廣弘明集 5.48

5.48

The treatise states: 'The former Buddhas and the later Buddhas do not differ in their Way. When the Zhou house received the mandate, the Xiangji and Diwei took up their official posts according to their regions. The secluded path to the Western lands is not far. It is impossible that they did not exist during the times of Tang, Yu, and the Three Dynasties. That the teachings were confined to the West alone and did not flow east was not that the Duke of Zhou omitted it; it was simply that this Dharma was meant to remain hidden. Suiren invented fire and grain, turning the raw into the cooked, which was indeed the sprouting sign of the Buddhist teachings. The two sages Zhou and Confucius somewhat expanded these ancestral regulations: seeing them alive, one cannot bear to see them die; hearing their cries, one cannot bear to eat their meat. Felling trees and cutting grass were done in due season; fawns and eggs were not to be recklessly harmed. Furthermore, among the five precepts, four offend against human beings, who are the foremost of sentient beings; one harms beasts, who are the lowest order of living things. The inner sage and the outer sages are equal in purpose and unified in principle.'
I respectfully inquire: Upon carefully examining the Buddhist scriptures, the arising of a single Buddha frequently spans multiple kalpas. I do not know how many kalpas should separate a former Buddha from a later Buddha. The appearance of Śākyamuni occurred only recently, during the reign of King Zhuang; why must it already have existed in the times of Tang, Yu, Xia, and Yin? That the Duke of Zhou did not speak of it was probably because it had not yet appeared, not because it was meant to remain hidden. King Aśoka built stupas starting in the reign of King Jing; since there were four in Jambudvīpa, the Eastern realm could not be utterly without them. Confucius himself promoted teaching based on Chinese ritual; why would it be appropriate for him to expound barbarian methods? Thus, he lamented that the Middle Kingdom had lost ritual and sought it among the Four Barbarians, which also truly had a distinct purpose. Furthermore, the music of the Four Barbarians barely emerged from the distant frontiers, and when they were cast out to the four borderlands, these were also close to the wilds of Mount Wei and Mount Yu. Where Yu's tracks reached did not extend to the source of the Yellow River; the white pheasants of Yueshang were still said to come through multiple interpreters. Thus, India and Jibin were long cut off from the superior country. Only after the decline of Zhou was news occasionally heard. Therefore Zou Yan believed that the Red County (China) within the world was merely one of nine parts. In early Han, there were stupas in Chang'an, yet scriptures and images remained vague and obscure. Although Zhang Qian carried out his mission to Daxia and Gan Ying traveled as far as Anxi, they were still unable to translate and transmit the customs and teachings or elucidate this Dharma. It was only when a dream appeared in the imperial court that it gradually rose and became manifest. This seems to be a case of the times causing openness or blockage, having nothing to do with the rise and fall of karmic cycles. If it must be that the resonance of conditions brings an encounter, then what crime did the pure and simple beings of the past commit? What great fortune do the shallow and frivolous beings of today possess? Supposing that this Dharma was originally meant to rescue the frivolous: of all sins, none is greater than killing. At the time of meat-eating, when was killing ever worse? Yet to wait for fire and grain before this could become the sprout of the teaching—did the supernatural power of Great Compassion not encounter an obstacle here? If round-grained rice had not yet been sown and the business of killing was hard to stop, I wonder what Dharma the past Buddhas of earlier times used for their teaching? In the time of which Buddha did this sprout of teaching arise? In addition, the four precepts offend against humans, yet their retribution is somehow light; the single precept of killing beasts brings retribution that is even heavier. Making the primary light and the secondary heavy is also something I have not grasped. Now, the way of establishing human beings is called benevolence and righteousness. When Zhou and Confucius spoke of 'hearing their cries, one cannot bear to eat their meat' and 'felling trees in due season,' it was to make brilliantly clear the way of benevolence and righteousness: if it is so even for birds, beasts, plants, and trees, how much more so for humans—how could one be cruel and rebellious toward them? It was not out of inner dread of transgression, with the intention aimed at retributive consequences. Observing the traces, they might seem similar; examining their intent, they completely diverge. I do not know whether the inner and outer sages can truly be considered equal in this matter or not. These discrepancies are difficult to resolve through sudden realization. I respectfully set them forth to consult and cleanse my doubts, hoping that you will fully illuminate these obscurities.