佛祖歷代通載 11.53

11.53

論曰。君子謂立言之難其實非難。特為好惡所欺耳。如歐陽文忠公作太宗本紀贊。雖筆高語奇傑出諸史。至貶太宗復立浮圖好大喜功勤兵於遠類中材庸主所為而不取。予謂文忠責備之深。而為好惡所欺也。方貞觀之世。天下昆蟲草木咸被其澤。至於日月霜露所至之國。皆欵關而修職直。獨高麗莫離支叛逆阻命。太宗身任千載道德英雄之主。其肯坐視之。留為子孫憂。而不少假經略乎。蓋其威德之盛。其勢之必然。非好大喜功之謂也。昔黃帝平蚩尤。七十戰而勝其亂。高宗伐鬼方。三年而後克。太宗舉偏師而陰山平。臨駐蹕而高麗服。然黃帝高宗。經孔子而未甞少貶。文忠特以為太宗之疵。庸詎非責備之過與。以太宗盛德大業如此。猶曲貶之將恐後之君子。懷免貶之難而無意於功名也。文忠徒欲高尚其事。而不知此亦自蹈好大之失。矣至於復立浮。圖乃所以和順道德。而齊天地鬼神之心。以開濟天下後世之人。為無窮之益也。文忠以為不當。則是太宗暗於取舍矣。使太宗果暗於此。則當時房杜王魏之流。亦因循戶祿而暗於取舍者耶。或曰。文忠慕韓愈為人。故不得不爾。嗚呼文忠何忍哉。慕人毀佛而兼棄太宗之道德。是不為好惡所欺耶。孔子立名教者也。老氏則非毀之。及孔子刪禮。則曰。吾聞諸老聃云。然孔子亦以人而廢言乎。亦若世情之好惡耶。況真佛也者耶。聖凡本有之體。毀之乃所以自毀之也。詎傷於真佛哉。甞聞文忠一昔夢。為勇士數輩攝至太宗之庭。太宗怒而責曰。吾文武勳烈如此。不能逃子之貶何也。文忠震懼而寤。後欲追改之。而業已進書頒行矣。遂不克改。甞慨然曰。平懷最難。此殆非偶然而云耳。

The commentary says: A gentleman says that establishing one's words is difficult; yet in reality it is not difficult—it is merely that one is deceived by one's likes and dislikes. Take, for example, Duke Ouyang Wenzhong's encomium for the 'Basic Annals of Taizong': although his style was lofty and his phrases remarkable, standing out above other histories, when he went so far as to disparage Taizong for re-establishing Buddhist stupas, delighting in grandiosity, boasting of achievements, and exhausting his troops in distant campaigns as resembling the actions of mediocre and ordinary rulers, I say that Wenzhong's demands were too severe and that he was deceived by his own likes and dislikes. During the Zhenguan era, the insects, grasses, and trees throughout the realm were all bathed in his beneficence. Even in the countries reached by the sun, moon, frost, and dew, all knocked at the frontier passes and rendered their feudal service. Only the Koguryŏ Mangniji rebelled, defying imperial commands. As a ruler who personally took upon himself the role of a heroic sovereign of thousand-year moral virtue, would Taizong have been willing to sit idly by, leaving a source of anxiety for his descendants, without undertaking any campaign? His majesty and virtue were so flourishing that this course of events was inevitable; it was not a matter of 'delighting in grandiosity and boasting of achievements.' Anciently, the Yellow Emperor pacified Chiyou, prevailing over his rebellion only after seventy battles. Gaozong campaigned against the Guifang, conquering them only after three years. Taizong merely sent a detached force and Yinshan was pacified; he merely halted his imperial carriage and Koguryŏ submitted. Yet though the Yellow Emperor and Gaozong were recorded by Confucius, they were never slighted in the least. That Wenzhong singularly regarded this as a blemish in Taizong—how could that not be an excess of holding him to severe standards? When one still unfairly disparages Taizong despite such flourishing virtue and magnificent achievements, I fear that gentlemen of later ages, daunted by the difficulty of escaping censure, will have no interest in merit and fame. Wenzhong merely wished to make his own work appear lofty, not knowing that he thereby stumbled into the fault of grandiosity himself. As for re-establishing Buddhist stupas, this is precisely how one accords with moral virtue, unites the hearts of Heaven, Earth, ghosts, and spirits, and brings salvation to the people of all under Heaven and later generations, providing them with boundless benefit. For Wenzhong to deem it improper is to say that Taizong was blind in his choices. If Taizong were truly blind in this, were the likes of Fang [Xuanling], Du [Ruhui], Wang [Gui], and Wei [Zheng] at that time also merely routine salary-drawers who were blind in their choices? Some may say: 'Wenzhong admired Han Yu's character, and therefore could not help doing so.' Alas, how could Wenzhong bear to do this! To admire a man who reviled the Buddha and simultaneously cast aside Taizong's moral virtue—is that not being deceived by likes and dislikes? Confucius was the one who established the Teaching of Names, yet Laozi criticized it; when Confucius edited the Rites, he said, 'I have heard it from Lao Dan.' Did Confucius reject someone's words on account of the person? Was he swayed by worldly likes and dislikes? How much more so with the true Buddha! The inherent essence of both sages and ordinary mortals: to revile it is merely to revile oneself. How could it harm the true Buddha? I once heard that one night Wenzhong dreamed he was seized by several stalwart men and brought before Taizong's court. Taizong, enraged, rebuked him: 'My civil and military merits and glorious deeds being such as they are, why could they not escape your disparagement?' Wenzhong woke up terrified. Later he wished to revise it, but the book had already been submitted and published; thus he was unable to alter it. He once said with a sigh: 'To maintain an equanimous mind is the most difficult.' This was surely not spoken by mere coincidence.