廣弘明集 18.129

18.129

太子中舍辛諝。學該文史。誕傲自矜。心存道術。輕弄佛法。染翰著論詳略釋宗。時有對者。諝必碎之于地。謂僧中之無人也。慧淨法師不勝其侮。乃裁論以擬之曰。披覽高論博究精微。旨贍文華驚心眩目。辯超炙輠理跨聯環。幽難勃以縱橫。掞藻紛其駱驛。非夫哲士誰其溢心。瞻彼上人固難與對。輕持不敏寧酬客難來。論云。一音演說各隨類解。蠕動眾生皆有佛性。然則佛陀之與先覺語從俗異。智慧之與般若義本玄同。習智覺。若非勝因。念佛慧。豈登妙果。答曰。大哉斯舉也。深固幽遠理涉嫌疑。今當為子略陳梗概。若乃問同答異。文郁郁於孔書。名一義乖。理明明於釋典。若名同不許義異。則問一不得答殊。此例既昇彼並自沒。如有未喻更為提撕。夫以住無所住。萬善所以兼修。為無不為。一音所以齊應。豈止絕聖棄智抱一守雌冷然獨善義無兼濟。較言優劣其可倫乎。二宗既辯百難斯滯。論云。必彼此名言遂可分別。一音各解乃翫空談。答曰。誠如來旨。亦須分別。竊以。逍遙一也。鵬鷃不可齊乎九萬。榮枯同也。椿菌不可齊乎八千。而況爝火之侔日月。浸灌之方時雨。寧有分同明潤而遂均其曜澤哉。至若山毫一其小大。彭殤均其壽夭。莛楹亂其橫竪。施厲混其妍蚩。斯由相待不定相奪可忘。莊生所以絕其有封。非謂未始無物。斯則以余分別攻子分別。子亡分別即余亡分別矣。君子劇談幸無虛論。一言易失駟馬難追。斯文誡矣。深可慎哉。

Xin Xu, an heir-apparent’s palace secretary, possessed learning that spanned literature and history. Arrogant and conceited, his heart was set on Daoist arts, and he made light of and mocked the Buddhist teaching. Dipping his brush, he composed a treatise to criticize and assess the Buddhist tradition. Whenever someone debated him at that time, Xu would invariably smash [their arguments] to the ground, asserting that there were no capable men among the Saṅgha. Dharma Master Huijing could not brook his insults, and so he drafted a treatise to oppose him, saying: “Having unrolled and perused your lofty treatise, I see that you have extensively investigated what is subtle and refined. Its purpose is rich and its style magnificent, startling the mind and dazzling the eye. Its eloquence surpasses the greased axle, and its reasoning outstrips interlocking rings. Hidden difficulties surge forth crisscross; flourishes of literary elegance stream in continuous succession. Were you not a sage of intellect, who could pour forth such thought? Looking up to you, venerable sir, it is truly difficult to match you; how could one of light talent and dull wit venture to answer an inquiring guest’s challenge? Your treatise says: ‘Preached with a single voice, each understands according to their kind. Even wriggling and crawling beings all possess Buddha-nature. Thus, “Buddha” and “the Fore-Enlightened” differ only verbally according to worldly convention; “wisdom” and “prajñā” are fundamentally identical in their esoteric meaning. If practicing wisdom and awakening is not a supreme cause, how could mindfulness of Buddha and wisdom ascend to the wondrous fruit?’ In reply I say: Grand indeed is this formulation! Yet it is deep, firm, subtle, and remote, and its logic verges on suspicion and doubt. Now I shall briefly set forth the general outline for you. If a question is one and the answers are diverse, such passages flourish in the texts of Confucius; that terms are single while meanings diverge, such principle shines brightly in the Buddhist scriptures. If identical names do not permit divergent meanings, then a single question could not receive distinct answers. Once this precedent is established, that [objection of yours] collapses of itself. If there is still something not understood, I shall clarify it further for you. For by abiding in that which has no abiding, the ten thousand virtues are practiced together; by acting without acting, the single voice responds equally to all. How could it merely be a matter of renouncing sageliness, discarding wisdom, embracing the One, preserving the receptive feminine, coldly cultivating only oneself, with no principle of universal rescue? In comparing their superiority and inferiority, how could they be placed on the same level? Once the two traditions are distinguished, the hundred objections will be stalled. The treatise says: ‘If you insist that their designations and terms can be distinguished, then “each understanding according to their kind from a single voice” is merely indulging in empty talk.’ In reply I say: Truly it is as your esteemed letter indicates: distinction must indeed be made. I venture to observe: though carefree wandering is one, the peng bird and the quail cannot be equalized over ninety thousand li; though flourishing and withering are the same, the toon tree and the morning mushroom cannot be equalized over eight thousand years. How much less can a torch be compared to the sun and moon, or irrigation to seasonal rains? How could their sharing a capacity for brightness or moistening imply that their radiance and enrichment are equal? As for treating the mountain and the tip of a hair as one in size, equating Pengzu and the dead infant in longevity, confounding horizontal and vertical between a reed stalk and a pillar, or mixing beauty and ugliness between Xi Shi and an ugly woman—this arises because relative contrasts are indeterminate, and mutual exclusions can be forgotten. This was Zhuangzi’s reason for cutting off boundaries; he did not mean that there had never been any distinctions. Thus, I use my distinctions to attack your distinctions; once your distinctions vanish, mine will vanish as well. In serious discussion between gentlemen, let there fortunately be no hollow talk. A single slip of the tongue cannot be overtaken even by a team of four horses. This writing is a warning; one ought to be deeply prudent!”