弘明集 6.48

6.48

答彼周曰。法性雖以即色圖空。虛無誠乃有外張義。然環會其所中。足下當加以半思也。至夫遊無蕩思。心塵自拂。思以無蕩。一舉形上。是雖忘有老如騫釋。然而有忘釋不代老。當其神地悠悠精和坐廢寂然以湛。其神遂通以冲其用。登其此地。吾不見釋家之與老氏涉其此意。吾孰識老氏之與釋家。逗極之所以無二親情故妙得其一矣。直以物感既分應物難合。今萬象與視聽交錯。視聽與萬象相橫。著之既已深。却之必方淺。所以苦下之翁且藏即色。順其所有不震其情。尊其所無漸情其順。及物有潛去人時欲無。既可西風晝舉而致。南精夕夢漢魂中寐不其可乎。若卿謂老氏不盡乎無。則非期於得意。若卿謂盡無而不盡有得意。復爽吾所期。卿若疑老氏盡有而不亮以教。則釋家有盡何以峻迹。斯時卿若以釋家時宜迹峻。其猶老氏時峻此迹。逗極之同茲焉余意。

Replying to Zhou: Although the Dharma-nature seeks emptiness right within form, empty nonbeing indeed extends its meaning outside of existence. Yet where they come together in the circle's center, you should ponder a bit more deeply. When one wanders in nonbeing and washes away thoughts, the dust of the mind is wiped away on its own. Through thoughts being washed away in nonbeing, one ascends in one stroke to what is above form. Even though this is forgetting existence, Laozi is like Shakyamuni. Yet when existence is forgotten, Shakyamuni does not take the place of Laozi. When their spiritual grounds are vast and leisurely, their refined harmony sits in abandonment, tranquil and deep; their spirits then penetrate, making their functions empty and subtle. Ascending to this ground, I see neither the Shakya school nor Master Lao entering this meaning—how could I distinguish Master Lao from the Shakya school? Where they reach the ultimate, there is no duality; intimately akin in sentiment, they marvelously attain the one. It is simply that because responses to things have already diverged, responding to things makes it difficult to harmonize them. Now, the myriad images intermingle with seeing and hearing, and seeing and hearing run contrary to the myriad images. Attachment being already deep, rejecting it must initially be shallow. Therefore, the Old Man of Kuxia temporarily concealed 'right within form,' complying with people's having of things so as not to shock their feelings, honoring what they lacked, and gradually making their compliance tranquil. When things secretly depart and people's time desires nonbeing, it can be brought about by a daytime wind rising in the west; why should not the southern essence be dreamed of in the evening and the Han soul awaken in the middle of slumber? If you say that Master Lao did not exhaust nonbeing, then that does not align with your expectation of grasping the intended meaning. If you say that he exhausted nonbeing without exhausting existence, your grasping of the meaning again falls short of what I anticipate. If you suspect that Master Lao exhausted existence but did not make it clearly known in his teaching, then if the Shakya school exhausted it, why were their traces so austere? At this time, if you consider the Shakya school's traces to be austere according to the needs of the time, that is just like Master Lao making these traces austere according to his own time. That they are identical where they reach their ultimate limit—this is my meaning.