弘明集 1.12

1.12

問曰。佛道至尊至大。堯舜周孔曷不修之乎。七經之中不見其辭。子既耽詩書悅禮樂。奚為復好佛道喜異術。豈能踰經傳美聖業哉。竊為吾子不取也。牟子曰。書不必孔丘之言。藥不必扁鵲之方。合義者從。愈病者良。君子博取眾善。以輔其身。子貢云。夫子何常師之有乎。堯事尹壽。舜事務成。且學呂望。丘學老聃。亦俱不見於七經也。四師雖聖。比之於佛。猶白鹿之與麒麟。燕鳥之與鳳凰也。堯舜周孔且猶學之。況佛身相好變化神力無方。焉能捨而不學乎。五經事義或有所闕。佛不見記。何足怪疑哉。

The question was asked: "The Buddha's Dao is supreme and greatest; why did Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius not cultivate it? Its words are not found within the seven classics. You already delight in the Odes and the Documents and take pleasure in the rites and music; why do you now also take fond interest in the Buddha's Dao and delight in alien arts? How could they surpass the classics and commentaries to glorify the work of the sages? I humbly think you should not adopt it." Mouzi said: "Books need not be the words of Kong Qiu; medicine need not be the prescription of Bian Que. That which conforms to righteousness is followed; that which cures illness is good. The gentleman takes widely from all goods in order to support his person. Zigong said: 'What constant master did the Master have?' Yao served Yin Shou; Shun served Wucheng; Dan studied under Lü Wang; Qiu studied under Lao Dan. None of these are seen in the seven classics either. Although these four masters were sages, compared to the Buddha, they are like a white deer to a qilin, or a swallow to a phoenix. If even Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius still studied under them, how much more so for the Buddha, whose physical marks and signs, transformations, and spiritual powers are limitless—how could one cast him aside and not study him? The events and meanings in the Five Classics sometimes have omissions; that the Buddha is not recorded in them—what cause is there to wonder or doubt?"