入就瑞白禪師語錄

Rùjiù Ruìbái chánshī yǔlù 入就瑞白禪師語錄

Recorded Sayings of Chán Master Rù-jiù Ruì-bái by 明雪 (說), 寂蘊 (編)

About the work

Eighteen-juan yǔlù of Rù-jiù Míng-xuě 明雪 入就明雪 (1585–1641), commonly called Ruì-bái chán-shī 瑞白禪師 — fǎ-huì 法諱 Míng-xuě 明雪, zì Ruì-bái 瑞白, bié-hào 別號 Rù-jiù 入就. Lay surname Yáng 楊, native of Tóng-chéng 桐城 (Ān-huī) — specifically Zōng-yáng 樅陽 in the 塔銘 and Tóng-chéng 桐城 in the 2nd 行狀 (same district). This is the first major Cáo-dòng 曹洞 yǔlù in the J26 Jiā-xīng Canon cluster — distinct in lineage (though similar in cutting-style and prefatorial apparatus) from the Mìyún-line Línjì yǔlù of KR6q0402–KR6q0409 that immediately precede it. 32nd-generation Cáo-dòng descendant from Dòng-shān Liáng-jiè 洞山良价, in the sub-line Cí-zhōu Fāng-niàn 慈舟方念 → Huàn-xiū Cháng-rùn 幻休常潤 → Zhàn-rán Yuán-chéng 湛然圓澄 (1561–1626, the great Wàn-lì-era Cáo-dòng reviver at Yún-mén Xiǎn-shèng-sì 雲門顯聖寺 near Shào-xīng) → Míng-xuě Ruì-bái. 42nd-generation Bodhidharma / 69th-generation Mahā-kāśyapa in the enumerations preserved in the 行狀. Compiled (biān 編) by his head dharma-heir Xiào-yún Jì-yùn 嘯雲寂蘊 寂蘊 at Tiān-tāi Hù-guó-sì 天台護國寺, the seat Ruì-bái had passed to Xiào-yún in 1635. The text carries an unusually dense and double-layered prefatorial apparatus (1643 partial-cut prefaces + 1649 complete-cut prefaces + two independent xíng-zhuàng + tǎ-míng + zhuàn + editor’s postface) reflecting its two-stage cutting history across the Míng–Qīng transition.

Abstract

Author. Ruìbái Míngxuě, born Wànlì 12.11.26 戌時 (= ~5 January 1585 Western) in Tóngchéng / Zōngyáng, Ānhuī, to father Yáng Yījǔ 楊一舉 and an unnamed mother. Orphaned of his father in childhood (yòu gū 幼孤); filial-mourning for his mother at age 20 (“bǐ xuélǐ zhī nián shī shì 比學禮之年失恃”). Died Chóngzhēn 14.3.19 午時 (= 29 April 1641 Western) at Bǎizhàngshān 百丈山 in Jiāngxī, aged 58 suì / 38 sēnglà per both xíngzhuàng and tǎmíng. Tonsured at Jiǔhuáshān Jùlóngān 九華山聚龍庵 by Huìgōng 慧公; encouraged toward direct knowledge-seeking by Xiūgōng 休公. Early scripture-training under Zǐbó Zhēnkě 紫柏真可 (1543–1603) disciples — given the Píshèfú Fó jì 毘舍浮佛偈 (Vibhū-Buddha gāthā) as recitation-practice — and visits to Mùshān 幕山 for xuéjiào 學教. Full precepts (shòujù 受具) from Yúnqī Zhūhóng 雲棲袾宏 (1535–1615) — placing Ruìbái, like Fúshí Tōngxián 通賢 at KR6q0407, among the last ordinand-cohorts of Yúnqī. Earliest Chán training on the Shǒulèngyán 首楞嚴 “biéyè tóngfēn èrjiàn 別業同分二見” gōngàn. Gēngxū 庚戌 spring 1610: first met Zhànrán Yuánchéng at Yúnmén Xiǎnshèngsì on the “sǐshī 死屍” (corpse-dragger) gōngàn; seven-day shēncān; the first partial awakening on the eighth day. Xīnhài 辛亥 1611: returned to Xiǎnshèng for a 100-day wordless sitting. Jiǎyín 甲寅 spring 1614: followed Zhànrán to Guǎngxiàosì 廣孝寺; on the zhǎn māo 斬貓 (Nánquán killing-the-cat) gōngàn had a deeper opening; sealed on the xīshuǐ chánchán 溪水潺潺 / “qiāo kōng yǒu xiǎng, jī mù wú shēng 敲空有響擊木無聲” verse-exchange.

