Shizen biku

The fourteenth patriarch, the venerable Nāgārjuna, said: "Among the disciples of the Buddha, there was a bhikṣu who had attained the fourth dhyāna. He became conceited and thought he had attained the four fruits. When he attained the first dhyāna, he thought he had attained the fruit of entering the stream (srotāpanna). When he attained the second dhyāna, he thought it was the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin. When he attained the third dhyāna, he thought it was the fruit of the anāgāmin. When he attained the fourth dhyāna, he thought it was the arhat. Relying on this, he became proud and no longer sought to progress.

At the moment when his life was coming to an end, he saw the signs of the antarābhava of the fourth dhyāna appear. He then conceived a false view, thinking that there was no nirvāṇa and that the Buddha had deceived him. Because of this evil false view, he lost the antarābhava of the fourth dhyāna and then saw the signs of the antarābhava of Avīci. At his death, he was born directly into the Avīci hells."

The bhikṣus asked the Buddha: "Where was the bhikṣu who dwelt in the forest born after his death?" The Buddha said: "This man was born in the Avīci hells." The bhikṣus were greatly astonished and said: "Can seated meditation and observance of the precepts lead to this?" The Buddha replied as before: "All this is due to pride. When he attained the four dhyānas, he thought he had attained the four fruits. At the moment of his death, seeing the signs of the antarābhava of the fourth dhyāna, he conceived a false view, thinking: 'There is no nirvāṇa. I am an arhat, and yet I am going to be reborn. The Buddha has lied.' At that moment, he saw the signs of the antarābhava of Avīci and, at his death, he was born directly into the Avīci hells."

At that time, the Buddha uttered this verse: "Learning, observance of the precepts, meditation, Without having attained the dharma of the exhaustion of impurities, Even possessing these merits, This matter is difficult to believe. Falling into hell comes from slandering the Buddha, It has nothing to do with the fourth dhyāna."

This bhikṣu is called "the monk of the four dhyānas," or also "the unlearned monk." This account warns against the error of taking the four dhyānas for the four fruits, and against the false view of slandering the Buddha. It is a great assembly of humans and gods. From the time of the Tathāgata until today, in India as in China, it warns against those who take for truth what is not, like one who, having attained the four dhyānas, takes them for the four fruits, and mocks them.

The faults of this monk can be briefly summarized in three points. First, although he was an unlearned man incapable of distinguishing by himself the four dhyānas from the four fruits, he vainly left his master and dwelt alone, uselessly, in the forest. By chance, it was the time of the Tathāgata; if he had constantly gone to the Buddha, seeing and hearing the Dharma perpetually, he would not have committed such an error. However, because he dwelt alone in the forest and did not go to the Buddha, not seeing and not hearing the Dharma constantly, it was thus. Even if he did not go to the Buddha, he should have gone to the great arhats to request teachings.

Dwelling alone uselessly is the error of pride. Second, thinking that the first dhyāna is the first fruit, the second dhyāna the second fruit, the third dhyāna the third fruit, the fourth dhyāna the fourth fruit, this is the second error. The characteristics of the first, second, third, and fourth dhyānas and those of the first, second, third, and fourth fruits are not comparable. To what could they be compared? This comes from the fault of

ignorance. It is the fault of not serving a master and relying on darkness.

Among Upagupta's disciples, there was a bhikṣu. Having left home with faith, he attained the four dhyāna and thought they were the four fruits. Upagupta, by skillful means, sent him elsewhere. On the way, he converted bandits, then five hundred merchants. The bandits attacked the merchants, killing them and leaving a carnage.

The bhikṣu, seeing this, was seized with fear and immediately thought: "I am not an arhat; I must be of the third fruit." After the merchants disappeared, a daughter of a notable said to the bhikṣu: "Please, venerable one, come with me." The bhikṣu replied: "The Buddha did not permit me to travel with a woman." The woman said: "I hope the venerable one will allow me to follow behind him." The bhikṣu, out of compassion, agreed to let her follow at a distance. The venerable one then transformed the path into a great river. The woman said: "Venerable one, let us cross together." The bhikṣu was downstream, the woman upstream.

