佛祖歷代通載 20.136

20.136

屏山曰。論至於此。儒佛之說為一家。其功用之殊。但或出或處。或默或語。便生分別以為同異者何也。至如劉子翬之洞達。張九成之精深。呂伯恭之通融。張敬夫之醇正。朱元晦之峻潔。皆近代之偉人也。想見方寸之地既虛而明。四通六闢千變萬化。其知見只以夢幻死生。操履只以塵垢富貴。皆學聖人而未至者。其論佛老也。實與而文不與。陽擠而陰助之。蓋有微意存焉。唱千古之絕學。掃末流之塵迹。將行其說於世。政自不得不爾。如胡寅者。詬詈不已。嘻其甚矣。豈非翻著祖師衣倒用如來印者邪。語在駁崇正辨。吾恐白面書生輩。不知諸老先生之心。借以為口實。則三聖人之道。幾何不化而為異端也。伊川之學。今自江東浸淫而北矣。搢紳之士負高明之資者。皆甘心焉。予亦出入於其中。幾三十年。甞欲箋註其得失而未暇也。今以承乏於秋闈。考經學數十餘日。乘閒漫筆於小[葶-丁+呆]。意者撒藩籬於大方之家。匯淵谷於聖學之海。藐諸子胸中之祕。發此書言外之機。道冠儒履。同入解脫法門。翰墨文章。皆是神通游戲。姑以自洗其心耳。或傳於人。將有怫然而怒。惘然而疑。凝然而思。釋然而悟。啞然而笑者。必曰此翁亦可憐矣。

Pingshan said: "Once the discourse reaches this point, the teachings of Confucianism and Buddhism become one family. As for the difference in their functions, it is merely whether acting in the world or remaining in retirement, whether staying silent or speaking; why then give rise to distinctions, regarding them as identical or different? As for the thorough penetration of Liu Zihui, the refinement and depth of Zhang Jiucheng, the comprehensive accommodation of Lü Bogong, the pure correctness of Zhang Jingfu, and the lofty purity of Zhu Yuanhui—they were all great men of recent ages. One can imagine that within the square inch [of their minds], it was empty and bright, open in all four directions and six realms, undergoing a thousand changes and ten thousand transformations. Their knowledge and insight treated life and death as a dream and phantom; their conduct treated wealth and honor as dust and dirt. They were all those who studied the Sages but did not attain them. When they discussed Buddhism and Laozi, they truly agreed with them in substance while disagreeing in words, outwardly repressing them while inwardly assisting them—subtle intentions surely lay therein. Proclaiming the lost learning of a thousand ages and sweeping away the dusty traces of downstream currents, in wishing to put their teachings into practice in the world, they could not but do so. As for Hu Yin, who reviled and cursed them incessantly—how extreme! Is this not turning the ancestral robes inside out and applying the Tathāgata's seal upside down? His words are found in the *Refutation of the Defense of Orthodoxy*. I fear that greenhorn scholars, not understanding the minds of the old masters, will borrow them as pretexts; then how could the Way of the Three Sages not be transformed into heterodoxy? The learning of Yichuan has now spread northward from Jiangdong. Court officials of high intelligence and capacity all willingly devote themselves to it. I too have moved in and out of it for nearly thirty years; I once wished to annotate its merits and shortcomings, but had no leisure. Now, having been appointed to fill a vacancy in the autumn examinations and examining classical studies for some dozens of days, taking advantage of my leisure, I wrote casually on a small writing slip. My intention was to tear down the hedges for masters of the Great Norm, and to gather the deep valleys into the sea of Sage learning—despising the secrets in the breasts of the various thinkers, and bringing to light the mechanism beyond the words of this book. Wearing Daoist caps and Confucian shoes, let us together enter the Dharma-gate of liberation; ink and composition are all the play of supernatural penetrations. For the time being, I merely wash my own mind. If it is transmitted to others, there will be those who flare up in anger, those who are bewildered with doubt, those who are rapt in contemplation, those who are relieved in awakening, and those who burst into laughter, inevitably saying: 'This old fellow is pitiable indeed!'"