T2102 The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Vol. I

Letter to the Daoist Gu [Huan] (420–483)

41b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I "Your discussion says,

'[You may wholeheartedly follow in the footprints

of the Buddha] without disgracing the foundation of Daoism. ' On what point

[in the foundation of Daoism] must we bring no disgrace? If when you search the traces of Daoists you think you find that its derivation is the same as that of Buddhism, the real meaning of the ultimate truth can be found in writings. Do we ascertain [the real meaning of the ultimate truth] in the Dao chapter [in the Daodejing] or do we encounter it in the Dechapter? If both chapters [of the Daodejing] are not what you follow and you attain the profound [meaning of the ultimate truth] in your mind, this is naturally your subjective point of view and it is simply the third [standpoint], following [those of] Laozi and Śākyamuni. Probably you can establish another school independently. This is not what I dare to bring up here. "

"You say in the Discourse on the Way to Reach the Origin[of the Two Teachings],

'The two states of Yu and Rui had legal struggles over farmland, but this is something with which King Wen did not have to be concerned. . . . This means to put a deerskin cap on the head in vain and to hold a staff with rings in the hand to fabricate oneself. How could I understand this?'" Zhou says,

"You said that '[the old man] in Ku [county in Chu] concealed [the doctrine of "emptiness is] precisely form" for the time being. ' If that is

the case, the nothingness (xukong) [advocated by Laozi] is insufficient. You said that 'The Dharma-nature seeks emptiness by means of [the doctrine that emptiness] is precisely form.

' If this is so, the Dharma-nature is perfect. Now

here is a man who talks about the Dharma-nature holding a staff with rings. A scholar wearing a deerskin cap arrives, and grasping the absolute vacancy, says with censure,

'Your [view] is not the same as mine. I will fight against you.

' You serenely lean against a thorny tree (in ancient times, a place where lawsuits would be heard) and pass judgment after hearing the argument between them. You say that neither of them is good, and you comment that one of them wears a deerskin cap on his head in vain and the other holds a staff with rings in his hand in order to fabricate himself. If you, a sharp and outstanding person, cast such judgments, the people of Yu and Rui will be very sad.

Teachings],

"You say in the Discourse on the Way to Reach the Origin[of the Two 'Although I do not fly with a flap of the wings up to the four 244

Fascicle Six

fruits [of sainthood in the Hinayana], you have no doubt that I abide in Buddhism. Even though I do not fly with a flap of the wings up to the five supernatural powers, what regret would I have in abiding in Daoism?'" Zhou says,

"You said,

'I do not fly with a flap of the wings up to the four fruits' but still you diligently abide in Buddhism. You said, 'I do not fly with

a flap of the wings up to the five supernatural powers. ' Why do you cast aside

only the Daoist trace?

"Since this is illogical, I have just made such a complaint. "You say in the Discourse on the Way to Reach the Origin[of the Two Teachings],

'You precisely want to arrange Confucianism in a line and encircle Daoism. Therefore, you act as if you first prick up your ears. '"

Zhou says,

"Your Discourse on the Way to Reach the Origin[of the Two Teachingsconsists of] only the origin of Daoism and does not refer to that of Confucianism. Since I have doubts about this lack, I inquired about it to you. I have not known about directing oneself joyfully. Can one [direct himself] joyfully only by Daoism? Is it possible that he directs himself joyfully while cultivating in Confucianism? Even though this is not the main point of our discussion, if I speak freely, I must come to [this point]. I will be fortunate if you give me extra instruction in your spare time, apart from explaining about the foundation. "

I (i.e., Sengyou) have researched the criticisms and questions between Zhou and Zhang. Although the correspondence between them is numerous, the standpoints, intentions, and grounds of their arguments can be found in their earliest correspondence. Therefore I omitted their later writings. My purpose is to keep to the main point of the discussion. Letter to the Daoist Gu [Huan]

(420-483) by Xie Zhenzhi

I, Xie Zhenzhi, say, I respectfully read the Discourse on the Non-Chinese and the Chinese. You argue and discuss the origin [of Buddhism and Daoism] in detail on the basis of the scriptures of these two teachings. The expression [of the Discourse] is clear; it is a brilliant composition. [The writing style] is as sonorous as the harmony of the notes gongand shang.It is full of strenuous endeavors in the profound principle. It is enjoyable! 245

41c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I Regardless of my narrow view and ignorance, I put forth my efforts to steal a glance at the profound ultimate law of Nature. I painstakingly explore what is profound, but I have nothing at all on which to rely. I, however, have tried to take a lesson [from the Discourse on the Non-Chinese and the Chinese] and read it more than three times, but my humble doubts have not yet been resolved. I would like to slightly express my doubts, hoping to hear your explanations later.

At the beginning of the Discourseyou state that the Buddha is precisely Laozi and Laozi is none other than the Buddha.

477 Moreover, you compare

the transformation of becoming a Transcendent [in Daoism] with nirvana [in Buddhism] and see that longevity [in Daoism] is equal to no death [in Buddhism]. Accordingly, you refer to the worldly instructions in order to tally them with the profound teaching (i.e., Buddhism). When I collect examples of these words, they probably appear equal to [those of Buddhism]. In the last [section of the Discourse, however], you ridicule [Buddhism] and say that [Buddhist monks] annihilate Chinese [traditional customs] and reject [ancestor] worship. In addition, you say that [the foreign language used by Buddhists] is similar to the noisy chirps of insects or birds, and that it is not something we should follow. Please let me try to speak about these issues. The Duke of Zhou and Confucius took Confucianism and Mozi's teaching as a model to be followed. Laozi and Zhuangzi spoke about the teaching and clarified a method to lead to [the Way]. These [efforts] all open [the Way] little by little and cause [people] to approach the Way, [but the people] have not yet been ready for the great development [to the Way] with these. Moreover, insects and birds are different species [from human beings]. The edification originally separates from the Way. When we want to say something about this, we must first investigate the reasons.

Originally, when a person participates in the two polarities (i.e., Heaven and Earth), this is called the three powers (sancai). How could the foreign country (i.e., India) and China be divided in a place governed by the three powers? Then, we know that a person must be part of the human species and an animal must belong to groups of animals. Let us seek [an example of this] in familiar matters. The seven treasures are what people love. Consequently, Chinese and non-Chinese people equally value them. Since being respectful is what people honor, people of the world are sincerely concerned with this. 246

Fascicle Six

Hence, perfect marital relations were practiced in the four states, 478 not to

mention the influences of the great edification. Wouldn't it then be diffused throughout the trichiliocosm?

