廣弘明集 8
English (machine translation) 8
- Language
- English
8.1
Compiled by the Śramaṇa Shi Daoxuan of the Great Tang's Ximing Temple
8.2
Section Two: Resolving Delusions, Part Four
8.3
Edict on Smashing Images, Burning Scriptures, and Burying Monks Alive — Emperor Taiwu of the Wei
Great Assembly of Daoists and Laypeople
Debate on the Abolition and Establishment of the Two Teachings — Emperor Wu of the Zhou
Treatise on the Two Teachings — Śramaṇa Dao'an
8.4
Edict on Smashing Images, Burning Scriptures, and Burying Monks Alive
8.5
Emperor Taiwu, Shizu of the Yuan Wei
8.6
The emperor's personal name was Tao. He ascended the throne in the eighth year of the Taichang era of Emperor Mingyuan, at the age of eight. Being still tender and young, the governance he relied on rested solely on his grand ministers. At that time, the Minister over the Masses, Cui Hao, had a particular disbelief in Buddhism. Whenever the emperor consulted him on state affairs, he always harboured resentment and said, 'The Buddhist teaching is false and absurd, causing waste and harm to the world. The Huang-Lao way of the immortals may be preserved in the mind.' As Hao already had an elegant faith in the way of immortals, he transmitted the *Laozi* scripture to the emperor. Trusting and applying his words at face value, [the emperor] never gave them critical consideration; he immediately set up Daoist altars and summoned masters of esoteric arts from all around. At that time, the Buddhist Dharma was flourishing. Hao envied it inwardly and was constantly looking for flaws. It happened that Gai Wu rebelled in Xingcheng, and the Guanzhong region was thrown into turmoil. The emperor therefore went on a western punitive expedition, with Hao accompanying him at the time. Upon arriving in Chang'an, there was a monk who planted wheat within the temple grounds, and the imperial grooms pastured the horses there. The emperor entered to inspect the horses, and an attendant official went into an adjoining room where he saw bows and arrows. He came out and memorialized the matter. The emperor was enraged and said, 'These are not things to be used by a monk. He must be colluding with Gai Wu, plotting to harm others.' He ordered the relevant authorities to prosecute and execute the entire monastery. They inspected its assets and found goods deposited for safekeeping by governors, commandery protectors, and wealthy individuals, which numbered in the tens of thousands. An edict was then issued to burn and destroy the Buddha statues, ordering that this be held as an imperial precedent and that the four quarters follow the events of Chang'an in every respect. In the fifth year of the Taiping Zhenjun era, the emperor was twenty-nine years old, in the prime of his life and flourishing in military exploits. Cui Hao's nefarious stratagems followed one after another, fanning the flames alongside the masters of esoteric arts. Day after day [the emperor] climbed to the immortal lookouts, and the pure assembly of the Śākya gate was about to be annihilated. He issued another edict, saying: 'The foolish populace lacks discernment, believing in the counterfeit and being deluded by the uncanny; they privately keep shamans and sorcerers and conceal prognostic texts. The company of monks make false use of the absurdities of the Western Regions, giving rise to demonic portents from their idle seats. This is not the way to unify governance and transformation or spread genuine virtue throughout the realm. From princes and dukes down to the commoners, anyone who privately shelters monks must surrender them by the fifteenth day of the second month of this year. If they exceed this deadline and do not give them up, the monks shall be executed, and the families of those who harboured them shall be exterminated.' At that time, Crown Prince Gongzong supervised the realm; he had always revered the Buddhist Dharma, and repeatedly submitted memorials explaining that the execution of monks was arbitrary and excessive, and that the fault did not lie with the painted images: 'Now let their order be disbanded and the doors of all monasteries closed; when the world no longer cultivates and venerates them, the clay, wood, cinnabar, and verdigris will naturally perish.' He pleaded two or three times like this, but was not permitted. At that time, there was a monk named Xuan'gao, who was an outstanding master of the empty gate. Crown Prince Huang took him as his master and revered and served him like a Buddha. Cui Hao enjoyed imperial favour; fearing that Huang would assume the regency and that he himself might be endangered and banished, he secretly slandered him to the emperor: 'Huang has deviant intentions. If you do not plan ahead, regret will come too late. Furthermore, Huang has associated with Xuan'gao, who communicates with spirits and demons and excels at winning people's hearts. Can you not be suspicious?' The emperor initially did not heed this, but later imprisoned him. He then dreamed of his ancestor, who said, 'The Crown Prince has committed no crime.' He also questioned the civil and military officials, who all said, 'The Crown Prince is humane and filial, and has been unjustly disgraced and imprisoned.' The emperor then released Huang and restored the administration to him. Hao slandered him again, and the emperor believed it, imprisoning Huang until he died in confinement and strangling Gao south of the suburbs. Hao had his way at the court, and none of the lords dared utter a word. Thus, in the third month of the seventh year of the Taiping Zhenjun era, an edict was issued to sweep everything clean: all painted images and barbarian scriptures were to be smashed and burned, and monks, regardless of age, were to be buried alive. These were all outcomes brought about by Cui Hao's intentions. Later, when the emperor suffered from a pestilence and Hao's entire clan was exterminated, their long cries and deep laments were of no avail. The events are detailed in the earlier *Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism*.
