鐔津文集 1.10.3

1.10.3

余愧於人多矣。 嘗試論曰。 夫欲人心服而自修莫若感其內。 欲人言順而貌從莫若制其外。 制其外者。 非以人道設教則不能果致也。 感其內者。 非以神道設教則不能必化也。 故佛之為道也。 先乎神而次乎人。 蓋亦感內而制外之謂也。 神也者。 人之精神之謂也。 非謂鬼神淫惑之事者也。 謂人修其精神善其履行。 生也則福應。 死也則其神清昇。 精神不修履行邪妄。 生也則非慶。 死也則其神受誅。 故天下聞之其心感動。 惡者沮而善者如之。 如此默化而何代無有。 然其教之作於中國也。 必有以世數相宜而來應人心相感而至。 不然何人以其法修之。 天地應之鬼神效之。 苟其宜之數之未盡。 相感之理未窮。 又安可以愛之而苟存。 惡之而苟去。 方之人事若王者霸者。 其順時應人而為之。 豈不然哉。 況其有妙道冥權。 又至於人事者邪。 夫妙道也者。 清淨寂滅之謂也。 謂其滅盡眾累純其清淨本然者也。 非謂死其生取乎空荒滅絕之謂也。 以此至之則成乎聖神以超出其世。 冥權也者。 以道起乎不用之用之謂也。 謂其拯拔群生而出乎情溺者也。 考其化物自化則皇道幾之。 考其權用應世則無所不至。 言其化也。 固後世不能臻之。 言其權也默而體之則無世不得。 昔者聖人之將化也。 以其法付之王付之臣付之長者有力之人。 非其私己而苟尊於人也。 蓋欲因其道而為道。 因其善而為善。 佛之經固亦多方矣。 後世之徒不能以宜而授人。 致其信者過信。 令君有佞善輒欲捐國為奴隷之下。 俗有淺悟遽欲棄業專勝僧之高。 此非謂用佛心而為道也。 經豈不曰。 諸佛隨宜說法意趣難解。 故為佛者不止緇其服剪其髮而已矣。 然佛之為心也。 如此豈小通哉。 此有欲以如楊墨而譏之。 夫楊墨者。 滯一而拘俗。 以之方佛。 不亦甚乎。 世不探佛理而詳之。 徒訩訩然誕佛謂其說之不典。 佛之見出於人遠矣。 烏可以己不見而方人之見。 謂佛之言多劫也誕耶。 世固有積月而成歲積歲而成世。 又安知其積世而不成劫耶。 苟以其事遠耳目不接。 而謂之不然。 則六藝所道上世之事。 今非承其傳。 而孰親視之。 此可謂誕乎。 謂佛言大也誕邪。 世固有遊心凌空而往。 雖四隅上下窅然。 曷嘗有涯方之佛謂其世界無窮。 何不然乎。 謂佛言化也誕邪。 世固有夢中而夢者。 方其夢時。 而其所遇事與身世與適夢。 或其同或其異莫不類之。 夢之中既夢。 又安知其死之中不有化邪。 佛之見既遠而其知物亦多。 故聖人廣其教以教多類。 欲其無所適而不化也。 今曰佛西方聖人也。 其法宜夷而不宜中國。 斯亦先儒未之思也。 聖人者。 蓋大有道者之稱也。 豈有大有道而不得曰聖人。 亦安有聖人之道而所至不可行乎。 苟以其人所出於夷而然也。 若舜東夷之人。 文王西夷之人。 而其道相接紹行於中國。 可夷其人而拒其道乎。 況佛之所出非夷也。 或曰。 佛止言性。 性則易與中庸云矣。 而無用佛為。 是又不然。 如吾佛之言性。 與世書一也。 是聖人同其性矣。 同者却之而異者何以處之。 水多得其同則深為河海。 土多得其同則積為山嶽。 大人多得其同則廣為道德。 嗚呼余烏能多得其同人。 同誠其心同齋戒其身同推德于人。 以福吾親以資吾君之康天下也。 曰而何甚不厭邪。 子輩雜然盈乎天下不籍四民。 徒張其布施報應以衣食於人。 不為困天下亦已幸矣。 又何能補治其世而致福於君親乎。 曰固哉居吾語汝。 汝亦知先王之門論德義而不計工力邪。 夫先王之制民也。 恐世敝民混而易亂。 遂為之防。 故四其民使各屬其屬。 豈謂禁民不得以利而與人為惠。 若今佛者默則誠語則善。 所至則以其道勸人。 舍惡而趨善。 其一衣食待人之餘非黷也。

I feel much shame before others. I once ventured to argue: If one wishes people to be sincerely convinced in mind and cultivate themselves, nothing compares to moving them from within. If one wishes people's words to be compliant and their outward demeanor to be obedient, nothing compares to regulating them from without. As for regulating them from without, if one does not establish teachings by means of the human way, one cannot effect it. As for moving them from within, if one does not establish teachings by means of the spiritual way, one cannot unfailingly transform them. Therefore, as for the Buddha's practice of the Way, he prioritized the spiritual and placed the human second; this was precisely what is meant by moving the within and regulating the without. By 'spiritual' (shen), I mean the human spirit (jingshen); it does not refer to the lewd and deluding affairs of ghosts and spirits. It means that when a person cultivates his spirit and makes his conduct good, in life blessings will respond, and in death his spirit will rise clear. If one's spirit is uncultivated and one's conduct deviant and false, in life there will be no auspiciousness, and in death one's spirit will suffer punishment. Therefore, when all under Heaven hear this, their minds are moved: the wicked are deterred and the good are encouraged. Through such silent transformation, in what era has this not been present? Yet when his teaching arose in China, it must have responded to the appropriate cosmic timing and arrived through the mutual resonance of human hearts. Otherwise, why would people cultivate themselves according to his Dharma, Heaven and Earth respond to it, and ghosts and spirits imitate it? If its fitting cosmic timing had not yet run out and the principle of mutual resonance had not been exhausted, how could one casually preserve it merely out of affection, or casually discard it out of hatred? Comparing it to human affairs, it is like kings or hegemons who act by following the times