘。但以其所緣為優劣耳。大乘之三解脫門者。所緣諸法實相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：討論篤論和但善慧觀，（其所）具備的（與）殊祖師的名號與我們的正宗相似。又因為（經文）說阿難（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）恭敬地奉行佛的旨意，流傳了千年。又說曇摩羅（Dharmara）將這個法要傳給了浮陀羅（Buddhara）。浮陀羅又傳給了佛陀斯那（Buddhasena）。（他們）憐憫這片旃丹（Candana，指中國）沒有真正的修行可以作為師法，於是將這個法傳到了東州（指中國）。這似乎與我們的宗派最為接近。然而，當（他們）進行慧觀的時候，佛法傳入震旦（Zhendan，中國的古稱）已經三百七十多年了。他們所傳來的洪經大論大概也已經完備了。為什麼還要憑藉一部《不凈觀經》來作為師法呢？他們說沒有真正的修行可以作為師法，正是因為中華（Zhonghua，中國的古稱）從來沒有真正具有極證秘密之法，（可以）作為這些學習教義的人的師法準則罷了。

（有人）問：『為什麼說禪經有微妙的旨意符合我們的正宗呢？』

（答：）禪經上說：『佛說：想要證得阿鼻三摩耶（Abhisamaya，元注說，這是見道的名稱），應當作達磨摩那斯伽邏（Dharmamanasikara），經常觀察它的真實意義，用聖行之刀斷除陰賊。不要像無能的丈夫不能報仇而被敵人所害。乃至一切賢聖，都應當勤奮地修習這樣的正觀，爲了獲得現世的快樂，爲了來世作大光明，斷除一切痛苦的根源，饒益眾生。更何況凡夫空無所得，卻放縱自己不勤奮修習。』下面解釋說：『達磨（Dharma）是指世間第一法。摩那斯伽邏（Manasikara）是指一經心。翻譯者從意義上說是思惟。』禪經共有兩卷，從頭到尾都是華語，只有這個見道和世第一法、一經心，單獨使用梵語，秘而不譯。我認為經書的作者這樣做，是包含著佛的微妙旨意，特別想用秘密來感悟超拔那些遵循這個（方法）而思惟道的人吧。所以緊接著就列出佛的敕令說：『經常觀察真實義。』如果他們所說的『應當用聖行之刀斷除陰賊』，按照《智度論》的說法，是十六聖行刀，它的意義不離三解脫門。然而三解脫門通於大小乘，只是因為它們所緣的對象有優劣罷了。大乘的三解脫門，所緣的是諸法實相。

【English Translation】 English version: They discuss both 'definite discourse' and 'mere contemplation of wisdom,' possessing names of eminent patriarchs similar to our orthodox school. Furthermore, it states that Ananda (Ananda, one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples) respectfully followed the Buddha's will, propagating it for thousands of years. It also says that Dharmara transmitted this essential teaching to Buddhara, who then passed it on to Buddhasena. They pitied that Candana (Candana, referring to China) had no genuine practice to emulate, so they spread this Dharma to the Eastern Land (referring to China). This seems closest to our school. However, by the time they were engaged in contemplation of wisdom, Buddhism had already entered Zhendan (Zhendan, an ancient name for China) for over three hundred and seventy years. The vast sutras and treatises they transmitted were likely already complete. Why then rely on a single 'Contemplation of Impurity Sutra' as a teacher? Their saying that there was no genuine practice to emulate is precisely because China had never truly possessed the ultimate, secret Dharma to serve as a guide for those studying the teachings.

(Someone) asks: 'Why is it said that the Chan Sutra has subtle meanings that align with our orthodox school?'

(Answer:) The Chan Sutra says: 'The Buddha said: If you wish to attain Abhisamaya (Abhisamaya, the original note says, this is the name of the path of seeing), you should practice Dharmamanasikara, constantly contemplating its true meaning, and use the knife of holy conduct to cut off the thieves of the skandhas. Do not be like an incompetent man who cannot avenge himself and is harmed by his enemies. Even all the sages and saints should diligently cultivate such right contemplation, for the sake of present happiness, for the sake of great light in the future, to cut off the root of all suffering, and to benefit all beings. How much more so should ordinary people, who have nothing to gain, not indulge themselves and fail to cultivate diligently.' The explanation below says: 'Dharma refers to the supreme Dharma of the world. Manasikara refers to one-pointedness of mind. Translators interpret it as contemplation.' The Chan Sutra consists of two volumes, and from beginning to end, it is all in Chinese. Only this 'path of seeing,' 'supreme Dharma of the world,' and 'one-pointedness of mind' are exclusively in Sanskrit, kept secret and untranslated. I believe that the authors of the sutras did this to contain the Buddha's subtle meaning, especially wanting to use secrecy to inspire and uplift those who follow this (method) and contemplate the Way. Therefore, immediately following this, the Buddha's decree is listed, saying: 'Constantly contemplate the true meaning.' If what they mean by 'should use the knife of holy conduct to cut off the thieves of the skandhas' is, according to the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, the sixteen knives of holy conduct, its meaning does not depart from the three doors of liberation. However, the three doors of liberation are common to both the Hinayana and Mahayana, only because the objects they focus on have superior and inferior qualities. The Mahayana's three doors of liberation focus on the true nature of all dharmas.

。小乘則異於是。今此果緣真實義。而使以聖行刀驗其所觀者。誠大乘之妙微密法矣。又其經之勝道決定分結句曰。我以少慧力。略說諸法性。如其究竟義。十力智境界。又其下卷之末說偈曰。方便治地行。乃至究竟處。無上法施主。施是傳至今。其結又曰。惟彼已度者。然後乃究竟。此豈不謂其究竟處。乃佛佛妙微密心。不可以情識狀。唯以此證者乃相應耳。此其與吾正宗合者也。昔涅槃經時。諸比丘既聞其離四倒之說。遂更求佛久住於世。以為其教導。如來將正其知見乃曰。我今所有無上正法悉已付囑摩訶迦葉。是迦葉者當爲汝等作大依止。猶如如來為諸眾生作依止處。智度論曰。佛將入涅槃。北首臥時。先告阿難。若今現前若我過去後。比丘當自依止法。夫自依止法者。謂內觀身常念一心智慧勤修精進云云。蓋教不餘依止。次謂以戒經為師。及其所集法寶藏之事(涅槃後分經亦)然夫涅槃。所謂無上正法者。乃是直指如來所證法性。已付大迦葉矣。欲眾學法之者。依以為其所正之處耳然資其主教法於後世。非付法印使持之。則何以為之主耶。今其謂已付大迦葉者。豈非使其以法而軌正印證乎奉教而修證者耶。又其經曰。四人出世護持法者。應當證知而為依止。是人善解如來微密深奧藏。又曰。能解如來密語及能

說故。是豈不然哉。大論先教依止法者。其意與四依相近也。禪經謂。大迦葉相承吾佛。佛滅后以此次第傳之。固亦驗矣。遠公曰。曲承旨詔。與夫所謂密語豈遠乎哉。學者必以心通。則其付無上正法之深旨可求也。此固與其經他卷以法付于王臣四部之眾者。事同而意異也。又大論囑累品問曰。更有何法甚深勝般若者。而以般若囑累阿難。而余經囑累菩薩(余經。即其論前文云。法華經諸餘方等經。囑累喜王諸菩薩等)答曰。般若波羅蜜非秘密法(此豈不謂秘密法乃勝乎般若耶。比明龍本離經而又傳其秘密之旨必矣。安可以教部論。余奏記后。蓋見其微意。不敢輒改已奏之文。更出此實。欲學者省之耳)而法華等諸經。說阿羅漢受決作佛大菩薩能受持用。譬如大藥師能以毒為藥。若其論始尊大乎。般若曰。摩訶般若波羅蜜經。諸經中第一大。又曰。般若波羅蜜名三世諸佛母。能示一切法實相。又曰。諸法實相即是般若波羅蜜。又曰。除諸法實相。余殘一切法相。盡名為魔。又涅槃經曰。摩訶般若成秘密藏。今其于囑累乎聲聞菩薩眾經之後。乃特曰。般若波羅蜜非秘密法。是豈非龍本(本字避御名其下仿此)承大迦葉阿難為傳法大祖。而經外又真得其實相。欲席此而稍發之耶。不爾何輒以大般若而為非秘密法乎。吾研其

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所以才這樣說。難道不是這樣嗎？《大智度論》首先教導依止法，其意義與四依法相近。《禪經》說，大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，釋迦牟尼十大弟子之一，頭陀第一）相承於我們的佛陀（釋迦牟尼佛），佛陀滅度后以此次第傳法。這確實是可信的。慧遠法師說，委婉地領會佛的旨意，與那些所謂的密語難道相差很遠嗎？學習的人必須用心領會，那麼佛陀付囑無上正法的深遠意義就可以探求了。這確實與那些經典中將佛法付囑給國王大臣和四部大眾的情況，事情相同而意義不同。另外，《大智度論》囑累品中問道：還有什麼法比般若（Prajñā，智慧）更甚深殊勝的，而用般若囑託阿難（Ānanda，釋迦牟尼十大弟子之一，多聞第一），而其餘經典囑託菩薩（Bodhisattva，指發菩提心，立志成佛的修行者）呢？（其餘經典，就是《大智度論》前文所說的《法華經》等其他方等經典，囑託喜王等菩薩）回答說：般若波羅蜜（Prajñāpāramitā，通過智慧到達彼岸）不是秘密法。（這難道不是說秘密法比般若更殊勝嗎？由此可以明白龍樹菩薩的原本離開了經文，又傳授了秘密的旨意。難道可以用教部的理論來衡量嗎？我在奏記之後，大概看到了其中的微妙意義，不敢輕易更改已經奏報的文字，特意寫出這些，希望學習的人能夠領會。）而《法華經》等諸經，說阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）受記作佛，大菩薩能夠受持運用，譬如大藥師能夠用毒來製藥。如果《大智度論》開始時尊崇般若，說《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》（Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra，大乘佛教的重要經典）是諸經中第一大，又說：般若波羅蜜是三世諸佛之母，能夠顯示一切法的真實相狀，又說：諸法的真實相狀就是般若波羅蜜，又說：除了諸法的真實相狀，其餘所有法的表相，都叫做魔。又《涅槃經》說：摩訶般若成就秘密藏。現在《大智度論》在囑託聲聞菩薩等經典之後，卻特別說：般若波羅蜜不是秘密法。這難道不是龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna，大乘佛教中觀學派的創始人）承接大迦葉、阿難作為傳法的大祖師，而在經典之外又真正得到了其實相，想要藉此稍微闡發出來嗎？不然為什麼隨便就說大般若是非秘密法呢？我研究他的...

