信心銘 義疏通講Inscription on Faith in Mind · Exposition Throughout
信心銘Inscription on Faith in Mind
全文五層 →Full five layers →《信心銘》開口就說「至道無難」〔T48 0376b20〕。這是全篇最先落下的四個字，也是最容易被當作安慰話讀過去的四個字。可是緊接著一百四十多句，從「唯嫌揀擇」〔T48 0376b20〕一路講到「言語道斷」〔T48 0377a10〕，講的幾乎全是難處：順逆、取捨、止動、兩邊、是非、能境、執放、六塵、二邊、夢幻……銘沒有騙人。它說道不難，是說道本身沒有一處要你翻山越嶺；它接著講這麼多，是因為難處不在道，在人。這一篇義疏，就依銘自己的次第，把它從「無難」講到「不二」的路走一遍。銘無逐文古疏，所以下面每一節，只憑銘自己的字句與對句結構來說；古德拈提，留到末節。
一、無難與揀擇
「至道無難唯嫌揀擇」〔T48 0376b20〕。至道，是道的究竟處；無難，是說它不設關卡。那麼關卡在哪裡？在「揀擇」。揀擇不是壞事做多了，而是心一動就分出這個與那個，再從中挑一個。銘馬上給出對治：「但莫憎愛洞然明白」〔T48 0376b20〕。只要不起憎、不起愛，道便「洞然」——像門戶大開，一眼看穿。注意銘的用字：它不說『斷除』憎愛，只說『莫』。莫，是不去做；斷，是做一件新事去對付舊事。整篇銘，從頭到尾用的都是「莫」「勿」「不」「無」，很少叫人去做什麼。這是讀本銘的第一把鑰匙。
第三聯立刻把分寸收緊：「毫釐有差天地懸隔」〔T48 0376b21〕。不難，不等於馬虎。揀擇之心起時，差的只是毫釐——一個順一個逆、一個取一個捨——結果卻是天地之隔。所以銘下面要花很長的篇幅，把這「毫釐」是什麼，一樣一樣指出來。
二、順逆、取捨、止動：病的三個名字
第一個名字是順逆。「欲得現前莫存順逆」〔T48 0376b22〕——想要道當下現前，心中就不要存著順與逆。順逆是憎愛的具體形狀：合我意的叫順，不合的叫逆。銘直接把它叫作病：「違順相爭是為心病」〔T48 0376b22〕。病不在境，在爭。接著「不識玄旨徒勞念靜」〔T48 0376b23〕——不認得這層意思，念念想靜下來，也只是白費力氣；因為『想靜』本身，已經是一個順逆。
第二個名字是取捨。「圓同太虛無欠無餘」〔T48 0376b24〕，道像虛空一樣圓滿，沒有少一塊，也沒有多一塊。那為什麼我們總覺得不合？「良由取捨所以不如」〔T48 0376b24〕。取與捨，是把圓滿的東西切出一塊要、一塊不要。銘接著指出取捨的兩個方向：「莫逐有緣勿住空忍」〔T48 0376b25〕——既不要追逐有，也不要停在空。這兩句很要緊：銘不是叫人離有就空，它連「住空」也一併列為取捨。
然後是「一種平懷泯然自盡」〔T48 0376b26〕。一種，就是不分兩種；平懷，就是不偏。到了這裡，分別自己會消失，不用去消它。
第三個名字是止動。「止動歸止止更彌動」〔T48 0376b26〕。想把動止下來、回到止，那個止反而更動。這是全銘最像實修報告的一句：用力靜心的人，多半經歷過愈靜愈亂。銘說，原因是「唯滯兩邊寧知一種」〔T48 0376b27〕——只在止與動兩頭打轉，不知道有一種。而「一種不通兩處失功」〔T48 0376b28〕：這一種不通達，止也白止，動也白動。「遣有沒有從空背空」〔T48 0376b28〕，再把方向說一次：遣有的人沉在有裡，從空的人反而背了空。病的三個名字，順逆、取捨、止動，其實是一個病——兩邊。
三、絕言絕慮，回到根本
「多言多慮轉不相應」〔T48 0376b29〕，「絕言絕慮無處不通」〔T48 0376c01〕。這兩聯是對舉：言語思慮愈多，愈不相應；言語思慮一斷，無處不通。要小心的是，銘說「絕」，說的仍是不去做，不是用一個更大的力氣去壓。接下來的四聯，是全篇方法最具體的地方：