Middle years (1616–1625). Bǐngchén 丙辰 spring 1616: withdrew to Wǎngōngshān 皖公山 for three-year self-cultivation with Hé tàishī Zhīyuè 何太師芝嶽 as lay-literary companion. Jǐwèi 己未 1619: visited Huángbò Wúniàn 黃蘗無念 = Wúniàn Shēnyǒu 無念深有 (1544–1627), then Hànshān Déqīng 憨山德清 (1546–1623), Yǎngān 養菴, and Bóshān Yuánlái 博山元來 (1575–1630, the other major Cáodòng contemporary) — a remarkable tour of the late-Wàn-lì Chán and Cáodòng elders. Gēngshēn 庚申 1620: returned to Zhàn-ran for shěng 省 (filial-visit); next year retreated at Tiānzhùfēng Wǎnwěi 天柱峰宛委 (= Yángmíngdòng 陽明洞). Guǐhài 癸亥 winter 1623: at Yúnmén Xiǎnshèng winter-retreat, Zhàn-ran promoted him to dìèrzuò 第二座 (second-seat). Jiǎzǐ 甲子 1624: built Tiěbì 鐵壁 (Iron-Wall) hermitage. Yǐchǒu 乙丑 winter 1625: visited Mìyún Yuánwù at Jīnsù 金粟, producing the well-known three-stroke sparring-interview (“xūkōng jià tiěchuán 虛空駕鐵船” / “bōlàng yǒng qiānxún 波浪湧千尋”). Mìyún was strongly attracted to Ruìbái and hoped to seal him as a Línjì-line heir; Ruìbái refused, reasoning that “sì sù zé gū Yúnmén yě 嗣粟則孤雲門也” (“to succeed Jīnsù [= Mìyún] would betray Yúnmén [= Zhànrán]”). This refused-transmission event is historically significant: it is a rare explicit documented case where a candidate Chán master turned down a Línjì-line sealing in order to preserve his Cáodòng commitment — distinguishing Ruìbái’s Cáodòng identity from the loose cross-lineage drift that characterized much of the period.

Transmission and first abbacy (1626–1628). Bǐngyín 丙寅 1626: returned to Yúnmén, formally sealed by Zhàn-ran on the quatrain “méng shī ráoshé shí yú nián … jīnwū yèbàn lì zhōngtiān 蒙師饒舌十餘年 … 金烏夜半麗中天”; Zhàn-ran’s certification: “yǔ wú shènlòu, shàn jiě huíhù, shì zhēngè Cáodòng érsūn 語無滲漏善解回互是真個曹洞兒孫” — “words without leakage, skilled at skillfull turning — this is a true Cáodòng child-grandson.” Zhàn-ran died shortly after transmission. Wùchén 戊辰 1628: assumed first abbacy at Yúnmén Xiǎnshèngsì, succeeding Zhàn-ran, on the petition of Jiāng tàishǐ Zhēn 姜太史箴 and the temple’s lay-patrons.

Nine abbacies. Per Xiàoyún’s 2nd xíngzhuàng: “shī jiǔ zuò dàochǎng 師九坐道場” — nine abbatial seats over thirteen years: (1) Yuèzhōu Xiǎnshèng 越州顯聖 (1628–); (2) Yánqìng 延慶 (Wàn-lì-era seat in Yuèzhōu, briefly); (3) Jièzhū 戒珠 (Shàoxīng, 1633); (4) Húzhōu Lónghuá 湖州龍華 on Biànshān 弁山 (the main central seat, 1630 onwards — initially as máopéng 茅蓬 hermitage, built up to full dàchà 大剎 over the early 1630s); (5) Báiquè 白雀 (Húzhōu); (6) Tiāntāi Hùguó 天台護國 (1635, on petition of Táo Hǔxī 陶虎溪, Shāng Kāifǔ 啇開府, Ní shìyù Sānlán 倪侍御三闌, etc. — the passage through this seat was brief; withdrew 1636 autumn due to illness, passing the seat to Xiàoyún Jìyùn); (7) Gànzhōu Kōngdòng 贛州崆峒 (c. 1636–39, after stranded at Húkǒu the master settled here); (8) Kōngdòng Huìdēng 崆峒慧燈 (sub-cloister); (9) Nánchāng Bǎizhàngshān 南昌百丈山 — the final seat, petitioned by the Prince of Jiànān 建安王 Qīn 欽 with imperial-grade patronage. Died at Bǎizhàng 1641; remains transferred to Biànshān Lónghuá per his pre-death instruction, fǎtǎ 髮塔 (hair-relic pagoda) remaining at Bǎizhàng.