Speaking on the basis of Buddhist scriptures, you perhaps have heard that the Buddha appeared in the world. He united all traditional teachings into one; the world was placed in one orbit. At the time Śākyamuni was first cultivating as a bodhisattva, he extensively edified people. Those who lived in that land when he attained buddhahood were granted special benevolences and favors; and they were all reborn in our domain. Our [domain] means Jambudvīpa (i.e., the continent situated to the south of Mount Sumeru). [People,] however, have been deluded for a long time in [the transmigration of] birth and death; they have followed and been imbued with secular customs; they temporarily lose the right path; and they simply have not been aware of the present enlightenment.

I think that the Sage looks down upon all with the wisdom of the three transcendental knowledges, observes the faculties of each person, and understands that [faculties] vary from person to person. Therefore, he expounded [the teaching of] the three vehicles and spread it.

First of all, the true Way is only one and the Dharma is nondual, too. Now, for the time being [the teaching of] the three vehicles is expounded and there are different ways to guide [people], but the place to which all return is one. Hence, when [the Buddha] traveled about, gathered people, and expounded the teaching, those who attained awakening were as numerous as grains of sand. In saving [people] from drowning [in extreme misery] and delivering them from delusions, there is nothing to surpass this teaching. Therefore, the boundless world, including the present, the future, and the past, is collectively here. We know that the ninety-five [non-Buddhist] schools are clearly not branches [of Buddhism]. At the beginning they said that their teaching is the same [as Buddhism], but in the end they said that it is different [from Buddhism]. Consequently, we know that what [they thought] is the same at the beginning is [in fact] not the same, and what [they thought] is different is, in the end, no different either. Isn't this like absurdly beating an earthen pot and recklessly trying to harmonize with the basic sound huang zhong?479 Wouldn't this be a deception? 247

42a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I As for matters such as that [Chinese people] keep their bodies complete [at death], maintain sacrifices, wear a crown and a big sash tied behind with the ends hanging, while [non-Chinese people] throw on a felt garment, put on adornments made of shells, bury themselves in dust and dirt, and cremate the body [at death]; or, as for things such as the sound of the Zhengshi era [of the Wei kingdom] (i.e., the authentic Chinese sound) and the barbarian sound, these [indicate] only minor differences in secular manners and customs [between Chinese and non-Chinese people]. Now we see that a bird sings in the world of birds, and an animal roars in the world of beasts. If we truly hold one of many sounds and feel that it is different from all other sounds, we respond to it in a different manner. In this case, if the foreign country differs from China in the way to edify [the people], why do you mix everything up? [Your statement in the Discoursethat] if a boat [moves on land] it will be dried out, and if a carriage [sails in a river] it will be submerged, can be compared to this case.

Propriety of the secular customs is the attenuated form of loyalty and good faith;480 it is not the purity of the Way. Those who cultivate the purity of the Way strive to go against secular customs. When secular customs can be defied, the Way can be pure. It is difficult to defy secular customs. Hence, we ought to leave behind extremes. In order to leave behind extremes, you must first take off the crown, shave your head, put on a Buddhist monk's robe, and abstain from a [meat] diet. If we take off the crown, we need no expense for worldly ornamentation. When we shave the head, we need not trouble with hairpins and combs. When we put on a Buddhist monk's robe, we do not bother tailors to make our clothes. When we abstain from a [meat] diet, we stop thinking about our favorite foods. This is precisely [Laozi's saying] "Those who devote themselves to the Way [seek] from day to day to diminish [their doings].

"481 How could this be what the secular customs

of the foreign country established? Regarding [Buddhist] writings and subtle books such as the Tripiṭaka and the four Āgama sutras, they are exactly [what Laozi said:] "Those who devote themselves to learning [seek] from day to day to increase [their knowledge].

"482 How could this be what Chinese customs

could create?

Moreover, you say,

"Buddhist scriptures are complicated and illustrious,

while Daoist scriptures are concise and profound.

" Inferring from this, this

248

Fascicle Six

means that if [the scriptures] are profound, it is difficult to hope to study them intensively and to rely on them; if they are illustrious, it is easy to hope to seek them carefully; if they are concise, they must be insufficient in indicating the reasons; and if they are complicated, they are a collection of interesting points and there are many keys to the way [to awakening]. In the Buddhist teaching, anything that has a form is considered to be illusory. Therefore [Buddhists] forget themselves in order to save sentient beings. In the Daoist teaching, [on the contrary,] one's self is considered to be true. Hence [Daoists] take medicine and food in order to preserve their lives. Furthermore, if life can be preserved, could a rose of Sharon (or an althea) compete with a thousand-year-old pine tree for longevity, or could an ephemeral organism be equal to a ten thousand-year-old chuntree in life span? This is certainly impossible.

If we deeply realize that the three realms of existence are abodes for the long night of spiritual darkness, and life is a master of the great dream, 483 we

long for the Way to awakening. Why would we treasure our body? Even if our body could be refined and we could live without death, this originally differs from Laozi's fundamental way, and it is not the same as the Buddhist principle. Why do you make such a statement?

The spirit dwells in a body, similar to [how one stays] at an inn. If we go to an inn, why should we feel a persistent attachment to the eaves? The perception of the sensory perception and the form of what can be formed are not the substance of sacredness. Even the life spans of Yao and Confucius were less than a hundred years. [The period between Śākyamuni's attainment of buddhahood and] his entering nirvana is as long as the time it took [Confucius] to recognize the ordinances of Heaven (i.e., fifty years). Hence, from an eternal kalpaago, the spiritual intelligence has been purified and refined. As the spiritual intelligence has been purified [and refined], its function severs [the confrontation between] existence and nonexistence; it brilliantly transcends [the boundary between existence and nonexistence] with the wisdom of the four phrases (i.e., existence, emptiness, existence and emptiness, and neither existence nor emptiness). This is exactly genuine and the unalterable Way from beginning to end.

Furthermore, those who "carve a mark on the side of a boat" (i.e., Buddhist monks) pray to a golden [buddha image], while those who "wait by the stump" 249

The Second Letter Given to the Daoist Gu

42b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I (i.e., Daoist monks) harbor the hope to ascend to Heaven as a Transcendent sprouting wings.

484 Consequently [Buddhist monks] practice the six pāramitās in the phenomenal world, while [Daoist monks] are hindered by delusion and eat numinous mushrooms [that are believed to possess supernatural powers]. Even though being stuck in the phenomenal world is theoretically against the six pāramitās, practicing them can probably save people; but if one is hindered by delusion, he assuredly does not ascend to Heaven as a Transcendent sprouting wings. How then can he have more energy than his own share [to help others] in close touch with the realities [of life]?