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said. Is it not so? The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (大智度論) first teaches the practice of reliance, the meaning of which is close to the Four Reliances. The Chan Jing (禪經) says that Mahākāśyapa (大迦葉，one of the ten major disciples of Śākyamuni Buddha, foremost in ascetic practices) inherited the Dharma from our Buddha (Śākyamuni Buddha), and after the Buddha's Parinirvana, it was transmitted in this order. This is indeed credible. Dharma Master Huiyuan (慧遠法師) said, 'To subtly understand the Buddha's intention, is it far from the so-called secret words?' Those who study must understand with their minds, then the profound meaning of the Buddha's entrustment of the unsurpassed Dharma can be sought. This is indeed the same in matter but different in meaning from those sutras where the Dharma is entrusted to kings, ministers, and the fourfold assembly. Furthermore, in the Entrustment Chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it is asked: 'Is there any Dharma more profound and superior than Prajñā (般若，wisdom), that Prajñā is entrusted to Ānanda (阿難，one of the ten major disciples of Śākyamuni Buddha, foremost in hearing), while other sutras entrust it to Bodhisattvas (菩薩，one who has generated Bodhicitta and aspires to Buddhahood)?' (The other sutras are those mentioned earlier in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, such as the Lotus Sutra and other Vaipulya Sutras, which entrust it to Joy King and other Bodhisattvas.) The answer is: 'Prajñāpāramitā (般若波羅蜜，perfection of wisdom) is not a secret Dharma.' (Does this not mean that the secret Dharma is superior to Prajñā? From this, it can be understood that Nāgārjuna's (龍樹菩薩，founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism) original text departed from the sutras and also transmitted the secret meaning. Can it be measured by the theories of the teaching divisions? After my memorial, I probably saw the subtle meaning in it and did not dare to easily change the text that had already been reported. I specifically wrote these out, hoping that those who study can understand.) And the Lotus Sutra and other sutras say that Arhats (阿羅漢，one who has eradicated afflictions and attained liberation) receive predictions of Buddhahood, and great Bodhisattvas can uphold and utilize it, just as a great physician can use poison as medicine. If the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa initially revered Prajñā, saying that the Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (摩訶般若波羅蜜經，an important classic of Mahayana Buddhism) is the greatest among all sutras, and also said: 'Prajñāpāramitā is the mother of the Buddhas of the three times, and can reveal the true nature of all dharmas,' and also said: 'The true nature of all dharmas is Prajñāpāramitā,' and also said: 'Apart from the true nature of all dharmas, all other appearances of dharmas are called Mara.' And the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Mahāprajñā achieves the secret treasury.' Now, after entrusting the Dharma to the Śrāvakas and Bodhisattvas in other sutras, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa specifically says: 'Prajñāpāramitā is not a secret Dharma.' Is this not because Nāgārjuna (龍樹菩薩) inherited Mahākāśyapa and Ānanda as the great patriarchs of Dharma transmission, and truly obtained its actual form outside the sutras, wanting to take this opportunity to slightly elaborate on it? Otherwise, why would he casually say that Mahāprajñā is not a secret Dharma? I study his...

能以毒為藥之喻者。益見其玄旨有在此。又未易以教部斷之(其論又云。以細微妙虛妄法治。譬如有毒能治眾毒。又古德云。四教皆是權巧化物。乃引經云。空拳誑小兒。為證此可求其以毒為藥之義也)若遠公序曰。阿難曲承旨詔。遇非其人。必藏之靈府。又曰。功在言外經所不辯。是亦龍本之意耳。曰子前謂涅槃付囑摩訶迦葉者。乃傳其秘密之法。與此囑累阿難不亦同矣。何故涅槃之時不皆言耶。曰阿難在弟子為次。又專傳佛經論。茍越次顯稱阿難。則不別乎經外。而曲有所傳也。指之迦葉。乃專乎付長。而所以尊其秘密心傳之謂也。雖囑之阿難。當此固亦存而不言耳。傳燈錄曰。並敕阿難。副貳傳化。豈非專在乎大迦葉耶。然此大經大論。與夫禪經所謂佛滅度后尊者大迦葉尊者阿難乃至尊者不若蜜多羅諸持法者。以此慧燈次第傳受。又與乎遠公慧觀二序曰。阿難曲承旨詔藏之靈府。遇其人而後傳者。固亦同矣。今以此五者之說。而驗乎寶林傳燈。所謂如來將化。乃命摩訶迦葉云。吾以清凈法眼涅槃妙心實相無相微妙正法今付于汝。汝當護持。並敕阿難。副貳傳化無令斷絕。又近世李令公遵勖。廣燈錄稱。大迦葉謂阿難曰。婆伽婆未圓寂時。多子塔前以正法眼藏密付於我。我今傳付于汝。而其本末何嘗異耶。古今所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能夠用毒藥作比喻，更加顯現出其中玄妙的旨意就在於此，又不能輕易地用教部的觀點來判斷它（其論又說，用細微、微妙、虛妄的法來治理，譬如用毒藥能治療各種毒。又有古德說，四教都是權巧化導眾生，於是引用經文說，『空拳哄騙小兒』，作為證明，這可以尋求其用毒藥作為藥物的意義）。如果像遠公的序文所說，阿難委婉地接受佛的旨意和詔令，遇到不合適的人，必定將佛法藏在靈府中。又說，功用在於言語之外，經典所沒有詳細辨明的，這也是龍樹菩薩的本意啊。有人問，您之前說涅槃時佛陀付囑摩訶迦葉，是傳授他秘密的法，與這裡囑咐阿難不是一樣嗎？為什麼涅槃的時候不都說呢？回答說，阿難在弟子中的位次是靠後的，又專門傳授佛經論，如果越過位次顯明地稱讚阿難，那就與經外的別傳沒有區別了，而且其中委婉地有所傳授。指明迦葉，是專門付囑給年長者，而這是爲了尊重秘密心傳的說法。雖然囑咐了阿難，但當時也一定是存在而不說的。傳燈錄說，並且敕令阿難，輔助傳化，難道不是專門在於大迦葉嗎？然而這部大經大論，與禪經所說的佛滅度后，尊者大迦葉、尊者阿難乃至尊者不若蜜多羅等各位持法者，用這智慧之燈依次傳授接受。又與遠公、慧觀二序所說，阿難委婉地接受佛的旨意和詔令，藏在靈府中，遇到合適的人然後傳授，本來也是一樣的。現在用這五種說法，來驗證寶林傳燈，所說的如來將要化滅時，於是命令摩訶迦葉說，『我將清凈法眼、涅槃妙心、實相無相微妙正法現在付給你，你應當護持，並且敕令阿難，輔助傳化，不要讓它斷絕。』又近世李令公遵勖，在廣燈錄中稱，大迦葉對阿難說，『婆伽婆（Bhagavan，世尊）未圓寂時，在多子塔前將正法眼藏秘密地付給我，我現在傳付給你。』而它的本末何嘗不同呢？古今所說的

【English Translation】 English version: The ability to use the analogy of 'poison as medicine' further reveals that the profound meaning lies within this, and it cannot be easily judged by the doctrines of the teachings (the argument also states that using subtle, wonderful, and illusory dharmas to govern is like using poison to cure various poisons. Furthermore, an ancient virtuous person said that the Four Teachings are all skillful means to transform beings, and thus quoted the sutra saying, 'An empty fist deceives a small child' as proof, which can be used to seek the meaning of using poison as medicine). If, as Master Yuan's preface says, Ānanda (阿難, one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha) subtly received the Buddha's will and decree, he would surely hide the Dharma in his spiritual treasury if he encountered an unsuitable person. It also says that the merit lies beyond words, which the sutras do not elaborate on, and this is also Nāgārjuna's (龍樹菩薩) original intention. Someone asked, 'You said earlier that when the Buddha entered Nirvana, he entrusted Mahākāśyapa (摩訶迦葉, one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha) with the transmission of the secret Dharma, isn't that the same as entrusting Ānanda here? Why didn't they all say it at the time of Nirvana?' The answer is, 'Ānanda's position among the disciples is later, and he specializes in transmitting the Buddhist scriptures and treatises. If Ānanda is praised explicitly out of order, then it would be no different from a separate transmission outside the scriptures, and there would be a subtle transmission within it. Pointing to Kāśyapa is specifically entrusting it to the elder, and this is to respect the saying of the secret mind transmission. Although Ānanda was entrusted, it must have been present but unspoken at that time.' The Transmission of the Lamp says, 'And ordered Ānanda to assist in the transmission and transformation, isn't it specifically with Mahākāśyapa?' However, this great sutra and treatise, and what the Zen sutra says about after the Buddha's Parinirvana, Venerable Mahākāśyapa, Venerable Ānanda, and even Venerable Aniramitra (尊者不若蜜多羅) and other Dharma holders, transmit and receive this lamp of wisdom in sequence. It is also the same as what Master Yuan and Hui Guan's two prefaces say, that Ānanda subtly received the Buddha's will and decree, hid it in his spiritual treasury, and then transmitted it to the right person. Now, using these five sayings to verify the Baolin Transmission of the Lamp, which says that when the Tathagata (如來) was about to transform, he ordered Mahākāśyapa, saying, 'I now entrust to you the pure Dharma eye, the wonderful mind of Nirvana, the true aspect of no-aspect, and the subtle and correct Dharma. You should protect and maintain it, and order Ānanda to assist in the transmission and transformation, and not let it be cut off.' Also, in recent times, Li Linggong Zunxu, in the Extensive Record of the Lamp, said that Mahākāśyapa said to Ānanda, 'When Bhagavan (婆伽婆, the Blessed One) had not yet entered Parinirvana, he secretly entrusted the treasury of the eye of the true Dharma to me in front of the Many Children Pagoda, and I now transmit it to you.' And how is its beginning and end different? What the ancients and modern people said.

謂言教之外其別傳正法者。豈不灼然至是乎。客曰。子所推詳也。且若禪經所見但三十七品四念處。此皆小乘行相耳。而子謂其出於菩提達磨。豈其宜耶。吾甚疑之何如。曰夫三十七品四念處者。固通乎大小乘。子且善聽。按智度論曰。佛說四念處乃至八聖道分。是摩訶衍。三藏中亦不說三十七品。獨是小乘法。又曰。六波羅蜜三十七道法中。生過去未來現在十方諸佛。是故須菩提。菩薩欲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。佛世界成就眾生。當學六波羅蜜三十七道法。又曰。佛告須菩提。菩薩摩訶薩如是學。為學六波羅蜜。為學四念處。如是學為學盡諸學道。如是學為學佛所行處。如是學為開甘露門。如是學為示無為性。須菩提。下劣之人不能作是學。佛意其如此也。孰謂三十七品四念處唯是小乘行相乎。今菩提達磨方以大菩薩僧。傳法為祖。演禪經行其大乘之法。正其宜矣。又何疑哉。借令四念處唯是小乘之道。而其論又曰。須菩提。菩薩如是學一切法中得清凈。所謂聲聞辟支佛心。又曰。菩薩如是爲了知一切眾生心所趣向。又曰。三十七品是聲聞辟支佛涅槃道。佛勸菩薩應行是道。如此則菩薩亦得以聲聞法而進人明矣。今禪經演之。豈不奉佛意耶。何謂而不可也。況其未果以小乘而待人乎。夫禪經乃達磨祖師。初以方便教

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說在言教之外還有其他傳承正法的方式，難道不正是這樣明顯嗎？客人說：『您分析得很詳細。但是禪經中所見，不過是三十七道品和四念處，這些都是小乘的修行方法。而您說它出自菩提達磨（Bodhidharma，印度禪宗始祖），這合適嗎？我對此很懷疑，您怎麼看？』我說：『三十七道品和四念處，本來就通用於大乘和小乘。您好好聽著。根據《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra，龍樹菩薩所著的解釋《大般若經》的論書）所說，佛陀所說的四念處乃至八聖道分，都是摩訶衍（Mahayana，大乘）。三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典的總稱）中也沒有說三十七道品僅僅是小乘的法。』『又說：六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas，菩薩修行的六種方法）和三十七道品中，產生過去、未來、現在十方諸佛。所以，須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一），菩薩想要得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺），成就佛世界和眾生，應當學習六波羅蜜和三十七道品。』『又說：佛陀告訴須菩提，菩薩摩訶薩（Bodhisattva-mahasattva，大菩薩）這樣學習，就是學習六波羅蜜，就是學習四念處。這樣學習就是學習窮盡一切學道，這樣學習就是學習佛陀所行之處，這樣學習就是開啟甘露門，這樣學習就是顯示無為的本性。須菩提，下劣之人不能這樣做。』佛陀的意思就是這樣。誰說三十七道品和四念處僅僅是小乘的修行方法呢？現在菩提達磨正是以大菩薩僧的身份，傳承佛法為祖師，演說禪經，修行大乘之法，這才是合適的。又有什麼可懷疑的呢？即使四念處僅僅是小乘的道，而《智度論》又說：『須菩提，菩薩這樣學習，在一切法中都能得到清凈，包括聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而修行的弟子）和辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，自己覺悟的修行者）的心。』又說：『菩薩這樣就能瞭解一切眾生的心所趨向。』又說：『三十七道品是聲聞和辟支佛涅槃之道，佛陀勸菩薩應當修行這條道路。』這樣看來，菩薩也可以通過聲聞法而進步，這不是很明顯嗎？現在禪經演說這些，難道不是奉行佛陀的旨意嗎？為什麼說不可以呢？何況禪經並沒有用小乘來對待他人。禪經是達磨祖師最初用方便法門來教導的。