8.7
The Northern Zhou's Destruction of the Buddhist Dharma and the Assembly of Daoists and Laypeople to Debate the Matter
8.8
Emperor Gaozu of the Northern Zhou was suspicious and jealous by nature, calmly tolerating friction. Yuwen Hu, the Grand Prime Minister and Duke of the State of Jin, weighed all the administrative affairs and made decisions on the myriad matters of governance. The emperor secretly envied him, fearing that he would usurp power. He summoned Hu into the inner palace and personally slew him, while the families of six ministers were exterminated along with their clans. Having fulfilled his ambitions throughout the realm, the emperor had nothing left to fear. However, he placed his trust in the prophetic apocrypha and became obsessively inclined toward them. From ancient times it had been passed down that 'the black shall attain [power]', meaning that someone with the black sign would gain the realm—just as at the end of the Han there were circulating rumors that 'those in yellow clothing shall rule', replacing red with yellow as an omen of succeeding to the cycle of virtues; the saying regarding black was similar. Therefore, when Emperor Taizu of the Zhou escorted the Wei ruler in fleeing west, his clothing and banners were all changed to black to align with the deceptive prophetic words; this, too, was the lingering destiny of Emperor Guangwu of the Han. Formerly, when Gao Yang established the destiny of the Northern Qi, the common folk also had this ditty. Yang said that the 'black one' was Meditation Master Chou, the 'black-robed Son of Heaven', and was about to execute him. It happened that Chou had farsighted wisdom; he realized this and managed to escape, as recounted fully elsewhere. Therefore, the Zhou progenitor initially revered the Buddhist Dharma and humbled himself in bowing before monks, and they were all made to wear yellow clothing to prohibit black. There was a Daoist named Zhang Bin who was deceitful and misled the sovereign to privately advance his faction. He held the black-clad Buddhists to be an omen of misfortune for the state and Huang-Lao to be an auspicious omen for the state. The emperor accepted his words, believing in Daoism and disparaging Buddhism; he personally received talismans and registers and donned Daoist robes and caps. There was a former monk, Wei Yuansong, who worked hand in glove with Bin to agitate and sway the emperor's feelings, saying, 'The monks are mostly indolent and greedily chase after wealth and food; they are not worthy of reverence.' The emperor summoned a hundred monks into the inner palace to practice the Dao for seven nights. Aware of the secret intention, they practiced with added sincerity. The emperor also slept and lodged together with the monks to observe their faults and merits; sometimes he read and recited with the monks, or praised, chanted hymns, worshipped, and repented. The monks were all solemn and disciplined, and none failed to marvel at the emperor's incognito movements. When the period was completed, it ended without any fault being found. By the fifteenth day of the third month in the fourth year of the Tianhe era, the year being yichou, an imperial decree summoned more than two thousand virtuous monks, celebrated Confucians, Daoists, and civil and military officials. The emperor presided over the main hall to evaluate and discuss the three teachings, placing the Confucian teaching first, the Buddhist teaching last, and the Daoist teaching as supreme, on the grounds that it emerged prior to the nameless and transcends the realm beyond heaven and earth. The debaters at the time offered chaotic arguments, and their opinions and views diverged sharply; they dispersed without reaching a decision. On the twentieth day of that month, they assembled to debate again as before; the points of dispute grew even broader, none pleasing the emperor's mind. The emperor said, 'The Confucian and Daoist teachings have always been honored in this state. The Buddhist teaching arrived later; it is my intention not to maintain it. What does the general consensus say?' The debaters at the time set forth principles showing that there was no reason to eliminate it. The emperor said, 'The three teachings encompass the worldly; logically they cannot all coexist.' In the beginning of the fourth month, they gathered again as before, under orders that they must exhaustively present principles and not merely feign compliance to his face.
8.9
He also ordered the Grand Master of the Metropolitan Directorate, Zhen Luan, to thoroughly evaluate the two teachings of Buddhism and Daoism, to determine their depth and discern their truth and falsehood. In the fifth year of Tianhe, Luan submitted the three-fascicle *Xiaodao lun* (Treatise Laughing at the Dao), using it to mock the names of the Three Caverns. On the tenth day of the fifth month, the emperor held a grand assembly of his ministers to examine the treatise Luan had submitted; considering it to be an injury and ruin to the Daoist teaching, which the emperor had personally received and which ran contrary to his original intention, he immediately had it burned and destroyed in the palace court. At that time, Dharma Master Dao'an also submitted the *Erjiao lun* (Treatise on the Two Teachings), speaking of the internal teaching and the external teaching: the method of training the mind is called the Three Vehicles, which is the internal teaching; the method of preserving the physical form is called the Nine Currents, which is the external teaching. Daoism possesses no separate teaching, but is subsumed within the Confucian current; this indeed represents the utmost modesty of the *Book of Changes*. The emperor read the treatise and questioned his court ministers, but none could counter it; thereupon the matter was shelved. Five years passed, and on the seventeenth day of the fifth month in the third year of Jiande, the year being jiawu, [the emperor] first banned both the Buddhist and Daoist teachings, ordering both monks and Daoist masters to return to secular life. The meritorious property of the Three Jewels was distributed to the ministers and subordinates, and the monasteries, abbeys, and temples were bestowed upon princes and dukes. The rest is as described elsewhere. At that time, the Prince of Wei could not bear the matter; he went straight into the palace and set fire to the Qianhua Gate, attacking the emperor without success. He retreated to Hulao, where he was captured and brought to the capital; the twelve fathers and sons, along with their fellow conspirators, were all executed.
