弘明集 3.16

3.16

The "Discourse on the White and Black" by the monk Huilin which you sent has exceedingly beautiful diction and sentiment. However, I am dim in discerning the principle and have not yet grasped his intention. Since he says that the principle of the unseen realm is not exhausted by human affairs, and that the Duke of Zhou and Confucius doubted it and did not debate it, while Śākyamuni debated it but it is untrue—then as for this principle of the unseen realm beyond human affairs, is it utterly and purely void, or are there still spirits and deities? If it is utterly and purely void, why did all the sages, Zhuangzi, and Laozi all say that there are spirits? If there are spirits and deities, on what basis can one judge it to be untrue, as the Buddha spoke of it? Today we dwell together in the domain of ordinary men; in deliberating on proximate matters we still make many errors, thereby falling into disaster and misfortune. Even with a coarse art like board games, when one focuses the mind and investigates it, one might call life death or call death life. In proximate matters, one has never seen anyone who always gains and never loses; on what basis can one conclusively judge that beyond heaven and earth, outside of myriads of kalpas, in the deep unseen realm, what was debated must definitely be untrue? If one deduces from facts that it cannot be true, then it is fine to doubt it. Now man's corporeal form is most coarse, but man's spirit is truly subtle. How could the corporeal form and the spirit come to an end together? What the mind stimulates [causes] a city wall to collapse, frost to fall, a white rainbow to pierce the sun, Venus to enter the Pleiades, and physicians using breath restraint to conjure water and fire in their minds, with cold and warmth answering immediately. How much more so with the utmost bright wisdom and the utmost refined purpose, through concentrated sincerity and subtle penetration, responding so as to receive a body and be reborn in a jade realm of the seven treasures—why could this not be real? Furthermore, he says that splitting a hair on an empty tree does no harm to the luxuriance of its cast shade, and heaping timber in empty space does not impair the beauty of lofty halls; that patterned brocade displays brilliance through variegated colors, and a harmonized broth achieves delicious flavor through salt and plums—using these to block the teaching of original non-existence. This text is not so. What the Buddhist sūtras call 'original non-existence' does not mean that what is formed by the harmony of conditioned causes is entirely void. The cast shade and the lofty halls naturally exist in the place of things; therefore this is called the truth of existence. Their nature is fundamentally non-existent; therefore this is called the truth of non-existence. Although I am not fully versed in Buddhist principles, I consider this proclamation to be distinctly at peace [with reason]. From antiquity, the existences of thousandfold transformations have, in an instant, all become void. At the time of their flourishing existence, did they not always contain the reality of inevitable voidness, so that in an instant they could become void? It is also as Huizi said: things are born at the same time they die; the sun is at noon at the same time it declines. The reality of death and declining is always clearly anticipated prior to being unborn and prior to noon. The foolish do not perceive this principle and only see existence; therefore the Marquis of Qi, holding the remnants of Shuangjiu, falsely clung to his rank and was attached to its pleasures. The worthy has a mind at one with principle; therefore Master Yan came close [to perfection] by being frequently empty, treating what he had as if he had it not, and treating reality as if it were void. From Yan Hui on down, each savored this voidness according to their depth. Even if one further instructs the lower sorts, even if they cannot purify themselves through the ultimate words to cast off the delusion of love and competition, how could they ever lack a semblance of it in the slightest hair? How could it instead increase obstacles through a great [delusion] and cause them to further change their cravings and desires? He then says that clarifying impermanence increases the sentiment of thirsting for shade, and displaying suffering and falsity intensifies the anxiety of competing for time. His words are excessive. Furthermore, he says that the discourse on the boat in the ravine and Tang and Si has already filled ears in the central lands and is not the profound essence of principle, and so is not raised as the foundation of the teaching, claiming that the analysis of this principle comes from ordinary people pointing to their palms. Now, the hidden departing of the boat in the ravine is what the Buddhist sūtras call 'the present does not abide.' If one can truly understand this, then things and self are constantly empty. How is this not the profound essence of principle? It is simply that those who awaken to it are few, so it was not taken as the foundation of the teaching. This is what Master Zhi meant by 'not yet the same as the Buddha.' Why should one disparage his ultimate words merely because they were ordinarily heard in the central lands? Furthermore, he says that testing the divine light yields not an inch of brightness, verifying spiritual transformations yields not a shred of reality, and vainly proclaiming immeasurable life—who has seen a centenarian old man? All such matters are claimed not to accord with reality. Now, divine light, spiritual transformations, and immeasurable life all stem from sincere faith in the unseen and wondrous; thus, one will be born in the Buddha-land, directly reflecting the brightness, and one's