【English Translation】 English version: To say that there is a separate transmission of the true Dharma outside of verbal teachings, isn't it clearly the case? The guest said, 'Your analysis is very detailed. However, what is seen in the Dhyana Sutras are only the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, all of which are practices of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle). And you say that it comes from Bodhidharma (the first patriarch of Zen Buddhism in India), is that appropriate? I have great doubts about this, what do you think?' I said, 'The Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness are inherently applicable to both the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and the Hinayana. Please listen carefully. According to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) it says, 'The Four Foundations of Mindfulness and even the Eightfold Noble Path spoken by the Buddha are all Mahayana. The Tripitaka (Three Baskets, the Buddhist canon) does not say that the Thirty-seven Limbs are exclusively Hinayana Dharma.' 『It also says, 'From the Six Paramitas (Perfections) and the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment, all Buddhas of the past, future, and present in the ten directions are produced. Therefore, Subhuti (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), if a Bodhisattva wishes to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment), to perfect the Buddha-world and sentient beings, they should study the Six Paramitas and the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment.' 『It also says, 'The Buddha told Subhuti, 'A Bodhisattva-mahasattva (Great Bodhisattva) who studies in this way is studying the Six Paramitas, is studying the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. Studying in this way is studying to exhaust all paths of learning, studying in this way is studying the places where the Buddha walks, studying in this way is opening the gate of nectar, studying in this way is showing the nature of non-action. Subhuti, inferior people cannot do this kind of study.' That is what the Buddha meant. Who says that the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness are only practices of the Hinayana? Now, Bodhidharma is precisely transmitting the Dharma as the patriarch, as a great Bodhisattva Sangha (community), expounding the Dhyana Sutras, and practicing the Dharma of the Mahayana, which is exactly appropriate. What is there to doubt?' Even if the Four Foundations of Mindfulness were only the path of the Hinayana, the Treatise also says, 'Subhuti, a Bodhisattva who studies in this way can attain purity in all Dharmas, including the minds of Sravakas (Hearers, disciples who learn by hearing the Buddha's teachings) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas, those who attain enlightenment on their own without a teacher).' It also says, 'A Bodhisattva in this way can understand the inclinations of all sentient beings.' It also says, 'The Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment are the path to Nirvana for Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, and the Buddha encourages Bodhisattvas to practice this path.' In this way, it is clear that Bodhisattvas can also advance through the Dharma of the Sravakas. Now, the Dhyana Sutras expound these, isn't it following the Buddha's intention? Why say it is not permissible? Moreover, the Dhyana Sutras do not treat others with the Hinayana. The Dhyana Sutras are initially taught by the Patriarch Bodhidharma using skillful means.

化乎三乘之修行者。欲因其淺而導之深耳。其經云。如來境界不可思議。此之例是也。遠公序曰。撮諸經要勸發大乘詳矣。曰若爾則禪經首列乎傳法諸祖。豈古諸祖亦傳乎經教耶。曰是也。古之傳法所以證其行教也。而以教入道者。必以祖師所傳為之印正矣。禪源詮謂。傳法諸祖初以三藏教乘兼行。后之祖師觀機乃特顯宗破執。益更單傳其心印也。客曰。吾又聞般若多羅唯以大法藥付之達磨。令其直接上機。乃在乎經教之外。不立文字直指人心成究竟覺。未聞其復循大小乘行相以為其說乎。曰然。般若達磨之付受者。此誠佛祖之正傳者也。然學者亦當更求先聖囑累之本末究其行化機宜之意也。不應白執其一時之言而相發難。夫以大法藥直接上機。不立文字直指人心成究竟覺者。此蓋般若多羅初誡達磨。宜遊方觀機以行其正傳之法耳。意謂須其滅度后(般若多羅滅度之後也)更六十七年。震旦國始有上機者。與達磨緣會。其時乃當施大法藥直接此機之人也。今禪經自達磨未入中華百餘載已前。方在西域。以其正傳之時未至上機者少。且順彼人機方便傍大小乘。而義說之耳(寶林傳亦云。達磨先在南天竺。以小乘法化道若干人)此亦達磨且行其前。所謂菩薩為盡諸學道。爲了知一切眾生心所趣曏者也。而祖師之道非止乎是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本（問：）那些修行三乘（Śrāvakayāna，Pratyekabuddhayāna，Bodhisattvayāna）的人，（佛陀）想要因為他們的理解尚淺而引導他們走向更深的境界。正如經書所說：『如來的境界不可思議』，就是這個例子。慧遠（Huìyuǎn）的序言說：『摘取各經要點，勸勉啓發大乘，非常詳盡。』（答：）如果像你所說的那樣，那麼禪經（Dhyāna Sūtra）首先列舉了傳法的各位祖師，難道古代的各位祖師也傳授經教嗎？（答：）是的。古代傳法是爲了驗證他們的修行和教法。而通過教義進入佛道的人，必定以祖師所傳的作為印證。《禪源詮》（Chányuán Quán）中說：『傳法的各位祖師最初是三藏（Tripiṭaka）教乘兼修並行的，後來的祖師觀察時機，才特別彰顯宗門，破除執著，更加單獨傳授他們的心印。』（問：）我又聽說般若多羅（Prajñātara）只將大法藥傳授給菩提達磨（Bodhidharma），讓他直接接引上根利器之人，這似乎是在經教之外，不立文字，直指人心，成就究竟覺悟。沒聽說他還遵循大小乘（Mahāyāna and Śrāvakayāna）的修行方式來宣說佛法啊。（答：）是的。般若多羅傳授給菩提達磨的，這確實是佛祖的正傳。然而，學習的人也應當進一步探求先聖囑託的本末，探究他們行化眾生的時機和意圖。不應該固執於一時之言而相互責難。所謂以大法藥直接接引上根利器之人，不立文字，直指人心，成就究竟覺悟，這大概是般若多羅最初告誡菩提達磨，應該遊歷四方，觀察時機，以施行他所正傳的佛法吧。意思是說，須在他滅度后（般若多羅滅度之後），再過六十七年，震旦國（Zhèndàn guó，中國的古稱）才會有上根利器之人，與菩提達磨有緣相會。那時才應當施用大法藥，直接接引這些人。現在禪經在菩提達磨未入中華一百多年以前，還在西域（Xīyù，古代中國對西方的稱呼），因為正傳的時機未到，上根利器之人很少，所以才順應那裡人們的根機，方便地傍依大小乘，而作義理上的解說（《寶林傳》（Bǎolín Zhuàn）也說：『菩提達磨先在南天竺（Nán Tiānzhú，南印度），以小乘法教化了若干人』）。這也是菩提達磨暫且施行的方法，正如菩薩爲了窮盡一切學道，爲了瞭解一切眾生內心所趨向的（方便法門）。而祖師的佛道並非僅止於此。

【English Translation】 English version (Question:) Those who practice the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), (the Buddha) wanted to guide them from their shallow understanding to a deeper realm. As the sutra says: 'The realm of the Tathagata is inconceivable,' this is an example. Huiyuan's (Huìyuǎn) preface says: 'Extracting the essentials of various sutras, encouraging and enlightening the Mahayana is very detailed.' (Answer:) If it is as you say, then the Dhyāna Sūtra (Chánjīng) first lists the patriarchs who transmitted the Dharma. Did the ancient patriarchs also transmit the teachings of the scriptures? (Answer:) Yes. The ancient transmission of the Dharma was to verify their practice and teachings. And those who enter the path through doctrine must use what the patriarchs transmitted as verification. The Chányuán Quán says: 'The patriarchs who transmitted the Dharma initially practiced the Three Pitakas (Tripiṭaka) concurrently. Later patriarchs observed the opportunity and specially manifested the school, breaking attachments, and even more singularly transmitting their mind seal.' (Question:) I also heard that Prajñātara (Bānruòduōluó) only gave the great Dharma medicine to Bodhidharma (Pútídámó), allowing him to directly receive those of superior capacity. This seems to be outside the scriptures, not establishing words, directly pointing to the human mind, and achieving ultimate enlightenment. I have not heard that he also followed the practices of the Mahayana and Śrāvakayāna to expound the Dharma. (Answer:) Yes. What Prajñātara transmitted to Bodhidharma is indeed the correct transmission of the Buddhas and patriarchs. However, students should also further explore the beginning and end of the saints' entrustment, and explore the timing and intention of their practice and transformation of beings. One should not stubbornly cling to temporary words and blame each other. The so-called directly receiving those of superior capacity with the great Dharma medicine, not establishing words, directly pointing to the human mind, and achieving ultimate enlightenment, this is probably Prajñātara's initial admonition to Bodhidharma, that he should travel around, observe the opportunity, and implement the Dharma that he correctly transmitted. It means that after his death (after Prajñātara's death), after another sixty-seven years, the land of Zhèndàn (Zhèndàn guó, ancient name for China) will have people of superior capacity who will meet Bodhidharma. At that time, the great Dharma medicine should be applied to directly receive these people. Now the Dhyāna Sūtra was still in the Western Regions (Xīyù, ancient Chinese term for the West) more than a hundred years before Bodhidharma entered China, because the time for the correct transmission had not arrived, and there were few people of superior capacity, so it conveniently relied on the Mahayana and Śrāvakayāna to suit the capacity of the people there, and made explanations in terms of doctrine (the Bǎolín Zhuàn also says: 'Bodhidharma was first in South India (Nán Tiānzhú), where he taught and transformed several people with the Śrāvakayāna'). This is also a method that Bodhidharma temporarily implemented, just as the bodhisattvas, in order to exhaust all paths of learning, are in order to understand the inclinations of the minds of all beings (expedient means). And the path of the patriarchs is not limited to this.