8.10
Treatise on the Two Teachings
8.11
Śramaṇa Shi Dao'an
8.12
1. Returning to the Source and Revealing the Fundamental
2. The Superiority and Inferiority of Confucianism and Daoism
3. The Sovereign as the Lord of the Teaching
4. Inquiring into and Verifying the Physical Form and the Spirit
5. Immortality Differs from Nirvāṇa
6. The Superiority and Inferiority of the Dao and the Immortals
7. Confucius and Laozi Are Not the Buddha
8. The Śākya Differs from the Daoist Tradition
9. The Vestments and Regulations Are Not Laozi's
10. Clarifying the Authenticity and Falsehood of the Canonical Texts
11. The Scope of the Doctrines: Universal and Restricted
12. Relying on the Dharma to Remove Doubts
8.13
1. Returning to the Source and Revealing the Fundamental
8.14
There was an extraordinary youth of the Eastern Capital who asked the Broad-Minded Master of the Western Capital: "I have heard that when refined culture fell into decay, the Six Classics were compiled and revised; and when boasting and preening grew prominent, the Two Chapters were composed. Thus, what is gentle and immensely nourishing, invariably aiding all beings, is called Confucianism; what is inexhaustible in use, invariably penetrating all things, is called Daoism. These are both the spiritual accomplishments of Confucius and Laozi, which can be known in detail. Recently, I have examined the teachings of the Śākya, finding their texts vast and their meanings profound. Observing how they guide and draw others forward, they are gentle and skillfully didactic; examining their essential drift, they are untiringly excellent. However, although the three teachings differ, their encouragement of goodness is unified in purpose; their tracks and traces are indeed disparate, yet their realization of principle is identical. As for Laozi lamenting bodily distress and Confucius sighing over the flowing stream—the former indeed wished to put himself behind and outside so as to preserve life, while the latter was moved by what passes away to recognize the transformation of things. How do these differ from the Buddhist scriptures' discourse on revulsion toward the body and impermanence? It is only that narrow-minded people have not engaged in lofty contemplation, being unable to equalize heaven and earth into a single finger or balance right and wrong within the one breath. This causes continual discord in their discussions. This is what is meant by hiding a maṇi-jewel inside an eggshell, or veiling great radiance in dense night, thereby damaging the pure tradition of non-duality and blocking the profound purport of penetrating oneness. Even praying for it across countless kalpas, how could one encounter it? I respectfully ask you, Master, to elucidate and unfold this for me."
The Broad-Minded Master replied: "Your question is vehement indeed! It may be said that your exhaustive eloquence has not exhausted the principle. Though I am not quick-witted, I have inquired into doubts in the superior realm, cherished the sacred texts in my heart, and imbibed the transformative influence from the lowest seat. Now I shall briefly set forth the essentials for you. The myriad transformations originate from non-arising and yet arise; that which arises is non-arising. The Three Powers germinate from the beginningless and yet begin; that which begins is beginningless. Thus, non-arising and beginninglessness are the nature of things. Having transformation and having birth are the aggregation of humans. Although an aggregation is of a single body, form and spirit are twofold and distinct; although dispersal separates their physical substance, mental factors do not perish. Therefore, the teaching that rescues physical form is designated as 'external'; the scripture that saves the spirit is titled 'internal'. For this reason, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra speaks of internal and external sutras, the Benevolent Kings Sutra distinguishes internal and external treatises, the Vaipulya scriptures clarify internal and external vinayas, and the Śata-śāstra speaks of internal and external paths. If we speak broadly of internal and external, it encompasses both the Chinese and the barbarian. If we restrict the terminology to this realm, one may speak of Confucianism and Buddhism: the teachings of the Śākya being the internal, and the teachings of the Ru being the external. This is fully made clear in the sacred scriptures and is no fabrication. Examining the records in detail and investigating their origins, there are only two teachings—how could there be three? Why? In ancient and simple antiquity, the announcements of the Three Fen and Eight Dian were not yet promulgated; only when the pure customs gradually drifted away did the texts of the Nine Qiu and Eight Suo appear. Thus, embracing all seven classes of scripture and integrating the nine schools, all were plans for governing the state and methods for cultivating the self. Hence the 'Treatise on Literature' states: 'The school of the Ru probably arose from the office of the Minister of Education (Situ), assisting the ruler of men to accord with yin and yang and to clarify moral transformation. They traveled through the texts of the Six Classics and paid heed to the five virtues, transmitting the ways of Yao and Shun, modeling themselves upon King Wen and King Wu, and taking Zhongni as their ancestral teacher; their Dao is the highest.'
