[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛祖歷代通載](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036) › 11.10.4 # 佛祖歷代通載 11.10.4 佛祖歷代通載 11.10.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.10.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10.4) 失忠孝之義。 今則悟其不然矣。 若夫事君親而盡節雖殺身而稱仁。 虧忠孝而偷存。 徒全膚而非義。 論美見危而致命。 禮防臨難而苟免。 何得一概而訶毀傷雷同而顧膚髮。 割股納肝傷則甚矣。 剔鬚落髮損乃微焉。 立忠不顧其命。 論者莫知咎。 求道不愛其毛。 何獨以為過。 湯恤烝民。 尚焚軀以祈澤。 墨敦兼愛欲磨足而至頂況夫上為君父深求相利。 須髮之毀何足顧哉。 夫聖人之教。 有殊途而同歸君子之道。 或反經而合義。 則泰伯其人也。 廢在家之就養。 託採藥而不歸。 棄中國之服章。 依剪髮以為飾。 反經悖禮莫甚於斯。 然而仲尼稱之曰。 泰伯可謂至德矣。 其故何也。 雖迹背君親。 而心忠於家國。 形虧百越。 布德全乎三讓。 故泰伯棄衣冠之制。 而無損於至德。 則沙門捨縉紳之容。 亦何傷乎妙道。 雖易服改貌。 違臣子之常儀。 而信道歸心。 願君親之多福。 苦其身意。 修出家之眾善。 遺其君父。 延歷劫之深慶。 其為忠孝不亦多乎。 浪謂沙門為不忠。 未之信矣。 傅又云。 西域胡人因埿而生。 是以便事埿瓦。 此又未思之言也。 夫崇立靈像摸寫尊形。 所用多塗。 非獨埿瓦。 或彫或鑄。 則以鐵木金銅。 圖之繡之。 亦在丹青縑素。 復謂西域士女遍從此物而生乎。 且又中國之廟以木為主。 則謂制禮君子皆從木而育邪。 親不可忘。 故為之宗廟。 佛不可忘。 故立其形像。 以表罔極之心。 用申如在之敬。 欽聖仰德何失之有哉。 夫以善為過者。 故亦以惡為功矣。 傅又云。 帝王無佛則國治年長。 有佛則政虐祚短。 此又未思之言也。 則謂能仁設教。 皆闡淫虐之風。 菩薩立言。 專弘桀紂之事。 以實論之。 殊不然矣。 夫殷喪大寶。 災興妲己之言。 周失諸侯禍由褒姒之笑。 三代之亡。 皆此物也。 三乘之教。 豈斯尚乎。 佛之為道慈悲喜捨。 齊物而等怨親。 與安樂而救危苦。 古之所以得其民者。 佛既弘之矣民之所以逃其上者。 經甚戒之矣。 羲軒舜禹之德。 在六度而苞籠。 羿浞癸辛之咎。 總十惡以防禁。 向使桀遵少欲之教。 紂順大慈之道。 伊呂無以用其謀。 湯武焉得行其計。 可使鳴條免去國之禍。 牧野息倒戈之亂。 夏后從洛汭之歌。 楚子違乾溪之難。 然則釋氏之化。 為益非小。 延福祚於無窮。 遏危亡於未兆。 傅謂有之為損。 無之為益。 是何言與。 是何言與。 佛何讐而誣之至此。 佛何負而疾之若讐乎。 傅又云。 未有佛法之前。 人皆淳和世無篡逆。 此又未思之言也。 夫九黎亂德。 豈非無佛之年。 三苗逆命。 非當有法之後。 夏殷之季何有淳和。 春秋之時寧無篡逆。 寇賊奸宄。 作士命於皐陶。 玁狁孔熾。 蕩伐勞於吉甫。 而傅謂佛興篡逆。 盜法佛猶戒之。 豈長篡逆之亂乎。 一言之競佛亦防之。 何敗淳和之道乎。 惟佛之為教也。 勸臣以忠。 勸子以孝。 勸國以治。 勸家以和。 弘善示天堂之樂。 懲非顯地獄之苦。 不唯一字以為褒。 豈止五刑而作戒。 乃謂傷和而長亂。 不亦誣謗之甚哉。 亦何傷於佛日乎。 但自淪於苦海矣。 輕而不避。 良可悲夫。 於是書生心伏而色愧。 避席而謝曰。 僕以習俗生常違道自佚。 忽於所未究。 翫其所先述。 背正法而異論。 受邪言以同失。 今聞佛智之玄邃。 乃知釋教之忠質。 豁然神悟而理攄。 足以蕩迷而祛疾。 雖從邪於昔歲。 請歸正於茲日。 謹誦來戒以為口實矣。 > \[... that the Buddhist robes and shaved head\] lose the righteousness of loyalty and filial piety. Now, however, I have realized that this is not so. As for serving one's sovereign and parents: if one exhausts one's integrity, even giving up one's life is called humaneness; while compromising loyalty and filial piety to cling shamefully to survival merely preserves the skin, which is unrighteous. The treatises praise facing danger and sacrificing one's life; the rites guard against evading duty in times of peril. How can one sweeping statement condemn injuring \[the body\] and indiscriminately fuss over hair and skin? Slicing flesh from the thigh or presenting one's liver involves severe injury, yet shaving the beard and hair is but a slight loss. One who establishes loyalty has no regard for his life, and critics find no fault; why, then, should one who seeks the Way and does not cherish his hair alone be considered wrong? Tang pitied the common people and even offered his body to be burned to pray for rain; Mozi promoted universal love and was willing to rub himself smooth from heel to crown. How much more so when one deeply seeks mutual benefit for sovereign and father above: how would the loss of beard and hair be worth a second thought? The teachings of the sages have different paths that converge on the same goal; the Way of the gentleman may contravene the standard norm yet accord with righteousness—Taibo was such a man! He gave up tending to his parents at home and feigned gathering herbs never to return; he cast off the dress of the Central Plains and cut his hair for adornment. Nothing could have contravened the standard norm or violated the rites more than this. Yet Zhongni praised him, saying: 'Taibo may indeed be called of utmost virtue!' What was the reason for this? Although his actions turned his back on sovereign and