佛祖歷代通載 11.10.3

11.10.3

不知今之道書何因類於佛典。 論三世以勸刑。 出九流之軌躅。 若目覩而言之。 則同佛而等其照。 若耳聞而放之。 則師佛而遵其說。 同照則同不當非。 相師則師不可毀。 譽道而非佛。 何謬之甚哉。 傅云。 佛是妖魅之氣寺為淫邪之祀。 此其未思之甚也。 妖唯作㜸。 豈弘十善之化。 魅必憑邪。 寧興八正之道。 妖猶畏狗。 魅亦懼猫。 何以降帝釋之高心。 摧天魔之神力。 又如圖澄羅什之侶。 道安惠遠之儔。 高德高名。 非醉非狂。 豈容捨愛辭榮求魑魅之邪道。 勤身苦節事魍魎之妖神。 又自昔東漢至我大唐。 代代而禁妖言處處而斷淫祀。 豈容捨其財力放其士民。 營魑魅之堂塔。 入魍魎之徒眾。 又有宰輔冠蓋人倫羽儀王導庾亮之徒。 戴逵許詢之輩。 置情天人之際。 抗迹煙霞之表。 並稟教而歸依。 皆厝心以崇信。 豈容尊妖奉魅以自屈乎。 良由覩妙知真使之然耳。 又傅氏之先。 毅字武仲。 高才碩學世號通人。 辯顯宗之祥夢。 證金人之冥感。 釋道東被毅有功焉。 竊揆傅令之才識。 未可齊於武仲也。 何為毀佛謗法。 與其先之反乎。 吳尚書令闞澤對吳主孫權曰。 孔老二家比方佛法優劣遠矣。 何以言之。 孔老設教。 法天以制用。 不敢違天。 諸佛說法。 天奉而行。 不敢違佛。 以此言之。 實非比對。 愚謂闞子斯論知優劣之一隅矣。 凡百君子可不思其言乎。 夫大士高僧。 觀於理也深矣。 明主賢臣。 謀於國也忠矣。 而歷代寶之以為大訓何哉。 知其窮理盡性道莫之加故也。 傅氏觀不深於名僧。 思未精於前哲。 獨師心而背法。 輕絕福而興咎。 何其為國謀而不忠乎。 為身慮而不遠乎。 大覺窮神而知化。 深觀過患而豫防。 惟可齡之易盡嗟五福而難常。 命川流而電逝。 業地久而天長。 三塗極迍而杳杳。 四流無際而茫茫。 憑法舟而利濟。 藉信翮以翱翔。 宜轉咎而為福。 何罔念而作狂也。 傅云趙時梁時皆有僧反。 況今天下僧尼二十萬眾。 此又不思之言也。 若以昔有反僧而廢今之法眾。 豈得以古有叛臣而棄今之名士。 隣有逆兒而逐己之順子。 昔有亂民而不養今之黎庶乎。 夫普天之下出家之眾。 非雲集於一邑。 實星分於九土。 攝之以州縣。 限之以關河。 無徵發之威權。 有憲章之禁約。 縱令三五兇險一二闡提。 既無緣於烏合。 亦何憂於蟻聚。 且又沙門入道。 豈懷亡命之謀。 女子出家。 寧求帶甲之用。 何乃混計僧尼之數。 當同梟鏡之黨架虛以亂真。 蔽善而稱惡。 君子有三畏。 豈當如是乎。 夫青衿有罪。 非關尼父之失。 皂服為非。 豈是釋尊之咎。 僧干朝憲。 尼犯俗刑。 譬誦律而穿窬。 如讀禮而驕倨。 但以人稟頑嚚之性而不遷於善。 非是經開逆亂之源而令染於惡。 人不皆賢。 法實惟善。 何因怒惡而反善。 咎人而棄法。 若夫口談夷惠而身行桀蹠。 耳聽桀蹠而口廢詩禮。 然則人有可誅之罪。 法無可廢之過。 但應禁非以弘法。 不可以人而賤道。 竊篤信于妙法。 不苟黨於沙門。 至於耘稊稗以殖嘉苗。 肅奸危以清大教。 所深願矣。 所深願矣。 傅云。 道人土梟皆是貪逆之惡種。 此又不思之言也。 夫以捨俗修道。 故稱道人。 學道離貪逆。 若云貪菩提道逆生死流。 則僖子興言未及斯旨。 觀沙門之律行也。 行人所不能行。 止人所不能止。 具諸釋典可得而究。 蠕動之物猶不加害。 況為梟鏡之事乎。 嫁娶之禮尚捨不為。 況為禽獸之心乎。 何乃引離欲之上人。 匹聚塵之下物。 援有道之賢俊。 比無知之庶類。 毀大慈之善眾。 媲不祥之惡鳥。 謂道人為逆種。 以梵行比獸心。 害善一何甚乎。 反正頓如此乎。 余昔每引孝經之不毀傷。 以譏沙門之法去鬚髮謂其反先王之道。

I do not know why the Daoist scriptures of today resemble Buddhist scriptures, discussing the three realms of existence to encourage punishment and stepping beyond the tracks of the Nine Streams. If they spoke of it having seen it with their own eyes, then they are identical to the Buddha and equal to his illumination; if they heard it with their ears and imitated it, then they took the Buddha as their master and followed his words. If their illumination is identical, then being the same, it ought not to be censured; if one took him as master, then the master must not be reviled. To praise the Dao while censuring the Buddha—how great an absurdity that is! Fu [Yi] says: 'The Buddha is the vapor of malevolent specters, and monasteries are shrines for illicit demons.' This shows how deeply unreflective he is. Specters produce only calamity; how could they propagate the transformation of the ten virtuous deeds? Demons necessarily rely on heterodoxy; would they ever promote the path of the eightfold noble truths? Specters still fear dogs, and demons also dread cats; how could they subdue the lofty pride of Śakra Devendra or crush the supernatural powers of the heavenly Māra? Moreover, consider men such as Fotudeng and Kumārajīva, or peers like Dao'an and Huiyuan—of lofty virtue and high renown, neither drunken nor deranged: how could they be permitted to abandon attachments, renounce worldly honors, and seek the heterodox ways of mountain goblins, or afflict their bodies with rigorous asceticism to serve the malign spirits of water demons? Furthermore, from the Later Han down to our Great Tang, generation after generation has proscribed heterodox talk, and everywhere illicit worship has been terminated. How could the court allow the expenditure of wealth and the release of scholar-officials and subjects to build halls and stūpas for goblins, or enter the followings of demonic spirits? In addition, there were chancellors, officials, models of human propriety, and ornaments of the state like Wang Dao and Yu Liang, or peers like Dai Kui and Xu Xun, who set their minds in the realm of gods and men and