The third mistake made by the Monk of the Fourth-Stage Meditation took place at the end of his life. Because his offense was so deep, he fell into Avichi Hell. Even if he had thought that the fourth stage of meditation was the fourth fruit, if he had seen an image of the intermediary realm of the fourth stage at the end of his life, he would have repented for his mistake and realized that it was not the fourth fruit. How could he have thought that the Buddha had deceived him and formed a notion that nirvana did not actually exist? This is the fault of not learning and the fault of slandering the Buddha. In effect, an image of the realm intermediate to Avichi Hell appeared, and he fell into Avichi Hell after his death.
How can even a sage of the fourth fruit be equal to the Tathagata? Shariputra was a sage of the fourth fruit for a long time. If you assemble all the wisdom that is found in the billion worlds, except for that of the Tathagata, make it one portion, and compare it with one-sixteenth of Shariputra’s wisdom, the former does not come close to the latter. However, when Shariputra heard the Tathagata expound the dharma that had never been spoken, he did not think that the Tathagata’s teaching was different from past and future buddhas’ teachings, and that the Tathagata was deceiving him. Even the demon king praised the Tathagata’s teaching by saying that such a teaching did not exist in the demon world. The Tathagata awakened the old man Shrivaddhi, but Shariputra did not awaken Shrivaddhi.
The enormous difference between the fourth fruit and the buddha fruit is like this. Even if Shariputra and other disciples like him [shravakas who have attained the four fruits] were to fill the world of the ten directions, none of them could measure the Buddha’s wisdom.
Confucius and Laozi did not have such wisdom. How should those who study buddha dharma measure the teachings of Confucius and Laozi? Those who study Confucius and Laozi have never been able to measure buddha dharma. Nowadays, those in Great Song China advocate the theory of the accord of Confucius and Laozi with buddha dharma. It is an outrageously wrong view. I will discuss this in a while.
The Monk of the Fourth-Stage Meditation had a mistaken belief and thought that the Tathagata had deceived him. Thus, he was against the buddha way for a long time. It is extreme stupidity, equal to that of the six teachers outside the way [around the Buddha’s time].
An ancient teacher [Zhanran] said, “Even when the Great Teacher was alive, there were those who had self-generated mistaken views. Then, after his pari-nirvana, would it ever be possible to accomplish meditation without a teacher?”
The Great Teacher refers to the Buddha, the World-Honored One. Indeed, when he was alive, even those who had left the household and received the precepts but did not listen to his teachings could not escape having self-generated views. Then, in the last five hundred years of the three periods [of five hundred years each] after the pari-nirvana of the Tathagata, in a remote and lowly land, aren’t there mistakes? Those who have entered the fourth stage of meditation are like this. Even more so, those who sink vainly in their greed for name and love of benefit, and those who enjoy official positions and worldly paths without having entered the fourth stage of meditation, are not worth mentioning.
Nowadays in Great Song China there are many such people who are foolish and have learned little. They insist that buddha dharma and the ways of Confucius and Laozi accord with one another and are not different paths.
During the Jiatai Era [1201–1205] of Great Song China, a monk called Zhengshou compiled the [Jiatai] Record of the Universal Lamp in thirty fascicles. He said [in the preface]:
I, a subject of His Majesty, have learned Gushan Zhiyuan’s words: “My path is like a tripod worship bowl. The Three Teachings are like three legs of the bowl. If one leg is missing, the bowl tips over.” I came to admire his personality and follow his theory. What is essential in Confucius’ teaching is sincerity. What is essential in Laozi’s teaching is empty mind. What is essential in Shakyamuni Buddha’s teaching is seeing through human nature. Sincerity, empty mind, and seeing through human nature have the same essence with different names. If you thoroughly experience their original source, there is nothing that does not fit the buddha way.