and responding to men; how could it be otherwise? How much more so when there are the marvelous Way and hidden expedients, which moreover extend into human affairs! The marvelous Way means purity and calm extinction. It means completely extinguishing all encumbrances and purifying one's inherent nature; it does not mean deadening one's life to take up empty devastation and annihilation. When one attains this to the utmost, one becomes a sage or a spirit, transcending this world. Hidden expedients mean using the Way to give rise to the application of non-application. It means rescuing all living beings and bringing them out of drowning in the passions. If we examine its transforming of things so that they transform themselves, the sovereign's way is close to it; if we examine its expedient use in responding to the world, there is nowhere it does not reach. Regarding its transformation, later generations indeed cannot attain it; regarding its expedients, if one silently embodies them, there is no age in which they cannot be realized. In antiquity, when the Sage was about to pass into extinction, he entrusted his Dharma to kings, ministers, elders, and men of power. This was not out of self-interest or a desire to artificially exalt himself among men; it was simply that he wished to enact the Way through their way, and to do good through their goodness. The Buddha's sūtras indeed have many methods. But the disciples of later ages have been unable to impart them appropriately to people, leading those who believe to believe excessively. This causes rulers with an infatuation with the good to readily wish to abandon the state and lower themselves to become slaves; and it causes worldly people of shallow awakening to abruptly wish to abandon their vocations and exclusively aspire to the loftiness of monks. This cannot be called using the Buddha's mind to practice the Way. Do not the sūtras say: 'All Buddhas preach the Dharma according to what is fitting; their intent is difficult to understand'? Therefore, practicing the Buddha's way does not merely consist in blackening one's robes and shaving one's hair! How could the Buddha's mind be so narrowly confined? Yet there are those who wish to criticize him as being like Yang Zhu and Mozi. Yang Zhu and Mozi were obstinate in one extreme and constrained by worldliness; to compare them to the Buddha—is that not going too far? People in the world do not probe into the Buddha's principles to scrutinize them in detail, but merely clamorously decry the Buddha as absurd, saying his words are uncanonical. The Buddha's vision surpassed ordinary people by far; how could one judge another's vision by what one cannot see oneself? Is it absurd to say that the Buddha speaks of many kalpas? In the world there is certainly the accumulation of months into years, and the accumulation of years into generations; how can one know that generations do not accumulate to become a kalpa? If one considers it untrue merely because the matter is distant and not in contact with one's ears and eyes, then as for the affairs of high antiquity spoken of in the Six Classics, without receiving their transmission today, who among us witnessed them firsthand? Can these be called absurd? Is it absurd to say that the Buddha's words are vast? In the world, there are indeed minds that wander soaring into the void; though the four corners, zenith, and nadir are boundless and dim, how could there be a boundary? When the Buddha says his worlds are limitless, why