廣弘明集 18.47

18.47

僧維問。承新論法師。以宗極微妙不容階級。使夫學者窮有之極。自然之無有若符契。何須言無也。若資無以盡有者。焉得不謂之漸悟耶。初答。夫累既未盡。無不可得。盡累之弊。始可得無耳。累盡則無。誠如符契將除其累。要須傍教。在有之時學而非悟。悟在有表託學以至。但階級教愚之談。一悟得意之論矣。維再問。論云。悟在有表得不以漸。使夫涉學希宗當日進其明。不若使明不日進與不言同。若日進其明者得非漸悟乎。

Sengwei asked: I have heard that the Dharma master of the new treatise holds that the ultimate is subtle and profound, not admitting of gradual stages, causing the practitioner to exhaust the ultimate of being, so that the non-being of self-so matches it like two halves of a tally; why must one speak of non-being? If one relies on non-being to exhaust being, how can this not be called gradual awakening? First answer: When encumbrances are not yet exhausted, non-being cannot be attained; only when the defects of encumbrance are exhausted can non-being be attained. When encumbrances are exhausted, there is non-being; this is truly like two halves of a tally. When about to remove one's encumbrances, one must rely on the teachings. While in being, it is learning and not awakening; awakening is beyond being, and relies on learning to reach it. Stages are merely talk to teach the foolish; a single awakening is a discourse that captures the inner meaning. Wei asked again: The treatise says that awakening is beyond being and is not attained gradually. If the practitioner who aspires to the ultimate is to advance daily in his illumination, would it not be better if illumination did not advance daily, which would be the same as not speaking of it? If one advances daily in one's illumination, can this be anything other than gradual awakening?