Many others beside Zhiyuan and Zhengshou have self-generated mistaken views. Their mistakes are deeper than those who experience the fourth stage of meditation and regard it as the fourth fruit. It is slandering the buddha, slandering the dharma, and slandering the sangha. It is denying emancipation, denying the past, present, and future, and denying cause and effect; there is no doubt that his theory brings forth huge calamity. Such people are equal to those who don’t believe in the three treasures, the four noble truths, and the four fruits of shramanas.
What is essential in buddha dharma is not seeing through human nature. Who, among the Seven Original Buddhas and the twenty-eight Indian ancestors, regards buddha dharma merely as seeing through human nature? There are the words “seeing through human nature” in the Sixth Ancestor’s Platform Sutra. It is an apocryphal text and not a text by someone who was entrusted with the dharma treasury. “Seeing through human nature” are not words by Huineng. This is not a text to be depended upon by descendants of buddha ancestors. Because Zhengshou and Zhiyuan did not know about even one part of buddha dharma, they believed in the wrong view of one bowl with three legs.
A teacher of old [Zhanran] said:
Laozi and Zhuangzi did not know what to advocate and what to deny in the Hinayana teaching. Even further, they did not know what to advocate and what to deny in the Mahayana teaching. Thus, their teachings are not the same as that of buddha dharma. Foolish worldly people are confused about names and forms. Those who have loose ideas about Zen are ignorant of the true principle. They think that the virtue of the way [taught by Laozi] and the wandering around [taught by Zhuangzi] are the same as the teaching of emancipation in buddha dharma. How would it be possible?
In this way, since ancient times those who are confused by names and forms, and those who are ignorant of the true principle, have equated buddha dharma with the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi. On the other hand, those practicing buddha dharma even a little have never valued Laozi and Zhuangzi.
The Sutra of Pure Dharma Conduct says, “Moonlight Bodhisattva is called Yanhui [a student of Confucius], Pure Light Bodhisattva is called Confucius, and Kashyapa Bodhisattva is called Laozi.”
From ancient times, some people have quoted this sutra and said that because Confucius and Laozi are bodhisattvas, their teachings should be subtly equal to that of the Buddha. Others have said that because they are messengers of the Buddha, their words should, in fact, be those of the Buddha. Such statements are all wrong.
An ancient teacher [Zhanran] said, “According to various lists, all of the sutras say that this sutra [Sutra of Pure Dharma Conduct] is suspected as an apocryphal text.”
If we follow this explanation, it is even clearer that buddha dharma is different from the teachings of Confucius and Laozi. [This apocryphal sutra says that] Confucius and Laozi are regarded as bodhisattvas. However, bodhisattvas’ achievements are not the same as the buddha fruit.
The practice of softening the light [of wisdom, becoming close to sentient beings] and emerging as regional sages is only done by buddhas and bodhisattvas of the past, present, and future. This cannot be done by ordinary people in the dusty world. How can ordinary people who participate in worldly activities have the power to transform themselves into regional sages?
Confucius and Laozi did not talk about [buddhas and bodhisattvas] transforming into regional sages. Furthermore, they did not know about earlier causes [from past lives] and their effects in this lifetime. They merely made loyalty to the lord and governing the family essentials of their teachings. They never talk about the future life. They must be part of the group of people who believe in views of annihilation. The one [Zhanran] who excluded Zhuangzi and Laozi and said that they did not know the Hinayana, and even further the Mahayana, is a clear master of the ancient time.
Those who advocate the accord of
the Three Teachings are Zhiyuan, Zhengshou, and ignorant ordinary people of the later times of decline. With what brilliance do they put down an earlier master of ancient times and groundlessly say that buddha dharma is equal to the teachings of Confucius and Laozi? Their view is short of covering the buddha dharma. They should wear a traveling basket on their shoulders and look for masters of clear understanding. Zhiyuan and Zhengshou knew neither Hinayana nor Mahayana teachings. It is more ignorant than experiencing the fourth stage of meditation and regarding it as the fourth fruit. How deplorable that there are so many little demons when the wind of decline blows!