Dharma-transmission. Over thirty named dharma-heirs per both xíngzhuàng and tǎmíng. Principal heirs with the Cáodòng generation-character 寂 (following 圓 → 明 → 寂): (a) Jiǔmò Jìyīn 久默寂音 (at Biànshān, guǐyǒu 癸酉 autumn 1633 = the first sealing, at Jièzhū); (b) Gūyá Jìcōng 孤崖寂聰 (also at Jièzhū); (c) Líyán Jìyì 離言寂義 and Lìrán Jìxiāng 歷然寂相 (at Biànshān); (d) Xiàoyún Jìyùn 嘯雲寂蘊 (at Tiāntāi Hùguó, 1635); (e) further named heirs at Kōngdòng and Bǎizhàng. Jiǔmò died shortly after Ruìbái, leaving Xiàoyún as the principal surviving head-heir and editor of the present yǔlù.

Two-stage cutting history. The text was cut in two stages. Stage 1 (1643): partial-cutting of the first nine juan (shàngtáng 上堂 and xiǎocān 小參 blocks), with front-prefaces by Chén Hánhuī 陳函煇 (1590–1646, hào Xiǎo Hánshān 小寒山, a Chóng-zhēn-era jìnshì) dated Chóngzhēn 16 癸未 季秋望日 = 15 September 1643; Huáng Duānbó 黃端伯 (1585–1646, the Jiāngyīn loyalist-martyr, signed “Huáng Duānbó 黃端伯”); and Zhāng Shíhuà 張時化 (all three undated except Chén’s). Stage 2 (1649): the complete 18-juan quángǎo 全稿 was assembled by Xiàoyún Jìyùn after Jiǔmò’s death, with an additional front-preface by Wú Yìngfāng 吳應芳 (參學散人, signed “Jǐchǒu nián mèngqiū rì 己丑年孟秋日” — Shùnzhì 6 / 1649 lunar 7th month). Xiàoyún’s own editor’s bá 跋 is dated simply “Jǐchǒu chūn 己丑春” = 1649 spring. Donor line: Shànxiàn 剡縣 (Shàoxīng) Mǎ Zhìfú 馬智福 (upāsaka) + Yú Tiānzhì 余天智 (upāsikā); scribe Wáng Jiāqí 王家琦 of Sìmíng 四明 (Níngbō); editor-witness Shēnshān Zhìtōng 深山智通, dated “Jǐchǒu chūn sānyuè 巳丑春三月” = 1649 lunar 3rd month. notBefore = 1628 (first abbacy shàngtáng at Yúnmén Xiǎnshèng); notAfter = 1649 (Xiàoyún’s complete-edition cutting).

Postmatter. Three independent biographical pieces: (j.17) tǎmíng 塔銘 by Yú Dàchéng 余大成 (of 石頭城 Shí-tou-chéng = Nánjīng; a Míng official who served as tàipú 太僕, tàicháng qīng 太常卿, and Shāndōng xúnfǔ 山東巡撫 before being demoted to Gāoliáng 高涼 following the Dēngzhōu 登州 mutiny; restored to office by the early Qīng in recognition of his earlier Gānsù service — i.e., a Míng-to-Qīng shuāngguān 雙官 official); (j.17) zhuàn 傳 by Táng Shìjì 唐世濟 (of 晉昌 Jìnchāng in Shānxī; Wànlì 39 / 1611 jìnshì); (j.18) xíngzhuàng 行狀 (I) by dharma-heir Dàyīn 大音 (dharma-name otherwise unclarified; possibly a variant-hào of Jiǔmò Jìyīn, but the attribution is ambiguous); (j.18) xíngzhuàng 行狀 (II) by Xiàoyún Jìyùn 嘯雲寂蘊 at Biànshān, dated Chóngzhēn 14.10.14 = 16 November 1641 (seven months after Ruìbái’s death); and the closing kèyǔlù bá 刻語錄跋 by Xiàoyún dated 1649 spring.

Tiyao

Not applicable — this is a Jiā-xīng-canon imprint (J26 B188), not a WYG text. Four front-prefaces (Chén Hánhuī 1643-9-15, Huáng Duānbó undated, Zhāng Shíhuà undated, Wú Yìngfāng 1649-7) plus two independent xíngzhuàng, Yú Dàchéng’s tǎmíng, and Táng Shìjì’s zhuàn — all preserved in the Jiāxīng block — provide the unusually dense compositional and biographical documentation summarized under Abstract.

