Among the fallacies in understanding the original meaning of the six ancestors, the most typical one is the five-character poem written by the Prime Minister on the west partition of Huangmei Ancient Temple, saying, "Bodhi has no trees, the mirror is not a stage, and there is nothing. Where can it cause dust? " Anyone who is slightly interested in Zen is familiar with it and the legend behind it. However, the story of "Six Ancestors' Poems and Five Ancestors' Reward Method", like the allusion of "Smiling at Flowers", has only religious significance but no historical significance, and it is a means to deify religion, and the five-character poem of "Six Ancestors' Knowing the Method" here is a fallacy that has been passed down through the ages. Tracing back to the source, the original basis of this book is the Hui Xin version of the altar sutra. Among the dozens of altar sutra books circulated through the ages, only four are truly representative, namely: Fa Hai Shu in the early Tang Dynasty (Dunhuang edition, 12000 words), Understanding Shu in the late Tang Dynasty (14000 words) and Song Qi Shu in the Northern Song Dynasty (more than 20,000 words). No matter from the age or the number of words, it can be inferred that the French version of the early Tang Dynasty is the most credible of all versions. In the earliest "Fa Hai Ben", the true face of this poem is: "Bodhi has no trees, and the mirror is not Taiwan. Buddha's nature is often clean, where is the dust? "In the late Tang Dynasty, Huixin took the lead in tampering with the lyrics and added,' There was nothing'. Because of this, Qi Songben and Zong Baocai handed down this false lyric from generation to generation. No matter whether this poem in Fa Hai Ben is a fabrication or not, at least the theme it expresses is consistent with Huineng Zen (Fa Hai Ben also includes a poem: "The heart is a bodhi tree, a mirror platform, clean in the mirror, where is the dust?" Ambiguous meaning, when Yan Wen). Hui Xin changed "the Buddha's nature is always pure" to "the essence is nothing", which can be said to be the opposite, obviously distorting the original meaning of the six ancestors, causing those who don't ask to look to literature for righteousness and forming an eternal misunderstanding of Hui Neng's Zen thought. As early as the Song Dynasty, Zen master Huanglong once questioned that fake poems were made out of nothing, saying that "the six ancestors had no husbands in those days, and thousands of people painted their own walls. Obviously there is nothing, but someone else gave me a bowl of charity. "Orfila also mistakenly thought that" it was nothing "was Huineng's original words, so he cynically accused him of not doing what he said. In fact, the Six Ancestors clearly advocated "pointing directly at people's hearts and regarding nature as Buddha" and "all beings have Buddha nature". How can they deny the Buddha nature itself and advocate "nothing"? The so-called "green bamboo" is all dharma bodies; The melancholy yellow flower is nothing more than Prajna, which is the best footnote of the theory of "truth is the origin". Huineng firmly believes that Buddha's nature (that is, sincerity and truth) is the total slaughter of the world and runs through everything in the world. In fact, it is not "empty" but "there". The difference between sentient beings is that their roots are blunt, and enlightenment comes early and late (there is a saying that "all beings are buddhas and buddhas are sentient beings"), so he will never fundamentally deny everything in the universe and think that "everything is empty". So, where did the phrase "there was nothing" come from? In fact, the original intention of Huixin's tampering may be to get closer to Prajna. Prajnaparamita (three theories) advocates "emptiness of nature", saying that there are all things in the universe, only illusions, and there is no "self-nature", and "having a origin and being empty" is the theory of "emptiness of nature". There are "eighteen emptiness" in wisdom theory and "twenty emptiness" in classic Prajnaparamita. The humble Prajna system is not "empty" everything. What it "empty" is only the self-nature of all things, and it still recognizes the existence of phenomena. Therefore, the concept of "nothing" not only distorts "truth is the source", but also distorts "the source of emptiness", which can be said to be a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddha's nature. It is precisely because of the same misunderstanding that the so-called "nothing comes first" and "everywhere" among the six schools of Prajna in the Jin Dynasty have been criticized. In fact, since Kumarajiva translated a large number of Prajna (Three Classics) Buddhist scriptures, the theory of "the origin of sexual emptiness" has been proved, and the theory of "emptiness without body" has been eliminated by history. It is obviously a stupid mistake for the tamper of the altar sutra to add the sentence "it didn't exist at all" The so-called "no first" thought obviously has not escaped the trace of Taoist creed and metaphysics. It is precisely because the six ancestors believed in the "existence" of Buddha nature that it is logical to accept the instrument of forbearance. The wisdom of changing its face for its own use should have been slandered by Buddhism (slander, loss of slander, parody, violation of slander). If the six ancestors' theory of Buddha's nature is mixed with Prajna Kongzong, it is tantamount to confusing Prajna's thought with Nirvana's thought, equating nothing with Dragon Tree Kongzong, and confusing Tiantai Sect with Sanlun Sect. Looking back, the phrase "Buddha's nature is always pure" in Hai Ben is completely consistent with the theory of Buddha's nature of Six Ancestors. Whether it comes from the mouth of the six ancestors or not, it is at least appropriate in the religious sense. The altar sutra was originally written as a manuscript, and even the earliest French version inevitably added branches and works. Many details are worthy of scrutiny. Once we compare several versions, we can see the historical background of the adaptation. For another example, the Tanjing repeatedly mentions the Diamond Sutra, which is actually a Prajna Sutra with a different theme from the Tanjing. Why? In the final analysis, it is for religious authority, which is why the Tanjing mentions the twenty-eight ancestors in the west and the six ancestors in the east, in order to announce to the world that Tianzhu Buddhism is still authentic despite its sinicization. The six ancestors quoted the Diamond Sutra only by borrowing this signboard, but they were not really convinced. Huineng's doctrine is "I note King Kong", not "King Kong notes me", so sometimes I don't know the details of the words in the Tanjing. In fact, the Tanjing, regarded as a classic of Zen Buddhism, is full of words and deeds fabricated for propaganda needs (such as the prediction of "one flower with five leaves"), and its clumsiness and roughness are numerous, which is unbelievable. Generally speaking, the first 33 sections are records of Hui Neng's law-making before his death, and the last 34 sections are addenda, which is even less credible. Even the oldest Fahaiben so far is not necessarily without beautification. Hu Shi's "Exploring Classics" fundamentally questioned its authenticity, trying to prove that "Exploring Classics" was actually written by a shrine and seemed to come from its own reasons.

Seek adoption