廣弘明集 18.123

18.123

You also cite spiritual transformations causing sentient beings of the three evil paths to be born among humans and devas. If one is a deer among deer, or a horse among horses, and delivers them, how is that not called spiritual transformation? What is said in sūtras such as the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha, the Viśeṣacinti, and the Lotus Sūtra, when speaking of emitting great radiance, naturally should not differ from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. If each and every light were to respond to beings right before it, this working would not be universally accessible to the great. Now, radiance and silence—these merely differ in how they manifest, but their underlying measure is one. You cite the sūtra saying that the giver, the receiver, and the wealth cannot be apprehended; this does not differ from abiding in non-abiding dharmas and abiding in prajñā. The two are merely teachings of the beginning and the end. Spoken comprehensively, both are statements to destroy attachment. Why? Sin, non-sin, giver, receiver, and wealth are all unobtainable. If all are unobtainable, what is there left to be attached to? It is clear that this encourages non-attachment. You also ask: Does clarifying the Way's taking asaṃskṛta as its principle identify with all dharmas being naturally empty as wondrous emptiness, with nothingness constituting the ultimate? And citing what is said between the two truths in the treatise, does the intention not reach where the Way's asaṃskṛta resides? In my view, practicing the Way is simply resting in asaṃskṛta; I do not know what else to take as its principle. Why? The reason sentient beings transmigrate in birth and death is entirely due to attachment. If one can rest in the mind, one will no longer be born. Since there is no birth and death, one submerges the spirit in abstruse silence and unites its substance with emptiness; this is called nirvāṇa. Since it is called nirvāṇa, how can a name be admitted within it? The Way takes having nothing to rely upon as its principle; if one seeks the place of reliance, I fear that is the greatest delusion. When I explained that asaṃskṛta cannot be taken as existence, the meaning and matter were somewhat hidden, and inquiring into it might perhaps be slightly difficult. Now I will restate the earlier meaning. What you cited from the Madhyamaka-śāstra is precisely my doctrinal principle: 'If all dharmas are not empty, there are no two truths; if they are not existent, there are also no two truths.' This certainly clarifies that existence and non-existence are not separated from each other. Why? If one definitively asserts existence, there would be no means to elevate superior persons; if one definitively clarifies non-existence, there would be no means to deliver ordinary beings. Therefore the sage embraces both existence and non-existence without discarding either; this is what it means. However, when various masters explain the ultimate truth, they take it as open and empty, completely quiescent without any sage. I have always considered this far too remote and divorced from human feeling. If there were no sage, who would be the one to know non-existence?