廣弘明集 18.39

18.39

敬覽高話。辭切證明。所謂彼上人者難為酬對者也。然如來窮理盡性因感成教。故五善思啟。戒品為之設。六蔽待祛。般若為之照。薰以十善淨以無漏。畢竟解脫至菩提而已矣。斯末之所以明而本之不昧者耶。孔以致孝為務。則仁被四海。釋以大慈為首。則化周五道。導物之迹非乃冥耶。但應有麁精終然自殊耳。凡覽般若諸經。不以無孔為疑。何獨誦丘之書而有見棄之言乎。以龍鬼之陋尚感聖而至誘掖得信。豈季俗而已哉。足下據見在之教。以詰三世之辯。奢迂之怪固不待言。若許因果不謬猶形之與影。徵要之効如合符也。若日月之行。幽明之信。水火之降。風雲之作。皆先因而後果。不出感召之道。故緣起鑑能致水。緣滅燧不招火。一切諸法從緣起滅耳。若鵝之就斃味登爼鼎燕之獲免無取鹽梅。故鵝殺於人猶虫死於燕。鵝虫見世受。人燕未來報。報由三業。業有遲疾。若人入孝出悌。揚于王庭。君親無將。將（音埒）而必誅。此見報之疾著乎視聽者也。若忠為令德剖心沈淵劫掠肆殺有幸而免。此後報之遲疎而不失者也。善惡之業。業無不報。但過去未來非耳目所得。故信之者寡。而非之者眾耳。科法清淨滌塵開慧。中國弗思謂為陷穽。非我無謀秦弗用也。勸人為善。誠哉斯言。然權者謂實非假設也。故文王廢伯邑考而立武王權也。周適非王發有天命。禮是疎制理固從實。伯廢發立實也。各從其實德用交歸。自非大智孰能預之。經云。善權方便亦復如是耳。夫民生而殺性之欲也。飲血席毛在上皇之世矣。聖人去殺非教殺也。但民殺未盡而化宜漸損。雖將享三品尊薦厚賓。然湯開其網。孔釣不綱。詩翼五豝。禮弗身踐。據茲而觀。作者之心見矣。今忍不食成己慈之心。若推不忍於視聽之表。均不食於見聞之內。其至矣哉。其至矣哉。祇藉嘉評伸以管窺。實相無言言成戲論。既不自是想亦同非。若高明之譬。請俟諸君子。

I have respectfully read your lofty discourse; its words are trenchant and its proofs are clear. As is said, that superior person is difficult to answer. Yet the Tathāgata, having plumbed the principles and fully realized nature, established teachings in response to spiritual capacity. Thus, when the five goods are intended to be opened, the ranks of precepts are established for them; when the six hindrances await dispersal, prajñā illuminates them. Perfuming with the ten goods and purifying with the undefiled (anāsrava), one attains ultimate liberation and reaches bodhi—nothing more. Is this not how the branches are clear and the root is not obscure? Confucius made the fulfillment of filial piety his business, and his benevolence covered the four seas; Śākya placed great compassion first, and his transformation encompassed the five destinies. Are not the traces of their guiding beings unseen? It is merely that in their responses there are coarse and fine, which in the end are naturally different. Whenever one peruses the various prajñā sūtras, one does not doubt them because Confucius is absent from them; why do you alone, reciting the books of Qiu, speak of [Buddhism] being rejected? Even base creatures like dragons and ghosts were moved by the sage, so that he drew them along and gained their trust; how could it be only the vulgar of later ages? You rely on the teachings of the present to question the discourses on the three times; the strangeness of 'extravagant and far-fetched' certainly goes without saying. If you grant that cause and effect are unerring, like form and its shadow, then the effect of verification matches like two halves of a tally. The motions of the sun and the moon, the trust in the unseen and visible, the descending of water and fire, the arising of wind and clouds—all put cause first and effect second; none falls outside the way of stimulus and response. Thus, through dependent origination, the mirror can summon water; when conditions perish, the tinder-lens does not invite fire. All phenomena merely arise and perish through conditions. When the goose meets its death, its flavor ascends to the platter and cauldron; when the swallow escapes, it requires no salt and plum. Hence the goose being killed by humans is just like the insect dying to the swallow: the goose and insect receive it in the present life, while the human and swallow receive retribution in the future. Retribution arises from the three karmas, and karma has the slow and the swift. If a person enters to be filial and goes out to be fraternal, and is praised in the royal court; or if one intends harm against lord or parent, intending it he must be executed—these are the swift retributions of the present, conspicuous to sight and hearing. If loyalty is an admirable virtue yet one's heart is cut open and one is drowned in the deep; or if one plunders and slaughters at will, yet by good fortune escapes—these are the slow retributions of the future, loose-meshed yet not losing anything. As for deeds of good and evil, no karma goes without retribution; but the past and the future cannot be grasped by ears and eyes, which is why those who believe it are few, and those who condemn it are many. The pure regulations wash away defilement and open wisdom; that the Central Kingdom does not reflect on this and calls them pitfall traps is not because we lacked counsel, but because Qin did not employ it. 'To encourage people to do good'—truly, how right are these words! But the expedient is called true, not a provisional fiction. Thus King Wen setting aside Bo Yikao and establishing King Wu was an expedient. The Zhou succession did not belong to the King, but Fa had the Mandate of Heaven; the rites are an external regulation, while the principle naturally follows reality. Bo being set aside and Fa being established was the reality. Each follows its reality, and virtue and function jointly return to it; who other than the greatly wise could take part in this? The sūtra says: 'Skillful expedients (upāya) are also just like this.' Now, humans being born with the desire to kill is a desire of their nature. Drinking blood and bedding on fur existed in the age of the sovereign emperors. The sages eliminated killing; they did not teach killing. It is only because human killing had not ended that the transforming teaching should gradually diminish it. Although they offered the three grades of game and honorably presented them to esteemed guests, Tang opened his nets, Confucius angled but did not use a net-cord, the Odes praised [the hunter who spared] five sows, and the rites forbade trampling them personally. Looking from this perspective, the mind of the author can be seen. Now, not bearing to eat meat perfects one's own mind of compassion; if one extends 'not bearing' beyond sight and hearing, and equates 'not eating' within what is seen and heard, would that not be the ultimate? Would that not be the ultimate? Relying merely on your fine critique, I have set forth my tube-hole view. The true nature of reality is beyond words; to speak of it becomes frivolous discourse. Since I do not consider myself right, I imagine you will also share in the fault. As for your lofty analogies, I request to leave them to all gentlemen to judge.