parents, his heart was loyal to his house and state. Though his appearance was altered among the Baiyue, he spread his virtue and fulfilled the three renunciations. Therefore, Taibo cast off the system of robes and caps without diminishing his utmost virtue; so how could a śramaṇa relinquishing the attire of the gentry harm the wondrous Way? Although they change their clothing and alter their appearance, contravening the ordinary customs of ministers and sons, they entrust their hearts to the Way in faithful devotion and wish abundant blessings for sovereign and parents. They mortify their bodies and minds, cultivating the manifold good deeds of pravrajyā; by dedicating these to their sovereign and father, they prolong profound blessings through successive kalpas. Is this not abundant loyalty and filial piety? To rashly call śramaṇas disloyal is truly incredible! Fu further claimed that the barbarians of the Western Regions were born from mud and therefore serve clay and brick \[images\]. These too are thoughtless words! When venerating spiritual images and depicting revered forms, the materials used are many, not just clay and brick: some are carved and some are cast, using iron, wood, gold, and bronze; they are also painted and embroidered, using pigments and silk. Would he claim again that the men and women of the Western Regions were born entirely from such things? Moreover, ancestral shrines in China take wooden tablets as the primary object—would he say that the gentlemen who established the rites were all reared from wood? Parents cannot be forgotten, so ancestral shrines are built for them; the Buddha cannot be forgotten, so his images are erected to manifest boundless devotion and express the reverence of 'as if present.' In venerating the sage and esteeming virtue, what fault is there? Those who regard good as an offense naturally consider evil a merit! Fu also claimed that when sovereigns had no Buddha, the country was well governed and their reigns were long, but when there was a Buddha, governance was tyrannical and reigns were brief. These are likewise thoughtless words! Would one then say that Sākyamuni established his teachings to propagate licentiousness and tyranny, and that the bodhisattvas laid down words exclusively to promote the deeds of Jie and Zhou? To speak truth, it is entirely otherwise! The House of Yin lost the great treasure \[of the state\] because disaster arose from Daji's words; the House of Zhou lost the feudal lords because calamity stemmed from Baosi's smile. The falls of the Three Dynasties all derived from such matters. Would the teachings of the triyāna ever esteem these? The Buddha's Way is loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity; it equalizes all things and views enemies and kin alike, bestowing peace and joy and rescuing from peril and suffering. That by which the ancients won over their people, the Buddha has already propagated; that which caused the people to flee from their rulers, the scriptures have strictly prohibited. The virtues of Fuxi, Xuanyuan, Shun, and Yu are all encompassed within the six pāramitās; the faults of Yi, Zhuo, Gui, and Xin are all prevented by the ten non-virtuous actions. If Jie had formerly followed the teaching of few desires and Zhou had complied with the Way of great compassion, Yi Yin and Lü Shang would have had no use for their stratagems, and Tang and Wu would not have carried out their plans! Mingtiao could have been spared the disaster of losing the realm, and Muye