「歸根得旨隨照失宗」〔T48 0376c01〕——回到根本，就得其旨；跟著照見之物走，就失其宗。「須臾返照勝却前空」〔T48 0376c02〕——哪怕只是片刻回光返照，就勝過先前所見的那個空。這裡的「前空」是什麼？是前面第二節說的「住空」：以為自己已經空了的那個空。銘說它「前空轉變皆由妄見」〔T48 0376c03〕——那個空會變，因為它是見解造的。所以結論不是去求一個更真的真：「不用求真唯須息見」〔T48 0376c03〕。不求真，只息見。至此，銘把「莫」的理由說清楚了：求，是另一個見；息，才回到無難。
四、二見、一心、能境
「二見不住慎勿追尋」〔T48 0376c04〕。二見，就是上面所有的兩邊。不住，也不去追。為什麼要特別說「慎勿追尋」？因為「纔有是非紛然失心」〔T48 0376c05〕——是非一起，心就散了。接下來是銘最緊的一段推理：
「二由一有一亦莫守」〔T48 0376c05〕。二是從一來的；所以連一也不要守。這一句把前面「一種」的話又推進一步：一種平懷，不是守住一個「一」。「一心不生萬法無咎」〔T48 0376c06〕——一心不生起，萬法本來沒有過失。「無咎無法不生不心」〔T48 0376c07〕——沒有過失，也就沒有「法」這個名；不生起，也就沒有「心」這個名。你會發現銘在這裡把自己剛用過的字一個一個放下：一、心、法，都是暫借。
然後是能與境。「能隨境滅境逐能沈」〔T48 0376c07〕，「境由能境能由境能」〔T48 0376c08〕。能知的一方隨境而滅，境也隨能而沉；境因能才成其為境，能因境才成其為能。這幾句回環往復，像繞口令，其實只說一件事：能與境互相依待，誰也不獨立。「欲知兩段元是一空」〔T48 0376c09〕，「一空同兩齊含萬像」〔T48 0376c09〕——這兩段，原是一個空；而這一個空，不排斥兩段，反而含著萬象。到這裡，「不見精麁寧有偏黨」〔T48 0376c10〕，自然不會再偏向哪一邊。
五、大道體寬：執它與放它
銘換了一個字：「大道體寬無易無難」〔T48 0376c11〕。首句說「至道」，這裡說「大道」；一個說它的究竟，一個說它的寬廣。無易無難，比開頭的「無難」更進一層——連「易」也不立。那誰覺得難？「小見狐疑轉急轉遲」〔T48 0376c11〕——見識小的人狐疑，愈急愈慢。
接著是全篇最常被人記住的一組對句：「執之失度心入邪路」〔T48 0376c12〕，「放之自然體無去住」〔T48 0376c13〕。執它，就失了分寸；放它，它本來自然。注意「放」不是丟掉，是不去拿。「任性合道逍遙絕惱」〔T48 0376c13〕——任其本性，就合道。反過來，「繫念乖真沈惛不好」〔T48 0376c14〕——把念頭綁住，是違背真；可是沉下去昏昧，也不好。「不好勞神何用疎親」〔T48 0376c15〕：兩頭都不好，不好的根子是勞神；既然如此，又何必分疏與親？這一段可以看作第二節「止動」的回答：不是止，不是動，是放。
六、六塵、正覺、無為
「欲趣一乘勿惡六塵」〔T48 0376c15〕。要走向一乘，就不要厭惡六塵。這一句對修行人是當頭的：修行人通常以為厭離六塵是起點，銘卻把「惡六塵」列為障礙。「六塵不惡還同正覺」〔T48 0376c16〕——不厭惡六塵，反而就同於正覺。為什麼？因為厭惡也是憎愛，也是揀擇；厭惡六塵的人，仍在兩邊。
「智者無為愚人自縛」〔T48 0376c17〕。無為，不是不做事，是不另起造作去對付本來無事的東西；自縛，是用自己的繩子綁自己。「法無異法妄自愛著」〔T48 0376c17〕——法沒有另一個法，是自己妄生愛著。「將心用心豈非大錯」〔T48 0376c18〕——拿心去用心，是最根本的錯。這一句與第四節「一心不生」相應：用心求心，就是二由一有。
然後銘講迷悟：「迷生寂亂悟無好惡」〔T48 0376c19〕。迷了，才分寂與亂；悟了，無所謂好惡。「一切二邊妄自斟酌」〔T48 0376c19〕——一切對待，都是自己量出來的。「夢幻空華何勞把捉」〔T48 0376c20〕，「得失是非一時放却」〔T48 0376c21〕——既然如夢如幻如空華，何必抓？得失是非，一時全放。於是有了全銘最明亮的一個譬喻：「眼若不眠諸夢自除」〔T48 0376c21〕。夢不用一個一個去趕，眼睛不睡，夢自己就沒有了。
七、心若不異，萬法一如