When we seek some traces of the origins of two teachings (i.e., Buddhism and Daoism), there are different views, the broad and the narrow, and there is an apparent difference between superior and inferior. You cannot question closely fellows like these. They have entirely an intimate feeling of self; it is not the universal great knowledge. Then, it is known that they can discern differences in the secular customs [of China and the foreign country] by the teachings. It is sad! The profound Sage (i.e., the Buddha) is already far away. [Various schools] brilliantly have arisen competing with each other. It can be said that [to respect such teachings is like] pointing to the trails made by an insect and considering them to be the Chinese written language invented by Cang [Jie], or like drinking the milk of a poisonous insect and thinking that it is clarified butter. This is very sad!

The Buddhist Way is vast and extensive. The capacity of wisdom cannot be completely expressed. It is difficult to survey the traces of responses by form. While we argue about existence, myriad aspects are luxuriantly displayed as if a thousand mountains stand in a row. When we analyze non existence, even Mount Tai is exhausted in vain; it scatters along with an autumn down.

485 We make use of the ten powers [attributed to a buddha] in order to destroy devils (Skt. māras), and promote the four immeasurable minds in order to deliver secular people. When we raise the Dharma torch of prajñā, what dark place would we be unable to illuminate? If we concentrate with the Dharma might of samādhi, what distant place would we be unable to subdue? Why should we doubt that [the Buddhist teaching] is not effective in both the foreign country and in China?

250

Fascicle Six

The Second Letter Given

to the Daoist Gu

I, Xie Zhenzhi, address myself to you. Thank you very much for your response and explanation! I exhaustively examined the profound situation. You already have harmonized smoothly Daoism and Buddhism and yet [separated] Śākyamuni from Li (i.e., Laozi) just as separating [the muddy water of] the Jing River from [the clear water of] the Wei River. "If we prolonged each by the

addition of the proper lines, [then all events possible under the sky might have their representation.]"486 They will accordingly become games or gambles, [which are better than doing nothing]. 487 The more you explain about

the Buddha, the more obscure the exquisite purpose becomes. When we decorate a shop counter in order to trade valuables, we do not sell them on a bright night. [What you do] is like, as [the Zhuangzi] says, trying to erase your footprints by running around, or trying to stop casting a shadow by jumping.

488 How could you avoid [such criticism]? According to on what your discourse is grounded, you think that insects and birds are different species [from human beings] and that the non-Chinese and the Chinese differ from each other in manners and customs. I think that the three powers equally unite, the human reason is one, there are [only] minor differences in secular teachings, and the teaching of the Dharma is almost the same [for non-Chinese and Chinese]. You respond,

"It is found in the Book of Changes; it is not what foreign books imitate.

" Then you say "A white flag has already been

hoisted, but you do not inspect it closely and take a black flag to be white. [Your case] is different from [the historical fact in which] Cao [Gui] saw a flag [and became aware of enemy troops].

489 You arbitrarily omit all familiar

essential points in order to indicate the great conclusion. " If so, even though

a pearl is hidden in the topknot [of the wheel-turning noble king], 490 the

deception of the inconsistency is easily discovered. 491 I speak somewhat in

jest, but I do not intend to defy you at all.

The Grand Terminus is divided into the two polarities (i.e., yinand yang),

492 which are intertwined in vain. When the five skandhas get together, the body and consciousness unreasonably manifest. Consciousness is formed on the basis of defilements, while the body arises from the condition of attachment and hindrance. Before the time of Fuxi, many people were basically 251

42c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I foolish. Since they were basically foolish, they lived in trees or dwelled in caves, and [ate the flesh of birds and beasts,] drinking their blood, and swallowing [also] the hair and feathers. 493 Sovereign and subject, father and son,

saw each other just as people of the northern tribes and those of Yue state [of the south] saw each other. They were still like beasts. Moreover, they could be compared with ignorant children. It was not the world into which Daoism was introduced and where [the teaching of] love and justice had influenced the people. When the people became bogged down in desires and lost themselves in waves, they thought to deliver themselves by clinging to a precipice. When we deliver ourselves, we pray for wholesomeness. When we pray for wholesomeness, sacredness responds to us.

What is sacredness? It is what we communicate with through our receptivity to things. Communicating is not self-communication and receptivity is not self-receptivity, either. Receptivity is constantly on this side, while communication comes always from that side. Speaking from that side, [it is like] a mirror hung in a lofty hall. Speaking of this side, [it is like] all images coming back to this side. Therefore, we know that India is located in the central region of this world (Skt. sahā); since it is placed in the excellent assemblage of purity and wholesomeness, it is possible to communicate through receptivity with the ultimate sacredness, and the land is situated in the center of the trichiliocosm. Since the sacredness responded to that land (India), the voice [of the teaching] spreads in this land (China). When we see the brightness of the sun and moon, why do we have to borrow the observation of Li Zhu, [who has the excellent faculty of sight]? When we hear wrathful thunder, why do we have to have Ziye (i.e., music master Kuang, a blind musician of the Spring and Autumn period) hear it? Consequently, it does not matter that different things, such as the humble and the noble, go with each other in the same way, and in the difference between the two polarities of left and right there is no harm in natural relations. Since there is no harm in natural relations, [the people gather like] clouds and practice the Dharma teaching. Since it does not matter that [different things] go with each other, [the Dharma teaching] bestows [mercy], just like the rain falls on both the foreign country and China.

The Way is one, while form is dual. The Way is truth, and form is worldliness. Since truth is still one, worldliness is still dual. We make a thorough 252

Fascicle Six

investigation of duality to attain unity; we ought to unify the law. If we eliminate worldliness and return to truth, we will certainly go against worldliness. For this reason, the Tathāgata established the model and made various teachings the same in the eternal past. If Confucius and Laozi were the Buddha, they would dim the light, secretly lead [the people], rectify their prejudice to deliver them, establish benevolence, create righteousness, and conform to secular people's feelings. Hence, [people] maintain their bodies [at death] to be complete, continue [ancestor] worship, extend their kindness to their family members of the six relations, attend to their health, nourish their natures, [establish] themselves, and [do not adhere to] other things. However while these are considered to be very good, they are not considered to be perfect. Probably this is for a limited system; [neither of them] "whip up their lagging [sheep] (i.e., neglecting one of two aspects).

"494 How is it possible to compare

the Way with supreme enlightenment (Skt. bodhi), and to compare the sages (i.e., Confucius and Laozi) with Śākyamuni?

When Buddhism is expounded clearly, it has essential points and it is competent and extensive. Since it has essential points and is competent and extensive, [people of] exquisite [faculties] and those of coarse [faculties] fathom it. Since [people of] exquisite [faculties] and those of coarse [faculties] fathom it, strongness and weakness agree with each other. Therefore, the pure ferry [to truth] reaches profound points; it is really a pair of accurate compasses. It is easy to draw a circle by using a pair of compasses, but difficult to do this only by hand. Why wouldn't we follow the easy way and abandon the difficult way?

