廣弘明集 7.15

7.15

齊又引涅槃。闍王害父耆婆敘狀。佛以理除令其迷解。俗惟事結惑網逾深。故以陰界入中求父不得本。惟妄想謂父。實人橫生圖害取其重位。若先達解知父本空。何必起逆。國亦非有。由佛開化達悟妄心。追悔慚謝獲無根信。濟不達此以事徵理。斥天子注經。譏臣下逆亂。謂佛說無父。無父須除。執迹毀教。不足怪其愚闇也。餘有瑣碎似像之事。比擬繁論固同此例。又引張融范縝三破之論。前集備詳。有抗融縝之詞。見於後述。乃云。融縝立論無能破之。是虛言也。

Ji also cited the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where King Ajātaśatru harmed his father and Jīvaka described the situation; the Buddha resolved it through principle to dispel his delusion, whereas worldly people only bind themselves to external affairs and sink ever deeper into the net of delusion. Therefore, searching for a father among the aggregates, elements, and sense bases, he could not be found; originally it was merely a deluded thought that regarded the father as a real person, arbitrarily giving rise to plans to harm him and seize his exalted throne. If he had previously attained understanding and known that a father is fundamentally empty, why would he have committed treason? The kingdom also does not exist. Through the Buddha's instruction, he realized the deluded mind, repented with remorse and apology, and obtained rootless faith. Ji did not understand this, and sought to judge principle by external events, rebuking the Son of Heaven for annotating the scriptures and mocking ministers and subjects for treason and disorder, saying that the Buddha taught there is no father, and having no father, he should be eliminated. Grasping at traces to defame the teaching, his stupidity and darkness are not surprising. His remaining trivial and superficial points, like his prolix comparisons, are all of this kind. Furthermore, he cited the "Three Destructions" treatises of Zhang Rong and Fan Zhen; these are detailed fully in the previous collection. Words refuting Rong and Zhen will be seen in subsequent accounts. To say that when Rong and Zhen established their arguments none could refute them is an empty falsehood.