The woman fell into the water and cried: "Venerable one, save me!" At that moment, the bhikṣu took her by the hand to pull her out. He felt a sensation of softness and fineness, a loving desire awoke in him, and he immediately knew he was not an anāgāmin. Toward this woman, he conceived an extreme attachment. As he was taking her to a secluded place to have relations with her, he saw that it was his master. Great shame seized him, and he remained there, head bowed.

The venerable one said to him: "You who formerly took yourself for an arhat, how can you wish to commit such an evil action?" He took him to the assembly of monks, made him perform repentance, expounded to him the essence of the Dharma, and he attained arhat.

This bhikṣu, although he initially committed the error of a false view, was frightened upon seeing the murderous carnage. At that moment, he thought he was not an arhat, but he still committed the error of thinking he must be of the third fruit. Later, because of the sensation of softness and fineness, a loving desire awoke in him, and he knew he was not an anāgāmin. He did not conceive a thought slandering the Buddha, nor a thought slandering the Dharma, nor a thought going against the holy teachings. He was not like the monk of the four dhyāna. This bhikṣu, because he had the strength of having studied the holy teachings, knew by himself that he was neither an arhat nor an anāgāmin. The ignorant of today, not knowing what an arhat is nor what a Buddha is, do not know that they are neither arhats nor Buddhas, and wrongly claim that they are Buddhas; this is a great error, a profound fault. Practitioners must first learn what a Buddha is.

An ancient master said: "One who studies the holy teachings vaguely knows the stages. Even if he produces excesses, he is also easy to enlighten." Truly, the words of the ancient master are correct. Even if one commits the error of a false view, those who have studied a little of the Buddha's Dharma will not let themselves be deceived, nor deceive others. We have heard of a man who claimed to have become Buddha. Waiting for the day not to dawn, he thought it was a demonic obstacle. When the day came, not seeing Brahmā come to ask him to teach, he knew he was not Buddha. He claimed to be an arhat.

Then, being insulted by others, a different thought arose in him, and he knew he was not an arhat. Then he thought he was of the third fruit. Then, seeing a woman, a desire awoke, and he knew he was not a saint. This also comes precisely from knowing the characteristics of the teachings, and it is thus. Those who know the Buddha's Dharma discern their own faults in this way and quickly reject their errors. Those who

Those who do not know pass their lives in vain in darkness and ignorance. Life after life, they will receive similar existences. This disciple of Upagupta, although having attained the four dhyāna and taking them for the four fruits, nevertheless possessed the wisdom to know "I am not an arhat." The unlearned monk, at the moment of his death, if he had seen the antarābhava of the fourth dhyāna appear and had known he was not an arhat, would not have committed the crime of slandering the Buddha. All the more so, after having attained the four dhyāna, how could he not have reflected to know that he did not have the four fruits? If he had known he did not have the four fruits, how could he not have changed? He stubbornly persisted in vain in his erroneous conceptions and uselessly sank into false views.

Thirdly, at the moment of his death, he committed a great error, a fault so profound that he ended up falling into the Avīci hells. Even if you, throughout your life, have thought that the four dhyāna were the four fruits, at the moment of your death, if you see the antarābhava of the fourth dhyāna appear, you must repent the error of your life and think that you do not have the four fruits. How could one think that the Buddha would have deceived me, establishing that there is a nirvāṇa when there is none? This is the fault of ignorance. This crime is already a slander of the Buddha. Because of this, the antarābhava of Avīci appeared, and at his death, he fell into the Avīci hells.

Even if he were a saint having the four fruits, how could he equal the Tathāgata? Śāriputra was for a long time a saint having the four fruits. If one gathered all the wisdom of the three thousand great thousand worlds, removed that of the Tathāgata to make a share, and compared this share, one-sixteenth of Śāriputra's wisdom, with all the wisdom of the three thousand great thousand worlds, it would not reach one-sixteenth of that of Śāriputra. However, hearing the Tathāgata expound a Dharma never taught before, he knew that the words of past and future Buddhas were different, and did not think that the Tathāgata was deceiving him.