could have calmed the chaos of soldiers turning their halberds around; the Lord of Xia would have heeded the songs of the bend of the Luo, and the Viscount of Chu would have avoided the calamity at Ganxi. Thus, the transformation wrought by the Buddha's teachings is of no small benefit: it extends fortune and prosperity without end and checks peril and destruction before they manifest. When Fu claims that having it is harmful and lacking it is beneficial, what kind of words are these? What kind of words are these? What enmity does he bear the Buddha to slander him so, and what debt has the Buddha failed to pay him that he hates him like an enemy? Fu further claimed that before the Buddhist Dharma existed, all people were pure and harmonious, and the world knew no usurpations or rebellions. These too are thoughtless words! Was the rebellion against virtue by the Nine Li not in an era without the Buddha? Was the disobedience of the Sanmiao after the Dharma already existed? In the twilight of the Xia and Yin dynasties, where was purity and harmony? In the Spring and Autumn period, was there really no usurpation or rebellion? When robbers, bandits, traitors, and subversives arose, the post of judge was appointed under Gaoyao; when the Xianyun flared up fiercely, the toil of launching campaigns fell to Jifu. Yet Fu claims that Buddhism gives rise to usurpation and rebellion! Even the theft of the Dharma is prohibited by the Buddha; how could he encourage the turmoil of usurpation and rebellion? A single contentious word is also guarded against by the Buddha; how could he ruin the way of purity and harmony? The Buddha's teaching urges ministers to be loyal, sons to be filial, states to be well ordered, and families to be harmonious. It promotes goodness by showing the joys of heaven, and disciplines wrong by revealing the torments of hell. He does not use merely a single character for praise, nor does he stop at the five punishments to establish precepts. To say that it harms harmony and fosters disorder—is this not the height of slander? And what harm does it do to the sun of the Buddha? Such a one merely sinks himself into the ocean of suffering. Slighting it without avoiding it—how truly lamentable! Thereupon the scholar was subdued in mind and looked ashamed; he vacated his mat and apologized, saying: 'Because I was accustomed to worldly conventions, I constantly transgressed the Way and gave myself over to laxity. I neglected what I had not investigated and took pleasure in what had been handed down before; turning my back on the correct Dharma, I entertained deviant theories, accepting perverse words and sharing in the error. Now that I have heard the profound depths of the Buddha's wisdom, I know the loyalty and substance of the Buddhist teaching. Suddenly enlightened in spirit, the truth is laid open, sufficient to sweep away confusion and dispel the malady. Though I followed deviance in past years, I beg to return to rectitude this day. I shall respectfully recite these admonitions to keep them always on my lips.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.10.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10.3) - [Next: 11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.11) - [Up: 11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036~en-mt.11.10.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [法苑珠林](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2122.55.63) — 道世, Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10.4) · Pramāṇa