廣弘明集 18.77

18.77

難云。若其永背空談翻為未說。若始終相扶可循教而至。可謂公孫之辭辯者之囿矣。夫智為權本。權為智用。今取聖之意則智即經之辭。則權傍權以為檢。故三乘咸蹄筌。既意以歸宗。故般若為魚兔。良由民多愚也。教故迂矣。若人皆得意。亦何貴於攝悟。假知之論旨明在有者能為達理之諫。是為交賒相傾。非悟道之謂。與其立論有何相違。燕北越南有遇空聖。其理既當。頗獲於心矣。若懃者日忘瞻者驟進。亦實如來言。但懃未是得瞻未是至。當其此時可謂向宗。既得既至可謂一悟將無同。轡來馳而云異𨅊耶。

Your challenge says: '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?' This can be called the rhetoric of Gongsun Long, the park of sophists. Wisdom is the root of the expedient; the expedient is the function of wisdom. Now taking the intention of the sage, wisdom is the text of the sūtras, while the expedient relies on expedients for regulation; hence the three vehicles are all fish traps and snares. Since intention returns to the fundamental principle, wisdom is the fish and the hare. It is truly because the populace is mostly foolish that the teaching is roundabout. If people all grasped the intention, what value would there be in gathering toward awakening? The treatise on provisional knowledge clearly stated that those dwelling in existence can offer admonitions that penetrate principle; this is an alternation of entanglement and detachment, not what is called awakening to the Way. How does this contradict the thesis established? 'Yan is north and Yue is south, existence encounters emptiness and sageliness'; since this principle is appropriate, it quite matches my mind. If one who is diligent forgets daily, and one who gazes advances swiftly, it is indeed as you say; but being diligent is not yet attaining, and gazing is not yet arriving. At that time, it can be called 'facing the fundamental principle'; once attained and arrived, it can be called 'a single awakening.' Are we not galloping along with identical reins, while you call it stepping differently?