Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Second Collection, Part 5
Continuing the Second Collection (二筆) in the source text's own order. This section includes Zhuhong's own father's household teaching against any entanglement with officialdom, and his considered resolution of a real methodological dispute among Ming Buddhist teachers over whether Buddha-recitation should be paired with active Chan-style investigation.
81. 信施難消 — The Faith Offerings of Donors Are Hard to Truly Deserve
A monk's own self-reproach for burdening lay donors becomes an occasion for Zhuhong to compare monastic support to the debt a scholar owes his own family for funding his examination studies.
鄧豁渠自訟云：「為僧者幹自己事，帶累十方施主，委實難消。」誠哉言乎！夫僧人為自己生死，猶士人為自己科名也。為科名故，累諸鄰里親戚供給所需，成名則足以報之，名不成則所負多矣。不解此義，而唯嫌信施不廣，豈不大錯？！
Deng Huoqu confessed of himself: "For a monk to attend to his own affairs while burdening donors from every direction is truly hard to deserve." How true these words are! A monk attending to his own matter of birth and death is just like a scholar attending to his own examination success. For the sake of examination success, he burdens his neighbors and relatives to supply what he needs; if he succeeds, this is enough to repay them, but if he fails, then what he owes them only grows. Whoever fails to understand this principle, and merely resents that the faithful's offerings are not more generous, is gravely mistaken indeed!
Deng Huoqu was a genuinely unconventional Ming-dynasty figure — a follower of the Wang Yangming school who abandoned his own family to study, spent seven years in Chan investigation on Mount Qingcheng, and did not formally become a monk until age fifty-one; his own recorded self-criticism, that he "never wasted so much as a scrap of vegetable or a spoonful of water" once he grasped the preciousness of donated resources, gives concrete texture to the entry's argument about what monks actually owe their supporters.
82. 知道不能造 — Knowing the Way, Yet Unable to Attain It
A layman's honest confession of a life spent torn between duty and devotion becomes a sharp challenge to monks who, free of such worldly burdens, still waste their lives regardless.
五臺居士謂予曰：「吾知有此道而不克盡力，終其身不樂。今士人不知有此道者，得一第，快心五欲以為樂。吾既知之，不敢縱欲，而復以王事家事驅馳荏苒，今老矣！失人世之樂，又未得出世之樂，故鬱然終身。」此居士實語也。而自昧者多、自覺者少，誰道及此者？居士誠賢乎哉！今出家兒，無王事家事，乃亦一生空過，靜焉思之，五內驚慄！
The layman of Mount Wutai said to me: "I know that this Way exists, and yet I cannot apply myself to it fully, and so I have been unhappy my whole life. Scholars today, who do not even know this Way exists, obtain their examination degree and take their pleasure in the five desires, calling this happiness. Having already known of this Way, I dare not indulge my desires — and yet I have also been driven about, year after year, by affairs of state and of my own household. Now I am old! I have lost the happiness of worldly life, and have not yet gained the happiness that lies beyond the world — and so my whole life has been spent in gloom." These are truly honest words from this layman. And yet in this world, those who deceive themselves are many, and those who truly awaken are few — who else could speak such an honest truth? This layman is a genuinely worthy man indeed!
Monks today, with no burden of state affairs or household affairs at all, still let their whole lives pass by empty and wasted — reflecting on this calmly, my whole being trembles with alarm!
The Layman of Mount Wutai is Lu Guangzu, a genuinely eminent Ming official who rose to Minister of Personnel, repeatedly requested early retirement over political friction, and spent his retirement years in serious Buddhist study alongside Zhuhong himself — sponsoring the printing of a pocket-sized Buddhist canon and the compilation of the Wudeng Huiyuan lamp-transmission history; his confession here carries the weight of a man who genuinely had both the means and the education to pursue the Way, and still found worldly duty an obstacle he could not fully overcome.
83. 遠官字 — Keeping Far from Anything Bearing the Word "Official"
A rare piece of directly autobiographical writing: Zhuhong recalls his own father's household teaching against any entanglement with officialdom, and traces how he extended that single lesson into a lifelong monastic discipline.
先君子雖不仕，博學而篤行，多格言。嘗謂不孝曰：「帶一官字者，慎勿為之。」因問何謂帶一官字？先君子曰：「領官錢，織官段，中官鹽，作官保，乃至入官府為吏書，交結官人，囑託公事之類，皆是也。」予再拜服膺。後觀親識中，坐此而敗者十七八。由是推而廣之，即為官亦所不願。出家後，又推而廣之，不敢妄干有官大人；並誡徒眾，不得乞緣出入於官家，不得倚官勢與人搆訟，安貧守分，倖免於大愆。雖遵持佛敕，亦素聞於庭訓也，口澤未忘，曷勝於邑！
My late father, though he never held office himself, was broadly learned and scrupulous in conduct, and often spoke in maxims. He once told me, his unworthy son: "Whatever carries the word 'official' attached to it — be careful never to become involved in it." I asked him what he meant by "carrying the word official." My father answered: "Drawing government funds, weaving official-issue silk, brokering government salt, standing as a guarantor for official business, or even entering a government office as a clerk, cultivating connections with officials, or handling requests on behalf of official business — all of these count." I bowed twice in reverence and took this teaching to heart.
