Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Third Collection, Part 31
Continuing the Third Collection (三筆). Five separate Chan sayings, each apparently hostile to Buddha-recitation, are answered one by one — Zhuhong's consistent method is to show that every quoted objection was aimed at careless or fearful practice, never at genuine one-pointed recitation itself, so that no real contradiction between Chan and Pure Land ever actually exists.
107. 念佛人惟一心不亂 — For the Buddha-Recitation Practitioner, Only One-Pointed, Undistracted Mind Matters
Five separate Chan sayings, each seemingly hostile to Buddha-recitation, are answered one by one — Zhuhong's consistent method throughout is to show that every quoted objection actually targeted careless, fearful, or conceptually confused practice, never genuine one-pointed recitation itself, so that Chan and Pure Land are shown to be in no real conflict at all.
或問：「妙喜云：『愚人終日掐數珠求淨業。』念佛果愚人所為乎？」噫！予昔曾辯之矣。妙喜但言愚人終日掐數珠求淨業，不言愚人終日一心不亂求淨業也。
又問：「古德偈云：『成佛人希念佛多，念來歲久卻成魔。君今欲得易成佛，無念之心不較多。』無念念佛，奈何以有念念佛？」曰：此為散心念佛而不觀心者，勸發語也，不曰歲久而一心不亂者成魔也。未曾念佛，先憂有念，是猶饑人欲飯，先憂飽脹而不食者矣！
又問：「六祖云：『東方人造惡，念佛求生西方。』意旨何如？」曰：六祖言惡人念佛求生，不曰善人念佛一心不亂者求生也。且惡人必不念佛，其有念佛者，偽也，非真念也。喻如惡人修十善求天堂，惡人必不修十善，其有修十善者，偽也，非真修也。曾未有善人一心念佛而不生西方者也。
又問：「古德云：『捨穢取淨，是生死業。』奈何捨娑婆求極樂？」曰：彼言捨穢取淨者為生死業，不言一心不亂取淨土者為生死業也。子未捨穢，先憂取淨，與前之憂有念同矣！
又問：「禪宗云：『佛之一字，吾不喜聞。』又云：『佛來也殺，魔來也殺。』則何為念佛？」噫！彼言「佛之一字，吾不喜聞」，不言「一心不亂」四字，吾不喜聞也。彼言佛來也殺，魔來也殺，不言一心不亂來亦殺也。夫歸元無二，方便多門，是故歸家是一，舟車各行；以舟笑車，以車笑舟，俱成戲論。此理自明，無煩贅語矣。
又問：「近有人言：吾不念佛；良繇內有能念之心，外有所念之佛，能所未忘，焉得名道？」噫！彼蓋以獨守空靜為道乎？內有能靜之心，外有所靜之境，不亦能、所宛然乎？曷不曰：「一心不亂，則誰能誰所、何內何外也？」吾與爾既修淨土，止愁不到一心不亂田地；若一心不亂，任他千種譏、萬種謗，當巍巍不動如泰山耳，更何疑哉？
Someone asked: "Chan Master Miaoxi said: 'Fools spend the whole day fingering their prayer beads, seeking pure karma.' Is reciting the Buddha's name really something only fools do?" Ah! I have already addressed this very question before. Miaoxi merely said that fools spend the whole day fingering their beads while seeking pure karma — he never said that someone who spends the whole day recite with a one-pointed, undistracted mind while seeking pure karma is a fool.
The questioner continued: "An ancient teacher's verse says: 'Those who wish to become buddhas hope to recite the Buddha's name often, but reciting it for years on end can instead turn into a demonic state. If you wish to attain buddhahood easily, a mind free of thought accomplishes no less than one full of it.' If this means one should recite the Buddha's name without any thought at all, why do people today recite it with thought instead?" I answered: this verse was written specifically as an exhortation to those who recite the Buddha's name with a scattered mind, never examining their own mind at all — it does not say that someone who, after years of practice, achieves a truly one-pointed and undistracted mind will thereby fall into a demonic state. You have not even begun to recite the Buddha's name, and already you worry about the danger of reciting with thought — this is exactly like a starving man wanting to eat, but refusing to eat at all for fear of becoming too full!
