弘明集 6.38

6.38

周之問曰。論云。致本則同請問。何義是其所謂謂本乎。言道家者。豈不以二篇為主。言佛教者亦應以般若為宗。二篇所貴義極虛無。般若所觀照窮法性。虛無法性其寂雖同位。寂之方。其旨則別論。所謂逗極無二者。為逗極於虛無。當無二於法性耶。將二塗之外更有異本。儻虛無法性其趣不殊乎。若有異本思告異本之情。如其不殊願聞不殊之說。

Zhou's question says: Your treatise says, 'arriving at the root, they are identical.' May I ask, what principle is that which is called 'the root'? In speaking of Daoists, do they not take the Two Chapters [of Laozi] as primary? In speaking of Buddhist teachings, should they not take prajñā as the central principle? What the Two Chapters prize reaches the ultimate in emptiness and non-being; what prajñā contemplates illuminates the dharma-nature to its limit. Although emptiness/non-being and dharma-nature are identical in their tranquility, their methods of establishing tranquility and their purports are distinct. When your treatise speaks of 'reaching the ultimate without duality,' does it mean reaching the ultimate in emptiness and non-being, or being without duality in dharma-nature? Or is there another root outside of these two paths? Could it be that emptiness/non-being and dharma-nature do not differ in their tendency? If there is another root, I wish you would explain the nature of this other root; if they are not different, I would like to hear the explanation of their non-difference.