而已矣。若其不立文字直指人心而接上機者。禪經一但蘊之。而未始發。及其時適至。達磨乃翻然東來。乘震旦有大乘氣。所謂其正傳者。遂大振于梁魏之世矣。學者淺悟。徒見其在文字談說三乘止觀。即謂非菩提達磨之言。何其易也。若禪經其勝決定分結句云。我以少慧力。略說諸法性。如其究竟義。十力智境界。此蓋祖師自謙意謂。今經乃我聊略說此法性耳。若其究竟之理。則佛之境界秘密微妙。非文字義說可宣。必密傳妙證可以至矣。又其經之末說偈曰。方便治地行。乃至究竟處。最上法施主。施是傳至今。其結句又曰。惟彼已度者。然彼乃究竟。其曰方便治地行者。乃其且以義而演禪經之謂也。其曰乃至究竟處者。蓋其正傳大法直接上機之謂也。其曰最上法施主施是傳至今者。乃達磨自謂。其承佛所傳。而迄至於今也。其曰唯彼已度者然後乃究竟者。蓋謂此法秘密無言無示難信難到。唯是以此己證之者。然後乃知其所以為究竟也。如此其意豈非經之外而自有旨哉。豈非不假文字而待人直以心證乎。洎乎遠公承達磨之徒。而密傳之。乃序禪經曰。阿難曲承旨詔。遇非其人必藏之靈府。又曰。功在言外經所不辯。又曰。若斯人也無聞無示。別有宗明矣。如此而遠公所得亦何嘗在乎經教語言文字之間耶。嗚呼末學寡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：罷了。至於那些不立文字，直指人心，接引上等根器的人，禪經雖然蘊含著這些道理，但從未顯發。等到時機成熟，達磨（Bodhidharma，菩提達磨）才毅然東來，因為震旦（Zhèndàn，古代對中國的稱謂）有大乘（Mahāyāna）的氣運。所以，他所傳的正法，才在梁魏時期大為興盛。淺薄的學者，只看到禪經中用文字談論三乘（Triyāna）止觀（Śamatha-vipaśyanā），就說這不是菩提達磨（Bodhidharma）的言論，這真是太輕率了。禪經的《勝決定分》結尾說：『我以少慧力，略說諸法性，如其究竟義，十力智境界。』這大概是祖師（指菩提達磨）自謙，意思是說，這部經只是我略微談談諸法的體性罷了。如果說到究竟的道理，那就是佛（Buddha）的境界，秘密而微妙，不是文字義理所能宣說的，必須通過秘密傳授和妙悟才能達到。還有，這部經的末尾說偈語：『方便治地行，乃至究竟處，最上法施主，施是傳至今。』它的結尾又說：『惟彼已度者，然彼乃究竟。』其中『方便治地行』，是指姑且用義理來闡述禪經。『乃至究竟處』，是指正傳大法直接接引上等根器的人。『最上法施主施是傳至今』，是達磨（Bodhidharma）自謂，他繼承佛（Buddha）所傳的法，一直傳到今天。『唯彼已度者然後乃究竟』，是說這種法秘密無言無示，難以相信難以到達，只有那些已經親自證悟的人，才能知道它之所以是究竟的道理。像這樣的意思，難道不是在經文之外另有宗旨嗎？難道不是不依賴文字，而是等待人們直接用心去證悟嗎？等到慧遠（Huìyuǎn）承接達磨（Bodhidharma）的弟子，秘密地傳授這種法，於是為禪經作序說：『阿難（Ānanda）恭敬地接受佛（Buddha）的旨意，遇到不合適的人必定藏在靈府中。』又說：『功用在言語之外，是經文所不能辯明的。』又說：『像這樣的人，無須聽聞無須指示，另有宗旨在心中明瞭。』像這樣，慧遠（Huìyuǎn）所得到的，又何嘗是在經教語言文字之間呢？唉，末世的學者見識淺薄！

【English Translation】 English version: That's all. As for those who do not establish words, directly point to people's hearts, and receive those with superior faculties, although the Dhyana Sutra contains these principles, it has never revealed them. When the time is right, Bodhidharma (達磨, meaning 'Dharma Awakening') resolutely came to the East because Zhen Dan (震旦, ancient name for China) had the atmosphere of Mahayana (大乘). Therefore, the orthodox Dharma he transmitted flourished greatly during the Liang and Wei dynasties. Superficial scholars, seeing only the discussions of the Three Vehicles (三乘, Triyāna) and Śamatha-Vipaśyanā (止觀) in the Dhyana Sutra, immediately claim that these are not the words of Bodhidharma. How hasty! The concluding verses of the 'Superior Determination Section' of the Dhyana Sutra say: 'With my meager wisdom, I briefly explain the nature of all dharmas; as for their ultimate meaning, it is the realm of the Ten Powers of Wisdom (十力智境界).' This is probably the patriarch's (祖師, referring to Bodhidharma) self-deprecation, meaning that this sutra is just my brief discussion of the nature of these dharmas. As for the ultimate truth, it is the realm of the Buddha (佛, Buddha), secret and subtle, which cannot be proclaimed by words and meanings. It must be attained through secret transmission and wonderful realization. Furthermore, the verses at the end of this sutra say: 'Expediently cultivate the ground, until the ultimate place; the supreme Dharma benefactor, this bestowal is transmitted to this day.' Its conclusion also says: 'Only those who have already crossed over, then they are ultimate.' Among them, 'expediently cultivate the ground' refers to temporarily explaining the Dhyana Sutra with reason and principle. 'Until the ultimate place' refers to the direct reception of superior faculties by the orthodox Dharma. 'The supreme Dharma benefactor, this bestowal is transmitted to this day' is Bodhidharma's self-declaration that he inherited the Dharma transmitted by the Buddha and has transmitted it to this day. 'Only those who have already crossed over, then they are ultimate' means that this Dharma is secret, without words or indications, difficult to believe and difficult to reach. Only those who have personally realized it can know why it is ultimate. With such meaning, isn't there another purpose beyond the sutra? Isn't it waiting for people to directly realize it with their hearts without relying on words? When Huiyuan (慧遠) inherited the disciples of Bodhidharma and secretly transmitted this Dharma, he wrote a preface to the Dhyana Sutra, saying: 'Ānanda (阿難) respectfully received the Buddha's (佛) decree, and must hide it in the spiritual palace when encountering unsuitable people.' He also said: 'The merit is beyond words, which cannot be distinguished by the sutra.' He also said: 'Such a person, without hearing or indication, has another purpose clearly understood in his heart.' Like this, what Huiyuan (慧遠) obtained, how could it be in the teachings, language, and words of the sutras? Alas, scholars of the degenerate age have shallow knowledge!

識。安知古德先傳此禪經。乃達磨正統之張本也。得以為吾宗衰微之明證乎。曰他宗之師亦有名乎達磨多羅者。今子謂達磨多羅。即禪宗之菩提達磨。何以為之正耶。曰吾前論以禪經二十八祖數證之已詳。又達公序曰。達磨多羅西域之俊禪訓之宗。此非吾祖師誰歟。他宗之同名者。安得轍預此耶。然其發揮禪經者。乃跋陀三藏與廬山大師。而慧觀亦預焉。此三人者皆謂其具大乘圓頓之意。其言豈繆乎。若遠公者乃古今天下所謂安遠者也。吾佛教大盛于中國。蓋自此二公之始。尤大法師也。吾嘗謂。遠公識最高量最遠。其為釋子有文有質。儀形僧寶而其風烈卓然。乃為儒之聖賢百世景伏。在古今高僧遠公絕出。是蓋不可測之人也。跋陀尊者該通三藏尤強記。在西域謂博極其內外經書。號為異僧。僧肇乃尊曰。大乘禪師。慧觀其義學才俊。當時與生肇融睿等夷。亦古有名之法師也。而其三人者如此皆尊夫禪要。而達磨之道恐亦至矣。吾又聞智度論曰。禪最大如王。言禪則一切皆攝。佛菩薩諸三昧及佛得道舍壽。如是等種種勝妙功德皆在禪中。而化卷又謂此義曰。解脫禪三昧皆名為定。定名為心其所謂心者。乃諸禪祖之所傳者也。古者謂禪門為宗門。此亦龍木祖師之意耳。亦謂吾宗門乃釋迦文一佛教之大宗正趣矣。但其所謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本識。怎麼知道古代大德先傳的這部《禪經》，是 Bodhidharma （菩提達摩）正統的根本呢？又怎麼能把它當作我們宗門衰微的明顯證據呢？答：其他宗派的法師也有名叫達磨多羅（Dharmatara）的。現在您說達磨多羅就是禪宗的菩提達摩，憑什麼認為是正統呢？答：我前面已經用《禪經》二十八祖的世系詳細論證過了。而且達摩多羅的序言中說：『達磨多羅是西域傑出的人才，是禪訓的宗師。』這個人不是我們的祖師又是誰呢？其他宗派同名的人，怎麼能參與到這件事中來呢？然而，發揮《禪經》的是跋陀三藏（Bhadanta）和廬山大師慧遠（Lushan Daishi Huiyuan），慧觀（Huiguan）也參與了。這三個人都認為《禪經》具備大乘圓頓的意義，他們的話難道是錯的嗎？至於慧遠法師，那是古往今來天下所稱的安遠法師。佛教在中國的大興，大概就是從這兩位大師開始的，尤其是慧遠法師。我曾經說過，慧遠法師的見識最高，度量最遠大。他作為佛弟子，既有文采又有實質，儀容風範堪為僧寶，而且他的風骨氣節卓然不群，堪為儒家的聖賢，百世敬仰。在古今高僧中，慧遠法師絕對是出類拔萃的，是不可測度的人物。跋陀尊者（Bhadanta）精通三藏，尤其記憶力超強。在西域，他被認為是博覽內外經書，號稱『異僧』。僧肇（Sengzhao）尊稱他為『大乘禪師』。慧觀的義學才華出衆，當時與僧肇、融睿（Rongrui）等人齊名，也是古代有名的法師。而這三個人都如此推崇《禪經》的要義，那麼達摩的禪道恐怕也就在其中了。我又聽《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）說：『禪最大，如國王，說禪則一切都包括在內。』佛、菩薩的各種三昧，以及佛陀得道、舍壽等等，像這樣的種種殊勝美妙的功德都在禪中。《化卷》又說這個義理：『解脫禪三昧都叫做定，定叫做心。』所謂心，就是諸禪祖所傳的。古人稱禪門為宗門，這也是龍樹（Nagarjuna）、木祖師（Kumārajīva）的意思。也可以說，我們的宗門就是釋迦牟尼佛一佛教的大宗正趣了。但是，他們所說的

【English Translation】 English version How do we know that this Chan Sutra (Chan Jing), first transmitted by the ancient virtuous ones, is the foundation of the orthodox lineage of Bodhidharma (達磨, meaning 'Dharma' and referring to the first patriarch of Chan Buddhism in China)? And how can it be regarded as clear evidence of the decline of our school? Reply: Teachers of other schools also have the name Dharmatara (達磨多羅, meaning 'Dharma Tara'). Now you say that Dharmatara is the Bodhidharma of the Chan school, what is the basis for considering it orthodox? Reply: I have already discussed in detail the lineage of the twenty-eight patriarchs of the Chan Sutra. Moreover, the preface to Dharmatara says: 'Dharmatara is an outstanding talent from the Western Regions and the master of Chan training.' If this person is not our patriarch, then who is it? How could someone with the same name from another school participate in this matter? However, it was Bhadanta (跋陀三藏, meaning 'Venerable') and Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu (廬山大師慧遠) who expounded the Chan Sutra, and Huiguan (慧觀) also participated. These three people all believed that the Chan Sutra possessed the meaning of the Great Vehicle's perfect and sudden enlightenment. Could their words be wrong? As for Dharma Master Huiyuan, he is the An Yuan (安遠) Dharma Master that the world has spoken of since ancient times. The great flourishing of Buddhism in China probably began with these two masters, especially Dharma Master Huiyuan. I once said that Dharma Master Huiyuan's knowledge is the highest and his measure is the farthest. As a Buddhist disciple, he has both literary talent and substance, his demeanor is worthy of being a treasure of the Sangha, and his integrity is outstanding, worthy of being a sage of Confucianism, admired by generations. Among the eminent monks of ancient and modern times, Dharma Master Huiyuan is absolutely outstanding, an unfathomable person. Venerable Bhadanta (跋陀尊者) was proficient in the Tripitaka (三藏, meaning 'Three Baskets' and referring to the collection of Buddhist scriptures), especially with a strong memory. In the Western Regions, he was considered to have extensively studied both internal and external scriptures, and was known as an 'extraordinary monk'. Sengzhao (僧肇) revered him as a 'Great Vehicle Chan Master'. Huiguan's talent in doctrinal studies was outstanding, and he was as famous as Sengzhao, Rongrui (融睿), and others at that time, and was also a famous Dharma Master of ancient times. And these three people all respected the essentials of the Chan Sutra so much, then the Chan path of Dharma is probably also in it. I also heard the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (智度論, meaning 'Great Wisdom Sutra') say: 'Chan is the greatest, like a king, and when Chan is spoken of, everything is included.' The various samadhis of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as well as the Buddha's attainment of enlightenment, relinquishing of life, and so on, all such wonderful merits are in Chan. The Transformation Scroll also says this meaning: 'Liberation, Chan, and Samadhi are all called Dhyana, and Dhyana is called Mind.' What is called Mind is what the Chan ancestors transmitted. The ancients called the Chan gate the School of the Doctrine, and this is also the meaning of Nagarjuna (龍樹) and Kumārajīva (木祖師). It can also be said that our school is the great orthodox path of Shakyamuni Buddha's one Buddhism. However, what they call