「心若不異萬法一如」〔T48 0376c22〕。心不起別異，萬法便一如。「一如體玄兀爾忘緣」〔T48 0376c23〕——一如的體是玄的，兀然不動，緣自然忘了。「萬法齊觀歸復自然」〔T48 0376c23〕——萬法平等地看，就回到自然。「泯其所以不可方比」〔T48 0376c24〕——連『為什麼會這樣』也泯了，沒有什麼可以比擬。
接著銘把第二節的「止動」做最後的了結：「止動無動動止無止」〔T48 0376c25〕。前面說止動歸止止更彌動，是講病；這裡說止了動就沒有動、動了止就沒有止，是講病癒之後——止與動互相取消。「兩既不成一何有爾」〔T48 0376c25〕——兩個都不成立，一又從哪裡來？這又回應了第四節的「一亦莫守」。「究竟窮極不存軌則」〔T48 0376c26〕——到了究竟，連規矩也不留。
然後是一組很安靜的句子：「啟心平等所作俱息」〔T48 0376c27〕，「狐疑盡淨正信調直」〔T48 0376c27〕，「一切不留無可記憶」〔T48 0376c28〕，「虛明自然不勞心力」〔T48 0376c29〕。心一平等，造作都歇；第五節的「狐疑」到這裡淨盡，換成「正信」；什麼都不留，所以沒有什麼要記；虛明是自然的，不用力。「非思量處識情難測」〔T48 0376c29〕——這裡不是思量能到的地方，所以知識與情緒都量不到它。
八、不二：促延、大小、有無、一多
「真如法界無他無自」〔T48 0377a01〕。真如法界，沒有他，也沒有自。「要急相應唯言不二」〔T48 0377a02〕——如果你要很快地相應，只能說一句話：不二。「不二皆同無不包容」〔T48 0377a02〕——不二，所以一切皆同，沒有不包容的。「十方智者皆入此宗」〔T48 0377a03〕。
接下來四組，是把「不二」在時間、空間、有無、一多上各說一遍。時間：「宗非促延」〔T48 0377a04〕，這個宗既不是短也不是長；底本在這裡以夾注的小字補一句「一念萬年萬年一念」〔T48 0377a04〕——一念就是萬年，萬年就是一念。空間：「無在不在十方目前」〔T48 0377a04〕，無處不在，十方就在眼前；「極小同大妄絕境界」〔T48 0377a05〕，「極大同小不見邊表」〔T48 0377a06〕——極小等於極大，極大等於極小。夾在中間的四個字「妄絕境界」〔T48 0377a05〕說的是為什麼：小與大之間的界限，是妄分出來的；妄一絕，界限就沒有了，所以「不見邊表」〔T48 0377a06〕——邊際與表相本來無從看見。有無：「有即是無無即是有」〔T48 0377a06〕。有與無在這裡不是兩個對立的概念，是同一件事的兩面：說它有，因為它無處不在；說它無，因為沒有一樣東西可以指出來——第四節「無咎無法不生不心」〔T48 0376c07〕早已把這層意思說過。然後銘加了一句很硬的話：「若不如是必不須守」〔T48 0377a07〕——如果不是這樣，就一定不要守著。「如是」指的就是上面有無相即的樣子；若不是這樣看，那麼不管守住哪一邊——守有，或守無——都一定不必。一多：「一即一切一切即一」〔T48 0377a08〕。一不是離開一切另有的一，一切也不是一之外另有的一切；第四節「二由一有一亦莫守」〔T48 0376c05〕說的是不要守一，這裡再進一步：一與一切本不相隔，守與不守的問題也就沒有了。「但能如是何慮不畢」〔T48 0377a08〕——只要能這樣，還怕什麼不了？
九、信心不二，言語道斷
「信心不二不二信心」〔T48 0377a09〕。銘到了最後才回到自己的題目。信心，是題目；不二，是全篇講到這裡的結論。它把兩個詞倒過來再說一次：信心就是不二，不二就是信心。這裡的「信」，不是相信一個命題；是上面「狐疑盡淨正信調直」那個信——狐疑淨盡之後，心自然直。所以信心不是另外去建立的，它就是不再揀擇的那個心。
「言語道斷非去來今」〔T48 0377a10〕。言語之路到這裡斷了；它不屬於過去、未來、現在。這是銘最後八個字，也是它對自己的交代：前面一百四十句的言語，到這裡一起放下。我們讀完一遍，再回頭看第一句「至道無難」，會發現它說的是真話——難的從來不是道，是一路上人自己立起來的順逆、取捨、止動、二見、執放、好惡。銘把這些一樣一樣叫出名字，然後只說一個字：莫。
