佛祖歷代通載 11.10.2

11.10.2

既營之于[塽-(爻*爻)+((人/人)*(人/人))]塏。 又資之以膏腴。 擢修幢而曜日。 擬甲第而當衢。 王公大臣助之以金帛。 農商富族施之以田廬。 其福利之焉在。 何遵崇之有餘也。 未若銷像而絕鑴鑄。 貨泉可以無費。 毀經以禁繕寫。 筆紙不為之貴。 廢僧以從編戶。 益黍稷之餘稅。 壞塔以補不足。 廣賑恤之仁惠。 欲詣闕而効愚忠。 上書而獻斯計。 竊謂可以益國而利民矣。 吾子以為何如乎。 忠正君子曰。 是何言之過歟。 余昔篤志於儒林。 又措心于文苑。 頗同吾子之言論。 良由聞法之遲晚。 賴指南以去惑。 幸失途之未遠。 每省過而責躬。 則臨飡而忘飯。 子若博考而深計。 亦將悔迷而知返矣。 竊聞有太史令傅君者。 又甚於曩日之惑焉。 內自省於昔迷。 則十同其五矣。 請辯傅君之惑言。 以釋吾子之邪執。 傅謂佛法本出於西胡。 不應奉之於中國。 余昔同此惑焉。 今則悟其不然矣。 夫由余出自西戎。 輔秦穆而開伯業。 日磾生於北狄。 侍漢武而除危害。 臣既有之。 師亦宜爾。 何必取其同俗而捨於異方乎。 師以道大為尊。 無論於彼此。 法以善高為勝。 不計於遐邇。 若夫尚仁為美去欲稱高。 戒積惡之餘殃。 勸為善以邀福。 百家之所同。 七經無以易。 但褊淺而未深至。 齷齪而不周廣。 其恕己及物。 孰與佛之弘乎。 其覩未知本。 孰與佛之遠乎。 其勸善懲惡。 孰與佛之廣乎。 其明空析有。 孰與佛之深乎。 由此觀之。 其道妙矣。 聖人之德。 何以加焉。 豈得生於異域而賤其道。 出於遠方而棄其寶。 夫絕群之駿。 非唯中邑之產。 曠世之珍。 不必諸華之物。 漢求西域之名馬。 魏收南海之明珠。 貢犀象之牙角。 採翡翠之毛羽。 物生遠域尚於此而為珍。 道出遐方獨奈何而可棄。 若藥物出於戎夷。 禁呪起於胡越。 苟可以蠲邪而去疾。 豈以遠來而不用之哉。 夫滅三毒以證無為。 其蠲邪也大矣。 除八苦而致常樂。 其去疾也深矣。 何得拘夷夏而計親疎乎。 況百億日月之下。 三千世界之內。 則中在於彼域。 不在此方矣。 傳計詩書所未言。 以為修多不足尚。 余昔同此惑焉。 今又悟其不然矣。 夫天文曆象之祕奧。 地理山川之卓詭。 經脈孔穴之診候。 針藥符呪之方術。 詩書有所不載。 周孔未之明言。 然考之吉凶有時而徵矣。 察其行用而多効矣。 且又周孔未言之物。 蠢蠢無窮。 詩書不載之法。 茫茫何限。 信乎書不盡言。 言不盡意。 何得拘六經之局教。 而背三乘之通旨哉。 夫能事未興於上古。 聖人開務於後世。 故棟宇易橧巢之居。 文字代結繩之制。 飲血茹毛之饌。 則先用而未珍。 火化粒食之功。 雖後作而非弊。 彼用捨之先後。 非理教之通蔽。 豈得以詩書早播而得隆。 修多晚至而當替。 人有幼噉藜藿長飯粱肉。 少為布衣老遇侯服。 豈得以藜藿先獲謂勝粱肉之味。 侯服晚遇不如布衣之貴乎。 萬物有遷三寶常住。 寂然不動感而遂通。 化身示隱顯之迹。 法體絕興亡之數。 非初誕於王宮。 不長逝於雙樹。 何得論生滅于赴感。 計修促于來去乎。 傅氏譽老子而毀釋迦。 讚道書而非佛教。 余昔同此惑焉。 今又悟其不然矣。 夫釋老之為體。 一而不二矣。 同蠲有欲之累。 俱顯無為之宗。 老氏明而未融。 釋典言臻其極。 道若果是佛。 固同是而無非。 佛若果非道。 亦可非而無是。 理非矛盾之異。 人懷向背之殊。 既同眾狙之喜怒。 又似葉公之愛畏。 至如柱下道德之旨。 漆園內外之篇。 雅奧而難加。 清高而可尚。 竊甞讀之。 無間然矣。 豈以信奉釋典而苟訾之哉。 抑又論夫死生無窮之緣。 報應不朽之旨。 釋氏之所創明。 黃老未之言及。

"[Monasteries] have already been established upon high, dry ground and further endowed with fertile fields. Tall banner poles are raised aloft to gleam against the sun; [monasteries] emulate noble mansions, directly facing the thoroughfares. Princes, dukes, and great ministers assist them with gold and silk; wealthy agricultural and mercantile families donate fields and houses to them. Where does the blessed benefit of this lie? Why is there such excessive honor and reverence? It would be better to melt down the statues and cease their casting, so that coins and currency need not be wasted; to burn the sūtras and prohibit copying, so that brush and paper would not be made dear; to defrock the monks and return them to the household registers, thereby increasing the surplus revenue from millet; to demolish the stupas to supply what is lacking, thereby broadening the benevolent relief [for the poor]. Wishing to present myself at the palace to offer my humble loyalty, I submit this memorial to present this plan. I humbly submit that this can benefit the state and profit the people. What do you, sir, think of it?"
