弘明集 6.74

6.74

周之問曰。足下之所目擊道存得意。有本想法性之真義。是其此地乎。佛教有之。足下所取非所以何至取教也。目擊之本即在教跡。謂之鳧乙則其鴻安漸哉。諸法真性老無其旨。目擊高情無存老跡。旨跡兩亡索宗無所論。所謂無侮於道本。當無悔於何地哉。若謂探道家之跡。見其來一於佛者。則是真諦實義。沿文可見矣。將沿於道章而得之乎。為沿於德篇而遇之也。若兩無所沿而玄得於方寸者。此自足下懷抱與老釋而為三耳。或可獨樹一家。非老情之所敢建也。

Zhouzhi asked, saying: "That which you, sir, regard as 'the Dao is present the moment the eyes encounter it' and 'grasping the meaning has its root'—when you reflect on the true meaning of the Dharma-nature, is it this very ground? Buddhist teaching possesses it; what you take up is not the reason to ask 'why go so far as to take up doctrines?' The root of encountering with the eyes lies precisely in doctrinal traces. If you call them a wild duck or a swallow, how could the wild goose find resting steps? For the true nature of all phenomena, Laozi has no such purport. When lofty sentiments encounter it with the eyes, none of Laozi's traces remain. When both purport and traces are gone, there is nothing upon which to discuss the ultimate tenet. As for what is called 'having no disrespect toward the root of the Dao', at what ground could there be no regret? If you say that by investigating the traces of the Daoist masters one sees that they arrive at one with the Buddha, then the true reality of the ultimate truth could be seen by following their texts. Would one obtain it by following the 'Chapters on the Dao', or would one encounter it by following the 'Sections on Virtue'? If, following neither of the two, one obtains it mysteriously in one's heart, this is merely your own inner sentiment making a third alongside Laozi and the Buddha. You might establish an independent school of your own, but it is not something Laozi's thought dared to establish."