Miscellaneous Discussions on Buddhism (Part One)
Chapter Seven: Taking the Dharma as Refuge, Not the Person
I. Can One Truly Take Refuge in the Dharma Without Understanding the Sūtras?
When sentient beings have not cultivated to a certain stage and wisdom has not yet arisen, it is impossible for them to understand the sūtras. Many people believe they have understood the Buddhist sūtras, but in reality they are merely interpreting the meaning according to the words, far removed from what the World-Honored One intended to express. When a person trusts himself too much, he often misleads himself.
The Buddha said in the Sūtra in Forty-Two Chapters: 汝意不可信，证阿罗汉果才可信汝意。This was said to the śrāvaka disciples; if it were addressed to the Mahāyāna bodhisattva disciples, the Buddha might instead say: Your mind is not to be believed; only after realizing the intrinsic nature of your own mind may you trust your mind. Or he might say: Only by possessing the seed-wisdom of Consciousness-Only, entering the household of the Tathāgata, may you trust your mind. Because at that point, one has already realized the true reality of all dharmas, and wisdom has been developed and become relatively deep and penetrating. Before that, sentient beings should at least cultivate until they possess the eye of dharma-selection, so that they can discern right from wrong in some dharmas. Only with the eye of dharma-selection can one have the eye of teacher-selection; the two depend on each other.
It is evident that most sentient beings have not cultivated to the point of possessing the eye of dharma-selection, and their judgments of both dharmas and teachers are mistaken. They judge teachers based on reputation and external appearances, not on the teacher's wisdom. Because they themselves lack wisdom in the first place, they cannot see how deep or shallow the teacher's wisdom is. If sentient beings are overly self-confident or overly trusting of a teacher, they will mislead themselves. One should reflect well on the Dharma, discern teachers well, and correctly assess one's own level of wisdom. Most important of all is to cultivate more merit; when merit is complete, errors are few, and wisdom arises.
II. Blazing Wrong Views Prevent One from Cultivating According to the Dharma
The Heart Sūtra is a very short sūtra of only a bit over 260 characters, yet when ten people read it, there are ten understandings; when a hundred people read it, there are a hundred interpretations. Everyone says to take the Dharma as refuge, not the person, so in studying the Mahāyāna Dharma one should first take refuge in the Heart Sūtra. The Heart Sūtra is the general outline of the Mahāyāna Dharma; only by understanding the Heart Sūtra can one well realize bodhi. But in the current situation, where each person understands it differently, how can one take refuge in the Heart Sūtra? Everyone believes they are taking refuge in the Dharma, yet their understanding of the Dharma is mistaken—how can that be truly taking refuge? Everyone believes their own understanding is correct, but there is only one correct Dharma. With a hundred people having a hundred understandings, perhaps ninety-nine people's understandings are wrong. How can that be called taking refuge in the Dharma?
The Buddha everywhere taught true emptiness and wondrous existence, yet some people deny true emptiness and others deny wondrous existence. These two kinds of people hold views that are inherently contradictory and opposed, yet they can merge together and affirm each other—isn't that strange? Why does this happen? The reason is that sentient beings do not understand what their own views are actually like, and they lack the power of discernment regarding the Dharma. That is why wrong views are now so rampant and wrong dharmas can spread so widely, while sentient beings remain unaware of it. In the Dharma-ending age, sentient beings have meager merit and are willing to be misled. If sentient beings do not cultivate their merit, the future of the true Dharma is worrisome—it may perish rapidly. Then sentient beings will be plunged even deeper into burning affliction, unable to extricate themselves.
