集古今佛道論衡 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

[Compiled by] the Buddhist monk of Ximing Temple of the Tang

Emperor Gaozu of the Zhou ascended the court to debate the suppression of the Buddha-Dharma, and Master An submitted a treatise on the matter.
Emperor Zu of the Zhou pacified Qi, assembled debates to destroy the Dharma, and Master Yuan resisted the edict on the matter.
Emperor Zu of the Zhou made an eastern tour after the Dharma had long been destroyed, and Ren Daolin petitioned to revive Buddhist affairs on the matter.
Emperor Tianyuan of the Zhou accepted Wang Mingguang's memorial to reopen the Buddha-Dharma on the matter.
Emperor Gaozu of the Sui issued an edict recounting heavenly fire burning the statue of Laozi in Jiangzhou on the matter.
The two Sui emperors revered the Buddhist principle and received the precepts of taking refuge on the matter.

2.3

First: When Emperor Wu (Gaozu) of the Northern Zhou was about to destroy the Buddha-Dharma, Master An submitted a treatise on the matter.

2.4

Emperor Wu of the Zhou initially had faith in Buddhism. Later, because a prophecy said that 'those in black garments shall rule as kings,' he came to esteem Daoist techniques, personally received talismans and registers, wore a dark cap and yellow coarse robes in the palace, harbored suspicion toward the Buddhist tradition, and resolved to exterminate it. Yet fearing that those who believed in the Buddha were numerous, he did not dare to act unilaterally. There was a Daoist priest named Zhang Bin who deceitfully misled the sovereign to secretly advance his scheme, quietly gathering the Li clan to oust and abandon the Śākya clan. He also allied intimately with the former monk Wei Yuansong, joining together as mouth and teeth to cut down [Buddhism]. The Emperor accepted his words; wishing to personally inspect faults and measure the shortcomings of Buddhism, he summoned monks into the palace to practice the Way for seven nights. The monks, having secretly learned of this beforehand, all doubled their sincerity and devotion. The Emperor likewise stayed awake through the seven nights along with the monks, chanting hymns of praise for them and performing various ritual acts. As no transgression was found, the matter ceased without consequence. On the fifteenth day of the third month in the fourth year of the Tianhe reign (a jichou year), an imperial decree summoned over two thousand virtuous monks, renowned Confucians, Daoist priests, and civil and military officials to ascend the main palace hall. The Emperor took the imperial seat and appraised the merits, faults, abolition, or establishment of the three teachings. The assembly debated noisily; opinions clashed in disharmony, and they dispersed without resolution. On the twentieth day of that month, they assembled as before to debate right and wrong, but the scope broadened even further without meeting the Emperor's intentions, and they dispersed in disappointment. In the early part of the fourth month, they gathered once more as before, ordered to speak exhaustively and present their principles. An imperial decree was also issued to the Metropolitan Commandant Zhen Luan to scrutinize the two teachings of Buddhism and Daoism and determine their relative depths. Zhen Luan thereupon submitted the Xiaodao lun (Treatise Laughing at the Dao) in three fascicles, ridiculing the title 'Three Caverns' and the claim of thirty-six divisions of scripture. Its text was exceptionally well-evidenced and clear, extensively examining the issues. On the tenth day of the fifth month, the Emperor convened the civil and military officials on a grand scale to examine the treatise submitted by Zhen Luan. Deeming it harmful and damaging to Daoist priests, he had it burned immediately in the palace courtyard. There was a Dharma Master Dao'an whose wisdom and understanding penetrated thoroughly and who was comprehensively versed in both internal and external [teachings]. At the time he was called the pillar of the Śākya lineage and singled out as preeminent among the saṅgha. The Emperor trusted and esteemed him, regularly attending upon him and conversing with him. When the collective opinion agreed that the three teachings should be established alongside one another, only Dao'an argued vigorously: 'There are only two teachings!' Since spoken words are hard to trace while written compositions are easy to clarify, he composed the Erjiao lun (Treatise on the Two Teachings) in twelve chapters. In the first chapter, 'Returning to the Source and Revealing the Root', it states in brief: 'The myriad transformations are rooted in the unproduced; the three powers (Heaven, Earth, and Man) emerge from the beginningless. Thus, the unproduced and the beginningless are the nature of things. Transformation and birth are the convergence of humanity. Though convergence constitutes a single body, form and spirit are two distinct realities. Though dissolution separates physical form, the mental attributes are never forgotten. Therefore, the teaching that rescues the form is called external, while the teaching that delivers the spirit is called internal. For this reason, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom speaks of the two paths of internal and external; the Humane Kings Sūtra distinguishes the two discourses of internal and external; the Vaipulya sūtras clarify the two monastic codes of internal and external; and the Śata-śāstra speaks of the two paths of internal and external. If speaking broadly of the internal and external, it encompasses both the Chinese and the barbarians. If speaking strictly of this land, one may say Confucianism and Buddhism. The Buddhist teaching is internal; the Confucian teaching is external. Daoism has no separate teaching; its fundamental lineage belongs to the Confucian stream. This is fully attested in ancient scriptures and is no fabrication. If one carefully examines the records and traces their origins, there are only two teachings; how could there be three? For in the primordial simplicity of high antiquity, the proclamations of the Three Sanhuang and Five Di texts were not yet widespread. When pristine customs gradually declined, the writings of the Sanfen and Baosuo began to appear. Therefore, embracing the seven canonical texts and encompassing the nine lineages, they were all statecraft for military and governance, and techniques for cultivating the person. If divided into branches, there should be nine teachings; if unified together now, they equally belong to the Confucian lineage. In terms of office, each was a post of the royal court; in terms of texts, they were all books of the imperial house. Why seek, within a single transformation, to let the nine streams vie like converging rivers, or in an age of the Great Dao, allow minor attainments