Chanzong Yongjia ji · Yongjia Zhengdao ge (attributed)
Chanzong Yongjia ji · Yongjia Zhengdao ge (attributed)
The core-text marks are all taken from the Chanzong Yongjia ji, not from the Zhengdao ge, whose attribution is disputed;
the most widely circulated lines of the Zhengdao ge (such as “the leisurely person of the Way, beyond learning and without striving” and “one moon appears everywhere in all waters”) are discussed in the main text as T3 evidence and are not used as identifying marks.
One-sentence placement: through calming and contemplation, concentration and wisdom, and the lucid illumination of the mind-nature, the Yongjia ji connects its account of practice with its account of true reality: the mind-nature is originally endowed with “numinous awareness” — still yet always illuminating, knowing without knowing, natural and not made; delusion and awakening neither create nor abolish true reality, yet they bear on whether a person moves from “revolving through the six destinies” to “leaving the three evil paths far behind”. The calming and contemplation here and the relation to the Caoxi lineage must be treated separately: the former is directly supported by the Yongjia ji, the latter comes mainly from later transmission records. (B)
Most distinctive feature: Xuanjue carefully dismantles the objectification of knowing (E-06), its rulership (E-11) and its self-natured reality (E-12, E-16), yet at different levels of the argument he retains “the self-nature is lucidly clear”, “the knowing that realizes the object is not absent” and “knowing without knowing” (E-06, E-16, E-17). These have textual support, but their functions belong respectively to nature, activity and completion; one cannot declare them a single non-deletable mediator merely because the words “knowing / realizing” occur in all of them. (Text A; overall structure B)
Last load-bearing point: three levels should be distinguished rather than adding words together. Numinous awareness and constant illumination are the “nature” with which the mind-nature is originally endowed (E-06, E-19, E-25); alertness and stillness are the “activity” in discerning obstructions in mind-cultivation (E-09, E-10); only the passage from not-yet-clear to clear, from discord to accord, is the necessary turn bearing on the completion of liberation (E-21, E-26, E-30). The final load of ② lies mainly at the third level; the first two levels are positive mutual confirmations of different kinds. (B)
Most delicate point: the Yongjia ji says not only “the Dharma has no shallow or deep”, “true and false do not differ” and “heaven-true numinous wisdom is not made”, but also “even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself” (E-43), which is positive evidence that “the ground does not wait for recognition”; the same book also describes speech as “arising from the conditions of the mind”, and calls “speaking and teaching all day” “no different from being without words” (E-42, E-44), showing a genuine candidate for self-inclusion. On the other hand, E-21, E-26 and E-30 still stipulate a necessary link between clarifying the mind, discriminating true and false, meeting the principle and release, so the two groups of texts should stand side by side and be interpreted separately. (B; self-inclusion local C)
Note on texts: the Yongjia ji was compiled after Xuanjue’s death by Wei Jing, his contemporary who had personally received his teaching (E-01); this archive provisionally treats the ten core pieces as T1 and marks the editor’s preface separately as T2. The attribution of the Zhengdao ge is unsettled and it is provisionally listed as T3 (E-02–E-04), serving only as corroboration where it agrees in direction; with the Zhengdao ge removed, the independent T1 argument for ② still holds. The phrase “there are many errors” in the preface indicates limits of compilation or copying;
it can neither be taken to mean that the whole book is necessarily corrupt, nor be used to omit future sentence-by-sentence checking of variants.
This archive distinguishes two sets of grades, which are never mixed:
Direction marks: Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; Limits = evidence showing a remaining functional load-bearing point, a boundary, or a limit on the main judgment; Contested = the direction of the text is not single; Neutral = the text exists, but does not for now decide the core deletion test.
Where a text has already dismantled some subject or entity, the object it limits should be stated explicitly; “already dismantled” and “still load-bearing” must not be lumped together.
Full explanation of textual reliability: T1 = core texts that are contemporary or directly connected with the author and can be fairly reliably attributed to him; T2 = source testimony of a near-contemporary editor or witness, suited to tracing the formation of the documents but not automatically equivalent to the author’s philosophical statement; T3 = transmitted texts of disputed attribution that must be used with restrictions; T4 = later biographies, lamp histories and interpretations, usable for the history of reception but not as direct proof of the author’s intention. These are levels of source, not four degrees of philosophical correctness.
Text levels in this archive:
Method: the ultimacy of thought is the sole criterion of judgment; the question is how many non-deletable functional mediators remain in the final structure once Xuanjue’s thought has gone to its deepest point. Every sentence must be put back into its chapter and into the progression of thought of the whole book — precepts, calming, contemplation, equanimity, the three vehicles, phenomena and principle, exhorting a friend, vows — and classification cannot be decided by words such as “numinous awareness / alertness / accord” alone. The lucid illumination with which the mind-nature is originally endowed, the method of mind-cultivation, and the correct accord in release must be examined separately, and the same standard of evidence must be kept when assessing ①-direction readings.
Quotations: the original texts follow the CBETA transcription of the Taishō canon, cited to page, register and line; quoted excerpts keep the characters of the original.
Xuanjue’s core question is not “where does the world come from?” but: how can the cultivation of the mind fall neither into scattering nor into dullness, and accord with the originally wondrous nature? His answer forms a clear structural chain:
The structural chain does not merge all the vocabulary of mind-cultivation, nature-wisdom and liberation into a single item. The ground is originally endowed with numinous awareness; mind-cultivation must discern dullness and scattering; release still requires the completion relation of accord and clarity. On the other hand, the gold appearing of itself and speech arising from the conditions of the mind constitute positive limits that this judgment must bear (E-42–E-44).
Note on the evidence base: E-01–E-04 are source materials; E-05–E-31 and E-42–E-44 are taken from the Yongjia ji;
E-32–E-40 are taken from the Zhengdao ge, whose attribution remains to be determined; E-41 is a later dialogue. The numbering is only for ease of checking and is not a ranking of evidential value.
Source grades: T1 = core original texts that are contemporary or directly connected and can be fairly reliably attributed to the figure (not a guarantee of being word-for-word without error); T2 = source and biographical testimony stated by a near-contemporary editor; T3 = transmitted texts of later or disputed attribution, used only as restricted corroboration; T4 = later biographies, reception history and interpretation, not taken as direct evidence of the author himself. T1–T4 concern only the textual source and are not equivalent to the strength of correctness of a given reading.
Judgment grades: A = a proposition stated directly and explicitly in the original; B = a strong structural inference supported by consistent evidence from several places in the whole book; C = grounded, but an equally reasonable alternative reading still exists; D = a hypothesis awaiting testing or an adversarial stress reading. A T1 sentence can support a B or C interpretation; the exact wording of a T3 transmitted text does not automatically prove that the author really said so. The direction labels “Supports / Limits / Contested / Neutral” only indicate the evidential role of the item at that point.
In each card the Chinese original is the standard for quotation; the English rendering of the excerpt is an interpretive aid, and the context passage is given in the original only.
Original excerpt: 大師在生。凡所宣紀。總有十篇。集為一卷。While the Master was alive, all that he proclaimed and recorded came to ten pieces in all, collected into one fascicle.
Context passage: 遺文尚在。龕室寂寥。嗚呼哀哉。痛纏心腑。所嗟一方眼滅。七眾何依。德音無聞。遠增悽感。大師在生。凡所宣紀。總有十篇。集為一卷。庶同歸郢悟者。得意忘言耳。今略紀斯文。多有謬誤。用俟明哲。非者正之。
What the passage does: The editor Wei Jing (written “Wei Jing 魏靖” in the Song gaoseng zhuan) says that he “personally received [the Master’s] teaching at his feet”, and states that the ten pieces were what Xuanjue taught while alive, collected by him into one fascicle after Xuanjue’s death. This is the main ground for treating the Yongjia ji as T1 in this archive: the editor was a contemporary of the author with direct contact, and describes what he collected as “surviving writings”.
What it does not prove: The editor himself says, “I have now briefly recorded these writings; there are many errors; I await the discerning to correct what is wrong.” This cannot prove that the ten core pieces are unreliable as a whole, nor can it guarantee that every transmitted character is authentic;
it may contain both modesty and editorial caution. On the basis of near-contemporary compilation and personal contact, this archive provisionally lists the main text as T1, but a character-by-character collation of early variant witnesses has not been completed; if a substantive variant is found in a load-bearing sentence, it must be re-examined sentence by sentence.
Original excerpt: 覺唱道著明，修證悟入，慶州刺史魏靖都緝綴之，號《永嘉集》是也。
Jue’s proclamation of the Way was well known; his cultivation, realization and awakening were gathered and stitched together by Wei Jing, prefect of Qingzhou: this is what is called the Yongjia ji.
