佛祖歷代通載 8.87

8.87

（四十二）　司徒袁粲託為沙門通公駁之。略曰。白日停光恒星隱照。誕降之應事在老先。固非入關方昭斯瑞。又西域之記佛經之說。俗以膝行為禮。不慕蹲坐為恭。道以三繞為虔。不尚踞傲為肅。豈專戎土爰及茲方。襄童謁帝膝行而前。趙王見周三環而上。今佛法乘化或因或革。清信之士容衣不改。息心之人服貌必變。變本從道不遵彼俗。俗風自殊無患其亂。孔老釋迦其人或同。觀其設教其道必異。孔老教俗為本。釋氏出世為宗。發軫既殊。其歸亦異。又仙化以變形為尚。泥洹以陶神為先。變形者白首為緇。而未能無死。陶神者使塵惑日損。而湛然常住。泥洹之道無死之地。陶神若此。何謂其同。時何常侍鎮之。覩顧歡和同二教大不平之。以書抵歡。劇言道教不足以擬釋氏。歡答其書固自封執。鎮之重與之書。猥辱返釋究詳淵況。既和光道佛而涇渭釋李。觸類長之爰至碁弈。然敷佛彌過精旨愈昧。所謂馳走滅迹跳動息影。焉可免乎。輒復略諸近要以標大歸。夫太極剖判兩儀妄立。五陰合興形識謬彰。識以流染因結。形以愛滯緣生。三皇之前民多顓愚。專愚則巢居穴處飲血茹毛。君臣父子自相胡越。猶如禽獸。又比童蒙。道教所不入。仁義所未移。及其沈欲淪波。觸涯思濟。思濟則祈善。祈善則聖應。夫聖者何耶。感物而遂通者也。夫通不自通感不自感。常在此通每自彼。自彼而言懸鏡高堂。自此而言萬像斯歸。故知天竺者居娑婆之正域。處淳善之嘉會。故能感通於至聖。中土於大千。聖應既彼聲被則此。覩日月之明。何假離朱之察。聞雷霆之音。奚事子野之聽。故卑高殊物不嫌同道。左右兩儀無害天均。無害天均則雲行法教。不嫌同道則雨施夷夏。夫道者一也。形者二也。道者真也。形者俗也。真既猶一。俗亦猶二。盡二得一。宜一其法。滅俗歸真。必其違俗。是以如來制軌玄劫同風。假令孔老是佛。則為韜光潛導。匡救褊心立仁樹義將近順情。是以全形守祀恩接六親。攝生養性自我外物乃為盡善。不為盡美。蓋是有涯之制。未鞭其後也。何得擬道菩提比聖牟尼哉。且佛教敷明要而能博。要而能博則精疎兩級。精疎兩級則剛柔一致。是以清津幽暢。誠規易准。夫以視為員者易。以手為員者難。將不捨其所難從其所易耶。道家經籍簡陋多生穿鑿。至如靈寶妙真採撮法華。制用尤拙。如上清黃庭。所尚服食。咀石飡霞。非徒法不可効。道亦難同。其中可長唯在五千之文。全無為用。全無為。用未能違有。違有為懷。靈芝何養。佛家三乘所引九流均接。九流均接則動靜斯得。禪通之理是三中之一耳。非其極也。禪經微妙境相精深。以此締真尚未能至。今云道在無為得一而已。無為得一是則棄契千載。棄契千載不俟高唱。夫明宗引會導達風流者。若當廢學精思不亦怠哉。豈道教之筌耶。敬尋所辨。非徒不解佛。亦不解道也。反亂一首。聊酬啟齒。

