釋氏稽古略 1.530

1.530

理惑　興平二年。牟子者未詳名字。世稱牟子。避世隱居。著理惑。設問答凡三十七篇。見梁僧祐律師弘明集。今略出其八篇。節其文句。設問曰。何以正言佛。佛為何謂乎。牟子曰。佛者覺也。猶言三皇神五帝聖也。問曰。佛經眾多。欲得其要而棄其餘。直說其實而除其華。牟子曰否。夫日月俱明各有所照。二十八宿各有所主。百藥並生各有所愈。狐裘備寒。絺綌御暑。舟輿異路俱致行旅。孔子不以五經之備。復作春秋孝經者。欲博道術資人意耳。佛經雖多其歸為一也。猶七典雖異其貴道德仁義亦一也。孝所以說多者。隨人行而與之。子張子游俱問一孝。而仲尼答之異攻其短也。何棄之有哉。問曰。佛有三十二相八十種好。何其異於人也甚矣。殆富耳之語非實之云也。牟子曰。諺云少所見多所怪。覩駱駝言馬腫背。堯眉八彩。舜目重瞳。皐陶鳥喙。文王四乳。禹耳三漏。周公背僂。伏犧龍鼻。仲尼反頨。老子日角目淵鼻有雙柱。手把十文。足蹈二五。此非異於人乎。佛之相好奚疑哉。問曰。孝經言。身體髮膚受之父母不敢毀傷。曾子臨沒曰。啟予手啟予足。今沙門剃頭何。其違聖人之語。不合孝子之道也。牟子曰。孝經言。先王有至德要道。太伯斷髮文身。自從吳越之俗。違於身體髮膚之義。然孔子稱之。其可謂至德矣。仲尼不以其斷髮毀之也。豫讓吞炭漆身。聶政皮面自刑。伯姬蹈火高行截容。君子為勇而死義。不聞譏其毀沒也。問曰。夫福莫踰於繼嗣。不孝莫過於無後。沙門棄妻子捐財貨。終身不娶。何違其福孝之行也。牟子曰。許由棲巢木。夷齊餓首陽。聖孔稱其賢。曰求仁得仁者也。不聞譏其無後無貨也。問曰。佛道言人死當更復生。僕不信此言之審也。牟子曰。人臨死其家上屋呼之。死已復呼誰乎。問者曰。呼其魂魄。牟子曰。神還則生。不還則神何之乎。曰成鬼神。牟子曰。是知魂神固不滅矣。但身自朽爛耳。身譬五穀之根葉。魂神如五穀之種實。根葉生而必死種實豈有終乎。問曰。為道亦死。不為道亦死。有以異乎。牟子曰。所謂無一日之善而問終身之譽者也。有道雖死神歸福堂。為惡既死神當其殃。愚夫闇於成事。賢智預於未萌。道與不道。如金比草。禍之與福如白方黑。安得無異乎。問曰。孔子云。未能事人焉能事鬼。未知生焉知死。此聖人之所紀也。今佛家輒說生死之事鬼神之務。殆非聖哲之語也。牟子曰。若子之言。所謂見外而未識內者也。孔子以子路不問本末乃抑之耳。孝經曰。為之宗廟以鬼享之。春秋祭祀以時思之。又曰。生事愛敬。死事哀戚。豈不教人事鬼神知生死哉。周公為武王請命曰。且多才多藝能事鬼神夫何為也。佛經所說生死之趣非此類乎。

Resolving Doubts. In the second year of the Xingping reign era, Master Mou—whose given name is not clearly known, though the world called him Master Mou—withdrew from the world into reclusion and composed Resolving Doubts, laying out thirty-seven chapters of questions and answers. It is found in the Hongming ji of the Vinaya Master Sengyou of the Liang dynasty. Here, eight chapters are briefly presented with their text abridged.

A question asks: “Why speak properly of the ‘Buddha’? What is meant by ‘Buddha’?” Master Mou said: “‘Buddha’ means awakened, just as one speaks of the Three Sovereigns as divine and the Five Thearchs as sages.”

A question asks: “The Buddhist scriptures are so numerous. I wish to grasp their essentials and discard the rest, speaking directly of their reality and removing their ornament.” Master Mou said: “No. The sun and the moon are both bright, yet each illuminates something different; the twenty-eight lunar lodges each have their own domain; the hundred medicinal herbs all grow together, yet each heals a different ailment. A fox-fur coat provides against the cold; fine and coarse linen ward off the heat. Boats and carriages take different paths, yet both carry travelers to their destinations. Confucius did not think the five classics sufficient and composed the Spring and Autumn Annals and Classic of Filial Piety as well, wishing to broaden the methods of the Way and assist people's understanding. Although the Buddhist scriptures are numerous, their return is one, just as although the seven canonical texts are different, their valuing of the Way, virtue, humaneness, and righteousness is also one. The reason why filial piety is spoken of so manifoldly is that it is given in accordance with people’s conduct. When Zizhang and Ziyou both asked about one and the same filial piety, Zhongni replied differently to them in order to address their respective shortcomings. Why should any be discarded?”