8.15
"The school of Daoists probably arose from the office of the Scribes (Shiguan). They kept themselves in pure vacuity and maintained themselves in humble weakness. This was the ruler's art of facing south, harmonizing with Yao's ability to yield and the Qian hexagram's modesty in the Book of Changes. This is their strength."
8.16
"The school of Yin-Yang probably arose from the office of Xi and He. Reverently according with vast Heaven, calculating the movements of the sun, moon, and stars, and reverently delivering the seasons to the people—this is their strength."
8.17
"The school of Legalists probably arose from the office of the Judges (Liguan). Rewarding reliably and punishing unfailingly to assist the ritual regulations—as the Book of Changes says: 'The former kings clarified punishments to enforce the laws.' This is their strength."
8.18
"The school of Names probably arose from the office of Ritual Officials (Liguan). In antiquity, names and ranks were not the same, and the rituals also differed in degree. Confucius said: 'Must it not be the rectification of names? If names are not rectified, language cannot be in accord; if language is not in accord, affairs cannot be successfully completed.' This is their strength."
8.19
"The school of Mohists probably arose from the office of the Clear Temple (Qingmiao). Thatched roofs and unhewn rafters—hence they valued frugality. Nourishing the Three Elders and Five Experienced Ones—hence they held universal love. Selecting gentlemen through the great archery contest—hence they elevated the worthy. Sacrificing to ancestors and revering fathers—hence they acknowledged ghosts. This is their strength."
8.20
"The school of Strategists (Zongheng) probably arose from the office of Emissaries (Xingren). Confucius said: 'Though one may recite the three hundred Odes, if on an embassy to the four quarters one cannot reply independently, much as one knows, of what use is it?' He also said: 'An envoy indeed! An envoy indeed!' This means that one must adapt to circumstances and make appropriate decisions, receiving the mandate but not the fixed words. This is their strength."
8.21
"The school of Eclectics (Zajia) probably arose from the office of Deliberators (Yiguan). Combining Confucianism and Mohism, encompassing Names and Law, they understood that the state structure possesses these, and saw that the royal governance leaves none unpenetrated. This is their strength."
8.22
"The school of Agriculturalists probably arose from the office of Agriculture and Grain (Nongji). Sowing the five grains and encouraging plowing and sericulture to provide sufficient food and clothing—hence among the eight policies, 'the first is food, the second is commodities.' This is their strength. If differentiated into branches, there should be nine teachings; if combined as a whole, they all belong to the Confucian lineage. Regarding their offices, each was a post of the royal dynasty; discussing their writings, all were books of the imperial house. If you wish to make the nine schools contest the streams within a single era, and cause petty accomplishments to dispute eloquence in an age of the Great Dao, would this not, above, injure the Sovereign Ultimate's tradition of non-duality, and, below, foster the vices of narrowness, licentiousness, vulgarity, and dissipation? This is truly what is called a colossal moth gnawing at grand designs, dazzling the court and the countryside."
8.23
"The teachings of the Buddha are standard maxims that exhaust principle and plumb the nature, the tracks for transcending the world and entering truth. In terms of their texts, they are divided into twelve; in terms of their purports, they consist of the four siddhāntas. Their principle is subtle within the cosmos, certainly beyond the reach of names and designations; their transformation reigns outside worldly ties, and again cannot be sought by conventional intellect. As for relinquishing entanglements and casting off traps, refining the spirit to full illumination, closely transcending birth and death, and distantly realizing nirvāṇa; expounding the five vehicles to accommodate the depths and shallows of all capacities; fully clarifying the six realms of rebirth to distinguish the ascent and descent of good and evil—aspiring distantly to transcend the world, its principles leave nothing unaddressed; matching closely with royal governance, its matters leave nothing unexhausted. It can be broad, it can be concise; it is neither crude nor ornate. If not for the supreme contemplation under Heaven, who could participate in this teaching? Even if the thousand schools of Confucianism and Daoism, and the hundred lineages of Mohists and Agriculturalists make choices and strive, they have not reached its measure. Only the teaching of the Śākya is rich in both the provisional and the real: that which has remainder and is not definitive is called provisional; that which has no remainder and is definitive is titled real. If you simply call it 'skillful didacticism', how could that constitute wonderful appreciation? You say: 'Although the three teachings differ, their encouragement of goodness is unified in purpose.' I say: goodness has the refined and the coarse, and superior and inferior must be distinguished. The refined transcends the hundred transformations and ascends high; the coarse revolves in the nine abodes and does not cease. How could one speak of their victory and defeat in the same year? You also say: 'The tracks of the teachings are indeed disparate, yet their realization of principle is identical,' thereupon citing worldly instructions to tally with the profound teaching. This is merely the obfuscation of the common crowd, who have not reached the fundamental source. What is a teaching? It means the expression of principle. What is principle? It is that which the teaching expresses. If the teachings are truly different, how could the principle be identical? If the principle must be identical, how could the teachings differ? A fish-trap does not anticipate a hare, nor does a hare-snare serve for a fish. Shall one treat them as names? Where is the identity of principle? Now, when affection for thick preservation of life is earnest, the admonition regarding bodily distress arose; failing to comprehend transient flux, the sigh over the flowing stream was made. These are both supreme discourses within the cosmos, but certainly not grand proclamations transcending it. Why? Tracing matter to its ultimate subtlety was not clarified by Laozi; investigating the mind to its exhaustion in arising and ceasing was likewise unstated by Confucius. It may be said that looking upon them, they seem complete, but examining them, they have not reached the ultimate. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Analyzing form and mind, there are immeasurable aspects, which are not known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' Furthermore, both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas have transcended the realm of false conceptualization; yet the bodhisattva's benevolence encompasses the nine realms, while the śrāvaka only cultivates his own person. This is like comparing the moisture of dew to a great chasm, or a fine dust particle to Sumeru. How much less could an ordinary person's thoughts and perceptions equal them? Hence Vimalakīrti said: 'Do not equate sunlight with the light of a firefly.' If one makes equal what is unequal through equalization, it is not yet equal; if one makes equal what is already equal through equalization, it is not yet equal. I have heard that those skilled in equalizing the world equalize the world through its very inequality. Why is it necessary to level the mountains and fill the abysses before achieving flatness, or to lengthen the duck's legs and shorten the crane's before they become equal? These are the rustic arguments of stubborn men, hardly the true vision of accomplished persons. Thus the proverb says: 'Purple indeed confounds vermilion, and madness thus mimics wisdom.' Please let me broaden these analogies to further enlighten your mind: from the Son of Heaven down to the common people, there are none who do not rely on form and mind to constitute their bodies, and receive yin and yang to transform their physical substance. One cannot, because form and mind are equal, immediately conflate the wise and the foolish; how could one, because the principle of yin and yang is uniform, identify the noble and the base? That this is impossible is an utterly luminous principle; though one forcefully equalizes them, where is the sense?"
8.24
"2. The Ascent and Descent of Confucianism and Daoism (Confucianism encompasses the Six Canonical Texts; Daoism is limited to the Two Chapters. The two matters of ascent and descent are fully set forth in the Four Histories)"
8.25
"Question: Master, you distinguish Confucius and the Śākya like the Jing and Wei rivers, their clarity and turbidity greatly disparate; and in accepting and rejecting Confucianism and Daoism, your selections are especially unrestrained. In Sima Qian's six schools, the Daoists come first; in Ban Gu's nine schools, the Confucian lineage is placed foremost. Investigating what they transmitted, both can establish a school; discussing their regulations, neither violates the canonical model. To say they are both wrong, I feel, is unacceptable. If both are correct, on what basis should one choose or reject? Answer: Pathways of divergence and compliance must have that to which they belong; the boundary between vermilion and purple ought to have been established long ago. The Ten Treatises of the Book of Han all follow ancient standards; were the Treatises on Literature and the Five Elements newly created only now? Agriculture is the foundation of governance, yet Sima Qian did not discuss it; easily destroying the Strategists, both offices and canonical statutes were omitted. Therefore, regarding the composition of Ban Gu, both past and present praise its correctness; regarding the discussions of Sima Qian, antiquity saw criticism of his errors. Hence the Book of Former Han states: 'In Sima Qian's preface to the ancient texts, he placed Huang-Lao before the Six Classics; discussing wandering knights, he degraded retired scholars and advanced treacherous heroes; narrating money-making, he exalted power and profit while scorning poverty and lowliness. These are his defects.'"
8.26
"The Book of Later Han states: 'The Grand Astrologer Sima Qian drew upon the Zuo Commentary and the Guoyu, abridged the Shiben and the Zhan'guo ce, and based upon the Chunqiu of Chu and Han, arranged contemporary affairs. Ascending to the Yellow Emperor and descending to the capture of the lin, he composed the Basic Annals, Hereditary Houses, Liezhuan, Treatises, and Tables, totaling one hundred and thirty chapters, of which ten chapters are lost. As for selecting from the classics, picking from the commentaries, and dispersing the affairs of the hundred schools, it is very often superficial and sketchy, not matching the originals. He sought to achieve merit through broad hearing and extensive recording, but his discussions of principles are shallow and not solid. When discussing doctrines and learning, he revered Huang-Lao and slighted the Five Classics, belittled benevolence and righteousness, and debased the preservation of integrity. These were his grave defects, harming the Dao, which led to the fault of receiving the ultimate punishment.' Furthermore, the 'Treatise on Rites and Music' in the Book of Jin states: 'The world says Sima Qian's Shiji is extraordinary yet not comprehensive. "Extraordinary" refers to his extensive knowledge of antiquity and far-reaching penetration; "not comprehensive" refers to his deficiency regarding Confucianism and Daoism. Confucianism and Daoism having fallen into defect, the sacred teachings did not flourish. He Yan and Wang Bi modeled themselves after this, exalting Daoism and abandoning Confucianism, confusing and disordering the realm, altering customs and destroying manners, ultimately causing the Wei and Jin to decline, the four barbarian tribes to invade each other, and the Central Realm to become feeble.' These are all texts from the truthful records of the national histories. Why should one find it strange to evaluate their merits and demerits and examine their canons and treatises in detail? How could acceptance or rejection, ascent or descent, have anything to do with my humble personal inclinations?"
