佛祖統紀 41.58

41.58

藏六祖秀禪師作歐陽外傳。記祖印與永叔論道。因錄古人非韓者。略出王荊公蘇東坡龍先生嵩明教之說。荊公曰。人有樂孟子之距楊墨而以斥佛老為己功。嗚呼莊子所謂夏蟲者。其斯人之謂乎。道歲也。聖人時也。執一時而疑歲者。終不聞道矣云云。東坡曰。退之之與聖人之道。蓋亦知好其名矣。而未能樂其實。何者其為論甚高。其待孔子孟子甚尊。而距楊墨佛老甚嚴。此其用力亦不可謂不至矣。然其論至於理而不精。支離蕩佚往往自叛其說而不知。云云。西蜀龍先生作非韓百篇。其略有云。孟郊失三子。退之與詩曰。失子將何尤。吾將尤上天。汝實主下土。與奪一何偏。彼於汝何有。乃令蕃且延。此獨何罪辜。生死旬日間。詩三百下以風刺上。刺於至不仁也。其辭不怒。孰有怨天而侮訕之者。其勇於毀佛老蓋可見矣。今錄十許條云。佛老大聖。斥為夷狄（原道）孔墨異道。今云本同。反孟玷孔（讀墨子）道本同教常異。儒教經世佛老教出世。退之主經世以廢出世。未足知道（原道）性本一。今言三品五性。未足知性（原性）人為貴。今以夷狄禽獸同人乎（原人）先朝迎佛骨。而升遐近於幸災（直諫表）左遷潮陽。而勸封禪近於獻諂求入（賀尊號表）畏修史之禍而勇於排佛（答劉秀才書）為駁雜之說而好為博塞（駁雜如毛頴傳。迭窮文之類。博塞見張藉書）嵩明教非韓三十篇。其言曰。舊唐史謂。韓子性偏僻。剛訐於道。不弘考其書。觀其行誠然耳。欲韓如古人從容中道。固不逮也。宜乎。識者謂韓第文辭人耳。夫文所以傳道也。道不至雖甚文奚用。學者不能考。而徒效其文。以譏沮二教聖人為已能。故為書以辨之。以正夫天下之好毀者（云云。其條攻之辭大略如龍先生）東坡曰。昔之為性論者多矣。而不能定於一。始孟子以為善。荀子以為惡。楊子以為善惡混。而韓愈者又取夫三子之說而折之。以孔子之論。離性以為三品。曰中人可以上下。而上智與下愚不移。以為三子者。皆出於其中而遺其上下。嗟夫是未知乎所謂性者。而以夫才者言之。夫性與才相近而不同。聖人之所與。小人共之。而皆不逃焉。是真所謂性也。而其才固將有所不同。天下之言性者。皆雜乎才而言之。是以紛紛而不能一也。孔子之所謂中人可以上下。而上智與下愚不移者。是論其才也。至於言性則未嘗斷其善惡。曰性相近也習相遠也而已。韓愈之說則又有甚者。離性以為情。而合才以為性。是故其論終莫能通。