宗門之意義者散在眾經。隱覆古今。未始章章見於天下也。吾平日嘗考此斷。自如來付法入滅而來。所見於大藏之間者。適且以遠公統序與禪經智度論涅槃經四者之說。推其奧旨。而驗覈之。然斯佛法大事。豈餘下士而輒以臆裁。幸且發乎前世賢聖之所蘊耳。識者以謂何如。若遠公曰。夫三業之興以禪智為宗。是豈非謂禪為經律論三學者之所宗乎。又曰。每慨此大教東流。禪數尤寡。三業無統。斯道殆廢。是豈非謂戒定慧必統于禪要乎。又曰。達節善變出處無際。晦名寄跡無聞無示。若斯人者不可以名部分。既非名部之所分。亦不出乎其外。別有宗明矣。是豈非謂聖乃達節變而通之純以密證妙用別為眾部之宗乎。又曰。八萬法藏所存唯要。是豈非謂雖佛八萬四千法聚莫不以此密傳極證為之真要乎。又曰。尋條求根者眾。統本運末者寡。或將暨而未至。或守方而未變。是豈非謂其先末而後本。惡夫學者之倒錯執方而不知圓變乎。又曰。原夫聖旨非徒全其長。亦所以救其短。是豈非謂佛之聖旨不唯全其妙本之優長亦乃極救其徇末者之闇短乎。又曰。此三應真咸冥契于昔。功在言外經所不辯。是豈非謂迦葉阿難與掬多者(卻以迦葉掬多。而釋乎三應真者。廣其冥契之意耳)曲奉默傳皆契合乎吾佛昔之妙微密心。而超然出乎經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：宗門的意義散見於各種經典之中，它隱晦地存在於古今，從未完全清晰地展現在世人面前。我平日裡常常考察這個問題，自從如來佛將佛法傳付后入滅以來，我在大藏經中所見到的，恰好有慧遠大師的《大乘統序》以及禪經、《大智度論》、《涅槃經》這四者的說法。我推究其中的深奧旨意，並加以驗證覈實。然而，這種佛法大事，難道是我這種地位低下的人可以隨意臆斷的嗎？幸運的是，這些見解也源於前代賢聖的蘊藏。有識之士認為如何呢？慧遠大師說：『三業（身、口、意）的興起以禪智為根本。』這難道不是說禪是經、律、論三學者所尊崇的根本嗎？他又說：『常常慨嘆這大乘佛法東傳，禪修卻尤其稀少，三業沒有統領，佛法幾乎要廢棄。』這難道不是說戒、定、慧必定要統攝於禪的要義嗎？他又說：『通達事理，善於變化，出世入世沒有界限；隱匿名聲，寄託軌跡，無聲無息。』像這樣的人，不可以名分來限制。既然不是名分所能限制的，也就不在名分之外，另有宗門闡明。這難道不是說聖人能夠通達事理，善於變化而融會貫通，完全憑藉秘密印證的妙用，另外作為各部的宗門嗎？他又說：『八萬法藏所儲存的只是精要。』這難道不是說即使佛陀的八萬四千法門，沒有不以這秘密相傳、極致印證作為真正的精要嗎？他又說：『尋找枝條追求樹根的人很多，統領根本運用末節的人很少，有些人將要達到卻未能達到，有些人固守一方而不知變通。』這難道不是說要先末而後本，厭惡那些學者顛倒錯亂，執著於一方而不知圓融變通嗎？他又說：『探究聖人的旨意，不只是爲了保全其長處，也是爲了補救其短處。』這難道不是說佛的聖旨不只是爲了保全其妙本的優長，也是爲了極力補救那些追逐末節之人的昏暗短處嗎？他又說：『這三位應真（迦葉、阿難、掬多）都暗中契合於過去，功勞在於言語之外，經典所不能詳盡闡述。』這難道不是說迦葉、阿難和掬多（卻用迦葉掬多來解釋這三位應真，是爲了擴充套件他們暗中契合的意義），都恭敬地奉行默傳，都契合於我佛過去微妙秘密的心印，並且超然于經典之外嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'Zongmen' (宗門, School or Sect) is scattered throughout various sutras. It exists implicitly throughout ancient and modern times, and has never been clearly revealed to the world. I have often examined this issue in my daily life. Since Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) transmitted the Dharma (佛法, Buddhist teachings) and entered Nirvana (入滅, passing away), what I have seen in the Tripitaka (大藏經, Buddhist canon) happens to include Master Huiyuan's (慧遠大師) 'Preface to the Comprehensive Meaning of Mahayana' (大乘統序) and the teachings of the Meditation Sutra (禪經), the 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra' (大智度論, Great Wisdom Sutra), and the 'Nirvana Sutra' (涅槃經). I have investigated their profound meanings and verified them. However, how could I, a person of low status, arbitrarily speculate on such a major event in Buddhism? Fortunately, these views also originate from the accumulation of previous sages. What do discerning people think? Master Huiyuan said: 'The arising of the three karmas (三業, body, speech, and mind) takes Chan (禪, meditation) and wisdom as its foundation.' Does this not mean that Chan is the foundation revered by scholars of Sutra (經), Vinaya (律, monastic rules), and Sastra (論, treatises)? He also said: 'I often lament that as the Great Vehicle (大教, Mahayana Buddhism) spreads eastward, Chan practice is especially scarce, the three karmas are not unified, and the Dharma is almost abandoned.' Does this not mean that precepts (戒), concentration (定), and wisdom (慧) must be integrated into the essentials of Chan? He also said: 'Those who understand principles, are good at transformation, and have no boundaries between entering and leaving the world; those who conceal their names, entrust their traces, and are silent and invisible.' Such people cannot be limited by titles. Since they cannot be limited by titles, they are also not outside of titles; there is another 'Zongmen' (宗門, School or Sect) that clarifies this. Does this not mean that sages can understand principles, are good at transformation and integration, and rely entirely on the wonderful function of secret verification, separately serving as the 'Zongmen' (宗門, School or Sect) of various schools? He also said: 'What the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures (八萬法藏) preserve is only the essence.' Does this not mean that even the eighty-four thousand Dharma gates of the Buddha (佛陀) all take this secretly transmitted, supremely verified essence as their true essence? He also said: 'Many people seek branches and pursue roots, but few lead the root and use the branches; some are about to reach but have not reached, and some adhere to one side and do not know how to adapt.' Does this not mean that one should first focus on the branches and then the root, and that one should detest those scholars who are confused, clinging to one side and not knowing how to be flexible and adaptable? He also said: 'Exploring the sage's intention is not only to preserve its strengths, but also to remedy its weaknesses.' Does this not mean that the Buddha's intention is not only to preserve the strengths of its wonderful essence, but also to strive to remedy the darkness and shortcomings of those who pursue the branches? He also said: 'These three 'Yingzhen' (應真, Arhats, worthy of offerings) (Kasyapa (迦葉), Ananda (阿難), and Kukkuta (掬多)) all secretly correspond to the past, and their merits lie beyond words, which the sutras cannot fully explain.' Does this not mean that Kasyapa, Ananda, and Kukkuta (using Kasyapa Kukkuta to explain these three 'Yingzhen' (應真, Arhats, worthy of offerings) is to expand the meaning of their secret correspondence) all respectfully followed the silent transmission, all corresponding to the subtle and secret mind-seal of our Buddha in the past, and transcending the sutras?

教之外耶。禪經摩那斯伽邏一經心秘而不譯者。其下曰。乃至一切賢聖。皆應勤。修如是正觀。是豈非謂大凡其人預吾教者盡當務此秘密極證乃為之正見乎。涅槃曰。我今所有無上正法。悉以付囑摩訶迦葉。是迦葉能為汝等作大依止。是豈非謂而今而後皆可依止乎迦葉無上妙微密法而為之正乎。又曰。四人出世護持法者。應當證知而為依止。是四人即名如來。何以故。能解如來密語及能說故。是豈非謂代代四依之人出世者乃據是妙心密語以為后之明證乎。若智度論曰。般若波羅蜜非秘密法者。其旨亦驗在禪中矣。適且略之不復解也。校此則大聖人遺意。豈不果以妙微密清凈禪為其教之大宗也。欲世世三學之者資之以為其入道之印驗標正耶。古者命吾禪門謂之宗門。而尊于教跡之外殊是也。然此禪要既是吾一佛教之宗則其傳法要者。三十三祖。自大迦葉至乎曹溪。乃皆一釋教之祖也。而淺識者妄分達磨曹溪。獨為禪門之祖。不亦甚謬乎。夫道固無外。法與文字未始異也。孰為表裡。但且略其言方語本十二部之云云者。直截以全心性人。蓋提本以正其跡。示親以別其疏也。使其即茲極證。不復弊其毫髮迂曲矣。然此未易以口舌辯。未可以智解到。猶圓覺曰。但諸聲聞所圓境界。身心語言悉皆斷滅。終不能至彼之親證所現涅

槃。豈不然哉。昔馬鳴曰。離念境界唯證相應。故龍樹曰。不可說者是實義。可說者皆是名字。斯亦二祖師。尊其心證之親密。以別其循跡而情解者也。欲人軌此而為之正矣。隋智者稱。如來嘗命諸弟子。使各述其昔為維摩詰所訶之言。而佛乃默印正之。然此固與凈名默印乎三十二大士之聖說法者同也。按是則大聖人。果以其正宗默證微密。遺後世為其標正印驗者。固亦已見於佛之當時矣。學者亦可尊而信之也。嗚呼今吾輩比丘。其所修戒定慧者。孰不預釋迦文之教耶。其所學經律論者。孰不預夫八萬四千之法藏乎。乃各私師習。而黨其所學。不顧法要。不審求其大宗正趣。反忽乎達磨祖師之所傳者。謂不如吾師之道也。是不唯違叛佛意。亦乃自昧其道本。可嘆也夫。若今禪者之所示。或語或默或動用。皆先佛之妙用也。但不可輒見。雖其本源有在。吾省煩不復發之。然此妙用恐聖意獨遺屬吾密傳之宗。乃得發明耳。何則以其相宜故也。不然奚自達磨祖師已來而其風大振耶。經曰。正言似反。誰其信者。昔龍樹祖師大論所現曰。持戒皮禪定肉智慧骨微妙善心髓。夫微妙心者亦其承佛而密傳者也。及達磨祖師品其弟子所證之淺深。乃特引之曰。汝得吾皮得吾肉得吾骨汝得吾髓。於此而佛之心印益效也。其不言戒定慧妙心