to compete in argument? Does this not above injure the singular way of the sovereign, and below open the faults of either rigid narrowness or vulgar licentiousness? This is truly what may be called a great harm to the grand design, bewildering both court and countryside! As for the Buddhist teaching, it is the standard of exhausting principles and fulfilling nature, the true path of transcending the mundane and entering ultimate reality. Regarding its texts, it is divided into twelve parts; speaking of its tenets, it comprises the four siddhāntas. Its principle is subtle within the realm, indeed beyond the reach of names and designations; its transformative influence reigns beyond all forms, again beyond what cognitive discernment can trace. As for shedding burdens and abandoning the fish-trap, refining the spirit to full illumination, it immediately transcends birth and death and ultimately realizes nirvāṇa. It proclaims and expounds the five vehicles, accommodating the depths and shallows of varied capacities; it completely illuminates the six destinies, distinguishing the ascents and descents of good and evil. Reaching far into the supramundane, its principles are all-encompassing; extending near to royal governance, its matters are exhaustively addressed. It can be broad, it can be essential; it is neither crude nor overly ornate. If not for the supreme contemplation under Heaven, who could participate in this teaching? Even with the thousand schools of Confucians and Daoists, or the hundred lineages of agriculturists and Mohists, their selections and strivings have never attained its measure. When the sentiment of valuing life is profound, the admonition concerning the afflictions of the body arises; failing to realize impermanence, the lament over the flowing stream is uttered. These are all supreme discourses within the realm, not the great proclamations transcending the world. Why is this? Pushing material form to its subatomic extreme was never explained by Laozi; investigating the mind to its arisings and ceasings was never spoken of by Confucius. One may say that gazing at them, they seem exhaustive, but scrutinizing them, they have not reached the ultimate. A sūtra says: "Distinguishing form and mind has immeasurable characteristics; it is not known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." How much less could the discursive thoughts of ordinary mortals ever be equated with the Buddha-sage? A sūtra says: "Do not compare the light of the sun to that of a firefly." This metaphor is consummate! If one makes things equal merely by forcing what is unequal into equality, that cannot be called equality. I have heard that one who is good at equalizing all under Heaven equalizes all under Heaven through their inequalities. Why must one level the mountain peaks and fill the deep chasms before they are flat, or lengthen the duck’s legs and sever the crane’s before they are equal? Such is the crude opinion of narrow-minded men; how could it be the upright discernment of an enlightened master? Thus the proverb says: "Purple indeed obscures red; folly thus corrupts wisdom." Let us broaden the comparison: from the Son of Heaven above down to the commoners below, all rely on form and mind to constitute their person, and receive yin and yang to transform their bodies. One cannot, simply because form and mind are alike, conflate the wise with the foolish; nor, because yin and yang are fundamentally equal, make the noble and the base identical. That this is untenable is luminous in its ultimate principle; even if one forcibly equates them, where is the sense in it?' Much of the rest of the text is not recorded here. It also says: 'The Records of the Grand Historian states: "Laozi traveled west and only reached the Moving Sands." Scriptures such as The Conversion of the Barbarians and The Western Ascension are unworthy of serious investigation. Only at the end of the Han did the three Zhangs begin to practice their way, misleading and throwing all under Heaven into chaos, as is fully seen in historical records. Thus Li Ying's Shu ji says: "Zhang Ling, avoiding malaria among the shrine mounds, obtained a book of ghost-incantation techniques and thereupon understood ghost-magic. Later he was devoured by a great serpent, but his disciples falsely reported that he had ascended to Heaven. His son Heng, and Heng's son Lu, in turn practiced his way, calling themselves the Three Masters: Ling was the Heavenly Master, Heng was the Succession Master, and Lu was the Inheriting Master. All used the way of ghosts to transform the foolish masses." The Book of the Later Han says: "Zhang Lu was initially an Officer of Righteous Command; he then ambushed and killed Su Gu, the Grand Administrator of Hanzhong, cut off the Xie Valley, killed Han emissaries, and held sole control of Hanzhong for over thirty years. Wearing yellow turbans and yellow cloth robes, he fabricated talismanic writings to deceive the populace. Those who received his way paid five pecks of rice, so the world called them 'rice bandits'. When beginners first arrived, they were called 'ghost soldiers'; later they were called 'libationers', each leading their own units, and the barbarian customs revered them. The imperial court could not suppress him, and so appointed Lu as General of the Household for Pacifying the Barbarians, accepting his tribute. In the twentieth year of Emperor Xian, Cao Cao campaigned against and defeated him." At the end of the Han, ghosts uttered the prophecy: "Those in yellow robes shall be kings." Thereupon Zhang Jiao, Zhang Lu, and others first wore yellow robes. The Cao clan received the mandate, substituting yellow for red, hence adopting the reign title Huangchu ('Yellow Beginning'). Only then were the Yellow Turban bandits pacified. Under the Northern Wei, Kou Qianzhi gradually reinstated their garb. Today, in an age of the Great Dao, customs should conform to minor shamans; the color of the headcloth should be changed back to ancient ways. Furthermore, Laozi was a great worthy who renounced status and honors; he was also a court official, so how could his clothing color have been distinct? In antiquity there was specialized study of scriptures, but no special distinction of clothing. Yellow turbans and hemp clothing originated from the Zhang family. When sages and worthies institute teachings, they are magnanimous and gentle; ghosts and spirits are stern and harsh, shifting like cold and heat. Laozi warned against flavors, yet libationers all drink wine; Zhang instituted ghost garments, and yellow robes became uniform. The genuine and the counterfeit are clear as day, and their leniency and severity are plain to see. Therefore, I briefly cite several points of the Zhang clan’s fabrications to caution those who have not heard of them.'

