釋氏稽古略 4.357

4.357

"Discourse on Tracing the Way." The Song Emperor's imperially composed discourse states: "We observe that Han Yu's Tracing the Way speaks of the mixing of Buddhism and Daoism and the intertwining of the three teachings, but none has yet been able to distinguish them properly. However, his text is cumbersome and his reasoning roundabout; when examining the intention of the Sage, it is not yet lucid. Why is this? The Śākya lineage exclusively investigates nature and destiny, casts aside the physical form, does not cling to names and marks, and is completely unconnected to mundane affairs; how, then, could it conflict with ritual, music, benevolence, and righteousness? Yet it still establishes precepts, saying: no killing, no sexual misconduct, no stealing, no drinking of alcohol, and no lying. Now, not killing is benevolence; not engaging in sexual misconduct is ritual propriety; not stealing is righteousness; not drinking alcohol is wisdom; and not lying is trustworthiness. Being like this, how far is it from Confucius? He who naturally accords with the Mean is the Sage. Among the actions of the Sage, what is not ritual and music, and what is not benevolence and righteousness? How could they even be named? Just as the movement of Heaven and Earth and the cycle of yin and yang have no starting point, how could there be a deliberate distinction among spring, summer, autumn, and winter? This is merely what worldly people arbitrarily name. It is also just like the distinctions of benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and music: the reason the Sage established teachings to govern the world was that it could not be otherwise. Seeking and investigating according to these arbitrary names, one finds the Way. The Way is the ancestor of benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and music; benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and music are indeed the functioning of the Way. Yang Xiong said that Laozi cast aside benevolence and righteousness and extinguished ritual and music. Now, tracing the texts of Laozi, what he treasures are three things: compassion, frugality, and not daring to take the lead in the world. The school of Confucius says: gentle, good, respectful, frugal, and yielding (avoiding the imperial taboo character for 'yielding'). It also says: 'Only benevolence is great.' Is Laozi's so-called compassion not the greatness of benevolence? His saying 'not daring to take the lead in the world'—is that not the greatness of yielding? As for their union with the Way, each singles out one aspect; what is valued is purity, stillness, and tranquil unity. Do they really run counter to the Confucian Sage? It is only the later degenerate followers of the three teachings: the ignorant cling to them and make distinctions on their own. Now, the Buddha and Laozi cut off thoughts and abide in non-action, merely cultivating mind and body. Confucius taught in order to govern all under Heaven; it is simply that what they applied differs. It is like plowing with a plowshare and weaving with a loom; later generations are confused in their myriad disputes, truly losing the principle. Someone may ask, 'How should one dispel this confusion?' We reply: Cultivating the mind with the Buddha, governing the body with Laozi, and governing the world with the Ruists—this will suffice. Only the Sage is able to harmonize them; it cannot be left undiscussed" (Zhongxing zhiji shisanchao shengzheng lu).