廣弘明集 8.23

8.23

佛教者窮理盡性之格言。出世入真之軌轍。論其文則部分十二。語其旨則四種悉檀。理妙域中。固非名號所及。化擅繫表。又非情智所尋。至於遣累落筌。陶神盡照。近超生死遠證泥洹。播闡五乘。接群機之深淺。該明六道。辯善惡之昇沈。敻期出世而理無不周。邇比王化而事無不盡。能博能要不質不文。自非天下之至慮。孰能與斯教哉。雖復儒道千家墨農百氏取捨驅馳。未及其度者也。惟釋氏之教理富權實。有餘不了稱之曰權。無餘了義號之為實。通云善誘。何成妙賞。子謂三教雖殊勸善義一。余謂善有精麁優劣宜異。精者超百化而高昇。麁者循九居而未息。安可同年而語其勝負哉。又云。教迹誠異理會則同。爰引世訓以符玄教。此蓋悠悠之所昧。未暨其本矣。教者何也。詮理之謂。理者何也。教之所詮。教若果異理豈得同。理若必同教寧得異。筌不期魚蹄不為兔。將為名乎理同安在。夫厚生情篤身患之誡遂興。不悟遷流逝川之歎乃作。並是方內之至談。諒非踰方之巨唱。何者推色盡於極微。老氏之所未辯。究心窮於生滅宣尼又所未言。可謂瞻之似盡。察之未極者也。故涅槃經曰。分別色心有無量相。非諸聲聞緣覺所知。且聲聞之與菩薩。俱越妄想之鄉。菩薩則惠兼九道。聲聞則獨善一身。其猶露潤之方巨壑。微塵之比須彌。況凡夫識想。何得齊乎。故淨名曰。無以日光等彼螢火。若夫以齊而齊不齊者未齊矣。以齊而齊於齊者未齊焉。余聞善齊天下者以不齊而齊天下者也。何須夷嶽實淵然後方平。續鳧截鶴於焉始等。此蓋狷夫之野議。豈達士之貞觀。故諺曰。紫實昧朱。狂斯濫哲。請廣其類更曉子懷。上至天子下至庶民。莫不資色心以成軀。稟陰陽以化體。不可以色心是等而便混以智愚。安得以陰陽義齊則同之貴賤。此之不可至理皎然。雖強齊之其義安在。

"The teachings of the Buddha are standard maxims that exhaust principle and plumb the nature, the tracks for transcending the world and entering truth. In terms of their texts, they are divided into twelve; in terms of their purports, they consist of the four siddhāntas. Their principle is subtle within the cosmos, certainly beyond the reach of names and designations; their transformation reigns outside worldly ties, and again cannot be sought by conventional intellect. As for relinquishing entanglements and casting off traps, refining the spirit to full illumination, closely transcending birth and death, and distantly realizing nirvāṇa; expounding the five vehicles to accommodate the depths and shallows of all capacities; fully clarifying the six realms of rebirth to distinguish the ascent and descent of good and evil—aspiring distantly to transcend the world, its principles leave nothing unaddressed; matching closely with royal governance, its matters leave nothing unexhausted. It can be broad, it can be concise; it is neither crude nor ornate. If not for the supreme contemplation under Heaven, who could participate in this teaching? Even if the thousand schools of Confucianism and Daoism, and the hundred lineages of Mohists and Agriculturalists make choices and strive, they have not reached its measure. Only the teaching of the Śākya is rich in both the provisional and the real: that which has remainder and is not definitive is called provisional; that which has no remainder and is definitive is titled real. If you simply call it 'skillful didacticism', how could that constitute wonderful appreciation? You say: 'Although the three teachings differ, their encouragement of goodness is unified in purpose.' I say: goodness has the refined and the coarse, and superior and inferior must be distinguished. The refined transcends the hundred transformations and ascends high; the coarse revolves in the nine abodes and does not cease. How could one speak of their victory and defeat in the same year? You also say: 'The tracks of the teachings are indeed disparate, yet their realization of principle is identical,' thereupon citing worldly instructions to tally with the profound teaching. This is merely the obfuscation of the common crowd, who have not reached the fundamental source. What is a teaching? It means the expression of principle. What is principle? It is that which the teaching expresses. If the teachings are truly different, how could the principle be identical? If the principle must be identical, how could the teachings differ? A fish-trap does not anticipate a hare, nor does a hare-snare serve for a fish. Shall one treat them as names? Where is the identity of principle? Now, when affection for thick preservation of life is earnest, the admonition regarding bodily distress arose; failing to comprehend transient flux, the sigh over the flowing stream was made. These are both supreme discourses within the cosmos, but certainly not grand proclamations transcending it. Why? Tracing matter to its ultimate subtlety was not clarified by Laozi; investigating the mind to its exhaustion in arising and ceasing was likewise unstated by Confucius. It may be said that looking upon them, they seem complete, but examining them, they have not reached the ultimate. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Analyzing form and mind, there are immeasurable aspects, which are not known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' Furthermore, both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas have transcended the realm of false conceptualization; yet the bodhisattva's benevolence encompasses the nine realms, while the śrāvaka only cultivates his own person. This is like comparing the moisture of dew to a great chasm, or a fine dust particle to Sumeru. How much less could an ordinary person's thoughts and perceptions equal them? Hence Vimalakīrti said: 'Do not equate sunlight with the light of a firefly.' If one makes equal what is unequal through equalization, it is not yet equal; if one makes equal what is already equal through equalization, it is not yet equal. I have heard that those skilled in equalizing the world equalize the world through its very inequality. Why is it necessary to level the mountains and fill the abysses before achieving flatness, or to lengthen the duck's legs and shorten the crane's before they become equal? These are the rustic arguments of stubborn men, hardly the true vision of accomplished persons. Thus the proverb says: 'Purple indeed confounds vermilion, and madness thus mimics wisdom.' Please let me broaden these analogies to further enlighten your mind: from the Son of Heaven down to the common people, there are none who do not rely on form and mind to constitute their bodies, and receive yin and yang to transform their physical substance. One cannot, because form and mind are equal, immediately conflate the wise and the foolish; how could one, because the principle of yin and yang is uniform, identify the noble and the base? That this is impossible is an utterly luminous principle; though one forcefully equalizes them, where is the sense?"