弘明集 3.16

3.16

所送琳道人白黑論。辭情致美。但吾闇於照理。猶未達其意。既云幽冥之理。不盡於人事。周孔疑而不辯。釋氏辯而不實。然則人事之表幽闇之理。為最廓然唯空。為猶有神明耶。若廓然唯空。眾聖莊老何故皆云有神。若有神明復何以斷其不實。如佛言。今相與共在常人之域。料度近事猶多差錯。以陷患禍。及博弈麁藝。注意研之。或謂生更死謂死實生。近事之中都未見有常得而無喪者。何以決斷天地之外億劫之表冥冥之中。必謂所辯不實耶。若推據事不容得實。則疑之可也。今人形至麁人神實妙。以形從神豈得齊終心之所感。崩城隕霜白虹貫日太白入昴氣禁之醫。心作水火冷暖輒應。況今以至明之智至精之志。專誠妙徹感以受身。更生於七寶之玉。何為不可實哉。又云。析毫空樹無傷垂蔭之茂。堆材虛空無損輪奐之美。貝錦以繁彩發華。和羹以鹽梅致旨。以塞本無之教。文不然矣。佛經所謂本無者。非謂眾緣和合者皆空也。垂蔭輪奐處物自可有耳。故謂之有諦。性本無矣。故謂之無諦。吾雖不悉佛理。謂此唱居然甚安。自古千變萬化之有。俄然皆已空矣。當其盛有之時。豈不常有也。必空之實。故俄而得以空耶。亦如惠子所謂物方生方死。日方中方晲。死晲之實。恒豫明於未生未中之前矣。愚者不覩其理。唯見其有。故齊侯攝爽鳩之餘。偽而位戀其樂。賢者心與理一。故顏子庶乎屢空。有若無實若虛也。自顏以下。則各隨深淺而味其虛矣。若又喻下縱不能自清於至言以傾愛競之惑。亦何常無髣髴於一毫。豈當反以一大增塞而更令變嗜好之欲乎。乃云明無常增渴廕之情。陳苦偽篤競辰之慮。其言過矣。又以舟壑唐肆之論。已盈耳於中國。非理之奧。故不舉為教本。謂剖析此理更由指掌之民。夫舟壑潛謝。佛經所謂現在不住矣。誠能明之則物我常虛。豈非理之奧耶。蓋悟之者寡。故不以為教本耳。支公所謂未與佛同也。何為以素聞於中國而蔑其至言哉。又以效神光無徑寸之明。驗靈變無纖介之實。徒稱無量之壽。孰見期頤之叟。諸若此類皆謂於事不符。夫神光靈變及無量之壽。皆由誠信幽奇。故將生乎佛土親映光明其壽無量耳。今沒於邪見慢誕靈化理固天隔。當何由覩其事之符乎。夫心不貪欲。為十善之本。故能俯絕地獄仰生天堂。即亦服義蹈道理端心者矣。今內懷虔仰。故禮拜悔罪。達夫無常。故情無所悋。委妻子而為施。豈有邀於百姓。復何得乃云。不由恭肅之意。不乘無吝之情乎。泥洹以無樂為樂。法身以無身為身。若本不希擬。亦可為增耽逸之慮。肇好奇之心。若誠飡仰則耽逸稍除。而獲利於無利矣。又何問利競之俗乎。又云。道在無欲。而以有欲要之。俯仰之間非利不動。何誣佛之深哉。夫佛家大趣。自以八苦皆由欲來。明言十二因緣。使高妙之流。朗神明於無生耳。欲此道者。可謂有欲於無欲矣。至於啟導麁近。天堂地獄皆有影嚮之實。亦由于公以仁活招封。嚴氏以好殺致誅。畏誅而欲封者。必捨殺而修仁矣。勵妙行以希天堂。謹五戒以遠地獄。雖有欲於可欲。實踐日損之清塗。此亦西行而求郢。何患其不至哉。又嫌丹青眩媚彩之目。土木誇好壯之心。成私樹之權。結師黨之勢。要厲精之譽。肆凌競之志。固黑蝗之醜。或可謂作法於涼。其弊猶貪耳。何得乃慢佛云作法於貪耶。王莾竊六經以篡帝位。秦皇因覲朝而搆阿房。寧可復罪。先王之禮教哉。又云。宜廢顯晦之跡。存其所要之旨。示來生者。蔽虧於道釋。不得已請問其旨為欲何要必欲使修利遷善以遂其性矣。夫聖無常心。就物之心以為心耳。若身死神滅。是物之真性。但當即其必滅之性。與周孔并力致教。使物無稟。則遷善之實。豈不純乎。何誑以不滅欺以佛理。使燒祝髮膚絕其胖合。所遏苗裔數不可量。為害若是。以傷盡性之美。釋氏何為其不得已乎。若不信之流。亦不肯修利而遷善矣。夫信者則必耆域揵陀勒夷陀密竺法乘帛法祖竺法護于法蘭竺法行于道邃𨵗公則佛圖澄尸梨蜜郭文舉釋道安支道林遠和上之倫矣。神理風操。似殊不在琳比丘之後。寧當妄有毀人理落簪於不實人之化哉。皆靈奇之實引綿邈之心。以成神通清真之業耳。足下藉其不信遠送此論。且世之疑者咸亦妙之。故自力白答以塵露眾情。夫世之然否佛法都是人興喪所大。何得相與共處以可否之間。吾故罄其愚思制明佛論。以自獻所懷。始成已令人書寫。不及此信晚更遣信可聞。當付往也。宗炳白。

The "Discourse on the White and Black" by the monk Huilin which you sent has exceedingly beautiful diction and sentiment. However, I am dim in discerning the principle and have not yet grasped his intention. Since he says that the principle of the unseen realm is not exhausted by human affairs, and that the Duke of Zhou and Confucius doubted it and did not debate it, while Śākyamuni debated it but it is untrue—then as for this principle of the unseen realm beyond human affairs, is it utterly and purely void, or are there still spirits and deities? If it is utterly and purely void, why did all the sages, Zhuangzi, and Laozi all say that there are spirits? If there are spirits and deities, on what basis can one judge it to be untrue, as the Buddha spoke of it? Today we dwell together in the domain of ordinary men; in deliberating on proximate matters we still make many errors, thereby falling into disaster and misfortune. Even with a coarse art like board games, when one focuses the mind and investigates it, one might call life death or call death life. In proximate matters, one has never seen anyone who always gains and never loses; on what basis can one conclusively judge that beyond heaven and earth, outside of myriads of kalpas, in the deep unseen realm, what was debated must definitely be untrue? If one deduces from facts that it cannot be true, then it is fine to doubt it. Now man's corporeal form is most coarse, but man's spirit is truly subtle. How could the corporeal form and the spirit come to an end together? What the mind stimulates [causes] a city wall to collapse, frost to fall, a white rainbow to pierce the sun, Venus to enter the Pleiades, and physicians using breath restraint to conjure water and fire in their minds, with cold and warmth answering immediately. How much more so with the utmost bright wisdom and the utmost refined purpose, through concentrated sincerity and subtle penetration, responding so as to receive a body and be reborn in a jade realm of the seven treasures—why could this not be real? Furthermore, he says that splitting a hair on an empty tree does no harm to the luxuriance of its cast shade, and heaping timber in empty space does not impair the beauty of lofty halls; that patterned brocade displays brilliance through variegated colors, and a harmonized broth achieves delicious flavor through salt and plums—using these to block the teaching of original non-existence. This text is not so. What the Buddhist sūtras call 'original non-existence' does not mean that what is formed by the harmony of conditioned causes is entirely void. The cast shade and the lofty halls naturally exist in the place of things; therefore this is called the truth of existence. Their nature is