Treasury of the Eye of
the True Dharma
Lancet of Zazen
Kôshô Hôrin Ji
Once, when the Great Master Hongdao
of Yueshan was sitting [in meditation], a monk asked him, "What
are you thinking of, [sitting there] so fixedly?"
The master answered, "I'm thinking of not thinking."
The monk asked, "How do you think of not thinking?"
The Master answered, "Nonthinking." <2>
Verifying that such are the words
of the Great Master, we should study fixed sitting, we should
participate in the correct transmission of fixed sitting. This
is the investigation of fixed sitting transmitted in the
way of the buddha. Although he is not alone in "thinking
fixedly", Yueshan's words are singular: "thinking of
not thinking". Thinking is the very "skin, flesh, bones
and marrow"; "not thinking" is the very skin,
flesh, bones and marrow. <3>
"The monk asked, 'How do
you think of not thinking?'" Indeed, while "not thinking"
may be old, here it is "how do you think"? Could there
be no "thinking" in sitting "fixedly"? How
could [it] fail to penetrate beyond sitting "fixedly"?
If we are not the sort of fool that "despises what is near",
we ought to have the strength, we ought to have the "thinking",
to question sitting "fixedly". <4>
"The master answered, 'Nonthinking'."
Although the employment of "nonthinking" is "crystal
clear", when we "think of not thinking", we
always use "nonthinking". There is someone in "nonthinking",
and this someone maintains us. Although it is we who are sitting
"fixedly", [our sitting] is not merely "thinking":
it presents itself as sitting "fixedly". Although sitting
"fixedly" is sitting "fixedly", how could
it "think" of sitting "fixedly"? Therefore,
sitting "fixedly" is not the "measure of the buddha",
not the measure of the dharma, not the measure of awakening,
not the measure of comprehension. <5>
The single transmission of this
sitting "fixedly" by Yueshan represents the thirty-sixth
generation directly from the Buddha Shâkyamuni: if we trace
beyond Yueshan thirty-six generations, there is the Buddha Shâkyamuni.
In what was thus correctly transmitted there was already "thinking
of not thinking". <6>
Recently, however, some stupid
illiterates say, "Once you attain [the state in which] the
breast is without concerns, the concentrated effort at seated
meditation is peace and tranquility." <7> This view does not compare
with that of the scholastics of the Lesser Vehicle; it is inferior
even to the Vehicle of Men and Gods. How could one [who holds
such a view] be called a person who studies the buddha dharma?
At present, there are many such practitioners in the land of
the Great Sung. How sad that the way of the ancestors has become
Then there is another type of
person [who says,] "To pursue the way in seated meditation
is a function essential for the "beginner's mind and the
latter-day student", but it is not necessarily an observance
of the buddhas and ancestors. 'Walking is Zen, sitting is Zen;
whether in speech or silence, motion or rest, the substance is
at ease.' <8>
Do not adhere solely to the present concentrated effort [of
seated meditation]." Many of the type calling itself a branch
of the Linji [lineage] are of this view. It is because they are
deficient in transmitting the right life of the buddha-dharma
that they speak thus. What is the "beginner's mind"?
Where is there no "beginner's mind"? Where do we leave
the "beginner's mind"?
Be it known that, for studying
the way, the established [means of] investigation is pursuing
the way in seated meditation. The essential point of its standard
is [the understanding] that there is a practice of a buddha that
does not seek to make a buddha. Since the practice of a buddha
is not to make a buddha, it is the realization of the kôan.
The embodied buddha does not make a buddha; when "the baskets
and cages" are broken, a seated buddha does not interfere
with making a buddha. At just such a time, from one thousand,
from ten thousand ages past, we originally have the power "to
enter into Buddha and enter into Måra". Stepping forward
and back, its measure fully "fills the ditches and clogs
the moats". <9>
* * * * *
When the Chan master Daji of
Jiangxi was studying with the Chan master Dahui of Nanyue, after
intimately receiving the mind seal, he always practiced seated
meditation. Once Nanyue went to Dajii and said, "Worthy
one, what are you figuring to do, sitting there in meditation?"<10>
We should give concentrated effort
to the investigation of this question. Does it mean that there
must be some "figuring" above and beyond seated meditation?
