廣弘明集 18.129

18.129

Xin Xu, an heir-apparent’s palace secretary, possessed learning that spanned literature and history. Arrogant and conceited, his heart was set on Daoist arts, and he made light of and mocked the Buddhist teaching. Dipping his brush, he composed a treatise to criticize and assess the Buddhist tradition. Whenever someone debated him at that time, Xu would invariably smash [their arguments] to the ground, asserting that there were no capable men among the Saṅgha. Dharma Master Huijing could not brook his insults, and so he drafted a treatise to oppose him, saying: “Having unrolled and perused your lofty treatise, I see that you have extensively investigated what is subtle and refined. Its purpose is rich and its style magnificent, startling the mind and dazzling the eye. Its eloquence surpasses the greased axle, and its reasoning outstrips interlocking rings. Hidden difficulties surge forth crisscross; flourishes of literary elegance stream in continuous succession. Were you not a sage of intellect, who could pour forth such thought? Looking up to you, venerable sir, it is truly difficult to match you; how could one of light talent and dull wit venture to answer an inquiring guest’s challenge? Your treatise says: ‘Preached with a single voice, each understands according to their kind. Even wriggling and crawling beings all possess Buddha-nature. Thus, “Buddha” and “the Fore-Enlightened” differ only verbally according to worldly convention; “wisdom” and “prajñā” are fundamentally identical in their esoteric meaning. If practicing wisdom and awakening is not a supreme cause, how could mindfulness of Buddha and wisdom ascend to the wondrous fruit?’ In reply I say: Grand indeed is this formulation! Yet it is deep, firm, subtle, and remote, and its logic verges on suspicion and doubt. Now I shall briefly set forth the general outline for you. If a question is one and the answers are diverse, such passages flourish in the texts of Confucius; that terms are single while meanings diverge, such principle shines brightly in the Buddhist scriptures. If identical names do not permit divergent meanings, then a single question could not receive distinct answers. Once this precedent is established, that [objection of yours] collapses of itself. If there is still something not understood, I shall clarify it further for you. For by abiding in that which has no abiding, the ten thousand virtues are practiced together; by acting without acting, the single voice responds equally to all. How could it merely be a matter of renouncing sageliness, discarding wisdom, embracing the One, preserving the receptive feminine, coldly cultivating only oneself, with no principle of universal rescue? In comparing their superiority and inferiority, how could they be placed on the same level? Once the two traditions are distinguished, the hundred objections will be stalled. The treatise says: ‘If you insist that their designations and terms can be distinguished, then “each understanding according to their kind from a single voice” is merely indulging in empty talk.’ In reply I say: Truly it is as your esteemed letter indicates: distinction must indeed be made. I venture to observe: though carefree wandering is one, the peng bird and the quail cannot be equalized over ninety thousand li; though flourishing and withering are the same, the toon tree and the morning mushroom cannot be equalized over eight thousand years. How much less can a torch be compared to the sun and moon, or irrigation to seasonal rains? How could their sharing a capacity for brightness or moistening imply that their radiance and enrichment are equal? As for treating the mountain and the tip of a hair as one in size, equating Pengzu and the dead infant in longevity, confounding horizontal and vertical between a reed stalk and a pillar, or mixing beauty and ugliness between Xi Shi and an ugly woman—this arises because relative contrasts are indeterminate, and mutual exclusions can be forgotten. This was Zhuangzi’s reason for cutting off boundaries; he did not mean that there had never been any distinctions. Thus, I use my distinctions to attack your distinctions; once your distinctions vanish, mine will vanish as well. In serious discussion between gentlemen, let there fortunately be no hollow talk. A single slip of the tongue cannot be overtaken even by a team of four horses. This writing is a warning; one ought to be deeply prudent!”