弘明集 6.86

6.86

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.