Is there not yet a path to be "figured" outside the
bounds of seated meditation? Should there be no "figuring"
at all? Or does it ask what kind of "figuring" occurs
at the very time we are practicing seated meditation? We should
make concentrated effort to understand this in detail. Rather
than love "the carved dragon", we should go on to love
the real dragon. We should learn that both the carved and the
real dragons have the ability [to produce] clouds and rain. Do
not "value what is far away", and do not despise it;
become completely familiar with it. Do not "despise what
is near at hand", and do not value it; become completely
familiar with it. Do not "take the eyes lightly", and
do not give them weight. Do not "give weight to the ears",
and do not take them lightly. Make your eyes and ears clear and
Jiangxi said, "I'm figuring
to make a buddha."
We should clarify and penetrate
this saying. What does he mean by saying "make a buddha"?
Is he saying "make a buddha" is to be made a buddha
by the buddha? Is he saying "make a buddha" is to "make
a buddha" of the buddha? Is he saying "make a buddha"
is one or two faces of the buddha emerging? Is it that "figuring
to make a buddha" is "sloughing off", and [that
what is meant here is a] "figuring to make a buddha"
as [the act of] sloughing off? Or is he saying by "figuring
to make a buddha" that, while there are ten thousand ways
to "make a buddha", they become entangled in this "figuring"?
It should be recognized that
Daji's saying means that seated meditation is inevitably "figuring
to make a buddha", seated meditation is inevitably the "figuring"
of "making a buddha". This "figuring" must
be prior to "making a buddha"; it must be subsequent
to "making a buddha"; and it must be at the very moment
of "making a buddha". Now what I ask is this: How many
[ways of] "making a buddha" does this one "figuring"
entangle? These entanglements, moreover, must themselves "intertwine"
with entanglements. At this point, entanglements, as individual
instances of the entirety of "making a buddha", are
always direct expressions of that entirety, are all individual
instances of "figuring". We should not avoid this one
"figuring". When we avoid the one "figuring",
we "destroy our body and lose our life." When we destroy
our body and lose our life, this is the entanglement of the one
At this point, Nanyue took up
a tile and began to rub it on a stone. At length, Daji asked,
"Master, what are you doing?" <14>
Who indeed could fail to see
that he was "polishing a tile"? Who could see that
he was "polishing a tile"? Still, "polishing a
tile" has been questioned in this way: "What are you
doing?" This "what are you doing?" is itself always
"polishing a tile". This land and the other world may
differ, but [in both] there is the essential message that "polishing
a tile" never ceases. Not only should we avoid deciding
that what we see is what we see, we should be firmly convinced
that there is an essential message to be studied in all the ten
thousand activities. We should know that, just as we may see
the buddha without knowing or understanding him, so we may see
water and yet not know water, may see mountains and yet not know
mountains. The precipitate assumption that the phenomena before
one's eyes offer no further passage is not the study of the buddha.
Nanyue said, "I'm polishing
this to make a mirror."
We should be clear about the
meaning of these words. There is definitely a reason for "polishing
[a tile] to make a mirror": there is the "kôan
of realization"; this is no mere empty contrivance. A "tile"
may be a "tile" and a "mirror" a "mirror",
but when we vigorously investigate the principle of "polishing",
we shall find there are many standard models. The "old mirror"
and the "bright mirror" -- these are "mirrors"
made through "polishing a tile". If we do not realize
that these "mirrors" come from "polishing a tile",
then the buddhas and ancestors have no utterance; the buddhas
and ancestors do not open their mouths, and we do not perceive
the buddhas and ancestors exhaling. <16>
Daji said, "How can you
produce a mirror by polishing a tile?"
Indeed, though [the one who is]
"polishing a tile" be "a man of iron", who
does not borrow another's power, "polishing a tile"
is not "producing a mirror". Even if it is "producing
a mirror", it must be quick about it.
Nanyue replied, "How can
you make a buddha by sitting in meditation (zazen)?"
This is clearly understood: there
is a reason that sitting in meditation does not await "making
a buddha"; there is nothing obscure about the essential
point that "making a buddha" is not connected with
sitting in meditation.