Daoist scriptures are simple and crude. Many are composed in a farfetched manner. Regarding scriptures such as the Wonderful Scripture of the Truth of the Numinous Jewel(Lingbao miaozhenjing), [the Daoists] adopted the Lotus Sutra(Fahuajing) for it. Their manner of composition is particularly poor. As for scriptures such as the Scripture of the Yellow Court(Huang ting jing) of the Shangqing (Supreme Purity) school, what it upholds is ingesting drugs: to chew rocks and eat clouds. It is not simply that their law cannot be followed, it is also difficult to consider that their way is the same [as that of Buddhists]. Among [such texts], the good point is found only in the teaching of the Five Thousand Words(i.e., Daodejing), which completely employs wuwei. Yet to completely employ wuweihas not been able to remove existence. If to 253

43a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I remove existence is their purpose, what then do they nourish with numinous mushrooms?

The nine philosophical schools [of China] are even closer to what [the teaching of] the three vehicles of the Buddhist school leads to. Since the nine philosophical schools are even closer to [what the Buddhist teaching of the three vehicles leads to], we attain [the movements of] motion and rest here. The noumenal principle of meditative power is merely part of [the teaching of] the three [vehicles]; it is not the culmination. Meditation sutras are subtle. The characteristics of the objective world are exquisite and profound. Even if we try to become united in truth with these, it is still impossible to accomplish it.

Now you say,

"The Way lies in wuweiand is simply to attain the One. "

"It lies in wuweiand is simply to attain the One" means to commune with what is profound for a thousand years. If you would like to commune with what is profound for a thousand years,

495 I need not wait for your lofty talk.

[Buddhism] is the brilliant ultimate law that leads people to reach the refined state. If one were to reject studying and refining his thought, would this not be negligence? How could it be a tentative method to lead to Daoism? Examining respectfully what you said, [I come to know that] not only do you not understand Buddhism, you do not understand Daoism either. I send a poem to you to offer a little laugh.

The poem says:

[Heaven and Earth] go on. The light becomes dim. The profound Sage (i.e., the Buddha) concealed himself (i.e., entered nirvana).

The long night drifts slowly. Many stars shine brightly. When the sun luminously rises and shines, the lunar mansions rapidly disappear.

Round and square [pieces of wood] should be uniform for use as construction materials,

Even though they are different from each other as raw materials. If one is solely deluded, he is not awakened. The big-headed fellows are surprised that [the Buddha] departs [and goes] far away.

254

Fascicle Six

Bian He [of Chu state] wept bitterly at the foot of Mount Jing. 496

How could we onesidedly blame King Li of Chu state? Even if a good grasscutter slights prajñā, How could we censure transcendental wisdom? End of Fascicle Six of The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification[of Buddhism]

255

Fascicle Seven

Critique of the Daoist Gu's Discourse on

the Non-Chinese and the Chinese by

Zhu Zhaozhi, Attendant-in-Ordinary

I read your lofty talk on the non-Chinese and the Chinese. You discuss the two teachings (i.e., Buddhism and Daoism) and present the purposes of each of the scriptures. [Your opinion] deeply accords with what is profound, and your wonderful words are virtuous and pleasant. It is not a meaningless statement. Formerly Ying Jifu (i.e., Ying Zheng of the Jin dynasty, ?-269) saw that [the teachings of] Confucius and Laozi are equal, and now in a later generation you, our wise man, consider that [the teachings of] Li (i.e., Laozi) and Śākyamuni are also equal. The distinct paths for all ages are united into one path in the present dynasty. Questions and disputes for successive generations are happily [satisfied] today. You appreciate [the teachings] deeply and understand them profoundly. There are many people who are cleansed and comforted. There is no discussion more beneficial to the world than this. Regarding statements of the favorable aspects of each (i.e., Buddhism and Daoism), however, there are points as close together as the liver and the gall bladder, and points as far apart as Chu state and Yue state. This is because it is not understood that although there are two different tastes, sweet and bitter, they must be the same in nature in order to make a body. Therefore, [Buddhists and Daoists] attack each other and then strange doctrines arise. [Disputes] are repeated and become complicated. This causes quite a lot of harm. It is pitiful! [Your discourse] is at the beginning, just as [when the sun] rises in the sky and the light covers the outside of this world; and yet in the end, just as [the sun] sets in an abyss, the light is obscured and the brightness is lost. If a spiritual guide loses himself, many others are also lost. Therefore, I forget that I am shallow and ignorant, and then lead and deliver [others]. Now, I will first express my thoughts [about your Discourse] and later I will speak of what I find regrettable. I think that since "it is right to follow the good [way smoothly,] as on the course of a stream,

"497 it is not regrettable

merely to go against traditional [notions]. I live far away from you, [beyond] 257

43b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I the mountain and rivers where you live, and I cannot expect to have a good conversation [with you in person]. So, I send this to you for the time being in order to temporarily substitute it for a [face-to-face] meeting. Once the flags of our feelings meet each other, what we have explained is not shallow. I, Zhu Zhaozhi, speak.

Since the sacred Way is void and tranquil, it perfectly responds to anything with no set pattern; because of its response with no set pattern, it responds to everything. Therefore, if we inspect the mind from the point of sacredness, originally there is no name in a myriad of understandings. When things are spontaneously understood and named, with the names they are considered to be evident. Hence, those who have complete intelligence are called ones of right, perfect enlightenment (Skt. samyaksaṃbodhi); those who smoothly and thoroughly understand are called sages; and what opens up [the knowledge of the issues of] things and accomplishes the undertakings [of men] is called the Way.

498 In this case, a sage is merely the one of right, perfect enlightenment and the one of right, perfect enlightenment is nothing other than the Way. You should understand this. Why is it necessary to seek it in a distant place? The Chinese and the non-Chinese differ from each other in manners and customs, and also, in terms of their affections, they are different. Since sages usually take action in accordance with [all things], there is probably a difference in the establishment of each teaching. Nevertheless, [Chinese] rules of propriety and the [Buddhist] pure precepts have three hundred rules, they are equal in number, and there are equally three thousand [rules of] deportment or formal manners [in both China and the non-Chinese country]. What may differ between [China and the non-Chinese country] lies only in the names "Buddhism" and "Daoism" and in their appearances. A mastermind still considers the physical body to be like an inn (i.e., a temporary abode). How would it be worthwhile for him to discuss the Chinese formal dress called gunmian?499 What may be questioned lies only in the beginning of establishing teachings, in which China and the non-Chinese country differ from each other in their function. It is proper to argue the point that present manners and customs are managed concurrently and will change according to the current of the times. Now I will speak about this point. In a sage's instruction, action is certainly based on the right order. In the eastern country (i.e., China), where splendor is valued, there is the Chinese 258

Fascicle Seven

formal dress called gunmian;the formal manners of ceremonies and music; rules for deportment; and decorations such as full court dress, a formal gown, a crown, and hairpins, in order to propagate the [sages'] way; it is probably [intended] to lead [the people] to become close to [the sages' way]. Since simplicity is valued in non-Chinese manners and customs, the people are instructed with extreme plainness; a shaved head is [considered] a beautiful appearance; clothing is made without cutting to shape; emotions are calmed; the intellectual function is opened; and the spirit is expected to be free [from anxiety and agitation] for kalpas, in order to develop the minds; it is [intended] to recommend [people] to keep away from [extravagance].