life will be immeasurable. Now, being sunken in deviant views and contemptuous arrogance, one is naturally separated from spiritual transformation as far as heaven from earth; by what means could one witness the accord of these matters? The mind lacking greedy desire is the root of the ten wholesome deeds; thus, one can cut off the hells below and be born in heaven above; this is indeed donning righteousness, treading the Dao, and rectifying the mind. Now, inwardly harboring reverent admiration, one therefore bows in worship and repents sins; understanding impermanence, one's feelings harbor no stinginess. Abandoning wife and children to practice giving—how could there be any seeking from common people? How can one then say that it does not proceed from a respectful and reverent intention, nor rely on a spirit free from stinginess? Nirvāṇa takes no-pleasure as pleasure; the Dharma-body takes no-body as body. If one originally had no yearning or emulation, it might indeed increase anxieties of indulging in leisure and spark a mind fond of novelty. If one sincerely takes nourishment and looks up with admiration, indulgence in leisure is gradually removed, and one gains benefit from what is non-beneficial. Why then question the custom of competing for profit? Furthermore, he says that the Dao lies in desirelessness, yet it is sought through having desires; between bowing and looking up, nothing moves without profit—how profound is this slander of the Buddha! The grand purport of the Buddhist school naturally holds that the eight sufferings all arise from desire, and clearly speaks of the twelve links of dependent origination so that those of lofty and subtle rank may illumine their spirits in the unborn. Those who desire this Dao may be said to have a desire for desirelessness. As for guiding the coarse and proximate, the heavens and hells all have the reality of shadows and echoes, just as Lord Yu received enfeoffment through his benevolence in saving lives, and the Yan clan incurred execution through being fond of killing. Those who fear execution and desire enfeoffment will surely abandon killing and cultivate benevolence. Striving in subtle practices to hope for heaven, and observing the five precepts to distance oneself from hell—although having a desire for what is desirable, they actually tread the pure path of daily decrease. This is also like traveling west to seek Ying; why worry that one will not arrive? Furthermore, he suspects that cinnabar and azure bewilder eyes fond of dazzling colors, and earth and timber boast to minds fond of grandiosity, establishing the power of private factions, forming the influence of teacher-cliques, seeking the reputation of strenuous vigor, and indulging the ambition of overbearing competition—which are indeed the ugliness of the black locusts, or may be called establishing laws with stinginess, whose defect is still greed. How can he then show contempt for the Buddha by saying that he established laws on greed? Wang Mang stole the Six Classics to usurp the imperial throne; the First Emperor of Qin built the Afang Palace on the occasion of receiving audiences; how could one blame the ritual teachings of the former kings? Furthermore, he says that one ought to abolish the traces of the manifest and the hidden and preserve only their essential purport. To show future generations the obscuration and deficiency in Daoism and Buddhism, having no other recourse, I venture to ask: what is the essential point he desires? He surely desires to make people cultivate profit and turn toward goodness to fulfill their nature. Now, the sage has no constant mind; he takes the mind of things as his mind. If the body dies and the spirit is extinguished, and this is the true nature of things, he should merely take their nature of inevitable extinction and join forces with the Duke of Zhou and Confucius to establish the teaching, causing things to have nothing they receive; would not the reality of turning toward goodness then be pure? Why deceive them with non-extinction and trick them with Buddhist principles, causing them to shave their hair and skin and sever their copulation, obstructing offspring beyond measure? If the harm is like this, injuring the beauty of completely fulfilling one's nature, why would Śākyamuni have had no other recourse? If they are of the unbelieving sort, they will also be unwilling to cultivate profit and turn toward goodness. Those who believe are surely of the cohort of Jīvaka, Gandhāra, Yidami, Zhu Facheng, Bo Fazu, Dharmarakṣa, Yu Falan, Zhu Faxing, Yu Daosui, Que Gong, as well as Fotudeng, Śrīmitra, Guo Wenju, Shi Dao'an, Zhi Daolin, and Master Huiyuan. In spiritual principle and moral conduct, they seem not in the least inferior to the monk Huilin. How could they falsely destroy human reason and discard their hairpins for the teachings of untrue men? It is all because the reality of the spiritual and wondrous drew their distant minds to accomplish the pure and true enterprise of spiritual penetrations. Availing yourself of his disbelief, you sent this discourse from afar, and doubters in the world all also consider it subtle; therefore I exert myself to reply in writing to clear the dust and expose the general sentiments. Whether the world affirms or denies the Buddha-Dharma is entirely a great matter in the rise and fall of mankind; how can we dwell together in between the acceptable and the unacceptable? I have therefore exhausted my foolish thoughts and composed the "Discourse Clarifying the Buddha" to present my own sentiments. It has just been completed, and I have already ordered someone to transcribe it; it could not catch this letter, but later, when another letter is dispatched and you can hear of it, I shall send it along. Zong Bing respectfully states.