承衍——古德拈提
本銘無逐文古疏，古德的拈提幾乎都集中在首聯。《碧巖錄》說：「三祖信心銘劈頭便道這兩句。有多少人錯會。」〔T48n2003 0191a09〕錯會在哪裡？它接著說：「何故至道本無難。亦無不難。只是唯嫌揀擇。」〔T48n2003 0191a10〕——連「無難」也不立，與銘中「無易無難」〔T48 0376c11〕正相應。趙州常舉此聯示眾，而把揀擇指到言語上：「纔有語言。是揀擇是明白。」〔T48n2003 0142b05〕《碧巖錄》因此誡人「切忌揀擇言句。」〔T48n2003 0149a22〕——拈提的人自己就在提醒，不要把這首銘當作言句來揀。
也有反著說的。《續傳燈錄》載德山仁繪上堂：「山僧即不然。至道最難須是揀擇。若無憎愛爭見明白。」〔T51n2077 0537a22〕一正一反，古德各有其機，本編並錄，不判。另有一則奏對，徑山先舉銘中「虛明自照不勞心力」〔T51n2077 0662b27〕（此本作「自照」，底本作「虛明自然」〔T48 0376c29〕），瞎堂慧遠接著對曰：「此乃三祖大師信心銘。正為有所證悟者說。」〔T51n2077 0662b28〕——這一句替讀者定了位：銘不是入門的說明書，是對已經走到某處的人說的話。你讀到哪裡，它就在哪裡等你。
The Inscription on Faith in Mind opens with “the ultimate Way is not difficult”. These are the first four characters to fall on the page, and the four most easily read past as a word of comfort. Yet the hundred and forty-odd lines that follow, from “it only shuns picking and choosing” all the way to “the road of words is cut off”, speak almost entirely of difficulties: agreeable and contrary, taking and rejecting, stillness and movement, the two extremes, right and wrong, the knower and its object, grasping and letting go, the six sense-objects, the two extremes, dream and illusion. The inscription has not deceived anyone. When it says the Way is not difficult, it means that the Way itself has no place where it asks you to climb a mountain; when it then says so much, it is because the difficulty is not in the Way but in the person. This exposition follows the inscription’s own order and walks its road from “not difficult” to “not two.” The inscription has no old line-by-line commentary, so each section below relies only on the inscription’s own words and its paired-line structure; the old masters’ citations are kept for the final section.