(42) Minister of Education Yuan Can, speaking on behalf of the śramaṇa Master Tong, refuted it, saying in summary: "The sun's light stood still and the constant stars hid their brightness: this portent of the [Buddha's] nativity occurred before Laozi. It certainly was not only upon his passing through the western pass that this auspicious sign became manifest! Furthermore, as for the records of the Western Regions and the expositions of the Buddhist sūtras, their customs consider crawling on one's knees to be courteous and do not look upon squatting as respectful; in the Dao, circumambulating thrice is regarded as reverent, and an arrogant posture is not prized as solemnity. How could this belong exclusively to barbarian lands and only later reach this realm? The Xiang River youth approached the sovereign by crawling forward on his knees; the King of Zhao met King Wen of Zhou by ascending with three circumambulations. Now, the Buddhist Dharma accords with transforming influences, sometimes adapting and sometimes reforming: pure and faithful [lay] gentlemen do not alter their appearance or attire, whereas men who have quieted their minds invariably change their vestments and looks. Changing what is fundamental to follow the Dao does not mean following foreign customs; though regional manners naturally differ, there is no worry of disorder. Confucius, Laozi, and Śākyamuni may have been identical in person, but if one examines the doctrines they instituted, their paths are decidedly different. Confucius and Laozi took worldly instruction as fundamental, whereas the Śākya clan took world-transcendence as its core aim. Since their points of departure diverged, their ultimate goals are also distinct. Moreover, immortal transcendence prizes transformation of bodily form, whereas nirvāṇa prioritizes cultivation of the spirit. One who transforms his form turns his white hair black, yet is still unable to attain deathlessness; one who cultivates his spirit diminishes worldly defilements day by day, abiding placidly in permanence. The path of nirvāṇa is the ground of deathlessness; if spirit cultivation is like this, how can they be called identical?" At that time, He Zhenzhi, Regular Attendant, saw Gu Huan harmonizing the two teachings and was deeply dissatisfied. He wrote a letter to Huan, sharply arguing that Daoism was not fit to be compared to the Śākya clan. Huan replied to his letter, rigidly clinging to his own views. Zhenzhi wrote to him again: "You have condescended to return your explanations, thoroughly exploring profound matters. You have already harmonized the radiance of Daoism and Buddhism, yet you distinguish the Jing and Wei rivers between the Śākya and Li [religions]; you have extended this by category all the way to chess and go. However, the more you expound the Buddha, the more you miss the mark; the finer your intended meaning, the more obscured it becomes. This is what is called running around trying to eliminate one's footprints, or leaping about to silence one's shadow—how could one ever escape them? I shall once again summarize the essential points to indicate the grand ultimate goal. When the Great Ultimate bifurcated, the two polarities were falsely established; when the five aggregates joined and arose, form and consciousness mistakenly manifested. Consciousness forms karmic knots through flowing defilement; form is born through causal conditions due to clinging to desire. Before the Three Sovereigns, the people were mostly ignorant and crude; being ignorant and crude, they nested in trees, lived in caves, drank blood, and devoured raw meat. Rulers, ministers, fathers, and sons were as estranged as barbarians and natives to one another, just like birds and beasts, or akin to ignorant infants. The teachings of the Dao could not penetrate them, nor could humaneness and righteousness transform them. When they were submerged in desire and drowned in waves, upon striking the shore they sought salvation; seeking salvation, they prayed for the good; praying for the good, the Sage responded. Now, what is a Sage? One who resonates with things and thereby attains unhindered penetration. Unhindered penetration does not penetrate by itself; resonance does not resonate by itself. It is always present in this penetration, yet always originates from that [resonance]. Speaking from the perspective of 'that', it is a mirror suspended in a high hall; speaking from the perspective of 'this', all ten thousand images converge into it. Therefore, we know that India occupies the central realm of the Sahā world and abides at the auspicious gathering of purity and goodness; hence it was able to resonate with the Utmost Sage, being the central territory of the trichiliocosm. Since the Sage responded there, the renown has covered this land. Beholding the brilliance of the sun and moon, what need is there for the acute sight of Li Zhu? Hearing the crash of thunder, why employ the keen hearing of Shi Kuang? Therefore, that base and high are different things does not detract from their sharing the same Dao; that the left and right are two polarities does not impair the celestial balance. Impairing not the celestial balance, the clouds move with Dharma teachings; not detracting from the same Dao, the rain falls upon both barbarians and Xia. The Dao is one; forms are two. The Dao is truth; forms are worldly. Since truth is like the one, the worldly is also like the two. Exhausting the two to attain the one, one ought to unify its methods; extinguishing the worldly to return to truth, one must surely transcend worldly ways. Thus the Tathāgata established the models, and through mysterious kalpas the standard remains identical. Even if Confucius and Laozi were Buddhas, they concealed their light and gave secret guidance, rescuing narrow minds and establishing benevolence and righteousness to closely accommodate human dispositions. Therefore, preserving bodily form and maintaining ancestral rites, extending benevolence to the six relations, conserving life and nourishing nature while regarding external things as separate from oneself—this is doing good to the utmost, but not beauty to the utmost. This is indeed a system of finite bounds, falling short of completing the journey. How could one compare their Dao to bodhi, or match their sagacity with the Muni? Furthermore, the Buddhist teaching expounds the essential yet is vast; being essential yet vast, the refined and the coarse both have their levels; the refined and coarse having their levels, firmness and softness reach a single balance. Therefore, the clear ford flows profoundly, and its honest regulations are easy to follow. Making a circle by sight is easy; making a circle by hand is difficult. Would one not abandon the difficult and follow the easy? The Daoist scriptures are crude and simplistic, frequently giving rise to forced interpretations; as for the Lingbao and Miaozhen, they are patched together from the Lotus Sūtra, yet their composition and application are clumsy in the extreme. As for the Shangqing and Huangting, what they esteem is consuming potions, chewing stones, and ingesting morning mist; not only are their practices impossible to emulate, but their Dao is hard to harmonize with. What is worthwhile therein lies solely in the five-thousand-word text [of the Daodejing]. Perfect non-action is its function; yet in using non-action, it has not yet managed to transcend existence. If transcending existence were its aspiration, why nourish the numinous fungus? What is guided by the Buddhist Three Vehicles embraces the nine classes of beings equally; embracing the nine classes equally, both movement and stillness are attained. The principle of dhyāna penetration is merely one of the three [learnings], not the ultimate. The dhyāna sūtras are subtle and wondrous, their experiential realms refined and profound; attempting to grasp the truth through this alone is still not enough. Now to claim that the Dao lies solely in non-action and attaining the One—if attaining the One through non-action is all, then it discards the covenants of a thousand years; discarding the covenants of a thousand years does not require grand proclamations. As for clarifying the fundamental tenets, drawing gatherings together, and guiding trends, if one were to abandon study and subtle reflection, would that not be negligent? How could that be the Daoist teaching's fish-trap? Respectfully investigating what has been argued, [Gu Huan] understands neither the Buddha nor the Dao. Here is a concluding verse to briefly respond to your remarks:"