佛祖歷代通載 6.125

6.125

論曰。法源濫觸之初。由佛圖澄而得安。由安而得遠公。是三大士化儀軌則。或無以異。至於出處操尚。若相戾者何哉。大抵晉室渡江自明帝之後。當代時君雖無可稱者。然而朝廷紀綱法度未始或虧。當是之際。故遠公得以遂其高。天子臨潯陽而詔不出山。若澄安二公。失身偏霸之朝。萬一不區區俯仰曲徇其情。彼季龍符堅其肯容之高臥山林。而不為之屈耶。此古所謂易地皆然。三大士有之矣。孟軻氏稱伯夷伊尹柳下惠。皆曰聖人者。良以其道通方而善趨時也。世謂澄安之操不逮遠公。吾弗信矣。

The commentary says: At the very beginning when the fountainhead of the Dharma overflowed, through Fotudeng we gained Dao'an, and through Dao'an we gained Master Huiyuan. In the teaching styles, models, and rules of these three great beings, there may have been no difference. As for their choices of worldly involvement and reclusion, or their conduct and ideals, why did they seem to contradict one another? In general, after the Jin house crossed the river and following the reign of Emperor Ming, although the contemporary rulers had nothing worthy of praise, the laws, institutions, and discipline of the court were never compromised. At that time, Master Huiyuan was able to fulfill his lofty reclusion; the Son of Heaven approached Xunyang and issued an edict allowing him not to leave the mountain. As for Masters Fotudeng and Dao'an, they found themselves under illegitimate and regional hegemonic dynasties; if they had not accommodated themselves in trivial ways and yielded slightly to the circumstances, would Shi Jilong and Fu Jian have been willing to let them recline peacefully in the mountains and forests without bending them to their will? This is what the ancients meant by saying, 'If they exchanged places, they would have acted the same'; all three great beings exemplified this. When Mencius spoke of Bo Yi, Yi Yin, and Liuxia Hui, he called them all sages, precisely because their way was adaptable and they excelled at according with the times. When people say that the conduct of Fotudeng and Dao'an did not measure up to that of Master Huiyuan, I do not believe it.