廣弘明集 18.131

18.131

論云。續鳧截鶴庸詎真如。草化蜂飛何居弱喪。答曰。夫自然者報分也。熏修者業理也。報分已定。二鳥無羨於短長。業理資緣。兩蟲有待而飛化。然則事像易疑沈冥難曉。幽求之士淪惑罔息。至乃道圓四果尚昧衣珠。位隆十地猶昏羅縠。聖賢固其若此。而況庸庸者乎。自非鑒鏡三明雄飛七辯。安能妙契玄極敷究幽微。貧道藉以受業家門朋從是寄。希能擇善敢進芻蕘。如或鏗然願詳金牒。於是辛氏頂受斯文頓裂邪網（斯疑前。周沙門姚道安二教論已有成解但未見者謂辛草創）有李遠問舍人者。曾讀斯論。意所未詳便以示沙門法琳請更廣其義類琳。乃答曰。蒙示辛氏與淨法師齊物論。大約兩問。詞旨宏贍理致幽絕。既開義府特曜文鋒。舉佛性平等之談。別群生各解之說。陳彼此之兩難。辯玄同之一門。非夫契彼寰中孰能振斯高論。美則美矣。疑頗疑焉。何者尋上皇朝徹。始流先覺之名。法王應物。爰標佛陀之號。智慧者蓋分別之小術。般若者乃無知之大宗。分別緣起。所以強稱先覺。無知性寂。於是假謂佛陀。分別既影於外有數。無知則於內無心。於外有數。分別之見不亡於內無心。誘引之功莫匱。甚秋毫之方巨岳。踰尺鷃之比大鵬。不可同年而語矣。莊生云。吾亡是非不亡彼此。庸詎然乎。所以小智不及大智。小年不及大年。惟彭祖之特聞。非眾人之所逮也。況三世之理不差二諦之門可驗。是以聖立因果。凡夫有得聖之期。道稱自然。學者無成道之望。從微至著。憑繕剋而方研。乘因趣果。藉薰修而始見。彼既知而故問。余亦述而略答。詳夫一音普被。弱喪由是同歸。四智廣覃。真如以之自顯。自顯也者惟微惟彰。同歸也者孰來孰去。蓋知隨業受報。二鳥不嫌其短長。因濕致生。兩蟲無擇於飛化。不存待與無待。明即待之非待矣。請試論之。昔闞澤有言。孔老法天。諸天法佛。洪範九疇承天制用。上方十善奉佛慈風。若將孔老以匹聖尊。可謂子貢賢於仲尼跛鼈陵於駿驥。欲觀渤澥更保涓流。何異蔽目而視毛端。却行以求郢路。非所應也。非所應也。

The treatise says: “Lengthening the duck’s legs or shortening the crane’s—how could that be suchness? A plant transforming into an insect, or a bee taking flight—how does that constitute lost youth?” In reply I say: Nature is the allotment of retribution; perfuming and cultivation are the principle of karma. Once the allotment of retribution is fixed, the two birds do not envy each other’s length or shortness. The principle of karma relies on conditions, so the two insects await them before flying and transforming. However, concrete forms are easily doubted, while profound obscurities are hard to understand; seekers of the arcane sink into perplexity without cessation. Even those who have perfected the four fruitions of the Way are still oblivious to the jewel sewn in their robe; those whose rank is elevated to the ten stages are yet veiled as if by fine gauze. If even noble ones and sages are like this, how much more so the mediocre? Unless one mirrors the three vidyās and soars with the sevenfold eloquence, how could one wondrously tally with the profound ultimate and thoroughly investigate the subtle and obscure? I, an impoverished monk, have inherited this vocation through my lineage and rely upon the fellowship of my companions; hoping that you can select what is good, I venture to offer this humble grass. If it sounds harmonious to you, I hope you will examine the golden scriptures. Thereupon Mr. Xin received this text upon his head, immediately tearing through his web of wrong views. (Before this doubt arose, Śramaṇa Yao Dao’an of the Zhou had already provided a definitive explanation in his Treatise on the Two Teachings, but those who had not seen it thought Xin was the first to raise it.) There was a palace secretary named Li Yuanwen who had read this treatise. Not having fully grasped its meaning, he showed it to Śramaṇa Falin, requesting that he further broaden its conceptual categories. Falin then replied, saying: “I have received the Treatise on the Equalization of Things by Mr. Xin and Master Jing. It consists of roughly two questions, with grand and rich phrasing and intensely profound principles. Opening the storehouse of doctrine, it especially blazes with literary sharpness: citing the discourse on the equality of Buddha-nature, distinguishing the account of all beings each understanding differently, presenting the two difficulties between one and the other, and resolving the single gate of profound harmony. Were it not for one who has tallied with the cosmic center, who could raise such a lofty discourse? It is fine indeed, yet quite questionable. Why? Looking back, when the Sovereign Above’s dawn broke, the name ‘Fore-Enlightened’ first spread; when the Dharma King responded to beings, the title ‘Buddha’ was thereby established. ‘Wisdom’ is merely a minor technique of discrimination; ‘prajñā’ is the great lineage of non-knowing. Because it discriminates dependent origination, it is forcibly called ‘Fore-Enlightened’; because its non-knowing nature is quiescent, it is provisionally termed ‘Buddha.’ Since discrimination reflects outward, it is conditioned by numbers; non-knowing is inwardly without mind. When conditioned outwardly by numbers, the view of discrimination does not perish; when inwardly without mind, the efficacy of leading and guiding is never exhausted. It exceeds the comparison of an autumn down to a great mountain, or of a sparrow hopping inches high to the great peng bird: they cannot be spoken of in the same breath. Zhuangzi said: ‘I have eliminated right and wrong, but not this and that.’ How could that be so? Therefore minor knowledge does not attain to great knowledge; short duration does not attain to great duration. Only Pengzu is uniquely renowned, beyond what ordinary men can reach. How much more so when the principles of the three periods of time are unerring, and the gates of the two truths can be verified! Therefore the sage establishes cause and effect, and ordinary persons have the prospect of attaining sageliness; the Daoists speak of nature, and practitioners have no hope of achieving the Way. From subtle to obvious, one investigates only by relying on repair and restraint; mounting causes to hasten toward results, it is seen only through perfuming and cultivation. Since he asked knowingly, I too shall provide a brief reply based on his exposition. Investigating the matter: the single voice is universally bestowed, and thereby the lost youth all return together; the fourfold wisdom widely extends, and thereby suchness manifests itself. As for manifesting itself, it is both subtle and manifest; as for returning together, who comes and who goes? One must know that receiving retribution according to karma, the two birds do not complain of length or shortness; born of moisture, the two insects have no preference for flying and transforming. Leaving aside reliance or non-reliance, it is clear that reliance is itself non-reliance. Let me attempt to discuss it. Formerly, Kan Ze said: ‘Confucius and Laozi modeled themselves on Heaven; the devas model themselves on the Buddha. The Great Plan and its Nine Divisions received from Heaven their regulations and functions; the ten good actions of the upper realm serve the Buddha’s compassionate breeze.’ If one matches Confucius and Laozi with the Sage Honored One, it would be like saying Zigong was worthier than Confucius, or a lame turtle outrunning a thoroughbred steed. To wish to view the vast sea while still holding to a trickling stream—how is this different from covering one's eyes to see the tip of a hair, or walking backward in order to reach the road to Ying? It is truly inappropriate; it is truly inappropriate!”