He praised him, saying: "Māra does not have this." The Tathāgata surpasses merits, Śāriputra does not surpass merits. That the four fruits and the fruit of buddhahood are so different, this is how it is. Even if one were like Śāriputra and all the disciples, filling the ten directions, one could not measure the wisdom of the Buddha. Confucius and Laozi do not have such merits. Those who study the Dharma of the Buddha, who would not measure Confucius and Laozi? Those who study Confucius and Laozi have never measured the Dharma of the Buddha.

People of the great country of Song today largely establish that the way of Confucius and Laozi and the way of the Buddha are one and the same doctrine. These are deeply rooted erroneous views. One should expound on this in detail later. The monk of the four dhyāna, taking his own erroneous view for the truth, thought that the Tathāgata was deceiving him, and long opposed the way of the Buddha. His extreme ignorance must be similar to that of the six heterodox masters.

An ancient master said: "During the lifetime of the Great Master, there were already people with erroneous conceptions and false views, all the more so after his extinction, without a master, those who have not attained dhyāna." Here, the Great Master refers to the Buddha, the World-Honored One. Truly, during the lifetime of the World-Honored One, those who had left home and received the precepts could not escape the error of erroneous conceptions and false views due to their ignorance. All the more so after the extinction of the Tathāgata, in the fifth five-hundred-year period, in peripheral and inferior times and places, how could there not be errors? Those who have developed the four dhyāna are

Even more so. How much more those who have not developed the four dhyāna, those who vainly immerse themselves in the pursuit of fame and love of gain, those who covet official positions and worldly paths, are not worth discussing. Today, in the great country of the Song, there are many ignorant and foolish people. They say that the Dharma of the Buddha and the teachings of Laozi and Confucius are identical, with no difference in the path.

During the Jiatai era of the great Song, there was a monk named Zheng Shou. He compiled and presented the Pudeng lu in thirty volumes, saying: "Your servant has heard the words of Master Zhìyuán of Gushan: 'Our path is like a tripod, the three teachings are like the legs. If one leg is missing, the tripod topples.' Your servant admired this man and examined his words. I have thus learned that the teaching of the Confucians has as its essence the sincerity of intention, the teaching of the Taoists has as its essence the emptiness of the heart, the teaching of the Buddhists has as its essence the seeing of nature.

Sincerity of intention, emptiness of the heart, seeing of nature, different names but identical essence. In examining where they lead, there is nothing that does not meet this path, etc." There are many people with erroneous conceptions and false views like this, not only Zhìyuán and Zheng Shou. These people have an error deeper than that of taking the four dhyāna for the four fruits. They must slander the Buddha, the Dharma, the Saṅgha. They reject liberation, they reject the three times, they reject causality. They inevitably attract calamities and disasters, no doubt. They are similar to those who think there is neither Three Jewels, nor Four Noble Truths, nor four kinds of śramaṇa.

The Dharma of the Buddha does not have as its essence the seeing of nature; where, among the twenty-eight patriarchs of the West and the seven Buddhas, is it said that the Dharma of the Buddha is only seeing of nature? In the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, there are words about seeing nature, but this book is a forgery, it is not a book of the Śāstra of the transmission of the Dharma, these are not the words of Caoxi, it is a book that the descendants of Buddhas and patriarchs absolutely do not use. Zheng Shou and Zhìyuán, because they do not even know a corner of the Dharma of the Buddha, establish the erroneous conception of a three-legged tripod.

An ancient master said: "Laozi and Zhuangzi do not even know, in the Small Vehicle, what grasps and what is grasped, what destroys and what is destroyed. How much more, in the Great Vehicle, what is grasped or destroyed. Therefore, they are in no way identical to the Dharma of the Buddha. However, the ignorant of the world stray in names and appearances, the false practitioners of dhyāna confuse themselves in the right principle, and want to equate the names of 'Way and Virtue,' 'Freedom and carefreeness' with the doctrine of liberation of the Dharma of the Buddha. How would that be possible?" Since ancient times, those who stray in names and appearances, those who do not know the right principle, assimilate the Dharma of the Buddha to Zhuangzi and Laozi. Among those who have studied the Dharma of the Buddha a little, there is not one, since ancient times, who has considered Zhuangzi and Laozi important.