I. Not Difficult, and Picking and Choosing
“The ultimate Way is not difficult; it only shuns picking and choosing”. The ultimate Way is the Way at its furthest point; not difficult means it sets up no checkpoint. Then where is the checkpoint? In “picking and choosing.” Picking and choosing is not a matter of having done many bad things; it is that the moment the mind moves, it divides this from that and then picks one. The inscription at once gives the remedy: “only do not hate or love, and it is open and clear”. As long as no hating and no loving arise, the Way is “open through”: like a door thrown wide, seen through at a glance. Note the inscription’s choice of words. It does not say to “cut off” hate and love; it only says “do not.” Do not is not doing; cutting off is doing a new thing to deal with an old one. From beginning to end the whole inscription uses “do not,” “do not,” “not,” “no”; it very rarely tells anyone to do anything. This is the first key to reading the inscription.
The third couplet at once tightens the measure: “a hair’s breadth of difference, and heaven and earth are set apart”. Not difficult does not mean careless. When the mind of picking and choosing arises, the difference is only a hair’s breadth—one agreeable and one contrary, one taken and one rejected—but the result is the distance between heaven and earth. That is why the inscription will spend so long pointing out, one by one, what this “hair’s breadth” is.
II. Agreeable and Contrary, Taking and Rejecting, Stillness and Movement: Three Names for the Sickness
The first name is agreeable and contrary. “If you want it to appear before you, do not keep agreeable and contrary in mind”. Agreeable and contrary are the concrete shape of hate and love: what suits me is called agreeable, what does not is called contrary. The inscription calls it a sickness outright: “contrary and agreeable contend with each other: this is the mind’s sickness”. The sickness is not in the circumstances but in the contending. Then “not knowing the profound purport, one labors in vain at thoughts of stillness”: not recognizing this, one tries thought after thought to become still, and it is only wasted effort, because “wanting stillness” is itself already an agreeable-and-contrary.
The second name is taking and rejecting. “Perfect as the great void, nothing lacking, nothing left over”: the Way is as complete as space, with no piece missing and no piece extra. Then why do we always feel it does not fit? “Truly it is because of taking and rejecting that it is not as it is”. Taking and rejecting cut a piece to keep and a piece to discard out of something complete. The inscription then points out the two directions of taking and rejecting: “do not chase the conditions of being; do not dwell in the acceptance of emptiness”: neither chase being nor stop in emptiness. These two lines matter: the inscription does not tell anyone to leave being for emptiness; it lists “dwelling in emptiness” as taking and rejecting too.
Then “one kind, an even heart, and it vanishes of itself”. One kind means not dividing into two kinds; an even heart means not leaning. By here, distinguishing disappears on its own; there is no need to make it disappear.
The third name is stillness and movement. “Stop motion to return to stillness, and the stillness moves all the more”. Trying to still what moves and return to stillness, that stillness moves even more. This is the line in the whole inscription that reads most like a report from practice: those who have strained to still the mind have mostly found that the more they stilled it, the more it stirred. The reason, says the inscription, is “only stuck at the two extremes, how would one know the one kind?”: circling between stillness and movement, one does not know there is one kind. And “when the one kind does not go through, both places lose their work”: when this one kind is not reached, stillness is stilled in vain and motion moved in vain. “Dismiss being and sink into being; follow emptiness and turn your back on emptiness” states the direction once more: those who dismiss being sink into it, those who follow emptiness turn away from it. The three names of the sickness—agreeable and contrary, taking and rejecting, stillness and movement—are in fact one sickness: the two extremes.
