廣弘明集 12.31

12.31

概聞仲尼逝而微言絕。弟子喪而大義乖。自爾詩書紛然淆亂。至秦皇焚滅典籍散亡。漢武聿興文藝還闡。至於處大庭之館。居玄宮之室。習無為之道。行不言之教。以謙挹為德。卑弱為心。專任清虛杜絕仁義。務存嘉遁委棄身名。九流之中則道家之流也。故漢書藝文志云。道流者蓋出於史官。歷記成敗古今之道。有三十七家。今之李老蓋一家耳。至於建康莊之第。築碣石之宮。闡儒學之宗。弘文藝之術。興邦制治導俗訓民。禮樂緝修憲章條序。九流之內儒學之流也。故漢書藝文志云。儒流者蓋出於司徒之官。辯陰陽明教化。宗堯舜師仲尼。有五十二家。今儒學所傳也。九流之中二化為最。百家之內兩學為先。用各有宜。弗可廢也。何者。道法是虛無之唱而違俗。不可以救弊。儒術乃教化之談而慎民。可以導物。考而言之。非無優降。尋李老專任無為。止求自度心無廣濟。行闕兼他。近同聲聞之自利也。故清淨法行經云。摩訶迦葉化為老子。迦葉既是小心。老子又無大志。法行之言。信而非謬也。孔子以術藝訓民禮教齊俗。少習利他漸學兼濟。巨同菩薩之利他也。故清淨法行經云。儒童菩薩化作孔丘。儒童既是大心。孔丘復有兼濟。法行之說。理豈虛哉。考乎李典爰及孔經。教迹乃分理致終一。若言封周孔之教送與西域。而胡必不行。奕意豈不云。胡教來此漢人亦不得受。科類而言。昇降懸矣。尋佛是大聖。化滿十方。遠降威靈。漢明親覩。君臣欣感民庶歸心。故遣使西行遠到天竺。摩騰隨至傳化迄今。周孔小聖。德局一方。不能遠降威靈。使彼親感。故西域之人無緣生信。亦不來此迎周孔之經。為此孔教不行西土。以此而推。抑可知矣。

I, Gai, have heard: When Zhongni passed away, subtle words were cut off; when his disciples died, the great principles diverged. From then on, the *Odes* and *Documents* fell into confusion. When it came to the First Emperor of Qin burning and destroying them, the canonical records were scattered and lost. Emperor Wu of the Han took the initiative to revive them, and literary arts were once again expounded. As for occupying the hall of the Great Courtyard, dwelling in the chamber of the Mystic Palace, practicing the Dao of non-action, carrying out the teaching without words, taking modesty and deference as virtue, and lowliness and weakness as one's mindset, exclusively relying on pristine vacuity and severing benevolence and righteousness, striving to preserve admirable reclusion and renouncing bodily life and fame—among the nine lineages, this is the lineage of the Daoists. Thus the "Treatise on Literature" of the *Book of Han* states: "The Daoist lineage probably arose from the official historians, who recorded the ways of success and failure, ancient and modern. There were thirty-seven houses." The Laozi of today is merely one of those houses. As for establishing mansions along major thoroughfares, building palaces at Jieshi, expounding the traditions of Confucian learning, propagating the arts of letters, establishing the state and instituting governance to guide customs and instruct the people, cultivating rituals and music, and setting constitutional regulations in systematic order—among the nine lineages, this is the lineage of Confucian learning. Thus the "Treatise on Literature" of the *Book of Han* states: "The Confucian lineage probably arose from the office of the Minister of Education. They distinguished yin and yang, clarified moral transformation, took Yao and Shun as ancestral guides and Zhongni as their teacher. There were fifty-two houses." This is what is transmitted in the Confucian learning of today. Among the nine lineages, these two teachings are the foremost; within the hundred schools, these two studies take precedence. Each has its appropriate application, and neither can be discarded. Why is this? The Daoist methods are declarations of vacuity and non-being that run contrary to worldly customs; they cannot be used to rescue from degeneration. The Confucian arts are discourses on moral transformation that bring prudence to the people; they can be used to guide affairs. Examining and discussing them, they are indeed not without superior and inferior qualities. Looking into Laozi: he exclusively relied on non-action, seeking only to save himself with no mind for widespread rescue, lacking in practices that extend to others; this closely resembles the self-benefit of the śrāvakas. Therefore the *Sūtra on the Practice of the Pure Dharma* (*Qingjing faxing jing*) says: "Mahākāśyapa transformed into Laozi." Since Kāśyapa had a small mind, Laozi likewise had no grand ambition; the words of the *Faxing jing* are trustworthy and not mistaken. Confucius used skills and arts to instruct the people, and ritual teachings to regulate customs; early on he practiced benefiting others and gradually learned comprehensive deliverance, vastly resembling a bodhisattva's benefiting of others. Therefore the *Sūtra on the Practice of the Pure Dharma* says: "The Bodhisattva Mānavaka transformed into Kong Qiu." Since Mānavaka possessed a great mind, Kong Qiu likewise practiced comprehensive deliverance; how could the statements of the *Faxing jing* be in vain? Examining the Laoist canons down to the Confucian classics, the traces of their teachings indeed diverge, but their underlying principles ultimately unite. If one says that sealing the teachings of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius to send to the Western Regions would certainly result in the Hu not practicing them, does Yi not mean that when the Hu teaching comes here, the Han people also should not receive it? Classifying them by kind, their heights and depths are vast apart. When we look into the Buddha: he is the Great Sage whose transformation fills the ten directions; his majestic spiritual power descended from afar, which Emperor Ming of the Han witnessed in person. Sovereign and ministers were filled with joy and resonance, and the common populace turned their hearts toward him. Therefore envoys were sent west, traveling far to India; Mātaṅga then arrived, and his transmission and transformation have continued to this day. The Duke of Zhou and Confucius are minor sages; their virtue was confined to a single region. They could not project their majestic spiritual power from afar to make those abroad directly resonate. Therefore, the people of the Western Regions had no cause to give rise to faith, nor did they come here to welcome the scriptures of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius. For this reason, the Confucian teaching did not spread to the western lands. Deducing from this, it may well be known.