龍舒增廣淨土文 1.187

1.187

儒者或以釋氏之徒無戒行，故輕其教，而因以不信淨土。是不然。豈可以道士不肖而輕老子、士人不肖而輕孔子。智者尚不以人廢言，況可以其徒而輕其教乎？釋氏之教有世間法、有出世間法。其世間法與吾儒同者，不可以縷數，姑舉其大者言之。釋氏之所以孳孳訓世人者，無非戒惡勸善。而吾儒何甞不戒惡勸善哉？且以目前言之，佛以殺生、偷盜、邪婬為身三業。而孔子言勝殘去殺，詩人言文王德及鳥獸昆蟲，是豈不戒殺哉？盜固不在所言矣。孔子言吾未見好德如好色者，詩人刺不德而悅美色，是豈不戒邪婬哉？佛以妄言、綺語、兩舌、惡口為口四業。孔子謂「人而無信不知其可」，豈不戒妄言也。謂「巧言令色鮮矣仁」，豈不戒綺語也。書稱「爾無面從，退有後言」，豈不戒兩舌也。惡口謂之惡怒之聲，尚未至於穢語。荀子謂「傷人之言深於矛戟」，是未甞不戒惡怒之口也。佛又以貪、嗔、癡為意三業。孔子謂「見得思義」，是則戒貪矣。謂「伯夷叔齊不念舊惡」，是則戒嗔矣。謂「困而不學，民斯為下」，是則戒癡也。由此言之，儒釋未甞不同也。其不同者，唯儒家止於世間法，釋氏又有出世間法。儒家止於世間法，故獨言一世而歸之於天。釋氏又有出世間法，故知累世而見眾生業緣之本末。此其所不同耳。欲知釋氏之所長，須看《楞嚴》、《楞伽》、《圓覺》與《無蓋障菩薩所問經》，及曉《金剛經》之理。未能如是而遂非之，則孔子所謂「不知而作之者」，可不戒哉。誠如是，則釋氏為可信矣。其言淨土烏可以不信哉？所謂出世間法，淨土尤有要者，不可以不勉也。

Some Confucian scholars disparage the Buddha's teachings because the disciples of the Śākya clan lack monastic discipline and conduct, and consequently do not believe in the Pure Land. This is not so. How could one disparage Laozi because Daoist priests are unworthy, or disparage Confucius because scholars are unworthy? Even wise persons do not reject words on account of the person; how much less should one disparage his teachings on account of his followers? The teachings of the Śākya clan include mundane phenomena and supramundane phenomena. Those of its mundane phenomena that are identical with our Confucianism cannot be counted in detail; let us briefly raise the major ones. That by which the Śākya clan assiduously instructs worldly people is none other than prohibiting evil and encouraging good. And when has our Confucianism ever failed to prohibit evil and encourage good? To speak of what is before our eyes, the Buddha took taking life, stealing, and sexual misconduct as the three karmas of the body. And Confucius spoke of 'overcoming cruelty and dispensing with killing', while the poet praised King Wen's virtue as extending to birds, beasts, and insects; is this not prohibiting killing? Stealing is naturally not even in question. Confucius said, 'I have not seen anyone who loves virtue as much as they love sex,' and the poet satirized lacking virtue and delighting in beautiful looks; is this not prohibiting sexual misconduct? The Buddha took false speech, frivolous speech, divisive speech, and harsh speech as the four karmas of the mouth. Confucius said, 'If a person lacks trustworthiness, I do not know how they can get along,' which is surely prohibiting false speech. He said, 'Clever words and an ingratiating appearance are rarely associated with humaneness,' which is surely prohibiting frivolous speech. The Classic of History states, 'Do not agree to one's face and then speak behind their back,' which is surely prohibiting divisive speech. Harsh speech refers to words of anger, not yet even reaching foul language. Xunzi said, 'Words that wound others cut deeper than spears and halberds'; this is never having failed to prohibit an angry mouth. The Buddha also took greed, anger, and delusion as the three karmas of the mind. Confucius said, 'When seeing gain, think of righteousness'; this is prohibiting greed. He said, 'Boyi and Shuqi did not hold ancient grievances in mind'; this is prohibiting anger. He said, 'Those who are constrained by difficulties yet do not learn—such people are the lowest'; this is prohibiting delusion. Speaking from this, Confucianism and Buddhism have never differed. Where they differ is only that the Confucians stop at mundane phenomena, whereas the Śākya clan additionally has supramundane phenomena. The Confucians stop at mundane phenomena; hence they only speak of a single lifetime and attribute it to Heaven. The Śākya clan additionally has supramundane phenomena; hence they understand multiple lifetimes and perceive the beginnings and ends of sentient beings' karmic conditions. This is where they differ. If one wishes to understand the strengths of the Śākya clan, one must read the Śūraṅgama, the Laṅkāvatāra, the Perfect Enlightenment, and the Sūtra of the Questions of Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin Bodhisattva, and understand the principle of the Diamond Sūtra. If one has not been able to do so and thereupon condemns it, then one is what Confucius called 'those who act without understanding'—should one not take caution against this? If it is truly like this, then the Śākya clan is worthy of belief. How could one disbelieve his words on the Pure Land? As for what is called supramundane phenomena, the Pure Land is especially essential; one cannot fail to exert oneself.