8.27
"Question: The teaching of Laozi cultivates the self and governs the state, casting aside honor and high status. Discussing the Great Dao, it serves as the origin of the Three Powers; analyzing supreme virtue, it forms the root of the five matters. It is like the molding of clay into vessels, or the inexhaustibility of the bellows. Why do you, Master, suppress it beneath Confucianism?"
8.28
I reply: I have heard that those whose minds are tranquil and at great peace do not seek to alter what is constant; those who rest content in their time and dwell in accord [with circumstance] do not seek to revert to antiquity. Thus the Book of Odes says: 'Neither erring nor forgetting, they follow the old statutes.' Among the fullness of literary classics, the Book of Changes is the most supreme. What would you say Laozi is compared to the Book of Changes? Long ago, the Fuxi clan looked up to contemplate the images in heaven and looked down to observe the models upon earth; nearby, he took them from his own body, and afar, he took them from things. Thereupon he first created the eight trigrams, so as to penetrate the virtue of the spiritual and luminous, and to classify the dispositions of the ten thousand things. King Wen doubled the six lines, and Confucius amplified them with the Ten Wings. Therefore it is said: 'The Way of the Changes is profound indeed!' Its transmission passed through three sages, and its ages spanned three antiquities. Thus the Commentary on the Appended Phrases says: 'In the Changes there is the Supreme Ultimate; this generates the Two Modes.' The Explication of the Changes says: 'What has form is born from the formless. Therefore it is said: there is the Great Change, there is the Great Beginning, there is the Great Genesis, and there is the Great Simplicity.'
8.29
The Great Change is when qi is not yet seen.
8.30
The Great Beginning is the start of qi.
8.31
The Great Genesis is the start of form.
8.32
The Great Simplicity is the start of substance.
8.33
Originating in qi, form, and substance, yet not separated from one another, it is called primordial chaos. Looking, it cannot be seen; listening, it cannot be heard; tracking, it cannot be grasped: thus it is called the Changes. The Explication of the Classic of Filial Piety says: 'The odd is the joint of yang; the even is the base of yin. Attaining yang, it is completed; joining with yin, it dwells. Numbers mating with each other constitutes the Way.' Therefore it is said: 'One yin and one yang is called the Way; that which yin and yang cannot measure is called the spiritual.' Looking from afar at this, it is well worthy of being esteemed over Laozi.
8.34
You say that benevolence arose from the loss of virtue, and that ritual was born of the thinning of loyalty and good faith; resting content in what you have practiced, you disparage what you have not seen. Furthermore, great music shares its harmony with heaven and earth, and great ritual shares its moderation with heaven and earth; how could they consist merely in years of adorned respect and periods of demanding recompense? The purport of Laozi was fundamentally to remedy frivolity and dissolution: emptiness, gentleness, and excelling at humility are indeed sufficient for cultivating oneself, but if one does not elevate the worthy and capable, how could governance be carried on? Since he merely upheld the single quality of modesty in the Changes, he is simply one branch of the Confucian tradition. I hope you will not join with the unrestrained in completely abandoning the five virtues.
8.35
3. The Sovereign is the Lord of Teaching (The world claims that Confucius and Laozi are the ones who propagated the teaching; examining the canonical records, it is the sovereign who is the lord of teaching)
8.36
The questioner asks: I respectfully examine your esteemed writing, analyzing division and union, which says: 'Separating them into branches, there ought to be nine teachings; uniting them in common, they share the single Confucian ancestry.' Yet seeking its rationale, I still consider it inappropriate. Why? The School of Names is mixed with Deng Xi and Yin Wen; the Legalists blend Li Kui and Shang Yang; Mohism came from You and Hu; Agriculture arose from the Old Rustic of the Wilds. All these were formulations developed by worthy and eminent persons; they cannot be taken as heads of teachings. Were not Confucius and Laozi sages? They may establish teachings! Therefore, among the nine currents, we should discuss only these two. Is not Confucianism and Daoism quite apt?
8.37
I reply: Your question seems not yet to have reached a profound understanding. When sovereigns achieved merit, they created music; when order was established, they formulated rituals. These are the magnificent undertakings of imperial enterprises! The Scribe of the Left recorded speeches, and the Scribe of the Right recorded events: events became the Spring and Autumn Annals, and speeches became the Book of Documents. The hundred kings shared this manner, and myriad generations conformed to this track. If one has position without talent, propagation is still deficient; if one has talent without position, it is clearly entirely lacking. Long ago, the Duke of Zhou acted as regent for seven years and then instituted the six offices. What kind of men were Confucius and Laozi that they could be lords of teaching? Although Confucius was sagely and eminent, he lacked position. Only when his chariot returned from Wei did he begin to promote the textual standards; this was merely editing and transmitting, not being the source of a teaching. Moreover, when the Historian of the Pillar was at court, his duty was fundamentally not to offer counsel and assistance; leaving Zhou to enter Qin, he spoke of the Way only for the Magistrate [Yin Xi], remaining unheard among the feudal lords, to say nothing of the Son of Heaven. Since he was an immortal or worthy, he was certainly deficient in both [talent and position]. That Daoism belongs to the Confucian lineage has already been made manifest in the earlier scrolls.
