佛說盂蘭盆經疏 1.8

1.8

三、彰孝道者，復有其二：一通明孝為二教之宗本、二別明二教行孝之同異。初通明中，且明儒教以孝為本者，謂始自天子至於士人，家國相傳皆立宗廟。雖五孝之用則別而不行之，源不殊故。開宗明義，章中標為至德要道，道德以之為體、教法繇是而生。何有君子而不務本？既為天經地義，須令企及俯從。雖論禮壞樂崩，終訶衣錦食稻。甚哉！孝之大也。聖人之德，又何以加於孝乎？次釋教以孝為本者，然一切佛皆有真化二身。釋迦化身，說隨機權教；舍那真身，說究竟實教。教者，經律也。經詮理智、律詮戒行，戒雖萬行，以孝為宗。故我盧舍那佛最初成正覺時，便說華嚴大經、菩薩大戒。又經標云「爾時釋迦牟尼佛，初坐菩提樹下，成無上正覺已，初結菩薩波羅提木叉，孝順父母、師僧三寶。」孝順至道之法，孝名為戒，亦名制止。《涅槃》亦云「奇哉父母，生育我等，受大苦惱。滿足十月，懷抱我身。既生之後，推乾就濕、除去不淨大小便利，乳哺長養、將護我身。以是義故，應當報恩，隨順供養。」上通明二教以孝為本竟。次別明二教行孝之同異者，於中初明其異、後顯其同。初謂生前侍養異，後謂歿後追思異。侍養異者，儒宗則慎護髮膚、揚名後代，故樂春不出，曾子開衾。釋教則祝髮壞衣、法資現世，故優陀通信，淨藏回邪。是謂為善不同，同歸乎孝。歿後異者，復有三異：一、居喪異。儒則棺槨宅兆安墓留形，釋則念誦追齋薦其去識。二、齋忌異。儒則內齋外定想其聲容，釋則設供講經資其業報。三、終身異。儒則四時殺命，春夏秋冬；釋則三節放生，施戒盆會。良繇真宗未至周孔，且使繫心今知禮有所歸，不應猶執權教。且福之大者莫大於施生，是釋梵之本因、類天地之大德。今殺彼祭此，豈近仁心？是若可忍，孰不可忍？雖云祈福，實是立讎，自徇虛名，殃於神道。問：父母生於餘趣，則可改祭為齋。如墮鬼中，寧無饗祀？答黍稷非馨，蘋蘩可薦。應知禴祭勝於殺牛，況鬼神等差豈皆受饗？上明異竟。次顯其同者，復有其二：初明存歿同、後明罪福同。今初，約紀孝行章中五句之文以辨其同，即攝於生前歿後也。一、居則致其敬者，儒則別於犬馬，釋則舉身七多。二、養則致其樂者，儒則怡聲下氣、溫清定省等，故有扇床溫席之流；釋則節量信毀分減衣鉢等，故有割肉充饑之類。三、病則致其憂者，儒中如文帝先嘗湯藥、武王不脫冠帶；釋中如太子以肉為藥、高僧以身而擔。四、喪則致其哀者，儒有武丁不言、子皐泣血；釋有目連大叫、調御舁棺。五、祭則致其嚴者，儒有薦笋之流，釋有餉飯之類。但以至教未來，難弘報應，故先且立於祭法，令敬事於神靈。神靈則父母之識性，足顯祖考之常存。既形滅而神不滅，豈厚形而薄神乎？餘如前辨。上來存歿同竟，次辨罪福同。罪同者，儒則條越五刑，犯當五摘，而恩赦不該；釋則名標七逆，戒黜七遮，而阿鼻定入。福同者，儒則旌於門閭上天之報，釋則瑩於戒德淨土之因。上來總彰孝道竟。

