佛祖歷代通載 5.60

5.60

問曰。若佛經深妙靡麗。子胡不談之於朝廷。論之於君父。修之於閨門。接之於朋友。何復學經傳讀諸子乎。牟子曰。子未達其源而問其流也。夫陳爼豆於壘門。建旌旗於朝堂。衣狐裘以當蕤賓。被絺綌以御黃鍾。非不麗也。乖其處非其時也。故持孔子之術入商鞅之門。齎孟軻之說詣蘇張之庭。功無分寸過有丈尺矣。老子曰。上士聞道勤而行之。中士聞道若存若亡。下士聞道而大笑之。吾懼大笑。故不為談也。渴不必待江河而飲。井泉之水何所不飽。是以復治經傳耳。問曰。老子云。智者不言。言者不智。又曰。大辯若訥大巧若拙。君子恥其言過行。設沙門有至道。奚不坐而行之。何復談是非論曲直乎。僕以為此德行之賤也。牟子曰。來春當大饑今秋不食。黃鍾應寒蕤賓重裘。備預雖早不免於愚。老子所云。謂得道者耳。未得道者何知之有乎。大道一言而天下悅。豈非大辨。老子不云何。功遂身退。天之道也。身既退矣。又何言哉。今之沙門未及得道。何得不言。老氏亦猶言也。如其無言五千何述焉。若知而不言可也。既不能知。又不能言愚人也。故能言不能行。國之師也。能行不能言。國之用也。能行能言。國之寶也。三品各有所施。何德之賤乎。唯不能言。又不能行。是賤也。

Question: "If the Buddhist scriptures are so profound, subtle, fine, and beautiful, why, sir, do you not talk about them in the imperial court, discuss them with your ruler and father, cultivate them in your household chambers, and communicate them to your friends? Why do you instead study the classics and commentaries and read the various masters?"

Mouzi said: "You, sir, have not grasped their source yet inquire into their streams. Now, setting out sacrificial vessels at the camp gates, raising banners in the court hall, wearing fox furs in the fifth month, or dressing in coarse and fine dolichos cloth to withstand the eleventh month—these are not unbeautiful, but they clash with their place and are wrong for their time. Therefore, to carry the methods of Confucius into the gate of Shang Yang, or to bring the theories of Mencius to the court of Su Qin and Zhang Yi, would produce not an inch of achievement, while errors would amount to tens of feet. Laozi said, 'When a superior person hears of the Way, they practice it diligently; when a middling person hears of the Way, it seems to exist and seems not to; when an inferior person hears of the Way, they laugh at it loudly.' I fear the loud laughter, and therefore do not speak of it. When thirsty, one does not need to wait for rivers and seas to drink; with the water of wells and springs, wherewith is one not satisfied? For this reason, I again apply myself to the classics and commentaries."

Question: "Laozi says, 'Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know.' He also says, 'Great eloquence seems stammering; great skill seems clumsy.' A gentleman feels ashamed when his words exceed his actions. Assuming śramaṇas possess the supreme Way, why do they not sit and practice it? Why do they instead discuss right and wrong and debate the crooked and the straight? I consider this to be a degradation of virtuous conduct."

Mouzi said: "If next spring there is to be a great famine, not eating this autumn; if in the cold of the eleventh month one wears heavy furs in the fifth month—though such precautions are taken early, one does not avoid foolishness. What Laozi stated refers only to those who have attained the Way. For those who have not attained the Way, what knowledge do they have? When the Great Way is spoken in a single phrase and all under heaven rejoice, is that not great eloquence? Does Laozi not say, 'When merit is achieved, the body withdraws: this is the Way of Heaven'? Once the body has withdrawn, what more would it say? The śramaṇas of today have not yet attained the Way; how could they not speak? Laozi likewise spoke. If he had not spoken, how could the Five Thousand Words have been expounded? If one knows yet does not speak, that is permissible; but if one neither knows nor speaks, one is a fool. Therefore, one who can speak but cannot act is a teacher of the state; one who can act but cannot speak is a useful servant of the state; one who can both act and speak is a treasure of the state. The three grades each have their application. How is this a degradation of virtue? Only to be neither able to speak nor able to act—that is degradation."