[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) › [佛祖統紀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035) › 41.54 # 佛祖統紀 41.54 佛祖統紀 41.54 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [41.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41.54) 述曰。退之不知佛。所以斥佛。後世士夫見韓原道及答孟書簡。則便以能距楊墨者為比楊墨之僻誠足距者。至於佛道廣大。則凡世間九流悉為所容。未有一法出乎佛道之外。豈當以楊墨比之哉。或曰。柳子謂浮圖之言與易論語合。易語世間言教。豈足以知佛道之極際。曰浩初以子厚儒生。未可語以深妙。故以易論語要義比況之。俾其易領耳。柳子既有所發。故復欲以此警退之之不逮。非從易論語中說。則儒人未易領也。然子厚自此卒能優入此宗。故其送元舉序云。佛之道大而多容。無姓碑云。紹承本統以順中道。送重巽師序云。吾自幼學佛。求其道三十年。吾獨有得焉。此未可以易論語裁量之也。嗚呼退之之斥佛。非柳子不足以責。今以浩初序章句以釋之。將以廣柳子之能言也。 > The Narrator says: Tuizhi did not understand the Buddha; that was why he denounced the Buddha. When later scholars read Han's \*Origins of the Way\* and his letter responding to Meng, they immediately equated him to one who could repel Yang Zhu and Mozi. The eccentricity of Yang and Mo was indeed worthy of being repelled. But as for the vastness of the Buddha's Way, all nine currents of the worldly realm are accommodated by it; not a single dharma lies outside the Buddha's Way. How could he be compared to Yang and Mo? Someone may ask: 'Liu Zihou said that the words of the Buddha accord with the \*Changes\* and the \*Analects\*. The \*Changes\* and \*Analects\* are worldly verbal teachings; how could they suffice to know the ultimate limits of the Buddha's Way?' I say: Because Zihou was a Confucian scholar, Haochu could not yet speak to him of the profound and subtle, and so he compared it to the essential principles of the \*Changes\* and \*Analects\* so that he might easily grasp it. Once Liu Zihou was enlightened to something, he wished in turn to use this to alert Tuizhi to what he fell short in; had he not spoken from within the \*Changes\* and \*Analects\*, Confucians would not have grasped it easily. However, Zihou thereafter was ultimately able to enter this lineage with excellence. Therefore, his 'Preface on Seeing Off Yuanju' says: 'The Buddha's Way is vast and encompasses much.' His Stele for Wuxing says: 'Inheriting the original lineage so as to accord with the Middle Way.' His 'Preface on Seeing Off Master Chongxun' says: 'I have studied Buddhism since youth, seeking its Way for thirty years, and I alone have attained something.' This cannot be judged solely by the \*Changes\* and \*Analects\*. Alas! For Tuizhi's denunciation of the Buddha, none but Liu could suffice to reproach him. Now I have used the sentences of the 'Preface for Haochu' to interpret it, with the intention of amplifying what Master Liu was able to express. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 41.53](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41.53) - [Next: 41.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41.55) - [Up: 41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035~en-mt.41.54) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.41.54) · Pramāṇa