A question asks: “The Buddha possesses thirty-two primary marks and eighty secondary characteristics. Why was he so extraordinarily different from ordinary humans? It seems this is mere exaggerated talk, not the description of reality.” Master Mou said: “The proverb says: ‘One who has seen little marvels at much; seeing a camel, he calls it a horse with a swollen back.’ Yao had eyebrows of eight colors; Shun had double pupils in his eyes; Gaoyao had a bird's beak; King Wen had four nipples; Yu had three ear canals; the Duke of Zhou had a hunchback; Fuxi had a dragon's nose; Zhongni had an inverted crown; Laozi had a sun-shaped forehead, deep-set eyes, two nasal pillars, grasped ten lines on his palms, and stepped on the two fives. Were these not extraordinarily different from ordinary humans? What doubt can there be about the Buddha's marks and characteristics?”

A question asks: “The Classic of Filial Piety says: ‘Body, hair, and skin are received from our parents, and we dare not injure or wound them.’ When Zengzi was on the verge of death, he said: ‘Uncover my hands, uncover my feet.’ Now śramaṇas shave their heads; how does this not contravene the words of the sages and fail to accord with the way of a filial son?” Master Mou said: “The Classic of Filial Piety says: ‘The former kings had ultimate virtue and essential ways.’ Taibo cut his hair and tattooed his body, following the customs of Wu and Yue on his own accord and transgressing the principle regarding body, hair, and skin; yet Confucius praised him, saying that he could indeed be called possessing ultimate virtue. Zhongni did not denigrate him on account of his cutting his hair. Yu Rang swallowed charcoal and lacquered his body; Nie Zheng flayed his face and mutilated himself; Boji stepped into fire, and Gaoxing disfigured her features. Noble persons act with courage and die for righteousness; one does not hear of anyone criticizing them for their mutilation and destruction.”

A question asks: “No blessing surpasses continuing the lineage, and no unfilial act is greater than having no descendants. Śramaṇas abandon wife and children and cast away wealth and goods, never marrying throughout their lives; why do they go against the practices of blessing and filial piety?” Master Mou said: “Xu You nested in a tree; Boyi and Shuqi starved on Mount Shouyang. Sage Confucius praised their worthiness, saying: ‘They sought humaneness and attained humaneness.’ One does not hear of anyone criticizing them for having no descendants and no wealth.”

A question asks: “The Buddhist way states that when a person dies, they will be reborn again. I do not believe this statement to be true.” Master Mou said: “When a person is on the verge of death, their family goes up to the roof and calls to them. Once they are dead, whom are they calling again?” The questioner said: “They call their hun and po souls.” Master Mou said: “If the spirit returns, they live; if it does not return, where does the spirit go?” He replied: “It becomes a ghost or spirit.” Master Mou said: “From this, one knows that the soul and spirit certainly do not perish; it is merely that the body rots and decays on its own. The body is like the roots and leaves of the five grains; the soul and spirit are like the seeds and grains. The roots and leaves grow and must die; how could the seeds and grains come to an end?”

A question asks: “One dies if one practices the Way, and one also dies if one does not practice the Way. Is there any difference?” Master Mou said: “This is what is called having not a single day of goodness yet asking for a lifetime of renown. For one who possesses the Way, although they die, their spirit returns to the hall of blessings; for one who does evil, after they die, their spirit bears their misfortune. The foolish person is blind to what has already occurred, while the worthy and wise anticipate what has not yet sprouted. The Way and non-Way are like gold compared to grass; misfortune and blessing are like white contrasted with black. How could there be no difference?”

A question asks: “Confucius said: ‘When one is not yet able to serve people, how can one serve ghosts? When one does not yet know life, how can one know death?’ This is what the sages recorded. Now Buddhists constantly speak of matters of birth and death and the affairs of ghosts and spirits; surely these are not the words of sages and philosophers.” Master Mou said: “According to your words, this is what is called seeing the external without understanding the internal. Confucius merely restrained Zilu because he did not ask about the fundamental and the secondary. The Classic of Filial Piety says: ‘One erects ancestral temples for them and presents offerings to them as ghosts; in spring and autumn one offers sacrifices to remember them in their due seasons.’ It also says: ‘In life, serve them with love and respect; in death, serve them with grief and sorrow.’ Does this not teach people to serve ghosts and spirits and to know life and death? When the Duke of Zhou prayed for King Wu's life, he said: ‘Moreover, I am versatile and capable, able to serve ghosts and spirits.’ Why would he say this? Are the realms of birth and death spoken of in Buddhist scriptures not of this very kind?”