Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Third Collection, Part 7
Continuing the Third Collection (三筆). This section ranges widely: a blunt old friend's public rebuke of a hypocritical official, a debunked showman exploiting a genuine ritual for spectacle, a historical argument against corporal punishment, and two entries of careful doctrinal precision on the mind's own terminology and how to master it.
27. 周柳翁 — Old Zhou Liu
A blunt old friend publicly names a hypocritical official — devoted in appearance to religious retreat, but privately still hungry for court office — as one of three men whose heads ought to be displayed to shame the Buddhist community back into integrity.
周柳翁謂予曰：「今日釋門須是斫三人頭，懸之稿街，而後佛法始振矣！」時某官在坐，問三人為誰？答曰：「其一某，其二某。」問其三，直答曰：「老兄是也。」某官蓋此翁平日所素厚者，問故，則曰：「公託名阿練若，而心在含元殿故也。」某官不之瞋，作而曰：「至言也！」此翁以剛直不容於時，至於僧事，亦正氣凜凜若此，可畏也、可敬也。今僧實居阿練若，而有發願，願來生作御史者，可愧死矣！
Old Zhou Liu said to me: "Today, three heads must be cut from the Buddhist community and hung up in the marketplace for all to see — only then will the Buddha-dharma finally revive!" A certain official happened to be present, and asked who these three men were. He answered: "One is so-and-so, the other is so-and-so." Asked who the third was, he answered plainly: "You, my old friend, are the third." This official had, in fact, long been on close terms with the old man, and asked why. He answered: "Because you pretend to be devoted to a hermitage retreat, while your own heart remains fixed on the grand halls of the imperial court." The official did not grow angry at this, but rose and said: "These are truly penetrating words!"
This old man, on account of his own unyielding integrity, was never tolerated by the powerful men of his own time — and even in matters concerning the monastic community, he showed this same fierce, upright spirit, both fearsome and admirable. Today there are monks who genuinely dwell in mountain hermitages and yet vow to be reborn as a censor in their next life — should they hear Old Zhou Liu's words, they ought to die of shame!
This entry is a rare portrait of a real, unaffiliated lay figure whose fierce moral candor Zhuhong clearly admired — the "censor" (御史) he mentions in closing was a genuine imperial office responsible for investigating and impeaching corrupt officials, making the closing image particularly pointed: a monk who has ostensibly renounced worldly ambition still secretly aspiring, in his next life, to precisely the kind of powerful government post his present vows were meant to leave behind.
28. 沸湯施食 — Feeding the Hungry Ghosts with Boiling Water
A debunking of a showman-monk who substitutes a spectacular trick with boiling water for the genuine purification ritual, arguing the trick has nothing to do with the rite's actual scriptural purpose and exposing the inconsistency in his own claimed powers.
有自稱西域沙門，作燄口施食法師者，其灑淨也不用水，燃沸湯于瓶，以手擎而灑之，著人面不熱。人異之，請施食者絡繹；予以為此甚不足貴也。世之號端公太保者，尚能以紅鐵鍊纏束其肢體，利鋒刃刺入于咽喉，況此沸湯特其小小者耳！夫佛制施食，本為餓鬼飲食至口即成火炭，故作甘露水真言等以滅其熱惱，使得清涼，奈何其用沸湯也？此何佛所說？何經所載？惑世誣民，莫斯為甚矣！或謂其能化沸湯為冷泉，故不必用水。審如是，則亦能化臭腐以為沈檀，而不必用香矣；化黑暗以為光明，而不必用燈矣；化瓦礫以為棗栗，而不必用果矣；化草芥以為牡丹芍藥，而不必用花矣；化泥土以為稻麥黍稷，而不必用斛食矣。今何為香、花、燈、果、斛食一一如常法具辦，而獨于灑淨一事則用沸湯乎？明理者辨之。
There is a man claiming to be a monk from the Western Regions who performs the burning-mouth food-offering rite; instead of using water for the purification sprinkling, he boils water in a vessel and, holding it in his own hand, sprinkles it over the assembly — and yet it never feels hot on anyone's face. People find this astonishing, and requests for him to perform the rite have poured in without end; but I consider this nothing worth admiring at all. Even the ordinary shamans known as "attendant lords" among the common people can wrap red-hot iron chains around their own limbs, or thrust sharp blades into their own throats — how much more trivial, then, is a trick with mere boiling water!
The Buddha's own rite of food-offering was established precisely because, for hungry ghosts, any food turns to burning coals the moment it touches their mouths — this is exactly why the sweet-dew water mantra and other such incantations were composed, to extinguish their burning suffering and grant them coolness instead. Why, then, would boiling water ever be used? Which buddha ever taught this? In which sutra is it recorded? Nothing could more thoroughly deceive the world and mislead its people than this!