與其義者。此故略之。而存其微旨耳。其後垂百年。隋之智者顗禪師。因其申經乃更以義而分辯此四者之說。至乎微妙善心髓。謂是諸佛行處。言語道斷心行處滅。不一不二微妙中道也。然而龍樹達磨其道。及智者論之。而益尊且辯矣。斯心微密。真所謂不可思議也。非言非默。識識所不及也。智知所不到也。吾少嘗傳聞于先善知識。謂道育云。四大本空五陰非有。而我見處無一法可得。言語道斷心行處滅。而達磨曰汝得吾骨。及二祖拜已歸位而立。乃曰。汝得吾髓。旨乎其尤極矣祖師之言也。茲所以為縣學之宗也。唐僧神清譏禪者輒曰。其傳法賢聖。間以聲聞。如大迦葉。雖即迴心尚為小智。豈能傳佛心印乎。清何其不思耶。涅槃曰。我今所有無上正法。悉已付囑摩訶迦葉。如清之言。則大聖人乃妄付其法耳。此吾記內拒之已詳。不復多雲。驗神清淺謬。不及智者之藩籬遠矣。世稱神清善學豈然。學所以求大道。路所以通天下。及其迷學而蔽道迷路而忘返。夫學與路亦為患矣。故至人不貴多學。不欲多岐也。而後學之者愚陋。或妄評乎達磨祖師所謂得吾髓者。何其瀆亂夫智者之說耶。

第四篇

客曰。教既載道。何必外教而傳道耶。又聞。夫圓頓教者。教與證一也。今乃教道相異。豈為圓乎哉。曰子未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為那些意義已經很明顯了，所以這裡就省略了，只保留了其中精微的要旨。後來過了大約一百年，隋朝的智者顗禪師，根據《申經》的內容，進一步用義理來分辨這四種說法。達到了微妙善心髓的境界，認為那是諸佛修行的地方，是言語道斷、心行處滅的境界，是不一不二的微妙中道。然而，龍樹（Nagarjuna，中觀學派創始人）和達磨（Bodhidharma，禪宗初祖）闡明的道理，以及智者（Zhiyi，天臺宗實際創始人）的論述，使這些道理更加尊貴和明晰。這種心法非常精微隱秘，真可謂不可思議。它既不是言語，也不是沉默，是意識和知識所無法達到的境界，也是智慧所無法到達的境界。我年輕時曾經從先輩善知識那裡聽到，道育（Daoyu，人名）說：『四大（四大元素）本來是空的，五陰（五蘊）並非真實存在，而我所見之處沒有一法可以獲得，是言語道斷、心行處滅的境界。』達磨（Bodhidharma）說：『你得到了我的骨。』二祖（慧可Huike，禪宗二祖）拜見后回到自己的位置站立，達磨（Bodhidharma）說：『你得到了我的髓。』這真是達到了極致啊，是祖師的教誨。這就是縣學所宗奉的。唐朝僧人神清（Shenqing，人名）譏諷禪宗的人總是說：『他們傳法的賢聖，有時會夾雜著聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna，小乘佛教）。比如大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，釋迦十大弟子之一），即使已經回心轉意，仍然是小智，怎麼能傳佛的心印呢？』神清（Shenqing）是多麼不思考啊！《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『我現在所有無上的正法，都已經囑託給摩訶迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）。』如果按照神清（Shenqing）的說法，那麼大聖人就是胡亂地傳法了。這些我在我的筆記里已經詳細地駁斥過了，不再多說。可見神清（Shenqing）的淺薄謬誤，遠遠不及智者（Zhiyi）的境界。世人稱神清（Shenqing）善於學習，難道是這樣嗎？學習是爲了追求大道，道路是爲了通向天下。等到迷惑于學習而遮蔽了大道，迷失了道路而忘記了返回，那麼學習和道路也就成了禍患了。所以，至人（zhiren，達到極高智慧的人）不看重多學，不希望有太多的歧途。而後學的人愚昧淺陋，竟然妄加評論達磨（Bodhidharma）祖師所說的『得到我的髓』，這真是褻瀆擾亂智者（Zhiyi）的說法啊！第四篇客人問：既然教義已經包含了道，為什麼還要在教義之外去傳道呢？又聽說，圓頓教（yuandunjiao，佛教宗派）的教和證是一體的。現在教和道卻相互差異，這怎麼能說是圓滿呢？回答說：你還不瞭解。

【English Translation】 English version: Those meanings are already obvious, so they are omitted here, and only the subtle essence is retained. Later, about a hundred years later, the Chan master Zhiyi (Zhiyi, founder of Tiantai school) of the Sui Dynasty, based on the content of the 'Shen Jing', further used the principles to distinguish these four statements. Reaching the realm of subtle good mind essence, considering it the place where all Buddhas practice, the realm where words are cut off and the mind's activity ceases, the subtle middle way that is neither one nor two. However, the principles elucidated by Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, founder of Madhyamaka school) and Bodhidharma (Bodhidharma, the first patriarch of Zen), as well as the discussions of Zhiyi (Zhiyi), made these principles more noble and clear. This mind method is very subtle and secret, truly it can be called inconceivable. It is neither speech nor silence, a realm that consciousness and knowledge cannot reach, and also a realm that wisdom cannot reach. When I was young, I once heard from senior virtuous teachers that Daoyu (Daoyu, a person's name) said: 'The four elements (catu-dhātu, four elements) are originally empty, the five aggregates (pañca-skandha, five aggregates) are not truly existent, and in what I see, there is no dharma that can be obtained, it is the realm where words are cut off and the mind's activity ceases.' Bodhidharma (Bodhidharma) said: 'You have obtained my bones.' The Second Patriarch (Huike, the second patriarch of Zen) bowed and returned to his position and stood, Bodhidharma (Bodhidharma) said: 'You have obtained my marrow.' This is truly reaching the extreme, it is the teaching of the patriarchs. This is what the county school follows. The Tang Dynasty monk Shenqing (Shenqing, a person's name) ridiculed the Zen practitioners, always saying: 'The virtuous sages who transmit the Dharma sometimes mix in the Śrāvakayāna (Śrāvakayāna, the vehicle of disciples). For example, Mahākāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa, one of the ten great disciples of Śākyamuni), even if he has turned his mind, is still of small wisdom, how can he transmit the mind seal of the Buddha?' How unthinking Shenqing (Shenqing) is! The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'All the unsurpassed Dharma that I now possess, I have entrusted to Mahākāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa).' If according to Shenqing (Shenqing)'s statement, then the great sage would be randomly transmitting the Dharma. I have refuted these in detail in my notes, and will not say more. It can be seen that Shenqing (Shenqing)'s shallowness and errors are far inferior to the realm of Zhiyi (Zhiyi). The world calls Shenqing (Shenqing) good at learning, is that so? Learning is for pursuing the great path, and the road is for connecting the world. When one is confused by learning and obscures the great path, and loses the road and forgets to return, then learning and the road become a disaster. Therefore, the perfect person (zhiren, a person who has attained supreme wisdom) does not value much learning, and does not want too many forks in the road. And those who learn later are ignorant and shallow, and even recklessly comment on what the Patriarch Bodhidharma (Bodhidharma) said, 'Obtaining my marrow,' this is truly desecrating and disturbing the teachings of Zhiyi (Zhiyi)! Part Four The guest asked: Since the teachings already contain the Dao, why is it necessary to transmit the Dao outside of the teachings? Also, I have heard that the teachings and realization of the perfect and sudden teaching (yuandunjiao, a Buddhist school) are one. Now the teachings and the Dao are different from each other, how can this be said to be perfect? The answer is: You do not yet understand.

心通。宜善聽之。古所謂教證一者。蓋以文字之性亦有空分與正理貫耳。非謂黃卷赤軸間言聲字色摐然之有狀者直與實相無相一也。若夫十二部之教。乃大聖人權巧應機垂跡。而張本且假世名字語言發理。以待人悟耳。然理妙無所教。雖說及而語終不極。其所謂教外別傳者。非果別於佛教也。正其教跡所不到者也。猶大論曰。言似言及。而玄旨幽邃。尋之雖深。而失之愈遠。其此謂也。昔隋之智者顗公。最為知教者也。豈不曰。佛法至理。不可以言宣。豈存言方語本十二部乎。按智度論曰。諸佛斷法愛。不立經書。亦不莊嚴語言。如此則大聖人其意何嘗必在於教乎。經曰。我坐道場時。不得一法。實空拳誑小兒。以度於一切。是豈非大聖人以教為權而不必專之乎。又經云。修多羅教如標月指。若復見月了知所標畢竟非月。是豈使人執其教跡耶。又經曰。始從鹿野苑終至跋提河。中間五十年。未曾說一字。斯固其教外之謂也。然此極此奧密。雖載於經亦但說耳。聖人驗此故命以心相傳。而禪者所謂教外別傳乃此也。當是可謂教證一乎非耶。圓哉非圓歟。曰夫十二部者。皆佛實語。豈盡權而果可外乎。曰汝悟乃自知之也。曰若古之禪德者。有盡措經像而不復務之何謂也。曰此但毀相泯心者。亦猶經曰。唯除頓覺人並法不隨

順。吾前所謂初諸祖師亦兼經教而行之者。佛子自宜以此兩端量力而處之可也。若祖師以正宗而入震旦。與乎義學之者。息其爭鋒競銳之心者有之矣。與乎學者直指其心。而免其章句之勞者有之矣。與夫學者他悟。而正驗其是否者有之矣。與其專以正宗而得法喜者。五百餘載其人固不可勝數也。而如來遺後世標正印驗。其微旨不亦效乎。祖師德被於世。其亦至矣。然正宗至微至密。必得真道眼乃見。茍以意解而強辯。雖益辯益差也。吾無如之何。龍樹論曰。若分別憶想。即是魔羅網。不動不依止。是則為法印。待子潔清其分別戲論之心。始可信吾教外所傳乃真佛法印也。曰既謂教外別傳。則與教不相關也。而子必引涅槃之言為據。豈其宜耶。曰然。其意雖教外別傳。而其事必教內所指。非指自佛教之內。則何表乎佛于教外而別有所傳者耶。故如來示其事於垂終之言。亦謂其妙心吾已嘗傳之矣。孰謂不與教相關耶。而吾引涅槃不亦然乎。遠公曰。既非名部之所分。亦不出乎其外。別有宗明矣。此言可思也。曰子謂必世世傳受心印。永以為標正印驗。何古之相承者。至乎曹溪而其祖遂絕耶。曰祖豈果絕乎。但正宗入正旦。至曹溪歷年已久。其人習知此法。其機緣純熟者眾。正宗得以而普傳。雖其枝派益分。而纍纍相承。亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本順便說一下，我之前所說的最初的各位祖師，也是兼顧經教來修行的。佛弟子們自然應該根據自己的能力來衡量這兩方面，並妥善處理。如果祖師以正宗（Zhengzong，the orthodox tradition）的方式進入震旦（Zhendan，ancient name for China），那麼就會有人停止爭論和好勝之心。有人能夠直指人心，免去研究章句的辛勞。有人通過其他方式領悟，並以此來驗證自己領悟的是否正確。那些專心於正宗而獲得法喜（Fahsi，joy of Dharma）的人，五百多年來實在數不勝數。如來（Rulai，Tathagata）遺留給後世的標正印驗（Biaozheng Yinyan，marks for verification），難道不是起到了作用嗎？祖師的恩德澤被於世，真是太偉大了。然而，正宗至為精微隱秘，必須得到真正的道眼（Daoyan，eye of the Tao）才能看見。如果用自己的想法去解釋並強行辯論，只會越辯越錯。我對此也無可奈何。龍樹（Longshu，Nagarjuna）菩薩的《中論》中說：『如果進行分別憶想，那就是魔羅網（Maluowang，Mara's net）。不執著于任何事物，不依賴任何事物，這就是法印（Fayin，Dharma seal）。』等你 очистить 你的分別戲論之心，才可以相信我教外所傳的是真正的佛法印。有人問：『既然說是教外別傳（Jiaowaibiechuan，transmission outside the teachings），那麼就與經教無關了。而你卻一定要引用《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）的話作為依據，這難道合適嗎？』我回答說：『是的。它的意義雖然是教外別傳，但它的事情一定是指向教內的。如果不指向佛教之內，又怎麼能表明佛在經教之外還有所傳授呢？所以，如來在臨終遺言中也表明，他的妙心（Miaoxin，subtle mind）我已經傳授過了。誰說不與經教相關呢？我引用《涅槃經》難道不是理所當然嗎？』慧遠（Huiyuan）大師說：『既不是名相概念所能區分的，也不超出它的範圍之外，另有一種宗旨在闡明。』這句話值得深思。有人問：『你說必須世世代代傳授心印（Xinyin，mind seal），永遠作為標正印驗。為什麼古代的相承，到了曹溪（Caoxi，the Sixth Patriarch Huineng's monastery）之後，祖師就斷絕了呢？』我回答說：『祖師難道真的斷絕了嗎？只是正宗傳入震旦，到曹溪已經歷時很久。人們已經熟悉這種方法，機緣成熟的人很多，正宗因此得以普及。雖然它的枝派越來越多，但仍然代代相傳。