III. Cutting Off Words and Thought, Returning to the Root
“Many words, many thoughts, and the less one accords”; “cut off words, cut off thought, and there is nowhere it does not go through”. These two couplets are set against each other: the more words and thought, the less accord; the moment words and thought are cut, nowhere is blocked. What needs care is that when the inscription says “cut off,” it still means not doing, not pressing down with a greater force. The four couplets that follow are the most concrete method in the whole text:
“Return to the root and gain the purport; follow the illumined and lose the source”: go back to the root and you have its purport; go after what is illumined and you lose its source. “A moment’s turning back of the light surpasses the former emptiness”: even an instant of turning the light back surpasses the emptiness seen before. What is this “former emptiness”? It is the “dwelling in emptiness” of Section II: the emptiness one takes oneself to have already reached. The inscription says of it “the former emptiness shifts and changes, all through deluded views”: that emptiness changes, because it was made by a view. So the conclusion is not to seek a truer true: “No need to seek the true; only let views cease”. Not seeking the true, only ceasing views. Here the inscription has made clear the reason for its “do not”: seeking is another view; ceasing is what returns to not-difficult.
IV. Two Views, One Mind, Knower and Object
“Do not abide in the two views; take care not to pursue them”. The two views are all the two extremes above. Do not abide, and do not pursue. Why say “take care not to pursue” in particular? Because “the moment there is right and wrong, in confusion the mind is lost”: once right and wrong arise, the mind scatters. What follows is the tightest piece of reasoning in the inscription:
“Two exists because of one; do not keep even the one”. Two comes from one; therefore do not hold on even to the one. This line pushes the earlier talk of “one kind” a step further: the one kind, the even heart, is not holding on to a “one.” “When the one mind does not arise, the myriad dharmas are without fault”: when the one mind does not arise, the myriad dharmas have never had a fault. “No fault, no dharma; not arising, not mind”: with no fault there is no longer the name “dharma”; with no arising there is no longer the name “mind.” You will notice that here the inscription sets down, one by one, the very words it has just used: one, mind, dharma—all borrowed for the moment.
Then the knower and its object. “The knower perishes with the object; the object sinks with the knower”, “the object is object because of the knower; the knower is knower because of the object”. The knowing side perishes along with the object, and the object sinks along with the knower; the object is an object only because of a knower, the knower a knower only because of an object. These lines wind round and round like a tongue-twister, but they say only one thing: knower and object depend on each other, and neither stands alone. “If you would know the two segments, they are originally one emptiness”, “one emptiness, the same as the two, holds the myriad images alike”: these two segments were one emptiness from the start; and this one emptiness does not exclude the two but holds the myriad images. By here, “seeing neither fine nor coarse, how could there be partiality?”: naturally one no longer leans to either side.
V. The Great Way Is Wide in Body: Grasping It and Letting It Go
The inscription changes a word: “The great Way is wide in body, neither easy nor difficult”. The first line said “the ultimate Way”; here it says “the great Way”—one names its furthest point, the other its breadth. Neither easy nor difficult goes a layer beyond the opening’s “not difficult”: not even “easy” is set up. Then who finds it difficult? “Narrow views and fox-doubt: the more hurried, the slower”: those of small view doubt like a fox, and the more they hurry, the slower they go.
Next is the pair of lines most often remembered from the whole text: “Grasp it and lose the measure; the mind enters a crooked path”, “let it go and it is natural; its body neither goes nor stays”. Grasp it and the measure is lost; let it go and it is natural of itself. Note that “let go” is not throwing away; it is not reaching to take. “Let the nature be, and it accords with the Way; at ease, troubles are cut off”: let its own nature be, and it accords with the Way. Conversely, “binding thought goes against the true; sinking into dullness is no good”: tying the thoughts down goes against the true, but sinking into dimness is no good either. “No good is the laboring of the spirit; what use is distant and near?”: both ends are no good, and the root of what is no good is laboring the spirit; that being so, why divide distant from near? This section can be read as the answer to the “stillness and movement” of Section II: not stillness, not motion, but letting go.
VI. The Six Sense-Objects, Right Awakening, Non-Doing
“If you would go toward the one vehicle, do not hate the six sense-objects”. To move toward the one vehicle, do not hate the six sense-objects. This line comes straight at the practitioner: practitioners usually take aversion to the six sense-objects as the starting point, but the inscription lists “hating the six sense-objects” as an obstacle. “With the six sense-objects not hated, one is just the same as right awakening”: not hating the six sense-objects, one is on the contrary the same as right awakening. Why? Because hating is also hate and love, also picking and choosing; one who hates the six sense-objects is still at the two extremes.