Context passage: 弟子惠操、惠特、等慈、玄寂，皆傳師之法，為時所推。後李北海邕為守括州，遂列覺行錄為碑，號神道焉。覺唱道著明，修證悟入，慶州刺史魏靖都緝綴之，號《永嘉集》是也。
What the passage does: The biography in fascicle 8 of the Song gaoseng zhuan (988) attributes Xuanjue’s writings to the Yongjia ji gathered by Wei Jing, and states that Xuanjue died in the second year of Xiantian (713) at the age of forty-nine. The whole biography makes no mention of the Zhengdao ge.
What it does not prove: That the Song gaoseng zhuan does not mention the Zhengdao ge does not prove that Xuanjue did not write it; “not recorded in the earlier monastic biography” is only one limitation on the evidence for attribution.
Further checking of earlier transmission materials such as the Zutang ji (952) must not be omitted.
Original excerpt: 著證道歌一首。及禪宗悟修圓旨自淺之深。He composed one Song of Realizing the Way, and the essential teachings of Chan on awakening and cultivation, from shallow to deep.
Context passage: 策公乃留師。翌日下山迴溫江。學者輻湊。號真覺大師。著證道歌一首。及禪宗悟修圓旨自淺之深。慶州刺史魏靖。緝而序之成十篇。目為永嘉集並盛行于世。
What the passage does: Among the materials checked for this archive, fascicle 5 of the Jingde chuandeng lu (1004) is the first to attribute the Zhengdao ge explicitly to Xuanjue, and fascicle 30 includes the full text under the heading “Song of Realizing the Way by Great Master Zhenjue of Yongjia”; the Zongbao Platform Sutra, “Encounters” chapter (1291), also says “later he composed the Song of Realizing the Way, which became widely current”. This is the source layer of the traditional attribution.
What it does not prove: These records are about three centuries later than Xuanjue and belong to the history of transmission and reception; on their own they are not sufficient to establish authorship.
Original excerpt: 第一迦葉首傳燈。二十八代西天記。Kāśyapa was the first to transmit the lamp; twenty-eight generations are recorded in the Western Heaven.
Context passage: 建法幢立宗旨。明明佛勅曹溪是。第一迦葉首傳燈。二十八代西天記。法東流入此土。菩提達磨為初祖。六代傳衣天下聞。後人得道何窮數。
What the passage does: The song contains lineage language of the transmission of the Dharma: twenty-eight patriarchs in the Western Heaven, the robe transmitted through six generations in the Eastern Land, and “Caoxi” as the mark of the true school. Modern research (e.g. Chen Shenggang 2001) argues from these chronological clues that the whole song was composed several decades after Xuanjue’s death, and proposes Shenhui as a possible author. On this basis this archive places the Zhengdao ge at T3.
What it does not prove: The lineage language may be a later local addition, or it may show that the whole piece is late; this archive does not rule on authorship, but stipulates only that the Zhengdao ge serves as corroboration where it agrees in direction with the Yongjia ji and does not by itself bear any core conclusion.
Original excerpt: 忘緣之後寂寂。靈知之性歷歷。After conditions are forgotten, still and quiet; the nature of numinous awareness, distinct and clear.
Context passage: 空喻妙性之非相。火比妄念之不生。其辭曰。忘緣之後寂寂。靈知之性歷歷。無記昏昧昭昭。契真本空的的。惺惺寂寂是。無記寂寂非。寂寂惺惺是。亂想惺惺非。
What the passage does: The verse of the “Verses on Śamatha” defines the endpoint of calming as two aspects holding at once: conditions cease and there is “stillness”, while at the same time “the nature of numinous awareness is distinct and clear”.
The “wondrous nature” is compared earlier to space and deluded thought to fire; the fire goes out but space does not, and within space there remains the “distinct and clear” numinous awareness.
What it does not prove: “Distinct and clear” does not mean that there is a substantialized observer; but it states explicitly that the endpoint of calming is not ignorance.
Original excerpt: 亦不知知寂。亦不自知知。不可為無知。自性了然故。不同於木石。It neither knows stillness by means of knowing, nor knows knowing by itself; yet it cannot be called non-knowing, because the self-nature is lucidly clear. It is not the same as wood or stone.
Context passage: 若以知知寂。此非無緣知。如手執如意。非無如意手。若以自知知。亦非無緣知。如手自作拳。非是不拳手。亦不知知寂。亦不自知知。不可為無知。自性了然故。不同於木石。手不執如意。亦不自作拳。不可為無手。以手安然故。不同於兔角。
What the passage does: Xuanjue first excludes two objectifying kinds of knowing: using knowing to know stillness (like a hand holding a ruyi sceptre), and using knowing to know itself (like a hand making itself into a fist); both are still “knowing with conditions”. After the exclusion, the conclusion is not that knowing is abolished, but that “it cannot be called non-knowing”, the reason being that “the self-nature is lucidly clear”.
This is the most crucial defining sentence for this archive: the highest state is distinguished from wood and stone by “lucid clarity”.
What it does not prove: It cannot be inferred from this that there is a second-order knower that turns back on itself; the text precisely excludes “knowing knowing by itself”. What is retained is a non-objectifying “lucid clarity”.
Original excerpt: 唯覺無所得。即覺無覺。無覺之覺。異乎木石。
Only awareness that nothing is obtained: awareness that is no awareness. The awareness of no-awareness is different from wood and stone.
Context passage: 今言知者。不須知知。但知而已。則前不接滅。後不引起。前後斷續。中間自孤。當體不顧。應時消滅。知體既已滅。豁然如托空。寂爾少時間。唯覺無所得。即覺無覺。無覺之覺。異乎木石。此是初心處。
What the passage does: In the gradual stages of cultivating the mind, the continuity of “knowing knowing by means of knowing” is regarded as “the way of saṃsāra”; the remedy is “just knowing, nothing more”, so that before and after are cut off and the substance of knowing ceases. But what remains after the cessation is still named “awareness”, and is distinguished from wood and stone as “the awareness of no-awareness”. The same passage also says “this is the place of the initial mind”, showing that this is only a description of the entry stage.
Original excerpt: 一念者靈知之自性也。然五念是一念枝條。一念是五念根本。
The single thought is the self-nature of numinous awareness. The five kinds of thought are branches of the single thought; the single thought is the root of the five.
Context passage: 雖復藥病有殊。總束俱名為念。得此五念停息之時。名為一念相應。一念者靈知之自性也。然五念是一念枝條。一念是五念根本。
What the passage does: The “accord of the single thought” reached when the five kinds of thought (deliberately arising, habitual, continuing, separately arising, and immediately still) have ceased is directly defined as “the self-nature of numinous awareness”, and is made the root of all thoughts. Numinous awareness here is not a tool within a method; it is placed in the position of the “root”.
What it does not prove: The “single thought” is here a concept of mind-cultivation and cannot be directly equated with the cosmological proposition of Tiantai’s “three thousand worlds in a single thought”.
Original excerpt: 亦寂寂亦惺惺。非唯歷歷。兼復寂寂。此乃還源之妙性也。Both still and alert — not only distinct and clear, but also still: this is the wondrous nature that returns to the source.
Context passage: 第五識是非者。寂寂不惺惺。此乃昏住。惺惺不寂寂。此乃緣慮。不惺惺不寂寂。此乃非但緣慮。亦乃入昏而住。亦寂寂亦惺惺。非唯歷歷。兼復寂寂。此乃還源之妙性也。此四句者。前三句非。
後一句是。故云識是非也。
What the passage does: Among the four alternatives of discernment, only “both still and alert” is judged “right”, and it is named “the wondrous nature that returns to the source”; deleting alertness and keeping only stillness falls into “dull abiding”. At the level of distinguishing states in mind-cultivation and of the path, this is direct A-grade evidence; whether it can be raised without mediation to the structural endpoint of the whole thought still requires reading together with E-13, E-19, E-25 and the texts on the completion of liberation, and as a whole is a B-grade inference.
What it does not prove: “Returning to the source” is a term from the context of mind-cultivation, but elsewhere in the book (E-05, E-29) the “wondrous nature” is set alongside the original source and true reality, and cannot be read merely as a temporary psychological state.
Original excerpt: 以惺惺為正。以寂寂為助。此之二事。體不相離。Alertness is primary; stillness is auxiliary. These two are not separate in substance.
Context passage: 第六正助者。以惺惺為正。以寂寂為助。此之二事。體不相離。猶如病者。因杖而行。以行為正。以杖為助。
What the passage does: Of alertness and stillness, the lucid side is set as “primary” and the still side as “auxiliary”, compared to “walking” and the “staff”. Cognitive lucidity is not a by-product but the main stem.
