弘明集 6.86

6.86

謝鎮之白。猥辱反釋究詳淵。況既和光道佛而涇渭釋李。觸類長之爰至碁弈。敷佛彌過精旨愈昧。夫飾樻賀珍曜夜不集。所謂馳走滅跡跳動息影焉可免乎。循雅論所據。正以蟲鳥異類夷夏殊俗。余以三才均統人理是一。俗訓小殊法教大同。足下答云。存乎周易非胡書所擬。便謂素旗已舉不復申檢。玄旍為素麾。異乎曹子之觀旗。輒復略諸近要以標大歸。然髻珠雖隱暮四易顯。聊以寄謔儻不貽忤。夫太極剖判兩儀妄搆。五陰合興形識謬彰。識以流染因結。形以愛滯緣生。爰皇之前民多專愚。專愚則巢居穴處飲血茹毛。君臣父子自相胡越。猶如禽獸。又比童蒙道教所不入。仁義所未移。及其沈欲淪波觸崖思濟。思濟則祈善。祈善則聖應。夫聖者何耶。感物而遂通者也。夫通不自通感不自感。感恒在此通每自彼。自彼而言懸鏡高堂。自此而言萬像斯歸。故知天竺者。居娑婆之正域。處淳善之嘉會。故能感通於至聖土中。於三千聖應既彼聲被。則此覩日月之明。何假離朱之察聞雷霆之音。奚事子野之聽。故卑高殊物不嫌同道。左右兩儀無害天均。無害天均則雲行法教。不嫌同道。則雨施夷夏。夫道者一也。形者二也。道者真也。形者俗也。真既猶一俗亦猶二。盡二得一宜一其法。滅俗歸真必其違俗。是以如來制軌玄劫同風。假令孔老是佛則為韜光潛導匡救偏心。立仁樹義將順近情。是以全形守祀恩接六親。攝生養性自我外物。乃為盡美不為盡善。蓋是有崖之制未鞭其後也。何得擬道菩提比聖牟尼。佛教敷明要而能博。則精疎兩汲。精疎兩汲則剛柔一致。是以清津幽暢誠規可准。夫以規為圓者易。以手為圓者難。將不捨其所難。從其所易耶。道家經籍簡陋多生。穿鑿至如靈寶妙真。採撮法華制用尤拙。及如上清黃庭所尚。服食咀石餐霞。非徒法不可効道亦難同。其中可長。唯在五千之道全無為用。無為用未能違有。遣有為懷靈芝。何養佛家三乘所引九流均接。九流均接則動靜斯得。禪通之理是三中之一耳。非其極也。禪經微妙境相精深。以此締真尚不能至。今云。道在無為得一而已。無為得一是則玄契千載。玄契千載不俟高唱。夫明宗引會導達風流者。若當廢學精思不亦怠哉。豈道教之筌耶。敬尋所辯非徒止不解佛。亦不解道也。