fundamentally non-existent; therefore this is called the truth of non-existence. Although I am not fully versed in Buddhist principles, I consider this proclamation to be distinctly at peace [with reason]. From antiquity, the existences of thousandfold transformations have, in an instant, all become void. At the time of their flourishing existence, did they not always contain the reality of inevitable voidness, so that in an instant they could become void? It is also as Huizi said: things are born at the same time they die; the sun is at noon at the same time it declines. The reality of death and declining is always clearly anticipated prior to being unborn and prior to noon. The foolish do not perceive this principle and only see existence; therefore the Marquis of Qi, holding the remnants of Shuangjiu, falsely clung to his rank and was attached to its pleasures. The worthy has a mind at one with principle; therefore Master Yan came close [to perfection] by being frequently empty, treating what he had as if he had it not, and treating reality as if it were void. From Yan Hui on down, each savored this voidness according to their depth. Even if one further instructs the lower sorts, even if they cannot purify themselves through the ultimate words to cast off the delusion of love and competition, how could they ever lack a semblance of it in the slightest hair? How could it instead increase obstacles through a great [delusion] and cause them to further change their cravings and desires? He then says that clarifying impermanence increases the sentiment of thirsting for shade, and displaying suffering and falsity intensifies the anxiety of competing for time. His words are excessive. Furthermore, he says that the discourse on the boat in the ravine and Tang and Si has already filled ears in the central lands and is not the profound essence of principle, and so is not raised as the foundation of the teaching, claiming that the analysis of this principle comes from ordinary people pointing to their palms. Now, the hidden departing of the boat in the ravine is what the Buddhist sūtras call 'the present does not abide.' If one can truly understand this, then things and self are constantly empty. How is this not the profound essence of principle? It is simply that those who awaken to it are few, so it was not taken as the foundation of the teaching. This is what Master Zhi meant by 'not yet the same as the Buddha.' Why should one disparage his ultimate words merely because they were ordinarily heard in the central lands? Furthermore, he says that testing the divine light yields not an inch of brightness, verifying spiritual transformations yields not a shred of reality, and vainly proclaiming immeasurable life—who has seen a centenarian old man? All such matters are claimed not to accord with reality. Now, divine light, spiritual transformations, and immeasurable life all stem from sincere faith in the unseen and wondrous; thus, one will be born in the Buddha-land, directly reflecting the brightness, and one's life will be immeasurable. Now, being sunken in deviant views and contemptuous arrogance, one is naturally separated from spiritual transformation as far as heaven from earth; by what means could one witness the accord of these matters? The mind lacking greedy desire is the root of the ten wholesome deeds; thus, one can cut off the hells below and be born in heaven above; this is indeed donning righteousness, treading the Dao, and rectifying the mind. Now, inwardly harboring reverent admiration, one therefore bows in worship and repents sins; understanding impermanence, one's feelings harbor no stinginess. Abandoning wife and children to practice giving—how could there be any seeking from common people? How can one then say that it does not proceed from a respectful and reverent intention, nor rely on a spirit free from stinginess? Nirvāṇa takes no-pleasure as pleasure; the Dharma-body takes no-body as body. If one originally had no yearning or emulation, it might indeed increase anxieties of indulging in leisure and spark a mind fond of novelty. If one sincerely takes nourishment and looks up with admiration, indulgence in leisure is gradually removed, and one gains benefit from what is non-beneficial. Why then question the custom of competing for profit? Furthermore, he says that the Dao lies in desirelessness, yet it is sought through having desires; between