III. What Does "Taking the Dharma as Refuge, Not the Person" Mean?
Taking the Dharma as refuge, not the person: the Dharma refers to the authority of the ārya's words, or to realization-attestation—it is truth, not worldly talk, nor erroneous or flawed statements. Whatever accords with the principle of liberation taught by the Buddha, whatever accords with the principle of suchness taught by the Buddha—the entire Tripiṭaka and twelve divisions of sūtra teachings spoken by the Buddha are all dharmas that can be relied upon. All statements that accord and are concordant with these sūtra teachings are also dharmas that can be relied upon. Treatises produced through actual practice that accord with the sūtra teachings are also dharmas that can be relied upon, regardless of who spoke them. Even if ghosts and spirits can proclaim dharmas that accord with the sūtra teachings, those too are dharmas that can be relied upon—one does not look at the identity of the ghost or spirit. For example, if there is a treasure within a tattered garment, take the treasure directly and do not take the tattered garment.
Those who take the person as refuge can only observe a person's identity, status, wealth, beauty, and reputation, choosing those they personally like and admire. Whatever such a person says is regarded as golden words and jade pronouncements, and they cannot discern whether the words accord with the authority of the ārya's words or with what the Buddha taught—the harm is very great. Someone who can truly take the person as refuge is one in ten thousand, and it is extremely, extremely difficult—such a person is very hard to find!
How can one take refuge in the Dharma? First one must understand the Dharma in order to take refuge in it; if one does not understand the Dharma, there is no way to take refuge in it. When one cannot take refuge in the Dharma, one is taking refuge in persons. But sentient beings are severely lacking in merit, have not cultivated a corresponding eye of dharma-selection, lack fairly good powers of discernment, and their emotional attachments are deep and heavy. Therefore they lack the ability to take refuge in the Dharma, and the vast majority take refuge in persons—especially those with whom they have affinities, and those with reputations.
For example, the Heart Sūtra is the Dharma. If we wish to take refuge in the Heart Sūtra to correct ourselves, we must understand the true meaning of the Heart Sūtra, understand what its main purport is, and then cultivate according to it, developing the great prajñā wisdom and illuminating and seeing that the five aggregates are all empty. Only that is true taking of refuge. But among all the Buddhist students in the world, how many can understand the prajñā purport of the Heart Sūtra and cultivate according to this Dharma of the Heart Sūtra? Probably very few. If one cannot rely on the entire Heart Sūtra, relying on a single sentence, or even on the four characters "not arising, not ceasing," would also be good. Yet even for these four characters "not arising, not ceasing," not many people understand their prajñā content. So how would one take refuge in the Heart Sūtra to study and cultivate? Thus taking refuge in the Dharma is easy to say but quite difficult to do, due to insufficient wisdom and merit. Relying on the prajñā sūtras is already this difficult; if one were to rely on the Consciousness-Only sūtras, how many people could do so? Probably one in ten million would be hard to find. Almost everyone relies on reputation and power, unable to rely on the Dharma, much less on actual realization-attestation.
If everyone wishes to see the mind and attain enlightenment, they must thoroughly clarify the four characters "not arising, not ceasing" in the Heart Sūtra—what exactly do "not arising, not ceasing" mean? Understanding this meaning, one can then examine whether the dharma one or others have realized is of a nature that arises and ceases, or does not arise and cease, and whether it accords with what the Heart Sūtra says. If what is realized is a dharma of arising-and-ceasing nature, then it is a false dharma, not the true dharma that does not arise and cease—that would be realizing wrongly. Only what does not arise and cease is the true dharma, as the Heart Sūtra says.
We must know: what is enlightenment about? What is the object of enlightenment? What state is enlightenment? What level of view-knowledge must be reached at the time of enlightenment, and what is the state of body and mind? Then one must know how things operate at the three—faculty, object, and consciousness; one must know the activities and operations of the five aggregates; one must know the hidden meanings within those huatou; and one must all the more know the nature of the tathāgatagarbha, as well as how the tathāgatagarbha operates. With all this, one possesses the great prajñā wisdom, and only then is it truly and genuinely seeing the mind and attaining enlightenment. From then on, one can truly rely on the prajñā sūtras, on the dharma of the tathāgatagarbha, on prajñā wisdom.