An ancient teacher [Zhanran] said, “The words of Confucius and Lord Zhou, as well as the teachings of the Three Kings and the Five Emperors [of China], expound governing the family with filial piety, governing the nation with loyalty, and serving the country, benefiting the subjects. This is merely a matter of one lifetime and does not cover past and future lifetimes. It is not the same as buddha dharma, which benefits lifetimes of the past, present, and future. Do not be mistaken on this point.”
Indeed, this statement by the ancient teacher touches upon the ultimate principle of buddha dharma and clarifies the principles of worldly teachings. The teachings by the Three Kings and the Five Emperors do not come close to that of a wheel-turning king, and should not be compared with words by Brahma and Indra. Their realms and the effects of their past actions are far inferior to those of Brahma and Indra. Therefore, wheel-turning kings, Brahma, and Indra do not come close to a monk who has left the household and received the precepts. How can they be equal to the Tathagata?
Books by Confucius and Lord Zhou cannot get close to the Eighteen Large Brahmanist Texts of India, and, in particular, cannot be compared with the Four Vedic Scriptures among them. However, Brahmanism in India is not the same as the Buddha’s teaching; it does not even equal the Hinayana, which is the teaching for shravakas. What a pity that in the remote, small country of China there is a mistaken view called the accord of the Three Teachings!
Bodhisattva Nagarjuna, the Fourteenth Ancestor, said, “Great arhats and pratyeka-buddhas understand eighty thousand great eons. Bodhisattvas and buddhas understand uncountable eons.”
Confucius, Laozi, and others do not yet understand the past and future of even one generation. How do they have the power to understand past lives, not to speak of one eon, or even further, one hundred and one thousand eons? Then, how do they understand eighty thousand eons or uncountable eons? Those who compare buddhas and bodhisattvas, who are as familiar with such past lives as seeing their own palms, with Confucius, Laozi, and others are not even worth calling ignorant. Cover your ears and don’t listen to the theory of the accord of the Three Teachings. It’s the most crooked theory among all wrong views.
Zhuangzi said, “Noble and lowly, pain and pleasure, right and wrong, gain and loss, are all natural.”
This view is similar to that of spontaneous origin, held by those outside the way in India. Noble and lowly, pain and pleasure, right and wrong, gain and loss, are all effects of wholesome and unwholesome actions. People who believe in spontaneous origin do not understand individual karma and collective karma. As they do not clarify past and future lives, they are ignorant of the present life. How can their views be equal to buddha dharma?
Someone said:
Because buddha tathagatas broadly realize the world of phenomena, the realm of a minute particle is all that is realized by buddhas. Thus, both effects [of actions]—the subject and its environs—are what is realized by tathagatas. In this way, mountains, rivers, the great earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars, as well as the three poisons and four confusions are all that is realized by tathagatas. To see mountains and rivers is to see tathagatas. The three poisons and four confusions cannot escape being buddha dharma. Seeing a minute particle is the same as seeing the world of phenomena. Even a casual, temporary experience is unsurpassable, complete enlightenment. This is called great emancipation, directly pointing to the ancestral way transmitted from person to person.
There are numberless people, both officials and commoners, who speak in this way in Great Song China. However, it is not clear whose descendants they are. Altogether, they don’t know the way of buddha ancestors. Even if mountains, rivers, and the great earth are what is realized by buddhas, it is not the view of mountains, rivers, and the great earth of ordinary people. Those who speak in this way have not studied and learned what is realized by buddhas.
They say that seeing a minute particle is the same as seeing the world of phenomena. It is like saying that the subjects of a king are equal to the king. Why, then, don’t they say that seeing the world of phenomena is equal to seeing a minute particle? If you would regard the view of these people as the great way of buddha ancestors, buddhas and ancestors would not have emerged in this world, and sentient beings would not be able to attain the way. Even if they might have experienced birth as beyond birth, their view would not be correct.
