釋鑑稽古略續集 2.121

2.121

續原教論　翰林待詔沈士榮撰。上卷七篇曰。原教論觀心解。內教外教辨。執迹儒者。參禪辨。論禪辨。作用是性解。下卷七篇曰。名儒好佛解。自私辨。莊老異同辨。錯說諸經解。較是非得失辨。三教論。諸師人物雄偉論。其序云。夫情智相違而後有教。識趣相違而後有辨。故分別是非。所以立教。不辨何以立理哉。昔人欲理之明。乃設雖以為問答。使讀之者了然不疑。今儒者疑難於佛。必當辨之。所以立教明理也。昔諸佛出世。諸大菩薩化為外道。各執異說問難於佛。如來乃破其邪執。立如是義。說如是經。則諸教皆由論辨而起也。若唐宋大儒。各執所見疑難於佛。毀訾排斥。或有甚焉。亦或菩薩化身儒門。故爾相違。使有以辨之以彰至理歟。果亦未造佛之閫域。實有所疑歟。自是以來數百年間。以儒名者之。於佛教或為敬信為非議。毀讚不常。是非莫辨。使至道不明。誠可悲矣。士榮自知愚陋。所學不及先儒之萬一。又未得吾佛證入之門。伏念二教之相違久矣。而智者則默然而不為之辨。坐視求學之士。循習舊聞。或生誹謗喪內學之家珍。傷名教之根本。故不自揆度。輒以其所非斥之言。具錄於前。為之辨解於後。著論三篇解五篇辨六篇。通十四原其異同謂之論。釋其疑惑謂之解。明其是非謂之辨。理學君子幸決擇而去取焉。固不礙於聖賢之學也。時洪武乙丑季夏上弦。建安沈士榮謹序。

The *Xu yuanjiao lun* (*Continuation of the Treatise Tracing the Origins of the Teachings*) was composed by Shen Shirong, Hanlin Academy Awaiting-Instruction. The upper fascicle consists of seven essays: ‘Treatise Tracing the Origins of the Teachings,’ ‘Explanation of Contemplating the Mind,’ ‘Distinction between the Internal and External Teachings,’ ‘Those Confucians Who Cling to Traces,’ ‘Distinctions on Participating in Chan,’ ‘Distinctions on Discourses on Chan,’ and ‘Explanation that Function is Nature.’ The lower fascicle consists of seven essays: ‘Explanation of Renowned Confucians Fond of Buddhism,’ ‘Distinctions on Selfishness,’ ‘Distinctions on the Commonalities and Differences between Zhuangzi and Laozi,’ ‘Explanation of Erroneous Expositions of Various Sūtras,’ ‘Distinctions Weighing Right and Wrong, Gain and Loss,’ ‘Discourse on the Three Teachings,’ and ‘Discourse on the Magnificent Figures of the Various Masters.’ His preface states: “Now, only when sentiment and wisdom conflict is there teaching; only when cognition and orientation conflict are there distinctions. Therefore, distinguishing right from wrong is how teachings are established; without making distinctions, how could principle be established? When ancient people desired principle to be illuminated, they set up hypothetical questions and answers so that readers might understand clearly without doubt. Now that Confucians harbor doubts and raise objections against the Buddha, these must be distinguished; this is the way to establish teachings and illuminate principle. In the past, when the various buddhas appeared in the world, the great bodhisattvas transformed themselves into non-Buddhists, each clinging to divergent doctrines and posing objections to the Buddha. The Tathāgata then shattered their false attachments, establishing such meanings and preaching such sūtras. Thus, all teachings arise from dialectical distinction. As for the great Confucians of the Tang and Song dynasties, each clinging to their own views, they raised doubts and objections against the Buddha, reviling and rejecting him, sometimes excessively. Might it also be that bodhisattvas manifested within the Confucian fold, deliberately acting in opposition so that distinctions could be made to make manifest the ultimate principle? Or did they in truth fail to attain the Buddha's inner chambers and genuinely harbor doubts? For several centuries since, those with the reputation of Confucians have either revered or criticized the Buddhist teachings, praising and reviling inconstantly, with right and wrong undistinguished, causing the ultimate Way to remain obscured—truly lamentable! I, Shirong, know myself to be ignorant and shallow; my learning does not equal one ten-thousandth of the former Confucians, nor have I yet entered the gate of my Buddha's realization. I humbly reflect that the two teachings have been in conflict for long, yet the wise remain silent and do not make distinctions, passively watching students who seek learning follow past hearsay, perhaps giving rise to slander, losing the family treasure of internal learning, and harming the foundation of the moral teachings. Therefore, not measuring my own limitations, I have recorded their words of criticism beforehand and provided distinctions and explanations thereafter, composing three ‘treatises,’ five ‘explanations,’ and six ‘distinctions,’ totaling fourteen pieces. Tracing their commonalities and differences is called a ‘treatise’; untying their doubts is called an ‘explanation’; clarifying their right and wrong is called a ‘distinction.’ May gentlemen of the Learning of Principle selectively accept and reject them; this will surely not hinder the study of the sages and worthies.” Respectfully prefaced by Shen Shirong of Jian'an during the first quarter of the late summer of the yichou year of Hongwu (1385).