We should cultivate in a down-to-earth way at all times, not only studying widely and hearing much, learning much theoretical knowledge, but also cultivating concentrated, precise realization. Some people are very diligent in their aspiration to study Buddhism, going everywhere to learn theoretical knowledge of the Dharma, and their knowledge of Buddhism is indeed quite rich. But they never reflect on whether the knowledge they have learned is correct, whether it can be realized, or when they will go realize it—they consider none of these questions. Whenever they encounter Buddhist knowledge, they absorb it, especially absorbing the dharmas taught by whoever is famous, by people with renown, without ever trying to discern, because they lack the ability to discern. In the sūtras, the Buddha never said that famous people are great good teachers (kalyāṇamitra) who should be relied upon; rather, he repeatedly urged us to take the Dharma as refuge, not the person.
If one does not cultivate merit ordinarily, then upon encountering the Buddhadharma one has no ability to discern whether it is right or wrong, and can only rely on reputation, on what is "commonly recognized." What is meant by "commonly recognized"? "Commonly" means the masses; "commonly recognized" means what the masses all believe. But truth is forever held in the hands of a very few; the wisdom of the masses is insufficient to discern the levels of the Buddhadharma. Among the masses, those with deep ignorance are the majority. Relying on the views of the masses is absolutely unreliable. In any group, whether worldly or Buddhist, try to find people with wisdom—how many can be found? One in ten thousand, perhaps one can be found, perhaps not even one. In every group there is a dark mass of ignorant people, with hardly any who have wisdom. If you believe in what is "commonly recognized," you are believing in ignorance.
Why did the Buddha, as he was about to enter parinirvāṇa, admonish his disciples to take the Dharma as refuge, not the person? Because taking refuge in the Dharma is very hard to accomplish. People who do not understand the Dharma and lack merit simply cannot rely on the Dharma; they can only rely on persons. If one relies on the right person, that is merit cultivated in past lives, and it also comes about through causes and conditions. Most people do not rely on the right person. If one does rely on the right person, cultivation is very fast, and one will not end up with a lifetime of nothing accomplished.
IV. Insufficient Roots of Goodness and Merit Prevent Many from Relying on the Dharma
Everyone shouts about taking the Dharma as refuge, not the person, yet very few can actually rely on the Dharma—most rely on persons, because the Buddhadharma is so difficult, and their own roots of goodness and merit from past lives are insufficient. They do not understand the Dharma and cannot judge rationally whether a dharma is right or wrong, or the level of what is right and the degree of what is wrong—these are all very hard to determine. To rely on the Dharma is thus extremely, extremely difficult. So they can only rely on persons: those with whom they have affinities, some famous people, some so-called commonly recognized people. That is all sentient beings can manage; relying on the Dharma is very hard for them. This is a very widespread phenomenon in Buddhism today. If one relies on a person and can rely on the right person, that is fine too—being able to judge the level of that person's dharma teaching and relying on what is correct means relying both on the person and on the Dharma. Relying without understanding the Dharma is blind reliance, like gambling on luck, entirely sustained by great merit.
Ordinary beings indeed find it very hard to rely on the Dharma rather than the person. Then, after seeing the mind, can one fully rely on the Dharma and not the person? Bodhisattvas who have seen the mind will discover that there are many more dharmas they do not understand; previously they never knew they were so ignorant, which is why arrogance overflowed everywhere and they constantly competed with others over superiority. After seeing the mind, they know they are actually quite ignorant, and then they anxiously cultivate quickly, diligent day and night, pondering and exploring more of the mysteries within the Buddhadharma. Therefore, even after seeing the mind, because the delusions of ignorance as numerous as dust and sand still remain and foolishness is still great, one still cannot fully rely on the Dharma and not the person. Especially those with heavy emotional attachments mostly rely on persons and cannot fully rely on the Dharma.
Therefore, taking the Dharma as refuge and not the person is something every Buddhist student should strive to accomplish. Though it is not easy, by cultivating more merit one can rely on the right dharma and the right person—and relying on the right person is equivalent to relying on the Dharma. So as long as someone is a genuine good teacher, we should still take refuge in them. Such reliance on a person is reliance on the true Buddhadharma they teach, which is equivalent to taking refuge in the Dharma.