Original excerpt: 歷歷見此一念之中。無有主宰。即人空慧。見如幻化。即法空慧。
Seeing distinctly that within this single thought there is no ruler is the wisdom of the emptiness of persons; seeing it as illusory transformation is the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas.
Context passage: 此五陰者。舉體即是一念。此一念者。舉體全是五陰。歷歷見此一念之中。無有主宰。即人空慧。見如幻化。即法空慧。
What the passage does: The substantialized ruler is explicitly removed: the single thought as a whole is the five aggregates, and within it “there is no ruler”. But the removal is accomplished through “seeing distinctly”, and is named as two kinds of “wisdom”.
What it does not prove: “No ruler” denies a substantial subject; it cannot be inferred that the function of “seeing” is also deleted (de-substantialization ≠ functional deletion).
Original excerpt: 三空空慧。謂了境智俱空。是空亦空。Third, the wisdom of the emptiness of emptiness: realizing that object and knowing are both empty, and that this emptiness too is empty.
Context passage: 慧中三應須別。一人空慧。謂了陰非我。即陰中無我。如龜毛兔角。二法空慧。謂了陰等諸法。緣假非實。如鏡像水月。三空空慧。謂了境智俱空。是空亦空。
What the passage does: Knowing itself is also brought into emptiness: object and knowing are both empty, and even “emptiness” is empty. This is the strongest self-reflexive sentence in the book.
What it does not prove: “The emptiness of knowing” is known in “realizing”; the text keeps the “realizing” in “realizing that object and knowing are both empty”. It cannot be inferred that the cognitive relation has been deleted from the final structure (“the cognitive relation is also empty” ≠ “the cognitive relation has been deleted”).
Original excerpt: 一法身不癡即般若。般若無著即解脫。解脫寂滅即法身。First: the dharma-body not deluded is prajñā; prajñā without attachment is liberation; liberation in quiescence is the dharma-body.
Context passage: 圓中三應須具。一法身不癡即般若。般若無著即解脫。解脫寂滅即法身。二般若無著即解脫。解脫寂滅即法身。法身不癡即般若。三解脫寂滅即法身。法身不癡即般若。般若無著即解脫。舉一即具三。言三體即一。
What the passage does: Within its discussion of mind-cultivation, the “Verses on Śamatha” draws on the mutual identity of the three virtues: dharma-body, prajñā and liberation — raise one and all three are present; “the dharma-body not deluded is prajñā” has structural significance for the constitution of the three virtues.
Special care is needed: E-13 comes from the “Verses on Śamatha” and must not be misattributed to the “suchness by nature” gate of the “Verses on Upekṣā”; it is a perfect-teaching structural statement cited within a chapter on practice, and only in mutual confirmation with the genuine “suchness by nature” gate of E-19 may it be raised to the whole structure of the ground. (Definition in the original A; cross-chapter structural judgment B)
What it does not prove: The mutual identity of the three virtues means that prajñā cannot be pulled out on its own as an external knower; but equally it means that prajñā cannot be deleted — delete prajñā and the dharma-body is “deluded”, and the structure is not perfect.
Original excerpt: 然法無淺深。而照之有明昧。心非垢淨。而解之有迷悟。Yet the Dharma has no shallow or deep, while the illumination of it has bright and dim; the mind is neither defiled nor pure, while the understanding of it has delusion and awakening.
Context passage: 然法無淺深。而照之有明昧。心非垢淨。而解之有迷悟。剏入初心。迷復何非淺。終契圓理。達始何非深。迷之失理而自差。悟之失差而即理。迷悟則同其致。故有漸次名焉。
What the passage does: The Dharma and the mind in themselves have no shallow or deep, no defiled or pure;
the difference lies only in “illumination” and “understanding”. Delusion and awakening “reach the same end”, and the name of gradual stages is set up only because of illumination and understanding. This is the sentence in the book closest to “the ground is so of itself; cognition concerns only the human side”.
What it does not prove: What it shows is that “the Dharma” is not increased or decreased by delusion and awakening; it does not show that “finally according with the perfect principle” can dispense with “illumination” and “understanding”. “The ground originally exists” cannot by itself prove ①.
Original excerpt: 夫境非智而不了。智非境而不生。The object is not realized without knowing; knowing does not arise without the object.
Context passage: 夫境非智而不了。智非境而不生。智生則了境而生。境了則智生而了。智生而了。了無所了。了境而生。生無能生。生無能生。雖智而非有。了無所了。雖境而非無。無即不無。有即非有。有無雙照。妙悟蕭然。
What the passage does: The section on contemplation first defines knowing and object as arising in dependence on each other: knowing arises in dependence on the object, the object is realized in dependence on knowing; from this it infers that knowing is “not existent” and the object “not non-existent”, and takes “illuminating both existence and non-existence” as wondrous awakening. Knowing is de-substantialized and made relational.
What it does not prove: Knowing is made relational, but “illuminating both” is still illumination; the text does not place illumination within a more basic structure that needs no illumination.
Original excerpt: 智雖了境空。及以了智空。非無了境智。Although knowing realizes the emptiness of the object and realizes the emptiness of knowing, the knowing that realizes the object is not absent.
Context passage: 若智了於境。即是境空。智如眼了花。空是了花空眼。若智了於智。即是智空。智如眼了眼。空是了眼空眼。智雖了境空。及以了智空。非無了境智。境空智猶有。了境智空智。無境智不了。
What the passage does: This sentence deals directly with “what remains after knowing is empty”: knowing realizes the emptiness of the object and also the emptiness of knowing, but “the knowing that realizes the object is not absent”. The eye simile shows that the emptiness of the flower and the emptiness of the eye are both realized, while the function that realizes does not thereby disappear. This is another direct answer to the deletion test in the original text.
What it does not prove: What the text denies is the self-natured reality of knowing; what it keeps is the function of “realizing”. The two must not be confused.
Original excerpt: 般若無知。無所不知。如是則妙旨非知。不知而知矣。Prajñā is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know. Thus the wondrous purport is not knowing: it knows without knowing.
Context passage: 生無能生。則內智寂寂。了無所了。則外境如如。如寂無差。境智冥一。萬累都泯。妙旨存焉。故經云。般若無知。無所不知。如是則妙旨非知。不知而知矣。
What the passage does: The endpoint of contemplation is “object and knowing merge as one”; its final name is not “non-knowing” but “knowing without knowing”. Knowing is retained at the highest point in a negated form.
What it does not prove: “Object and knowing merge as one” can be read as the dissolution of knower and known; but “knowing without knowing” shows that the direction of the dissolution is the de-objectification of knowing, not the incorporation of knowing into a more basic non-knowing structure.
Original excerpt: 以奢摩他故。雖寂而常照。以毘婆舍那故。雖照而常寂。以優畢叉故。非照而非寂。Because of śamatha, though still it always illuminates; because of vipaśyanā, though illuminating it is always still; because of upekṣā, it is neither illuminating nor still.
Context passage: 定慧則寂而常照。寂而常照則雙與。無緣之慈則雙奪。雙奪故優畢叉。雙與故毘婆奢摩。以奢摩他故。雖寂而常照。以毘婆舍那故。雖照而常寂。以優畢叉故。非照而非寂。照而常寂故說俗而即真。寂而常照故說真而即俗。非寂非照。故杜口於毘耶。
What the passage does: Calming, contemplation and equanimity are unified by “double affirmation / double negation”: calming and contemplation make stillness and illumination mutually identical; equanimity removes both, with Vimalakīrti’s silence as the image.
Illumination itself is also subject to “double negation”.
What it does not prove: “Neither illuminating nor still” is the evenness of equanimity, not the abolition of illumination; the same passage defines the principle of concentration and wisdom as “still yet always illuminating”.
Original excerpt: 是以三諦一境。法身之理恒清。三智一心。般若之明常照。境智冥合。解脫之應隨機。
Thus the three truths are one object, and the principle of the dharma-body is ever clear; the three wisdoms are one mind, and the brightness of prajñā always illuminates. Object and knowing merge, and the response of liberation follows the occasion.
Context passage: 第一言其法爾者。夫心性虛通。動靜之源莫二。真如絕慮。緣計之念非殊。惑見紛馳。窮之則唯一寂。靈源不狀。鑒之則以千差。千差不同。法眼之名自立。一寂非異。慧眼之號斯存。理量雙消。佛眼之功圓著。是以三諦一境。法身之理恒清。三智一心。般若之明常照。境智冥合。解脫之應隨機。非縱非橫。圓伊之道玄會。故知三德妙性。宛爾無乖。一心深廣難思。何出要而非路。是以即心為道者。可謂尋流而得源矣。
What the passage does: The first of the ten gates of contemplating the mind in the “Verses on Upekṣā” explicitly speaks of “suchness by nature”, and defines the ground by the mind-nature, the three truths as one object, the three wisdoms as one mind, prajñā always illuminating, and the mind itself being the Way — not merely describing a stretch of practising psychology.
