廣弘明集 18.46

18.46

勗再問。案論。孔釋其道既同。救物之假亦不容異。而神道之域。雖顏也孔子所不誨。實相之妙。雖愚也釋氏所必教。然則二聖建言何乖背之甚哉。再答。二教不同者。隨方應物所化地異也。大而較之。監在於民。華人易於見理。難於受教。故閉其累學而開其一極。夷人易於受教難於見理。故閉其頓了而開其漸悟。漸悟雖可至昧頓了之實。一極雖知寄絕累學之冀。良由華人悟理無漸而誣道無學。夷人悟理有學而誣道有漸。是故權實雖同其用各異。昔向子期以儒道為一。應吉甫謂孔老可齊。皆欲窺宗。而況真實者乎。勗三問。重尋答。以華夷有險易之性。故二聖敷異同之教。重方附俗。可謂美矣。然淵極朗鑒作則於上。愚民蒙昧伏從於下。故作則宜審其政。伏從必是其宗。今孔廢聖學之路。而釋開漸悟之逕。筌蹄既已紛錯。群黎何由歸真。三答。冬夏異性。資春秋為始末。晝夜殊用。緣晨暮以往復。況至精之理豈可逕接至粗之人。是故傍漸悟者。所以密造頓解。倚禮教者。所以潛成學聖。學聖不出六經。而六經得頓解。不見三藏。而以三藏果筌蹄歷然。何疑紛錯。魚兔既獲群黎以濟。

Xu asked again: According to the treatise, since the ways of Confucius and Śākya are the same, their provisionality in rescuing beings also cannot allow of difference. Yet as for the realm of the spiritual path, even with Yan [Hui], Confucius did not teach it; whereas as for the subtlety of the true nature of reality, even to the foolish, Śākya inevitably taught it. If so, why do the words established by the two sages contradict each other so severely? Second answer: That the two teachings differ is because they respond to beings according to the region, and the lands they transform are distinct. Speaking in broad terms, the mirror lies in the people: Chinese people easily see principle, but find it difficult to accept teaching; therefore, he closed their cumulative learning and opened their single ultimate. The barbarians easily accept teaching, but find it difficult to see principle; therefore, he closed their sudden realization and opened their gradual awakening. Although gradual awakening can be reached, it is obscure regarding the reality of sudden realization; although the single ultimate knows what to rely on, it cuts off the hope of cumulative learning. This is truly because the Chinese awaken to principle without gradation and falsely claim the Dao has no learning; whereas the barbarians awaken to principle with learning and falsely claim the Dao has gradations. For this reason, though expedient and ultimate are identical, their applications differ. Formerly, Xiang Ziqi regarded Confucianism and Daoism as one, and Ying Jifu said that Confucius and Laozi could be equaled; both wished to glimpse the ultimate—how much more so for what is truly real! Xu asked a third time: Examining your reply again, you say that because the Chinese and the barbarians have natures of difficulty and ease, the two sages set forth teachings of difference and similarity, adapting to the region and conforming to customs—this may be called fine. Yet the clear mirror of the profound ultimate serves as a model above, while the foolish people in their ignorance submit and follow below. Therefore, when making a model, one should be meticulous in its governance; when submitting and following, one must adhere to its ultimate. Now Confucius discarded the path of sage learning, while Śākya opened the avenue of gradual awakening. The fish-traps and rabbit-snares are already tangled and confused; how can the multitude of common people return to the truth? Third answer: Winter and summer have different natures, relying on spring and autumn as beginning and end; day and night have distinct functions, depending on dawn and dusk for their cycle. How much less can the most refined principle directly receive the coarsest people? Therefore, relying on gradual awakening is the means by which one secretly attains sudden understanding; leaning on ritual teachings is the means by which one covertly accomplishes the study of sagehood. The study of sagehood does not go beyond the Six Classics, yet through the Six Classics one attains sudden understanding; one does not see the Tripiṭaka, yet through the Tripiṭaka the fruit is reached. The fish-traps and rabbit-snares are distinct and clear; why doubt that they are tangled and confused? Once the fish and hare are caught, the multitude of common people are delivered.