V. What Does "Taking the Dharma as Refuge, Not the Person" Mean?
As long as one does not engage in personality cults, does not venerate any single individual, and can contemplate the Buddhadharma in accordance with reality and truthfully, that is relying on the Dharma. Relying on the Dharma is difficult. With some profound dharmas, if one's meditative concentration is insufficient, one cannot contemplate them out. At such times the vast majority choose to rely on persons—on those who already have renown—believing that someone recognized by the majority must surely be without error. But we do not know what kind of people the majority are, or even what kind of people the vast majority are. The Sahā world is overwhelmingly filled with ordinary beings, and the wisdom and cognition of ordinary beings are not all that reliable; even those with shallow meditative concentration and wisdom—their wisdom and cognition are not reliable either. Therefore sages and absolute truth are not chosen by vote. Those who rely on persons are still overwhelmingly many. No matter how the Buddha admonished us to rely on the Dharma, with insufficient wisdom, merit, and meditative concentration, one simply cannot rely on the Dharma and can only rely on persons—and of course relying on famous people is glamorous.
VI. How Can One Achieve Taking the Dharma as Refuge, Not the Person?
The Dharma is the truth of how things actually are; all students must rely on the truth of how things actually are. If you do not know what that truth is, first, choose to keep silent—do not comment, do not evaluate, do not declare yes or no. Second, strive to search for and discover the truth of how things actually are, strive to prove whether a given dharma really is that truth; until there is evidence to prove it, choose silence.
In this way, the phenomenon of blindly relying on persons can be avoided. As long as someone is not a Buddha, whatever dharma they teach certainly has flaws and deficiencies. If one chooses to rely on the person, then one relies even on the flaws and deficiencies, and the consequences will not be optimistic. Even dharmas taught by the Buddha, as long as one did not hear them face to face but receives them through repeated transmission, may contain parts transmitted incorrectly, with mis-transmission occurring. As disciples of the Buddha, we should also strive to realize things ourselves, to see whether the dharmas passed down through transmission are actually true and reasonable. Before genuine wisdom has arisen, one should not casually evaluate them either.
VII. Relying on Persons Hinders Progress on the Path
If a Buddhist student lacks rationality and wisdom, has a psychology of worshipping celebrities and fame, likes to memorize famous people's writings, and does not engage in his own thinking, then his own thinking is easily restricted and obstructed, his train of thought easily blocked—all the way into future lives and the lives after those, it will be very hard to break through these restrictions, wasting one's own progress on the Path. How regrettable!
VIII. Without Rational Discerning Wisdom, One Cannot Rely on the Dharma
The mind consciousness and the manas are like two people. When one person cannot observe another person's psychology, one cannot categorically assert that the other person has no such psychology, no such thoughts, emotions, and so on—to say so is a fault. Therefore, when the mind consciousness is obscured by afflictions and has not transformed consciousness into wisdom, it is very difficult to observe the various functions and roles of the manas. When one cannot observe them, one must not render a verdict about the manas.
When the standard for defining a dharma is unclear, one cannot compare two dharmas and say that because A does not accord with B and is inconsistent with B, A must be wrong. Such a judgment is too hasty and irrational. Because B is not necessarily the standard, not necessarily correct, the inconsistency between A and B does not demonstrate that A is wrong.
When a person's wisdom is superb—understanding both A and B, and also knowing what the correct standard is—then one can judge and determine whether A is actually correct, and can also determine and judge whether B is correct. This is called taking the Dharma as refuge, not the person. Conversely, not knowing what the ultimate standard of the Dharma is, lacking the wisdom to discern whether A and B accord with the standard, and one-sidedly asserting that B is the standard because the masses recognize it, and that since A does not accord with B, A must be wrong—this situation absolutely belongs to relying on persons and not the Dharma; it belongs to emotional attachment and to the psychology of ignorance.
