弘明集 7.20

7.20

The treatise says: "The squatting etiquette of the barbarians and their clever debates are like the buzzing of insects and the chattering of birds—how are they worth narrating and emulating?" The objection says: Ritual expresses reverence; music induces harmony. Though reverence is expressed through ritual, ritual is not reverence; though harmony is induced by music, music is not harmony. Thus, when the ruler is secure and the people compliant, jades and silks remain in their baskets; when customs are pure and the realm is at peace, bells and drums cease their sound. Moreover, the operation of bells and silks does not stand equal with heaven and earth; they are merely adopted out of necessity as temporary expedients to rescue the distressed. Thus, where Dao and righteousness reside, they do not depend on external appearances; if one attains their return, one does not mind difference or sameness. Now, as for crouching like a fox and squatting like a dog, who can say this is not reverence? When reverence expresses the heart, who can say this is not ritual? Ritual and reverence subtly tally, just as if one were merely casting aside sentient beings. Humans mark what they value; value does not lie in words; words are preserved to value principle. Therefore, the qilin and phoenix cherish benevolence and are honored in sacred texts; the ape can speak, but receives ridicule in the ritual texts. I do not know, in the treatise's discourse, what meaning is to be adopted! If one clings to words and damages principle, it is not what the wise rely on. If one relies on principle and forgets words, then they illuminate the essential principle by dismantling characteristics. Therefore, Old Li's 'constant' is not what names or desires can reach; Vimalakīrti's silence is not what clever rhetoric can pursue. Examining their words, both self and other are dismissed; tracing their aims, Laozi and the Buddha are boundless. When both are dismissed, then mutual moistening can be abandoned; when there is boundlessness, one does not fail what is lofty and noble. Why look from afar and, seeing that the name 'Prajñā' is not 'wisdom', immediately belittle and humiliate it, comparing it to insects and birds? Pondering this for days, it has not satisfied my humble thoughts. Moreover, regional customs have different sounds; are they restricted only to the Hu and the Chinese? Even nearby in the Central States, Qi and Lu were not the same. Beginning and ending have also been recorded differently through ancient and modern times; because they did not impede pointing to the meaning, they were transmitted and practiced through generations. If they were wrong, then this [Chinese practice] would not yet be right; if this is right, then that is not alone wrong. Since we cannot yet affirm each other, we are equal in mutual negation. I imagine that when these Han sounds flow into their country, they too suffer the blame of buzzing insects and the ridicule of chattering birds; their clever debates can also be known. By illuminating this with unity, the stalk and the pillar can be made equal; if both stingy attachments are removed, is that not broad and penetrating? The depths of meaning are subtle and profound, not something I should take part in; truly desiring to investigate the directions of the mysterious master, I have merely set forth my thoughts once. Leaning forward in distant anticipation, I eagerly await your subsequent judgment.