[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋鑑稽古略續集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038) › 3.17 # 釋鑑稽古略續集 3.17 釋鑑稽古略續集 3.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3.17) 道餘錄　少師別號逃虛子。著道餘錄。此自序曰。余曩為僧時。值元季兵亂。近三十從愚菴及和尚於徑山習禪學。暇則披閱內外典籍以資才識。因觀河南二程先生遺書。及新安晦菴朱先生語錄。三先生皆生趙宋。傳聖人千載不傳之學。可謂間世之英桀。為世之真儒也。三先生因輔名教。惟以攘斥佛老為心。太史公云。世之學老子者則絀儒學。儒學亦絀老子。道不同不相為謀。古今共然。奚足怪乎。三先生既為斯文宗主。後學之師範。雖曰攘斥佛老。必當據理。至公無私則人心服焉。三先生因不多探佛書。不知佛之底蘊。一以私意出邪詖之辭。枉抑太過。世之人心亦多不平。況宗其學者哉。二程先生遺書中有二十八條晦菴朱先生語錄中有二十一條。極為謬誕。余不揣乃為逐條據理一一剖析。豈敢言與三先生辯也。不得已也。亦非佞於佛也。\[葶-丁+呆\]成藏於巾笥有年。今自公退因簡故紙得此\[葶-丁+呆\]。即淨寫成帙。目曰道餘錄。置之几案。士君子有過余覽是錄者。知我罪我其在茲乎。逃虛子序。 > Daoyu lu (Record of the Remainder of the Way): The Junior Preceptor also took the style Taoxuzi (The Master Who Flees Emptiness) and authored the Daoyu lu. His preface states: "In former days when I was a monk, encountering the turmoil of the late Yuan wars, nearing the age of thirty I followed Venerable Master Yu'an at Mount Jing to study Chan. In leisure, I perused internal and external scriptures to enrich my talent and knowledge. I then examined the surviving writings of the two Masters Cheng of Henan and the recorded sayings of Master Zhu Huian of Xin'an. These three masters were all born during the Zhao-Song dynasty and transmitted the learning of the sages that had not been transmitted for a thousand years; they may be called outstanding heroes between the ages and true Confucians of the world. However, in assisting the moral teachings, these three masters made their sole aim the rejection and denunciation of Buddhism and Daoism. The Grand Astrologer said: 'In this world, those who study Laozi belittle Confucian learning, and Confucian learning likewise belittles Laozi. Those whose ways are different do not plot together.' This has always been so from ancient times to the present—how could it be strange? Yet, since these three masters became the guiding lights of this culture and models for later scholars, even if they rejected Buddhism and Daoism, they should have relied on reason; if supremely fair and selfless, people's minds would be convinced. Because these three masters did not delve deeply into Buddhist texts and did not understand the depths of Buddhism, they issued perverse and biased statements entirely out of personal prejudice, excessively suppressing and wronging it, so that people in the world were mostly unsettled by it—how much more so those who take it as their lineage! In the surviving writings of the two Masters Cheng there are twenty-eight entries, and in the recorded sayings of Master Zhu Huian there are twenty-one entries, that are exceedingly absurd and unfounded. Without taking measure of my own abilities, I have analyzed them one by one according to reason. How could I dare claim to debate with the three masters? It is only that I could not bear it, nor is it out of flattery toward Buddhism. Once drafted, it was stored in my trunk for years. Now, having retired from public duties, I came across these drafts while looking through old papers. I immediately made a clean copy into fascicles, titled it Daoyu lu, and placed it upon my desk. If any scholar-gentlemen visiting me should read this record, whether they understand me or condemn me—will it not be on account of this? Written by Taoxuzi." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3.16) - [Next: 3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3.18) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038~en-mt.3.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2038.3.17) · Pramāṇa