IX. What Should One Do to Take the Dharma as Refuge, Not the Person?
Relying on the Dharma means purely trusting and accepting the original true reality of the Buddhadharma, being able to truthfully judge whether a dharma is right or wrong—if right, rely on it and study and cultivate it; if wrong, steer around it and do not study it, and pass this on in turn to fellow practitioners and study companions. If you can discern whether a dharma is right or wrong, then no longer pay special attention to whether the author's name is famous, do not care about the person, and focus only on the dharma meaning. If the dharma meaning is true and correct, even if the author is labeled Māra Pāpīyas, pay no heed. If the dharma meaning is mostly wrong views, even if it is labeled with the name of Śākyamuni Buddha, take no interest in it.
For those who truly wish to rely on the Dharma and not the person in order to cultivate the unsurpassed Dharma: if we were to label the Buddhist sūtras with Māra Pāpīyas's name, claiming they were authored by Pāpīyas, and label the dharmas taught by Pāpīyas with the Buddha's name, presenting them as Buddhist sūtras, how would you judge the contents within? How would you treat these two kinds of dharma meanings? If we were to scramble all the authors' names of all texts and writings, or label them all as "anonymous," how should you treat the contents of these texts?
X. Truth Exists Independently of Sentient Beings' Narrow Cognition
All objectively existing principles and phenomena do not depend on whether some sentient beings, certain sentient beings, or all sentient beings understand or cognize them, nor on whether sentient beings acknowledge them—objective fact is fact. A blind person not seeing the sun and sky does not mean there is no sun and sky. Therefore, whether such dharmas as the beauty-property of a flower exists, or whether expressed form and non-expressed form on the five sense objects exist, does not shift according to sentient beings' views and cognition. Truth and objective fact require ignorant sentient beings to continually explore and excavate them; without exploration there is no discovery, and lack of discovery does not mean objective truth does not exist. It is called "objective" precisely because facts and laws do not shift according to the will of individual or collective sentient beings; one can only say whether sentient beings have the wisdom to discover and cognize them.
Sentient beings all take their mind consciousness far too seriously, so when the mind consciousness is foolish, it does not know it is foolish, and instead complains that there is no truth. Truth is right before one's eyes—what kind of eyes one uses to see it is a great question. In the Sahā world, when all or most sentient beings do not recognize the Buddhadharma and do not endorse it, Buddhas and sages will not come to this world to transmit the Dharma and teach. Sentient beings who do not wish to awaken cannot attract the light; even if the light shines constantly above their heads, they will still slumber without waking.
XI. Relying on the Meaning, Not the Words, Is Relying on the Dharma
Among the four reliances and four non-reliances, there is one: rely on the meaning, not the words. What does "meaning" refer to, and what does "words" refer to? When the Buddha taught the Dharma, he told sentient beings to rely on the true meaning within what the Buddha taught, not on the surface language of his teaching. Language is the surface meaning; the meaning is the hidden, true intent. So why, when the Buddha taught the Dharma, did he not directly state the true meaning, instead concealing and hiding his true meaning beneath the surface meaning?
Language corresponds to the mind consciousness and stays at the shallow surface meaning. But behind the language and words, there is a deeper level of meaning that the manas wishes to express. Under special circumstances, when some people speak or write, it is inconvenient, or they are unwilling, or it is very difficult to directly express their true thoughts, so they express things implicitly and covertly; the listener must listen for the meaning beyond the strings, and understand the meaning behind what is not on the surface of the words. Sentient beings find it somewhat easier to understand the surface meaning, but after all it is not the true meaning and is not ultimate. The deeper meaning is not easy for sentient beings to understand, but that is what the speaker truly wishes to express, the meaning he wants to convey to us.
Therefore, as the Buddha was about to enter parinirvāṇa, he told his disciples to rely on the meaning, not the words, having sentient beings rely on the ultimate meaning—the ultimate meaning being the true intent the Buddha wished to express. If sentient beings only understand and expound on the surface of the language, they have not understood the Buddha's true intent and have distorted the Buddha's true meaning.
