This idea about ants originated from a poem by Orfila, a monk in the Song Dynasty. The poem says: "The six ancestors had no husband in those days, and the rich people posted books on the wall. Obviously, they said "nothing", but they were given a bowl by others. " But recently, it was discovered that both Orfila and Ant misunderstood Huineng.
Zhonghua Book Company notes Tanjing (1983 edition) that "Yuanwu" was quoted by Huixin Tanjing, which was tampered with by Qi Songben and Zong Bao, and so was Zutangji. Huineng's original poem should be a Dunhuang manuscript-"Buddhist nature is always quiet" in Fa Hai's Tanjing.
From the time point of view, Fahai was in the Tang Dynasty, changed his mind in the late Tang Dynasty (it is said to be the early Song Dynasty), Song Qi was in the Northern Song Dynasty (Renzong to Hehe for three years), and Zongbao was in the Yuan Dynasty (the twenty-eighth year of Shizu to Yuan Dynasty), separated by hundreds of years. Judging from the number of words, Fahai is about12,000 words, Huixin is about14,000 words, and both Song Qi and Zongbao are more than 20,000 words. After making a statistical comparison of the phenomenon that the number of words published later is more, Hu Shi also said: "This shows that the Zen monk's boldness in changing ancient books is really shocking." Both of these prove that Guo is right.
Hu Shi is not the first or the only person who thinks that the Tanjing has been tampered with. As early as several decades after Huineng's death, the monk Zhong Hui pointed out that there was a phenomenon of "changing his altar sutra, adding a little discussion, cutting away the sacred meaning and confusing his disciples". Hong Chu, a monk in the Ming Dynasty, also thought that the Tanjing was recorded by others, so there were many errors. Wang Qilong especially criticized Zongbenbao in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, saying that it was a big mistake for his own use. Master Yin Shun said in the book History of Zen in China: "Tanjing has been integrated and revised and supplemented." He also said: "From the original Tanjing to Dunhuang edition, there have been at least two major overhauls. Since then, the circulating Tanjing has been continuously adapted and published, and many changes have taken place. " In Ui Hakuju's study of Zen history, there is a special chapter called Changes of Tanjing, and the analysis shows that Tanjing has indeed undergone great changes. The History of Zen Thought also said: "Because of the change of words used in writing, there is a situation of' jade mixed' in the Tanjing." It can be seen that the Tanjing has been tampered with, which is a fact recognized by scholars at home and abroad.
According to Guo Peng, changing "the Buddha's nature is always quiet" to "the nature is not" not only reflects the different positions of Buddhism on emptiness and existence, but also shows the misunderstanding of "the nature is empty". Ants think this is reasonable. As we all know, Zen advocates "pointing directly at people's hearts" and "regarding nature as Buddha", and its ideological basis must be "truth as the source" rather than "emptiness as the source". Because only by acknowledging that the eternal, absolute, ubiquitous and subtle truth is the origin of the world and the entity of the universe, and that everything in the world is derived from the truth (origin), can the idea of "green bamboo, full of dharma, gloomy yellow flowers and nothing more than prajna" be produced, and it is possible to realize "all beings have Buddha nature". Otherwise, according to the theory of "empty origin of sex", ".
From here, it is not difficult to see the misunderstanding of "sexual emptiness". "Sexual nothingness" means nothing, while "sexual emptiness" means "sexual origin and sexual emptiness". That is, the theory of "sexual emptiness" holds that the phenomenon of things is "existence", although it is "primitive", its ontology is "emptiness" and "self-emptiness" However, this is different from what Ben Wu thought after all, and it is also an illusion that does not exist. Therefore, according to Ben Wu, it is not only impossible to "see" but also impossible to "point directly" because there is nothing to point to.
After Kumarajiva translated the Confucian classics "Prajna" and "Three Treatises", "Benwu" has gradually fallen out of favor, because "Benwu" was originally a mistranslation of "sexual emptiness" and a historical misunderstanding in the early days when Buddhism was introduced into China. However, because it is so similar to "sexual emptiness", it has not completely withdrawn from the historical stage and will appear from time to time. "Nothing" is such a situation. It is the embodiment of the out-and-out "nothing" thought, which will never appear in Zen Buddhism, especially Huineng's thought-this just proves that the Tanjing has indeed been tampered with by future generations, otherwise, it will have to be admitted that Wu Xin and ants have made some sense in teasing it.