弘明集 7.19

7.19

論云。佛是破惡之方。道是興善之術。又以中夏之性。不可傚西戎之法。疑曰。興善之談美矣。勿傚之言侮矣。意所未安。請問。中夏之性與西戎之人。為夏性純善戎人根惡。如令根惡則於理可破。使其純善則於義可興。故知有惡可破。未離於善有善可興。未免於惡。然則善惡參流深淺互別。故羅雲慈惠非假東光。桀跖凶虐豈鍾西氣。何獨高華之風鄙戎之法耶。若以此善異乎。彼善彼惡。殊乎此惡則善惡本乖。寧得同致。

The treatise says: "The Buddha is the method for destroying evil; the Dao is the technique for promoting good. Moreover, with the nature of the Central Chinese, one must not emulate the ways of the Western barbarians." The objection says: The talk of promoting good is admirable; the words 'do not emulate' are contemptuous. My mind is not at ease with this. May I ask: regarding the nature of the Central Chinese and the people of the Western barbarians, is the Chinese nature purely good and the barbarians' root evil? If their root were made evil, then in principle it could be destroyed; if they were made purely good, then in principle it could be promoted. Thus we know that where there is evil that can be destroyed, one is not yet apart from the good; where there is good that can be promoted, one is not yet free from evil. Thus, good and evil mingle together, differing from one another in depth. Therefore, Rāhula's benevolence and compassion did not borrow the light of the East; the violence and cruelty of Jie and Robber Zhi—did they concentrate the qi of the West? Why alone extol the Chinese customs and despise the barbarian ways? If this good differs from that good, and that evil differs from this evil, then good and evil are originally at odds—how could they achieve the same aim?