集古今佛道論衡 3.21

3.21

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.