2.5

First, regarding the prohibition of scriptures and fixing of prices: The Xuanguang lun says: 'The various scriptures of the Daoists are concocted with ordinary thoughts, and the traces of their teachings are depraved and hazardous; therefore they are not canonical. Only if they receive gold and silk do they impart their scriptures. The poor who approach them never see them until death. Greed for profit without compassion—no transgression exceeds this! Moreover, their arts are filthy and impure: they practice clicking the teeth as the heavenly drum, swallowing saliva as sweet spring water, horse dung as numinous firewood, and old rats as polypore medicine. Relying on such things to seek the Way, how could one ever attain it?'

2.6

Second, regarding false claims of the true Dao: The Shu ji says: 'Zhang Ling entered Mount Heming and styled himself the Heavenly Master. At the end of the Jiaping era of the Han, he was devoured by a python. His son Heng fled, and devised an expedient method to display a numinous transformation: he crushed a swan's foot while alive and placed it on the top of a stone cliff. When the first year of the Guanghe era arrived, he sent an emissary to announce: "On the seventh day of the first month, the Heavenly Master ascended to the Mystery Capital." The rice-folk and mountain barbarians consequently spread this falsehood, trading on death to profit life; no transgression exceeds the extremity of this! Third, regarding combining qi to expiate sins: They falsely fabricate Yellow Texts and chant spells against leprosy without basis, saying they open the gate of life, escort true persons, through the three, five, seven, and nine, and the celestial nets and terrestrial snares. Men and women intermingle promiscuously, no different from beasts, using this to dispel disasters and misfortunes—how could this be acceptable?'