Later, observing my own relatives and acquaintances, I found that seven or eight out of every ten who came to ruin did so exactly through some such entanglement. From this I extended the principle further: even holding office myself would not be something I wished for. After leaving the household life, I extended it further still: I dare not casually associate myself with any official of high rank, and I have warned my own disciples never to seek alms by frequenting official households, and never to rely on official power to contend with others in a lawsuit — dwelling instead in contented poverty, keeping to one's proper station, is the only way to avoid great calamity.
Though I follow this now in obedience to the Buddha's own precepts, it is also something I have long heard from my own father's household instruction — his very words still linger on my lips, and how can I not feel overwhelmed with grief, thinking of a debt I can never now repay!
This is one of the very few entries in either collection where Zhuhong speaks directly of his own father, and the emotional close — grief at a debt of teaching he can never repay — is unusually unguarded for a writer who otherwise keeps his own biography mostly out of these notes; the entry also functions as a piece of real institutional history, recording the specific policy against seeking alms through official households that Zhuhong imposed on his own monastic community at Yunqi.
84. 念佛鏡 — The Mirror of Buddha-Recitation
A defense of a Tang-dynasty Pure Land treatise's controversial claim that even Chan's contemplation of mind and of the unborn falls short of Buddha-recitation — read through the lens of the famous "Four Selections" on Chan and Pure Land practice.
道鏡、善道二師作《念佛鏡》，以念佛與種種法門對舉，皆斷之曰：「欲比念佛功德，百千萬億分不能及一。」可謂篤信明辨，大有功於淨土矣！獨其對禪宗一章謂：「觀心者、觀無生者，亦比念佛功德，百千萬億分不能及一。」學人疑焉，予以為正，〈四料簡〉所謂「有禪無淨土」者是也。但執觀心，不信有極樂淨土；但執無生，不信有淨土往生，則未達即心即土，不知生即無生，偏空之見，非圓頓之禪也。反不如理性雖未大明而念佛已成三昧者，何足怪乎？若夫觀心而妙悟自心，觀無生而得無生忍，此正與念佛人上品上生者同科，又誰軒輊之有？
Masters Daojing and Shandao, in their Mirror of Buddha-Recitation, set Buddha-recitation side by side with every other method of practice, and in every case conclude: "Compared to the merit of Buddha-recitation, a hundred thousand million parts of these other methods could not equal even one part of it." This may be called a work of deep faith and clear discernment, of real service to the Pure Land teaching!
Only in its chapter comparing Buddha-recitation to Chan does it say: "Contemplating the mind, and contemplating the unborn — these too, compared to the merit of Buddha-recitation, cannot equal even one part in a hundred thousand million." Students have found this claim doubtful, but I consider it correct — this describes exactly the case the Four Selections describes as "having Chan but no Pure Land." Such a person clings only to contemplating the mind, and does not believe in the Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss; clings only to the unborn, and does not believe in rebirth in the Pure Land — this shows he has not yet penetrated the truth that mind itself is the Pure Land, and does not know that birth itself is unborn; his is a one-sided view of emptiness, not the perfect and sudden Chan at all. Such a person is, in fact, worse off than one whose understanding of principle is not yet fully clear, but who has already attained samādhi through Buddha-recitation — is this really so strange? But should someone contemplate the mind and thereby awaken subtly to his own mind, or contemplate the unborn and thereby attain the forbearance of the unborn, this is exactly equal in rank to the highest of the highest grade of rebirth among those who recite the Buddha's name — who, then, could rank one above the other?
The "Four Selections" are traditionally attributed to Yongming Yanshou (904–975), sixth patriarch of the Pure Land school and third patriarch of the Fayan Chan lineage — a figure whose own biography (a former treasury clerk who bought and released captive animals with government funds and was sentenced to death for it, only to be pardoned when his composure at the execution ground revealed his sincerity) already made him a byword for exactly the fusion of decisive action and genuine realization Zhuhong is arguing for here. The Mirror of Buddha-Recitation itself is a real Tang-dynasty treatise, compiled specifically to defend Buddha-recitation's superiority against rival methods, one chapter at a time.
85. 參究念佛 — Investigative Buddha-Recitation
A careful mediation of a real methodological dispute among three eminent Ming teachers over whether Buddha-recitation should be paired with the Chan technique of investigating "who is reciting the Buddha's name" — with a sharp warning against a mechanical mistranslation of that method into pure physical strain.
