廣弘明集 14.13

14.13

"Lord Fu praised Laozi and denigrated Śākya; he extolled Daoist texts and censured Buddhist teachings. Formerly I shared this confusion, but now I have again awakened to its error. The teachings of Śākya and Laozi are one in substance, not two. They equally eliminate the burden of desire, and both manifest the principle of the unconditioned. Laozi's explanation was not yet fully comprehensive, whereas the Buddhist scriptures reached the ultimate in their words. If the Dao is indeed right, the Buddha is certainly likewise right and not wrong; if the Buddha is indeed wrong, the Dao can likewise be wrong and not right. In principle there is no contradiction between them, yet people harbor divergent inclinations. This is like the monkeys' joy and anger [over three or four chestnuts], and also like Duke Ye's love and fear [of dragons].

As for the purport of the Daodejing by the Archivist, and the inner and outer chapters of the Garden of Lacquer, they are elegant, profound, and difficult to surpass, pure and lofty, worthy of esteem. I have privately read them without finding fault. How could I, out of faith in Buddhist texts, arbitrarily slander them? But let us further discuss this: the conditions of endless birth and death, and the principle of imperishable karmic retribution, were first clarified by the Buddhists and never mentioned by Huang-Lao. I do not know why the Daoist texts of today resemble Buddhist scriptures, discussing the three periods of time to encourage and admonish, and stepping beyond the tracks of the nine schools of thought. If they spoke from seeing it with their own eyes, their illumination would be equal to the Buddha's; if they heard it and imitated it, they took the Buddha as master and complied with his words. If their illumination is equal, then equals should not be rejected; if they took him as master, then the master must not be denigrated. To praise Daoism and condemn the Buddha—how extreme an error that is!