[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [集沙門不應拜俗等事](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108) › 1.40 # 集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.40 集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.40 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1.40) 二答　奉告并垂重難。具承高旨。此理微緬至難措言。又一代大事應時詳盡。下官才非拔幽特乏研析且妙難精詣益增茫惑。但高音既臻。不敢默已。輒復率其短見。妄酬來誨。無以啟發容致祇用反側。願復詢諸道人通才蠲其不逮。公云。宗致為是何耶。若以學業為宗致者。則學之所學。故是發其自然之性耳。苟自然有在所由而稟。則自然之本居可知矣。今以為宗致者。是所趣之至導。學業者日用之筌蹄今將欲趣彼至極。不得不假筌蹄以自運耳。故知所假之功。未是其絕處也。夫積學以之極者。必階麁以及妙。魚獲而筌廢。理斯見矣。公以為神奇之化易。仁義之功難。聖人何緣舍所易之實道而為難行之末事哉。其不然也。亦以明矣。意以為佛之為教與內聖永殊。既云其殊理則無並。今論佛理故當依其宗而立言也。然後通塞之塗。可得而詳矣。前答所以云。仁善之行。不殺之旨。其若似可同者。故引以就此耳。至於發言抗論。津徑所歸固難得而一矣。然愚意所見。乃更以佛教為難也。何以言之。今內聖所明以為出其言。善應若影嚮。如其不善千里違之。如此則美惡應於俄頃。禍福交於目前。且為仁由已。弘之則是而猶有棄正而即邪。背道而從欲者矣。況佛教喻一生於彈指。期要終于永劫。語靈異之無位。設報應於未兆。取之能信。不亦難乎。是以化暨中國。悟之者尠。故本起經云。正言似反。此之謂矣。 > Second Reply: > > I have received your letter with its repeated objections, fully taking in your noble ideas. This principle is subtle and abstruse, exceedingly difficult to express in words. Moreover, as this is a momentous affair of the present era, it must be thoroughly clarified in due time. My talent does not fathom the profound, and I especially lack analytical penetration; furthermore, the wondrous principle is difficult to attain with precision, which only increases my bewilderment. But since your noble words have arrived, I dare not remain silent, and so again presumptuously put forward my shallow views to make a clumsy reply to your instruction. Unable to elucidate your magnanimous intent, I am only uneasy and anxious, hoping you will also consult the various men of the Way who possess comprehensive talent to remedy my deficiencies. > > You ask: "What is this shared purpose? If study and practice are taken as the shared purpose, then that which is studied only brings forth one's spontaneous nature. If the spontaneous nature has a source from which it is received, then the root of this spontaneity can be readily known." Now, I consider the shared purpose to be the supreme guide to which one aspires; study and practice are the daily fish-traps and hare-snares. Seeking now to reach that ultimate end, one cannot help but rely on the fish-traps and hare-snares to transport oneself. Thus we know that the effort one relies upon is not yet the ultimate realm. Those who accumulate learning to reach the ultimate must ascend from the coarse to the subtle; "once the fish is caught, the trap is discarded"—the principle is evident here. > > You consider transformation through the miraculous to be easy, and the work of benevolence and righteousness to be difficult, asking why the sages would abandon the true way that is easy to engage in the non-essential affairs that are difficult to practice, concluding that its falsehood is also quite clear. In my view, the Buddha's teaching and the inner sages are eternally distinct; since they are distinct, their principles cannot be conflated. Now in discussing the Buddhist principle, one must naturally base one's words upon its own doctrine; only then can the paths of obstruction and unobstructed flow be examined in detail. The reason my former reply said that practices of benevolence and goodness and the principle of not killing seem to be compatible was merely to draw them into agreement on this point. As for setting forth arguments, the paths to which they lead are indeed difficult to unify. > > Yet in my humble opinion, the Buddhist teachings are rather the more difficult! Why do I say this? Now, what the inner sages illuminate holds that if one utters good words, the response is like an echo, and if one's words are not good, people oppose them from a thousand li away. In this way, good and bad respond in an instant, and calamity and fortune confront one right before one's eyes. Moreover, practicing benevolence depends on oneself, and broadening it brings correctness; yet there are still those who abandon the upright to pursue the perverse, and turn their backs on the Way to follow their desires. How much more so when the Buddhist teaching compares a single lifetime to the snap of a finger and sets the final culmination in eternal kalpas, speaking of miracles beyond fixed status and positing retribution before any omen appears? To bring people to believe this—is it not exceedingly difficult? Therefore, since its transformation reached the Central Realm, those who realize it have been few. Thus the Benqi jing says: "True words seem paradoxical." This is what it means. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1.39) - [Next: 1.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1.41) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108~en-mt.1.40) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.12.77) — 僧祐, Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.1.40) · Pramāṇa