The Daoist teaching is to take transcendent elixirs called zhiying, to eat clouds, to take [golden] elixir, to breathe in the Grand One (taiyi), to exhale the old, and to inhale the new. The great [achievement] is that the spirit flies [out of the body], sprouting wings [as a Transcendent]. The minor [achievement] is that the body becomes light and strong and has no illness; that is to say, maintaining the body, one can expect the efficacies. All three teachings (i.e., Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism) have one function of being moved by something and responding to it, but this is not what I think is the culmination [of the Way].

The culmination of the Way is neither splendid nor simple, neither following nor leaving, neither close nor distant, neither abandoned nor sustained by anyone, neither partisan nor nonpartisan, and neither slandered nor praised; it completely flows without obstruction and it is tranquil and vast. This is tentatively called nonexistence. The subtle state [of the mind] is like this. How is it different from this?

Nevertheless, since the time of the [Three] Augusts and [Fu]xi, each [of the sages] propagated his own way, which has been transmitted in a lineage, and there was no interaction [between different lineages]. This is really due to the fact that they were all satisfied with [their own way] and never sought [any teaching] other than their own. Therefore, from the time of the Han dynasty on, simple customs have degenerated, benevolence and righteousness have gradually declined, the rules of the Great Way have not been transmitted, studies of the Five Classics have declined even more, great justice has already become perversely bad, and sublime and profound words have vanished as well. No one roams at "the gate of many wonders" [that Laozi asserts];500 259

43c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I deportment based on the golden mean is not observed, the art of courtesy is already ruined, Chinese ceremonial music falls as well, [Chinese traditional] manners and customs come to an end, there is no division between sovereign and subject, the authentic teaching has deteriorated, and human ethics have become disordered.

Thereupon, the sacred way (i.e., Buddhism) completely governs [all things] and reaches distant lands as time goes by. The profound edification was transmitted to the eastern land (i.e., China) and granted benevolence to this world and kindness to sentient beings. The people despise what they learned previously and were delighted with what they newly heard. They showed their obedience and followed [the teaching] harmoniously. The essential significance has been revived. Consequently, houses of sublime and profound words (i.e., Buddhist temples) were built here and there, and there are guests (i.e., Buddhist monks) who chant the profound words all around. This can be observed in reality; it is not merely empty talk, a series of vain words. Isn't this just that everything cannot end with the pihexagram (i.e., Confucianism), which is received by the tongrenhexagram (i.e., Buddhism) [in the Book of Changes]?501

I think that the sages nurturing common people is like an affectionate mother raising a baby. When [the baby] begins to eat, she feeds the baby tasty meat; when [the baby] becomes bored of the tasty meat, she changes [his food] to tallow and honey; and when [the baby] is tired of tallow and honey, she lets the [baby's] whole body rest peacefully. It is extremely beneficial to the baby to be peaceful and comfortable both on the inside and on the outside, isn't it? Reason is just like this. Nevertheless, if one unrestrainedly slanders [Buddhism] and recklessly separates it from [Confucianism and Daoism], he has not realized the center of the ring [of thought] (i.e., the absolute state beyond the judgment of right or wrong).

502 I cannot discuss

[with such a person]. Correspondence exchanged between you two wise men (i.e., Gu Huan and Xie Zhenzhi) pushes and swings me; it is as powerful as breaking timber. Even if it could break timber, it is not a reasonable labor. If we analyze it with reason, would it be necessary to push and swing [people with such powerful correspondence]?

You began [the Discourse] with the clear [statement] that Confucius and Laozi are the Buddha, but at the conclusion of the writing, your discussion is 260

Fascicle Seven

desultory. Why [do you say that] Chinese government officials' ceremonial robes and the manner of raising [a ceremonial tablet] and kneeling on the ground are all types of Chinese deportment, and slanderingly say that the worship of putting one's head on the Buddha's feet is just like when a fox squats down? Why [do you say that] Chinese ceremonial dress and bowing by completely bending the [upper] body are respectful manners in the region near the imperial capital, and increase humiliation by saying that the practice of kneeling with one's right knee on the ground is just like a crouching dog? Let me ask you a question. If [you say that] Confucius is one of right, perfect enlightenment and Śākyamuni is one of wrong views, I cannot tolerate to hear this talk. If you approve of [Śākyamuni] as one of rightness and truth, for what reason do you despise and reproach him? You have already lost the intention to stand in awe of the admonitions of sages. Moreover, you have forgotten the courtesy of not having one's own way. This is the first thing I find regrettable.

Futhermore, you say,

"To maintain completely one's body and to abide

by ancestor worship are in the teaching to continue wholesomeness. To damage one's physical form and change one's family name are in the learning to cut off evil.

" This means that [King Zhuang,] son of Shangchen (King Mu of Chu state, who killed his father and usurped the throne)503 would have had the achievement of carrying on wholesomeness [from his murderous father], and that [Śākyamuni's son] Rāhula, who became a Buddhist monk, would have had the determination to cut off evils. Analyzing your discourse together with reality, I consider this to be the second point I find regrettable. Again, you say,

"[Buddhist monks] abandon their wives and children in

token of a minor degree, and discontinue their ancestor worship in token of a major degree.

" The law of spiritall beings is obscure and vast; it is difficult to clarify. Therefore, when Zilu asked a question [about spirits], Confucius did not explain.

504 It must be because life and death belong to different paths, and the condition of spirits are hard to understand. Would it be because the sage was unable to explain it? In fact, [Confucius] was afraid that the wise (i.e., Zilu) would not be able to understand this. If we reflect with the mirror of the three transcendental knowledges, we will know that [spirits] exist. You already accept that the spiritual edification (i.e., Buddhism) was transmitted 261

44a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I to the east, and yet you also say that [Buddhism] took the tide with funeral services. This is incoherent. This is the third point I find regrettable. Moreover, you say,

"The direct teaching (i.e., Daoism) can promote

modesty and suppleness [of human nature], while the indirect teaching (i.e., Buddhism) can restrain arrogance and toughness.