The loyal and upright gentleman said, "What an excessive statement this is! In the past, I was deeply devoted to the ranks of Confucian scholars and applied my mind to the garden of letters; my views were much the same as yours, purely because I was late in hearing the Dharma. Relying on a compass [to direct me], I dispelled my delusion, and fortunately I had not strayed far from the path. Whenever I reflect upon my faults and blame myself, I even forget to eat when facing a meal. If you examine things widely and deliberate deeply, you too will regret your confusion and know how to turn back.
I have heard that there is the Grand Astrologer, Gentleman Fu, whose delusions are even more severe than mine were in former days. Looking inward and reflecting on my past confusion, five out of ten [of my errors] were identical with his. Please allow me to refute Gentleman Fu's misguided statements in order to dispel your perverse attachment.
Fu says that the Buddha's teaching originally came from the Western Hu and should not be revered in the Central Kingdom. Formerly, I shared this delusion, but now I realize it is not so. Youyu came from the Western Rong, yet he assisted Duke Mu of Qin in establishing his hegemony; Jin Midi was born among the Northern Di, yet he attended Emperor Wu of Han and eliminated perils and harm. If this is true of ministers, it should also be so of teachers! Why must one accept only those of the same customs and reject those from foreign regions? A teacher is revered for the greatness of his Way, irrespective of here or there; a teaching is supreme for the loftiness of its goodness, regardless of near or far.
As for prizing benevolence as fine and regarding the elimination of desire as lofty, warning against the lingering misfortunes of accumulated evil and encouraging good deeds to seek fortune—this is shared by the hundred schools and cannot be altered by the Seven Classics. Yet [their views] are narrow and shallow, not having reached the profoundest depth; they are petty and not comprehensive or broad. In showing empathy for oneself and extending it to creatures, how do they compare with the Buddha's vastness? In observing what is not yet known and reaching the source, how do they compare with the Buddha's farsightedness? In encouraging good and chastising evil, how do they compare with the Buddha's breadth? In illuminating emptiness and analyzing existence, how do they compare with the Buddha's depth? Viewed from this perspective, his Way is wondrous indeed! How could the virtue of any sage surpass it? How could one despise his Way merely because he was born in a foreign land, or discard his treasure merely because it came from a distant region?