The Sūtra of the Practices of the Pure Dharma says: "The bodhisattva Candraprabha is called there Yan Hui, the bodhisattva Vimalaprabhāsa is called there Confucius, the bodhisattva Kāśyapa is called there Laozi, etc." Since ancient times, some cite this passage from the sūtra to say that Confucius, Laozi and others being bodhisattvas, their teachings must secretly be identical to those of the Buddha, or that they must be emissaries of the Buddha, their teachings naturally being those of the Buddha. These sayings are all

Erroneous. An ancient master said: "According to the various catalogues, all reject this sūtra, considering it doubtful and apocryphal, etc." If one follows this statement, it appears even more clearly that the Dharma of the Buddha and Confucius-Laozi are different. Since they are bodhisattvas, they cannot be identical to the fruit of buddhahood. Moreover, the merit of harmonizing with the light and manifesting traces is solely the dharma of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times. This is not within the reach of ordinary people and the profane; how could profane people with actual deeds be free in the manifestation of traces?

Confucius and Laozi have no teaching on the manifestation of traces; all the more so, Confucius and Laozi do not know the prior causes, do not teach the future fruits. They simply take as principle the loyalty of one lifetime, the art of serving the sovereign and governing the family, and have no teaching on future lives. They must belong to the category of annihilationist views. He who says: "To detest Zhuangzi and Laozi is to not even know the Small Vehicle, all the more so the Great Vehicle," is an enlightened master of ancient times. Those who say that the three teachings are identical are Zhìyuán, Zheng Shou, ignorant and obscure profane people of decadent times.

With what superior and eminent merit do you possess to despise the sayings of the virtuous sages of ancient times and falsely claim that Confucius-Laozi and the Dharma of the Buddha are identical? Your views are absolutely insufficient to discuss the penetration or obstruction of the Dharma of the Buddha. You must take your tablets and go instruct yourselves under an enlightened master. Zhìyuán, Zheng Shou, you absolutely do not know the two Vehicles, great and small. You are more obscure than one who, having attained the four dhyāna, takes them for the four fruits. It is sad that, where the wind of decadence blows, there are so many of these sons of Māra.

An ancient master said: "Like the words of Confucius and the Duke of Zhou, the books of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, using filial piety to govern the family, loyalty to govern the country, assisting the country and benefiting the people, this only concerns the interior of a single lifetime, and does not save the past and the future. To equate them with the benefit of the Dharma of the Buddha for the three times, is this not an error?" Truly correct are the words of the ancient master. They perfectly reach the ultimate truth of the Dharma of the Buddha and illuminate the reason of the world.

The words of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors do not reach the teachings of a cakravartin king. They cannot be compared to the sayings of Brahmā and Indra. The domain they govern, the fruit they obtain, is infinitely inferior. A cakravartin king, Brahmā, Indra do not yet reach a bhikṣu who has left home and received the precepts. All the more so, how could they be identical to the Tathāgata? The books of Confucius and the Duke of Zhou also do not reach the eighteen great sūtras of India. They cannot be compared to the texts of the four Vedas. The Brahmanical teaching of Western India is not yet identical to the Buddhist teaching. It does not even equal the teaching of the śrāvaka of the Small Vehicle. It is pitiful. The small peripheral country of China has heterodox doctrines affirming the identity of the three teachings.

The fourteenth patriarch, the bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, said: "The great arhat and pratyekabuddha know eighty thousand great kalpa; the great bodhisattvas and the Buddhas know innumerable kalpa." Confucius, Laozi and others do not even know the before and after in a single lifetime; would they have knowledge of past lives for one or two existences? All the more so, how could they know

would they know a kalpa? How much less would they know a hundred kalpas, a thousand kalpas? How much less would they know eighty thousand great kalpas? How much less would they know countless kalpas? To compare Confucius, Laozi, and others to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas who see and know these countless kalpas clearly, more clearly than their own palms, is beyond darkness and ignorance. Do not lend an ear to words about the identity of the three teachings. This is the most heterodox of heterodox doctrines.

