集古今佛道論衡 2.22

2.22

奏曰。自國立政惟貴於道。制化養民寧高於德。止見道消國喪未有兵強祚久。是以虐紂恃眾禍傾帝業。周武脩德福集皇基。夫差驕戰遂至滅身。勾踐以道危而更安。以此論之。何關壞佛退僧。方平東夏直是毀佛當此託定之時。偶然斯會妄謂壞法有益。若爾湯伐有夏。文王滅崇。武王誅紂。秦并天下。赤漢滅項。此等諸君豈由壞佛。自後交論譏毀人法。或以抗禮君親。或謂妄稱佛性。或譏辯析色心。或重見作非業。或指身本陰陽。林皆隨難消解。帝終搆難重疊。三番五番窮理盡性。林則無疑不遣。有難斯通。帝曰。卿言業不乖理凡有入聖之期。性非業外道有通凡之趣。此則道無不在凡聖該通是則教無孔釋。虛崇如是之言。形通道俗。徒加剔翦之飾。是知帝王即是如來。宜停丈六。王公即是菩薩。省事文殊。耆年可為上座。不用賓頭。仁惠真為檀度。豈假棄國。和平第一精僧。寧勞布薩。貞謹即成木叉。何必受戒。儉約實是少欲。無假頭陀。蔬食至好長齋。豈煩斷穀。放任妙同無我。何藉解空。忘功全通大乘。寧希波若。文武直是二智。不觀空有。權謀徑成巧便。豈待變化。加官真為授記。無謝證果。爵祿交獲天堂。何待上界。罰戮見感地獄。不指泥犁。以民為子可謂大慈。四海為家即同法界。治政以理何異救物。安樂百姓寧殊拔苦。剪罰殘害理是降魔。君臨天下真成得道。汪汪何殊淨土。濟濟豈謝迦維。卿懷異見妄生偏執。即事而言何處非道　奏曰。伏承聖旨。義博言。深融道混俗移專散執。乃令觸處乘真有情俱道。物我咸適千徒齊一。美則美矣。愚臣尚疑。若使至道惟一則無二可融。若理恒外內則自可常別。若一而非一。則半是半非。二而無二。則乍道乍俗。是則緇俗錯亂儒釋失序。外內交雜上下參倫。何直遠沈清化。亦是近惑民俗。是以陰陽同氣生殺恒殊。天地齊形高卑常異。不可以其俱形而使地動天靜。或者見其並氣而令陰生陽殺。即事永無此理。虛言難可成用。所以形齊氣一可得言同。生殺高卑義無不別。故使同而不同一而不一。道俗之理有齊無與無為自別。又若王名雖一凡聖天殊。形事微同寬狹全異。是故儒釋與。無始俱興。道俗共天地同化。若欲泯之為一正可以道廢俗。如其俱益於世。兩理幽顯齊明。今則興一廢一。真成不可　詔曰卿言道俗天殊全乖內外亦可。道應自道無預於俗。釋應自釋莫依儒王。道若惟道道何所利。佛若獨佛化有何功。故道俗相資儒釋更顯。卿不因朕言卿欲何論。是以內外抑討廢興彼此。今國法不行王法所斷。廢興在數常理無違。義無常興廢有何咎　奏曰。仰承聖旨。如披雲覩日。伏聽勅訓實如聖說。道不自道非俗不顯。佛不自佛惟王能興。是以釋教東傳時經五百。弘通法化要依王力。方知道藉人弘神由物感。佛之盛毀功歸聖旨。道有興廢義無恒久。法有隱顯理難常在。比來已廢義無即行。休斷既久興期次及。興廢更迭理自應機。並從世運不亦宜乎詔曰。帝王之法。善決取捨明斷去就。審鑒同異妙察非常。朕於釋教以潛思於府內。挍量於今古。驗之以行事。算之以得失。理非常而不要。文高奇而無用。非無端而棄廢。何愛憎於儒釋　奏曰。弘法之本必留心於達人。通化之首要存志於正道。勿見忤己以惡者。懷之以疎隔容己以美者。歡心以親近。是則自惑於所見。自亂於所聞。不可數聞有謗正之言。遂便信納從唱而和。乘生是非。尋討愆短。日懷憎薄。是則以偽移真眾聲惑志。故令當疎者更進之。當親者更遠之。遂使談論偏駁取捨專非。斯乃害真之禍患。喪德之妖累。於是帝不答。乃更開異途以發論端。問曰。朕聞君子舉厝必合於禮。明哲動止要應於機。比頻賜卿食。言不飲酒食肉。且酒是和神之藥。肉為充肌之膳。古今同味。卿何獨鄙。若身居喪服禮制不食。即如今賜自可得食。可食不食豈非過耶　奏曰。貪財憙色貞夫所鄙。好膳嗜美廉士所惡。割情從道前賢所歎。抑慾崇德往哲同嗟。況肉由殺命酒能亂神。不食是理寧可為非　詔曰。肉由害命斷之且然。酒不損生。何為頓制。若使無損計罪無過言非。飲漿食飯亦應得罪。而實不爾。酒何偏斷　奏曰。結戒隨事得罪據心。肉體因害。食之即罪。酒性非損。過由弊神。餘處生過。過生由酒。斷酒即除。所以遮制。不同非謂酒體是罪　詔曰。罪有遮性。酒體生罪。今有耐酒之人。能飲不醉又不弊神。亦不生罪。此人飲酒應不得罪。斯則能飲無過不能招咎。何關斷酒以成戒善。可謂能飲耐酒常名持戒。少飲即醉是大罪人。