The questioner continued: "The Sixth Patriarch said: 'People of the East commit evil, and recite the Buddha's name seeking rebirth in the West.' What is the meaning of this?" I answered: the Sixth Patriarch was speaking of a wicked person reciting the Buddha's name while seeking rebirth — he never said that a virtuous person reciting with a one-pointed, undistracted mind would find such rebirth equally difficult to attain. And in any case, a truly wicked person will never actually recite the Buddha's name at all; if such a person does appear to recite, that recitation is false, not genuine recitation at all. It is exactly like a wicked person cultivating the ten wholesome deeds in hope of reaching heaven — a truly wicked person would never actually cultivate the ten wholesome deeds; if he appears to do so, that cultivation, too, is false, not genuine practice. There has never yet been a case of a genuinely virtuous person reciting the Buddha's name with one-pointed, undistracted mind who failed to attain rebirth in the West.
The questioner continued: "An ancient teacher said: 'To abandon defilement and seek purity is itself the very karma of birth and death.' Why, then, do practitioners still abandon this impure world of ours in order to seek the Pure Land?" I answered: that teacher was speaking of abandoning defilement and seeking purity as ordinary conceptual grasping — he never said that seeking the Pure Land with a truly one-pointed, undistracted mind is itself the karma of birth and death. You have not even begun to abandon defilement, and already you worry about the danger of seeking purity — this is exactly the same error as worrying beforehand about reciting with thought!
The questioner continued: "The Chan tradition says: 'I do not even wish to hear the single word "Buddha."' And elsewhere: 'If the Buddha comes, kill him; if a demon comes, kill him too.' Why, then, teach people to recite the Buddha's name at all?" Ah! That saying states only "I do not wish to hear the single word 'Buddha'" — it does not say "I do not wish to hear the four words 'one-pointed, undistracted mind.'" And the saying about killing the Buddha and killing the demon alike does not say that one-pointed, undistracted recitation itself should likewise be killed. As it is said: "There is no second path back to the source, though the skillful means to reach it are many." Returning home is a single goal, even though some travel by boat and others by carriage; for the boat to mock the carriage, or the carriage to mock the boat, is nothing but idle, pointless argument. This principle is self-evident, and needs no further belaboring.
Finally, the questioner asked: "Someone recently said to me: 'I do not recite the Buddha's name, because doing so requires an inward mind that recites and an outward Buddha that is recited — and so long as this subject and object are not both forgotten, how could this possibly be called the Way?'" Ah! That person, I suspect, takes solitary stillness itself to be the Way. But does he not likewise have an inward mind that stills itself and an outward state that is stilled — is that not equally a clear case of subject and object? Why does he not instead say: "Once one attains a truly one-pointed, undistracted mind, who then remains as subject, what remains as object, what is inward, what is outward at all?" You and I have both taken up the practice of the Pure Land — our only real concern should be whether we have yet reached the ground of one-pointed, undistracted mind. Once that ground is truly reached, then whatever ridicule or slander may come our way, a thousand kinds or ten thousand, we will stand as unmoved and majestic as Mount Tai itself. What, then, is there left to doubt?
Miaoxi is Dahui Zonggao, the Song-dynasty Chan master already cited by this name elsewhere in the collection, whose criticism of mechanical bead-counting Zhuhong had in fact already defended against the same misreading in his own major commentary on the Amitābha Sutra, making this entry a distilled restatement of an argument he had developed at greater length elsewhere; the Sixth Patriarch's line about "people of the East" committing evil and reciting the Buddha's name is drawn from the historical Platform Sutra, and the saying "if the Buddha comes, kill him" is drawn from the Record of Linji, both genuine and foundational texts of the Chan tradition that Zhuhong treats not as adversaries to Pure Land practice but, through careful attention to exactly what each saying does and does not claim, as fully compatible with it — the same "different vehicles, same destination" argument that runs throughout Zhuhong's broader project of reconciling Chan and Pure Land practice across his writings.