集古今佛道論衡 2.21

2.21

周建德六年十一月四日。上臨鄴宮新殿。內史宇文昂上士李德林收上書人表。于時任道林以表上之。上士覽表曰。君二教也。聖主機辯特難酬答。可思審之。對曰。上主鋒辯名流十方。林亦早聞正以聞辯故來得辯無爽云云。乃引入上階御座西立。詔曰。卿既上事助匡治政。朕甚嘉尚。可條別自申勿廣詞費。林乃上安撫齊餘省減賦役事。帝備納之。又曰。林原誓弘佛道。向且專論俗政。似欲諂附君人。其實無心護法。自釋氏弘訓權應無方。智力高奇廣宣正法。救茲五濁拔彼三有。人中天上六道四生莫不歸依迴向受其開悟。自漢至今踰五百載。王公卿士遵奉傳通及。至大周頓令廢絕。陛下治襲前王化承後帝。何容偏於佛教。獨不師古。如其非善先賢久滅。如言有益陛下可行。廢佛之義臣所未曉　詔曰。佛生西域寄傳東夏。原其風教殊乖中國。漢魏晉世似有若無。五胡亂治風化方盛。朕非五胡心無敬事。既非正教所以廢之。奏曰。佛教東傳時過七代。劉淵篡晉元非中夏。以非正朔稱為五胡。其漢魏晉世佛化已弘。宋趙符燕久習崇盛。陛下恥同五胡盛修佛法。請如漢魏不絕其宗　詔曰。佛義雖廣朕亦甞覽。言多虛大語好浮奢。罪到憙推過去。無福則指未來。事者無徵行之多惑。論其勸善未殊古禮。研其斷惡何異俗律。昔甞為廢所以暫學。決知非益。所以除之　奏曰。理深語大非近情所測。時遠事高寧小機欲辯。豈以一世之局見而拒久遠之通議。封迷忽悟不亦過乎。是以佛理極於法界。教體通於內外。談行自他俱益。辯果常樂無為。樹德恩隆天地。授道廣利無邊。見奇則神通自在。布化則萬國同歸。救度則怨親等濟。慈愛則有識無傷。戒除外惡定止心非。慧照古今智窮萬物。若家家行此則民無不治。國國修之則兵戈無用。今離不行何處求益　因重奏曰。臣聞孝者至天之道。順者極地之養。所以通神明光四海。百行之本孰先此孝。昔世大道將傾魏室崩壞。太祖奮威補天夷難。創啟王業。陛下因斯鴻緒遂登皇極。君臨四海德加天下。追惟莫大終身無報。何有信己心智執固自解。倚恃爪牙任縱王力。殘壞太祖所立寺廟。毀破太祖所事靈像。休廢太祖所奉法教。退落太祖所敬師尊。且父母床几尚不敢損虧。況父之親事輒能輕壞。國祚延促弗由於佛。政治興毀何關於法。豈信一時之慮。招萬世之譏。愚臣冐死特為不可　詔曰。孝道之義寧非至極。若專守執惟利一身。是使大智權方反常合道。湯武伐主仁智不非。尾生守信禍至身滅。事若有益假違要行。儻非合理雖順必剪。不可護己一名令四海懷惑。外乖太祖。內潤黔元。令沙門還俗省侍父母成天下之孝。各各自活不惱他人。使率土獲利捨戎從夏六合同一。即是揚名萬代以顯太祖。即孝之終也。何得言非　奏曰。若言壞佛有益毀僧益民。昔太祖康日高鑒萬理智括千途。必佛法損化即尋除蕩。寧肯積年奉敬興遍天下。又佛法存日損處是何。自破已來成何利潤。若實無益寧非不孝　詔曰。法興有時道亦難准。制由上行王者作則縱有小利尚須休廢。況佛無益。理不可容。何者敬事。無徵招感無効。自救無聊何能益國。自廢已來民役稍希。租調年增兵師日盛。東平齊國西定妖戎。國安民樂。豈非有益。若事有益。太祖存日屢甞討齊。何不見獲。朕壞佛法。若是違害亦可亡身。既平東夏。明知有益廢之合理義無更興。