8.38
The questioner asks: Confucius inquired about ritual from Lao Dan, so the relationship of master and disciple existed. Furthermore, in the Analects, Confucius said of himself: 'I transmit but do not innovate; I am faithful to and love antiquity, privately comparing myself to our Old Peng.' You call Confucius a sage while calling Laozi a worthy; where is the logic of this comparison? To praise or blame contrary to propriety is surely an insult to the sage.
8.39
I reply: Being mediocre and ignorant, how would I dare to make far-fetched interpretations? Discarding intellectual contrivance and relying on sincerity, I depend solely on the canonical records. Master Ji [Kang] said: 'Laozi studied the arts of the nine immortals under Master Juan, seeking refined elixirs.' This may well have occurred. As for being a sage, it is not said to come from study. The Analects says: 'Those who are born with knowledge are superior; those who learn and so have knowledge are next.' According to the Book of the Former Han, Confucius is ranked in the uppermost-upper category, all of whom are sages; Laozi is placed in the middle-upper stream, all of whom are worthies. Furthermore, He Yan and Wang Bi both said that Laozi had not yet reached sageliness. These are all rankings given by classical scholars; how could I differ from them? Confucius said: 'I have no constant teacher.' His inquiring about ritual from Lao Dan had this very meaning. When someone asked about farming, he said, 'I am not as good as an old farmer'; when asked about gardening, he said, 'I am not as good as an old gardener.' When entering the Grand Ancestral Temple, he inquired about every matter. Could the farmer, gardener, and temple-keeper be worthier than Kong Qiu? His 'privately comparing himself' was words of humility of this kind. Thus we know that others' assessments are close to reality, whereas self-deprecation is merely modest words. To speak of insulting the sage might rather bring blame upon yourself! (Confucius inquired about music from Chang Hong and studied the zither under Master Xiang; could Hong and his kind all be worthier than Confucius? The traces of the sage can be seen from this.)
8.40
The questioner asks: Duke Yin of Lu was a worthy ruler who ceded his state, yet the Table of Historical Figures rates him as low-lower. Laozi was a great sage of non-action (asaṃskṛta), yet the Book of Han ranks him as middle-upper. Thus we know the assessments of Ban Biao and his son were precarious and unfair. Why, Sir, do you cite them as evidence? I reply: You, Sir, rely on Du Yu's remarks near at hand, but overlook the meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals afar. Duke Yin was the elder brother of Duke Huan by a concubine. When Duke Huan was young, he acted as regent in governmental affairs; when Huan grew up, he was to return the government to Duke Huan. Although he was able to return the government, he was unable to dispel suspicion; slanderous malice ran rampant, and he was eventually murdered by Duke Huan. He neither preserved himself nor prevented his younger brother from sinking into unrighteousness; where then was the beauty of ceding the state? If this is not low, what could be low? The evaluation of the Book of Han was correct in this regard. Furthermore, Confucius received the mandate and was consequently called the Uncrowned King; it has never been heard in the historical records that Laozi was called a sage. To speak of what does not concern the canons is what the gentleman is ashamed of. The questioner asks: The Book of Documents says: 'Only the madman, through reflection, can become a sage; only the sage, through heedlessness, becomes a madman.' You said that being a sage does not concern learning; what kind of talk is that?
8.41
I reply: Confucius spoke of being born with knowledge; learning refers to accumulated habit. Just now I was discussing Confucianism, not Buddhism. The highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity fundamentally do not change with transformation; it is the mediocre sorts that shift and change in accordance with transformation. If a sage can become a madman, he is not of the highest wisdom; if a madman can become a sage, he is not of the lowest stupidity. When the Book of Documents distinguishes between madman and sage, both are of the mediocre sort. Laozi says: 'Banish sageliness and discard wisdom, and the people will benefit a hundredfold.' This is the sageliness of middling talent, not the highest wisdom.
8.42
4. Investigating and Verifying Body and Spirit (The teaching on body and spirit has already been discussed in the first chapter; now we investigate it, verifying its canonical evidence)
8.43
The questioner asks: You, Sir, say that the teachings that save the physical body are called 'outer.' Respectfully examining your refined discourse, it is truly not acceptable. The Changes says: 'To know the subtle signs—is that not spiritual?' How could it be that, lumped together, all seven canonical classics are merely bodily teachings? Where then is the meaning of the Buddhist discernment of delivering the spirit? I reply: The Book of Documents speaks of knowing what is distant, reaching at its farthest to Yao and Shun. The Spring and Autumn Annals composes phrases, its words exhausting imperial enterprises. As for the reverence and goodness of ritual and music, and the warmth and purity of the Odes and the Changes, all clarify the single physical life; how do they speak of the three periods of existence? Thus we know their teachings reside within the physical domain and do not provide for vast, transcendent blessings; pointing to transcendence beyond life, they leave it aside without discussion. The Changes says: 'The subtle signs are the slightest beginnings of movement.' If one can illuminate their subtlety, what is it if not spiritual? This speaks of the spiritual, but does not discern the smelting of the spirit. Those who smelt the spirit close off passions and open illumination, expecting the spirit to remain imperishable throughout vast eons, its subtle consciousness not dying; accumulating practice, they attain sageliness, ascending the ten stages with ever-increasing clarity and striding high beyond the nine abodes. This is what the Buddhist teaching promotes. The sutra says: 'For delivering the spirit and pulling out suffering, nothing equals cultivating good.' Gathering sentient beings through the six perfections and purifying the mind is not an affair of external things.
