弘明集 10.4

10.4

When manifesting a station to set forth a treatise, one must possess substance. If one wishes to discuss the non-existence of the Buddha, one ought to establish a host and guest, delineate their core tenets, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Approaching Buddhist principle to refute Buddhist principle, the doctrine of the Buddha's existence would then falter, and the treatise on the extinction of the spirit would prevail on its own. How could one, without seeking the opponent's meaning, recklessly fabricate heterodox theories, exercise an alienated mind, wag a boastful tongue, paint imaginary sores and warts, and hurl vain denunciations? An insect bound to its season is alarmed and skeptical of the cycle of coming and going; a frog stuck in a well is dismissive of what is vast and distant. What is the reason for this? Sunk in benighted laxity, they contend over a single breath; clinging to narrow ignorance, they guard the railing of their well. How could they know the longevity of heaven and earth or the magnificence of the boundless ocean? Meng Ke said: 'What people know is not as great as what they do not know.' How true! Observing the teachings set forth by the three sages, all state that there is no extinction. Their texts are vast and extensive, difficult to cite in full; I shall merely raise two matters to speak of them tentatively. The 'Meaning of Sacrifices' says: 'Only the filial son can feast his parents.' The 'Transport of Rites' says: 'Fasting for three days, one will surely see the one to whom sacrifice is offered.' If one claims that feasting is done to what cannot be feasted, and seeing is of what cannot be seen, this contradicts the classics and turns one's back on one's parents—such talk should truly cease. As for the treatise on the extinction of the spirit, it is something We have not yet comprehended.