弘明集 12.74

12.74

省示猶復未釋所疑。因來告復粗有其難。夫情敬之理豈容有二。皆是自內以及外耳。既入於有情之境。則不可得無也。若如來言。王者同之造化。未有謝惠於所稟厝感於理本。是為功玄理深莫此之大也。則佛之為化。復何以過茲。而來論云。津塗既殊則義無降屈。宗致既同則長幼咸序。資通有係則事與心應。若理在己本德深居極。豈得云津塗之異而云降屈耶。宗致為是何耶。若以學業為宗致者。則學之所學。故是發其自然之性耳。苟自然有在所由而稟。則自然之本。居可知矣。資通之悟。更是發瑩其末耳。事與心應。何得在此而不在彼。

Reading your letter, my doubts are still not resolved; taking occasion from your reply, I again raise rough objections. Can the principle of feeling and reverence admit of duality? Both proceed from the interior to the exterior. Once one enters the realm of sentient beings, it cannot be absent. If, as you say, the ruler is identical to Creation, and no one has ever thanked the benevolence of what they received or lodged gratitude in the root of principle, then this merit is mysterious and this principle is profound—nothing is greater than this! If so, how could the transformation of the Buddha surpass it? Yet your essay says: 'Because the paths are different, by principle there is no humbling or bending; their宗旨 and purport being the same, elder and younger are completely ordered; their reliance on awakening being linked, practice and mind correspond.' If principle resides in one's own root and virtue deeply abides in the utmost, how can one speak of a difference in paths and speak of humbling and bending? What is this宗旨 and purport? If you take study and practice as the宗旨 and purport, then what is studied by learning merely brings forth one's spontaneous nature. If the spontaneous resides in that from which it was received, then the root of the spontaneous can easily be known! The awakening gained through reliance and guidance merely develops and polishes its branches. If practice and mind correspond, how could it be present here and not present there?