2.7

Fourth, regarding using the Dao to create rebellion: The ghost-dao of the Yellow Turbans spread poison through the Han house; Sun En's pursuit of immortality brought disaster upon the imperial Jin. Destroying the state, harming customs, and throwing all under Heaven into chaos—the five-thousand-word Daodejing completely forbids this.

2.8

Fifth, regarding petitioning texts that destroy virtue: To deliver the ancestors of seven generations and beg for release from carrying sand, they waste paper and brush submitting petitions to the Supreme Lord. They also say that on wuchen days, petitions will certainly not reach above; and if they do not reach the Supreme Lord, the living people will die untimely deaths. Alas, how sorrowful!

2.9

Sixth, regarding fearing ghosts and wearing talismans: Their talismans say: 'Wear the Great Ultimate emblem on the left, wear the Kunwu iron on the right. Point at the sun and its radiance halts; brandish it at ghosts and blood flows for a thousand miles. If one receives the yellow and red emblem, it is the secret formula of the numinous immortals.'

2.10

Seventh, regarding exacting levies: The Shu ji says: 'Those who received his way had to deliver rice, meat, cloth, silk, utensils, paper, brushes, mats, and five-colored fabrics. Later generations added defilements and established rice-peoples.'

2.11

Eighth, regarding exorcisms at tomb gates: These are the lingering vapors of heterodox paths. They perform tomb-gate exorcisms, sacrifice to the stove and soil shrines at the spring and autumn equinoxes, and make sacrifices at the winter and summer solstices following vulgar customs. When first receiving the registers of parish governance, military tallies, and shrine contracts, they all speak of generals, clerks, and soldiers, completely devoid of any moral instruction or precepts.

2.12

Ninth, regarding falsely delivering from distress: The establishment of the Mud and Charcoal Fast originated with Zhang Lu: rolling in mud like donkeys, smearing yellow earth on their faces, pulling out hair and hanging combs, kneading earth to make it fine. In the early Yixi era, the Daoist Wang Gongqi omitted the beating; Lu Xiujing of Wu still only smeared his forehead, bound his hands behind his back, and hung his head. Relying on this to cross over hardships—what extreme folly!

2.13

Tenth, regarding creating offenses out of dreams: Whenever they dream of deceased ancestors, they immediately call it an ominous monstrosity, summoning ghost and spirit soldiers and clerks to submit petitions to sever them.

2.14

Eleventh, regarding rashly committing malicious treacheries: They fabricate the Yellow God's Yue Seal to use for killing ghosts, and fabricate the Red Seal to use for killing people. Pandering to worldly sentiments without regard for retribution and sins, harboring jealousy in dark schemes—this is the extreme of malice and depravity.

2.15

These are all the ghost-laws of the three Zhangs, not the original intent of Laozi. In recent generations they have been widely practiced, yet few have realized it. When the treatise was completed, it was submitted to the throne. The emperor examined An's treatise and questioned his ministers about it; the high officials investigated and verified it, and none dared reject it. The matter of abolition and establishment was then set aside, truly as he had argued. Six years later, on the seventeenth day of the fifth month of the third year of Jiande, the jiawu year, he completely abolished both the Buddhist and Daoist traditions. He established instead the Tongdao Monastery, selecting one hundred and twenty renowned members from among the Buddhists and followers of Laozi; they all wore caps and robes, titled Scholars of the Tongdao Monastery. At that time, there was Master Meng of Yuanguo Temple in Xinzhou of the Shu region, who did not consider a thousand li too far and personally came to the court of Wei. Although he presented the supreme principles face-to-face, heterodoxy and orthodoxy were not yet distinguished; but the emperor's determination to destroy them was already settled. Meng then composed a treatise of eighteen points challenging Daoism's foundational tradition, and further used three sections to resolve their earlier attachments. His words said in brief: 'I consider that the world has carelessly narrated that Laozi and Yin Xi traveled west to convert the Hu, leaving home, and that Laozi preached scriptures and precepts for him, ordering Yin Xi to become the Buddha to convert the Hu people; they also claim that Master Guigu composed the Commentary by the Four White-haired Elders of the Southern Mountains. Those who have not examined it thoroughly all believe and follow it, taking it as their authority. How strange this tradition is! A gentleman cannot be deceived, much less can the Great Sage be disparaged! Now I fully explain this theory: not only has the human world made errors by borrowing names, but their words do not reach righteousness, turning around to disgrace Laozi's intention. Exalted men and persons of insight would not utter these words; it must be ignorant followers of heterodox ways boasting and vying with the Buddha's Dharma, borrowing the names of Guigu and the Four White-haired Elders to append to the biography of Yin Xi, composing this heterodox theory to delude the common crowd. I have heard that to transmit without learning was not permitted by the Master, and reckless action brings misfortune as warned by Lord Lao. This great disaster increases the three wretched paths; it should be rectified to rescue them from this error. However, teachings have the inner and outer, which gives rise to doubts and falsehoods; people have the worthy and the sage, and many are confused about the origin and the traces. Thus, Ban Gu's Han shu classifies people into nine grades: Confucius and his like belong to the upper-upper grade, all of whom are sages; Li Er and his peer belong to the middle-upper grade, all of whom are worthies. He Yan and Wang Bi said that Laozi had not yet attained sagehood. Here worthies and sages are naturally distinguished, and superiority and inferiority are clearly revealed. Thus was the broad comprehension of Emperor Wen of Wei.'

