弘明集 1.55

1.55

正曰。誣者既云無佛。復云文子有神通。復云有得道弟子。能變化恢廓盡神妙之理。此真有無匈心之語也。夫尹文子即老子弟子也。老子即佛弟子也。故其經云。聞道竺乾有古先生。善入泥洹不始不終永存綿綿。竺乾者天竺也。泥洹者胡語。晉言無為也。若佛不先老子。何得稱先生。老子不先尹文。何故請道德之經。即以此推之。佛故文子之祖宗。眾聖之元始也。安有弟子神化而師不能乎。且夫聖之宰世。必以道莅之。遠人不服。則綏以文德。不得已而用兵耳。將以除暴止戈拯濟群生。行小殺以息大殺者也。故春秋之世。諸侯征伐動仗正順。敵國有釁必鳴鼓以彰其過。總義兵以臨罪人。不以闇昧而行誅也。故服則柔而撫之。不苟淫刑極武。勝則以喪禮居之。殺則以悲哀泣之。是以深貶誘執大杜絕滅之原。若懷惡而討不義。假道以成其暴。皆結傳變文譏貶累見。故會宋之盟。抑楚而先晉者。疾辛錍之詐。以崇咀信之美也。夫敵之怨惠不及後嗣。惡止其身重罪不濫。此百王之明制。經國之令典也。至于季末之將佳兵之徒。患道薄德衰。始任詐力競。以譎詭之計。濟殘賊之心。野戰則肆鋒極殺。屠城則盡坑無遺。故白起刎首於杜郵。董卓屠身於宮門。君子知其必亡。舉世哀其就戮。兵之弊也遂至于此。此為可痛心而長歎者矣。何有聖人而欲大縱陰毒剪絕黎元者哉。且十室容賢。而況萬里之廣。重華生於東夷。文命出乎西羌。聖哲所興豈有常地。或發音於此默化於彼。形教萬方而理運不差。原夫佛之所以夷跡於中天。而曜奇於西域者。蓋有至趣。不可得而縷陳矣。豈有聖人疾敵之強。而其欲覆滅使無孑遺哉。此何異氣癘既流不蠲良淑。縱火中原蘭蕕俱焚。桀紂之虐猶呼不然乎。縱令胡國信多惡逆。以暴易暴。又非權通之旨也。引此為辭。適足肆謗言眩愚竪。豈允情合義有心之難乎。

The correction says: The slanderer first claims there is no Buddha, yet further says Master Yinwen possessed supernatural powers, and further says he had disciples who attained the Dao able to perform expansive transformations and exhaust the principles of spiritual wonder. This is truly speaking from a conflicted mind of contradiction. Master Yinwen was in fact a disciple of Laozi, and Laozi was in fact a disciple of the Buddha. Hence his scripture says: ‘I have heard the Dao that in Zhugan there was an ancient elder who was skilled in entering Nirvāṇa, having neither beginning nor end, ever-abiding and continuous.’ Zhugan is Tianzhu; Nirvāṇa is the barbarian language, which in Jin parlance is non-action. If the Buddha did not precede Laozi, how could he be called an elder? If Laozi did not precede Yinwen, why would the latter request the classic of the Dao and Its Virtue? Inferring from this, the Buddha is indeed the ancestral source of Master Yinwen and the primal origin of all sages. How could disciples possess divine transformations while their master could not? Furthermore, when a sage governs the world, he must preside over it with the Dao. If distant peoples do not submit, he pacifies them with civil virtue, employing military force only as a last resort. This is to eliminate violence, halt weapons, rescue the multitude of living beings, and practice minor killing to end major killing. Thus in the Spring and Autumn period, whenever the feudal lords waged punitive expeditions, they consistently relied on righteousness and compliance. When an enemy state was at fault, they invariably beat drums to publicize its transgression and assembled righteous troops to confront the guilty; they did not execute punishment through covert darkness. Thus when enemies submitted, they treated them gently and soothed them, never indulging in excessive punishments or pushing arms to the extreme; when victorious, they observed funeral rites; when killing, they wept with sorrow. For this reason, the scriptures severely condemned luring and capturing, and deeply barred the source of extermination. If one harbors malice to punish the unrighteous or borrows a path to accomplish violence, the commentaries repeatedly alter the phrasing to criticize and demean them. Thus at the covenant of Song, holding back Chu while prioritizing Jin was because they despised the deceit of Xinpi and extolled the beauty of sincere faith. The enmity or favors of an enemy do not extend to their descendants; evil ends with one's own person, and severe punishment is not applied recklessly. This is the luminous regulation of the hundred kings and the exemplary standard for ordering the state. Coming to the commanders of decadent ages and those fond of warfare, lamenting that the Dao was flimsy and virtue was declining, they began to rely on deceit and power, competing with treacherous schemes to fulfill their cruel and destructive desires. In field battles they gave rein to their blades to kill to the utmost; in slaughtering cities they buried everyone alive without leaving any behind. Therefore Bai Qi cut his own throat at Duyou, and Dong Zhuo had his corpse mutilated at the palace gate. Gentlemen knew they would surely perish, and the whole world pitied their coming to execution. The evils of warfare have reached this extreme; this is indeed something to grieve the heart and sigh long over. How could any sage wish to unleash covert malice on a grand scale to cut down and exterminate the common people? Furthermore, a hamlet of ten households can harbor a worthy person, how much more so an expanse of ten thousand li! Chonghua was born among the Eastern Yi; Wenming emerged from the Western Qiang. How could the rising of sages and philosophers have a fixed location? Perhaps one utters sounds here and brings about silent transformation there; outward teachings adapt to ten thousand directions, yet the operation of principle never errs. In tracing why the Buddha left his traces in central Tianzhu and displayed wonders in the Western Regions, there was an ultimate purpose that cannot be set forth in full detail. How could a sage detest the strength of an enemy and wish to overthrow and destroy them without leaving a single survivor? How would this differ from a virulent plague spreading without sparing the virtuous and good, or setting fire to the central plains so that orchids and weeds burn together? Even the cruelty of Jie and Zhou was not thus! Even granting that barbarian lands are indeed full of evil and transgression, replacing violence with violence is not the purport of expedient adaptability. Adducing this as a pretext merely suffices to give free rein to slanderous words and dazzle foolish servants; how could it be an objection coming from a thoughtful mind that accords with human feeling and matches righteousness?