弘明集 5.59

5.59

答曰。意謂此二條是來問之關鍵。立言之津要。津要既明則群疑同釋。始涉之流或因茲以悟。可謂朗滯情於常識之表。發奇唱於未聞之前。然佛教深玄微言難辯。苟未統夫旨歸亦焉能暢其幽致。為當依傍大宗試敘所懷。推夫四大之性。以明受形之本。則假於異物託為同體。生若遺塵起滅一化。此則惠觀之所入。智刃之所遊也。於是乘去來之自運。雖聚散而非我。寓群形於大夢。實處有而同無。豈復有封於所受。有係於所戀哉。若斯理自得於心而外物未悟。則悲獨善之無功。感先覺而興懷。於是思弘道以明訓。故仁恕之德存焉。若彼我同得心無兩對。遊刃則泯一玄觀交兵則莫逆相遇。傷之豈唯無害於神。固亦無生可。殺此則文殊案劍迹逆而道順。雖復終日揮戈措刃無地矣。若然者方將託鼓舞以盡神。運干鉞而成化。雖功被猶無賞。何罪罰之有耶。若反此而尋其原。則報應可得而明。推事而求其宗則罪罰可得而論矣。甞試言之。夫因緣之所感。變化之所生。豈不由其道哉。無明為惑網之淵。貪愛為眾累之府。二理俱遊冥為神用。吉凶悔悋唯此之動。無明掩其照。故情想凝滯於外物。貪愛流其性。故四大結而成形。形結則彼我有封。情滯則善惡有主。有封於彼我。則私其身而身不忘。有主於善惡。則戀其生而生不絕。於是甘寢大夢昏於所迷。抱疑長夜所存唯著。是故失得相推禍福相襲。惡積而天殃自至。罪成則地獄斯罰。此乃必然之數。無所容疑矣。何者。會之有本則理自冥對。兆之雖微勢極則發。是故心以善惡為形聲。報以罪福為影響。本以情感而應自來。豈有幽司由御失其道也。然則罪福之應唯其所感。感之而然故謂之自然。自然者即我之影響耳。於夫玄宰復何功哉。請尋來問之要而驗之於實。難旨全許地水火風結而成身以為神宅。此則宅有主矣。問主之居宅。有情耶無情耶。若云無情。則四大之結非主宅之所感。若以感不由主故處不以情。則神之居宅無情無痛痒之知。神既無知宅又無痛痒。以接物則是伐卉剪林之喻無明於義。若果有情。四大之結是主之所感也。若以感由於主故處必以情。則神之居宅不得無痛痒之知。神既有知宅又受痛痒。以接物固不得同天地間水火明矣。因茲以談。夫神形雖殊相與而化。內外誠異渾為一體。自非達觀孰得其際耶。苟未之得則愈久愈迷耳。凡稟形受觸莫盡然也。受之既然。各以私戀為滯。滯根不拔則生理彌固。愛源不除則保之亦深。設一理逆情。使方寸迷亂。而況舉體都亡乎。是故同逆相乘共生讎隙。𫀽心未冥則搆怨不息。縱復悅畢受惱情無遺憾。形聲既著則影響自彰。理無先期數合使然也。雖欲逃之其可得乎。此則因情致報乘惑生應。但立言之旨本異。故其會不同耳。