" I read this statement three

times, and [I am afraid that] it is egregiously disordered. Since modesty and suppleness are easily contravened, we should promote them harmoniously with the indirect [teaching]. Since arrogance and toughness are difficult to edify, we need to restrain them diligently with the direct [teaching]. When we examine the mind and inspect these matters, isn't this indeed the case? If rice bran gets in your eye, you cannot tell east from west. If you are attached to your biased view, you are confused about the meaning of an expression. Your statement misses the mark. This is the fourth point I find regrettable. In addition, you say,

"Since [the words of the Daoist teaching cause people to] humble themselves, only the intelligent advance; and since [the words of the Buddhist teaching] promote [people to feel better], the ignorant vie with each other in moving forward.

" Your statement about the words of the

Daoist teaching is true. I respectfully agree with you and sing it loudly. It covers and carries all things. It raises and educates all things that have a form. Your statement,

"Only the intelligent advance,

" however, seems to be your

own discretion.

Once the Buddha's voice sounds, those who practice the four immeasurable minds are equally in line, the three vehicles equally follow him obediently, and heavenly beings and dragons altogether submit themselves to him. Your statement "The ignorant vie with each other in moving forward" appears to be a false accusation as well. This is a discussion to explore what is complex and profound, but you recklessly form a boil and a papule (i.e., create problems) and freely make unfounded remarks. This is the fifth point I find regrettable.

Furthermore, you say,

"Buddhism is the way to destroy evils, while

Daoism is the way to give rise to wholesomeness.

" Regarding the way to

destroy evils, I can find no fault. Stopping evils and performing good deeds are the reasons why [all] teachings arise. I have not understood about the way to give rise to wholesomeness. Who has the way [to give rise to wholesomeness]? 262

Fascicle Seven

If wholesomeness is already wholesomeness, why is it necessary to give rise to it? If wholesomeness is not wholesomeness, it does not mean to give rise to wholesomeness. Then the outward reason for giving rise to wholesomeness has no entrustment. The Way is wholesomeness. If you take to give rise to wholesomeness as the outward reason, this is to excessively add to the wealth of the rich (i.e., it is too wasteful). If it cannot shake off evils, it is distorted as a teaching. The Great Way is equally broad for all, but you want to limit it [to Daoism]. This is the sixth point I find regrettable. Moreover you say,

"For those who are brutal and stubborn, it is the best to be taught by the Buddha. For those who are kind and gentle and who keep their minds free from preoccupation and open to receive [others' influences], it is the utmost to follow the [Daoist] way.

"505 To beat and bring a man who

is brave and fierce to submission and to have a man who is brutal and tyrannical become peaceful are really Śākyamuni's great achievements. I am not against your bright purpose [in this point]. Nevertheless, the power of the Way is strong and brilliant and the merit of its edification reaches far-distant places. [The Way] "makes the nature [of humans] complete and preserves what exists continually.

"506 There is nothing that is not placed under its favor. Even owls and the venomous birds called zhenreform themselves. There is nothing that is not controlled by the might [of the Way]. Your saying that only those who keep their minds free from preoccupation and open to receive [others' influences] are all right is too shallow and harsh. You unconsciously fall into a persistent biased view. Don't you realize that being narrow-minded and inferior impedes the Way? When I open and examine the heading [of your Discourse, I see that] you first admonish one's personal assumption, but while making a statement and presenting a discussion you unconsciously change your mind, and you have difficulty in maintaining both your claim and nominal definition. This is the seventh point I find regrettable. You say, furthermore,

"The eight [diagrams] represent all foreign scriptures of the western region and describe both extensive things and small things.

" The Diamond Sutra(Skt. Vajracchedikāprajñapāramitā-sūtra;Jingang borejing) consists of less than a thousand sentences. Even the teachings propagated by four-line verses (Skt. catuṣpādikā gāthā) encompass all existing things. [Scriptures of Buddhism and Daoism] explain both coarse and sublime 263

Doubts about the Discourse on the Non-Chinese and the Chinese and Inquiries to the Daoist Gu

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I [things], and contain both complicated and simple [matters]. There are minute teachings and detailed precepts [in Buddhism], and ritual codes go into particulars [in Daoism] as well. [Nevertheless,] you say that exquisite and coarse [things] arise in total disregard of law [in Buddhism]. This statement goes against reality. This is the eighth point I find regrettable. Moreover, you say,

"Observing [the nature of] each country, the non-Chinese country is of a cruel nature, while China is of a mild nature. " Let

me ask you a question. Would the torture called paoluo(forcing a person to walk on a slippery metal beam placed above fire) be a punishment carried out in Samarkand or India?507 The sad [son who was whipped by his parents and who] shed blood was a boy in China.

508 The miserable destruction of

scraping [a fetus from a pregnant woman] was not in the minds of the non-Chinese. 509 [To moisten all things] with dew in fall and [to grant favors] enduring disgrace are not done by a person who lives on the seacoast [and who enjoys himself in forgetting the world].

510 Examining the natures [of

the non-Chinese country and of China], the Chinese and the non-Chinese have the same principles. You unfoundedly think that [the nature of the Chinese] is mild while [the nature of the non-Chinese] is harsh. This is the ninth point I find regrettable.

Moreover, you say,

"One who plays the gogame is wiser than one who

travels around. One who expounds and chants [Buddhist scriptures] is better than one who makes quips and jokes.

" Thinking this over, the reasons why

the refined taste [of Buddhism] could be transmitted and why the scriptures and writings were not abandoned are really due to [efforts] to make people understand by expounding and chanting [Buddhist scriptures] and to attain enlightenment through inquiring and seeking. Therefore, [Confucius] said, "Not thoroughly discussing what is learned is the thing that occasions me solicitude.

"511 You, however, compare [expounding and chanting Buddhist scriptures] with making quips and jokes. You are very rude in treating the virtue [of the Sage]. Let me ask you a question. Where do you place a fish trap (i.e., the tool) to lead [people] to wholesomeness? First of all, you want to forget the words [of Buddhist scriptures] before you apprehend the ideas. This is the tenth point I find regrettable.

[Your Discourse] has these ten points that I find regrettable. I cannot resolve them myself. I hope that you, a gentleman, will explain them further 264

Fascicle Seven

for me. Mr. Xie [Zhenzhi] had a criticism and a different view [on your Discourse] as well. You refuted [his criticism] with detailed explanations. I focus here only on what I want to ask, and will not take further risks. 512

Doubts about the Discourse on the

Non-Chinese and the Chinese and

Inquiries to the Daoist Gu

by Zhu Guangzhi

I, Zhu Guangzhi, bow with my head to the ground.