8.44
5. Immortality Differs from Nirvāṇa (Immortality clarifies methods of extending one's span, but does not lack an ultimate end; the fruition of the eternal abiding of nirvāṇa is plainly different)
8.45
The questioner asks: Buddhism speaks of nirvāṇa; Daoism speaks of immortal transformation. Buddhism speaks of non-arising; Daoism speaks of not dying. Their principle is one; how can they differ?
8.46
I reply: Flying spiritually and molting into feathered beings are both claimed to be the power of divine elixirs; being free from disease, light, and strong is also called the efficacy of ingesting formulas. Alas! They do not know that repairing and weaving [destiny] is accomplished beforehand, and birth is distinguished by differing qi. Longevity or early death depends on causes; length of days lies in karma. The Buddhadharma regards existent life as empty and illusory, and therefore forgets the self to benefit beings. The Daoist teaching regards the 'I' and 'self' as real and true, and therefore ingests formulas to nourish life. If life upon life is not prized, what achievement is there in merely preserving existence? Even if one prolongs the span, one cannot be without death. Thus Zhuang Zhou said of Laozi: 'In ancient times this was called escaping the form given by heaven; at first I thought he was a real man, but now he is no longer a man.' Since he was not even an immortal who escaped heaven, Qin Yi came to mourn him; he died in Fufeng and was buried in Huaili. Nirvāṇa is eternal, everlasting, cool and pure, without further birth and death; the mind cannot know it through intellect, and its form cannot be measured through images. None knows how to name it, and forced to do so, one calls it quiescence. As the ultimate, it is indeed supreme! Even though in the twin śāla trees its illumination ceased, its spiritual wisdom constantly abides; although its physical form displayed cremation, the relics remain forever. Even if the great cedrela tree enjoyed vast longevity, it took Pengzu's years as an untimely death; the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception lasts many eons, yet shares its threshold with the Avīci Hell. The ordinary and the sage are far apart in principle; movement and quiescence are as different as heaven [and earth]. How can they be evaluated together for superiority and inferiority? Why do you, Sir, hold up residual embers beneath the sun and moon, wishing to vie in brilliance with Xihe? As for obstinacy, why have you reached such an extreme?
8.47
6. The Relative Merits of the Dao and Immortality (The Dao takes tranquility, emptiness, and few desires as its superiority, matching the virtue of humility; immortality consists in the chaotic ingestion of formulas, its inferiority lying in vain toil without effect)
8.48
The questioner asks: You, Sir, have spoken loftily of longevity, early death, and repairing and weaving from former lives. Although karmic fruitions are detailed, the [immortal] mushrooms and elixirs are still treated cursorily. Furthermore, the ultimate of the Daoist school reaches its culmination in longevity: inhaling the Great Unity, exhaling the old and absorbing the new. If you wish to deem it inferior, how could that be possible?
8.49
I reply: The purport of Laozi takes emptiness and non-being as its foundation, and softness and weakness as its application. Blending thoughts into the celestial origin, he rose tranquilly above the human world; with vast qi nourishing harmony, he remained unchanged in gain or loss. In poverty he did not plot for success, and in success he did not plot for himself. This is why scholars inquire into and admire his remaining tradition, whose Way seems to survive. As for refining and ingesting golden elixirs, feeding on vapors and ingesting jade, ascending spiritually with molted feathers, and undergoing corpse deliverance and bodily transformation—all these diverge especially from the fundamental principles established in the words of Laozi and Zhuangzi. Their declining into corrupt streams is not of the class of the Dao; though records of anomalies mention them, those who speak of the Dao do not adopt them. Long ago, Emperor Wu of the Han was fond of occult arts, and so arose the sorcery of Luan Da; Emperor Guangwu believed in apocryphal prophetic books, which led to the protest of Huan Tan. The books are categorized under occult arts and do not enter the stream of the ancient canons; the men are occult masters and have nothing to do with what is elegant and correct. Why, Sir, do you abandon the great to follow the small, turning your back on reason to rush toward absurdity?
8.50
7. Confucius and Laozi are not the Buddha (The Buddha was born in the Western Regions; Confucius extolled him highly, as recorded in Liezi when the Grand Administrator of Song posed his inquiry)
8.51
The questioner asks: In the Western Regions he is called 'Fo' (Buddha); here we say 'Jue' (Awakened). In the West they say 'bodhi'; here it is called the 'Way'. In the West they say 'nirvāṇa' (niyuan); here it is called 'non-action' (asaṃskṛta). In the West they call it 'prajñā'; here it is translated as 'wisdom'. According to this meaning, Confucius and Laozi are the Buddha, and the great Way of non-action already existed here previously.
8.52
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.)
First 52 of 87 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 廣弘明集 — Classical Chinese