廣弘明集 7.12

7.12

濟云。胡法慳貪惟財是與。直是行三毒而害萬方。未見修六度而隆三寶。四不經也。且財食厚生貪夫之所沒。積而能散廉士之恒情。六度檀捨為初。惟佛宗而立位三寶。佛為教主。乃正覺之流慈。無佛法安知六度之功。絕慈風豈識三寶為正化。濟以不得其志。沒齒陷之。但增貪競以咎人。未顯厭身以祛滯。俗中恒士尚不虛言。濟寔鄙夫。輕馳才筆。獨不聞顧雍拜萬戶封家人不知。葛亮受三郡賞庫無尺絹。謝安平百萬賊愀然改容。能仁捨四有諦遺如涕唾。斯實錄也。況復捨身受身。觀三界如牢獄。惟財惟食。誠八徵之毒蛇。衣𭽽自隨。若鳥之遊空府。去留無滯。類鳧之泛長川。此等之徒名沙門也。故經云。僧無犯戒不清淨者。若反於此不名為僧。豈得以賊臣虐主等稷偰與唐虞。稊莠荊棘比嘉苗及美木。夫立言設諫清濁兩分。全惘以昏兇。都掩諸髦彥。理不可也。于時有梁之為政也。仁育為初。帝則絕慾蔬食。僧則詞林義窟。冒行蠅點足可投畀豺虎矣。通人為論理。則統之去瑕掩過。士之恒務。故魯之儒行惟孔一人。濫吹竊服時惟傾國。僧之真偽權實難分。惟佛得知。餘存視聽。故濟不達無足煩論。恨其早被火灰面陳。豈不知返。

Ji said: 'The Hu teaching is stingy and greedy, caring only for wealth. It directly practices the three poisons and harms myriad quarters; we have never seen it cultivate the six perfections to elevate the triratna. This is the fourth unprincipled thing.'

[Daoxuan's rebuttal:] Now, wealth and food sustain life, and in them greedy men are submerged; but to accumulate and be able to disperse them is the constant disposition of a pure and honest gentleman. Among the six perfections, the giving of dāna comes first; it is only by relying on the Buddha that its status is established. As for the triratna, the Buddha is the master of the teaching, the flowing compassion of the Correctly Enlightened One. Without the Buddhadharma, how could one know the efficacy of the six perfections? Cut off from the breeze of compassion, how could one recognize the triratna as the correct transformation? Because Ji did not attain his ambition, to the end of his days he sought to entrap it; he merely increased his greed and rivalry to blame others, without ever revealing any weariness of the body to cast off clinging. Even ordinary gentlemen among the vulgar do not speak empty words, yet Ji was truly a vulgar fellow who let his talented brush run recklessly. Has he alone not heard that when Gu Yong was enfeoffed with ten thousand households his family did not even know, that when Zhuge Liang received the reward of three commanderies his storehouse contained not a foot of silk, that when Xie An pacified a million rebels he was somber with a solemn expression, and that the Capable and Benevolent One renounced the four truths of conditioned existence, casting them away like spit and phlegm? These are true records. How much more so for those who relinquish the body and receive no body, contemplating the triple world as a prison, regarding wealth and food truly as poisonous serpents of the eight phenomena, carrying their robes and bowls along with them like birds wandering through the empty sky, without hindrance in leaving or staying like mallards floating upon a long river! Those of this sort are called śramaṇas. Thus the scripture says: "Among the Saṅgha, there are none who break the precepts or are unpurified. If one acts contrary to this, he is not called a monk." How can one equate treacherous ministers and cruel rulers with Houji, Xie, Tang, and Yu, or compare weeds and briers with fine sprouts and splendid trees? In formulating words and establishing admonitions, the clear and the turbid must be bifurcated; to obscure everything with darkness and wickedness and completely cover over all eminent talents is contrary to principle. At that time, when Liang governed, benevolent nurturing was paramount: the Emperor himself severed desires and ate vegetarian food, while the monks formed forests of literary talent and caves of doctrinal meaning. Even if there were transgressions like fly specks, they could well be thrown to the jackals and tigers! For universal scholars, their discussions are governed by principle; to remove blemishes and veil faults is the constant duty of a gentleman. Thus among the Confucian conduct of Lu, only Confucius was the sole person; playing the reed pipe improperly and stealing the robes brought down the state at the time. The authenticity and falsity, the expedient and the real among monks are difficult to discern; only the Buddha can know it, while others merely rely on what they see and hear. Therefore, because Ji lacked understanding, he is unworthy of burdensome debate. What is regrettable is that he was so soon covered in fire and ashes to present his memorial in person—how could he not know how to turn back?