I have had a look at the correspondence between you and Xie [Zhenzhi], Attendant-in-Ordinary, regarding the Discourse on the Non-Chinese and the Chinese, in which you clarify the meaning that [Buddhism and Daoism] are united into one. It can be said that they are concise, detailed, and refine discussions. With regard to deeply honoring the decorations of Chinese ceremonial robes and crowns, rejecting the simplicity of taking the tonsure, stating that the manner of raising [a ceremonial tablet] and kneeling on the ground is respectful, and disgracing the manner of sitting like a squatting fox, they confine the Chinese people and cut off their adoption of foreign methods. Even though the metaphor of a boat and a carriage is skillful, the feeling of impartiality and benevolence is not enough. You already leveled the origin [that Buddhism and Daoism] reach and meet, but the way with which the tool entrusts itself [in order to lead people to the origin] is blocked. In this case, we only get a distant view of the awakening of the three vehicles in this land, and the ferry of the six pāramitas is a long way off from us at the present point. Those who open Buddhist scriptures and play with the doctrines are greatly disappointed and discontented.

Mr. Xie looks down on the Way of [Divine] Transcendents (i.e., Daoism) and praises Buddhism; he considers the art of sprouting wings [and ascending to Heaven as a Transcendent] to be a groundless doctrine and takes the assertion of becoming a Buddhist monk as following the authentic text. It is as if one knows his fingers are fingers and does not know there is no difference from other people's fingers. Is this the reason to reach all aspects to grasp the meaning, or the thought that [Buddhism and Daoism] are virtuously the same?

265

44b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I I was gradually educated in the Dharma early in my life and later enjoyed the taste of Daoism. I always think that respecting the emptiness [of Buddhism] and valuing the nothingness [of Daoism] are the same in the ultimate purport. Both a snare and a net are laid; in principle there is no prejudice. Each person should follow whichever teaching he can best understand and enter that way. It is [important] that it be the place where the mind can be peaceful. Why is it necessary to be able to inherit the emperor's upper robe with the dragon figures and yet be unable to ride on [a carriage decorated with] precious stones? I have to work a lot because of my poverty. I am behind in my studies. It has been more than ten years since I covered the boxes of my books and writings. What I learned in my childhood and what I heard previously are now all forgotten. I have spent years in idleness, having a willful mind. [Even though] I wish to start studying, I have no means [to do so]. Every day I lament by myself through the long night. Then I try to prompt myself until daybreak, without sparing myself, but even though I try to purify my mind, I am still far away from faith and increasingly suffer from defilements. If faith does not go along with the doctrine, it will be fickle and have no subjectivity. Because of this, it causes guests who censure me to arise. Hence, I am writing down my humble opinion, exhausting my poor ability. I hope you will again give instruction for me and give guidance on the points about which I am doubtful. I, Guangzhi, bow with my head to the ground. The Discourse[on the Non-Chinese and the Chinese] says, "Raising [a

ceremonial tablet], kneeling on the ground, and bowing by completely bending the [upper] body are respectful manners in the region near the imperial capital, while squatting like a fox and crouching like a dog are reverential manners in uncivilized places.

"

My question is this: Each country has its own manners. Since it has been this way for a long time, it is difficult to equalize them. Regarding the point that each person attains what he is content with, there is originally nothing with which to argue [on this point]. As for the deportment in the regions near the imperial capital, your statement is correct. Regarding the expression of [squatting like] a fox and [crouching like] a dog, isn't this said merely to hurt [people's feelings]?

The Discoursesays,

"Even if it is said that since the united point of the

teachings is equal, and that the teachings are interchangeable, is it possible 266

Fascicle Seven

to wade across the river by carriage or travel on land by boat? It is certainly impossible.

"

My question is this: Teaching is intended to follow human feelings, but human feelings are not a teaching. Teaching has no fixed pattern because human feelings are not unified. What human feelings, which are not unified, proceed to varies. They become strong as well as soft. If [strong and soft feelings] are exercised together, the Chinese and the non-Chinese are assuredly the same. Therefore, in [crossing over] a large river that flows grandly, it is not appropriate to use this (i.e., a carriage). In [traveling over] a prairie to a remote land, why would we take that (i.e., a boat)? Why is it impossible to use both forms of transportation, both boat and carriage? The Discoursesays,

"[Everything] is neither completely the same nor

completely different. [Buddhist monks] abandon their wives and children in token of a minor degree and discontinue their ancestor worship in token of a major degree.

"

My question is this: If one discontinues [ancestor] worship in token of a major degree and yet is not able to abandon his family in token of a minor degree, this means to intend the difference and yet enter the same. It is not a fault of being the same. Would an ox used to plough a field rather be forever released from sacrificial use since it is useless for an ancestral temple? The Discoursesays,

"They fulfill all things they desire with the politeness [of Confucianism], but they completely warp the rule of showing filial piety and respect for one's parents with the [Buddhist] Dharma. [Buddhists] go against virtue and offend the [right] order and yet they have been unaware of it. "

My question is this: If [Buddhists] go against virtue and offend the [right] order, they should make no action. Being benevolent, devoted, gentle, and harmonious is the mind to keep one's feet on the ground and holds true. Therefore, having a simple meal and practicing the [Buddhist] Way are not unfortunate signs, and being in full [ceremonial] dress and eating the bread of idleness are not the ways to cultivate the right [mind]. Your opinion that "They fulfill [all things they desire with the politeness of Confucianism, but they completely] warp [the rule of showing filial piety and respect for one's parents with the Buddhist] Dharma" can be cut off here. The Discoursesays,

"What should be valued in the ultimate principle

of the universe is the Way, and what should be despised in phenomena is 267

44c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I secularity. Now if we reject Chinese [teachings] and devote ourselves to the foreign [teaching], what does this mean? If it is because of the Way, the Way is originally one. If it is because of secular [customs], the secular [customs of Chinese and non-Chinese] are completely different [from each other]. "

My question is this: Since the ultimate Way is void and comprehended, it is honorable even without having a rank of nobility. Since secular [customs] have nothing that is not stagnant, they are humble even if they are not rejected. The humble is unable to have no trouble. The honored is naturally content with itself. The state of being content with itself is already one. The sphere of secular troubles is also equal. If the Way is one and [the sphere of secular] troubles is equal, what is good and what is bad? (I.e., there is no distinction between good and bad.) Therefore, they are all [the subject of] edification by sages. Only in the mental functions is there delusion. When delusion is exhausted and intelligence arises, [the distinction between] oneself and others is spontaneously forgotten. What are you worried about? Why do you hesitantly stay on the border between rejection of [the Chinese teachings] and devotion to [the foreign teaching], and the righteousness of China and the foreign [country]?

The Discoursesays,

"The teaching of nonarising (i.e., Buddhism) is

indirect, while the teaching of immortality (i.e., Daoism) is direct. The direct teaching can promote modesty and suppleness [of human nature], while the indirect teaching can restrain arrogance and toughness. "

My question is this: Nonarising is precisely immortality, and immortality is nothing other than nonarising. The names differ but the contents are the same. Is it possible to hold the distinction between the direct and the indirect? If we separate the superior from the inferior because of the difference of their later development, we should restrain toughness by the direct [teaching] and promote suppleness by the indirect [teaching]. Therefore, Confucius said, "Since [Ran] Qiu withdraws, I urge him forward. [Zhong] You (i.e., Zilu) is busy with other people's affairs. Therefore, I keep You back. "513 As for the

way to instruct people, isn't this right?

