廣弘明集 8.23

8.23

"The teachings of the Buddha are standard maxims that exhaust principle and plumb the nature, the tracks for transcending the world and entering truth. In terms of their texts, they are divided into twelve; in terms of their purports, they consist of the four siddhāntas. Their principle is subtle within the cosmos, certainly beyond the reach of names and designations; their transformation reigns outside worldly ties, and again cannot be sought by conventional intellect. As for relinquishing entanglements and casting off traps, refining the spirit to full illumination, closely transcending birth and death, and distantly realizing nirvāṇa; expounding the five vehicles to accommodate the depths and shallows of all capacities; fully clarifying the six realms of rebirth to distinguish the ascent and descent of good and evil—aspiring distantly to transcend the world, its principles leave nothing unaddressed; matching closely with royal governance, its matters leave nothing unexhausted. It can be broad, it can be concise; it is neither crude nor ornate. If not for the supreme contemplation under Heaven, who could participate in this teaching? Even if the thousand schools of Confucianism and Daoism, and the hundred lineages of Mohists and Agriculturalists make choices and strive, they have not reached its measure. Only the teaching of the Śākya is rich in both the provisional and the real: that which has remainder and is not definitive is called provisional; that which has no remainder and is definitive is titled real. If you simply call it 'skillful didacticism', how could that constitute wonderful appreciation? You say: 'Although the three teachings differ, their encouragement of goodness is unified in purpose.' I say: goodness has the refined and the coarse, and superior and inferior must be distinguished. The refined transcends the hundred transformations and ascends high; the coarse revolves in the nine abodes and does not cease. How could one speak of their victory and defeat in the same year? You also say: 'The tracks of the teachings are indeed disparate, yet their realization of principle is identical,' thereupon citing worldly instructions to tally with the profound teaching. This is merely the obfuscation of the common crowd, who have not reached the fundamental source. What is a teaching? It means the expression of principle. What is principle? It is that which the teaching expresses. If the teachings are truly different, how could the principle be identical? If the principle must be identical, how could the teachings differ? A fish-trap does not anticipate a hare, nor does a hare-snare serve for a fish. Shall one treat them as names? Where is the identity of principle? Now, when affection for thick preservation of life is earnest, the admonition regarding bodily distress arose; failing to comprehend transient flux, the sigh over the flowing stream was made. These are both supreme discourses within the cosmos, but certainly not grand proclamations transcending it. Why? Tracing matter to its ultimate subtlety was not clarified by Laozi; investigating the mind to its exhaustion in arising and ceasing was likewise unstated by Confucius. It may be said that looking upon them, they seem complete, but examining them, they have not reached the ultimate. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Analyzing form and mind, there are immeasurable aspects, which are not known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' Furthermore, both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas have transcended the realm of false conceptualization; yet the bodhisattva's benevolence encompasses the nine realms, while the śrāvaka only cultivates his own person. This is like comparing the moisture of dew to a great chasm, or a fine dust particle to Sumeru. How much less could an ordinary person's thoughts and perceptions equal them? Hence Vimalakīrti said: 'Do not equate sunlight with the light of a firefly.' If one makes equal what is unequal through equalization, it is not yet equal; if one makes equal what is already equal through equalization, it is not yet equal. I have heard that those skilled in equalizing the world equalize the world through its very inequality. Why is it necessary to level the mountains and fill the abysses before achieving flatness, or to lengthen the duck's legs and shorten the crane's before they become equal? These are the rustic arguments of stubborn men, hardly the true vision of accomplished persons. Thus the proverb says: 'Purple indeed confounds vermilion, and madness thus mimics wisdom.' Please let me broaden these analogies to further enlighten your mind: from the Son of Heaven down to the common people, there are none who do not rely on form and mind to constitute their bodies, and receive yin and yang to transform their physical substance. One cannot, because form and mind are equal, immediately conflate the wise and the foolish; how could one, because the principle of yin and yang is uniform, identify the noble and the base? That this is impossible is an utterly luminous principle; though one forcefully equalizes them, where is the sense?"