弘明集 8.39

8.39

滅惑論曰。夫孝理至極道俗同貫。雖內外跡殊而神用一揆。若命綴俗因本修教。於儒禮運棄道果。同弘孝於梵業。是以諮親出家。法華明其義。聽而後學。維摩標其例。豈忘本哉。有由然也。彼皆照悟神理鑒燭人世。過駟駕於格言。逝川傷於上哲。故知瞑息盡養則無濟幽靈。學道拔親則冥苦永滅。審妙感之無差。辯勝果之可必。所以輕重相權去彼取此。若乃服制所施事由追遠。祀雖因心抑亦㳂世。昔三皇至治。堯舜所慕。死則衣之以薪葬之中野。封樹不修。苴斬無紀。豈可謂三皇教民棄於孝乎。爰及五帝服制煥然。未聞堯舜執禮追責三皇。三皇無責何獨疑佛。佛之無服理由拔苦。三皇廢喪事㳂淳樸。淳樸不疑而拔苦見尤。所謂朝三暮四而喜怒交設者也。明知聖人之教觸感圓通。三皇以淳樸無服。五帝以㳂情制喪。釋迦拔苦故棄俗反真。檢迹異路而玄化同歸。

The Treatise Destroying Delusions states: Filial principle is ultimate; the way of the recluse and the secular run along the same thread. Although their internal and external traces differ, their spiritual functioning follows a single track. If one's life is bound to secular causes, one fundamentally cultivates the teachings [of society]; in the ritual operations of Confucianism, one abandons the fruit of the Way, yet equally promotes filial piety within Brahmic conduct. Therefore, consulting one's parents to leave the household has its meaning clarified in the Lotus [Sūtra]; studying only after obtaining permission has its precedent set by Vimalakīrti. How could they have forgotten their root? There was a reason for it! They all illuminated and realized spiritual principles and cast light upon human life. [Life passes] swifter than a four-horse team, as stated in the maxims; the passing stream was mourned by the supreme sage. Hence we know that while expending one's care until the end of life fails to rescue the departed spirit, studying the Way to deliver one's parents extinguishes suffering in the netherworld forever. They examined the subtle resonance without error and discerned that the superior fruit was assured. Therefore, weighing the light and the heavy, they discarded the former and took up the latter. Now, as for the institution of mourning garments, it arose from tracing the distant [ancestors]; though sacrifice stems from the heart, it also conforms to the times. Formerly, the perfect governance of the Three Sovereigns was admired by Yao and Shun: when people died, they were wrapped in firewood and buried in the wilderness, without building mounds or planting trees, and with no fixed periods for mourning garments of coarse cloth or untrimmed sackcloth. Could one say that the Three Sovereigns taught the people to abandon filial piety? Coming down to the Five Emperors, mourning regulations shone forth; yet we have never heard that Yao and Shun adhered to the rites so as to trace back and reproach the Three Sovereigns. If the Three Sovereigns were not reproached, why suspect the Buddha alone? The Buddha's having no mourning garments is rooted in eradicating suffering; the Three Sovereigns' dispensing with mourning conformed to pristine simplicity. Pristine simplicity is not doubted, yet eradicating suffering incurs blame—this is what is meant by 'three in the morning and four in the evening,' provoking alternating joy and anger! One clearly knows that the teachings of the sages respond to resonances with total adaptability: the Three Sovereigns lacked mourning dress due to pristine simplicity; the Five Emperors instituted mourning by following human feelings; and Śākyamuni eradicated suffering and thus discarded worldly customs to return to the real. In examining their traces, their paths diverge; but their profound transformations converge upon the same goal.