2.16

'In the third year of Huangchu, an imperial edict was issued to the Inspector of Yuzhou: “Lao Dan is a worthy and should not take precedence over Confucius. I do not know whether the temple in Lu Commandery for Confucius has been completed. Emperor Huan of the Han did not model himself on the sacred law, but precisely because of a favored minister served Laozi in order to seek blessings; it is truly laughable. The rise of this shrine was because Emperor Huanwu did not destroy its building since Laozi was a worthy. I too saw this pavilion by the road, where passers-by would always go to gaze upon it, but the towers and buildings are leaning and might collapse on people; therefore, I ordered them repaired. Yesterday when I passed by and viewed it, it was not yet put in order. I fear the vulgar will deem this divine and recklessly go there to pray and sacrifice, violating the ordinary prohibitions. Let this be proclaimed to the officials and people, making it known to all.” Based on this, it has long been exposed. Because the foolish and deluded are many, the previous abuses occurred; therefore I have composed this treatise.' Although it was submitted to the throne, it was ultimately not accepted. There was Master Meng, whose character was unbending; he defied the imperial will, his words exceedingly vehement and sharp. The assembly feared disaster would reach his person, but the emperor tolerated him, and his heart felt no shame or fear. Next was Master Ai, whose years and virtue were illustrious, to whom both the monastic and lay turned. Hearing of it, he sighed and said: 'Vermilion and purple are mixed together; the mad and the wise trespass on each other to the extreme! Can the five groups be made to wander, and the four kinds of beings be turned upside down in delusion?' He also said: 'Eating the grain of Zhou and drinking the water of Zhou, eating the mulberry and thinking of its shade—how could one not repay virtue? Moreover, being a disciple of the Buddha, how could I watch this downfall, sitting idly in this bodily frame and resting in quiet?' He went straight to present a memorial. He was granted an audience and climbed to the hall. Raising his hands, he spoke: 'My purpose in coming is twofold: namely, to repay the benevolent grace of the Triratna, and to recompense the generous virtue of the dānapatis.' Citing prominent examples from morning till noon, his speech met challenges and held its ground, resisting like a flowing stream; his firm words and stern expression were resonant and unyielding. Although the emperor received his words, his determination was already set, and he hesitated without speaking. Ai advanced again, saying: 'The orthodoxy and heterodoxy of the Buddhists and the followers of Laozi can be sought directly through deeds; it need not trouble the sagely mind: order a cauldron to boil the disciples of both schools, and whoever is unharmed will instantly be revealed.' The emperor was frightened by his words, and ordered him led out. At that time, Śramaṇa Daoji of Yizhou came forward next to admonish; his words were not heeded. Thereupon, together with seven like-minded companions, he fasted, bowed, and repented before an image of Maitreya; after seven days, they passed away all at once. Ai entered Xigu in the Southern Mountains, cut his own flesh and spread it upon the stones, drew out his intestines and hung them upon the trees, held his heart in his hands and died. Someone searched for him and found a verse of abandoning the body upon the cliff, which read:

2.17

"May I, having discarded this body,
Quickly attain mastery of form;
Having attained mastery in the Dharma-body,
May I be master in all destinies,
Wherever there is benefit to be made,
Protecting the Dharma and rescuing sentient beings.
Furthermore, karma must come to an end;
Conditioned phenomena are all like this.
The trailokya is entirely impermanent;
When the time comes, there is no freedom.
Killed by others or dying of oneself,
In the end one returns to such a place.
What the wise do not delight in—
Karma comes to an end today."