Some claim he can transform the boiling water into a cool spring, and so has no need for actual water at all. If this were truly so, then he ought to be equally able to transform foul decay into fragrant sandalwood, with no need for incense; transform darkness into light, with no need for lamps; transform broken tiles into dates and chestnuts, with no need for fruit; transform weeds into peonies, with no need for flowers; transform mud into rice and millet, with no need for offered grain at all. Why, then, does he still prepare incense, flowers, lamps, fruit, and offered grain exactly according to the ordinary established method, and only substitute boiling water for the purification sprinkling alone? Let those who understand the principle judge this for themselves.
The "burning-mouth" rite is a genuine and still widely practiced ritual, tracing back to Ānanda's own encounter with a starving ghost in the scriptural account it is based on, meant to relieve hungry ghosts whose food turns to fire in their throats — Zhuhong's real objection is structural rather than merely skeptical: he does not simply doubt the boiling-water trick, but shows point by point that its own defenders' logic, if applied consistently, would eliminate every other element of the rite as well, which none of them actually propose doing.
29. 肉刑 — Corporal Punishment
A historical argument that corporal punishment traces not to the sages but to tyrants whose own cruelty destroyed their states, culminating in praise for Emperor Wen of Han's abolition of it — with real regret that castration punishment survived even his reforms.
肉刑起於何時，其果聖人之意乎哉？或曰：「《尚書》言之矣！」然言之而未詳也，抑後世欲威民者為之也？夫炮烙罪人，商紂之所以危身也；鑿人目，剝人面皮，吳皓之所以覆國也；復有沸油、鹽于鼎俎，置人于中而烹之者，齊楚等君所以終至于滅亡也。而謂聖人為之乎？或又曰：「其人天且劓，《周易》亦言之矣！」然《易經》也，非律也；卜筮之書也，非刑書也。所以前民用，非所以罰民罪也。天且劓，象也，非真也。且肉刑至漢文帝而始除，萬世而下，其以文帝為非乎？以文帝為賢乎？如以為賢，則肉刑之非可知矣！雖然，帝則誠賢矣，而有遺恨焉，宮刑之未除也。嗟乎痛哉！難言也。業報之循環，不可息也，何時得見龍華之世也？
When did corporal punishment first arise, and was it truly the intention of the sages? Someone says: "The Book of Documents speaks of it!" And yet its account there is far from detailed — was it, perhaps, instead devised by later rulers wishing to intimidate their own people into submission? Consider: roasting criminals alive on a heated bronze pillar was exactly what brought ruin upon King Zhou of Shang himself; gouging out people's eyes and flaying their faces was exactly what brought down the state of Wu under Sun Hao; and boiling people alive in cauldrons of scalding oil and brine was exactly what finally destroyed the rulers of Qi and Chu as well. Can these truly be called the sages' own devising?
Someone else says: "A person's head shaved and nose cut off — the Yijing itself speaks of this!" And yet the Yijing is a classical text, not a legal code; a book of divination, not a book of punishment. It was meant to guide the people, not to punish their crimes. "Shaved head and cut nose" is simply a hexagram image, not a literal, real event.
And besides, corporal punishment was finally abolished only under Emperor Wen of Han — across all the generations since, has Emperor Wen been judged wrong for this, or wise? If he is judged wise, then the wrongness of corporal punishment itself is thereby proven! And yet, worthy as the Emperor truly was, one regret still remains: castration punishment was never abolished. Alas, how truly painful this is — words can hardly express it. The cycle of karmic retribution never rests — when, then, shall we ever see the peaceful age of the Dragon Flower Assembly at last?
The three named tyrants — King Zhou of Shang, Sun Hao of Wu, and the unnamed rulers of Qi and Chu — are all documented historical figures whose personal cruelty is recorded as a direct cause of their own downfall; Emperor Wen of Han's genuine abolition of mutilating punishments in 167 BCE is one of the most celebrated acts of Han-dynasty legal reform, and Zhuhong's closing regret that castration punishment specifically survived his reforms reflects real historical fact — it remained in intermittent use for centuries afterward.
30. 心意識 — Mind, Intention, Consciousness
Zhuhong resolves a scholastic dispute over three closely related technical terms by citing three separate sutras' definitions, then argues that Chan's own direct approach renders such careful terminological distinction ultimately unnecessary.
講者數輩，爭論「心意識」不決，予乃為稽諸古。《文殊問經》云：「心者聚義，意者憶義，識者現知義。」《俱舍論》云：「集起名心，籌量名意，了別名識。」《密嚴經》云：「藏是心，執我名意，取諸境界為識。」如是等說，皆小異而大同者也。永嘉云：「損法財，滅功德，莫不繇茲心意識。」是故教乘中須一一究審，不可混淆。宗門直指心源，則一念不生全體現，又何必瑣瑣分別爭論為也？
Several lecturers were arguing over the terms "mind," "intention," and "consciousness" without reaching any resolution, so I went and checked the ancient sources myself. The Sutra of Mañjuśrī's Questions says: "Mind means gathering; intention means recollection; consciousness means present cognition." The Abhidharmakośa says: "What accumulates and arises is called mind; what deliberates and measures is called intention; what discerns and distinguishes is called consciousness." The Ghana-vyūha Sutra says: "The storehouse is mind; grasping at self is called intention; taking hold of the various sense-objects is consciousness."