elevated their steps beyond the mist and clouds. All received the teachings and took refuge; all set their minds to venerate and believe. How could they deign to bow themselves in veneration of specters and demons? It was truly because they beheld the sublime and recognized the truth that it was so. Moreover, the ancestor of this Mr. Fu, [Fu] Yi, courtesy name Wuzhong, was a man of lofty talent and profound erudition, acclaimed throughout his generation as an all-embracing scholar. He discerned the auspicious dream of Emperor Xianzong [Ming of Han] and corroborated the subtle inspiration of the golden man. In the eastern transmission of Śākya's teaching, Yi played a meritorious part. In my humble estimation, the talent and discernment of Director Fu cannot rival Wuzhong. Why, then, does he revile the Buddha and defame the Dharma, doing the opposite of his ancestor? Kan Ze, Prefect of the Masters of Writing under Wu, replied to Sun Quan, the Lord of Wu: 'When the two schools of Confucius and Laozi are compared with the Buddha's Dharma, the difference in superiority and inferiority is vast. Why is this? Confucius and Laozi established their teachings by taking Heaven as their model to institute regulations; they dared not disobey Heaven. When the Buddhas preach the Dharma, Heaven reveres and practices it, daring not disobey the Buddha. Speaking from this perspective, they are truly beyond comparison.' In my humble view, Master Kan's discourse grasped one corner of this superiority and inferiority. Can the gentlemen of the realm fail to reflect upon his words? Great beings and eminent monks have observed the inner principles deeply; enlightened sovereigns and worthy ministers have planned for the state with loyalty. Why, then, have successive dynasties treasured it as a great moral guide? It is because they knew that in exhausting principle and fully realizing one's nature, no path can surpass it. Fu's contemplation is not deeper than that of famed monks, nor is his thought more refined than that of past sages. Solely following his own whims, he turns his back on the Dharma; lightly cutting off merit, he brings about misfortune. How disloyal is his planning for the state! How short-sighted is his concern for his own person! The Great Awakened One plumbed the spiritual depths and understood transformation, deeply observing faults and suffering, taking precautions in advance. Considering that one's lifespan is easily exhausted, he lamented that the five blessings are hard to preserve for long. Life flows like a river and passes like lightning; karma endures as long as heaven and earth. The three evil destinies are fraught with hardship and gloom; the four currents are boundless and vast. One relies on the boat of the Dharma to cross safely; one depends on the wings of faith to soar high. One ought to turn misfortune into fortune; why lack reflection and act madly? Fu says: 'During the Zhao and Liang periods, there were monks who rebelled; all the more so now, when the empire has two hundred thousand monks and nuns.' These, again, are unthinking words. If past rebellions among monks justify abolishing the assemblies of the Dharma today, could ancient treacherous ministers justify abandoning the renowned scholars of today? Could a neighbor's rebellious son justify banishing one's own dutiful child? Could rebellious people in the past justify not nurturing the common folk today? The assembly of renunciants throughout the entire world is not gathered in a single town, but is scattered like stars across the nine regions. They are governed by prefectures and counties, and bounded by passes and rivers. They