Daji asked, "Then, what
Although this saying resembles
a simple question about this, it is also asking about
that "rightness". Consider, for example, the occasion
when one friend meets another: the fact that he is my friend
means that I am his friend. "What" and "right"
emerge simultaneously. <17>
Nanyue replied, "When someone
is driving a cart, if the cart doesn't go, should he beat the
cart or beat the ox?" <18>
Now, when he says, "if the
cart doesn't go", what does he mean by the cart's "going"
or the cart's "not going"? For example, is water's
flowing the cart's "going", or is water's not flowing
the cart's going? We can say that flowing is water's "not
going", and it should also be that water's "going"
is not its flowing. Therefore, in investigating the saying, "if
the cart doesn't go", we should approach it both in terms
of "not going" and in terms of not "not going";
for it is time. The saying, "if [the cart] doesn't
go" is not saying simply that it does not go. <19>
"Should he beat the cart
or beat the ox?" Should there be "beating the cart"
as well as "beating the ox"? Are "beating the
cart" and "beating the ox" the same or are they
not the same? In the world, there is no method of "beating
the cart"; but, though commoners have no method of "beating
the cart", we know that on the way of the buddha there is
a method of "beating the cart"; this is the very eye
of study. Even though we study that there is a method of "beating
the cart", it should not be equivalent to "beating
the ox"; we should make detailed, concentrated effort [on
this point]. Even though the method of "beating the ox"
is common in the world, we should go on to investigate and study
"beating the ox" on the way of the buddha. Is this
"ox-beating" the water buffalo? Or "ox-beating"
the iron bull? Or "ox-beating" the clay ox? Is this
beating with a whip? Is it beating with the entire world? Beating
with the entire mind? Is this to beat out the marrow? Is it to
beat with the fist? There should be the fist beating the fist;
there should be the ox beating the ox. <20>
Daji had no response.
We should not idly miss [the
import of] this. [In it,] there is "throwing out a tile
to take in a jade"; there is "turning the head and
reversing the face". By no means should we do violence to
his "no response" here. <21>
Nanyue went on, "Are you
studying seated meditation or are you studying seated buddha?"
We should investigate this saying
and discern the essential function of the ancestral lineage.
Even without knowing the actual meaning of "studying seated
meditation", we do know here that it is "studying seated
buddha". Who but a scion of correct descent could say that
"studying seated meditation" is "studying seated
buddha"? We should know indeed that the "seated meditation"
of the beginner's mind is the first "seated meditation",
and the first "seated meditation" is the first "seated
buddha". In speaking of this "seated meditation",
"If you're studying seated
meditation, meditation is not sitting or reclining." <22>
What he says here is that "seated
meditation" is "seated meditation"; it is not
"sitting or reclining". From the time the fact that
it is not "sitting or reclining" has been singly transmitted
[to us], [our] unlimited "sitting or reclining" is
our own self. Why should we inquire about close or distant
familial lines? How could we discuss delusion and awakening?
Who would seek wisdom and eradication? <23> Nanyue said,
"If you're studying seated
buddha, buddha is no fixed mark." <24>
Such is the way to say a saying.
That the "seated buddha" is like one or two buddhas
is because he has adorned himself with "no fixed mark".
When [Nanyue] says here that "buddha is no fixed mark",
he is speaking of the mark of the buddha. Since he is
a buddha of "no fixed mark", the "seated buddha"
is difficult to avoid. Therefore, since it is adorned with this
"Budddha is no fixed mark", "if you're studying
seated meditation" is a "seated buddha". "In
a nonabiding dharma", who would "grasp or reject"
[anything] as not the buddha? Who would "grasp or reject"
it as the buddha. It is because it has already sloughed off "grasping
and rejecting" that it is a "seated buddha." <25>
"If you're studying seated
buddha, this is killing buddha."
This means that, in further investigating
"seated buddha", there is the virtue of "killing
buddha". The very moment of a "seated buddha"
is "killing buddha". Indeed, when we pursue it, the
marks and signs and the radiance of "killing buddha"
will always be a "seated buddha". Although the word
kill here is identical with the term used by commoners, it is
not simply the same as the [usage of the] commoner. Moreover,
we must investigate in what form it is that a "seated buddha"
is "killing buddha". Taking up the fact that "killing
buddha" is a virtue of the buddha, we should study whether
we are killing people or not killing people. <26>
"If you grasp the mark of
sitting, you're not reaching its principle."
To "grasp the mark of sitting"
here means to "reject the mark of sitting" and touch
"the mark of sitting". The reason for this is that,
in being a "seated buddha", we cannot not "grasp
the mark of sitting". Since we cannot not "grasp the
mark of sitting", though "grasping the mark of sitting"
is crystal clear, we are "not reaching its principle".
