集古今佛道論衡 3.21

3.21

太子中舍辛諝。學該文史誕傲自矜。心在道術輕弄佛法。染翰著論詳略釋宗。時有對者。諝必碎之於地。謂僧中之無人也。慧淨法師不勝其侮。乃裁論以擬之曰。披覽高論博究精微。旨贍文華驚心眩目。辯超炙輠理跨聯環。幽難勃以縱橫。掞藻紛其駱驛。非夫哲士誰其溢心。瞻彼上人固難與對。輕持不敏寧酬客難。來論云。一音演說各隨類解。蠕動眾生皆有佛性。然則佛陀之與大覺。語從俗異。智慧之與般若。義本玄同。習智覺若非勝因。念佛慧豈登妙果。答曰。大哉斯舉也。深固幽遠理涉嫌疑。今當為子略陳梗概。若乃問同答異。文郁郁於孔書。名一義乖。理明明於釋典。若名同不許義異。則問一不得答殊。此例既昇彼並自沒。如有未喻更為提撕。夫以住無所住。萬善所以兼修。為無不為。一音所以齊應。豈止絕聖棄智抱一守雌。冷然獨善義無兼濟。較言優劣其可倫乎。二宗既辯百難斯滯。論云。必彼此名言遂可分別。一音各解乃翫空談。答曰。誠如來旨。亦須分別。竊以逍遙一也。鵬鷃不可齊於九萬。榮枯同管。椿菌不可齊乎八千。而況爝火之侔日月。浸灌之方時雨。寧有分同明潤而遂均其曜澤哉。至若山毫一其小大。彭殤均其壽夭。庭楹亂其橫竪。施厲混其妍媸。斯由相待不足相奪可忘莊生所以絕其有封。謂未始無物。斯則以余分別攻子分別。子亡分別即余亡分別矣。君子劇談幸無虛論。一言易失駟馬難追。斯文誠矣。深可慎哉。論云。諸行無常觸類緣起。復心有待資氣涉求。然則我淨受於熏修。慧定成於繕剋。答曰。無常者故吾去也。緣起者新吾來也。故吾去矣。吾豈常乎。新吾來矣。吾豈斷乎。新故相傳。假熏修以成淨。美惡更代。非繕剋而難功。是則生滅破於斷常。因果顯乎中觀。斯寔莊釋玄同東西理會。而吾子去彼取此。得無謬乎。論曰。續鳧截鶴庸詎真如。草化蜂飛何居弱喪　答曰。夫自然者報分也。熏修者業理也。報分已定。二鳥無羨於短長。業理資緣。兩蟲有待而飛化。然則事像易疑沈冥難曉。幽求之土淪惑罔息。至乃道圓四果尚昧衣珠。位隆十地猶昏羅縠。聖賢固其若此。而況庸庸者乎。自非鑒鏡三明雄飛七辯。安能妙契玄極敷究幽微。貧道籍以受業家門朋從是寄。希能擇善敢進蒭蕘。如或鏗然願詳金牒。於是辛氏頂受斯文頓裂邪網　有李遠問舍人者。曾讀斯論意所未詳。便以示沙門法琳。請廣其義類。琳乃答曰。蒙示辛氏與淨法師齊物論。大約兩問。詞旨宏贍理致幽絕。既開義府特曜文鋒。舉佛性平等之談。引群生各解之說。陳彼此之兩難。辯玄同之一問。非夫契彼寰中。孰能振斯高論。美則美矣。疑頗疑焉。何者尋上皇朝徹。始流先覺之名。法王應物。爰標佛陀之號。智慧者蓋分別之小術。般若者乃無知之大宗。分別緣起。所以強稱先覺。無知性寂。於是假謂佛陀。分別既於外有數。無知則於內無心。於外有數。分別之見不亡。於內無心。誘引之功莫匱。甚秋毫之方巨嶽。踰尺鷃之比大鵬。不可同年而語矣。莊生云。吾亡是非不亡彼此。庸詎然乎。所以小智不及大智。小年不及大年。惟彭祖之特聞。非眾人之所逮也。況三世之理不差。二諦之門可驗。是以聖立因果。凡夫有得聖之期。道稱自然。學者無成道之聖。從微至著。憑繕剋而方妍。乘因趣果。籍熏修而始見。彼既知而故問。余亦述而略答。詳夫一音普被。弱喪由是同歸。四智廣覃。真如以之自顯。自顯也者惟微惟彰。同歸也者孰來孰去。蓋知隨業受報。二鳥不嫌其短長。因濕致生。兩蟲無擇於飛化。不存待與無待。明即待之非待矣。請試論之。昔闞澤有言。孔老法天諸天法佛。洪範九疇承天制用。上方十善奉佛慈風。若將孔老以匹聖尊。可謂子貢賢於仲尼。跛鼈陵於駿驥。欲觀渤澥更保涓流。何異蔽目而視毛端。却行以求郢路。非所應也。非所應也。且王導周顗宰輔之冠蓋。王濛謝尚人倫之羽儀。次則郄超王謐劉璆謝客等。並江左英彥七十餘人。皆學綜九流才映千古。咸言性靈真要可以持身濟俗者。莫過於釋氏之教。及宋文帝與何尚之王玄保等。亦有此談。如宇內並遵斯要。吾當坐致太平矣。尚之又云。十善暢則人天興。五戒行則鬼畜絕。其實濟世之玄範。豈造次而可論乎。中舍學富才高文華理切。秦懸一字蜀掛千金。何以當茲奇麗也。不量管見輕陳鄙俚。敢此有酬以麻續組耳。李舍人得琳重釋。渙然神解重疑頓消。仍以斯論廣於視聽。故得二文雙顯。各其志乎。

The Palace Writer Xin Xu was widely learned in literature and history, yet arrogant and self-complacent. His mind was set on Daoist arts, and he made light of the Buddha-Dharma. Taking up his brush to write a treatise, he picked over and evaluated the Buddhist doctrine; whenever someone offered a rebuttal, Xu invariably dashed it to the ground, asserting that there were no real men among the saṅgha. The Dharma Master Huijing could not bear his insults and composed a treatise to respond to him, saying: “Having perused your lofty treatise and broadly investigated its refined subtleties, its intent is rich, its rhetoric ornate, startling the mind and dazzling the eyes. Its eloquence surpasses the turning axle; its reasoning strides beyond linked rings. Profound objections surge forth in all directions, and blossoming prose streams in continuous succession. Were it not for a philosopher, who could pour forth such thought? Looking upon you, worthy sir, it is indeed difficult to contend with you; rashly bringing my meager talent, how could I properly answer my guest's challenge? Your treatise states: ‘A single sound is proclaimed, yet each understands according to their kind; all wriggling and moving living beings possess the Buddha-nature. This being so, between ‘Buddha’ and ‘Great Awakened One’, the expressions merely differ according to worldly custom; between ‘wisdom’ and ‘prajñā’, their meanings are fundamentally and mysteriously identical. If practicing wisdom and awakening is not a superior cause, how could mindfulness of Buddha-wisdom scale the wondrous fruit?’ In reply I say: Great indeed is this assertion! It is deep, firm, subtle, and far-reaching, yet its reasoning borders on confusion. Now I shall briefly outline the essentials for you. When a question is one yet the answers differ, the literature is resplendent in the writings of Confucius; when names are one yet the meanings diverge, the principle is luminous in the Buddhist scriptures. If identical names do not permit divergent meanings, then to a single question one could not give distinct replies. Once this precedent is established, that [objection of yours] collapses of itself. If there is still something not understood, I shall bring it forward again. Because one abides in non-abiding, the myriad good deeds are all practiced together; because one acts through non-action, the single sound responds simultaneously to all. How could it merely be renouncing sageliness, abandoning wisdom, embracing the One, and holding to the feminine, coldly cultivating only oneself with no intent of universal salvation? Comparing their merits and shortcomings, how could they even be mentioned in the same breath? Once the two traditions are distinguished, a hundred objections will be stalled. The treatise states: ‘If the names and words of this and that must indeed be distinguished, then each understanding from a single sound is mere trifling with empty talk.’ In reply I say: It is truly as your esteemed message says: distinctions must indeed be made. I humbly consider that although roaming at ease is one, the quail and the sparrow cannot equal the ninety-thousand [li] of the rukh; though flourishing and withering are governed together, the morning mushroom and the chūn tree cannot be equaled in eight thousand [years]. How much less could a torch match the sun and moon, or an irrigation ditch rival the seasonal rains? How could having a share in illumination and moisture mean that their radiance and enrichment are made equal? As for treating the mountain and the hair-tip as one in size, equating Pengzu and the dead infant in longevity and early death, confounding vertical and horizontal in courtyard pillars, or mistaking the beauty and ugliness of Xishi and the leper—these are because dependent relationships are insufficient to hold to, while mutual cancellations can be forgotten; this is why Master Zhuang severed all demarcations and said there has never yet begun to be anything. This, then, uses my distinctions to attack your distinctions; once you abandon distinctions, my distinctions are abandoned as well. When gentlemen engage in profound discussion, let there be no vain words. A single word easily slips, and a team of four horses cannot overtake it. These words are true indeed, and one must be deeply cautious! The treatise states: ‘Conditioned phenomena are impermanent, arising through conditions according to their types; the returning mind has dependencies, relying on qi to pursue its quest. This being so, my purity is received through perfumed cultivation, and wisdom and concentration are accomplished through diligent effort.’ In reply I say: Impermanence means that the former ‘self’ departs; conditioned arising means that the new ‘self’ arrives. The former ‘self’ has departed—how could ‘I’ be eternal? The new ‘self’ has arrived—how could ‘I’ be annihilated? The new and the old transmit each other; borrowing perfumed cultivation, purity is accomplished. Beauty and ugliness alternate; without diligent effort, achievement is difficult. Thus arising and ceasing destroy eternalism and annihilationism, and causes and fruits reveal the Middle View. This is truly the mysterious accord of Zhuangzi and Buddhism, the meeting of principles between East and West. Yet you, sir, reject that and seize this—is that not an error? The treatise states: ‘Extending the duck’s legs or truncating the crane’s—how could that be Suchness? Grass transforming or bees flying—where lies the straying youth?’ In reply I say: Naturalness is the allotted retribution; perfumed cultivation is the principle of karma. Once the allotted retribution is fixed, the two birds have no envy over short or long; when the principle of karma relies on conditions, the two insects depend on them to fly and transform. This being so, phenomenal appearances are easy to doubt, yet the profound and hidden is difficult to comprehend; scholars who seek into the subtle drown in delusion without end. Even when the Path is perfected in the four fruits, one may still be unaware of the jewel in one’s garment; though exalted in the ten stages, one may still be blinded by the gossamer veil. If sages and worthies are indeed like this, how much more so the mediocre? Unless one mirrors the three clarities and soars with the sevenfold eloquence, how could one wonderfully tally with the mysterious ultimate and thoroughly investigate the subtle and profound? A poor monk like me relies on the tradition inherited from my lineage, and depends on the company of friends. Hoping you can choose the good, I venture to offer these humble words; if they ring true, I hope you will consult the golden scriptures.” Thereupon, Master Xin received this text upon his head, immediately tearing apart the net of false views. There was a Secretariat Drafter named Li Yuan who had once read this treatise but did not fully grasp its meaning, so he showed it to the śramaṇa Falin, asking him to expand upon its categories of meaning. Lin then replied, saying: “I have received the Treatise on the Equality of Things exchanged between Master Xin and Dharma Master [Hui]jing. It contains roughly two questions, with grand and rich phrasing and profoundly exceptional reasoning. It opens a treasury of doctrine and uniquely displays the sharpness of literary talent, raising the discourse on the equality of Buddha-nature, citing the teaching that all living beings understand each according to their kind, setting forth the two objections regarding this and that, and distinguishing the single question of mysterious accord. Were it not for one who tallies with the inner realm of the universe, who could raise such a lofty treatise? It is beautiful indeed, yet it also invites doubt. Why is this? In tracing back to the morning illumination of the High Emperors, the name ‘First Awakened One’ first began to spread; when the Dharmarāja responded to phenomena, he thereupon manifested the title ‘Buddha’. ‘Wisdom’ is merely a minor technique of discrimination; ‘prajñā’ is the great principle of non-knowing. Discriminating conditioned arising is why he is arbitrarily called the First Awakened One; non-knowing is fundamentally tranquil, and hence he is provisionally termed the Buddha. Since discrimination has reckoning externally, non-knowing has no-mind internally. Having reckoning externally, the view of discrimination is not extinguished; having no-mind internally, the power of guiding beings is never exhausted. This exceeds the autumn hair compared to the great mountain, and surpasses the tiny sparrow compared to the great rukh; they cannot be spoken of in the same breath! Master Zhuang said: ‘I have abandoned right and wrong, but not this and that.’ How could that be so? Therefore lesser wisdom does not equal greater wisdom; short years do not equal long years. Only Pengzu was exceptionally renowned, which ordinary men could not reach. How much more so since the principle of the three times does not err, and the gate of the two truths can be verified! Therefore the sage establishes cause and effect, so that ordinary people have a time to attain sageliness; Daoism speaks of naturalness, yet practitioners have no sage who achieves the Way. Going from subtle to manifest, only by relying on diligent effort does it become beautiful; mounting causes to advance toward fruits, only by depending on perfumed cultivation is it first seen. Since he asked knowingly, I also expound and briefly reply. Looking closely into it, the single sound universally covers, and straying youths thereby return together; the fourfold wisdom widely extends, and Suchness thereby reveals itself. As for revealing itself, it is both subtle and manifest; as for returning together, who comes and who goes? One must know that retribution is received according to karma: the two birds do not complain of their short or long [legs]; arising due to moisture, the two insects do not choose their flying or transforming. Not positing dependency and non-dependency makes it clear that dependency is non-dependency. Let us test this argument. In former times Kan Ze said: ‘Confucius and Laozi modeled themselves on Heaven; the devas model themselves on the Buddha. The nine categories of the Great Plan follow Heaven in establishing practice; the ten virtues above follow the benevolent breeze of the Buddha.’ If one compares Confucius and Laozi to the Sage Honoured One, it is like saying Zigong was worthier than Zhongni, or a lame turtle outpaced a swift steed. Wishing to view the great sea yet continuing to preserve trickling streams—how does this differ from covering one’s eyes to look at the tip of a hair, or walking backward to seek the road to Ying? It is not fitting! It is not fitting! Furthermore, Wang Dao and Zhou Yi were the foremost of prime ministers; Wang Meng and Xie Shang were models of human society. Next, Xi Chao, Wang Mi, Liu Qiu, Xie Ke, and others, totaling over seventy eminent figures east of the Yangtze, all synthesized the nine streams of learning, and their talent outshone a thousand ages. All said that among the true essentials of the spiritual nature that can cultivate the self and save society, nothing surpasses the teachings of the Śākya clan. Down to Emperor Wen of the Song dynasty, along with He Shangzhi, Wang Xuanbao, and others, there were also such discussions, saying: ‘If all within the realm observe this essential, I can sit back and bring about great peace.’ Shangzhi also said: ‘When the ten virtues flourish, humans and devas prosper; when the five precepts are practiced, ghosts and beasts cease.’ Truly, regarding this mysterious model for saving the world, how could it be discussed rashly? You, Secretariat Drafter, possess vast learning and high talent, with ornate literature and acute reasoning; in Qin, a single character was suspended, and in Shu, a thousand gold pieces were hung—how could they match this wondrous brilliance? Not measuring my narrow view, I have rashly set forth these vulgar words, venturing to reply merely like hemp joining silk embroidery.” When Secretariat Drafter Li received Lin’s re-explanation, he understood it with a flash of insight, and his heavy doubts instantly vanished. He then used this treatise to broaden what people saw and heard; thus both texts were manifested together, each expressing their intent.