Answer: I consider these two items to be the crux of your question, the pivotal essence of your argument. Once the pivotal essence is made clear, all doubts will be resolved together, and those just stepping onto the path may realize [the truth] through this. You may be said to have clarified stagnant emotions beyond ordinary understanding and raised a remarkable point unheard of before. However, the Buddhist teachings are deep and profound, and the subtle words are hard to analyze; if one has not grasped their ultimate aim, how could one express their profound import? I shall rely upon the Great Principle and try to recount my thoughts. Deducing the nature of the four great elements to clarify the root of receiving physical form, one borrows disparate things and relies on them as the same body; life is like floating dust, arising and ceasing as a single transformation. This is what wisdom contemplation enters, and where the blade of understanding roams. Thereupon, riding the spontaneous motion of coming and going, though there is gathering and dispersing, it is not I; lodging the multitude of forms in a great dream, one truly dwells in existence while identifying with nonexistence. How could one still be bound to what has been received, or tied to what one clings to? If such a principle is spontaneously attained in one's mind while external beings have not yet awakened to it, one grieves over the lack of benefit in sole personal cultivation and is moved by the earlier enlightened ones to give rise to aspiration. Thereupon, one contemplates propagating the Dao to clarify the instructions; thus the virtue of benevolence and forbearance resides here. If self and other attain it equally and the mind has no dichotomy, roaming the blade merges with the singular profound contemplation, and crossing weapons meets without conflict. How could injuring it merely cause no harm to the spirit? In truth, there are no living beings that can be killed. This is Mañjuśrī drawing his sword: the traces are contrary, but the Dao is compliant. Even if one brandished a halberd all day, there would be no place to strike the blade. If it is so, one is about to rely on drumming and dancing to exhaust the spirit, and wield shields and battle-axes to accomplish transformation. Even if merit is extended, there is still no reward—what sin or punishment could there be? If, contrary to this, one seeks its root, then retribution can be clarified; deducing affairs and seeking their principle, then sin and punishment can be discussed. Let me try to speak of it: How could that which is moved by causes and conditions, and that which is generated by transformation, not follow its Dao? Ignorance is the abyss of the net of delusion; craving is the storehouse of all encumbrances. These two principles wander together, darkly functioning as the spirit's operation; auspiciousness, inauspiciousness, regret, and distress are moved solely by this. Ignorance obscures its illumination, so sentiments and thoughts congeal upon external objects. Craving causes its nature to flow, so the four great elements knot together to form physical shapes. When shapes are knotted, self and other have boundaries; when sentiments stagnate, good and evil have an owner. Having boundaries regarding self and other, one acts selfishly toward one's body and does not forget the body; having an owner regarding good and evil, one clings to one's life and life does not end. Thereupon, one sleeps sweetly in a great dream, darkened in what one is confused about; embracing doubt through the long night, what remains is only attachment. Therefore, gain and loss impel each other, and misfortune and fortune succeed each other; when evil accumulates, heavenly calamity arrives on its own; when sin is complete, hell is its punishment. This is an inevitable law, admitting of no doubt. Why? When coming together has a root, the principle secretly corresponds of itself; though the omen is subtle, when the momentum reaches its peak it bursts forth. Therefore, the mind takes good and evil as its form and sound, and retribution takes sin and blessing as its shadow and echo. The root is moved by emotion and the response arrives spontaneously; how could unseen officers govern it and lose its Dao? Thus, the response of sin and blessing depends solely on what stimulates it; stimulated to be so, it is therefore called spontaneous nature. What is spontaneous nature? It is merely my own shadow and echo! What work could the Dark Ruler have in this? I ask you to examine the essentials of your question and verify them against reality. The thrust of your objection fully concedes that earth, water, fire, and wind knot together to form a body as the dwelling of the spirit. Thus the dwelling has a master. Let me ask: Does the master residing in the dwelling have sentience or lack sentience? If you say it lacks sentience, then the knotting of the four great elements is not stimulated by the dwelling's master. If stimulation does not stem from the master and therefore residing does not involve sentience, then the spirit's dwelling has no sentience and no consciousness of pain or itching. Since the spirit lacks consciousness and the dwelling also has no pain or itching, in contacting things, the analogy of felling grass and cutting down forests would be meaningless. If it indeed has sentience, the knotting of the four great elements is what the master stimulates. If stimulation stems from the master and therefore residing must involve sentience, then the spirit's dwelling cannot lack consciousness of pain or itching. Since the spirit has consciousness and the dwelling also receives pain and itching, in contacting things, it certainly cannot be identical to water and fire between heaven and earth; this is clear. Speaking from this: although spirit and form are different, they transform together; internal and external are truly distinct, yet they blend into a single body. Unless one has attained a comprehensive view, who could grasp their boundary? If one has not attained it, then the longer it lasts, the more confused one becomes. Among all that receive physical form and undergo contact, none are not so. Since they receive it thus, each takes selfish craving as an obstruction. If the root of obstruction is not uprooted, the principle of life becomes ever firmer; if the source of love is not eliminated, the preservation of it is also deep. Suppose a single principle runs contrary to feelings, it causes the square-inch mind to fall into confusion; how much more so when the entire body is utterly destroyed? Therefore, common contrariness rides upon itself and mutually generates resentment and enmity; until the heart of malice is darkened, the brewing of grudges does not cease. Even if one accepts distress with full pleasure and the feelings hold no regret, once the form and sound are prominent, the shadow and echo are naturally manifested. The principle has no prior arrangement; the coming together of laws causes it to be so. Even if one wished to escape it, could it be done? This is incurring retribution due to emotion, and generating responses riding upon delusion. It is merely that the purport of establishing words was originally different, and therefore their intersections do not coincide.