When ordinary people speak, there is also explicit indication and implicit indication. Explicit indication is the surface meaning; implicit indication is the true meaning. Explicit indication is what the mind consciousness expresses through language and words; implicit indication is the true intention behind the language and words. Why not directly express one's true thoughts and intentions? In some settings, some thoughts cannot be expressed directly: one reason is concern that the other party cannot accept or understand them, fearing misunderstanding; another is a matter of method and strategy—inspiring a person to ponder deeply, the answer they derive through deep and careful reflection themselves is more readily accepted, and the wisdom is deeper.
Those who are skilled in the art of language use such skillful means. Even when the Buddha taught the Dharma, at times he was rather indirect, not directly expressing the true meaning in his heart. One reason was fear that sentient beings could not understand it or would develop misunderstandings; another was to guide sentient beings to reflect more deeply and draw their own conclusions, thereby increasing wisdom and faith—especially when sentient beings of different faculties were mixed together, the deep meaning could even less be expressed directly.
XII. For Ordinary Sentient Beings, "Rely on the Dharma, Not the Person" Is Merely a Slogan
People today do not cultivate meditative concentration, or cannot cultivate it well; they only play with their mouths, read a couple of books, have the mind consciousness "understand" a bit, and believe they have awakened—not even counting as awakening through understanding—yet claim they have awakening through realization. Therefore it is necessary for sentient beings of the Dharma-ending age to understand the difference between the manas and the mind consciousness, and for the masses to know what is awakening through understanding and what is awakening through realization, so as to prevent sentient beings from committing grave false speech.
The chaos of the Dharma-ending age is very severe. Sentient beings' emotional attachments are deep and heavy; they often say with their mouths to rely on the Dharma and not the person, but in practice it is the opposite. If sentient beings could cultivate rationally and according to the Dharma, truly relying on the Dharma and not the person—shouting fewer slogans and doing more actual deeds, striving to do things thoroughly—then truly relying on what the Buddha taught, the Buddha would be somewhat at ease. Not contravening the Buddha and practicing according to his teachings is equivalent to repaying the Buddha's kindness. Subdue emotional attachment a little, and one will see a little more of the truth of how things are. One should regard one's progress on the Path as paramount, not emotional attachment. Emotional attachment cannot save anyone; each person's karma is borne by that person, and no one can substitute for another.
If the mind can be broader and one's energy more abundant, one should regard Buddhism as paramount and the birth-and-death of sentient beings as paramount. And first one must understand the Buddha's kindness and find ways to repay it, not speak or act in ways that make the Buddha sad and pained. Know that the tathāgatagarbha stores seeds at every instant; in every moment of our speaking and acting, of our bodily, verbal, and mental actions, there is the tathāgatagarbha supervising and recording. Therefore we must hold reverent awe toward the tathāgatagarbha and toward cause and effect—not shouting it aloud with the mouth while in practice being otherwise.
XIII. Sentient Beings Cannot Rely on the Dharma Because of Blind Faith
To be able to personally realize all dharmas, to be able to observe them in direct perception—this is more important than anything. Even words spoken from the Buddha's own mouth should be personally observed and realized before one can finally confirm them without doubt. A principle one has personally verified is fact, and fact is more reliable than the Buddha's words. And what the Buddha personally spoke is more reliable than the transmitted sūtras, because the sūtras have passed through other mouths and other hands and are secondhand accounts. The sūtras are more reliable than the treatises of bodhisattvas of equal enlightenment; the treatises of bodhisattvas of equal enlightenment are more reliable than the treatises of other bodhisattvas; the treatises of other great bodhisattvas are more reliable than the words of ordinary beings. In the final analysis, no matter how reliable the sūtras and treatises are, nothing is more reliable than actual realization.
