弘明集 12.91

12.91

知以方外遺形。故不貴為生之益。求宗不由順化。故不重運通之資。又云。內乖天屬之重。而不違其孝。外闕奉主之恭。而不失其敬。若如來言理本無重則無緣有致孝之情。事非資通。不應復有致恭之義。君親之情許其未盡。則情之所寄何為絕之。夫累著在於心滯不由形敬。形敬蓋是心之所用耳。若乃在其本而縱以形敬。此復所未之諭。又云。佛教兩弘。亦有處俗之教。或澤流天下道洽六親。固以協讚皇極而不虛沾其德矣。夫佛教存行各以事應。因緣有本必至無差者也。如此則為道者亦何能違之哉。是故釋迦之道不能超白淨津梁。雖未獲須陀。故是同國人所蒙耳。就如來言此自有道。深德之功固非今之所謂宜教者所可擬議也。來示未能共求其理。便使大致慨然。故是未之諭也。想不惑留常之滯。而謬情理之用耳。

I understand that, being beyond the realm and casting off the corporeal form, you do not value the benefits of living; and that seeking the ultimate principle does not come from complying with transformation, hence you do not prize the resources that facilitate movement. You also say: 'Internally they deviate from the weight of natural kinship, yet do not violate filial piety; externally they lack the deference of serving the ruler, yet do not forfeit respect.' If, according to the words of the Tathāgata, principle originally lacks weight, there would be no ground for feelings of filial piety; if matters do not depend on facilitating movement, there should no longer be the duty of rendering deference. If you allow that feelings for ruler and parents are not yet exhausted, why sever that wherein the feelings lodge? Burden and attachment reside in stagnation of the mind, not in bodily respect; bodily respect is merely the function of the mind. If it resides in the root yet one indulges in bodily respect, this again is what I cannot understand. You also say: 'The Buddhist teachings are propagated in two ways, and there is also a teaching for residing in secular life; sometimes its bounty flows throughout the world and its Dao reaches the six relations, so it has already assisted the August Ultimate without vainly receiving its virtue.' The Buddhist teachings and their practices each respond according to circumstance; causes and conditions have their roots, inevitably reaching fruition without error. If so, how can those who practice the Way violate this? For this reason, Śākya's Way could not surpass the ford of Śuddhodana; though he had not yet attained a stream-enterer, he was still benefited by his fellow countrymen. In terms of the Tathāgata's words, this naturally has its Way; the merit of deep virtue is certainly not what can be matched by those who are nowadays called suitable for instruction. Your letter fails to join in seeking its principle, but instead conveys great lamentation; thus I still do not understand it. I trust you will not be confused by lingering in ordinary stagnation, mistakenly applying sentiment and reason.