2.18

Section 2: Emperor Wu of the Zhou Pacifies Qi, Gathers the Monks, Inquires about the Abolition and Establishment, and Master Huiyuan Defies the Edict

2.19

In the spring of the second year of Chengguang of Qi, Emperor Wu of Zhou summoned the former venerable and virtuous monks to assemble in the hall after pacifying the Gao clan in the east. The emperor ascended the throne and laid out the principles of abolition and establishment, saying: 'I have received the heavenly mandate to bring peace and unity to the realm. The world has promoted the three teachings, but their customs have drifted far astray. When examining their ultimate principles, they greatly err against educational transformation. Now I shall abolish them all. However, the Confucian teaching of the Six Classics has long promoted the arts of governance, and its propriety, righteousness, loyalty, and filial piety are suitable for the world; therefore, it must be preserved. Furthermore, the true Buddha has no image; honoring him from afar expresses the heart. Buddhist scriptures extensively praise the construction of images and pagodas, claiming that magnificent construction yields immense blessings. These are truly without feeling; how could they bestow favor? Foolish people look to them with faith, exhausting precious wealth and incurring futile expenses; therefore, they must be swept away. Thus, all scriptures and images are to be destroyed. The kindness of parents is weighty, yet śramaṇas do not pay them respect; this is the extreme of rebellion, which the law of the state cannot permit. All shall return home to exalt the beginning of filial piety. This is my intention. What do the venerable masters consider the principle to be?' At that time, more than five hundred people, including the Senior Controller of Śramaṇas, all felt that the royal majesty was terrifying and that remonstrance was difficult to heed; since it had already been eliminated within the Passes, its doctrine could not stand alone. The assembly was completely silent. An imperial edict was issued urging an answer, and they looked at each other, their faces pale, lowering their heads in tears. There was Master Huiyuan, whose reputation was shining and esteemed; he thought to himself: 'The Dharma has been entrusted, and the four assemblies rely upon it. How could remaining silent be considered understanding the principle?' He then stepped forward and replied: 'Your Majesty reigns over the great domain, having attained the One and occupying the honored position; following the custom, you deliver speeches and model yourself on the three teachings. The edict says: “The true Buddha has no image.” This is truly like the heavenly intention. Yet sentient beings with ears and eyes rely on the scriptures to hear of the Buddha, and depend on images to manifest the true. If they are now abolished, there will be no means to arouse respect.' The emperor said: 'The true Buddha of space is naturally known to all; there is no need for scriptures and images.' Huiyuan said: 'Before Emperor Ming of the Han, scriptures and images had not yet arrived; why did the living beings of this land not know the true Buddha of space?' At that time, the emperor had no reply. Huiyuan said: 'If without relying on scriptures and teachings one naturally knows that there is Dharma, then before the Three Sovereigns there was no writing, and people should have naturally known the Five Constants and other laws. Why did the people of that time only know their mothers and not their fathers, being the same as beasts?' The emperor again had no reply. Huiyuan said: 'If because images lack feeling, serving them yields no blessings and so they must be abolished, then are the images of the Seven Ancestral Temples of the state sentient beings, that they should be foolishly revered and served?' The emperor did not answer this objection, but said: 'Buddhist scriptures are the laws of foreign countries, which this country does not need and should abolish and not use. The Seven Temples were established by past generations; I do not consider them correct either, and intend to abolish them as well.' Huiyuan said: 'If because the scriptures of foreign countries are not of this land they should not be used, then what Zhongni taught came from the State of Lu, and should also be abolished and not practiced in the lands of Qin and Jin. Moreover, if you consider the Seven Temples incorrect and intend to abolish them, that is not honoring ancestors; if ancestors are not honored, then the generational order of zhao and mu is lost; if the generational order of zhao and mu is lost, then the Five Classics are useless. Where lies the meaning of previously preserving the Confucian teaching? If so, then the three teachings are all abolished; how will you govern the state?' The emperor said: 'The State of Lu and the lands of Qin and Jin had different territories, yet all fell under the single transformation of the king; hence they are not like Buddhist