Such concentrated effort is called "sloughing off body and
Those who have never sat do not
have these words: they belong to the time of sitting and
the person who sits, to the sitting buddha and the study of the
sitting buddha. The sitting of a person's sitting and reclining
is not this sitting buddha. Although a person's sitting naturally
resembles a "seated buddha", or a buddha's sitting,
it is like a person's "making a buddha", or the person
who makes a buddha: though there are people who make buddhas,
not all people make buddhas, and buddhas are not all people.
Since all buddhas are not simply all people, a person is not
necessarily a buddha, and a buddha is not necessarily a person.
A "seated buddha" is also like this.
Nanyue and Jiangxi, the master
superior, the disciple strong, were like this. Jiangxii is the
one who verifies that the "seated buddha" is "making
a buddha"; Nanyue is the one who points out the "seated
buddha" for "making a buddha". There was this
kind of concentrated effort in the congregation of Nanyue and
sayings like the above in the congregation of Yueshan.
* * * * *
Know this, that it is the seated
buddha that buddha after buddha and ancestor after ancestor
have taken as their essential function. Those who are buddhas
and ancestors have employed this essential function, while those
who are not have never even dreamt of it. To say that the buddha
dharma has been transmitted from the Western Heavens to the Eastern
Earth implies the transmission of the seated buddha, for it is
the essential function. And where the buddha dharma is not transmitted,
neither is seated meditation. What has been inherited by successor
after successor [in this transmission] is just this essential
message of seated meditation; one who does not participate in
the single transmission of this essential message is not a buddha
or an ancestor. When one is not clear about this one dharma,
one is not clear about the ten thousand dharmas, not clear about
the ten thousand practices. And without being clear about each
dharma, one cannot be said to have a clear eye. One has not attained
the way; how could he represent the present or past [in the lineage]
of the buddhas and ancestors? By this, then, we should be firmly
convinced that the buddhas and ancestors always singly transmit
To be illumined by the radiance
of the buddhas and ancestors means to concentrate one's efforts
in the investigation of this seated meditation. There are a bunch
of fools who, misunderstanding the radiance of the buddha, think
it must be like the radiance of the sun or moon or the light
from a pearl or fire. But the light of the sun and moon is nothing
but a mark of action within transmigration in the six destinies;
it is not to be compared with the radiance of the buddha. The
radiance of the buddha means receiving and hearing a single phrase,
maintaining and protecting a single dharma, participating in
the single transmission of seated meditation. So long as one
is not illumined by the radiance [of the buddha], one is not
maintaining, nor has he accepted, [the buddha dharma]. <28>
This being the case, even from
ancient times there have been few who know seated meditation
as seated meditation. And at present, in the [Chan] "mountains"
of the land of the great Song, many of those who are heads of
the primary monasteries do not know, and do not study, seated
meditation. There may be some who have clearly known it but not
many. Of course, the monasteries have fixed periods for seated
meditation; the monks, from the abbot down, take seated meditation
as their allotted task; and, in leading their students, [the
teachers] encourage the practice. Nevertheless, there are few
abbots who know [seated meditation].
For this reason, although from
ancient times to the present there have been one or two old worthies
who have written [texts entitled] "Inscriptions on Seated
Meditation", "Principles of Seated Meditation"
or "Lancets of Seated Meditation", among them there
is nothing worth taking from any of the "Inscriptions on
Seated Meditation", and the "Principles of Seated Meditation"
are ignorant of its observances. They were written by a bunch
who do not know seated meditation, who do not participate in
its single transmission. Such are the "Lancet of Seated
Meditation" (Zuochan zhen) in the Jingde chuandeng
lu and the "Inscription on Seated Meditation" (Zuochan
ming) in the Jiatai pudeng lu. <29> What a pity that, although
[the authors of such texts] spend their entire lives passing
among the "groves" of the ten directions, they do not
have the concentrated effort of a single sitting-- that
sitting is not their own, and concentrated effort never encounters
This is not because seated meditation rejects their bodies and
minds but because they do not aspire to the true concentrated
effort and are precipitately drunk in their delusion.
