Dharma Golden Fortress Sutra (佛法金湯)

Preface to the Golden Fortress of the Dharma

Some may doubt that protecting the great Dharma, and naming it "Golden Rampart," is like building high walls and moats to keep others out. They fear that Confucian scholars will rise up and stubbornly insist: "Our teachings can establish the five constants, harmonize with the natural order of all things, exhaust principle and fulfill nature, reaching even to destiny. This is sufficient—why should we follow the Buddha's way?" Followers of Laozi may also rise and stubbornly insist: "Our way values humility and non-contention, emptiness and mystery; through long cultivation, one may ascend and achieve eternal existence. This is the ultimate—why must we follow the Buddha's way?" This only strengthens the tripartite standoff, which is why the sage preserves them without disputing.

But this is not so. All teachings are spoken for the sake of those with faith and those with wisdom. These two kinds of people are not necessarily born within our own tradition; they can depart from difference and return to unity. Take Kaundinya, Shariputra, and others—they were initially masters of various Brahmanical traditions, yet they ultimately became great disciples of the Tathagata. Their wisdom could be redirected, and their faith could be inspired. The Tathagata did not cling to his own form, insisting on promoting his own correctness. Principle is like this; nature is like this. The title "Buddha" arises in contrast to sentient beings of other paths; without sentient beings, there would be no Buddha. Just as the Confucian teachings of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are named in contrast to wickedness, theft, deceit, and falsity—without these four evils, there would be no four virtues.

Although Confucianism and Daoism are good, they are not ultimate teachings. The Buddha's goodness does not even cling to itself—how much less to evil? This is the ultimate teaching. Ultimate means exhausting everything without remainder, not abiding in the realm of consciousness. Not ultimate means sinking into emptiness or becoming intoxicated with existence, ultimately returning to the cycle of rebirth. Although paths and methods may not be ultimate, human nature is never incapable of reaching ultimacy. If one possesses faith and wisdom, even while among Confucians, one need not take Song Confucian words as absolute truth; even while following Daoist teachings, one need not regard Zhuangzi and Laozi as the highest.

Those who ultimately cling to their own teachers' doctrines and arrogantly refuse to follow are people who lack faith and wisdom. Hongbao Jushi is a Confucian scholar; Song Confucian words are what he studied and pondered. How could he not understand Confucianism yet necessarily reject it? And how could he not understand Buddhism yet necessarily wish to revere and believe in it? His sincere devotion and deep insight show that he recognizes what is acceptable and what is not. Although I dare not flatter Hongbao Jushi by saying all his words are post-enlightenment discourse, his integration of teachings, his nature-aligned critiques and responses, his fresh insights—not mere speculation—following ancient discussions without suffering from hearsay—he is truly a master of the teachings of his era, a great artisan in protecting the Dharma.

If there are those with faith and wisdom, they may through this work recover their original mind and take refuge in the great awakening. Then Hongbao Jushi's merit will surely not fall below that of venerable elders like Zhang Wujin and Yang Danian. As for icchantikas—even the Buddha's spiritual power cannot save them, let alone us. They should be set aside and not discussed.

In the spring of the Renyin year of the Wanli era, in the first month, the monk Zhenyi of the Western Cliff Valley of Mount Putuo respectfully wrote this.