“The wise practice non-doing; the foolish bind themselves”. Non-doing is not doing nothing; it is not setting up a further contrivance to deal with what was never a problem. Self-binding is tying oneself with one’s own rope. “Dharma has no other dharma; one clings to it oneself in delusion”: there is no second dharma; it is oneself who, deluded, loves and clings. “To take the mind and use the mind—is that not a great error?”: to use the mind upon the mind is the most fundamental error. This line answers the “one mind does not arise” of Section IV: to use the mind to seek the mind is exactly “two exists because of one.”
Then the inscription speaks of delusion and awakening: “In delusion, quiet and disorder arise; in awakening, there is no liking or disliking”. Only in delusion are quiet and disorder divided; in awakening there is no liking or disliking. “Every pair of extremes is measured out by oneself in delusion”: every opposition is something one has measured out oneself. “Dream, illusion, flowers in the sky—why labor to grasp them?”, “gain and loss, right and wrong: let them all go at once”: being dream, illusion, flowers in the sky, why grasp? Gain and loss, right and wrong—let them all go at once. And so the brightest simile in the whole inscription appears: “If the eyes do not sleep, the dreams are gone of themselves”. The dreams need not be driven out one by one; when the eyes do not sleep, the dreams are simply not there.
VII. If the Mind Does Not Differ, the Myriad Dharmas Are One Suchness
“If the mind does not differ, the myriad dharmas are one suchness”. When the mind raises no difference, the myriad dharmas are one suchness. “One suchness, profound in body; unmoving, conditions are forgotten”: the body of one suchness is profound; it stands unmoving, and conditions are forgotten of themselves. “See the myriad dharmas alike, and return to the natural”: see the myriad dharmas evenly, and one returns to the natural. “Erase the wherefore, and there is nothing to compare it to”: even the “why it is so” is erased, and there is nothing it can be likened to.
Next the inscription brings the “stillness and movement” of Section II to its final settlement: “Still the moving and there is no moving; move the still and there is no stillness”. Earlier, “stop motion to return to stillness, and the stillness moves all the more” spoke of the sickness; here, that stilling the moving leaves no moving and moving the still leaves no stillness speaks of after the cure: stillness and movement cancel each other. “Since the two do not stand, how could there be a one?”: when neither of the two stands, where would a one come from? This again answers Section IV’s “do not keep even the one.” “At the ultimate limit, no rule remains”: at the very end, not even a rule is kept.
Then comes a very quiet set of lines: “Open the mind to evenness, and all doing ceases”, “when fox-doubt is wholly cleansed, right faith is gentle and straight”, “nothing at all is kept; there is nothing to remember”, “empty and luminous of itself, it does not labor the mind’s strength”. Once the mind is even, contrivance rests; the “fox-doubt” of Section V is here cleansed away and replaced by “right faith”; nothing is kept, so there is nothing to remember; the emptiness and luminosity are natural, without effort. “Not a place for thinking; consciousness and feeling cannot gauge it”: this is not a place thinking can reach, so neither knowledge nor feeling can measure it.
VIII. Not Two: Brief and Long, Small and Great, Being and Nothing, One and All
“Suchness, the dharma-realm: no other, no self”. In suchness, the dharma-realm, there is no other and no self. “If you would accord quickly, say only: not two”: if you want to accord very quickly, there is only one thing to say—not two. “Not two, all the same; nothing it does not contain”: not two, therefore all is the same, and nothing is left uncontained. “The wise of the ten directions all enter this source”.