What they have collected is nothing
but models for "reverting to the source and returning to
the origin", vain programs for "suspending considerations
and congealing in tranquility". [Such views] do not approach
the stages of "observation, exercise, infusion, and cultivation",
or the views of the "ten stages and virtual enlightenment";
how, then, could they singly transmit the seated meditation of
buddha after buddha and ancestor after ancestor? The Song chroniclers
were mistaken to record them, and later students should cast
them aside and not look at them. <31>
Among the "Lancets of Seated
Mediation", the only one that is of the buddhas and ancestors
is that by the Reverend Zhenjue, the Chan Master Hongzhi
of the Jingde Monastery at Tiantong, renowned Mt. Taipai, in
the district of Jingyuan in the Great Song. This one is a [true]
"lancet of seated meditation". This one says it right.
It alone radiates throughout the surface and interior of the
dharma realm. It is [the statement of] a buddha and ancestor
among the buddhas and ancestors of past and present. Prior buddhas
and later buddhas have been lanced by this "Lancet";
present ancestors and ancient ancestors appear from this "Lancet".
Here is that "Lancet of Seated Meditation".
* * * * *
LANCET OF SEATED MEDITATION
by imperial designation the Chan Master Spacious Wisdom <32>
Essential function of buddha
Functioning essence of ancestor after ancestor --
It knows without touching things;
It illumines without facing objects.
Knowing without touching things,
Its knowing is inherently subtle;
Illumining without facing objects,
Its illumining is inherently mysterious.
Its knowing inherently subtle,
It is ever without discriminatory thought;
Its illumining inherently mysterious,
It is ever without a hair's breadth of sign.
Ever without discriminatory thought,
Its knowing is rare without peer;
Ever without a hair's breadth of sign,
Its illumining comprehends without grasping.
The water is clear right through to the bottom;
A fish goes lazily along.
The sky is vast without horizon;
A bird flies far far away.
The "lancet" in this
"Lancet of Seated Meditation" means "the manifestation
of the great function", "the comportment beyond sight
and sound"; it is "the juncture before your parents
were born". It means "you had better not slander the
buddhas and ancestors"; "you do not avoid destroying
your body and losing your life"; it is "a head of three
feet and neck of two inches". <33>
"Essential function of buddha
after buddha." The buddhas always take the "buddhas"
as their "essential function" -- this is the "essential
function" that is realized here; this is "seated
"Functioning essence of
all the ancestors." "My master had no such words"
-- this principle is "the ancestors". The dharma and
the robe are transmitted. The faces [that are reversed] when
we "turn the head and reverse the face" are the "essential
function of all the buddhas"; the heads [that turn] when
we "reverse the face and turn the head" are the "functioning
essence of all the ancestors". <34>
"It knows without touching
things." "Knowing" does not mean perception; for
perception is of little measure. It does not mean understanding;
for understanding is artificially constructed. Therefore, this
"knowing" is "not touching things", and "not
touching things" is "knowing". [Such "knowing"]
should not be measured as universal knowledge; it should not
be categorized as self-knowledge. This "not touching
things" means "When they come in the light, I hit them
in the light; when they come in the dark, I hit them in the dark".
It means "sitting and breaking the skin born of mother".
"It illumines without facing
objects." This "illumining" does not mean the
"illumining" of luminosity or spiritual illumination;
"without facing objects" is "illumining".
"Illumining" does not change into the "object",
for the "object" itself is "illumining".
"Without facing" means "it is never hidden throughout
the world"; "it does not emerge when you break the
world". It is "subtle"; it is "mysterious";
it is "interacting without interacting". <36>
"Its knowing inherently
subtle, it is ever without discriminatory thought." "Thought"
is itself "knowing", without dependence on another's
power. "Its knowing" is its form, and its form is the
mountains and rivers. These mountains and rivers are "subtle",
and this "subtlety" is "mysterious". When
we put it to use, it is "brisk and lively". When we
make a dragon, it does not matter whether we are inside or out
of the Yu Gate. To put this single "knowing" to the
slightest use is to take up the mountains and rivers of the entire
world and "know" them with one's entire power. Without
our intimate "knowing" of the mountains and
rivers, we do not have a single knowing or a half understanding.
We should not lament the late arrival of "disciminatory"
thinking: the buddhas of previous "discrimination"
have already been realized. "Ever without" here means
"previously"; "previously" means "realized".
Therefore, "ever without discrimination" means "you
do not meet a single person". <37>
"Its illumining inherently
mysterious, it is ever without a hair's breadth of sign."