【English Translation】 English version Incidentally, what I mentioned earlier about the initial patriarchs also involved practicing with both scriptures and teachings. Buddhist disciples should naturally assess these two aspects according to their abilities and handle them appropriately. If a patriarch enters Zhendan (ancient name for China) with the Zhengzong (the orthodox tradition), then there will be those who cease their arguments and competitive spirit. Some can directly point to the human mind, avoiding the labor of studying commentaries. Some gain enlightenment through other means and use it to verify whether their enlightenment is correct. Those who focus on Zhengzong and attain Fahsi (joy of Dharma) have been countless for over five hundred years. Doesn't the Biaozheng Yinyan (marks for verification) that Rulai (Tathagata) left for future generations serve its purpose? The virtue of the patriarchs has benefited the world greatly. However, Zhengzong is extremely subtle and secret, and it can only be seen with a true Daoyan (eye of the Tao). If one interprets it with one's own ideas and argues forcefully, the more one argues, the more one deviates. There is nothing I can do about it. Nagarjuna's (Longshu) Treatise on the Middle Way says: 'If there is conceptualization and recollection, it is Mara's net (Maluowang). Not clinging to anything, not relying on anything, this is the Dharma seal (Fayin).' Only when you purify your mind of discriminatory and playful thoughts can you believe that what I transmit outside the teachings is the true Dharma seal of the Buddha. Someone asked: 'Since it is said to be Jiaowaibiechuan (transmission outside the teachings), then it is unrelated to the scriptures and teachings. But you insist on quoting the Nirvana Sutra as a basis, is this appropriate?' I replied: 'Yes. Although its meaning is Jiaowaibiechuan, its matter must point to within the teachings. If it does not point to within Buddhism, how can it show that the Buddha has something else to transmit outside the teachings? Therefore, Rulai also stated in his final words that his Miaoxin (subtle mind) has already been transmitted. Who says it is not related to the scriptures and teachings? Isn't my quoting the Nirvana Sutra justified?' Master Huiyuan said: 'It is neither distinguishable by nominal concepts, nor does it go beyond its scope; there is another purpose in clarifying.' This statement is worth pondering. Someone asked: 'You say that the Xinyin (mind seal) must be transmitted from generation to generation, always serving as Biaozheng Yinyan. Why did the ancient succession end with Caoxi (the Sixth Patriarch Huineng's monastery)?' I replied: 'Has the patriarch really ended? It's just that Zhengzong entered Zhendan, and it has been a long time since Caoxi. People are familiar with this method, and there are many who are ready for it, so Zhengzong can be popularized. Although its branches are increasing, it is still passed down from generation to generation.'

各為其祖。以法而遞相標正印驗。何嘗闕然。亦猶世俗百氏得姓各為其家。而子孫相承繼為祖禰。則未始無也。但此承法雖有支祖。而不如其正祖之盛也。曰吾以教而亦能見道。何必爾宗所傳。乃以為至乎。曰子必以教而見道。是見說也非見道也。夫真見道者。所謂窮理者也。窮則能變。變則能通。善為變通乃為見道也。夫變而通之者。其始發於吾之正宗耳。佛子茍能變通。即預乎吾宗矣。何謂何必爾宗乃為至耶。況子輩未始知變。豈為見道乎。遠公曰。或將暨而不至。或守方而未變。蓋子之謂乎。若其世世之帝王公侯卿士大夫儒者之聖賢。服膺而推敬此宗門者。不可殫紀。其略如吾宋之太宗真宗。皆閱意最深。而章聖皇帝為之修心詩曰。初祖安禪在少林。不傳經教但傳心。後人若悟真如性。密印由來妙理深。迄於今也而上留神。益專以此為偈為頌。方佈滿天下又益為祖師傳法授衣之圖。以正其宗祖者也。唐書曰(劉煦唐書也)達磨本以護國出家。入南海得禪宗妙法。自釋迦文佛相傳有衣缽為記。以世相傳受。斐相國休為唐之圭峰傳法碑曰。釋迦如來最後以法眼付大迦葉。令祖祖相傳別行於世。非私于迦葉而外人天聲聞菩薩也。自迦葉至於達磨。凡二十八祖。達磨傳之又至於能為六祖矣。昔李華吏部嘗習知乎天臺止觀

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本各自以他們的祖師為宗。通過佛法來互相標榜、驗證，何嘗有過缺失呢？這就像世俗的各個姓氏都有自己的始祖一樣，子孫後代繼承祖業，那麼（姓氏的傳承）就從未斷絕。只不過這種傳承佛法雖然有分支，但不如正宗那樣興盛罷了。有人會說：『我通過教義也能領悟真理，為什麼一定要你們宗門所傳的才算是至高無上的呢？』我會說：『你通過教義來領悟真理，那是見解，不是真正的悟道。』真正悟道的人，是那些能夠窮究事物原理的人。窮究到極點就能變通，變通就能融會貫通。善於變通才是真正的悟道。能夠變通的人，其最初的啓發就來自於我們的正宗。佛弟子如果能夠變通，就已經接近我們的宗門了。怎麼能說一定要你們宗門才算是至高無上呢？況且你們這些人根本不懂得變通，又怎麼能算是悟道呢？慧遠大師曾說：『有的人將要到達卻未能到達，有的人固守一方而未能變通。』大概說的就是你們這樣的人吧。至於那些世代的帝王、公侯、卿士、大夫、儒家的聖賢，信奉和推崇我們這個宗門的，數不勝數。簡單來說，像我們宋朝的太宗、真宗，都對禪宗的意旨理解得非常深刻。章聖皇帝還為此寫了修心詩：『初祖（Bodhidharma，菩提達摩）安禪在少林，不傳經教但傳心。後人若悟真如性，密印由來妙理深。』直到今天，皇上仍然非常重視禪宗，更加專注于用偈語和頌歌來弘揚禪宗，並且繪製祖師傳法授衣的圖畫，來端正禪宗的宗統。唐書（《唐書》，劉煦所著）中記載：達摩（Bodhidharma，菩提達摩）本來是護國寺的出家人，在南海得到了禪宗的妙法。自釋迦文佛（Sakyamuni Buddha，佛教創始人）相傳，有衣缽作為憑證，世代相傳。斐休宰相為唐朝的圭峰禪師撰寫碑文說：釋迦如來（Sakyamuni Buddha，佛教創始人）最後將法眼傳給了大迦葉（Mahakasyapa，摩訶迦葉），讓他祖祖相傳，在世間 अलग से 傳播，而不是私自傳給迦葉（Mahakasyapa，摩訶迦葉），排斥其他人天、聲聞、菩薩。從迦葉（Mahakasyapa，摩訶迦葉）到達摩（Bodhidharma，菩提達摩），共有二十八祖。達摩（Bodhidharma，菩提達摩）又傳給了慧能（Huineng，禪宗六祖），成為六祖。過去李華吏部曾經學習過天臺宗的止觀。

【English Translation】 English version Each adheres to their own patriarch. They mutually uphold and validate each other through the Dharma, so how could there be any deficiency? It is like the various surnames in the secular world, each with its own ancestor. Descendants inherit the family lineage, so the transmission (of the surname) is never broken. However, although this transmission of the Dharma has branches, it is not as flourishing as the orthodox lineage. Someone might say, 'I can realize the truth through teachings, so why must what is transmitted by your sect be considered supreme?' I would say, 'Your realization of the truth through teachings is an understanding of concepts, not true enlightenment.' Those who truly realize the truth are those who can thoroughly investigate the principles of things. When investigation reaches its limit, transformation becomes possible, and with transformation, one can achieve complete understanding. Skillful transformation is true enlightenment. Those who can transform and understand, their initial inspiration comes from our orthodox lineage. If a Buddhist disciple can transform, they are already close to our sect. How can you say that only your sect is supreme? Moreover, you people do not understand transformation at all, so how can you be considered enlightened? Master Huiyuan once said, 'Some are about to arrive but fail to reach, some adhere to one side and fail to transform.' He was probably talking about people like you. As for the emperors, dukes, ministers, high officials, Confucian sages, and virtuous people of all generations who have embraced and revered our sect, they are too numerous to count. To put it simply, emperors Taizong and Zhenzong of our Song dynasty both had a very deep understanding of the meaning of Chan (Zen). Emperor Zhangsheng even wrote a poem on cultivating the mind for this purpose: 'The First Patriarch (Bodhidharma) meditated in Shaolin, not transmitting scriptures but transmitting the mind. If later generations realize the true nature, the secret seal's profound principle has its origin.' Even today, the emperor still attaches great importance to Chan, focusing even more on using verses and hymns to promote Chan, and commissioning paintings of the patriarchs transmitting the Dharma and the robe, to rectify the lineage of Chan. The History of Tang (the Tang Shu written by Liu Xu) records: Bodhidharma was originally a monk of the Huguo Temple, and he obtained the wonderful Dharma of Chan in the South Sea. It has been transmitted from Sakyamuni Buddha, with the robe and bowl as proof, passed down through generations. Prime Minister Pei Xiu wrote an inscription for the Tang dynasty's Guifeng Zen Master, saying: Sakyamuni Buddha finally entrusted the Dharma Eye to Mahakasyapa, instructing him to transmit it separately in the world, not privately to Kasyapa, excluding other devas, sravakas, and bodhisattvas. From Kasyapa to Bodhidharma, there were twenty-eight patriarchs. Bodhidharma then transmitted it to Huineng, becoming the Sixth Patriarch. In the past, Li Hua, the Minister of Personnel, had studied the Tiantai school's zhi guan (cessation and contemplation).

