廣弘明集 18.120

18.120

詔云。夫道者以無為為宗。若其無為復何所為耶。至理淵淡。誠不容言。然處在涉求之地。不得不尋本以致悟。不審明道之無為為當。以何為體。若以妙為宗者。雖在帝先而非極。若以無有為妙者。必當有不無之因。因稱俱未冥。詎是不二之道乎。故論云。無於無者必當有於有。有無之相譬猶脩短之相形耳。無理雖玄將恐同彼斷常。常猶不可。況復斷耶。然則有無之肆。乃是邊見之所存。故中論云。不破世諦故則不破真諦。又論云。諸法若實則無二諦。諸法若空則無罪福。若無罪福凡聖無泮。二苟無。泮道何所益。由臣闇昧未悟宗極。唯願仁慈重加誨諭。

The edict says: The Way takes asaṃskṛta as its essential principle; if it is asaṃskṛta, what then is there to do? The ultimate principle is profound and calm; it truly does not admit of speech. Yet, dwelling in the position of inquiry and seeking, one cannot but trace the root to reach awakening. I do not know whether, in clarifying the Way's asaṃskṛta, what should be taken as its substance? If the wondrous is taken as the principle, though it precedes the Lord, it is not ultimate. If non-existence is taken as the wondrous, there must be a cause of not being non-existent. When the cause and the designation are both not yet eclipsed, how can this be the path of non-duality? Therefore the treatise says: 'One who negates non-existence must affirm existence; the marks of existence and non-existence are like long and short giving shape to one another.' Although the principle of non-existence is profound, I fear it may be identical to those [views of] annihilation and permanence. Permanence is already inadmissible, how much more so annihilation? Thus the market of existence and non-existence is where extreme views reside. Therefore the Madhyamaka-śāstra says: 'Because conventional truth is not destroyed, ultimate truth is not destroyed.' The treatise also says: 'If all dharmas are real, there are no two truths; if all dharmas are empty, there are no sin and merit.' If there are no sin and merit, ordinary and holy are not distinguished. If the two are not distinguished, what benefit does the Way provide? Because your subject is ignorant and has not awakened to the ultimate principle, I only hope Your benevolence will repeatedly instruct and guide me.