This is evidence about the structure of the ground; it shows that the nature of numinous awareness has the face of lucid illumination, but does not by itself prove that the practitioner has already recognized it or attained perfect liberation.
What it does not prove: “Always illuminating” is an illumination that is so by nature, not one acquired by practice; it shows that illumination does not wait for practice, but does not show that illumination can be deleted.
Original excerpt: 心與空不空非空非不空相應。則實相初明。開佛知見。When the mind is in accord with the empty, the non-empty, the neither-empty-nor-non-empty, true reality first becomes clear and the knowledge and vision of the Buddha are opened.
Context passage: 心與空不空相應。則愛見都忘。慈悲普救。身與空不空相應。則內同枯木。外現威儀。依報與空不空相應。則永絕貪求。資財給濟。心與空不空非空非不空相應。則實相初明。開佛知見。
What the passage does: The “accord” of contemplating the mind unfolds level by level: mind, body and environment are respectively in accord with the empty, the non-empty, and the neither-empty-nor-non-empty; the result at the highest level is named “true reality first becomes clear; the knowledge and vision of the Buddha are opened”. The formulation at the ultimate level directly uses “clarity” and “knowledge and vision”.
What it does not prove: “Opening the knowledge and vision of the Buddha” is the language of the Lotus Sutra and need not be understood as personal knowledge; but it is cognitive vocabulary, and it appears at the highest level of accord.
Original excerpt: 修心必須入觀。非觀無以明心。心尚未明。相應何日。To cultivate the mind one must enter contemplation;
without contemplation there is no way to clarify the mind. While the mind is not yet clear, when will there be accord?
Context passage: 第五誡其疎怠者。然渡海應須上船。非船何以能渡。修心必須入觀。非觀無以明心。心尚未明。相應何日。思之勿自恃也。
What the passage does: Using the simile that crossing the sea requires a boat, it stipulates that “clarifying the mind” must go through contemplation, and that without clarity there will never be accord. This is the book’s explicit statement that the turn “not yet clear → clear” cannot be omitted.
What it does not prove: The boat simile indicates that contemplation itself is a tool; but the result, “clarifying the mind”, is not a tool — it is the condition of accord.
Original excerpt: 理明則言語道斷。何言之能議。旨會則心行處滅。何觀之能思When the principle is clear, the way of words is cut off — how could words discuss it? When the purport is met, the activity of the mind is extinguished — how could contemplation think it?
Context passage: 第八簡其詮旨者。然而至理無言。假文言以明其旨。旨宗非觀。藉修觀以會其宗。若旨之未明。則言之未的。若宗之未會。則觀之未深。深觀乃會其宗。的言必明其旨。旨宗既其明會。言觀何得存存耶。第九觸途成觀者。夫再演言辭。重標觀體。欲明宗旨無異。言觀有逐方移。移言則言理無差。改觀則觀旨不異。不異之旨即理。無差之理即宗。宗旨一而二名。言觀明其弄引耳。第十妙契玄源者。夫悟心之士。寧執觀而迷旨。達教之人。豈滯言而惑理。理明則言語道斷。何言之能議。旨會則心行處滅。何觀之能思心。言不能思議者。可謂妙契寰中矣。
What the passage does: The book’s treatment of its own speech: words and contemplation are only “lead-ins”; once the purport and principle are clarified and met, “how could words and contemplation remain?”; finally “the way of words is cut off” and “the activity of the mind is extinguished”. The thought lets go of its own language and method (self-reflexivity).
What it does not prove: “The ultimate principle is without words” and “words and contemplation are lead-ins” cannot by themselves prove that Xuanjue’s language and thought stand outside the whole of the one mind; “words and contemplation may be let go after clarity and meeting” is a limit placed on tools and on attachment. “Purely Cultivating the Three Kinds of Action” and “The Gradual Stages of the Three Vehicles” also contain positive material on speech forming from the conditions of the mind and on speaking and wordlessness being identical; see E-42 and E-44. Whether full self-inclusion of the thought holds should be kept as a local C.
Original excerpt: 如是則法本無三。而人自三耳。Thus the Dharma is originally not three; people make it three themselves.
Context passage: 獸之非一。明其足有短長。河之不三。知其水無深淺。水無深淺。譬法之無差。足有短長。類智之有明昧。如是則法本無三。而人自三耳。
What the passage does: The simile of three animals crossing a river: the river has no shallow or deep, the animals’ legs are long or short; the Dharma has no difference, the difference lies wholly in “the brightness or dimness of wisdom”. The distinction of the three vehicles is attributed entirely to the strength of cognition.
What it does not prove: It shows that the Dharma does not change with people; it also shows that the higher or lower fruits of realization are “because contemplation is shallow or deep” (same chapter): cognition is the decisive variable.
Original excerpt: 然萬法本源。由來實相。塵沙惑趣。原是真宗。Yet the original source of all dharmas has always been true reality; the delusions and destinies as many as dust and sand were originally the true principle.
Context passage: 夫妙悟通衢。則山河非壅。迷名滯相。則絲毫成隔。然萬法本源。由來實相。塵沙惑趣。原是真宗。故物像無邊。般若無際者。以其法性本真。了達成智故也。
What the passage does: The opening of “Non-duality of Phenomena and Principle” establishes that the original source of all dharmas has always been true reality, and that even deluded destinies were originally the true principle. But it immediately explains that the reason “prajñā is boundless” is that “the dharma-nature is originally true and penetrating realization becomes wisdom” — the original truth of the dharma-nature and penetrating realization becoming wisdom are given side by side as reasons.
What it does not prove: “Has always been true reality” is an explicit statement that the ground originally exists; the second half of the sentence at the same time gives the place of cognition: the boundlessness of prajñā depends on “penetrating realization”.
Original excerpt: 真諦不乖於事理。即事理之體元真。妙智不異於了知。即了知之性元智。The ultimate truth does not diverge from phenomena and principle: the substance of phenomena and principle is originally true. Wondrous wisdom is not different from lucid knowing: the nature of lucid knowing is originally wisdom.
Context passage: 迷之則謂有形聲。悟之則知其閴寂。如是則真諦不乖於事理。即事理之體元真。妙智不異於了知。即了知之性元智。
What the passage does: In symmetry with “the substance of phenomena and principle is originally true”, “the nature of lucid knowing is originally wisdom” positively links lucid knowing and wondrous wisdom. This is a judgment of “Non-duality of Phenomena and Principle” about nature and wisdom, not a momentary experience seen by a practitioner at a certain stage; but “the nature originally has wisdom” cannot be directly equated with “a person’s ultimate completion must actually recognize”, which must be supported independently by E-21, E-26 and E-30.
What it does not prove: This is one of the key sentences for this archive’s judgment that “cognition is not deleted but established as one face of the ground”; its direction differs from what ① requires, namely that “cognition be placed within a more basic structure”.
Original excerpt: 真妄不差。愚智自異耳。True and false do not differ; the foolish and the wise differ of themselves.
Context passage: 何者。夫妄非愚出。真不智生。達妄名真。迷真曰妄。豈有妄隨愚變。真逐智迴。真妄不差。愚智自異耳。夫欲妙識玄宗。必先審其愚智。若欲審其愚智。善須明其真妄。若欲明其真妄。
復當究其名體。名體若分。真妄自辨。真妄既辨。愚智迢然。是以愚無了智之能。智有達愚之實。故知非智無以明其真妄。
What the passage does: The true is not produced by wisdom, and the false is not produced by foolishness (“the false does not come from foolishness; the true does not arise from wisdom”); true and false in themselves do not differ, the difference lies only in foolishness and wisdom. But the same passage also says “without wisdom there is no way to clarify true and false”, and “foolishness has no capacity to realize wisdom; wisdom has the reality of penetrating foolishness”. The true does not wait for wisdom in order to exist, but the discrimination of true and false can only come through wisdom.
What it does not prove: The first half is one of the strongest ①-direction passages in the book; the second half hands the completion of “clarity” to wisdom. The two sentences stand in the same passage and must be read together.
Original excerpt: 是以緣會之有。有而非有。性空之無。無而不無。Thus existence by the meeting of conditions exists yet does not exist; the non-existence of empty nature is non-existent yet not non-existent.
