弘明集 6.40

6.40

周之問曰。論云。時殊故不同其風。是佛教之異於道也。世異故不一其義。是道言之乖於佛也。道佛兩殊非鳧則乙。唯足下所宗之本。一物為鴻耳。驅馳佛道無免二失。未知高鑒緣何識本輕而宗之。其有旨乎。若猶取二教以位其本。恐戰獄方興未能聽訟也。若雖因二教同測教源者。則此教之源每沿教而見矣。自應鹿巾環杖。悠然目擊儒墨誾誾。從來何諍。苟合源共是分跡。雙非則二跡之用。宜均去取。奚為翔集所向勤務唯佛。專氣抱一無謹於道乎。言精旨遠。企聞後要。

Zhou's question says: Your treatise says, 'because their times were different, their customs were not the same'—this is how Buddhism differs from the Dao. 'Because their ages were diverse, their significance was not identical'—this is how the words of the Dao diverge from the Buddha. Since the Dao and the Buddha are two different things, if not a duck, then a swallow; only the root revered by you, sir, is a single creature, being the wild goose. Yet running between the Buddha and the Dao cannot avoid both errors. I do not know by what reason your elevated perception recognized the root so lightly and came to revere it; does it have a special purport? If you still take the two teachings to establish that root, I fear that while the battle and trials are just raging, the litigation cannot yet be settled. If, though relying on the two teachings, you equally fathom the source of the teachings, then the source of these teachings should always be seen by following the teachings themselves. You ought naturally to wear a deer cap and hold a ringed staff, serenely seeing it at a glance while Confucians and Mohists dispute garrulously—why has there ever been any contention? If by joining their source both are right, while dividing their traces makes both wrong, then the application of the two traces ought to be equal in accepting and rejecting. Why is it that in the direction of your soaring and settling, your diligent effort is devoted solely to the Buddha, concentrating your qi and embracing the One without giving careful attention to the Dao? Your words are refined and their purport is far-reaching; I eagerly await hearing your essential response.