弘明集 12.77

12.77

奉告并垂難。具承高旨。此理微緬至難厝言。又一代大事應時詳盡。下官才非拔幽持之研折。且妙難精詣益增茫惑。但高音既臻不敢默已。輒復率其短見妄酬來旨。無以啟發容致。祇用反側。願復詢諸道人通才蠲其不逮。公云。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。今以為宗致者。是所趣之至道。學業者日用之筌蹄。今將欲趣彼至極。不得不假筌蹄。以自運耳。故知所假之功。未是其絕處也。夫積學以之極者必階麁以及妙。魚獲而筌廢。理斯見矣。公以為神奇之化易。仁義之功難。聖人何緣舍所易之實道。而為難行之末事哉。其不然也。亦以明矣。意以為佛之為教。與內聖永殊。既云其殊理則無並。今論佛理。故當依其宗而立言也。然後通塞之塗。可得而詳矣。前答所以云。仁善之行不殺之旨。其若似可同者。故引以就此耳。至於發言抗論律經所歸。固難得而一矣。然愚意所見。乃更以佛教為難也。何以言之。今內聖所明。以為出其言善應若影響。如其不善千里違之。如此則善惡應於俄頃。禍福交於目前。且為仁由己。弘之則是而猶有棄正而即邪。背道而從欲者矣。況佛教喻一生於彈指。期要終于永劫。語靈異之無位。設報應於未兆。取之能信。不亦難乎。是以化暨中國。悟之者尠。

I have received your letter and condescending challenges, and fully understand your noble purport. This principle is subtle and distant, exceedingly difficult to put into words; furthermore, as it is a great affair of an entire epoch, it ought to be scrutinized completely in due season. My own talent is not one that can fathom the obscure or sustain rigorous analysis, and the difficulty of attaining subtlety only adds to my confusion. However, since your lofty voice has arrived, I dare not remain silent, and have again rashly ventured my shallow views to reply clumsily to your points. Having nothing that might elucidate or clarify, I can only turn about restlessly in anxiety. I hope you will consult the monks of wide talent to make good what I have failed to attain. You say: “What is the ultimate aim? If learning is taken as the ultimate aim, then that which is studied only brings forth one's natural character. If nature resides where it is received, then the root of nature can be known in advance.” What I now take to be the ultimate aim is the supreme Dao toward which one strives; learning is the fishtrap and snare for daily use. Now, if one wishes to strive toward that ultimate supreme, one cannot but rely on the trap and snare to convey oneself. Hence we know that the effort that is relied upon is not yet the ultimate realm. Those who accumulate learning to reach the culmination must ascend from the coarse to the subtle; once the fish is caught, the trap is discarded—its rationale is seen here. You believe that conversion through the miraculous is easy, whereas the labor of benevolence and righteousness is difficult: “For what reason would the sages have abandoned the easy, real Dao to engage in secondary matters that are difficult to practice? That this is not so is abundantly clear.” My humble opinion is that the Buddha's teaching and the inner sages are eternally distinct. Since they are distinct, their principles cannot be juxtaposed. Now in discussing the Buddhist principle, one must naturally establish one's arguments based on its tradition; only then can the paths of obstruction and free passage be examined in detail. The reason my previous reply mentioned that the practice of benevolence and goodness and the principle of not killing seem to be compatible was merely to draw upon them for comparison; when it comes to advancing arguments and the ultimate intent of the Vinaya and sūtras, they are indeed hard to unify. However, in my humble view, the Buddhist teachings are rather the more difficult. Why do I say this? What the inner sages elucidate holds that if one speaks good words, the response is like an echo or shadow, and if they are not good, a thousand leagues will oppose them. In this way, good and evil meet response in an instant, and calamity and fortune alternate right before one's eyes. Moreover, practicing benevolence depends upon oneself; if one broadens it, that is it—yet there are still those who abandon rectitude to turn to evil, or turn their backs on the Dao to follow desire. How much more so when Buddhist teachings compare a single life to the snapping of fingers and set the ultimate goal in eternal kalpas, speaking of marvelous spirits without worldly status and positing retribution before any sign appears! To accept and believe in this—is it not exceedingly difficult? For this reason, since the teaching reached the Central Lands, those who have awakened to it have been few.