[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [廣弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103) › 8.52 # 廣弘明集 8.52 廣弘明集 8.52 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.52) 答曰。鄙俗不可以語大道者。滯於形也。曲士不可以辯宗極者。拘於名也。案孟子以聖人為先覺。聖中之極。寧過佛哉。故譯經者以覺飜佛。覺有三種。自覺覺他及以滿覺。孟軻一辯豈具此三菩提者。案大智度論云。無上慧然慧照靈通。義翻為道。道名雖同道義尤異。何者若論儒宗。道名通於大小。論語曰。雖小道必有可觀。致遠恐泥。若談釋典。道名通於邪正。經曰。九十有六皆名道也。聽其名則真偽莫分。驗其法則邪正自辯。菩提大道以智度為體。老氏之道以虛空為狀。體用既懸固難影響。外典無為以息事為義。內經無為無三相之為。名同實異本不相似。故知借此方之稱。翻彼域之宗。寄名談實何疑之有。准如茲例則孔老非佛。何以明其然者。昔商大宰問於孔丘曰。夫子聖人歟。對曰。丘博識強記。非聖人也。又問。三王聖人歟。對曰。三王善用智勇。聖非丘所知。又問。五帝聖人歟。對曰。五帝善用仁信。聖非丘所知。（又問。三皇聖人歟。對曰三皇善用時。聖非丘所知。大宰大駭曰。然則）孰者為聖。孔子動容有間曰。西方之人有聖者焉。不治而不亂。不言而自信。不化而自行。蕩蕩乎民無能名焉。若老氏必聖孔何不言。以此校之理當推佛（老子西升經云。天下大術佛術第一。又西昇玄經云。吾師化由天竺善入泥洹又府子曰老氏之師名釋迦文。直就道書咸皆師佛）。 > I answer: Those of rustic vulgarity cannot discuss the Great Way because they are stagnated in physical forms; petty men cannot debate the supreme principle because they are constrained by names. Now, Mencius regarded the sage as 'he who is first enlightened'. Among sages, could the supreme one ever surpass the Buddha? Therefore, translators of sūtras rendered 'buddha' as 'awakened' (enlightened). Awakening has three kinds: self-awakening, awakening others, and fully perfected awakening. How could Mencius's single argument encompass these three? As for bodhi, the Dà zhìdù lùn states: 'Unsurpassed wisdom, where the light of wisdom is subtly efficacious and pervasive.' Its meaning was translated as 'Way' (dào). Though the name 'Way' is identical, the meaning of the Way is entirely different. Why is this? If we discuss the Confucian lineage, the name 'Way' extends to both great and small: the Analects says, 'Even in minor Ways, there must be something worth viewing, but if pursued too far there is fear of becoming mired.' If we discuss Buddhist scriptures, the name 'Way' extends to both heterodox and orthodox: the sūtra says, 'The ninety-six \[schools\] are all named Ways.' Listening to the name, true and false cannot be distinguished; verifying their teachings, heterodoxy and orthodoxy naturally become distinct. The Great Way of bodhi takes the perfection of wisdom as its essence; Laozi's Way takes empty void as its manifestation. Essence and function being so vastly disparate, one certainly cannot correspond to the other. In non-Buddhist texts, 'asaṃskṛta' (wuwei) takes the cessation of affairs as its meaning; in inner scriptures, 'asaṃskṛta' means being free from the activities of the three characteristics \[of conditioned phenomena\]. The names are identical, but the realities are different; they were never alike from the start. Hence we know that borrowing terms of this land to translate the principles of that realm is merely lodging words to speak of reality—what doubt could there be? In accordance with this principle, Confucius and Laozi are not buddhas. How do we know this is so? Formerly, the Grand Steward of Shang asked Confucius, saying, 'Is the master a sage?' He replied, 'Qiu has broad knowledge and a strong memory; I am not a sage.' He asked again, 'Were the Three Kings sages?' He replied, 'The Three Kings were good at employing wisdom and courage; whether they were sages is not known to Qiu.' He asked again, 'Were the Five Emperors sages?' He replied, 'The Five Emperors were good at employing benevolence and trustworthiness; whether they were sages is not known to Qiu.' (He asked again, 'Were the Three Sovereigns sages?' He replied, 'The Three Sovereigns were good at employing timeliness; whether they were sages is not known to Qiu.' The Grand Steward was greatly astonished and said, 'If so, then) who is a sage?' Confucius showed a solemn expression, paused awhile, and said, 'Among the people of the Western regions there is a sage. He does not govern, yet there is no disorder; he does not speak, yet he is spontaneously trusted; he does not transform, yet \[the Way\] is spontaneously practiced. Vast and boundlessly expansive! The people are unable to find a name for him.' If Laozi were truly a sage, why did Confucius not say so? Examining it in this light, reason dictates that it must refer to the Buddha. (The Laozi Xisheng jing says, 'Among the supreme arts of the world, the Buddha's art is foremost.' Also, the Xisheng xuanjing says, 'My master's transformation derived from Tianzhu; he skillfully entered nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the Fuzi states, 'The master of Laozi was named Śākyamuni.' Directly consulting Daoist texts, they all take the Buddha as master.) > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.51) - [Next: 8.53](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.53) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103~en-mt.8.52) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.52) · Pramāṇa