Context passage: 是以萬法從緣。無自體耳。體而無自。故名性空。性之既空。雖緣會而非有。緣之既會。雖性空而不無。是以緣會之有。有而非有。性空之無。無而不無。何者會即性空。故言非有。空即緣會。
故曰非無。今言不有不無者。非是離有別有一無也。亦非離無別有一有也。如是則明法非有無。故以非有非無名耳。不是非有非無。既非有無。又非非有非非無也。如是何獨言語道斷。亦乃心行處滅也。
What the passage does: The conclusion of the analysis of name and substance: all dharmas follow from conditions and have no self-substance; existence and non-existence, and neither-existence-nor-non-existence, are removed layer by layer, until finally “the way of words is cut off, the activity of the mind is extinguished”. This is the book’s main account of the differences of all things — the differentiated world is explained by the mutual identity of the meeting of conditions and the emptiness of nature.
What it does not prove: This account deals with the existence and non-existence of dharmas, not with the place of cognition in the whole.
Original excerpt: 是以先須識道後乃居山。Therefore one must first recognize the Way, and only then dwell in the mountains.
Context passage: 故知見惑尚紆。觸途成滯耳。是以先須識道後乃居山。若未識道而先居山者。但見其山。必忘其道。若未居山而先識道者。但見其道。必忘其山。忘山則道性怡神。忘道則山形眩目。是以見道忘山者。人間亦寂也。見山忘道者。山中乃喧也。
What the passage does: The letter of reply to Zuoxi Xuanlang attributes the distinction between mountain dwelling and the human world to whether one “recognizes the Way”: if one recognizes the Way, the human world too is quiet; if not, even in the mountains there is noise. The Song gaoseng zhuan says this letter made “mountain and world one, noise and quiet mutually useful”.
What it does not prove: This is an account of circumstance: the difference between noise and quiet depends on whether one recognizes the Way, not on the external environment. It shows again the decisive status of “recognition” in the book.
Original excerpt: 靈源寂寂。不照而知實相。天真靈智非造。人迷謂之失。人悟謂之得。得失在於人。何關動靜者乎。The numinous source is still and quiet; without illuminating it knows true reality. Heaven-true numinous wisdom is not made. When people are deluded they call it lost; when people awaken they call it gained. Gain and loss lie with the person — what has it to do with movement and stillness?
Context passage: 故知物類紜紜。其性自一。靈源寂寂。不照而知實相。天真靈智非造。人迷謂之失。人悟謂之得。得失在於人。何關動靜者乎。
What the passage does: This passage contains two textual stipulations that must stand together: their nature is one of itself, numinous wisdom is not made, and gain and loss through delusion and awakening lie with the person; at the same time, the original source that is “not made” is called “numinous wisdom” and is described as “without illuminating it knows true reality”. The first supports that the ground does not hold because of a person’s recognition; the second supports that the ground is described in terms of lucid knowing. By themselves they are not yet enough to infer the relation of completion from delusion to awakening, which is separately evidenced by the adjacent E-30 and other passages.
What it does not prove: The same sentence also says what it is that is “not made”: it is “numinous wisdom”, and its function is to “know true reality”. The ground is not said to be a happening prior to and containing knowing; the ground itself is said to be a natural knowing. What is proved here is therefore that “numinous wisdom does not wait for practice in order to be”, not that “the cognitive function can be deleted”.
Original excerpt: 乖之則六趣循環。會之則三塗逈出。In discord with it, the six destinies revolve in a cycle; in accord with it, the three evil paths are left far behind.
Context passage: 滅既非滅以何滅滅。生既非生以何生生。生滅既虛。實相常住矣。是以定水滔滔。何念塵而不洗。智燈了了。何惑霧而不祛。乖之則六趣循環。會之則三塗逈出。
What the passage does: In the same letter as E-29 and closely adjacent to it: true reality abides constantly, but “discord” and “accord” correspond respectively to saṃsāra and release, preceded by “the lamp of wisdom is lucidly clear” breaking through delusion. This is not accord creating true reality; it says that the transformation of liberation described in the book cannot do without accord, and it is independent evidence for the complete ultimate path and the completion at the end. (Conditional relation in the original A; from path to the whole ultimate structure B)
What it does not prove: It does not say that true reality holds because of “accord”; it says that liberation (leaving the three evil paths) depends on “accord”. This is exactly what the third level of the deletion test (ultimate completion) asks.
Original excerpt: 修無上菩提。契從今生。至成正覺。中間決定。勤求不退。I cultivate unsurpassed bodhi, pledged from this present life until perfect awakening is attained; in between, resolute, seeking diligently without retreat.
Context passage: 說此偈已。我復稽首歸依。十方三世。一切諸佛法僧前。承三寶力。志心發願。修無上菩提。契從今生。至成正覺。中間決定。勤求不退。
What the passage does: The whole book closes with a text of vows: taking refuge in the Three Jewels, vowing to cultivate unsurpassed bodhi until perfect awakening, and wishing universally that beings “all attain the Buddha Way”. The final goal is named “perfect awakening”.
What it does not prove: A text of vows is a ritual genre expressing the practitioner’s aspiration and does not directly constitute a philosophical structural argument; this archive uses it only to show the end-point vocabulary of the whole book.
Original excerpt: 君不見。絕學無為閒道人。不除妄想不求真。無明實性即佛性。幻化空身即法身。Do you not see the leisurely person of the Way, beyond learning and without striving, who neither removes deluded thoughts nor seeks the true? The real nature of ignorance is Buddha-nature; the illusory empty body is the dharma-body.
Context passage: 君不見。絕學無為閒道人。不除妄想不求真。無明實性即佛性。幻化空身即法身。法身覺了無一物。本源自性天真佛。
What the passage does: The Zhengdao ge cancels grasping and rejecting at its very opening: not removing the false, not seeking the true; the real nature of ignorance is Buddha-nature, the illusory empty body is the dharma-body. This is the main traditional ground for reading Yongjia as “no cognitive turn required”.
What it does not prove: The same group of lines continues immediately with “when the dharma-body is awakened to, there is not a single thing”: the dharma-body is described in terms of “awakening”. And this piece is T3 and cannot by itself bear a core conclusion.
Original excerpt: 覺即了不施功。一切有為法不同。Awakening is realization, without applying effort; it is unlike all conditioned dharmas.
Context passage: 覺即了不施功。一切有為法不同。住相布施生天福。猶如仰箭射虛空。勢力盡箭還墜。招得來生不如意。爭似無為實相門。一超直入如來地。
What the passage does: “Without applying effort” denies conditioned contrivance; but it presupposes “awakening is realization” — once awakened and realized, no effort is needed. Cognition is not deleted, but defined as the one stroke that replaces all effort.
What it does not prove: “Without applying effort” must not be read as “no awakening or realization needed”.
Original excerpt: 了了見無一物。亦無人亦無佛。Seeing with full clarity, there is not a single thing; there is no person and no Buddha.
Context passage: 我今解此如意珠。信受之者皆相應。了了見無一物。亦無人亦無佛。大千沙界海中漚。一切聖賢如電拂。
What the passage does: Both person and Buddha are removed; the great chiliocosm is like a bubble on the sea, sages and saints like a flash of lightning; but the removal itself is given by “seeing with full clarity”.
What it does not prove: “No Buddha” does not mean no “seeing”; this line speaks of absence precisely within “seeing”.
Original excerpt: 心鏡明鑒無礙。廓然瑩徹周沙界。萬象森羅影現中。一顆圓光非內外。The mirror of the mind reflects brightly without obstruction; vast and clear, it pervades worlds as many as sands. The myriad forms in their array appear as images within it — one round light, neither inside nor outside.
Context passage: 不求真不斷妄。了知二法空無相。無相無空無不空。即是如來真實相。心鏡明鑒無礙。廓然瑩徹周沙界。萬象森羅影現中。一顆圓光非內外。
What the passage does: The myriad forms are placed within the “mirror of the mind” as appearing images; the mirror itself “reflects brightly”. The container of the whole is described as a mirror that illuminates. This is the opposite of the direction ① requires: it is not cognition placed within a more basic happening, but all things placed within a cognitive mirror-light.
What it does not prove: “Neither inside nor outside” keeps the mirror of the mind from being a mirror inside a subject; but it still “reflects brightly”.
Original excerpt: 痕垢盡除光始現。心法雙忘性即真。When the traces of dirt are wholly removed the light first appears; when mind and dharmas are both forgotten, the nature is true.
Context passage: 真不立妄本空。有無俱遣不空空。二十空門元不著。一性如來體自同。心是根法是塵。兩種猶如鏡上痕。痕垢盡除光始現。心法雙忘性即真。
What the passage does: “Mind” and “dharmas” are both treated as traces on the mirror; when both are forgotten, “the nature is true”. Knower and known are both removed, but what remains is “light” and “nature”.
