佛祖歷代通載 19.16

19.16

（九）　金國李屏山曰。蘇軾作司馬光墓誌云。公不喜佛曰。其精微大抵不出於吾書。其誕吾不信。嗟乎聰明之障人如此其甚耶。同則以為出於吾書。異則以為誕而不信。適足以自障其聰惠而已。聖人之道。其相通也。如有關龠。其相合也。如有符璽。相距數千里。如處一室。相繼數萬世。如在一席。故孔子曰。西方有聖人焉。莊子曰。萬世之後一遇大聖而知其解者。是旦暮遇之也。其精微處安得不同。列子曰。古者神聖之人。先會鬼神魑魅。次達八方人民。末聚禽獸蟲蛾。備知萬物情態。悉解異類音聲。其所教訓無遺逸焉。何誕之有。孔子游方之內。故六合之外存而不論。鄒衍列禦寇莊周方外之士。已無所不談矣。顧不如佛書之縷縷也。以非耳目所及。光不敢信。既非耳目所及。吾敢不信耶。郭璞日者也。十年於晉室。若合符券。疑吾佛不能記百萬之多劫耶。左慈術士也。變形於魏都。皆同物色。疑吾佛不能示千百億之化身耶。長房壺中之遊。人信之矣。不信維摩丈室容三萬座與納須彌於芥子中之說乎。邯鄲枕上之夢。人信之矣。不信多寶佛塔住五千劫耶。度僧祇如彈頃指之說乎。若俱不信。不知光亦甞有夢否。瞑於一床栩栩少時也。山川聚落森然可狀。人物器皿何所不有。俯仰酬酢於其間。自成一世。此特凡夫第六分離識之所影現者耳。其力如是。況以如來大圓鏡智菩薩之幻三昧乎。學者當自消息之。毋虛名所劫持也。

(9) Li Pingshan of the Jin State said: 'Su Shi's epitaph for Sima Guang states: "The duke did not like Buddhism, saying: 'Its subtleties mostly do not exceed our books; its extravagances I do not believe.' Alas! Can the obstruction of intelligence in men really be as severe as this? If it is identical, he considers it to derive from our books; if it is different, he considers it extravagant and does not believe it. This merely suffices to obstruct his own intelligence! When the ways of the sages communicate with each other, it is like key and lock; when they accord with each other, it is like matching tallies. Separated by thousands of miles, they are as if in one room; succeeding each other across tens of thousands of generations, they are as if at one mat. Therefore Confucius said: 'There is a sage in the West.' Zhuangzi said: 'To meet a great sage ten thousand generations hence who understands his explanation is like meeting him morning and evening.' How could their subtle points not be identical? Liezi said: 'In antiquity, spiritual sages first communed with ghosts, spirits, and demons; next they reached the people of the eight directions; finally they assembled birds, beasts, insects, and moths. They fully knew the conditions of all things and thoroughly understood the sounds of diverse species. Nothing was omitted from their teachings.' What extravagance is there in this? Confucius wandered within the realm; therefore he set aside what was beyond the six directions without discussing it. Men beyond the realm such as Zou Yan, Lie Yukou, and Zhuang Zhou left nothing undiscussed, though their words were not as detailed as those in Buddhist books. Because it was not what his ears and eyes could reach, Guang did not dare believe it. Yet precisely because it is not what ears and eyes can reach, how dare we not believe it? Guo Pu was a diviner; his predictions for ten years in the Jin dynasty were like matching tallies. Do you doubt that our Buddha could remember the many kalpas numbering in the millions? Zuo Ci was a sorcerer; his transformations of form in the Wei capital were all identical to real things. Do you doubt that our Buddha could manifest thousands of hundreds of millions of transformation bodies? People believe Fei Changfang's travels inside a gourd; yet do they not believe the statement that Vimalakīrti's ten-foot-square room accommodated thirty thousand seats and that Sumeru was contained inside a mustard seed? People believe the dream on the pillow of Handan; yet do they not believe that the stupa of Prabhūtaratna Buddha remained for five thousand kalpas, or the saying that an asaṃkhyeya kalpa is crossed in the snapping of a finger? If you disbelieve both, I wonder whether Guang ever had a dream? Closing his eyes on a single bed, vividly for a short while, mountains, rivers, and settlements appear distinctly in form; what people, objects, and utensils are not present? In bowing, rising, and social exchanges among them, a realm forms of itself. This is merely a phantom projection of the sixth distinguishing consciousness of an ordinary person. Its power is such; how much more so with the Tathāgata's Great Round Mirror Wisdom and the bodhisattvas' illusory samādhi? Students should understand this for themselves and not be hijacked by empty reputation!'