廣弘明集 18.131

18.131

The treatise says: “Lengthening the duck’s legs or shortening the crane’s—how could that be suchness? A plant transforming into an insect, or a bee taking flight—how does that constitute lost youth?” In reply I say: Nature is the allotment of retribution; perfuming and cultivation are the principle of karma. Once the allotment of retribution is fixed, the two birds do not envy each other’s length or shortness. The principle of karma relies on conditions, so the two insects await them before flying and transforming. However, concrete forms are easily doubted, while profound obscurities are hard to understand; seekers of the arcane sink into perplexity without cessation. Even those who have perfected the four fruitions of the Way are still oblivious to the jewel sewn in their robe; those whose rank is elevated to the ten stages are yet veiled as if by fine gauze. If even noble ones and sages are like this, how much more so the mediocre? Unless one mirrors the three vidyās and soars with the sevenfold eloquence, how could one wondrously tally with the profound ultimate and thoroughly investigate the subtle and obscure? I, an impoverished monk, have inherited this vocation through my lineage and rely upon the fellowship of my companions; hoping that you can select what is good, I venture to offer this humble grass. If it sounds harmonious to you, I hope you will examine the golden scriptures. Thereupon Mr. Xin received this text upon his head, immediately tearing through his web of wrong views. (Before this doubt arose, Śramaṇa Yao Dao’an of the Zhou had already provided a definitive explanation in his Treatise on the Two Teachings, but those who had not seen it thought Xin was the first to raise it.) There was a palace secretary named Li Yuanwen who had read this treatise. Not having fully grasped its meaning, he showed it to Śramaṇa Falin, requesting that he further broaden its conceptual categories. Falin then replied, saying: “I have received the Treatise on the Equalization of Things by Mr. Xin and Master Jing. It consists of roughly two questions, with grand and rich phrasing and intensely profound principles. Opening the storehouse of doctrine, it especially blazes with literary sharpness: citing the discourse on the equality of Buddha-nature, distinguishing the account of all beings each understanding differently, presenting the two difficulties between one and the other, and resolving the single gate of profound harmony. Were it not for one who has tallied with the cosmic center, who could raise such a lofty discourse? It is fine indeed, yet quite questionable. Why? Looking back, when the Sovereign Above’s dawn broke, the name ‘Fore-Enlightened’ first spread; when the Dharma King responded to beings, the title ‘Buddha’ was thereby established. ‘Wisdom’ is merely a minor technique of discrimination; ‘prajñā’ is the great lineage of non-knowing. Because it discriminates dependent origination, it is forcibly called ‘Fore-Enlightened’; because its non-knowing nature is quiescent, it is provisionally termed ‘Buddha.’ Since discrimination reflects outward, it is conditioned by numbers; non-knowing is inwardly without mind. When conditioned outwardly by numbers, the view of discrimination does not perish; when inwardly without mind, the efficacy of leading and guiding is never exhausted. It exceeds the comparison of an autumn down to a great mountain, or of a sparrow hopping inches high to the great peng bird: they cannot be spoken of in the same breath. Zhuangzi said: ‘I have eliminated right and wrong, but not this and that.’ How could that be so? Therefore minor knowledge does not attain to great knowledge; short duration does not attain to great duration. Only Pengzu is uniquely renowned, beyond what ordinary men can reach. How much more so when the principles of the three periods of time are unerring, and the gates of the two truths can be verified! Therefore the sage establishes cause and effect, and ordinary persons have the prospect of attaining sageliness; the Daoists speak of nature, and practitioners have no hope of achieving the Way. From subtle to obvious, one investigates only by relying on repair and restraint; mounting causes to hasten toward results, it is seen only through perfuming and cultivation. Since he asked knowingly, I too shall provide a brief reply based on his exposition. Investigating the matter: the single voice is universally bestowed, and thereby the lost youth all return together; the fourfold wisdom widely extends, and thereby suchness manifests itself. As for manifesting itself, it is both subtle and manifest; as for returning together, who comes and who goes? One must know that receiving retribution according to karma, the two birds do not complain of length or shortness; born of moisture, the two insects have no preference for flying and transforming. Leaving aside reliance or non-reliance, it is clear that reliance is itself non-reliance. Let me attempt to discuss it. Formerly, Kan Ze said: ‘Confucius and Laozi modeled themselves on Heaven; the devas model themselves on the Buddha. The Great Plan and its Nine Divisions received from Heaven their regulations and functions; the ten good actions of the upper realm serve the Buddha’s compassionate breeze.’ If one matches Confucius and Laozi with the Sage Honored One, it would be like saying Zigong was worthier than Confucius, or a lame turtle outrunning a thoroughbred steed. To wish to view the vast sea while still holding to a trickling stream—how is this different from covering one's eyes to see the tip of a hair, or walking backward in order to reach the road to Ying? It is truly inappropriate; it is truly inappropriate!”