。及湛然禪師與諸僧命李為左溪朗師之碑。而其文首引菩提達磨。謂二十九世相承。大迦葉傳佛心法。未聞有非之者。而隋之智者顗公。亦嘗引此禪經四隨之義。以證其教之四悉檀者。若智者特能區別四教。乃不世之大法師也。茍曇摩多羅其道不至。其人非祖。彼豈肯推其言而為據乎。永嘉大師玄覺。本學天臺三觀。義解精修。其殆異僧也(其學三觀所證。見天臺四教儀及永嘉集)及其著證道歌乃曰。明明佛敕曹溪是。清涼國師澄觀大法師也。其嘗謂曰。果海離念而心傳。圭峰乃釋之曰。此即達磨以心傳心。不立文字之意也。禪源詮祖圖云。觀公嘗參問大禪德曰。浮杯或曰。又學於五臺亡名禪師者。故其言乃爾也。維揚法慎大律師也亦曰。天臺止觀包一切經義。東山法門是一切佛乘。色空兩忘慧定雙照。不可得而稱也。茍吾正宗其道不大至。而我朝之三大聖人。豈肯從事如是之盛耶。自昔預其從者。若牛頭融祖。若安公秀公一行大師嵩山圭公。若南陽國師江西大寂。如此諸公不可勝數。皆道風天下。德貫神明。雖萬乘拜伏師敬而不自喜。巍巍乎柱礎。佛氏萬世光賁大教。是亦可以卜其法之如何耳。而縱其道極玄。彼學者不能見之。胡不稍思。今至聖天子與夫隋唐諸大義學之師。其所為意者以自警乎。初宣律師以達磨預

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及湛然禪師與眾僧人命李某撰寫左溪朗師的碑文。碑文開頭引用菩提達摩（Bodhidharma，禪宗始祖），說禪宗二十九世相承，大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，釋迦十大弟子之一）傳承佛陀心法，沒有人對此表示異議。隋朝的智者顗公（智顗，天臺宗創始人），也曾引用《禪經》中四隨的義理，來證明他所說的四悉檀（catuḥ-siddhānta，四種成就）的教義。如果智者顗公能夠特別區分四教（天臺宗的四種教法），那他就是舉世無雙的大法師了。如果曇摩多羅（Dharmatrāta，禪宗傳承中的一位祖師）的道不純正，其人並非祖師，智者顗公怎麼會推崇他的言論並作為依據呢？永嘉大師玄覺（Yongjia Xuanjue），原本學習天臺宗的三觀（空觀、假觀、中觀），對義理的理解和修行都很精深，他大概是一位不同尋常的僧人吧（他所學的三觀的證悟，見於《天臺四教儀》和《永嘉集》）。他在所著的《證道歌》中說：『明明佛敕曹溪是（Caoxi，六祖慧能的道場）。』清涼國師澄觀（Chengguan，華嚴宗大德）也是大法師。他曾經說過：『果海離念而心傳。』圭峰宗密（Guifeng Zongmi，華嚴宗五祖）解釋說：『這就是達摩以心傳心，不立文字的含義。』《禪源詮祖圖》中說，澄觀公曾經參問大禪德，浮杯禪師或者說，又向五臺山的無名禪師學習過。所以他才會這樣說。維揚法慎大律師也說：『天臺止觀（止觀，天臺宗的禪修方法）包含一切經義，東山法門（東山法門，禪宗的早期稱謂）是一切佛乘。色空兩忘，慧定雙照，不可言說。』如果我的正宗的道不純正，那麼我朝的三大聖人，怎麼會從事如此盛大的事業呢？從前參與其中的人，像牛頭融祖（Niutou Farong，牛頭禪創始人），像安公、秀公、一行大師（Yi Xing，唐代天文學家、佛學家）、嵩山圭公，像南陽國師、江西大寂（馬祖道一），如此眾多的高僧大德，數不勝數，他們的道風傳遍天下，德行貫通神明。即使是萬乘之君拜倒在地，師尊敬仰他們，他們也不會因此而沾沾自喜。他們巍然屹立，如同柱礎一般，佛氏的萬世光輝照耀著偉大的佛教。由此也可以推斷出他們的佛法是何等的高妙。即使他們的道極其玄妙，那些學者也無法理解。為什麼不稍微想想，當今的聖明天子以及隋唐時期的各位精通義學的法師，他們所做的一切是爲了以此來警醒自己嗎？當初宣律師（Daoxuan，唐代律師，南山律宗創始人）因為達摩預 English version: And Chan Master Zhanran and the monks commissioned Li to write the epitaph for Master Lang of Zuoxi. The inscription begins by citing Bodhidharma (the founder of Zen Buddhism), stating that Zen has been passed down through twenty-nine generations, with Mahākāśyapa (one of the ten major disciples of Shakyamuni) transmitting the Buddha's mind-seal, and no one has objected to this. Zhiyi (the founder of the Tiantai school) of the Sui Dynasty also cited the meaning of the four reliances from the Zen Sutra to prove his doctrine of the four siddhāntas (four kinds of accomplishment). If Zhiyi could particularly distinguish the four teachings (the four teachings of the Tiantai school), then he would be an unparalleled great Dharma master. If Dharmatrāta's (an ancestor in the Zen lineage) path was not authentic and he was not a true patriarch, how could Zhiyi have promoted his words and used them as a basis? Great Master Yongjia Xuanjue originally studied the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) of the Tiantai school, and his understanding and practice of the doctrines were profound. He was probably an extraordinary monk (his realization of the three contemplations can be found in the Tiantai Four Teachings and the Yongjia Collection). In his Song of Enlightenment, he said: 'Clearly, the Buddha commanded that Caoxi (the monastery of the Sixth Patriarch Huineng) is the place.' National Teacher Qingliang Chengguan (a great master of the Huayan school) was also a great Dharma master. He once said: 'The sea of fruition is transmitted mind-to-mind, apart from thought.' Guifeng Zongmi (the fifth patriarch of the Huayan school) explained: 'This is the meaning of Bodhidharma's mind-to-mind transmission, not establishing words.' The Chart of the Origin of Zen says that Chengguan once consulted a great Zen master, Zen Master Fubei, or, it is said, also studied with an unnamed Zen master on Mount Wutai. That is why he spoke in that way. The great Vinaya Master Fayuan of Yangzhou also said: 'The Tiantai zhi guan (calming and insight, the meditation method of the Tiantai school) encompasses the meaning of all sutras, and the Dongshan Dharma gate (an early name for Zen Buddhism) is all of the Buddha vehicle. Forgetting both form and emptiness, wisdom and samadhi shine together, it is indescribable.' If my orthodox lineage's path was not authentic, how could the three great sages of our dynasty have engaged in such a grand undertaking? Those who participated in it in the past, such as Niutou Farong (the founder of Niutou Zen), and like An Gong, Xiu Gong, Master Yi Xing (a Tang Dynasty astronomer and Buddhist scholar), Gui Gong of Mount Song, like National Teacher Nanyang, Daji of Jiangxi (Mazu Daoyi), so many eminent monks and virtuous people, countless in number, their influence spread throughout the world, and their virtue penetrated the divine. Even if the ruler of ten thousand chariots prostrated himself on the ground, and revered them as teachers, they would not be complacent because of it. They stood tall, like pillars, and the eternal glory of the Buddha illuminated the great Buddhist teachings. From this, one can also infer how profound their Dharma is. Even if their path is extremely profound, those scholars cannot understand it. Why not think for a moment, the current sagacious emperor and the masters of great learning of the Sui and Tang dynasties, did they do all of this to warn themselves? Initially, Vinaya Master Xuan (Daoxuan, a Tang Dynasty Vinaya master and founder of the Nanshan Vinaya school) because of Bodhidharma's pre

【English Translation】 English version: And Chan Master Zhanran and the monks commissioned Li to write the epitaph for Master Lang of Zuoxi. The inscription begins by citing Bodhidharma (the founder of Zen Buddhism), stating that Zen has been passed down through twenty-nine generations, with Mahākāśyapa (one of the ten major disciples of Shakyamuni) transmitting the Buddha's mind-seal, and no one has objected to this. Zhiyi (the founder of the Tiantai school) of the Sui Dynasty also cited the meaning of the four reliances from the Zen Sutra to prove his doctrine of the four siddhāntas (four kinds of accomplishment). If Zhiyi could particularly distinguish the four teachings (the four teachings of the Tiantai school), then he would be an unparalleled great Dharma master. If Dharmatrāta's (an ancestor in the Zen lineage) path was not authentic and he was not a true patriarch, how could Zhiyi have promoted his words and used them as a basis? Great Master Yongjia Xuanjue originally studied the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) of the Tiantai school, and his understanding and practice of the doctrines were profound. He was probably an extraordinary monk (his realization of the three contemplations can be found in the Tiantai Four Teachings and the Yongjia Collection). In his Song of Enlightenment, he said: 'Clearly, the Buddha commanded that Caoxi (the monastery of the Sixth Patriarch Huineng) is the place.' National Teacher Qingliang Chengguan (a great master of the Huayan school) was also a great Dharma master. He once said: 'The sea of fruition is transmitted mind-to-mind, apart from thought.' Guifeng Zongmi (the fifth patriarch of the Huayan school) explained: 'This is the meaning of Bodhidharma's mind-to-mind transmission, not establishing words.' The Chart of the Origin of Zen says that Chengguan once consulted a great Zen master, Zen Master Fubei, or, it is said, also studied with an unnamed Zen master on Mount Wutai. That is why he spoke in that way. The great Vinaya Master Fayuan of Yangzhou also said: 'The Tiantai zhi guan (calming and insight, the meditation method of the Tiantai school) encompasses the meaning of all sutras, and the Dongshan Dharma gate (an early name for Zen Buddhism) is all of the Buddha vehicle. Forgetting both form and emptiness, wisdom and samadhi shine together, it is indescribable.' If my orthodox lineage's path was not authentic, how could the three great sages of our dynasty have engaged in such a grand undertaking? Those who participated in it in the past, such as Niutou Farong (the founder of Niutou Zen), and like An Gong, Xiu Gong, Master Yi Xing (a Tang Dynasty astronomer and Buddhist scholar), Gui Gong of Mount Song, like National Teacher Nanyang, Daji of Jiangxi (Mazu Daoyi), so many eminent monks and virtuous people, countless in number, their influence spread throughout the world, and their virtue penetrated the divine. Even if the ruler of ten thousand chariots prostrated himself on the ground, and revered them as teachers, they would not be complacent because of it. They stood tall, like pillars, and the eternal glory of the Buddha illuminated the great Buddhist teachings. From this, one can also infer how profound their Dharma is. Even if their path is extremely profound, those scholars cannot understand it. Why not think for a moment, the current sagacious emperor and the masters of great learning of the Sui and Tang dynasties, did they do all of this to warn themselves? Initially, Vinaya Master Xuan (Daoxuan, a Tang Dynasty Vinaya master and founder of the Nanshan Vinaya school) because of Bodhidharma's pre

之習禪高僧。而降之已甚復不列其承法師宗者。蒙嘗患其不公。而吾宗贊寧僧錄。繼宣為傳。其評三教乃曰。心教義加(謂三乘經律論。為顯教。謂瑜珈五部曼荼羅法。為密教。謂禪宗直指人心見性成佛。為心教也)故其論習禪科。尤尊乎達磨之宗曰。如此修證是最上乘禪也。又曰。禪之為物也。其大矣哉。諸佛得之升等妙。率由速疾之門。無過此也。及考寧所撰鷲峰聖賢錄者。雖論傳法宗祖。蓋亦傍乎寶林付法藏二傳矣。非有異聞也。然其所斷浮泛。是非不明。終不能深推大經大論而驗實佛意。使後世學者益以相疑。是亦二古之短也。方今宗門雖衰師表者混濫鮮得其人。而彼學之者有識。自當尊奉先佛聖意。豈宜幸其衰乘其無人不顧其大宗大祖而瀆亂乎法門事體。是可謂有識乎。世書曰。賜也爾愛其羊。我愛其禮。是亦不忘其聖人之道者也。彼學之者亦少宜思之。始達磨道顯于魏。而梁之武帝遺魏書曰。共賴觀音分化。又曰。聖胄大師慧遠法師。序其禪經曰。非夫道冠三乘智通十地。孰能洞玄根於法身。歸宗一于無相。如此則達磨果聖人也。以梁武之尊遠公之賢聖。其所稱之亦可信矣。吾見其輒以達磨而為戲者。何其不知量也。若達磨出于如來之後世。而乃稱禪經者。蓋其采眾經。始欲以佛言為量以發後人之信心耳

。故遠公序曰。撮諸經要勸發大乘。此其證矣。

傳法正宗論卷下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，慧遠大師的序言中說：『摘取各部經典中的要點，勸勉人們發起大乘之心。』這就是證明了。

《傳法正宗論》卷下

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, in his preface, Venerable Huiyuan (a famous Buddhist monk) said: 'Extracting the essentials from various sutras to encourage the arising of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) mind.' This is the proof.

Treatise on the Orthodox Transmission of the Dharma, Volume 2