What it does not prove: “The light first appears” has the tone of a process of manifestation; it can be read together with “the dusty mirror has never been polished; today it must be clearly analysed”.
Original excerpt: 了即業障本來空。未了應須還夙債。Once realized, karmic obstructions are originally empty; not yet realized, one must still repay past debts.
Context passage: 不見一法即如來。方得名為觀自在。了即業障本來空。未了應須還夙債。饑逢王饍不能飡。病遇醫王爭得瘥。
What the passage does: Karmic obstructions are “originally empty”, but their emptiness holds only for one who has “realized”; one who has “not yet realized” must still repay debts. This is the clearest sentence in the Zhengdao ge stating a cognitive condition of completion.
What it does not prove: This piece is T3; it agrees in direction with the T1 texts E-21 and E-30, and so can serve as corroboration.
Original excerpt: 一性圓通一切性。一法遍含一切法。一月普現一切水。一切水月一月攝。One nature perfectly pervades all natures; one dharma contains all dharmas. One moon appears everywhere in all waters; all the moons in the waters are gathered in the one moon.
Context passage: 一性圓通一切性。一法遍含一切法。一月普現一切水。一切水月一月攝。諸佛法身入我性。我性同共如來合。
What the passage does: One and all are mutually identical: with the Huayan image of the moon reflected in ten thousand rivers, the song explains the relation between the differences of all things and the one nature. This is the Zhengdao ge’s positive account of the differences of all things.
What it does not prove: “My nature joins together with the Tathāgata” still makes the accord of “my nature” and “the Tathāgata” the point of arrival.
Original excerpt: 取不得捨不得。不可得中只麼得。默時說說時默。It cannot be grasped, it cannot be rejected; within the ungraspable, just so it is attained. When silent it speaks; when speaking it is silent.
Context passage: 不可毀不可讚。體若虛空勿涯岸。不離當處常湛然。覓即知君不可見。取不得捨不得。不可得中只麼得。默時說說時默。大施門開無壅塞。
What the passage does: Neither grasping nor rejecting is possible, and speaking and silence are mutually identical: this piece treats its own speech more fluidly than the Yongjia ji — speaking and silence are not two, rather than speech being placed outside the ultimate principle.
What it does not prove: “Speaking and silence are not two” is a self-reflexive dissolution of speech; it still does not positively explain speech as an occurrence of the ground (self-reflexivity ≠ self-inclusion). And “when you seek it, know that you cannot see it” keeps “knowing”.
Original excerpt: 一切數句非數句。與吾靈覺何交涉。All numbered phrases are not numbered phrases — what have they to do with my numinous awareness?
Context passage: 彈指圓成八萬門。剎那滅却三祇劫。一切數句非數句。與吾靈覺何交涉。
What the passage does: All names, numbers and verbal phrases have nothing to do with “numinous awareness”. Speech is placed outside and below numinous awareness;
the final standpoint is called “my numinous awareness”.
What it does not prove: This is a transcendence of speech, not a withdrawal of numinous awareness itself.
Original excerpt: 曰：「體即無生，了本無速。」He said: “The substance itself is unborn; realization has originally no speed.”
Context passage: 師曰：「何不體取無生，了無速乎？」曰：「體即無生，了本無速。」師曰：「如是，如是！」玄覺方具威儀禮拜，須臾告辭。師曰：「返太速乎？」曰：「本自非動，豈有速耶？」師曰：「誰知非動？」曰：「仁者自生分別。」師曰：「汝甚得無生之意。」曰：「無生豈有意耶？」師曰：「無意，誰當分別？」曰：「分別亦非意。」
What the passage does: The later recorded dialogue with Huineng centres on “the unborn”: the substance is unborn, originally unmoving; the question “who knows it is unmoving?” is deflected with “you, sir, are making distinctions yourself”, and “how can the unborn have intention?” and “distinction too is not intention” remove step by step. This is the typical Chan image of Xuanjue.
What it does not prove: This passage appears in fascicle 5 of the Jingde chuandeng lu and in the Zongbao Platform Sutra, about three to six centuries later than Xuanjue, and is T4; the Song gaoseng zhuan says only that “the words are in a separate record”.
It is not used as evidence of Xuanjue’s own thought, only as a reference for the history of reception.
Original excerpt: 觀彼口業。脣舌牙齒。咽喉臍響。識風鼓擊。音出其中。由心因緣。虛實兩別。Contemplate verbal action: lips, tongue, teeth, throat, the resonance of the navel — the wind of consciousness drums upon them and sound comes forth from within.
It arises from the conditions of the mind, and is of two kinds, true and false.
Context passage: 我今欲拔其源。觀彼口業。脣舌牙齒。咽喉臍響。識風鼓擊。音出其中。由心因緣。虛實兩別。實則利益。虛則損減。實是起善之根。虛是生惡之本。善惡根本。由口言詮。……誦經念佛。觀語實相。言無所存。語默平等。是名淨修口業。
What the passage does: Xuanjue positively assigns language to the conditions of body and mind and to mental action, and does not explain speech by a speaker from outside; he also describes the ethical and contemplative functions of language between “true speech” and “speech and silence being equal”. This is a positive candidate for self-inclusion and cannot be written as “no self-inclusion at all”.
What it does not prove: The original text does not specifically bring the Yongjia ji itself, Xuanjue’s act of composition and readers’ understanding one by one into its account of the ultimate ground;
nor does language “arising from the conditions of the mind” directly withdraw the condition of completion of liberation through accord and clarity. The overall judgment on self-inclusion is provisionally a local C.
Original excerpt: 如取真金。明識瓦礫。及以偽寶。但盡除之。
縱不識金。金體自現。何憂不得。It is like taking true gold: clearly discern the rubble and the counterfeit treasures, and simply remove them all. Even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself — why worry about not obtaining it?
Context passage: 此五陰者。舉體即是一念。此一念者。舉體全是五陰。歷歷見此一念之中。無有主宰。即人空慧。見如幻化。即法空慧。是故須識此五念及六種料簡。願勿嫌之。如取真金。明識瓦礫。及以偽寶。但盡除之。縱不識金。金體自現。何憂不得。
What the passage does: This sentence is clearer than the bare “the Dharma has no shallow or deep”: even without recognizing the “gold” itself, the substance of the gold appears of itself. It forbids making correct recognition of the object a condition for the ground to hold, and must be seriously included in the ①-direction stress test. At the same time, the preceding clause requires clearly discerning rubble and counterfeit treasures and removing them, so the whole passage remains a simile of the path of discerning the false in cultivating the mind.
What it does not prove: “Not recognizing the true gold” does not equal “needing no discernment, lucid knowing or meeting of the principle whatever”; nor can one infer back from the removal of rubble that “recognizing the true gold” is indispensable. It proves this face of the ground being originally present; whether it removes the role of accord and awakening for the end of liberation must be read together with E-21, E-26 and E-30.
Original excerpt: 順物忘懷。施而不作。終日說示。不異無言。設教多途。無乖一揆。Following beings and forgetting himself, he gives without making; speaking and teaching all day is no different from being without words. The teaching takes many routes, yet does not depart from the one measure.
Context passage: 夫妙道沖微。理絕名相之表。至真虛寂。量超群數之外。而能無緣之慈。隨有機而感應。不二之旨。逐根性以區分。順物忘懷。施而不作。終日說示。不異無言。設教多途。無乖一揆。是以大聖慈悲。隨機利物。統其幽致。群籍非殊。
What the passage does: When Xuanjue discusses the sage teaching according to conditions, he places continuous speaking and teaching in a non-dual relation with wordlessness; this corrects the overly strong reading of E-22 that “language can only stand outside the ultimate principle”, and shows that language can function without attachment to words.