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "Ever since the state established its governance, it has valued only the Dao; in regulating, transforming, and nurturing the people, what could stand higher than virtue? One has only seen the Dao decline and the state perish; never has there been a case where military might alone made a dynasty endure. Thus the cruel Zhou relied on vast hosts, yet disaster toppled the imperial line; King Wu of Zhou cultivated virtue, and blessings gathered at the dynastic foundation. Fuchai was arrogant in battle and ultimately brought about his own destruction; Goujian used the Dao, turning peril back into peace. Judged by this, how could it relate to destroying the Buddha and suppressing the Saṅgha? You have just pacified the eastern lands, which simply coincided with this time of destruction; happening by chance upon this convergence, you mistakenly claim that destroying the Dharma brings benefit. If that were so, when Tang attacked Xia, when King Wen conquered Chong, when King Wu executed Zhou, when Qin unified all under Heaven, and when the Red [Emperor of] Han destroyed Xiang [Yu]—did any of these sovereigns do so by destroying the Buddha?"

From that point on, they debated back and forth, criticizing and slandering the persons and the Dharma: some raised the matter of refusing court etiquette to the ruler and parents; some alleged the false claim of Buddha-nature; some mocked the analytic distinction between form and mind; some censured the view of action that denies retribution; some pointed to the body's origin in yin and yang. Lin resolved each difficulty as it was raised. The Emperor persistently laid down difficulty upon difficulty, three and five times exhausting principles and scrutinizing the nature [of things]; Lin dispelled every doubt and unraveled every challenge.

The Emperor said: "You say that karma does not depart from principle and ordinary mortals have the potential to enter sagehood; that nature is not outside karma and the Dao encompasses the path to commoners. If so, the Dao is nowhere absent, comprehensively penetrating ordinary and holy alike; then in teaching there is no need to distinguish Confucius from Śākya—vainly exalting such words! In outer form, the sacred and the secular merge—fruitlessly adding the ornament of shaving the head! From this we know that the sovereign ruler is himself the Tathāgata: one ought to dispense with the sixteen-foot image. Princes and dukes are themselves bodhisattvas: relieve Mañjuśrī of his duties. Elders can serve as sthaviras: no need for Piṇḍola. Benevolence and kindness are truly the perfections of giving: why resort to relinquishing a kingdom? Harmonious peace is the foremost diligent monk: why labor over the uposatha? Pure integrity and prudence constitute the prātimokṣa: why must one receive precepts? Frugality is truly having few desires: there is no resort to dhūtas. A vegetarian meal is the finest continuous fast: why bother with abstaining from grains? Letting things take their course subtly accords with non-self: what need to rely on understanding emptiness? Forgetting merit wholly penetrates the Mahāyāna: why aspire to prajñā? Civil and military virtues are simply the two wisdoms, without contemplating emptiness and existence; tactical stratagems readily become skillful means, without awaiting miraculous transformations. Conferring office is truly the bestowing of prediction, yielding nothing to the attainment of the fruits [of the path]; receiving rank and salary is finding heaven here below, without awaiting upper realms; punishments and executions are hell manifestly experienced, not pointing to Niraya. Taking the people as one's children may be called Great Compassion; making all within the four seas one's home is identical with the dharmadhātu; governing according to principle: how is it different from saving living beings? Bringing peace and joy to the common people: how does it diverge from uprooting suffering? Punishing and eliminating harms in principle is vanquishing Māra; reigning over all under Heaven is truly attaining the Dao! Grand and vast—how does it differ from a pure land? Splendid and stately—how does it yield to Kapilavastu? You harbor contrary views and deludedly generate biased attachments. Speaking from the facts before us, what place is not the Dao?"

