弘明集 4.28

4.28

釋曰。吾前謂同於所万。豈得生之可異。足下答云。非謂不然。又曰。奚取不異之生必宜為眾是則去吾為眾。而取吾不異。豈有不異而非眾哉。所以復云。故當殊其特靈不應異其得生耳。今答又謂。得生之理何甞暫同。生本於理而理異焉。請問得生之理。故是陰陽耶。吾不見其異。而足下謂未甞暫同。若有異理非復照蒸耶。則陰陽之表更有受生塗趣。三世詎宜竪立。使混成之生與物同氣。豈混成之謂。若徒假生名莫見生實。則非向言之匹。言生非生即是有物不物。李叟此說或更有其義。以無詰有。頗為未類。

Explanation: Previously, I said that being identical in what is myriad, how could the obtaining of life be different? You replied that you did not consider this incorrect, and further said: 'Why take life that is not different as necessarily being the multitude?' This eliminates my 'being the multitude' while accepting my 'not different.' How could there be what is not different yet not the multitude? That is why I said again: 'Therefore one should distinguish its extraordinary sentience and should not make different its obtaining of life.' Now your reply again says: 'How could the principle of obtaining life ever be momentarily identical? Life is rooted in principle, yet the principles differ.' May I ask whether the principle of obtaining life is still yin and yang? I do not see its difference, yet you say it has never momentarily been identical. If there is a different principle that is no longer illumination and vapor, then outside yin and yang there would be another path of receiving life; how could the three times be established? If you make the life formed in chaos share its qi with things, how could it be called 'formed in chaos'? If one merely borrows the name of life without seeing the reality of life, then it is not an equivalent of what was said before. Saying life is not life is just having a thing that is not a thing. This saying of Old Master Li [Laozi] perhaps has another meaning. To interrogate existence through non-existence is quite inappropriate.