弘明集 3.22

3.22

答曰。謂麁近為啟導。比報應於影嚮。不亦善乎。但影嚮所因必稱形聲。尋常之形安得八萬由旬之影乎。所滯若有欲於無欲。猶是常滯於所欲。夫耳目殊司工藝異業。末伎所存慮猶不並。是以金石克諧。泰山不能呈其高。鴻鵠方集。冥秋不能傳其旨。而欲以有欲成無欲。希望就日損。雖云西行去郢茲遠。如之何。又云。若身死神滅是物之真性。但當與周孔並力致教。何為誑以不滅欺以佛理。使燒祝髮膚絕其胖合。以傷盡性之義。答曰。華戎自有不同。何者。中國之人。稟氣清和含仁抱義。故周孔明性習之教。外國之徒。受性剛強貪欲忿戾。故釋氏嚴五戒之科。來論所謂聖無常心。就之物性者也。懲暴之戒莫若乎地獄。誘善之歡莫美乎天堂。將盡殘害之根。非中庸之謂。周孔則不然。順其天性去其甚泰。淫盜著於五刑。酒辜明乎周誥。春田不圍澤。見生不忍死。五犯三驅釣而不綱。是以仁愛普洽澤及㹠魚。嘉禮有常爼。老者得食肉春耕秋收蠶織以時。三靈格思百神咸祑。方彼之所為者。豈不弘哉。又甄供灌之賞。嚴疑法之罰。述蒲宰之問。為勸化之本。演焄蒿之答。明來生之驗。祇服盱衡而矜斯說者。其處心亦誤矣。論又稱。耆陀尸梨之屬神理風操。不在琳比丘後。足下既明常人不能料度近事。今何以了其勝否於百年之前數千里之外耶。若琳比丘者僧貌而天靈。似夫深識真偽。殊不肯忌經護師崇飾幻說。吾以是敬之。孫興公論云。竺法護之淵達。于法蘭之純博。足下欲比中土何士也。及楚英之修仁寺。笮融之賙行饉。寧復有清真風操乎。昔在東邑。有道含沙門自吳中來。深見勸譬甚有懇誠。因留三宿。相為說練形澄神之緣。罪福起滅之驗。皆有條貫。吾拱聽讜言申旦忘寢。退以為士所以立身揚名著信行道者。實賴周孔之本。子路稱聞之。而未之能行。唯恐有聞吾所行者多矣。何遽捨此而務彼。又尋稱情立文之制。知來生之為奢。究終身不已之哀。悟受形之難再。聖人我師。周孔豈欺我哉。緣足下情篤。故具陳始末。想耆舊大智誨人不倦。於此未默耳。前已遣取明佛論。遲尋至冀或朗然於心。何承天白。

I reply: To speak of guiding the coarse and near, and to compare retribution to shadows and echoes—is that not fine? Yet what shadows and echoes depend on must match the form and sound. How could an ordinary form produce a shadow of eighty thousand yojanas? If what one is mired in is 'desiring desirelessness', one is still ordinarily mired in what one desires. The ears and eyes have different offices, and crafts have distinct professions; when it comes to minor arts, one's thoughts cannot even be combined. Therefore, when metals and stones are harmoniously tuned, Mount Tai cannot display its height; when the wild swan is about to alight, the dark autumn cannot convey its purpose. Yet you wish to accomplish desirelessness through having desires, and to approach daily reduction through expectation; although you speak of heading west, you are ever further from Ying—what can be done about this? Moreover, you say: 'If the death of the body and the extinction of the spirit are the true nature of things, one should merely join forces with the Duke of Zhou and Confucius to extend education; why deceive them with immortality and dupe them with the Buddha's principles, causing them to burn their hair and skin and sever their marital unions, thereby harming the meaning of fully realizing one's nature?' I reply: The Chinese and the barbarians naturally differ. Why? The people of the Central Kingdom are endowed with a clear and harmonious qi, harboring benevolence and embracing righteousness; hence the Duke of Zhou and Confucius clarified the teachings on nature and practice. The people of foreign states receive a nature that is unyielding, greedy, and wrathful; hence the clan of Śākya was strict with the articles of the five precepts. This is what your letter calls 'the sage has no constant mind, but accords with the nature of things.' As for warnings against violence, none is more fitting than hell; as for joys that entice to good, none is more splendid than heaven. To seek to eradicate the root of cruelty is not what is meant by the Golden Mean. The Duke of Zhou and Confucius did otherwise: they followed people's heavenly nature and removed what was excessive. Licentiousness and theft were made evident in the five punishments; offenses concerning wine were clarified in the Announcements of Zhou. In the spring hunts they did not encircle the marshes; seeing a beast alive, they could not bear to see it die. With the five transgressions and three drives, they angled but did not use a net. Thus benevolence and love were universally spread, their grace extending even to pigs and fish. For the auspicious rites there were standard sacrificial platters; the elderly were able to eat meat; spring plowing, autumn harvesting, sericulture and weaving were done in their proper seasons. The three luminaries were moved to descend, and all the hundred spirits were sacrificed to in order. Compared to what those others do, is this not magnificent? Furthermore, you distinguish the reward of making offerings and sprinkling, and impose severe penalties for doubting the Dharma; you recount the magistrate of Pu's inquiry as the basis for encouragement and conversion, and expound the reply concerning vapor and breath to clarify the verification of a future life. Those who respectfully wear the robes, open their eyes wide, and boast of these doctrines have indeed erred in their state of mind. Your treatise also claims: 'The spiritual principle and demeanor of Gidara and Śrī were not behind those of the monk Dao-lin.' Sir, since you have made clear that ordinary men cannot assess nearby matters, how can you now comprehend their superiority or inferiority from a hundred years ago and thousands of miles away? As for the monk Dao-lin, he had the appearance of a monk yet a heavenly spirit; he seemed to have a deep understanding of the true and the false, and refused entirely to avoid the scriptures, protect his masters, or embellish illusory doctrines; for this I respect him. Sun Xinggong's treatise says: 'Zhu Fahu's depth and discernment, Yu Falan's purity and erudition'—which scholar of the Central Kingdom do you wish to compare them to? And when Prince Ying of Chu built the Monastery of Benevolence, or Ze Rong gave aid to the famished along the road, did they truly have a pure and authentic demeanor? In the past, while in the eastern city, the śramaṇa Daohan came from Wu; he earnestly advised and used analogies with great sincerity. Thereupon he stayed three nights, explaining for me the causes and conditions of refining the form and clarifying the spirit, and the verifications of the arising and passing away of sin and blessing, all with systematic order. Folding my hands, I listened to his upright words, forgetting to sleep until daybreak. Upon reflection, I considered that the means by which a scholar establishes himself, makes his name known, shows good faith, and practices the Dao truly rely on the foundation of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius. Zilu said that when he heard something, before he could put it into practice, his only fear was that he would hear something else; the things I must practice are already many—why should I hastily abandon these to pursue those? Furthermore, examining the institutions that establish rituals in accord with human feelings, I know that [the idea of] a future life is extravagant; probing the ceaseless grief that lasts for one's whole life, I realize that receiving a physical form cannot happen again. The sages are my teachers; would the Duke of Zhou and Confucius deceive me? Because of your deep affection, Sir, I have laid out the beginning and the end in full. I think an elder of great wisdom does not tire of instructing others, and will not remain silent on this matter. I have already sent for the Mingfo lun, and hope that once it arrives, my mind might be illuminated. He Chengtian speaks.