On the fourth day of the eleventh month in the sixth year of the Jiande era of the Zhou, the Emperor arrived at the new palace in Ye. The Grand Master of the Secretariat Yuwen Ang and the Eminent Scholar Li Delin received the memorials of those submitting petitions. At that time, Ren Daolin submitted a memorial. The Eminent Scholar read the memorial and said, 'You are [addressing] the two teachings. The Sage Lord's incisive eloquence is especially difficult to answer. You should deliberate carefully.' [Ren Daolin] replied, 'The Sovereign Lord's sharp eloquence is renowned throughout the ten directions. I have also heard of it long since. It is precisely because I have heard of his eloquence that I have come; in encountering his eloquence, there will be no failing,' and so forth. He was then ushered up the steps and stood to the west of the imperial throne. An edict said, 'Since you have submitted a matter to aid and rectify governance, We commend it greatly. You may set forth your points individually to explain yourself; do not waste words at length.' Ren Daolin then presented matters regarding pacifying the remnants of Qi and reducing taxes and corvée labor. The Emperor fully accepted them. [Ren Daolin] also said, 'I originally vowed to propagate the Buddhist path. Just now I spoke exclusively of mundane governance, which seemed like an attempt to flatter and ingratiate myself with the ruler of men, as if I truly had no intention of protecting the Dharma. From the Buddha's broad teachings, [it is known that] expedient responses are boundless; his power of wisdom is exalted and extraordinary, widely proclaiming the true Dharma. He rescues those of these five turbidities and delivers those of the three realms of existence. Among humans and in the heavens, in the six paths and the four modes of birth, none fail to take refuge, dedicate themselves, and receive his awakening. From the Han to the present, it has been over five hundred years; princes, dukes, and high ministers have revered and propagated it. Yet when it came to the Great Zhou, it was suddenly ordered to be abolished and terminated. Your Majesty's governance inherits former kings, and your transforming influence succeeds subsequent emperors. How can you be partial only against the Buddhist teachings, uniquely failing to model yourself on the ancients? If it were not good, former worthies would have eliminated it long ago. If it is said to be beneficial, Your Majesty should practice it. The principle of abolishing Buddhism is something your servant has not yet understood.'

An edict said, 'The Buddha was born in the Western Regions, and [his teachings] were transmitted to the Eastern Lands. When tracing their customs and teachings, they greatly conflict with the Central Land. During the Han, Wei, and Jin periods, it was as if they existed yet did not exist. Only when the Five Barbarians caused chaos in governance did the trend of this teaching flourish. We are not of the Five Barbarians, and in Our heart there is no respect or service [for it]. Since it is not an orthodox teaching, that is why We abolished it.'

[Ren Daolin] addressed the throne, saying, 'The eastward transmission of the Buddhist teachings has spanned more than seven generations. Liu Yuan's usurpation of the Jin was originally not of the Central Land, and because he did not have the orthodox calendar, they were called the Five Barbarians. During the Han, Wei, and Jin periods, the Buddhist transformation had already broadened; the Song, Zhao, Fu[-Qin], and Yan long practiced and revered it grandly. If Your Majesty feels ashamed to be like the Five Barbarians in grandly practicing the Buddhist Dharma, we request that you follow the Han and Wei and do not terminate its lineage.'

An edict said, 'Although the Buddhist doctrines are vast, We have also once examined them. Their words are mostly empty and grandiose; their language is fond of the superficial and extravagant. When sin arrives, they like to push it onto the past; when there is no blessing, they point to the future. Those who serve it have no verification, and practicing it brings much confusion. Discussing its encouragement of good, it does not differ from the ancient rites; examining its severing of evil, how is it different from secular laws? Formerly, We once wished to abolish it, and for that reason We studied it temporarily. Having definitively known it offers no benefit, that is why We eradicated it.'

[Ren Daolin] addressed the throne, saying, 'Its principle is profound and its words are vast, which cannot be measured by ordinary sentiments. Its time is distant and its matters are elevated; how could a petty mind expect to debate it? How could one, by the narrow view of a single generation, reject a consensus spanning vast distances of time? Clinging to delusion and ignoring awakening—is that not an error? Therefore, the principle of the Buddha reaches the utmost of the dharmadhātu; the essence of his teaching permeates both the internal and the external. When speaking of practice, it benefits both oneself and others; when explaining the fruit, it is eternal bliss and non-action. Establishing virtue, its grace exceeds heaven and earth; imparting the Path, its broad benefit is boundless. Showing wonders, its spiritual powers are unhindered; spreading transformation, the ten thousand states unite in returning to it. Rescuing and delivering, enemies and kin are equally ferried across; with benevolence and love, no conscious being is harmed. Morality eliminates external evils; concentration stops internal faults; wisdom illuminates past and present; knowledge fathoms all things. If household after household practiced this, then none of the people would fail to be well-governed. If state after state cultivated it, then weapons and armor would be of no use. If it is now discarded and not practiced, where else will benefit be sought?'

