弘明集 4.14

4.14

又云。已均被同眾復何諱眾同。故當殊其特靈。不應異其得生。夫特靈之神既異於眾。得生之理何甞暫同。生本於理而理異焉。同眾之生名將安附。若執此生名必使從眾。則混成之物亦將在例耶。又云。謹為垣防猶患踰溢。況乃罔不設備以充侈志。方開所泰何議去甚。足下始云。皇聖設候物之教。謹順時之經。將以反漸息泰。今復以方開所泰為難。未詳此將難鄙議將譏聖人也。又云。市庖之外豈無御養。神農所書中散所述。何必以刲刳為稟和。爓[卄/瀹]為翼善。夫禋瘞繭栗宗社三牲。曉薌豆爼以供賓客。七十之老俟肉而飽。豈得唯陳列草石取備上藥而已。吾所憂不立者。非謂洪論難持退嫌此事不可頓去於世耳。又云。天下寧有無形之有。顧此惟疑宜見正定。尋來旨。似不嫌有鬼。當謂鬼宜有質得無惑。天竺之書說鬼別為生類故耶。昔人以鬼神為教。乃列于典經布在方策。鄭僑吳札亦以為然。是以雲和六變實降天神。龍門九成人鬼咸格。足下雅秉周禮近忽此義。方詰無形之有為支離之辯乎。

You also say: 'Now, if they have already universally received life and are identical with the multitude, why taboo the designation of "common multitude"? Therefore, one should distinguish their extraordinary spirit, but should not differentiate their attainment of life.' Since the spirit of extraordinary intelligence is different from the multitude, how could their principle of attaining life ever be identical even for a moment? Life is rooted in principle, yet principle differs; to what could the designation of 'life identical to the multitude' be attached? If you cling to this name of 'life' and insist on having it conform to the multitude, would not things formed by the chaotic blend also be included in this category?
You also say: 'Even when carefully erecting fences and dikes, one still worries about overflows; how much more so when nothing is left unprovided to satisfy extravagant desires! If you are just opening the way for excess, how can you discuss eliminating extremes?' You initially said: 'The august sages set forth teachings to observe things and carefully adhered to the classics of the seasons, in order to reverse gradual decline and halt excess.' Now you again object by saying 'just opening the way for excess.' It is unclear whether this is an objection to my humble discourse, or a criticism of the sages!
You also say: 'Outside of markets and kitchens, how could there be a lack of proper nourishment? What was written by Shennong and described by Xi Kang (Zhongsan)—why must cutting and gutting be taken as receiving harmony, and scalding and boiling be the means to assist the good?' Now, the pure sacrifices, young calves, and the three sacrificial beasts of the ancestral temple and altars of soil and grain, along with the morning fragrances and offering vessels prepared to serve guests, and the old of seventy waiting for meat to be satisfied—how could one merely lay out herbs and stones and take them as the superior medicines? What I worry cannot be established is not that your grand discourse is difficult to maintain, but upon reflection I fear that this matter cannot be abruptly abandoned in the world.
You also say: 'Could there ever be a non-corporeal existence under Heaven? In consideration of this, there is only doubt, which ought to be corrected and settled.' Examining your intention, it seems you do not reject the existence of ghosts, but rather maintain that ghosts must have material form; could you be misled because the texts of Tianzhu describe ghosts as a distinct category of living beings? In ancient times, people used ghosts and spirits as a teaching; they were listed in the canonical scriptures and spread across the bamboo tablets. Zichan of Zheng and Ji Zha of Wu also considered it to be so. Therefore, with the six changes of the Yunhe lute, heavenly spirits truly descended; with the nine completions at Longmen, both human ghosts and spirits all arrived. You, who nobly uphold the Rites of Zhou, have recently neglected this meaning; why then interrogate the 'non-corporeal existence' as a rambling and fragmented debate?