scriptures.' The emperor had no way to answer the objection about the Seven Temples. Huiyuan said: 'If Qin and Lu both followed a single transformation and their scriptures and teachings were circulated, then although the borders of Cīnasthāna and Tianzhu differ, are they not all within the four seas of Jambudvīpa under the single transformation of a Cakravartin? Why not equally follow the Buddhist scriptures instead of abolishing them alone now?' The emperor again had no reply. Huiyuan said: 'The edict says: “Monks are to return home to cultivate filial support.” The Confucian scripture also says: “Establishing oneself and practicing the Way so as to glorify one’s parents is filial conduct.” Why must they return home?' The emperor said: 'The kindness of parents is weighty, mutually relying on physical support; abandoning the intimate for the distant does not constitute utmost filial piety.' Huiyuan said: 'If it is as the sagely decree states, those beside Your Majesty all have two parents; why not release them instead of making them serve for five years without seeing their parents?' The emperor said: 'I also follow turns of duty, so that they may return to attend to them.' Huiyuan said: 'The Buddha also permits monks to practice the Way according to circumstances in winter and summer, and return home in spring and autumn to attend to and care for them. Thus Maudgalyāyana begged for food to feed his mother, and the Tathāgata bore the coffin and attended the burial. This principle is widely pervading and should not be abolished alone.' The emperor again had no reply. Huiyuan raised his voice and said: 'Your Majesty now relies on royal power to willfully destroy the Triratna; this is the act of a person with false views. The Avīci Hell does not distinguish between the noble and the base; how can Your Majesty not be afraid?' The emperor suddenly flushed with great wrath, glared directly at Huiyuan, and said: 'As long as the common people obtain joy, I will not refuse any of the pains of hell.' Huiyuan said: 'Your Majesty transforms people with heterodox methods and presently sows bitter karma; they will accompany Your Majesty to Avīci together. Where can any joy be found?' The emperor was defeated in principle, while his previous design remained firm; having nothing more to say, he merely said: 'The monks may withdraw for now. Let the officials record the names of the disputing monks.' The emperor had already practiced cruelty for three years; the Buddha's Dharma in Guanlong was nearly completely wiped out. Having conquered the Qi territory, he destroyed it in the same manner. At that time, the Buddha's Dharma in the Eastern Rivers of Wei and Qi was flourishing; the established monasteries and temples numbered more than forty thousand, and all were bestowed upon princes and dukes to serve as residences. The five groups of the Buddhist tradition, numbering nearly three million, were all returned to the ranks of military and civilian households. Buddha images were melted and scraped, and scripture teachings were burned. The fortune and wealth of the Triratna were inventoried and confiscated by the state, and immediately bestowed as rewards, scattered and exhausted. The emperor thought he had attained his ambition under heaven. Before a year had passed, pestilential qi boiled within, and sores broke out on his body; the evil signs having manifested, no repentance could dissolve them. He then retreated to Yunyang Palace, and in barely seven days he soon collapsed and died. Emperor Tianyuan succeeded to the calendar; in both the eastern and western capitals he established Zhigu Temples and appointed Bodhisattva Monks to open the Buddhist transformation, but soon the emperor died. The dynastic fortune changed. It was not until Emperor Gaozu of Sui that it began to open widely, as will be shown below. Recently, in the Record of Karmic Retribution by Tang Lin, Minister of Personnel of the Great Tang, it is said: His maternal grandfather, Duke Qi, Left Vice Director of the Department of State Affairs of the Sui, personally saw Emperor Wen ask a person who had died and returned to life. The person said: 'When I first died, I saw Emperor Wu of the Zhou, who said: “Convey a message for me to the Emperor of the Great Sui: formerly he ate together with me, and the storehouses, jade, and silk were also stored by me. I am now suffering extreme agony for destroying the Buddha's Dharma. Pray, make merit on my behalf!”' Emperor Wen issued an edict across the whole empire for each person to donate one coin to pursue blessings on his behalf.

2.20

Section 3: Emperor Gaozu of Zhou Inspects Ye and Eliminates the Buddha's Dharma, and the Former Monk Ren Daolin Submits a Memorial Requesting the Opening of the Dharma

2.21

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.'

2.22

[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."

First 22 of 31 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

集古今佛道論衡 — Classical Chinese