國朝洪永間，有空谷、天奇、毒峰三大老。其論念佛，天、毒二師俱教人看念佛是誰，唯空谷謂只直念去亦有悟門。此二各隨機宜，皆是也。而空谷但言直念亦可，不曰參究為非也。予於疏鈔已略陳之。而猶有疑者，謂參究主於見性，單持乃切往生，遂欲廢參究而事單持，言經中止云執持名號，曾無參究之說。此論亦甚有理，依而行之，決定往生，但欲存此廢彼則不可。蓋念佛人見性，正上品上生事，而反憂其不生耶？故疏鈔兩存而待擇，請無疑焉。若夫以「誰」字逼氣下行，而謂是追究念佛者，此邪謬誤人，獲罪無量。
In our own dynasty, during the Hongwu and Yongle eras, there were three great elders: Konggu, Tianqi, and Dufeng. On the subject of Buddha-recitation, both Tianqi and Dufeng taught people to investigate "who is it that recites the Buddha's name," while Konggu alone held that simply reciting straight through could also open a gate to awakening. Each of the two approaches suits a different capacity, and both are correct. Yet Konggu himself only said that reciting straight through was also acceptable — he never said that investigative recitation was wrong. I have already addressed this point briefly in my own Commentary on the Amitābha Sutra.
And yet some still remain doubtful, holding that investigative recitation aims chiefly at seeing one's own nature, while single-minded recitation is what truly leads to rebirth, and so wish to abolish investigative recitation entirely in favor of single-minded recitation alone — citing the sutra's own words, which speak only of "holding fast to the name," with no mention at all of investigation. This argument, too, has real merit, and whoever practices accordingly will certainly attain rebirth. But to keep the one and abolish the other is not acceptable. For should a person who recites the Buddha's name also see his own nature through it, this is exactly the mark of the highest of the highest grade of rebirth — why, then, should one worry that this would prevent his rebirth at all? This is why my own Commentary preserves both methods side by side, leaving the choice to the individual practitioner — I ask that no doubt remain on this point.
As for those who force the syllable "who" down into the pit of the stomach with clenched breath, and call this "investigating Buddha-recitation" — this is a deviant and mistaken teaching that misleads people, incurring immeasurable fault.
Konggu Jinglong, Tianqi Benrui, and Dufeng Benshan were all genuine, independently documented Ming Chan masters (recorded together in the Chan Guan Ce Jin, "Pressing Forward Through the Chan Barrier"), and their disagreement over method was real, not a rhetorical device — Zhuhong's own resolution, preserving both approaches side by side in his Commentary on the Amitābha Sutra rather than declaring a single winner, is characteristic of his broader approach to method disputes throughout this collection (compare his refusal to rank Chan investigation above devotional recitation in entry 84 immediately above). His closing warning against physically forcing the koan's key word into the abdomen addresses a genuine and documented misunderstanding of the technique current in his own day.
86. 急參急悟 — Investigate Urgently, Awaken Urgently
The Oxherd Layman's own warning against merely intellectual understanding of Chan, and Zhuhong's argument that genuine awakening shows itself precisely in calm readiness for death, not in some future effort still to come.
放牛居士，古杭人余氏子，參無門老人，得悟於宋淳祐中。其言曰：「大聰明人，纔聞此事，便以心意識領解，所以認影為真。到臘月三十日，眼光欲落時，向閻老子道：『待我澄心攝念卻與你去。』斷不可也，須是急參急悟。」放牛此語，可謂喫緊為人。若真實徹悟者，他平日踏得牢牢固固、穩穩當當，不動干戈，可以八面受敵，無常到來，安閒自如，不慌不忙，不怖不亂，何更待澄心攝念，勉強支吾耶？所謂急參急悟，吾輩當力圖之。
The Oxherd Layman, a native of old Hangzhou surnamed Yu, investigated under Elder Wumen and attained awakening in the Chunyou era of the Song. He said: "A person of great intelligence, the moment he hears of this matter, immediately grasps it through his own discriminating consciousness — and so mistakes a mere shadow for the real thing. When the last day of the twelfth month arrives, and the light is about to fade from his eyes, he will say to old King Yama: 'Wait while I settle my mind and gather my thoughts, and then I will go with you.' This will absolutely not be permitted — one must investigate urgently, and awaken urgently." The Oxherd Layman's words here may be called truly urgent and vital teaching for others.
If someone has genuinely and thoroughly awakened, he will have already tread firm, solid, and secure ground in his ordinary daily life, needing no struggle at all, able to meet challenges from every direction at once — and when impermanence finally arrives, he will remain at ease and unhurried, unafraid and undisturbed, with no need whatsoever to wait to settle his mind and gather his thoughts, forcing himself to cope at the last moment. This is exactly what is meant by investigating urgently and awakening urgently — this is something we ourselves ought to strive for with all our strength.
The Oxherd Layman is the same figure introduced in entry 79 above, whose treatise Barrier of Right and Wrong Zhuhong had singled out for rescue from obscurity; this entry pairs naturally with that earlier one, giving the same little-known lay practitioner a second appearance built around a single, memorably concrete image — "the last day of the twelfth month," a traditional Chinese figure of speech for the moment of death itself, when there is no more time left to prepare.