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "I humbly receive Your Majesty's decree: the principle is vast, the words are profound. You blend the Dao and mingle the secular, breaking through fixation and dispelling attachments, thereby causing every circumstance to mount reality and all sentient beings to share in the Dao, self and other both content, thousands of paths brought to unity. Fine indeed it is! Yet this foolish subject still harbors doubts. If the ultimate Dao is solely one, then there are no two to blend; if principle ever separates the inner and the outer, then they can naturally maintain their distinction. If it is one and yet not one, then it is half-right and half-wrong; if it is two and yet not two, then it is now sacred, now secular. If so, the black-robed and the white-robed become confused, and Confucianism and Buddhism lose their proper order; the inner and the outer intermix, and higher and lower mingle their ranks. Not only would this deeply submerge pure transformation from afar, but it would also confuse popular customs near at hand. Therefore yin and yang share the same qi, yet generating and killing ever differ; Heaven and Earth share the same bodily form, yet high and low ever remain distinct. One cannot make the earth move and heaven stay still just because both possess form; nor can someone, seeing they share the same qi, make yin give life and yang kill. In actual matters, such a principle never exists; empty words can hardly be put to use. Thus, while form is shared and qi is one, they may be called identical; yet in generating and killing, high and low, they cannot but be distinct. Therefore, they are identical and yet not identical, one and yet not one. In the principle of the sacred and the secular, there is uniformity and yet no sharing; non-action is naturally distinct. Furthermore, although the name of 'king' is one, the ordinary and the holy are as far apart as heaven and earth; though forms and affairs slightly resemble each other, their breadth and narrowness are completely different. For this reason, Confucianism and Buddhism have arisen together with beginninglessness; the sacred and the secular transform together with Heaven and Earth. If you wish to obliterate them into one, it would be proper to abolish the secular with the Dao; if both are beneficial to the world, the two principles of the unseen and the manifest are equally bright. Now to elevate one while abolishing the other is truly impermissible."

The imperial decree stated: "You say that the sacred and the secular are as far apart as heaven and earth, utterly contradicting the inner and the outer. It might also be said: the Dao should be its own Dao, having no part in the secular; Buddhism should be its own Buddhism, not relying on Confucian rulers. If the Dao were only the Dao, what benefit would the Dao bring? If the Buddha were solely the Buddha, what merit would transformation possess? Therefore the sacred and the secular assist one another; Confucianism and Buddhism make each other manifest. If you did not rely on Our words, what could you debate? Hence the inner and outer suppress and foster, abolishing and establishing one another. Now the monastic code cannot operate where the king's law severs it. Abolition and revival lie in destiny, not violating constant principle. There is no principle of permanent flourishing; what fault is there in abolition?"