The Discoursesays,

"Buddhism is elegant and extensive, while Daoism

is simple and exquisite. What is exquisite is not something in which clumsy people believe, and what is extensive is not something that exquisite people can handle.

"

268

Fascicle Seven

My question is this: One who acquires extensive information and a retentive memory must go along with the mental function that is profound and broad. If he sincerely cultivates good conduct, he must follow the principles and reach the subtle [state of mind]. If his mental function is clear, he has nothing that is not exquisite in principle. If his principles are exquisite, he has nothing that is not exhausted in intelligence. In that case, what is exquisite and what is extensive are equally meritorious and mutually make use of each other. If the extensive means the exquisite, would [the extensive] still be believed by clumsy people? If the exquisite means the extensive, would [the exquisite] be wanted only by those who are broadly proficient in [Buddhism]? The Discoursesays,

"The words of the Buddhist teaching are splendid

and they promote [people to feel better], while the words of the Daoist teaching are sincere and cause [people] to humble themselves. Since [the words of the Daoist teaching] cause [people] to humble themselves, only the intelligent advance; and since [the words of the Buddhist teaching promote people to feel better,] the ignorant vie with each other in moving forward. "

My question is this: [The words of the Buddhist teaching] are splendid, but they are not apart from the principles. They were molded by the One of Transcendent Wisdom. [The words of the Daoist teaching] are sincere, but they have not reached the void. Therefore, they were crafted by one who had gained a good reputation. There is order in the relation between being molded and crafted. Is it because [the teachings] are aimed at those whose natural disposition is ignorant, or those who possess intelligence? If the teachings are aimed at those whose natural disposition is ignorant, then not only the intelligent advance. If [the teachings are] certainly aimed at those who possess intelligence, the ignorant are unable to go forward. If both the intelligent and the ignorant can [advance], why is it necessary to promote them [to feel better] or [to cause them] to humble themselves? Your wonderful comparison is not in a position to make clear the point. This is something about which you ought to make a further argument.

The Discoursesays,

"Buddhist scriptures are complicated and illustrious,

while Daoist scriptures are concise and profound. Since [Daoist scriptures] are profound, it is hard to discern the gate to the subtle [Way]. Since [Buddhist scriptures] are apparent, it is easy to follow the road to true [awakening]. If we follow [the road to] true [awakening], we will not get lost on our way 269

45a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume I home (i.e., the ultimate state of mind). If we discern [the gate to] the subtle [Way], we will completely attain all thoughts.

"

My question is this: Since [Daoist scriptures] are concise, it is easy to follow them. Why do you say it is hard to discern [the gate to the subtle Way]? If [Buddhist scriptures] are complicated, it would be difficult to follow them logically. How [then] could you easily follow [the road to true awakening]? If we follow [the road to] true [awakening], we will not get lost on our way home. We will be able to be led to the culmination of the [Buddhist] Way. Even though [the Buddhist scriptures] are not profound and concise, we will spontaneously reach there deeply. Why do you borrow a method that is difficult to clarify and replace it with this path that is easy to understand? The Discoursesays,

"For those who are brutal and stubborn, it is the

best to be taught by the Buddha. For those who are kind and gentle and who keep their minds free from preoccupation and open to receive [others' influences], it is the utmost to follow Daoism. "

My question is this: Wrong views and the distortion of truth are what the Dharma does not allow. Giving pleasure and happiness, relieving pain and suffering, making other people happy, and giving up all attachments (i.e., the four immeasurable minds) are little by little recorded [in Buddhist scriptures]. Making other people happy means to be able to accept anything. Giving up all attachments means that one must efface oneself. The meaning of [the Daoist assertion] to keep one's mind free from preoccupation and open to receive [the influences of others] mysteriously matches [the meaning of the Buddhist tenet to make other people happy and give up all attachments]. I do not know on what teaching brutal and stubborn people rely. If you say that [the teaching that people] receive varies, you are rather like the one who carved a mark on the side of his boat [to indicate the place where he dropped his sword into the water]. How could there be a case in which [Buddhism and Daoism] tally with each other?

The Discoursesays,

"Buddhism is the way to destroy evils, while Daoism

is the way to give rise to wholesomeness. Moreover, we should not imitate the teaching of the western tribes with the nature of the Chinese people. "

My question is this: Your saying that [Daoism] is the way to give rise to wholesomeness is very good, but your statement "We should not imitate [the teaching of the western tribes with the nature of the Chinese people]" 270

Fascicle Seven

is disgraceful [to Buddhism]. I am unconvinced. Let me ask you a question about the nature of the Chinese people and the nature of the western tribesmen. You consider the nature of the Chinese people to be purely good, and that of the western tribesmen to be fundamentally evil. If [the nature of the western tribesmen] was fundamentally evil, how could it be broken by reason? If [the nature of the Chinese people] was purely good, what significance would there be in giving rise to wholesomeness? Therefore, we know that if [people] have evil, which can be broken, they have not left behind wholesomeness; and if [people] have wholesomeness, which can arise, they have not escaped from evil. In that case, wholesomeness and evil go together and mutually align as deep or shallow.

Accordingly, the fact that Rāhula was benevolent and gentle is not the influence of the light from the east (i.e., Chinese influence). King Jie and [the robber] Zhi were fierce and cruel; was this caused by a concentration of the vapors of the west? Why do you evaluate highly only the Chinese tradition and despise the teaching of the western tribes? If the wholesomeness of this [land of China] is different from the wholesomeness of that [land of the western tribes], and if the evil of that [land of the western tribes] differs from the evil of this [land of China], in wholesomeness and evil [the Chinese people and the western tribesmen] would be essentially against each other. [If this is so,] could there then be a case where they reach the same point? The Discoursesays,

"Regarding the manner of squatting and the incomprehensible foreign language that can be compared to the noisy chirping of insects and birds, why is it worthy to imitate them?"

My question is this: Rites are to develop respect [in the mind], and music is to perceive [the world of] harmony. Even though the respectful mind is developed through rites, rites are not the same as the respectful mind. Although the harmony [of sounds] is perceived through music, music is not the same as harmony. Consequently, when a ruler sets[the people] at ease and the people obey him, the gems and silk [used for rites] are kept in a bamboo chest [because the rites are no longer necessary]. When manners and customs are simple, sincere, and peaceful, bells and drums [for music] are no longer sounded. Moreover, the use of bells and drums is not on the same level of that of the two polarities (i.e., Heaven and Earth), probably because [bells and drums] are used as tentative expedients from necessity in order to rescue 271

45b