Teachings of this kind are all minor variations on essentially the same idea. Yongjia said: "What wastes the wealth of the Dharma, what destroys one's own merit — none of it fails to trace back to this very mind, intention, and consciousness." This is exactly why, within the doctrinal vehicle, these terms must each be investigated carefully, one by one, never allowed to blur together. But within the Chan school, which points directly at the very source of mind itself — the moment not a single thought arises, the whole substance reveals itself completely — why, then, should one bother with such tedious, piecemeal disputes at all?
Yongjia Xuanjue's own "Song of Enlightenment" is the source of the quoted line here — the same Yongjia already invoked by name in the Third Collection's own entry 17 above, where an overreaching critic was said to have ranked him even above the Sixth Patriarch; this entry's structure — settle the doctrinal question through careful citation, then note that Chan transcends the need for such distinctions entirely — mirrors Zhuhong's own explicit defense of lecturing's proper and improper uses in entry 13 of this same collection.
31. 制心 — Restraining the Mind
A careful distinction between forcibly suppressing thought, as the Confucian philosopher Gaozi taught, and genuinely converging effort into a single point, as the Buddha taught — followed by an even higher standard in which no restraint is needed at all.
或問：「心念紛飛，當作何方便？」予曰：「佛言心者，制之一處，無事不辦。」或曰：「得無類告子之強制其心而不動乎？」「是不然，告子之不動心，念起即遏，遏捺令靜；今之制心，是制使歸於一處，不雜用心。則彼是灰心不起，此是用心不二；彼是豁達空，此是思惟修。兩不同途，未可並論。一處功成，則隨其所習百千三昧靡不具足，故曰無事不辦；彼之強制，只辦得一味頑定，何能有此功德？雖然，此猶是學人初做工夫方便，非為究竟。『本來無一物，何處惹塵埃』，安所云『制』？又安求所謂『處』也？」或曰：「本來無一物，何處惹塵埃，則全是空寂境界，卻正同於告子之不動心矣。」曰：「告子遏捺其心，使之不動；曹溪無心可動，不須遏捺，烏得同？」
Someone asked: "When the mind's thoughts scatter wildly, what skillful means should one use?" I answered: "The Buddha said: fix the mind in one place, and there is nothing that cannot be accomplished."
Someone said: "Is this not simply the same as Gaozi's own forceful restraint of the mind, refusing to let it move at all?" I answered: "Not so. Gaozi's 'unmoved mind' means suppressing every thought the instant it arises, forcing it into stillness by sheer restraint; what I speak of as restraining the mind means directing it so that it converges into a single point, without scattering its effort across many things at once. His approach is a mind reduced to ash, no longer arising at all; mine is a mind applied without division. His is the empty vastness of nihilistic emptiness; mine is genuine contemplative cultivation. The two proceed along entirely different paths, and cannot be discussed as though they were the same. Once effort converges into a single point, then whatever samādhi one has ever practiced — hundreds, thousands of them — becomes fully present and complete; this is exactly why it is said that nothing remains unaccomplished. Gaozi's own forceful suppression achieves only a single, dull, inert kind of fixation — how could it ever produce such genuine merit? And yet, even this 'converging into one place' remains only a preliminary, expedient method for a student's early effort — it is not the ultimate goal. As it is said: 'Fundamentally there is not a single thing — where, then, could any dust ever settle?' Where, in that, is there any 'restraining' left to speak of at all? And where, in that, is there any 'place' left to seek?"
Someone said: "'Fundamentally there is not a single thing — where could any dust ever settle' describes an entirely empty, quiescent state — is this not, then, exactly the same as Gaozi's own unmoved mind?" I answered: "Gaozi suppresses his own mind, forcing it not to move; Caoxi has no mind left at all that could possibly move, and needs no suppression whatsoever — how could these two possibly be the same?"
Gaozi was a genuine Warring States-era philosopher and contemporary rival of Mencius, whose own theory of human nature and forced mental stillness is preserved through Mencius's own critical engagement with it in the text that bears his name; "Caoxi" refers to the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, whose own enlightenment verse — "fundamentally there is not a single thing, where could any dust ever settle" — is quoted here as the higher standard that renders even Zhuhong's own initial teaching on "converging into one place" merely provisional, a structure of escalating levels already familiar from this collection's earlier treatment of Daoist inner alchemy against Buddhist attainment (entry 123 above).