[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102) › 4.9 # 弘明集 4.9 弘明集 4.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4.9) 敬覽芳訊研復淵旨。區別三才步驗精粹。宣演道心褒賞施士。貫綜幽明推誠及物。行之於己則美。敷之於教則弘。殆無所間。退尋嘉誨之來。將欲令參觀斗極復迷反逕思。或昧然未全曉洽。故復重申本懷。足下所謂共成三才者。是必合德之稱。上哲之人。亦何為其然。夫立人之道取諸仁義。惻隱為仁者之表。恥惡為義心之端。牛山之木剪性於䥸斧。恬漠之想汩慮於利害。誠直滋其萌㜸援其善心。遂乃存而不算得無過與。又云。議三才者無取於氓隸。言眾生者亦何濫於聖智。既已聞命。猶未知二塗。當以何為判。將伊顏下麗寧僑札上附。企望不倦。以祛未了。必令兩藉俱舉宮和符合。豈不盡善。又曰。大德曰。生有萬之所同同於所萬。豈得生之可異。非謂不然。人生雖均被大德。不可謂之眾生。譬聖人雖同稟五常。不可謂之眾人。奚取於不異之生必宜為眾哉。來告云。人則役物以為養。物則見役以養人。大判如此。便是顧同鄙議。至於情嗜不禁害生慘物。所謂甚者泰者。聖人固已去之。又云。以道為心者。或不劑此而止。請問不止者。將自己不殺耶。令受教咸同耶。若自己不殺取足市𮠔。故是遠庖厨。意必欲推之於編戶。吾見雅論之不可立矣。又云。若同草木便當煙盡。精靈在天將何憑以立。夫神魄忽怳遊魂為變。發揚悽愴。亦于何否之。仲由屈於知死。賜也失於所問。不更受形。前論之所明言所憑之方。請附夫子之對。及施報之道必然之符。當謂于氏高門。俟積善之慶。博陽不伐。膺公侯之祚。何關於後身乎。又云。經世恒談施者勿憶士子服義惠而不有。誠哉斯言。微暢設報以要惠說徒之所先。悅報而為惠。舉世之常務。疑經受累劫之罪。勤施獲積倍之報。不似吾黨之為道者。是以怏怏耳。知欲引之上濟。亦甚所不惜。但丈夫處實者。頗陋前識之華。故不為也。若乃施非周急惠存功舉揆諸高明亦有恥乎。此吾率其恒心久而不化。內慚璩子未暇有所謂也。何承天白。 > I respectfully read your fragrant letter and examined its profound tenets. You distinguish the Three Powers and verify their refined essence; you expound the mind of the Dao and praise the gentleman who practices giving; you synthesize the hidden and the manifest, extending sincerity to reach all things. To practice this oneself is fine; to spread it as a teaching is broad. There is almost nothing to criticize. Upon reflecting on where your fine instruction leads, it seeks to make me look toward the Northern Dipper, return from confusion to the right path, and reflect on what I might have been too blind to fully comprehend. Therefore I reiterate my original intention. You state that those who 'together form the Three Powers' must refer to those who unify their virtue. Even among men of superior wisdom, how could that be so? The way of establishing man is derived from benevolence and righteousness. The feeling of commiseration is the external mark of the benevolent; the sense of shame and dislike is the beginning of a righteous mind. The trees of Mount Niu had their nature sheared away by axes; tranquil thoughts are turbidly agitated by deliberations of gain and harm. If one genuinely nurtures their sprouting and aids their good mind, yet they are preserved without being counted, would that not be a fault? You also state: 'Those who discuss the Three Powers do not include serfs and slaves, and those who speak of sentient beings—how do they improperly confound sages and the wise?' Having heard your instruction, I still do not know by what criterion the two paths are to be distinguished. Are Yi Yin and Yan Hui to be demoted below, and Ning Wuzao, Zichan, and Jizha attached above? I look forward without weariness to having my lack of understanding dispelled. If we can truly uphold both textual traditions together, harmonizing the tones and matching the tallies, would that not be the ultimate good? You also say: ''The great virtue \[of Heaven and Earth\] is called life'; the myriad beings all share it, and what they share is their myriad being—how could the life \[of each\] be deemed different?' I do not say this is not so. Although human life equally receives the great virtue, humans cannot be called 'sentient beings' \[among beasts\]. For example, although the sage shares the endowment of the five constants, he cannot be called an 'ordinary man.' Why take life that is not different as necessarily meaning it must be 'sentient \[multitude\]'? Your letter says: 'Humans employ creatures for their nourishment, and creatures are employed to nourish humans.' If the general distinction is like this, then you turn around and agree with my humble opinion. As for cravings being unrestrained and harming living things with cruelty, what is termed excess and extravagance—the sages indeed already eliminated them. You also say: 'Those who take the Dao as their mind might not stop at these limits.' May I ask, as for those who do not stop: will they themselves not kill, or will they make all who receive the teachings do the same? If they do not kill themselves but obtain enough from the market stalls, this is still keeping away from the slaughterhouse and kitchen. If you wish to extend this to registered households, I see that your elegant argument cannot be established. You also say: 'If it were identical to plants and trees, it should simply turn to smoke and vanish; on what does the refined spirit rely to establish itself in heaven?' Now, the spirit and soul are indistinct and fleeting, and the wandering soul undergoes transformations; when aroused and made sorrowful, how could it not be so? Zilu was rebuffed concerning knowing death; Zigong erred in what he asked about. Not receiving a corporeal form again was clearly stated in my previous treatise; as for the means on which it relies, please refer to the Master's reply. As for the way of giving and retribution being an inevitable tally, this should refer to the tall gate of the Yu family awaiting the celebration of accumulated goodness, or Bo Yang not boasting and receiving the blessing of dukes and marquises; what has this to do with a future rebirth? You also say: 'The constant saying of worldly times values that the giver should not remember it, and a gentleman adhering to righteousness gives favors without possessing them.' True indeed are these words! A subtle and smooth way sets up retribution to solicit favors—this is what preachers prioritize. Delighting in retribution while granting favors is the common practice of the whole world. Fearing to suffer the guilt of cumulative kalpas through the scriptures, and giving diligently to reap a manifold multiplied retribution—this does not resemble how our party practices the Dao. This is why I am disgruntled. Knowing that you wish to guide them to ascend above, I do not begrudge it at all. But a gentleman who abides in reality disdains the flash of foreknowledge, and therefore does not do it. If a gift does not relieve urgent need, and a favor is given merely to register merit, would not those of high discernment also feel ashamed? This is my constant mind that I follow and have long remained unchanged in; inwardly I feel ashamed before Bo Yuzi, having no leisure for what you have stated. He Chengtian speaks. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4.8) - [Next: 4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4.10) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102~en-mt.4.9) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.4.9) · Pramāṇa