佛祖統紀 47.59

47.59

八年。上製原道論曰。朕觀韓愈原道論。謂佛法相混三教相絀。未有能辨之者。徒文煩而理迂耳。若揆之以聖人之用心。則無不昭然矣。何則釋氏窮性命外形骸。於世事了不相關。又何與禮樂仁義者哉。然猶立戒曰不殺不婬不盜不妄語不飲酒。夫不殺仁也。不婬禮也。不盜義也。不妄語信也。不飲酒智也。此與仲尼又何遠乎。從容中道聖人也。聖人之所為孰非禮樂。孰非仁義。又惡得而名焉。譬如天地運行陰陽若循環之無端。豈有春夏秋冬之別哉。此世人強名之耳。亦猶仁義禮樂之別。聖人所以設教治世。不得不然也。因其強名揆而求之。則道也者。仁義禮樂之宗也。仁義禮樂固道之用也。楊雄謂老氏棄仁義絕禮樂。今迹老氏之書。其所寶者三。曰慈。曰儉。曰不敢為天下先。孔子曰。節用而愛人。老氏之所謂儉。豈非愛人之大者耶。孔子曰。溫良恭儉讓。老氏所謂不敢為天下先。豈非讓之大者耶。孔子曰。惟仁為大。老氏之所謂慈豈非仁之大者耶。至其會道則互見偏舉。所貴者清淨寧一。而與孔聖果相背馳乎。蓋三教末流。昧者執之自為異耳。夫佛老絕念無為修身而矣。孔子教以治天下者。特所施不同耳。譬猶耒耜而耕機杼而織。後世紛紛而惑。固失其理。或曰。當如何去其惑哉。曰以佛修心。以道養生。以儒治世。斯可也。其唯聖人為能同之。不可不論也（聖政錄）。

In the eighth year, the Emperor composed the Treatise on the Origin of the Way, saying: 'We observe Han Yu's Treatise on the Origin of the Way, which claimed that the Buddhist teachings confound [the truth] and the three teachings disparage each other, without anyone being able to distinguish them, only producing tedious prose and roundabout reasoning. If one evaluates them by the sage's intentions, all is luminous. Why? The Buddhists exhaust nature and destiny, placing the bodily form outside, completely detached from worldly affairs; what do they have to do with rites, music, benevolence, and righteousness? Yet they still establish precepts, saying: do not kill, do not commit sexual misconduct, do not steal, do not lie, and do not drink wine. Now, not killing is benevolence; not committing sexual misconduct is propriety; not stealing is righteousness; not lying is trustworthiness; not drinking wine is wisdom. How does this differ from Confucius? He who complies with the Mean without effort is a sage. Of the sage's actions, which is not rites and music? Which is not benevolence and righteousness? How could one merely designate them by name? For example, the operation of heaven and earth and the alternation of yin and yang are like a cycle without end; how could there really be a distinction of spring, summer, autumn, and winter? This is merely what worldly people arbitrarily name. It is likewise with the distinctions between benevolence, righteousness, rites, and music; the sage set forth teachings to govern the world because it could not be otherwise. Investigating and seeking them through these arbitrary names, the Way is the progenitor of benevolence, righteousness, rites, and music. Benevolence, righteousness, rites, and music are indeed the functioning of the Way. Yang Xiong said that Laozi cast aside benevolence and righteousness and abolished rites and music. Now, examining Laozi's writings, what he treasured were three things: compassion, frugality, and not daring to be first under heaven. Confucius said: "Economize in expenditure and love the people." What Laozi called frugality, is it not the greatest love of people? Confucius said: "Benign, upright, courteous, frugal, and yielding." What Laozi called not daring to be first under heaven, is it not the greatest yielding? Confucius said: "Only benevolence is great." What Laozi called compassion, is it not the greatest benevolence? When it comes to their meeting with the Way, each shows a different emphasis. What [Laozi] valued was purity, tranquility, and oneness; does it truly run counter to the sage Confucius? The degenerate followers of the three teachings, being deluded, cling to them and arbitrarily make distinctions. The Buddha and Laozi severed thoughts and abided in non-action merely to cultivate themselves; Confucius taught so as to govern all under heaven; it is merely that their applications were different. It is like plowing with a plowshare and weaving with a loom. Later generations were confused and bewildered, thereby truly losing their principle. Someone may ask: "How should one dispel this confusion?" I say: Cultivate the mind with Buddhism, nourish life with Daoism, and govern the world with Confucianism—this will suffice. Only a sage is able to unify them; it must not be left undiscussed.' (Record of Imperial Governance).