廣弘明集 18.70

18.70

釋慧琳問。三復精議。辨㦎二家斟酌儒道。實有懷於論矣。至於去釋漸悟遺孔殆庶。蒙竊惑焉。釋云有漸。故是自形者有漸。孔之無漸亦是自道者無漸。何以知其然耶。中人可以語上。久習可以移性。孔氏之訓也。一合於道場非十地之所階。釋家之唱也。如此漸絕文論二聖詳言。豈獨夷束於教華拘於理。將恐斥離之辯辭長於新論乎。勗道人難云。絕欲由於體理。當謂日損者以理自悟也。論曰。道與俗反本不相關。故因權以通之。物濟則反本。問曰。權之所假習心者。亦終以為慮乎。為曉悟之日與經之空理都自反耶。若其永背空談翻為未說。若始終相扶可修教而至不。答維驎。假知中殊為藻艶。但與立論有違。假者以旋迷喪理。不以鑽火致惑。苟南向可以造越。北背可以棄燕。信燕北越南矣。慮空可以洗心。損有可以祛累。亦有愚而空聖矣。如此但當懃般若以日忘瞻郢路而驟進。復何憂於失所乎。將恐一悟之唱。更躓於南北之譬耶。

Shi Huilin asks: Having thrice reviewed your refined discourse, which distinguishes the two schools and evaluates Confucianism and Daoism, I truly harbor thoughts concerning this treatise. As for casting aside the gradual awakening of Śākyamuni and setting aside Confucius's 'nearly there', I secretly feel confused. When Śākyamuni speaks of the gradual, it is that those who take form have the gradual; when Confucius speaks of no gradual, it is that those who speak of the Way have no gradual. How is this known to be so? 'Those of medium capacity can be told of higher things,' and 'long practice can alter nature'—these are Confucius's instructions. 'A single union in the bodhimanda is not stepped through by the ten stages'—this is the Śākya school's proclamation. With such gradual and abrupt texts and treatises, both sages spoke in detail. Could it be only that the foreigner was bound by teaching while the Chinese was constrained by principle? I fear that your divisive eloquence merely prolongs the words of a new treatise! The master Xu posed the difficulty: 'Severing desire arises from embodying principle; one should say that those who decrease daily awaken on their own through principle.' The treatise says: 'The Way and the worldly are contrary and originally unrelated; thus one uses the expedient to communicate with it, and when beings are saved, one returns to the origin.' I ask: Do the mind of practice that relies on the expedient also think of it to the very end? Or on the day of awakening, is it entirely contrary to the principle of emptiness in the sūtras? If it eternally turns its back on emptiness, it would rather be as if it had never been spoken. If they support each other from beginning to end, can one reach it through practicing the teaching? In replying to Wei and Lin, the depiction of provisional knowledge was extraordinarily ornate, but it contradicts the thesis you established. The provisional loses principle through revolving in delusion, not through producing confusion by drilling for fire. If facing south enables one to reach Yue, and turning one's back to the north enables one to abandon Yan, then truly Yan is north and Yue is south. Thinking of emptiness can cleanse the mind; decreasing existence can dispel defilement; then existence is foolish and emptiness is sagely. In this case, one should merely diligently apply wisdom to forget daily, and gazing at the road to Ying, advance swiftly; what worry is there of losing one's place? I fear that the proclamation of a single awakening will stumble again over the analogy of north and south!