Zhuangzi said: "Nobility and baseness, suffering and joy, right and wrong, gain and loss—all of these are natural." This view is already of the same kind as that of the heterodox teachers of Western India who profess the view of naturalness. Nobility and baseness, suffering and joy, right and wrong, gain and loss are all results produced by good and evil actions. Not knowing the actions that fill and the actions that lead, not discerning the past and the future, they are obscure regarding the present; how could they be identical to the Dharma of the Buddha?

Some say: "Since the Tathāgatas broadly realize the dharma-dhātu, the minute dust particles and the dharma-dhātu are all the realization of the Tathāgatas. Thus, the environment and the main body both being the realization of the Tathāgata, mountains, rivers, the great earth, sun, moon, stars, the four perversions and the three poisons are all the realization of the Tathāgata. To see mountains and rivers is to see the Tathāgata; to say that the three poisons and the four perversions are not the Dharma of the Buddha, that does not exist. To see a minute dust particle is identical to seeing the dharma-dhātu. Precipitous or inverted situations are all sambodhi.

This is called great liberation. It is named the directly transmitted patriarchal way." Those who speak thus are, in the great land of Song, as numerous as rice, hemp, bamboo, and reeds; they fill the court and the countryside. However, it is not clearly known whose descendants these people are; roughly speaking, they do not know the way of the Buddhas and patriarchs. Even if one says it is the realization of the Buddhas, mountains, rivers, the great earth do not suddenly cease to be the vision of ordinary people; it is because they have not learned, have not heard the reason why this becomes the realization of the Buddhas.

You who say that seeing a minute dust particle is identical to seeing the dharma-dhātu, it is like saying that the common people are identical to the king. And why do you not say that seeing the dharma-dhātu is identical to seeing a minute dust particle? If one took the view of these people for the great way of the Buddhas and patriarchs, the Buddhas could not appear in the world, the patriarchs could not manifest, beings could not attain the way. Even if one deeply realizes that life is non-arising, it is not this reason.

The tripiṭaka Paramārtha said: "China has two blessings: first, there are no rākṣasa; second, there are no heterodox teachers." This statement truly means that there has been no transmission of the Brahmanical heterodox teachings from Western India, and that there are no heterodox teachers who have attained the way. However, it does not mean that there are no people producing heterodox views. One does not yet see rākṣasa, but it is not true that there are no people of the heterodox kind. Because it is a small peripheral country, it is not like central India; although they practice the Dharma of the Buddha a little, no one there attains realization as in India.

An ancient master said: "Nowadays, there are many who return to lay life; fearing and dreading royal corvée duties, they enter among the heterodox. They steal the meaning of the Dharma of the Buddha,

They secretly interpret Zhuangzi and Laozi, ultimately creating confusion, misleading beginners about what is correct and what is erroneous. This is producing the view of the dharma of the Vedas." Know that those who do not know which, the Dharma of the Buddha or Zhuangzi-Laozi, is correct, which is erroneous, and who confuse them, are beginners; the Zhìyuán and Zheng Shou of today are among them. Not only are they extremely ignorant and foolish, but their lack of study is evident, manifest. Recently, among the monks of the Song, there is not a single one who knows that Confucius and Laozi do not attain the Dharma of the Buddha.

Even if there are, among those who bear the name of descendants of the Buddhas and patriarchs, as many as rice, hemp, bamboos, and reeds, filling the mountains and countryside of the nine provinces, there must not be half a person who clearly understands that the Dharma of the Buddha is eminent beyond Confucius and Laozi. Only my former master, the ancient Buddha Tiāntóng, clearly understood that the Dharma of the Buddha and Confucius-Laozi are not identical. He expounded it day and night. Although there are masters of sūtra and śāstra, renowned commentators, none clearly understand that the Dharma of the Buddha far surpasses the domain of Confucius and Laozi. The commentators of the last hundred years mostly imitate the attitude of those who practice dhyāna and study the way, and seek to steal their understandings; it can be said that they are fundamentally in error.

The books of Confucius speak of innate knowledge; the Buddhist teaching has no innate knowledge. The Dharma of the Buddha has the teaching of śarīra; Confucius and Laozi do not know