Third, as for demonstrating filial piety: this again has two parts: first, explaining generally that filial piety is the fundamental source of both teachings; second, explaining specifically the similarities and differences in how the two teachings practice filial piety. First, within the general explanation, to first explain that the Confucian teaching takes filial piety as its root: from the Son of Heaven down to the common scholars, in passing it down within families and states, ancestral temples are all established. Although the applications of the five filial pieties differ, their source of practice is not distinct. In the chapter on 'Opening the Tenet and Elucidating the Meaning,' it is marked as the ultimate virtue and the essential path; morality takes it as its substance, and the teaching and methods arise from it. How could there be an exemplary person who does not attend to the root? Since it is the warp of heaven and the guideline of earth, one must cause people to aspire to it and humbly comply with it. Although it speaks of the decay of rites and the ruin of music, in the end it admonishes against wearing brocade and eating fine rice. How great indeed is filial piety! What virtue of the sages could surpass filial piety? Next, as for the Buddhist teaching taking filial piety as its root: all Buddhas have two bodies, true and transformation. Śākya as the transformation body expounds the expedient teaching according with capacities; Rocana as the true body expounds the ultimate real teaching. 'Teaching' means the sūtras and vinaya. The sūtras explain principle and wisdom; the vinaya explains moral conduct. Although the precepts have ten thousand practices, they take filial piety as their tenet. Therefore, when our Rocana Buddha first achieved perfect enlightenment, he immediately spoke the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and the great bodhisattva precepts. Furthermore, the sūtra declares: 'At that time Śākyamuni Buddha, when he first sat under the bodhi tree and attained unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, first formulated the bodhisattva prātimokṣa: filial obedience toward parents, teachers, the saṅgha, and the Three Jewels.' Filial obedience is the dharma of the ultimate path; filial piety is called the precepts, and is also called restraint. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says: 'How marvelous are parents! They bear and raise us, undergoing great suffering and affliction. Fulfilling ten months, they carry our bodies in their wombs. After we are born, they move us to the dry and lie in the wet, clean away our defilements and urine and feces, nurse and nourish us, and protect our bodies. For this reason, one should repay their grace and respectfully make offerings to them.' The above general explanation of both teachings taking filial piety as their root is concluded. Next, as for explaining specifically the similarities and differences in how the two teachings practice filial piety: herein, first the differences are explained, and afterwards the similarities are revealed. First refers to the difference in attending and caring during life; second refers to the difference in posthumous remembrance after death. As for the difference in attending and caring: the Confucian tradition carefully preserves the hair and skin and spreads fame to later generations; thus Lechun did not venture out, and Zengzi uncovered his feet. The Buddhist teaching shaves the hair and dyes the robes, and uses the Dharma to assist the present lifetime; thus Udāyana sent a message, and Śubhagarbha converted the errant. This is called 'differing in doing good, but converging in filial piety.' As for the differences after death, there are again three differences: 1. Differences in mourning. The Confucians use inner and outer coffins, burial grounds, and set up tombs to preserve the bodily form; the Buddhists use chanting, posthumous vegetarian feasts, and transfer merit to the departed consciousness. 2. Differences on anniversaries of death. The Confucians internally fast and externally compose themselves, visualizing their voice and countenance; the Buddhists set out offerings and explain sūtras to assist their karmic retribution. 3. Differences throughout life. The Confucians kill living beings in the four seasons—spring, summer, autumn, and winter; the Buddhists release life at the three festival periods, and hold assemblies for giving precepts and the basin. This was truly because the true school had not yet reached the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, so they merely caused minds to be tied to it; now that we know where ritual finds its true refuge, we should no longer cling to expedient teachings. Furthermore, of the greatest blessings, none is greater than bestowing life; this is the primary cause of Śakra and Brahmā, and resembles the great virtue of heaven and earth. Now, to kill that creature to sacrifice to this one—how could that come close to a benevolent mind? If this can be tolerated, what cannot be tolerated? Although they speak of praying for blessings, it truly establishes enmity; indulging empty reputation for oneself, it brings calamity to the souls in the realm of spirits. Question: If parents are born in other destinies, one may change sacrifice into a vegetarian feast; but if they have fallen among ghosts, should they have no sacrificial offerings? Answer: It is not the millet that is fragrant; marsh grass and pondweed can be offered. One should know that the summer sacrifice of fresh food is superior to slaughtering an ox; moreover, among the hierarchies of ghosts and spirits, how could all receive offerings? The above explanation of differences is concluded. Next, to reveal their similarities, there are again two: first, explaining the similarity in life and death; second, explaining the similarity in offenses and blessings. As for the first, examining the text of the five phrases in the chapter 'Recording Filial Conduct' to discern their similarities, this subsumes both during life and after death: 1. In dwelling, to extend one's reverence: the Confucians distinguish this from dogs and horses; the Buddhists prostrate the whole body with the seven postures. 2. In nourishing, to extend one's joy: the Confucians speak with a pleasant voice and humble breath, inquiring after warmth and coolness, hence there are stories like fanning the bed and warming the mat; the Buddhists moderate offerings, accept insults, and share their robes and bowls, hence there are cases like slicing flesh to satisfy hunger. 3. In sickness, to extend one's anxiety: among the Confucians, Emperor Wen first tasted the medicine, and King Wu did not remove his cap and belt; among the Buddhists, the Prince used his flesh as medicine, and eminent monks carried [the sick] on their bodies. 4. In mourning, to extend one's sorrow: among the Confucians, there were Wuding not speaking, and Zigao weeping blood; among the Buddhists, Maudgalyāyana cried out loudly, and the Trainer carried the coffin. 5. In sacrifice, to extend one's solemnity: among the Confucians, there are stories like offering bamboo shoots; among the Buddhists, there are cases like presenting cooked rice. However, because the ultimate teaching had not yet arrived, it was difficult to propagate retribution; therefore they first established the methods of sacrifice to make people reverently serve the spiritual souls. The spiritual souls are the conscious nature of the parents, sufficient to manifest that the ancestors continually endure. Since the form perishes but the spirit does not perish, how could one treat the form generously and the spirit meagerly? The rest is as analyzed before. The above similarity in life and death is concluded; next is to discern the similarity in offenses and blessings. As for the similarity in offenses: for the Confucians, one exceeds the five punishments and commits offenses deserving the five executions, which acts of grace and pardon do not encompass; for the Buddhists, one is marked with the seven heinous transgressions and expelled by the precepts under the seven impediments, and will definitely enter Avīci. As for the similarity in blessings: for the Confucians, one's gate and village are honored, which is the recompense of High Heaven; for the Buddhists, one is purified by the virtue of precepts, which is the cause for the Pure Land. The above comprehensive demonstration of filial piety is concluded.