Translations and research

• Jiang Wu, Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Ruì-bái Míng-xuě is discussed at pp. 75, 100, 108–11 as the principal Cáo-dòng counterweight to the Mìyún Línjì-line, and the 1625 Jīn-sù refused-transmission at pp. 104–06 is a key narrative moment in Jiang’s reconstruction of the Cáo-dòng–Línjì boundary-maintenance of the Wàn-lì–Chóng-zhēn era.
• Liào Zhào-hēng 廖肇亨, 《忠義菩提：晚明清初空門遺民及其節義論述探析》 (Taipei: Zhōng-yāng yán-jiū-yuàn Zhōng-guó Wén-zhé-suǒ, 2013). Ch. 6 treats Ruì-bái’s Biàn-shān circle and the Huáng Duān-bó / Chén Hán-huī loyalist-martyr lay-patron network. Huáng Duān-bó’s signed preface in this yǔlù is one of his few surviving prose-pieces before his 1646 execution at Jiāng-yīn.
• Zhāng Shèng-yán 釋聖嚴, 《明末佛教研究》 (Taipei: Dōng-chū, 1992; repr. 2009). Ch. 3 on the Wàn-lì-era Cáo-dòng revival (Huàn-xiū Cháng-rùn → Zhàn-rán Yuán-chéng → Ruì-bái Míng-xuě / Bó-shān Yuán-lái parallel lines) is the authoritative Chinese-language reconstruction of Ruì-bái’s lineage-position.
• Morten Schlütter, How Zen Became Zen: The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2008). Though focused on the Sòng, Schlütter’s framework for Cáo-dòng–Línjì boundary-disputes illuminates the seventeenth-century recurrence of the same tensions that Ruì-bái’s 1625 refusal instantiates.
• Seunghye Lee (various articles, including Asia Major 28, 2015). Material-culture studies of the Biàn-shān Lóng-huá-sì restoration under Ruì-bái offer a mise-en-scène for the yǔlù.
• Chén Yuǎn 陳垣, 《清初僧諍記》 (Běi-jīng: Zhōng-huá Shū-jú, 1962; repr. 2008). For the textual politics of the Cáo-dòng–Línjì polemics at mid-century, in which Ruì-bái’s 闢判 Pì-pàn (dispute-adjudication, cited in the xíng-zhuàng and edited out of the final 1649 cutting) was an important but now-lost polemical text.
• No Western-language translation of the yǔlù or of Ruì-bái’s independent works.

