Posts
道元禅师《办道话》-洪文亮老师(日中)翻译 (12/11/2009)
问：有人说不要怕生死，因为有一种很快可以出离生死的方法。这就是说只要知道心性常住就对了。此身有生有灭，可是心性却不灭。假如知道不生不灭的心性在我们的身中，就是我们本性，而身体是一个假相，死此生彼不定，心却常住在过去现在未来而不变，如能这样了解便永远解脱生死。此生死时，即入性海，入性海自然就有诸佛如来的妙德，现在虽然已经明白这个道理，因为被前世的妄业所成的身体还在，所以还不能和诸圣一样。如果还不知道此理，那就永远会在生死海中头出头没。因此之故，只要你赶快明了心性的常住，何必闲坐空过一生，等待空花结果？这样的说法，是诸佛诸祖正传的法吗？
答：现在你所说的完全不是佛法，是仙尼外道之见。这个外道之见是说，我们身体里有个灵知，这个知，遇缘就能分别善恶是非、痛痒苦乐。而此灵性当此生灭时，离此生彼，看来似乎此灭彼生，所以认为常住不灭，这是外道之见。他们以为这是佛法，简直是把瓦砾当金宝，这种痴迷真可羞，无以为喻。大唐国的慧忠国师深诫这个说法，计著心常相灭的邪见，以为是诸佛的妙法，起生死的本因，而以为能离生死，非愚为何？可叹可伶！要知道这是外道的邪见，不可听！事到如今不得已，为了伶悯这些人，救救此邪见，我再来申说一番。
佛法本来说明身心一如、性相不二，印度中国都知道这个道理，哪能违背？何况若要说常住，万法都是常住，不分身与心；要说寂灭，诸法都是寂灭，还要分心与相吗？说身灭心常，不是违背正理吗？不只这样，应该要了解生死就是涅槃，不可以在生死之外说涅槃。再说，以为心离开身体而常住，以这样的了解，妄计为解脱生死的佛智，要知道这个了解知觉之心，还不是在生灭中而不常住吗？这个见解便不攻自破。仔细体会身心一如是佛法的要旨，怎么说此身生灭时，唯独此心离身而不生灭！假如有时一如，有时非一如的话，佛所说的自然都是虚妄不可信。又认为生死必须要厌离，难免就犯了谤佛之罪，可不慎哉？要知道佛法有心性大总相法门，包括一大法界，不分性相，不说生灭，菩提涅槃也都是心性。一切诸法万象森罗都是一心，这些诸法皆平等一心，毫无差别，这是佛家所说的心性。可以在一法上分身心，分生死涅槃吗？既然我们都是佛的学生，不要去听狂人胡言乱语、这些外道之见。
The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo
oseSpn57mh0a7288l501
Shared with Your friends
From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen
Question Ten:
Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.
"Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"
What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?
Answer 10:
You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.
According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.
But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.
I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.
Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?
You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.
Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.
In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.
7 Comments
Ryan Weeks
What translation is this? I ask because they are wildly different...
BOOKS.GOOGLE.COM.SG
The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo
Soh Wei Yu
I also like this translation:
Soh Wei Yu
He
may then respond, “There are some who say: Do not grieve over birth and
death, since there is an extremely quick method for freeing yourself
from them, namely, by understanding the principle that it is the innate
nature of one’s mind to be ever-abiding, to persist without change. This
means that, because this physical body has been born, it will
inevitably come to perish, but even so, this innate nature of the mind
will never perish. When someone fully comprehends that the innate nature
of his mind—which is never swept away by birth and death—is in his
body, he sees it to be his true and genuine nature. Thus, his body is
but a temporary form, being born here and dying there, ever subject to
change, whilst his mind is ever-abiding, so there is no reason to expect
it to vary over past, present, and future. To understand the matter in
this way is what is meant by being free from birth and death. For the
one who understands this principle, his future births and deaths will
come to an end, so that when his body expires, he will enter the ocean
of real existence. When he flows into this ocean of being, he will
undoubtedly possess wonderful virtues, just as all the Buddhas and
Tathagatas have done. Even though he may realize this in his present
life, he will not be exactly the same as those Holy Ones, since he has a
bodily existence which was brought about through deluded actions in
past lives. The person who does not yet understand this principle will
be ever spun about through successive births and deaths. Therefore, we
should just make haste and fully comprehend the principle of the innate
nature of the mind being ever-abiding and persisting without change. To
pass one’s life just sitting around idly, what can be gained by that?
Such a statement as this truly corresponds to the Way of all the Buddhas
and all the Ancestors, don’t you think?”
I
would point out, “The view that you have just expressed is in no way
Buddhism, but rather the non-Buddhist view of the Shrenikans.10 This
erroneous view of theirs may be stated as follows:
In
our bodies there is a soul-like intelligence. When this intelligence,
or intellect, encounters conditions, it makes distinctions between good
and bad as well as discriminating right from wrong. It is conscious of
what is painful or itches from desire, and is awake to what is hard to
bear or easy. All such responses are within the capacity of this
intelligence. However, when this body of ours perishes, this soul-like
nature sloughs it off and is reborn somewhere else. As a result, even
though it appears to perish in the here and now, it will have its
rebirth in another place, never perishing, but always abiding unchanged.