should it not be so? Is it absurd to say that the Buddha speaks of transformations? In the world, there are indeed dreams within dreams. When one is dreaming, the events one encounters and one's circumstances in the dream—some the same, some different—all resemble reality. Since there are dreams within a dream, how can one know there are no transformations within death? Since the Buddha's vision was far-reaching and his knowledge of things was extensive, the Sage broadened his teachings to instruct many kinds [of beings], wishing that there be nowhere they went where they were not transformed. Now it is said: 'The Buddha was a sage of the West; his Dharma is suited to barbarians and not to China.' This too is something earlier Confucians failed to reflect upon. 'Sage' is an appellation for one who possesses the great Way. How could there be someone possessing the great Way who may not be called a sage? And how could there be a sage's Way that cannot be practiced wherever it reaches? If one judges it solely on the grounds that the person came from barbarians: Shun was a man of the Eastern Yi, and King Wen was a man of the Western Yi, yet their Ways succeeded each other and were practiced in China; can one treat the persons as barbarians and therefore reject their Ways? What is more, the place from which the Buddha came was not barbarian! Someone might say: 'The Buddha only spoke of nature. As for nature, the Yijing and the Zhongyong have already discussed it; there is no use for the Buddha.' This is also not so. If our Buddha's discussion of nature is identical with the worldly books, then the sages shared the same nature. If they are the same, why reject it? And if they are different, how should we deal with it? When waters gather much of what is the same, they become deep rivers and seas; when soil gathers much of what is the same, it piles up into mountains and peaks; when great men gather much of what is the same, they broaden into virtue and the Way. Alas, how can I find many fellows of like mind, to make their minds equally sincere, to purify their bodies equally with fasts and precepts, and to extend virtue equally to others, so as to bring blessings to our parents and assist our sovereign in bringing peace to all under Heaven? Someone asked: 'Why are you so insatiable? Your kind fills all under Heaven in a disorderly swarm, not enrolled among the four classes of people. You merely boast of almsgiving and karmic retribution to feed and clothe yourselves off others. If you do not impoverish all under Heaven, that is already good fortune! How can you mend and govern the world, or bring blessings to sovereign and parents?' I replied: 'How unbending! Sit down, and I will tell you. Do you not know that within the gates of the ancient kings, they discussed virtue and righteousness rather than calculating manual labor? When the ancient kings regulated the people, they feared that the world would fall into decay and the people would mix in disorder, readily breeding chaos, and so they erected safeguards for them. Thus they divided the people into four classes, causing each to belong to its own category. How could this mean prohibiting people from using profit to confer kindness upon others? Take the Buddhists of today: in silence they are sincere; in speech they are good. Wherever they go, they use their Way to exhort people to abandon evil and turn toward the good. That their single robes and food rely on what others have in excess is not covetousness.