Other points of interest

• The 1625 Jīnsù refused-transmission as a Cáodòng / Línjì boundary-maintenance event. That Ruìbái Míngxuě explicitly declined Mìyún Yuánwù’s sealing-offer at Jīnsù in 1625 winter — “sì sù zé gū Yúnmén yě 嗣粟則孤雲門也” — is one of the rare documented cases where a Chán master refused a competing lineage’s transmission on explicitly sectarian grounds. The tǎmíng frames this as a matter of boundary-preservation (“shī shǒu wèi zhī xǔ, yì wèi sì sù zé gū Yúnmén yě 師顧未之許意謂嗣粟則孤雲門也”), i.e. a principled refusal to blur the Cáodòng / Línjì distinction. In context, Ruìbái’s refusal preserved a minority Cáodòng identity for his sub-line that would otherwise have been absorbed into the much-larger Mìyún Línjì current; his thirty-plus Cáodòng heirs and their Biànshān / Tiāntāi / Kōngdòng / Bǎizhàng institutional network are a direct consequence. See Jiang Wu 2008: 104–06.
• Huáng Duānbó’s preface as a surviving pre-1646 loyalist-martyr prose piece. The “舊序” (old preface) signed simply “Huáng Duānbó” is one of very few surviving prose pieces by this famous Jiāngyīn 江陰 loyalist who was executed by the Qīng in 1646 for refusing to submit. Huáng had received lay-Chán instruction from Hànshān Déqīng and, per the prose here, had direct acquaintance with both Zhàn-ran Yuánchéng and Ruìbái. The preface is stylistically restrained (no marked loyalist rhetoric) but the mere preservation of Huáng’s signature in a 1649 Qīng-era cutting is a textual-critical datum for the Biànshān circle’s willingness to retain yímín signatories — paralleling the Huáng Yùqí 黃毓祺 signature preserved in KR6q0405’s 1668 re-cutting.
• The 1635 Tiāntāi Hùguó light-at-the-twin-pagodas miracle. The 2nd xíngzhuàng reports that upon Ruìbái’s entry at Hùguósì, Ruìbái prayed that if the seat was to flourish, the long-buried Sháo guóshī 韶國師 (i.e. Yǒngmíng Yánshòu 永明延壽’s teacher, Tiāntāi Désháo 天台德韶, d. 972) Buddha-relics in the twin pagodas in front of the temple would manifest light; nightly thereafter, the twin pagodas radiated visible light, witnessed by portions of the assembly. This miracle-narrative is a traditional zǔtíng 祖庭-restoration literary device, here used to license Ruìbái’s Cáodòng re-animation of a site historically associated with Fǎ-yǎn-sect (Désháo’s lineage). The narrative motif also prefigures (and was likely consciously modeled on) the Yǒngmíng Yánshòu restoration-precedent.
• The 闢判 Pìpàn / 獅子吼 Shī-zi hǒu — a deleted polemical layer. Both xíngzhuàng mention that Ruìbái’s corpus once included a polemical work called Pìpàn 闢判 (dispute-adjudication) in one or more juan, variously titled Shī-zi hǒu 獅子吼 (“Lion-Roar”) and Dámó zhèngzōng shuō 達磨正宗說 (“Treatise on the Orthodox Lineage of Bodhidharma”). Xiàoyún’s 1649 postface explicitly records his decision to omit the Pìpàn from the integrated cutting: “qí zhōng Pìpàn yī juǎn yuán wèi xī fǎmén zhī zhēng, jīn zhēng jì xī … gù shān bù lù 其中闢判一卷原為息法門之諍今諍既息 … 故刪不錄”. This is an explicit editorial suppression of the Cáodòng–Línjì polemical materials at the 1649 cut — a characteristic mid-century move reflecting the late-Chóng-zhēn / Shùnzhì phase of attempted Chán ecumenism (same policy-horizon as Línyě Tōngqí’s “bùfēn DòngJǐ” ancestor-hall practice at Tiāntóng in KR6q0408). For any scholar of the Cáodòng–Línjì controversies, the lost Pìpàn was a primary source; its disappearance is a specific editorial act of the Xiàoyún cutting, not merely transmission-loss. The Dámó zhèngzōng shuō separately survives (per the 2nd xíngzhuàng) and should be sought in the J31 or J32 Jiāxīng clusters.
• Yùnqī Zhūhóng as full-precepts master for Ruìbái. Ruìbái receiving full precepts (shòujù 受具) from Yúnqī Zhūhóng c. 1610 places him in the same Yúnqī ordination-line as Fúshí Tōngxián 通賢 at KR6q0407 — two otherwise unrelated masters (one Cáodòng, one Línjì) who share the common pre-lineage base of Yúnqī’s late-Wàn-lì Chán–Pure Land synthesis. This shared formation-layer is worth underscoring: Yúnqī’s late-Wàn-lì ordination-line is a cross-lineage anchor for the subsequent Míng-Qīng-transition Chán revival in both Línjì and Cáodòng branches.
• Burial bifurcation: body at Biànshān, hair-stupa at Bǎizhàng. The pre-death instruction to have the full body transported from Bǎizhàng back to Biànshān Lónghuá (where Ruìbái had opened his central abbacy from 1630) while a fǎtǎ 髮塔 (hair-relic stupa) was built at Bǎizhàng as a concession to his Prince of Jiànān patron is an unusually elegant solution to the recurrent burial-site dispute between an abbot’s “true-home” abbacy and his final-seat patron’s desire for the relics. Compare the corresponding arrangements at KR6q0405 (Shíqí Tōngyún, full body at Xuědòu) and KR6q0408 (Línyě Tōngqí, full body at Tiāntóng).

Links

• CBETA
• Cáodòng teacher-line: 湛然圓澄 (teacher, to be created if not yet present), 明雪 → 寂蘊 (head dharma-heir and compiler).
• Related Mìyún-line Línjì yǔlù clustered with this Cáodòng volume in J26: KR6q0402 《破山禪師語錄》; KR6q0403 《費隱禪師語錄》; KR6q0404 《萬如禪師語錄》; KR6q0405 《雪竇石奇禪師語錄》; KR6q0406 《牧雲和尚七會餘錄》; KR6q0407 《浮石禪師語錄》; KR6q0408 《林野奇禪師語錄》; KR6q0409 《天岸昇禪師語錄》.