But now, even if the Buddha came in person to transmit the Dharma, all sentient beings could only trust and accept the sūtras, not what the Buddha personally spoke, because they would not know it was the Buddha descended into the world, and they themselves lack the wisdom to discern whether the dharma meaning is true and correct. What they trust would then be blind faith and cultish faith, not faith through realization, nor true faith—merely faith in the Buddha's reputation and prestige. If sentient beings believed that the Buddha had personally come to the Sahā world to transmit the Dharma, then they would believe what a Buddha appearing in a Buddha's form says, and would not necessarily have to believe the sūtras, even if the sūtras were perfectly true and correct. This also shows that sentient beings' faith in the Buddha and his teachings is blind faith and cultish faith, not faith through realization. If one believes the dharma taught by someone with a Buddha's appearance, then if Māra Pāpīyas manifested a Buddha's form and came to transmit the Dharma, how should one treat it? One would have to believe it completely, and then be led astray, sinking into birth-and-death, unable to attain liberation.
Therefore, of ten thousand words, only actual realization is most reliable. Believing only in fact, believing only in truth—this is the principle everyone should follow. But realizing the truth is an extremely, extremely difficult matter, requiring immense merit and wisdom; that is why sentient beings have no choice but to believe what comes from other mouths—an expedient of necessity. That is also why, as the Buddha was departing, he admonished and instructed his disciples over and over: one must follow the four reliances and four non-reliances. This shows that these four reliances and four non-reliances must be extremely difficult to accomplish—almost ninety-nine percent of people cannot do them, due to deficiencies in merit, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
On the other hand, as soon as one speaks of trusting actual realization, a portion of people with deep arrogance will trust only their own inferences and interpretations, believing these to be what they themselves have realized, and no longer believe what realized practitioners say, becoming ever more arrogant, to the point of deceiving themselves and others, and in the end still gaining no benefit from the Dharma. Regarding the phenomena of Buddhist study in the Dharma-ending age—even if the Buddha came, it would be difficult to manage. Sentient beings veer either left or right: either blind conformity or arrogance and excessive self-confidence. People with insufficient wisdom can hardly grasp an appropriate measure, can hardly hold to a fairly suitable degree—one might say even the world's physicians would throw up their hands.
When the root is gravely mistaken, whether the branches and leaves are right or wrong no longer matters. Teaching Consciousness-Only without having attained enlightenment is a laughingstock; even the wisdom of one who has awakened cannot necessarily teach Consciousness-Only well—without cultivation and realization of Consciousness-Only, how can one teach it? If today's Consciousness-Only teachings in this world were transmitted to later generations, and if this person has fame and authority, later people would worship him prostrate, and who knows how many genuinely cultivating Buddhist sons would be misled. People in the world often mistakenly assume that the works of famous and renowned masters are all correct and error-free, and that anyone who can teach Consciousness-Only must be someone with cultivation and realization. The ignorance of sentient beings lies precisely here—incurable.
If one propagates and studies this kind of Consciousness-Only, the more one propagates it, the greater the culpability; the more one studies it, the further from liberation. The path of cultivation is perilous, and all kinds of traps will be encountered; cultivating more merit and increasing wisdom is most essential. In later generations, these teachings will all become classical texts, and people tend to venerate the ancient. If they worship such erroneous classical texts, would that not harm people? How many people in the world have opened their eyes and can discern the right and wrong, the true and false, of classical texts?
XIV. When Master Sheng Preached the Dharma, Even Stones Nodded
The monk Daosheng once said a sentence: Even icchantikas can attain buddhahood. Because there was no basis or proof from the Buddhist sūtras, everyone believed this statement was wrong. But Master Daosheng held to his view and refused to change, so the crowd expelled him from the saṅgha. With no alternative, Daosheng preached this principle to the stones, and the stones were moved to nod. Before long, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra was transmitted from western India to China (Cīnasthāna), in which the Buddha said that after icchantikas have eliminated all ignorance and karmic obstructions, they can attain buddhahood, proving that what the monk Daosheng said was correct, and only then was he accepted by the saṅgha and returned to it. This shows that a true and genuine dharma, even without a Buddhist sūtra as its basis, is still truth, is right view. Truth does not shift according to people's will, and it is not necessarily the case that what the Buddha did not say is not truth.