What it does not prove: This passage speaks directly of the “great sage” teaching according to capacities; it is not Xuanjue explicitly analysing how his own Yongjia ji happens, so it cannot automatically be taken as showing that the author’s self-inclusion is fully established. It does not deny the role of awakened understanding and lucid clarity in the argument about liberation that follows.
| Term | At least the layers that must be distinguished | Judgment that must not be overstepped |
|---|---|---|
| Numinous awareness / numinous wisdom (灵知／灵智) | the “distinct and clear” lucid state in mind-cultivation (E-05) / the ground established as the self-nature of the single thought, heaven-true and not made (E-08, E-29) | “Not made” does not mean numinous awareness can be deleted; it is the content of the ground, not a cognition added on top of the ground |
| Term | At least the layers that must be distinguished | Judgment that must not be overstepped |
|---|---|---|
| Alertness / stillness (惺惺／寂寂) | two medicines curing dull abiding and discursive thinking (E-09) / the “wondrous nature” in which the two are not separate (E-09, E-10) | Alertness is “primary”; delete it and the result is “dull abiding” |
| Realizing / illuminating (了／照) | lucid knowing of the object in contemplation (E-15) / “the brightness of prajñā always illuminates” among the three virtues (E-19) | Realizing is de-self-natured (knowing is empty), which does not mean realizing is deleted (“the knowing that realizes the object is not absent”, E-16) |
| Single thought (一念) | the accord after the five kinds of thought cease (E-08) / the single thought as a whole is the five aggregates (E-11) | Not directly equivalent to the cosmology of Tiantai’s “three thousand worlds in a single thought” |
| Term | At least the layers that must be distinguished | Judgment that must not be overstepped |
|---|---|---|
| Three virtues (三德) | the three virtues in the cause (dharma-body, prajñā, liberation mutually identical, E-13) / the three virtues in the fruit | Prajñā is the “not deluded” face of the dharma-body; without it the structure is “not perfect” and “not the nature” |
| True reality / original source (实相／本源) | the original source of all dharmas has always been true reality (E-24) / true reality abides constantly (E-30) | “Originally true reality” is the ground originally existing; it cannot by itself prove ① |
| Unborn (无生) | “the substance itself is unborn” in the later dialogue (E-41, T4) / “arising without anything that arises” in the Yongjia ji (E-15) | The T4 dialogue is not used as evidence of his own thought |
| Term | At least the layers that must be distinguished | Judgment that must not be overstepped |
|---|---|---|
| Words / contemplation (言／观) | the “lead-ins” for clarifying the purport and meeting the principle (E-22) | Letting go of words and contemplation is self-reflexivity; it does not amount to positively explaining the place of speech in the whole (self-inclusion) |
Xuanjue points to the ground through the mind-nature, the numinous source and true reality, and repeatedly uses “numinous awareness” and “constant illumination” to characterize its lucid face. But “the nature is originally endowed with knowing” and “a person completes liberation through recognition, clarity and accord” must be distinguished; they are not one proposition.
The texts give three groups of direct formulations:
Thus Xuanjue’s ground centres on the mind-nature, true reality and the numinous source. “The self-nature is lucidly clear”, “prajñā always illuminates” and “the nature of lucid knowing is originally wisdom” are positive characterizations of the ground (E-06, E-19, E-25); but “the ground is called numinous awareness” does not mean “the practitioner’s cognitive acts preside over existence from outside the ground”.
This archive claims only that lucid illumination cannot be arbitrarily removed from the text’s account of the ultimate; it posits no substantial observer, still less does it explain ② by “knowledge being external to the ground”. (B)
As for the differences of all things, the Yongjia ji explains dharmas by the mutual identity of the meeting of conditions and the emptiness of nature: “existence by the meeting of conditions exists yet does not exist; the non-existence of empty nature is non-existent yet not non-existent” (E-27); the differences of the three vehicles are explained by “the brightness or dimness of wisdom” (E-23). The Zhengdao ge supplements this with the mutual identity of one and many in “one moon appears everywhere in all waters” (E-38, T3). These accounts deal with the existence and non-existence, the one and the many, of dharmas, and do not change the position of the ground described above.
The question of the deletion test: if the function of “correct discernment / meeting in awakening / lucid illumination” is deleted from the complete endpoint of Xuanjue’s thought, can the wondrous nature and the liberation that Xuanjue himself stipulates still be maintained? The objects tested fall into three kinds, which cannot be exchanged: (1) numinous awareness is the inner lucid characterization of the “nature”, not someone’s single act of cognition; (2) alertness is the function of guarding against dullness and being distinct and clear in mind-cultivation, belonging first to method / path; (3) clarity, accord and realization are the conditions of completion for the turn from delusion to awakening and from saṃsāra to release. No one of these should complete the burden of proof in place of the other two.
This deletion test examines separately: whether the ground itself holds, the function of lucid illumination in practice, whether ultimate release and completion hold, and the place of the thought’s own speech. Each level must state what is deleted, what remains after deletion, and at which level — expression, teaching, path, structure or end — the break occurs. The positive ①-direction evidence provided by E-14, E-24, E-26, E-29 and E-43 is not weakened in its probative force because this archive leans towards ②.
(1) The holding of the ground (object: whether an individual first recognizes the ground): not required. “The original source of all dharmas has always been true reality” (E-24), “the true does not arise from wisdom” (E-26), “heaven-true numinous wisdom is not made” (E-29), and “even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself” (E-43). Deleting some individual act of identifying the ground does not make true reality cease to exist; at this level no break occurs. (A: explicit text; B: inference from mutual confirmation)
(2) Mind-cultivation and experiential manifestation (object: the training function of alertness / contemplation): Xuanjue explicitly uses alertness to cure dull abiding and stillness to cure discursive thinking, and requires that “to cultivate the mind one must enter contemplation” (E-09, E-10, E-21). If alertness is deleted, the qualified state of mind-cultivation turns into “dull abiding”; the break occurs first at the level of method and path. Here the whole structure of the ground cannot be judged from the method of practice alone; one must continue to check upwards. (A: explicit text on practice; B: whether it bears load for the whole book)
(3) Ultimate completion (object: from discord to accord, from not-yet-clear to clear): Xuanjue says explicitly “in discord, the six destinies revolve in a cycle;
in accord, the three evil paths are left far behind” (E-30), “without wisdom there is no way to clarify true and false” (E-26), and “while the mind is not yet clear, when will there be accord?” (E-21). If this correct discernment / accord is deleted, the release and accord that the text requires no longer hold, and the turn of the path and the completion at the end break together. This condition is not responsible for creating true reality, but for distinguishing whether its liberation is completed; this is the most important independent positive proof of ②. (A: the conditional relation in the text; B: raised to the end of the whole thought)
Withdrawn or de-self-natured: objectified knowing (knowing stillness by knowing, knowing knowing by itself, E-06); the continuity of knower and known (knowing knowing by means of knowing, E-07); the ruler (E-11); the self-nature of knowing (E-12, E-16); the independent status of words and contemplation (E-22); existence, non-existence and their negations (E-27); the distinction between mountain dwelling and the human world (E-28).
The last load-bearing point is no longer written as an interchangeable juxtaposition of three words: the nature (originally endowed numinous awareness) provides the lucid characterization of the ground, mind-cultivation (alertness / contemplation) provides the path of discerning obstructions, and “clarity / accord” bears the final functional condition of the completion of liberation. ② (B) rests in the end mainly on Chain C, with Chain A as structural mutual confirmation and Chain B as path support. The breaks stated explicitly: delete all lucid illumination from the nature → structural level;
delete alertness from mind-cultivation → method / path level; delete accord from liberation → end level. (B)
Return: Xuanjue’s structure of return is complete: after wisdom becomes clear, “compassion saves universally” and “wealth is given in relief” (third of the ten gates of contemplating the mind, the passage of E-20), “when wisdom is perfect, noise and quiet are contemplated alike; when compassion is great, enemies and kin are saved universally” (Letter Exhorting a Friend, T48 no.2013, 394b16), and the book closes with the text of vows for the universal deliverance of beings (E-31). Return does not change the load-bearing points above, but shows that his thought does not stop at individual calming and contemplation. (A)
Self-reflexivity: established, with strong evidence. With E-22 Xuanjue points out that words and contemplation can be let go after the purport is clarified and the principle met; with E-12 he dissolves the self-nature of knowing; and with E-18 he removes both stillness and illumination. E-44 also states explicitly that “speaking and teaching all day is no different from being without words”, meaning that self-reflexivity does not expel language from the whole that is spoken of;
releasing attachment to words must be distinguished from denying that language has a real place. (A: quotations; B: overall interpretation)
Self-inclusion: there is already positive evidence, but the degree of overall completion remains a local C. E-42 shows that language arises from “the wind of consciousness drumming” and “the conditions of the mind”, and explains dharmas through “the one mind”; E-44 treats the relation between teaching and wordlessness with “speaking and teaching all day is no different from being without words”; E-22 allows words and contemplation to be let go after clarity and accord. These cannot be deleted as “no self-inclusion at all”, nor can one conclude, merely because language belongs to the conditions of the mind, that Xuanjue has positively accounted for the place of his whole thought, writing and understanding within the ultimate structure. Whether the final self-inclusion C is resolved positively or negatively, ① still requires that the correct cognitive completion be deleted throughout without breaking the end; E-21, E-26 and E-30 mean that this condition cannot be passed on the present evidence. Hence ② does not presuppose a denial of self-inclusion, nor does it evade the positive material on self-inclusion.
