弘明集 6.68

6.68

周之問曰。足下法性雖以即色圖空。虛無誠乃有外張義。竊謂老釋重出對分區野。其所境域無過斯言。然則老氏之神地悠悠。日悠悠於有外。釋家之精和坐廢。每坐廢於色空。登老氏之地則老氏異於釋。涉釋氏之意則釋氏殊於老。神既靜而不兩。靜既兩而道二。足下未之前聞。吾則前聞之矣。苟然則魄緒停虛是自虛。其所謂虛融然自道。亦非吾所謂道。若夫心塵自拂一舉形上。皆或未涉於大方。不敢以通源相和也。

Zhou's inquiry: You say, 'Although the Dharma-nature seeks emptiness right within form, empty nonbeing indeed extends its meaning outside of existence.' I venture to say that Laozi and Shakyamuni appear in succession, dividing their respective realms, and their scopes do not go beyond these words. Thus Master Lao's spiritual ground being vast and leisurely is ever vast and leisurely outside of existence, whereas the Shakya school's refined harmony sitting in abandonment ever sits in abandonment amid form and emptiness. When ascending to Master Lao's ground, Master Lao differs from Shakyamuni; when entering Shakyamuni's meaning, Shakyamuni diverges from Laozi. Since the spirit is still, they are not two; but since stillness is twofold, the Dao is two. You have never heard of this before, but I have heard of it before. If so, then the continuities of his soul resting in emptiness is resting in its own emptiness, and what is called emptiness blending harmoniously and spontaneously being the Dao is also not what I call the Dao. As for the dust of the mind being wiped away on its own and ascending in one stroke to what is above form, neither of these has yet entered the Great Way; I dare not harmonize with your 'penetrating the source.'