The next four groups say “not two” once each in terms of time, space, being and nothing, one and all. Time: “the source is neither brief nor long”: this source is neither short nor long; here the base text adds, in small interlinear characters, “one thought is ten thousand years; ten thousand years, one thought”. Space: “there is no place where it is not present; the ten directions are before your eyes”: present everywhere, the ten directions right before the eyes; “the smallest is the same as the great, when deluded bounds are cut off”, “the greatest is the same as the small; no edge or surface is seen”: the smallest equals the greatest, the greatest equals the smallest. The four characters set between them, “deluded bounds cut off”, say why: the boundary between small and great is divided off in delusion; once the delusion is cut, the boundary is gone, and so “no edge or surface is seen”: edge and surface were never there to be seen. Being and nothing: “being is nothing; nothing is being”. Being and nothing here are not two opposed concepts but two faces of one thing: call it being, because it is present everywhere; call it nothing, because there is no one thing that can be pointed to—Section IV’s “no fault, no dharma; not arising, not mind” has already said as much. Then the inscription adds a very hard line: “If it is not thus, you must by no means keep it”: if it is not like this, then certainly do not hold on. “Thus” refers to the mutual identity of being and nothing just stated; if one does not see it this way, then whichever side one holds—being, or nothing—one certainly need not. One and all: “one is all; all is one”. The one is not a one apart from the all, and the all is not an all outside the one; Section IV’s “two exists because of one; do not keep even the one” said not to hold the one, and here it goes a step further: one and all were never divided, so the question of holding or not holding is gone as well. “If only you can be thus, what worry that it will not be finished?”: if you can be like this, what is there to fear left undone?
IX. Faith in Mind Is Not Two; the Road of Words Is Cut Off
“Faith in mind is not two; not two is faith in mind”. Only at the very end does the inscription return to its own title. Faith in mind is the title; not two is the conclusion the whole text has reached by here. It turns the two phrases around and says them again: faith in mind is not two, and not two is faith in mind. The “faith” here is not believing a proposition; it is the faith of “when fox-doubt is wholly cleansed, right faith is gentle and straight” above: once doubt is cleansed, the mind is straight of itself. So faith in mind is not something set up separately; it is the very mind that no longer picks and chooses.
“The road of words is cut off; it is not past, future, or present”. Here the road of words breaks off; it belongs to neither past, future, nor present. These are the inscription’s last eight characters, and its account of itself: the words of the preceding hundred and forty lines are all set down here together. When we have read it through once and look back at the first line, “the ultimate Way is not difficult,” we find that it told the truth—the difficulty was never the Way, but the agreeable and contrary, taking and rejecting, stillness and movement, two views, grasping and letting go, liking and disliking that a person sets up along the road. The inscription calls each of these by name, and then says only one word: do not.
Carrying Forward — The Old Masters’ Citations
The inscription has no old line-by-line commentary, and the old masters’ citations gather almost entirely on its first couplet. The Blue Cliff Record says: “The Third Patriarch’s Inscription on Faith in Mind says these two lines right at the head. How many people have misunderstood them!” Where is the misunderstanding? It goes on: “Why? The ultimate Way is originally not difficult, and not not-difficult either; it is only that it shuns picking and choosing.” Not even “not difficult” is set up—answering exactly to the inscription’s own “neither easy nor difficult”. Zhaozhou often held up this couplet before the assembly, and pointed the picking and choosing at speech: “The moment there are words, that is picking and choosing, that is clarity.” The Blue Cliff Record accordingly warns, “Above all, do not pick and choose among words and phrases.” The very ones citing it are reminding us not to treat this inscription as phrases to pick over.
There are also those who said the opposite. The Continued Record of the Transmission of the Lamp records Deshan Renhui ascending the hall: “This mountain monk says otherwise: the ultimate Way is most difficult, and one must pick and choose. Without hate and love, how would one see clearly?” One straight, one reversed—each of the old masters had his own occasion; this edition records both and does not judge. There is also an exchange at court: Jingshan first raised the inscription’s “empty and luminous, shining of itself, it does not labor the mind’s strength” (that recension reads “shining of itself”; the base text has “empty and luminous of itself”), and Xiatang Huiyuan then answered: “This is the Great Master the Third Patriarch’s Inscription on Faith in Mind; it was spoken precisely for those who have realized something.” That sentence places the reader: the inscription is not a beginner’s manual; it is spoken to those who have already walked some way. Wherever you have read to, it is waiting for you there.