廣弘明集 18.123

18.123

卿又引神變令三惡眾生得生人天。若在鹿為鹿。在馬為馬。而度脫之。豈非神變之謂耶。華手思益法華諸經所言。若云放大光明。自應與大品無異也。若一一光明以應適前物。此作非大所通。夫光明之與寂寞。此直發意有參差其揆一也。卿引經言。施者受者財物不可得。與不住法不住般若未有異。二者直是始終之教也。統而言之。俱是破著之語耳。何者罪不罪施者受者及財物都不可得。若都不可得。復何所著。是勸無所著明矣。卿又問。明道之無為為宗同。諸法之自空為妙空。無以成極耶。又引論中二諦之間言。意所不及道之無為所寄耶。吾意以為。為道止無為。未詳所以宗也。何者夫眾生之所以流轉生死者。皆著故也。若欲止於心即不復生。既不生死。潛神玄漠與空合其體。是名涅槃耳。既曰涅槃。復何容有名於其間哉。夫道以無寄為宗。若求寄所在。恐乃惑之大者也。吾所明無為不可為有者。意事如隱尋求或當小難。今更重伸前義。卿所引中論。即吾義宗。諸法若不空則無二諦。若不有亦無二諦。此定明有無不相離。何者若定言有則無以拔高士。若定明無則無以濟常流。是以聖人有無兼抱而不捨者。此之謂也。然諸家通第一義。廓然空寂無有聖人。吾常以為殊太遙遠不近人情。若無聖人知無者誰也。

You also cite spiritual transformations causing sentient beings of the three evil paths to be born among humans and devas. If one is a deer among deer, or a horse among horses, and delivers them, how is that not called spiritual transformation? What is said in sūtras such as the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha, the Viśeṣacinti, and the Lotus Sūtra, when speaking of emitting great radiance, naturally should not differ from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. If each and every light were to respond to beings right before it, this working would not be universally accessible to the great. Now, radiance and silence—these merely differ in how they manifest, but their underlying measure is one. You cite the sūtra saying that the giver, the receiver, and the wealth cannot be apprehended; this does not differ from abiding in non-abiding dharmas and abiding in prajñā. The two are merely teachings of the beginning and the end. Spoken comprehensively, both are statements to destroy attachment. Why? Sin, non-sin, giver, receiver, and wealth are all unobtainable. If all are unobtainable, what is there left to be attached to? It is clear that this encourages non-attachment. You also ask: Does clarifying the Way's taking asaṃskṛta as its principle identify with all dharmas being naturally empty as wondrous emptiness, with nothingness constituting the ultimate? And citing what is said between the two truths in the treatise, does the intention not reach where the Way's asaṃskṛta resides? In my view, practicing the Way is simply resting in asaṃskṛta; I do not know what else to take as its principle. Why? The reason sentient beings transmigrate in birth and death is entirely due to attachment. If one can rest in the mind, one will no longer be born. Since there is no birth and death, one submerges the spirit in abstruse silence and unites its substance with emptiness; this is called nirvāṇa. Since it is called nirvāṇa, how can a name be admitted within it? The Way takes having nothing to rely upon as its principle; if one seeks the place of reliance, I fear that is the greatest delusion. When I explained that asaṃskṛta cannot be taken as existence, the meaning and matter were somewhat hidden, and inquiring into it might perhaps be slightly difficult. Now I will restate the earlier meaning. What you cited from the Madhyamaka-śāstra is precisely my doctrinal principle: 'If all dharmas are not empty, there are no two truths; if they are not existent, there are also no two truths.' This certainly clarifies that existence and non-existence are not separated from each other. Why? If one definitively asserts existence, there would be no means to elevate superior persons; if one definitively clarifies non-existence, there would be no means to deliver ordinary beings. Therefore the sage embraces both existence and non-existence without discarding either; this is what it means. However, when various masters explain the ultimate truth, they take it as open and empty, completely quiescent without any sage. I have always considered this far too remote and divorced from human feeling. If there were no sage, who would be the one to know non-existence?