Tripitaka Master Paramartha said, “There are two fortunate things for China: there are no demons and there are no people outside the way [Brahmanists].”
This is a statement by someone who came from India, a country filled with people outside the way. Although there are no people outside the way who can perform the arts of miracles in China, it’s not that there are no people who hold the views of those outside the way. Demons are not seen there, but there are some schools of those outside the way. Because China is a small country in a remote land, some people study buddha dharma, but they are not realized. It is not like the central country of India.
An ancient teacher [Zhanran] said, “There are many who have returned to laity. Trying to avoid service to the Emperor, they join those outside the way. Stealing the principles of buddha dharma, with a little understanding of Confucius and Zhuangzi, they create a mixture of these teachings. They confuse beginning students who do not know the difference between right and wrong. Their Vedic views [outside of buddha dharma] are created in this way.”
Know that those who confuse and mix up beginning students, by not knowing which is right and which is wrong between buddha dharma and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi, are Zhiyuan and Zhengshou, the ones I have discussed. Not only are they extremely foolish, but they also have not studied ancient teachings. This is evident and clear.
Nowadays, among monks in the Song Dynasty, there are none who know that the teachings of Confucius and Laozi do not come close to buddha dharma. Although there are countless people who call themselves descendants of buddha ancestors filling the mountains and fields of the nine regions of China, not a single person or half a person clearly understands that buddha dharma is distinct from the teachings of Confucius and Laozi. Rujing, my late master Old Buddha Tiantong, alone clearly understood that buddha dharma and the teachings of Confucius and Laozi are not one. He explained this day and night.
Teachers of sutras and treatises are called lecturers, but none of them understand that buddha dharma far exceeds the realms of Confucius and Laozi. A number of lecturers in these one hundred years have studied Zen and tried to steal its essential teaching, but they are fundamentally mistaken.
The writings of Confucius speak of knowledge by birth, whereas teachings by the Buddha don’t. In buddha dharma, there are statements about relics, whereas Confucius and Laozi didn’t know whether relics existed or not. Even if you tried to mix up these teachings and speak extensively, regarding them as one, it would be impossible to fully explain it.
The Treatises by Confucius says, “To have knowledge by birth is supreme. To have knowledge by learning is next. To have knowledge by struggling follows that. People regard struggling without learning as the worst.”
If there is knowledge by birth, this may be seen as having no cause. In buddha dharma, there is no statement about having no cause.
The Monk of the Fourth-Stage Meditation committed the crime of slandering the Buddha at the end of his life. To see buddha dharma as the same as the teachin
gs of Confucius and Laozi is a heavier crime than slandering the Buddha throughout one’s lifetime. You, students, should quickly throw away such a mistaken view. In the end, those who maintain this view without giving it up will fall into an unwholesome realm.
You, students, should clearly know that Confucius and Laozi did not know the teaching of the past, present, and future. They did not know the principle of cause and effect. They did not know about the peaceful establishment of One Continent. Then, how can they know about the peaceful establishment of the Four Continents? They did not know about the six heavens of the desire realm; then how could they know about the three realms and the nine grounds? They do not know about the thousand worlds; how can they see and know about the million worlds or the billion worlds?
A subject of a king cannot be compared with the Tathagata, who is the king of the billion worlds. The Tathagata is the one who is honored and served day and night by Brahma, Indra, wheel-turning kings, and others, and is requested by them to expound dharma. Confucius and Laozi did not have such virtue; they were ordinary people who floated around [in birth and death] and did not know the path of leaving the world and becoming emancipated. Then, how could they thoroughly experience the reality of all things? If they hadn’t thoroughly experienced it, how could they be equal to the World-Honored One? As Confucius and Laozi lacked the inner virtue and outer facility, they did not come close to the World-Honored One. How could people express the wrong view of the accord of the Three Teachings?
Treasury of the True Dharma Eye Page 100