Xie Zhenzhi states: Humbly, I was honored to receive your reply explaining and examining in profound detail. You harmonize and blend the Dao and the Buddha, yet discriminate between Śākya and Li like the Jing and Wei rivers. Extending this analogy, you even reach as far as the game of chess. The more you explain the Buddha, the more you miss the mark; the subtle import becomes ever darker. Decorating a box to display a treasure does not make luminous nighttime jewels gather. Can the so-called 'running to erase footprints' or 'jumping to eliminate shadows' ever avoid [the very things they flee]? Following the basis of your refined treatise, it simply takes insects and birds as different kinds, and the Hu and Xia as distinct customs. I hold that the Three Powers govern equally and human nature is one; secular teachings differ slightly, while the Dharma teachings are broadly identical. You answered that [truth] lies in the *Book of Changes* of Zhou and cannot be matched by foreign texts; you promptly thought the white flag had already been raised and thus made no further examination. To take a black banner for a white flag differs indeed from Cao Gui's observing of flags! Thereupon I will once more set aside secondary particulars to mark the great destination. Although the jewel in the topknot remains hidden, 'four in the evening' is easy to understand. I offer this in light humor, hoping it causes no offense. When the Great Ultimate divided, the two modes falsely formed. When the five aggregates joined and arose, physical form and consciousness mistakenly became manifest. Consciousness, due to drifting defilements, formed as a result of causes; form, due to clinging attachment, arose through conditions. Before the sovereign rulers, people were mostly simple and ignorant. Being simple and ignorant, they nested in trees, lived in caves, drank blood, and swallowed feathers. Rulers and ministers, fathers and sons, were estranged from one another like foreigners, just like birds and beasts, and also comparable to naive children, whom the teachings of the Dao could not enter and whom benevolence and righteousness could not yet transform. When they sank in waves of desire and struck against cliffs, they thought of salvation. Thinking of salvation, they prayed for the good; praying for the good, the Sage responded. What is a Sage? One who resonates with things and thereby connects with them. Connection does not connect of itself; resonance does not resonate of itself. Resonance is always here; connection always comes from there. Speaking from there, a mirror is suspended in a high hall; speaking from here, the ten thousand images return to it. Therefore we know that Tianzhu resides in the central domain of the Sahā world and occupies the auspicious gathering place of pure goodness; hence it could resonate and connect with the Supreme Sage in the center of the earth. When the Sage responds within the three thousand [worlds], there his voice covers everything, and here we behold the light of the sun and moon. Why need the vision of Li Zhu? Hearing the sound of thunder, why employ the hearing of Shi Kuang? Therefore, high and low are different things, yet this does not impair their sharing the same Dao; left and right are the two modes, yet this does not harm the harmony of Heaven. If it does not harm the harmony of Heaven, the Dharma teachings travel like clouds. If it does not impair their sharing the same Dao, then rain falls upon both Hu and Xia. Now, the Dao is one; physical form is two. The Dao is the real; physical form is the conventional. Since the real is like the one, the conventional is also like the two. To exhaust the two and attain the one, one should unify their methods. To eliminate the conventional and return to the real, one must certainly go against conventional customs. Therefore, the regulations laid down by the Tathāgata share the same spirit throughout mysterious kalpas. Even if Confucius and Laozi were Buddhas, they concealed their light to guide secretly and remedy one-sided minds. Establishing benevolence and planting righteousness was to comply with proximate sentiments. Thus preserving the body, maintaining ancestral sacrifices, and extending kindness to the six relations, while cultivating life, nourishing one's nature, and keeping oneself aloof from external things—this may be deemed completely beautiful, but not completely good. These are limited regulations that did not urge onward what came after. How could one compare their paths to Bodhi, or equate those sages to the Sage Muni? The Buddhist teachings are expounded clearly, essential yet broad, drawing from both the subtle and the coarse. Drawing from both the subtle and the coarse, hard and soft are made uniform. Thus the clear ford flows serenely, truly serving as a standard to follow. Now, using a compass to make a circle is easy; using one's hand to make a circle is difficult. Would one not abandon the difficult and follow the easy? The Daoist scriptures are crude and simplistic, full of far-fetched interpretations. Works such as *Lingbao* and *Miaozhen* borrow from the *Lotus Sūtra*, yet their adaptations are exceptionally clumsy. As for what *Shangqing* and *Huangting* esteem—ingesting drugs, chewing stones, and feeding on clouds—not only can their methods not be emulated, but their Dao is also difficult to assimilate. The only thing of value among them lies in the Dao of the five thousand words, which fully employs non-action. Yet non-action has not yet transcended existence: if one has already dispelled existence, why should one cherish the divine fungus? How could that nourish [the spirit]? What the Buddhist Three Vehicles guide encompasses all nine schools equally. When the nine schools are equally embraced, both activity and tranquility are attained. The principle of meditative penetrations is merely one among the three; it is not the ultimate. The meditation scriptures are subtle and marvelous, their realms and marks refined and deep; yet even by securing reality through these, one still cannot reach the utmost. Now you say that the Dao lies solely in non-action and attaining the One. If non-action and attaining the One were so, it would mysteriously accord across a thousand years; mysteriously according across a thousand years, it would not await loud preaching. Those who clarify the tenets, synthesize assemblies, and give guidance to the prevailing customs—if they were to abandon learning and subtle contemplation, would that not also be remiss? How could that be the fish-trap of the Dao's teachings? Respectfully examining what you have argued, you not only fail to understand the Buddha, you also do not understand the Dao.