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "Looking up to receive the imperial decree is like parting the clouds to see the sun. Listening humbly to the imperial instruction, it is truly as Your Majesty has stated: the Dao is not the Dao of itself—without the secular it is not made manifest; the Buddha is not the Buddha of himself—only the sovereign can cause it to flourish. Hence when the Buddhist teachings spread eastward, five hundred years elapsed, and the widespread propagation of the Dharma's transformation necessarily relied upon the power of the sovereign. Thus we know that the Dao relies on men for its propagation, and the divine is moved through living beings. The flourishing and ruin of the Buddha trace their merit back to the imperial will. The Dao has its rises and falls; in principle it never endures forever. The Dharma has its periods of latency and manifestation; in principle it is difficult for it to be constantly present. It has been abolished of late, and in principle it cannot operate immediately; yet having ceased and been severed for long, the time for its revival comes next in sequence. Flourishing and decline alternate; the principle naturally accords with the opportune moment. For both to follow the fortunes of the world—would that not be appropriate?"

The imperial decree stated: "The law of emperors and kings excels at decisively choosing what to take and what to leave, clearly determining what to reject and what to follow; it examines sameness and difference and subtly observes the extraordinary. As for the Buddhist teachings, We have already quietly contemplated them in Our inner chamber, weighed them against past and present, verified them through actual events, and calculated their gains and losses: the principle is not constant and not essential; the text is lofty and abstruse but useless. It was not discarded and abolished without cause; what love or hatred could We have toward Confucianism or Buddhism?"

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "The root of propagating the Dharma requires fixing one's mind upon attained persons; the foremost priority in spreading transformation is directing one's intention toward the correct Dao. Do not look upon those who oppose you with hostility, harboring estrangement toward them, while being delighted with and drawing near to those who flatter you with pleasing words. If so, you will become confused by what you see and disordered by what you hear. You must not repeatedly hear words that slander the correct [path] and then readily accept them, chiming in with their tune, multiplying disputes, seeking out faults and shortcomings, and daily harboring contempt. This would be using falsehood to supplant truth, letting the clamor of the crowd bewilder your intention, causing those who ought to be kept at a distance to be advanced further, and those who ought to be kept close to be distanced further. This would cause discussions to become biased and perverse, and choices of adoption and rejection to be exclusively mistaken. This is the calamity that harms the true, the baleful burden that destroys virtue."

At this, the Emperor did not reply. Instead, he opened another avenue to initiate debate, asking: "We have heard that a gentleman's actions must strictly accord with ritual propriety, and a wise man's movements must respond to the opportune moment. Of late, We have repeatedly bestowed food upon you, yet you say you do not drink wine or eat meat. Wine is a medicine that harmonizes the spirit, and meat is nourishment that fills the stomach; past and present share this taste—why do you alone hold it in contempt? If one is wearing mourning garments, ritual code forbids eating it; but when bestowed as it is today, you could naturally eat it. To refuse what may be eaten—is that not an error?"

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "Coveting wealth and delighting in sensuality are despised by men of integrity; fond indulgence in delicacies is detested by men of purity. Severing attachments to follow the Dao was praised by former sages; suppressing desires to exalt virtue was universally extolled by past philosophers. How much more so when meat comes from the killing of life, and wine can derange the spirit! Not eating them is right principle; how could it be an error?"

The imperial decree stated: "Meat comes from harming life, so abstaining from it may indeed be so; but wine does not injure life, so why institute a total prohibition? If doing no harm incurs guilt, and that which is without transgression is called an error, then drinking juice and eating rice should also incur guilt. Yet in reality they do not; why then prohibit wine exclusively?"

[Dao]lin presented his memorial, saying: "Precepts are established according to specific matters, while incurring guilt depends on the mind. The substance of meat stems from harm: eating it immediately incurs guilt. The nature of wine does not involve harm; the transgression comes from clouding the spirit. Transgressions arise elsewhere, but their arising originates with wine. By abstaining from wine, they are eliminated; therefore it is prohibited by restrictive precept. This is different; it does not mean that the substance of wine is itself a transgression."

The imperial decree stated: "Offenses are of two kinds: prohibitive and intrinsic. The substance of wine generates transgression. Now, if there is a person who can tolerate wine, able to drink without becoming intoxicated and without clouding his spirit, nor generating transgression—such a person, in drinking wine, should not incur guilt. Thus, being able to drink involves no error, while being unable to do so invites fault. What has this to do with abstaining from wine to fulfill the goodness of the precepts? One might say that he who can drink and tolerate wine is ever termed an observer of precepts, while he who becomes drunk after drinking a little is a great transgressor."