hold no authority to muster troops, and they are constrained by statutes and codes. Even if there are three or five dangerous villains, or one or two icchantikas, since there is no opportunity for them to flock together in mobs, why worry about an ant-like throng? Furthermore, when śramaṇas enter the Path, do they harbor the schemes of outlaws? When women leave the household, would they seek to bear arms? Why lump together the tally of monks and nuns, equating them with bands of owls and mirror-beasts, inventing falsehoods to confound the truth, obscuring good and exalting evil? A gentleman has three things he reveres—ought he to act like this? When scholars in blue collars commit crimes, it is not the fault of Father Ni [Confucius]; when those in black robes do wrong, how could it be the blame of Śākya the World-Honoured One? Monks violating dynastic statutes and nuns offending secular penalties are like reading the codes while committing burglary, or reading the rites while behaving haughtily. It is merely that individuals are endowed with stubborn and corrupt natures and fail to reform toward the good; it is not that the scriptures open up the sources of rebellion and cause them to be tainted by evil. People are not all virtuous, but the Dharma is truly good. Why, out of anger at evil, turn against the good, or blame individuals and abandon the Dharma? It is like discussing Boyi and Liuxia Hui with one's mouth while acting like Jie and Robber Zhi with one's body, or hearing of Jie and Robber Zhi with one's ears and discarding the Book of Odes and Book of Rites with one's mouth. Thus, people may bear capital guilt, but the Dharma has no fault for which it should be discarded. One should merely proscribe wrongdoing to propagate the Dharma; one must not degrade the Path because of people. In my humble view, while having deep faith in the sublime Dharma, I do not blindly align with śramaṇas. As for weeding out tares and darnel to cultivate fine sprouts, and purging treachery and peril to purify the Great Teaching, this is truly my profound wish; this is truly my profound wish. Fu says: 'Monks and horned owls are all the evil seed of greed and rebellion.' These, again, are unthinking words. One who renounces the secular world to cultivate the Path is called a man of the Path. Studying the Path means abandoning greed and rebellion. If one were to say they are greedy for the path of bodhi and rebel against the stream of saṃsāra, Master Xi's words fell short of this meaning. Observe the vinaya conduct of the śramaṇa: they practice what ordinary men cannot practice, and refrain from what ordinary men cannot refrain from. This is fully recorded in the Buddhist scriptures and can be investigated. They do not harm even wriggling creatures; how much less would they commit the deeds of owls and mirror-beasts? They renounce even the rites of marriage and do not engage in them; how much less would they harbor the minds of beasts? Why take superior beings who have renounced desires and pair them with base creatures that gather dust? Why take worthy talents possessed of the Path and compare them with ignorant animal species? Why revile the benevolent assembly of great compassion and liken them to ominous and evil birds? To call men of the Path a rebellious seed and compare pure conduct to the mind of beasts—how severe is this injury to goodness! How abrupt is this inversion of right and wrong! Formerly, I too would often cite the Classic of Filial Piety's injunction against harming one's body to deride the śramaṇa's practice of shaving hair and beard, calling it a violation of the way of the former kings.