廣弘明集 14.13

14.13

傅氏譽老子而毀釋迦。讚道書而非佛教。余昔同此惑焉。今又悟其不然也。夫釋老之為教體一而不二矣。同蠲有欲之累。俱顯無為之宗。老氏明而未融。釋典言臻其極。道若果是。佛固同是而無非。佛若果非。道亦可非而無是。理非矛盾之異。人懷向背之殊。既同眾狙之喜怒。又似葉公之愛畏。至如柱下道德之旨。漆園內外之篇。雅奧而難加。清高而可尚。竊常讀之無間然矣。豈以信奉釋典而苟訾之哉。抑又論之。夫生死無窮之緣。報應不朽之旨。釋氏之所創明。黃老未之言及。不知今之道書何因類於佛典。論三世以勸戒。出九流之軌躅。若目覩而言之。則同佛而等其照。若耳聞而倣之。則師佛而遵其說。同照則同不當非。相師則師不可毀。譽道而非佛。何謬之甚哉。

"Lord Fu praised Laozi and denigrated Śākya; he extolled Daoist texts and censured Buddhist teachings. Formerly I shared this confusion, but now I have again awakened to its error. The teachings of Śākya and Laozi are one in substance, not two. They equally eliminate the burden of desire, and both manifest the principle of the unconditioned. Laozi's explanation was not yet fully comprehensive, whereas the Buddhist scriptures reached the ultimate in their words. If the Dao is indeed right, the Buddha is certainly likewise right and not wrong; if the Buddha is indeed wrong, the Dao can likewise be wrong and not right. In principle there is no contradiction between them, yet people harbor divergent inclinations. This is like the monkeys' joy and anger [over three or four chestnuts], and also like Duke Ye's love and fear [of dragons].

As for the purport of the Daodejing by the Archivist, and the inner and outer chapters of the Garden of Lacquer, they are elegant, profound, and difficult to surpass, pure and lofty, worthy of esteem. I have privately read them without finding fault. How could I, out of faith in Buddhist texts, arbitrarily slander them? But let us further discuss this: the conditions of endless birth and death, and the principle of imperishable karmic retribution, were first clarified by the Buddhists and never mentioned by Huang-Lao. I do not know why the Daoist texts of today resemble Buddhist scriptures, discussing the three periods of time to encourage and admonish, and stepping beyond the tracks of the nine schools of thought. If they spoke from seeing it with their own eyes, their illumination would be equal to the Buddha's; if they heard it and imitated it, they took the Buddha as master and complied with his words. If their illumination is equal, then equals should not be rejected; if they took him as master, then the master must not be denigrated. To praise Daoism and condemn the Buddha—how extreme an error that is!