“So
this erroneous view goes. Be that as it may, your modeling yourself
upon this view and regarding it as the Buddha’s Teaching is more foolish
than clutching onto a roof tile or a pebble in the belief that it is
gold or some precious jewel. The shamefulness of such befuddled
ignorance and delusion beggars comparison. National Teacher Echū in
Great Sung China has strongly warned us about such a view. For you to
now equate the wondrous Dharma of all the Buddhas with the mistaken
notion that your mind will abide whilst your physical features perish,
and to imagine that the very thing which gives rise to the cause of
birth and death has freed you from birth and death—is this not being
foolish? And how deeply pitiable! Be aware that this is the mistaken
view of one who is outside the Way, and do not lend an ear to it.
(10.The
Shrenikans were a group of non-Buddhists who are thought to have
followed the teachings of Shrenika, a contemporary of Shakyamuni Buddha.
On occasion, they used terms similar to those in Buddhism, but with
different meanings.)
“Because
I now feel even greater pity for you, I cannot leave the matter here,
but will try to rescue you from your erroneous view. You should
understand that, in Buddhism, we have always spoken not only of body and
mind as being inseparable, but also of the nature of something and the
form it takes as not being two different things.
As
this Teaching was likewise well known in both India and China, we dare
not deviate from It. Even more, in Buddhist instruction that speaks of
what is persistent, all things are said to have persistence without
their ever being separated into categories of ‘body’ and ‘mind’.11
In
instruction that talks about cessation, all things are said to be
subject to cessation without differentiating whether they are of some
particular nature or have some particular form. So why do you risk
contradicting the correct principle by saying that the body ceases
whilst the mind permanently abides?
Not
only that, you must fully understand that ‘birth and death’ is nirvana:
there has never been any talk of a nirvana outside of birth and death.
Moreover, even though you may erroneously reckon that there is a Buddha
Wisdom that is separate from birth and death because you have worked it
out that the mind permanently abides apart from the body, this ‘mind’ of
yours—which understands, and works matters out, and perceives things,
and knows what they are—is still something that arises and disappears,
and is in no way ‘ever-abiding’.
Surely,
this ‘mind’ of yours is something completely transitory! “You will see,
if you give it a taste, that the principle of the oneness of body and
mind is something constantly being talked about in Buddhism. So, how
does the mind, on its own, apart from the body, keep from arising and
disappearing as this body of yours arises and perishes?
Furthermore,
were they inseparable at one time and not inseparable at another, then
what the Buddha said would, naturally, be false and deceiving. “In
addition, should you suddenly get the notion that eradicating birth and
death is what the Dharma is really about, it would lead you to sullying
the Precept against despising the Buddha Dharma. Do watch out for this! “
You
must also understand that what is spoken of in the Buddha’s Teachings
as ‘the Gate to the Teaching on the vast characteristics common to the
nature of all minds’ takes in the whole universe, without dividing it
into innate natures and their forms or ever referring to things as
‘coming into existence’ or ‘perishing’.
Nothing,
up to and including realizing enlightenment and nirvana, is excluded
from the innate nature of your mind. Each and every thing throughout the
whole of the universe is simply ‘the One Mind’ from which nothing
whatsoever is excluded. All Gates to the Teaching are equally of this
One Mind. To assert that there are no differences whatsoever is the way
the Buddhist family understands the nature of Mind. So, within this one
all-inclusive Dharma, how can you separate body from mind or split
‘birth and death’ off from ‘nirvana’? You are already a disciple of the
Buddha, so do not give ear to the clatter of a lunatic’s tongue as he
utters views that are off the True Track.”
(11.
Dōgen makes a distinction between the Buddhist concept of persistence
and the Shrenikan concept of abiding. With the former, all phenomena,
physical and non-physical, arise and continue on (‘persist’) for an
unspecified period before disintegrating and disappearing, whereas with
the latter, the mind is thought to remain (‘abide’) unchanged and
unchanging forever.)
Soh Wei Yu
Would you say the second translation is more accurate?
- Reply
- 25m
Ryan Weeks
Soh Wei Yu
hoo boy that's a complex question! Let me get back to you. The first
Waddell/Abe, the second is Shasta Abbey, right? I love Waddell's
translation of Genjokoan.
For
translating Dogen, I trust Carl Bielefeldt/Soto Zen Text Project for
accuracy and authority, but prefer Tanahashi/Leighton for most of the
meaning. Shasta is usually couched in lots of High Church Anglicanism
phrasing. But I am not familiar intimately with either of the
translations you posted.
- Reply
- 12m
Chris Marti
FWIW, I prefer the version that was posted first 
- Reply
- 2m
- Reply
- 2m
- Edited
Kogen Czarnik
I
would say that the first one is phrasing things into more natural
English language while the second is trying to be more literal and when
possible trying to keep the order of expression as in original text.
(besides the typo that they wrote "Song" instead of "T'ang" when
translating the piece about 慧忠国師）
- Reply
- 30m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 28m
- Reply
- 28m
- Reply
- 27m