The comparison of the place of the thought itself with No.073 rests on the reliable original texts of both sides, the current complete archives and the author’s explicit textual statements; an isolated sentence must not be taken as the whole of a work. Xuanjue has already positively placed part of the activity of language through “arising from the conditions of the mind” and “speaking and teaching all day is no different from being without words” (E-42, E-44); at the same time, he explicitly preserves the completion relation of awakening and release (E-21, E-26, E-30). Wenzi in Being and Becoming brings cognition, writing, reading and difference into being-and-becoming itself, and does not establish correct recognition as the final formality of its whole end. The comparison is between different standpoints; neither side’s classification predetermines the other’s.
Question: do “the Dharma has no shallow or deep, while the illumination of it has bright and dim” (E-14), “the original source of all dharmas has always been true reality” (E-24), “true and false do not differ; the foolish and the wise differ of themselves” (E-26), “heaven-true numinous wisdom is not made …
gain and loss lie with the person” (E-29) and “even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself” (E-43) in the Yongjia ji already bring cognition entirely back within the ground, and thus allow ①? This group of sentences must be examined together with the candidates for internalized speech in E-42 and E-44, not merely by picking sentences favourable to ②.
Why it looks like ①: they show that the substance of the gold, the dharma-nature and true reality are so originally, and that a person’s gain and loss, the brightness or dimness of illumination and understanding, do not produce the ground; above all E-43, “even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself”, directly admits that it can appear without the true gold being recognized — this is not a negligible marginal sentence. E-42 and E-44 further refute the overly strong claim that “speech can only be excluded from the whole”. ① therefore has substantive textual candidates and should not be lowered to D.
Why it is still ②:
Grades: the key original statements of P1 and P2 are A; P3, after reading different chapters together, is B. The whole ② is judged B rather than A, because structural inference is still needed to go from specific sentences to the complete end. E-43 and E-42 / E-44 constitute genuine ①-direction evidence (local B/C); only the further overall claim that “even accord / clarity can necessarily be deleted” at present lacks positive proof of the same grade — not because its wording has been artificially downgraded.
Conditions for revision: if other reliable texts of Xuanjue explicitly stipulate that release / ultimate completion requires no accord and clarity turning from delusion to awakening at all, or if early variants are found in E-21, E-26 or E-30 sufficient to change the conditional relation, the B-grade argument for ② should be reopened; merely proving again that “it is so originally” is not enough to overturn the present judgment. The local C on self-inclusion is not disguised as already decided.
Placement: ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B)
Why ②: the real point of distinction is not whether the noun “numinous awareness” is present, but that the Yongjia ji still takes “accord / clarity” as the necessary turn for the completion of release (Chain C); originally endowed numinous awareness and the constant illumination of prajñā among the three virtues provide mutual support for the structure of the ground (Chain A), and alertness and calming-and-contemplation provide the path (Chain B). These levels cannot be exchanged.
Why not ①: we accept that the ground holds without a person’s correct recognition (E-14, E-24, E-26, E-29, E-43), and also that there are candidates for self-inclusion between language and mind-conditions and self-reflexivity (E-22, E-42, E-44); but the completion of release stipulated by the work still explicitly shows “accord” and “clarity” (E-21, E-26, E-30). If this final functional relation is deleted, the end as a whole is no longer the release described in Xuanjue’s text. There is no need to assume additionally that Xuanjue retains a knower standing outside the whole.
Why not ③: Xuanjue is not inquiring into or arguing whether the ground exists or how it is possible; he states explicitly what the ground is like (suchness by nature, true reality, the numinous source) and gives an order of mind-cultivation that directly accords with it. The large space given to the method of calming and contemplation falls under “method of practice ≠ ultimate structure”, but the book also explicitly stipulates the ultimate structure (E-09, E-13, E-19, E-29), so it cannot be lowered to ③ because of the length of its treatment of method.
Relation to traditional classification: later Chan transmission often places Xuanjue in the Caoxi lineage; but sectarian genealogy and the position of the philosophical end must be argued separately.
The ② placement of this archive is derived from the structural chain of the original texts of the Chanzong Yongjia ji in Parts 7–10, not directly from his Chan identity.
Objection: “Neither removes deluded thoughts nor seeks the true” (E-32, T3), “heaven-true numinous wisdom is not made” (E-29) and “even if you do not recognize the gold, the substance of the gold appears of itself” (E-43, T1) show that the ground does not wait for human cognition.
Reply: We accept “not waiting for cognition” as strong positive evidence, and E-43 cannot be downgraded as unimportant; but “whether it holds originally” and “whether the release the book speaks of has been completed” are different. E-21, E-26 and E-30 explicitly stipulate that the latter requires accord and clarity. The “clearly discern the rubble / simply remove them all” of E-43 also shows that the simile does not cancel all discerning of obstructions, which is not the same as requiring that the true gold be recognized. (Overall B)
Objection: The nature is originally endowed with lucid knowing; the deletion test should not delete the nature as though it were an act.
Reply: We accept that nature and activity must not be confused. “Numinous awareness as nature” is only Xuanjue’s characterization of the ground (E-06, E-19, E-25, E-29); “alertness as the activity of practice” bears method / path (E-09, E-10); “clarity and accord as the completion of liberation” bears load independently through E-21, E-26 and E-30. The final reason for the main classification ② is the third level; it is not a matter of forcibly deleting the nature in order to manufacture ②.
Objection: This archive cites the Zhengdao ge;
if its author is someone else, does the placement lose its ground?
Reply: It does not. The core argument of this archive is built entirely on the T1 Yongjia ji (the three reasons in Part 8 all have T1 support), and the Zhengdao ge serves only as corroboration in the same direction. If the Zhengdao ge is proved to be late, E-32–E-40 need only be moved into the “history of reception”, and the placement is unchanged. (A: fact about text levels; B: the placement is unaffected)
E-19 is the positive characterization of the mind-nature and constant illumination in the “suchness by nature” gate of the “Verses on Upekṣā”; E-25 and E-29 come from “Non-duality of Phenomena and Principle” and the “Letter Exhorting a Friend”. The cross-chapter argument still requires B, but the length of the treatment of method is not mechanically converted into an ontological conclusion.
Objection: E-12 and E-17 say that object and knowing are both empty and merge as one; knower and known have both dissolved — so what cognitive load-bearing is there to speak of?
Reply: What this archive tests is not whether the knower has substance, but whether Xuanjue has deleted the actual completion relation of accord / clarity.
After dissolving knower and known, E-16 and E-17 still say “the knowing that realizes the object is not absent” and “knowing without knowing”; and E-21, E-26 and E-30 further connect clarity and accord to ultimate completion. That cognition has no self-nature is not enough to prove that this functional relation has been wholly deleted. (B)
Objection: E-43 allows the substance of the gold to appear without the gold being recognized, and E-42 and E-44 show that language is originally within the conditions of the mind and is not two with wordlessness; both requirements of ① seem to be satisfiable.
Reply: This is the strongest ①-direction reading retained in this archive. On self-inclusion there are indeed positive candidates, which cannot be denied;
but “the substance of the gold appears of itself” shows only the face of being originally endowed, and does not withdraw from the whole end the condition of release through accord and clarity in E-21 / E-26 / E-30. At the present stage the judgment remains ② (B), with self-inclusion locally kept at C, and stronger evidence at the same level is allowed to overturn it in future.
Xuanjue’s thought as a whole is not “one knowing” pressing down on the whole book. The mind-nature and the numinous source are originally endowed with numinous awareness and constant illumination (nature); alertness and stillness are paired to guard against dullness and scattering (mind-cultivation); from discord to accord, from not-yet-clear to clear, constitutes the completion of release (end). He also explains language by “arising from the conditions of the mind”, acknowledges in “speaking and teaching all day is no different from being without words” that wordlessness and teaching can be identical, and affirms with the gold simile that the substance of the gold appears of itself without the gold being recognized. Therefore ①-direction texts really exist and cannot be cut away.
Therefore, if an individual’s particular recognition of true reality is deleted, true reality does not thereby disappear; if alertness is deleted, the qualified state of mind-cultivation fails; if clarity and accord are deleted, the completion of release that Xuanjue describes is changed. The three belong to different levels, and the last level is still a non-deletable cognitive relation of completion. Hence the judgment ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B); as to whether the thought itself is sufficiently self-inclusive, a local C is retained, and this is not used as a shortcut to ②.
Base text of quotations and scope of collation: the main text is based on the line-by-line CBETA transcription of T48 no.2013; the fascicle, page and line and the context of E-42 (389a20–27), E-43 (390c14–18) and E-44 (392a03–09) can be searched directly. There are as yet no complete collation results for the individual Dunhuang manuscripts or all early transmitted versions, so where decisive variants are involved the corresponding judgment should be re-examined, and it should not be falsely claimed that the quoted text has no variant problems at all.