佛祖統紀 41.58

41.58

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."