He then reiterated his address, saying, 'Your servant has heard that filial piety is the ultimate way of Heaven, and obedience is the utmost sustenance of Earth; thereby it communicates with the spiritual luminaries and brightens the four seas. Of the origin of the hundred conducts, which comes before this filial piety? Formerly, when the great Dao was about to collapse and the house of Wei fell into ruin, the Grand Ancestor exerted his might to mend the heavens and pacify the tribulations, initiating the royal enterprise. Your Majesty, by relying on this vast lineage, thereupon ascended to the imperial ultimate, reigning over the four seas, with your virtue extending to all under heaven. Reflecting upon this immense debt, a whole lifetime is not enough to repay it. How could one trust one's own mind and wisdom, stubbornly adhere to one's own understanding, rely on one's claws and fangs, and give free rein to royal power—destroying the monasteries established by the Grand Ancestor, smashing the numinous images served by the Grand Ancestor, casting aside the Dharma teachings honored by the Grand Ancestor, and demoting the teachers revered by the Grand Ancestor? Furthermore, one would not dare even damage the beds and tables of one's parents; how much less should one rashly and lightly ruin what one's father personally served? The length or shortness of the state's mandate does not depend on the Buddha; the rise or fall of political governance has nothing to do with the Dharma. How could one trust the deliberations of a single moment and invite the censure of ten thousand generations? Your foolish servant, at the risk of death, considers this utterly impermissible.'

An edict said, 'How could the principle of the filial way not be the most ultimate? If one exclusively clings to it and adheres only to the benefit of a single person, that would prevent great wisdom and expedient means from going against the norm to accord with the Dao. Tang and Wu attacked their rulers, and their benevolence and wisdom are not faulted; Wei Sheng kept his promise, and calamity arrived so that his life was destroyed. If an affair is beneficial, even if it goes contrary [to minor principles], it must be carried out; if it does not accord with principle, even if it seems obedient, it must be excised. One must not protect one's own single reputation and cause the four seas to harbor doubts. While outwardly going against the Grand Ancestor, inwardly it enriches the common people: causing the śramaṇas to return to secular life to wait upon and care for their parents accomplishes the filial piety of all under heaven; each supports themselves without troubling others; causing the whole land to reap benefits, abandoning the barbarian and following the Xia, unifying the six directions as one—this indeed spreads fame for ten thousand generations to magnify the Grand Ancestor! This is the consummation of filial piety. How can you say it is wrong?'

[Ren Daolin] addressed the throne, saying, 'If it is said that destroying Buddhism brings benefit and ruining the Saṅgha benefits the people: in former days when the Grand Ancestor was in good health, his lofty insight fathomed the myriad principles, and his wisdom encompassed a thousand paths. If the Buddhist Dharma were harmful to moral transformation, he would have immediately eradicated it; how would he have been willing for years to revere and honor it, causing it to flourish throughout all under heaven? Furthermore, when the Buddhist Dharma existed, where was the harm? Since it was destroyed, what profit or enrichment has been accomplished? If indeed there is no benefit, how is this not unfilial?'

An edict said, 'The flourishing of dharmas has its times, and the Dao is also difficult to fix. Regulations proceed from above; the king serves as the model. Even if there were a minor benefit, it would still have to be discarded; how much more so when the Buddha brings no benefit, and according to principle cannot be tolerated! What is revered and served brings no verification, and the responses sought have no effect. When [Buddhists] cannot even save themselves from distress, how could they benefit the state? Ever since it was abolished, the corvée labor of the people has become fewer, tax revenues have increased year by year, and military troops have grown stronger day by day. In the east, the state of Qi was pacified; in the west, the demonic barbarians were settled. The state is at peace and the people are happy; is this not beneficial? If that affair had been beneficial, when the Grand Ancestor was alive, he repeatedly campaigned against Qi; why was it not captured? In Our destruction of the Buddhist Dharma, if it were an offense and harm, We might also have perished. Having already pacified the Eastern Land, it is clearly known to be beneficial; abolishing it accords with principle, and in justice it shall never be revived again.'