廣弘明集 14.15

14.15

大唐。代代而禁妖言。處處而斷淫祀。豈容捨其財力放其士民。營魑魅之堂塔。入魍魎之徒眾。又有宰輔冠蓋人倫羽儀。王導庾亮之徒。戴逵許詢之輩。置情天人之際。抗迹烟霞之表。並稟教而歸依。皆厝心以崇信。豈容尊妖奉魅以自屈乎。良由覩妙知真使之然耳。又傅氏之先毅字武仲。高才碩學世號通人。辯顯宗之祥夢。證金人之冥感。釋道東被。毅有功焉。竊揆傅令之才識。未可齊於武仲也。何為毀佛謗法。與其先之反乎。吳尚書令闞澤對吳主孫權曰。孔老二家比方佛法優劣遠矣。何以言之。孔老設教法天以制。不敢違天。諸佛說法天奉而行。不敢違佛。以此言之實非比對。愚謂闞子斯論。知優劣之一隅矣。凡百家君子可不思其言乎。夫大士高僧觀於理也深矣。明主賢臣謀於國也忠矣。而歷代寶之以為大訓何哉。知其窮理盡性道莫之加故也。傅氏觀不深於名僧。思未精於前哲。獨師心而背法。輕絕福而興咎。何其為國謀而不忠乎。為身慮而不遠乎。大覺窮神而知化。深勸思患而豫防。惟百齡之易盡。嗟五福其難常。命川流而電逝。業地久而天長。三塗極迍而杳杳。四流無際而茫茫。憑法舟而利濟。藉信翮以高翔。宜轉咎而為福。何罔念而作狂也。

down to our Great Tang, generation after generation prohibited demonic speeches and place after place eliminated licentious sacrifices. How could they allow squandering their wealth and labor and releasing their gentry and commoners to erect halls and pagodas for mountain demons and join the followers of apparitions? Furthermore, ministers and chancellors, caps and canopies of state, exemplars of human relations—the likes of Wang Dao and Yu Liang, the peers of Dai Kui and Xu Xun—cast their sentiments in the borderlands between gods and men, and set their traces beyond the mist and clouds. All received the teachings and took refuge; all focused their minds to honor and believe. How could they allow themselves to stoop to revering specters and serving demons? This was truly because they perceived the wondrous and recognized the true that it was so. Moreover, the ancestor of Fu [Yi], Fu Yi, whose courtesy name was Wuzhong, possessed high talent and immense erudition, and was hailed by his generation as a man of universal understanding. He interpreted the auspicious dream of Emperor Xianzong and gave proof for the dark response of the golden man; in the eastward transmission of Śākya's Way, Wuzhong indeed rendered great service. I privately estimate that Magistrate Fu's talent and discernment cannot yet equal Wuzhong. Why then does he defame the Buddha and slander the Dharma, directly contradicting his own ancestor? Kan Ze, Director of the Secretariat in Wu, said to Sun Quan, the Lord of Wu: 'When the two houses of Confucius and Laozi are compared to the Buddhadharma, the difference in superiority and inferiority is vast indeed. Why is this said? Confucius and Laozi established teachings modeling themselves on Heaven to institute regulations, not daring to transgress Heaven; the Buddhas preach the Dharma, and Heaven reverently implements it, not daring to transgress the Buddha. Speaking from this, they are truly beyond comparison.' In my foolish view, Kan Ze's discourse understood one corner of their superiority and inferiority. Can the gentlemen of all the hundred schools fail to reflect on his words? Indeed, the great masters and eminent monks looked deeply into principle; the enlightened rulers and worthy ministers planned loyally for the state. Why did successive dynasties treasure it as a supreme instruction? It is because they knew that in fathoming principle and fulfilling nature, no Way surpasses it. Fu Yi's contemplation is not deeper than that of famous monks, and his reflection is not more refined than that of former sages. Solely following his own conceit and turning his back on the Dharma, he lightly cut himself off from blessings and gave rise to guilt. How could he plan for the state without loyalty, and consider his own person without far-sightedness? The Great Awakened One fathomed the divine and knew transformations; he profoundly exhorted consideration of perils and prior defense. One should contemplate that a hundred years of life are easily exhausted, and lament that the five blessings are difficult to preserve. Life flows away like a river and passes like lightning; karmic retribution endures as long as heaven and earth. The three paths are exceedingly calamitous and obscure; the four floods are boundless and vast. Relying on the ship of Dharma makes for a beneficial crossing; leaning on the wings of faith enables high flight. One ought to turn calamity into blessing; why should one abandon mindfulness and fall into madness?