Chan Master Cangliu Zuxiu composed the Outer Biography of Ouyang, which recorded the discussions on the Way between Zuyin and [Ouyang] Yongshu. Thereupon he recorded the ancients who criticized Han [Yu], briefly setting forth the arguments of Wang Jinggong, Su Dongpo, Master Long, and Song Mingjiao. Jinggong said: "There are those who delight in Mencius's rejection of Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di] and take denouncing Buddhism and Daoism as their own merit. Alas, when Zhuangzi spoke of 'summer insects,' was he not referring to such people? The Way is like the year; the sages are like the seasons. One who clings to a single season and doubts the year will never hear of the Way," and so forth. Dongpo said: "Regarding the Way of the sages, Tuizhi (Han Yu) indeed knew to be fond of its name, but was unable to rejoice in its reality. Why is this? His arguments were extremely lofty; he treated Confucius and Mencius with the utmost reverence and rejected Yang Zhu, Mo Di, Buddhism, and Daoism with the utmost rigor. Thus his expenditure of effort cannot be said not to have reached the limit. Yet when his arguments arrived at the fundamental principle, they were not refined. Fragmented, loose, and undisciplined, they often contradicted his own assertions without his realizing it," and so forth. Master Long of Western Shu composed One Hundred Chapters in Refutation of Han [Yu]. A summary of it states: "When Meng Jiao lost three sons, Tuizhi offered him a poem that went: 'If you have lost your sons, whom will you blame? / I will blame Heaven above! / You truly govern the earth below, / Yet why are your giving and taking so partial? / What do they matter to you, / That you cause them to multiply and endure? / What crime have these [children] alone committed, / To pass between life and death in barely ten days?' In the Three Hundred Poems, those below used air and satire against those above; they satirized supreme inhumanity, yet their words were not wrathful. Who has ever resented Heaven and insulted and mocked it like this? His boldness in slandering Buddhism and Daoism can be seen from this." Now ten or so items are recorded here: 1. The Great Sages of Buddhism and Daoism are denounced as barbarians ('Original Way'). 2. Confucius and Mo Di followed different paths, yet he now says they were originally identical, thus opposing Mencius and defiling Confucius ('Reading Mozi'). 3. The Way is fundamentally identical, yet the teachings are always different: Confucian teaching orders the world, while the Buddhist and Daoist teachings transcend the world; Tuizhi advocated ordering the world to abolish transcending the world, which shows he did not yet sufficiently understand the Way ('Original Way'). 4. Nature is fundamentally one, yet he now speaks of three grades and five natures, which shows he did not yet sufficiently understand the nature ('Original Nature'). 5. Humans are noble, yet does he now equate barbarians, birds, and beasts with humans? ('Original Human'). 6. When the previous emperor welcomed the Buddha's relic bone and then passed away, his words approached gloating over disaster ('Memorial of Direct Admonition'). 7. When demoted to Chaoyang, his urging of the Fengshan sacrifices approached offering flattery to seek recall ('Memorial Congratulating on the Venerable Title'). 8. Fearing the calamities of compiling history, yet bold in rejecting Buddhism ('Letter in Reply to Xiucai Liu'). 9. Composing mixed and impure discourses, yet having a fondness for gaming and gambling (the mixed and impure refers to works like the Biography of Mao Ying and Essay on Escaping Poverty; gaming is seen in the letter from Zhang Ji). Song Mingjiao's Thirty Chapters in Refutation of Han [Yu] states: "The Old Book of Tang says: 'Master Han's nature was biased and eccentric, rigid and prone to exposing faults; toward the Way, he was not broad.' Examining his writings and observing his conduct, this was truly the case. To expect Han to be leisurely and centered in the Middle Way like the ancients was inherently beyond him. It is fitting that discerning observers considered Han merely a man of literary composition. Now, literature is that by which the Way is transmitted; if the Way has not been reached, no matter how accomplished the literature is, of what use is it? Scholars fail to examine this, but merely imitate his style, taking mocking and discouraging the sages of the two teachings as their own ability. Therefore I have composed a book to debate this, in order to rectify those throughout the world who take pleasure in slander" (and so forth; the terms of his detailed attacks are roughly similar to Master Long's). Dongpo said: "In the past, those who discussed nature were numerous, yet they could not settle on one view. Originally, Mencius considered it good, Xunzi considered it evil, and Yangzi considered good and evil to be mixed. Han Yu then took the theories of these three masters and compromised them; drawing on Confucius's statements, he separated nature into three grades, saying: 'The middling person may go up or down, while the highest wisdom and the lowest folly do not change.' He considered that these three masters all emerged from the middle and neglected the upper and lower. Alas! This fails to understand what is called 'nature,' and speaks of it in terms of 'capacity.' Now, nature and capacity are close, but they are not identical. That which the sages and the petty men share together, and from which neither can escape—this is what is truly called nature. But their capacity will certainly possess differences. Those in the world who speak of nature all speak of it mixed with capacity; therefore, they are in disarray and cannot agree. Confucius's saying that the middling person can go up or down, and that the highest wisdom and the lowest folly do not change, was discussing their capacity. As for speaking of nature, he never adjudicated its goodness or evilness, stating merely: 'By nature they are close; by habit they diverge.' Han Yu's theory is even worse: he separated nature to make it emotion, and combined capacity to make it nature. Therefore, his argument could never be coherent in the end."