弘明集 4.9

4.9

I respectfully read your fragrant letter and examined its profound tenets. You distinguish the Three Powers and verify their refined essence; you expound the mind of the Dao and praise the gentleman who practices giving; you synthesize the hidden and the manifest, extending sincerity to reach all things. To practice this oneself is fine; to spread it as a teaching is broad. There is almost nothing to criticize. Upon reflecting on where your fine instruction leads, it seeks to make me look toward the Northern Dipper, return from confusion to the right path, and reflect on what I might have been too blind to fully comprehend. Therefore I reiterate my original intention. You state that those who 'together form the Three Powers' must refer to those who unify their virtue. Even among men of superior wisdom, how could that be so? The way of establishing man is derived from benevolence and righteousness. The feeling of commiseration is the external mark of the benevolent; the sense of shame and dislike is the beginning of a righteous mind. The trees of Mount Niu had their nature sheared away by axes; tranquil thoughts are turbidly agitated by deliberations of gain and harm. If one genuinely nurtures their sprouting and aids their good mind, yet they are preserved without being counted, would that not be a fault? You also state: 'Those who discuss the Three Powers do not include serfs and slaves, and those who speak of sentient beings—how do they improperly confound sages and the wise?' Having heard your instruction, I still do not know by what criterion the two paths are to be distinguished. Are Yi Yin and Yan Hui to be demoted below, and Ning Wuzao, Zichan, and Jizha attached above? I look forward without weariness to having my lack of understanding dispelled. If we can truly uphold both textual traditions together, harmonizing the tones and matching the tallies, would that not be the ultimate good? You also say: ''The great virtue [of Heaven and Earth] is called life'; the myriad beings all share it, and what they share is their myriad being—how could the life [of each] be deemed different?' I do not say this is not so. Although human life equally receives the great virtue, humans cannot be called 'sentient beings' [among beasts]. For example, although the sage shares the endowment of the five constants, he cannot be called an 'ordinary man.' Why take life that is not different as necessarily meaning it must be 'sentient [multitude]'? Your letter says: 'Humans employ creatures for their nourishment, and creatures are employed to nourish humans.' If the general distinction is like this, then you turn around and agree with my humble opinion. As for cravings being unrestrained and harming living things with cruelty, what is termed excess and extravagance—the sages indeed already eliminated them. You also say: 'Those who take the Dao as their mind might not stop at these limits.' May I ask, as for those who do not stop: will they themselves not kill, or will they make all who receive the teachings do the same? If they do not kill themselves but obtain enough from the market stalls, this is still keeping away from the slaughterhouse and kitchen. If you wish to extend this to registered households, I see that your elegant argument cannot be established. You also say: 'If it were identical to plants and trees, it should simply turn to smoke and vanish; on what does the refined spirit rely to establish itself in heaven?' Now, the spirit and soul are indistinct and fleeting, and the wandering soul undergoes transformations; when aroused and made sorrowful, how could it not be so? Zilu was rebuffed concerning knowing death; Zigong erred in what he asked about. Not receiving a corporeal form again was clearly stated in my previous treatise; as for the means on which it relies, please refer to the Master's reply. As for the way of giving and retribution being an inevitable tally, this should refer to the tall gate of the Yu family awaiting the celebration of accumulated goodness, or Bo Yang not boasting and receiving the blessing of dukes and marquises; what has this to do with a future rebirth? You also say: 'The constant saying of worldly times values that the giver should not remember it, and a gentleman adhering to righteousness gives favors without possessing them.' True indeed are these words! A subtle and smooth way sets up retribution to solicit favors—this is what preachers prioritize. Delighting in retribution while granting favors is the common practice of the whole world. Fearing to suffer the guilt of cumulative kalpas through the scriptures, and giving diligently to reap a manifold multiplied retribution—this does not resemble how our party practices the Dao. This is why I am disgruntled. Knowing that you wish to guide them to ascend above, I do not begrudge it at all. But a gentleman who abides in reality disdains the flash of foreknowledge, and therefore does not do it. If a gift does not relieve urgent need, and a favor is given merely to register merit, would not those of high discernment also feel ashamed? This is my constant mind that I follow and have long remained unchanged in; inwardly I feel ashamed before Bo Yuzi, having no leisure for what you have stated. He Chengtian speaks.