"A hair's breadth" here means the entire world; yet
it is "inherently mysterious", inherently "illumining".
Therefore, it is as if it is never brought out. The eyes are
not to be doubted, nor the ears to be trusted. "You should
clarify the essential meaning apart from the sense"; "do
not look to words to grasp the rule" -- this is "illumining".
Therefore, it is "without peer"; therefore, it is "without
grasping". This has been preserved as "rare" and
maintained as "comprehending", but "I have my
"The water is clear right
through to the bottom; a fish swims lazily along." "The
water is clear." The "water" that has to do with
the sky does not get "right through to the bottom"
of clear water; still less is that which forms clear, deep pools
in the "vessel world" the "water" of "the
water is clear". That which has no shore as its boundary
-- this is what is meant by clear water penetrated "right
through to the bottom". If a fish goes through this "water",
it is not that it does not "go"; yet, however many
tens of thousands the degree of its progress, its "going"
is immeasurable, inexhaustible. There is no shoreline by which
it is gauged; there is no sky to which it ascends, nor bottom
to which it sinks. And therefore there is no one who can take
its measure. If we try to discuss its measure, it is only clear
water penetrated "right through to the bottom". The
virtue of seated meditation is like the "fish going":
who can calculate its degree in thousands or tens of thousands?
The degree of the "going" that penetrates "right
through to the bottom" is the "path of the bird",
along which the whole body does not "go". <39>
"The sky is vast without
horizon; a bird flies far far away." [The expression] "the
sky is vast" here has nothing to do with the heavens: the
"sky" that has to do with the heavens is not the vast
sky; still less is that which extends everywhere here and there
the vast sky. Neither hidden nor manifest, without surface or
interior -- this is what is meant by the vast sky. When the bird
flies this "sky", it is the single dharma of "flying
sky". This observance of "flying sky" is not to
be measured: "flying sky" is the entire world, for
it is the entire world "flying sky". Although we do
not know how far this "flying" goes, to say what is
beyond our calculations, we say "far far away". This
is "you should go off without a string beneath your feet".
When the "sky" flies off, the "bird" flies
off; in the "bird's" flying off, the "sky"
flies off. In a saying that investigates flying off, it is said,
"It is right here". This is the lancet of [sitting]
fixedly: through how many tens of thousands of degrees does it
declare "it is right here"? <40>
Such, then, is the "Lancet
of Seated Meditation" by the Chan Master Hongzhi. Among
the old worthies throughout all the generations, there has never
been another lancet of seated meditation like this one. If the
"stinking skin bags" throughout all quarters were to
attempt to express a lancet of seated meditation like this one,
they could not do so though they exhaust the efforts of a lifetime
or two. This is the only lancet in any quarter; there is no other
to be found. When he ascended the hall, my former master often
said, "Hongzhi is an old buddha." He never said this
about any other person. When one has the eye to know a person,
he will "know the music" of the buddhas and ancestors.
In truth, we know that there are buddhas and ancestors in Tongshan.
Now, some eighty years and more
since [the days of] the Chan Master Hongzhi, reading his "Lancet
of Seated Meditation", I compose this "Lancet of Seated
Meditation". The date is the eighteenth day of the third
month in Mizunoe-tora, the third year of Ninji; if we calculate
back from this year to the eighth day of the tenth month in the
twenty-seventh year of Shao-xing, there are just eighty-five
The "Lancet of Seated Meditation" I now compose is
LANCET OF SEATED MEDITATION
Essential function of all the
Functioning essence of all the ancestors-
It is present without thinking;
It is completed without interacting.
Present without thinking,
Its presence is inherently intimate;
Completed without interacting,
Its completion is inherently verified.
Its presence inherently intimate,
It is ever without stain or defilement;
Its completion inherently verified,
It is ever without the upright or inclined.
Intimacy ever without stain or defilement,
Its intimacy sloughs off without discarding;
Verification ever without upright or inclined,
Its verification makes effort without figuring.
The water is clear right through the earth;
A fish goes along like a fish.
The sky is vast straight into the heavens,
A bird flies just like a bird. <43>
It is not that the "Lancet
of Seated Meditation" by the Chan Master Hongzhi has not
yet said it right, but it can also be said like this. Above all,
descendants of the buddhas and ancestors should study seated
meditation as "the one great concern". This is the
orthodox seal of the single transmission.