Swift steeds that surpass the herd are not produced only in the central provinces; treasures rare in any age are not necessarily the products of the various Hua lands. The Han sought renowned horses from the Western Regions; the Wei collected lustrous pearls from the South Seas; ivory and horns from rhinoceroses and elephants were offered as tribute, and feathers were plucked from kingfishers. If material things born in distant lands are still valued here as treasures, why should the Way alone be discarded merely because it came from a distant realm? If medicinal herbs come from the Rong and Yi, or incantations originate among the Hu and Yue, provided they can dispel evil and remove sickness, would one fail to use them simply because they came from afar?
Now, eradicating the three poisons to realize the unconditioned—how great is this dispelling of evil! Removing the eight sufferings to attain eternal bliss—how profound is this elimination of sickness! How could one be confined by the distinction between barbarian and Hua, or calculate near and distant relations? What is more, under the hundreds of millions of suns and moons and within the trichiliocosm, the 'center' lies in that realm, not in this region!
Fu reasons that because the sūtras are not mentioned in the Odes and the Documents, the sūtras are not worthy of esteem. In the past, I shared this delusion, but now I have again realized that it is not so. The secret subtleties of celestial phenomena and calendar science, the extraordinary wonders of geography and mountains and rivers, the diagnoses and signs of the channels and acupuncture points, the methods and arts of needles, herbs, talismans, and spells—these are not recorded in the Odes and the Documents, nor were they clearly spoken of by the Duke of Zhou and Confucius. Yet when tested against good and bad fortune, they are verified at times; when examined in practical application, they are often effective. Furthermore, the swarming, endless things unspoken by the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, and the boundless, limitless phenomena unrecorded in the Odes and the Documents—how could there be an end to them? Truly, writings do not exhaust words, and words do not exhaust meanings. How could one be confined to the limited teachings of the Six Classics while turning one's back on the all-pervading purport of the Triyāna?
Capacities and practices were not fully developed in high antiquity; the sages opened up undertakings in later generations. Thus, pillared buildings replaced dwelling in nests and trees, and writing replaced the system of knotted cords. Feasting on blood and swallowing feathers were used first, yet were not prized; the efficacy of cooking by fire and eating grain, though invented later, was by no means defective. Their priority of adoption or rejection is not a matter of the breadth or limitation of reason and instruction. How could one hold that the Odes and Documents should flourish because they were propagated early, while the sūtras should be discarded because they arrived late? There are men who in youth ate coarse greens and in adulthood dined on fine grain and meat; who in youth wore plain clothes and in old age obtained the robes of a marquis. How could one claim that because coarse greens were obtained first they surpass the flavor of fine grain and meat, or that the robes of a marquis obtained late are not as noble as plain cloth?
The myriad things undergo change, but the Three Jewels are eternally abiding. Quiescent and unmoving, they respond to conditions and thereupon penetrate everywhere. The transformation body manifests the traces of concealing and revealing; the Dharma body transcends the numbers of rise and decline. He was not born for the first time in the royal palace, nor did he pass away forever under the twin trees. How could one discuss birth and cessation on the basis of his responding to conditions, or reckon length and brevity on the basis of his coming and going?
Gentleman Fu praises Laozi and slanders Śākyamuni; he lauds Daoist books and condemns the Buddhist teachings. Formerly, I shared this delusion, but now I have again realized that it is not so. The substance of Buddhism and Daoism is one and not two. Both eliminate the burden of having desires, and both reveal the principle of the unconditioned. Laozi clarified it, yet not fully; the Buddhist scriptures express it to the utmost limit. If the Dao were truly the Buddha, they would be fundamentally identical and neither would be wrong. If the Buddha were truly not the Dao, one could also negate one without affirming the other. The principle is not a contradiction of opposites, but men harbor differences of inclination and opposition; they are like the monkeys showing joy and anger, or like Duke She with his affection and dread [of dragons]. As for the purport of the Daode[jing] from the archivist beneath the pillar, and the inner and outer chapters from the garden of lacquer trees, they are elegant and profound, difficult to surpass, pure and lofty, worthy of esteem. I have humbly read them and found no fault in them. How could I blindly disparage them simply because I believe in and uphold the Buddhist scriptures?
Furthermore, let us consider the principle of the endless causes of birth and death, and of imperishable karmic retribution: this was first clearly illuminated by the Buddha, whereas Huang-Lao never spoke of it."