佛祖歷代通載 15.38

15.38

論曰。舊史稱。退之性愎訐。當時達官皆薄其為人。及與李紳同列。紳恥居其下。數上疏訟其短。今新史則以退之排佛老之功比孟子。嘉祐中有西蜀龍先生者。忿其言太過。遂摘退之言行悖戾先儒者。條攻之。一曰。老氏不可毀。二曰。愈讀墨子反孟玷孔。若此類二十篇行于世。及觀外傳見大顛之說。凡退之平生蹈偽于此疎脫盡矣。歐陽文忠公嘗歎曰。雖退之復生不能自解免。得不謂天下至言哉。而荊國王文公亦曰。人有樂孟子拒楊墨也。而以排佛老為己功。嗚呼莊子莊子所謂夏虫者。其斯人之謂乎。道歲也。聖人時也。執一時而疑歲者。終不聞道。夫春起於冬而以冬為終。終天下之道術者。其釋氏乎。不至於是者。皆所謂夏虫也。文公蓋宋朝巨儒。其論退之如此。則外傳之說。可不信夫。

The evaluation says: The *Old Tang History* states that Tuizhi’s nature was obstinate and contentious, and high officials of the time all made light of his character. When he held the same rank as Li Shen, Shen was ashamed to be placed beneath him and repeatedly submitted memorials criticizing his shortcomings. But the *New Tang History* compares Tuizhi’s merit in rejecting Buddhism and Laozi to that of Mencius. During the Jiayou era, a Master Long from Western Shu, indignant at such exaggerated praise, extracted those words and actions of Tuizhi that contradicted the former Confucians and criticized them item by item. The first was: 'Laozi may not be defamed.' The second was: 'Yu reads Mozi, opposing Mencius and tarnishing Confucius.' Twenty such essays of this sort circulated in the world. When one reads the non-canonical accounts and sees Dadian's statements, all the falseness in Tuizhi’s life is completely exposed. Duke Ouyang Wenzhong once sighed: 'Even if Tuizhi were reborn, he could not exonerate himself. Can this not be called the ultimate truth in the realm?' Duke Wang Wengong of Jing also said: 'Some rejoice that Mencius resisted Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di], and so take the rejection of Buddhism and Laozi as their own merit. Alas, what Zhuangzi called the summer insect—does it not refer to such a man? The Dao is the whole year; the sages are the seasons. One who clings to a single season and doubts the year will never hear the Dao. Spring arises from winter, yet takes winter as its culmination. Is it not Śākya's teaching that culminates the arts of the Dao in the realm? Those who do not reach this are all what are called summer insects.' Duke Wengong was a great Confucian of the Song dynasty; since his assessment of Tuizhi was like this, how could one not believe the accounts in the non-canonical records?