bowing and looking up, nothing moves without profit—how profound is this slander of the Buddha! The grand purport of the Buddhist school naturally holds that the eight sufferings all arise from desire, and clearly speaks of the twelve links of dependent origination so that those of lofty and subtle rank may illumine their spirits in the unborn. Those who desire this Dao may be said to have a desire for desirelessness. As for guiding the coarse and proximate, the heavens and hells all have the reality of shadows and echoes, just as Lord Yu received enfeoffment through his benevolence in saving lives, and the Yan clan incurred execution through being fond of killing. Those who fear execution and desire enfeoffment will surely abandon killing and cultivate benevolence. Striving in subtle practices to hope for heaven, and observing the five precepts to distance oneself from hell—although having a desire for what is desirable, they actually tread the pure path of daily decrease. This is also like traveling west to seek Ying; why worry that one will not arrive? Furthermore, he suspects that cinnabar and azure bewilder eyes fond of dazzling colors, and earth and timber boast to minds fond of grandiosity, establishing the power of private factions, forming the influence of teacher-cliques, seeking the reputation of strenuous vigor, and indulging the ambition of overbearing competition—which are indeed the ugliness of the black locusts, or may be called establishing laws with stinginess, whose defect is still greed. How can he then show contempt for the Buddha by saying that he established laws on greed? Wang Mang stole the Six Classics to usurp the imperial throne; the First Emperor of Qin built the Afang Palace on the occasion of receiving audiences; how could one blame the ritual teachings of the former kings? Furthermore, he says that one ought to abolish the traces of the manifest and the hidden and preserve only their essential purport. To show future generations the obscuration and deficiency in Daoism and Buddhism, having no other recourse, I venture to ask: what is the essential point he desires? He surely desires to make people cultivate profit and turn toward goodness to fulfill their nature. Now, the sage has no constant mind; he takes the mind of things as his mind. If the body dies and the spirit is extinguished, and this is the true nature of things, he should merely take their nature of inevitable extinction and join forces with the Duke of Zhou and Confucius to establish the teaching, causing things to have nothing they receive; would not the reality of turning toward goodness then be pure? Why deceive them with non-extinction and trick them with Buddhist principles, causing them to shave their hair and skin and sever their copulation, obstructing offspring beyond measure? If the harm is like this, injuring the beauty of completely fulfilling one's nature, why would Śākyamuni have had no other recourse? If they are of the unbelieving sort, they will also be unwilling to cultivate profit and turn toward goodness. Those who believe are surely of the cohort of Jīvaka, Gandhāra, Yidami, Zhu Facheng, Bo Fazu, Dharmarakṣa, Yu Falan, Zhu Faxing, Yu Daosui, Que Gong, as well as Fotudeng, Śrīmitra, Guo Wenju, Shi Dao'an, Zhi Daolin, and Master Huiyuan. In spiritual principle and moral conduct, they seem not in the least inferior to the monk Huilin. How could they falsely destroy human reason and discard their hairpins for the teachings of untrue men? It is all because the reality of the spiritual and wondrous drew their distant minds to accomplish the pure and true enterprise of spiritual penetrations. Availing yourself of his disbelief, you sent this discourse from afar, and doubters in the world all also consider it subtle; therefore I exert myself to reply in writing to clear the dust and expose the general sentiments. Whether the world affirms or denies the Buddha-Dharma is entirely a great matter in the rise and fall of mankind; how can we dwell together in between the acceptable and the unacceptable? I have therefore exhausted my foolish thoughts and composed the "Discourse Clarifying the Buddha" to present my own sentiments. It has just been completed, and I have already ordered someone to transcribe it; it could not catch this letter, but later, when another letter is dispatched and you can hear of it, I shall send it along. Zong Bing respectfully states.