鐔津文集 1.10.4

1.10.4

苟不能然自其人之罪。 豈佛之法謬乎。 孟子曰。 於此有人焉。 入則孝出則悌。 守先王之道以待後之學者。 而不得食於子。 子何尊梓匠輪輿而輕為仁義者哉。 儒豈不然邪。 堯舜已前其民未四。 當此其人豈盡農且工。 未聞其食用之不足。 周平之世。 井田之制尚舉。 而民已匱且敝。 及秦廢王制而天下益擾。 當是時也佛老皆未之作。 豈亦其教加於四民而為癘然邪。 人生天地中。 其食用恐素有分。 子亦為世之憂太過。 為人之計太約。 報應者。 儒言休證咎說。 積善有慶積惡有殃。 亦已明矣。 若布施之云者。 佛以其人欲有所施惠必出於善心。 心之果善方乎休證則可不應之。 孰為虛張邪。 夫舍惠誠人情之難能也。 斯苟能其難能。 其為善也不亦至乎。 語曰。 如有博施於民而能濟眾何如。 可謂仁乎。 子曰。 何事於仁。 必也聖乎。 堯舜其猶病諸。 蓋言聖人難之。 亦恐其未能為也。 佛必以是而勸之者。 意亦釋人貪悋而廓其善心耳。 世宜視其與人為施者公私如何哉。 不當傲其所以為施也。 禮將有事於天地鬼神。 雖一日祭必數日齋。 蓋欲人誠其心而潔其身也。 所以祈必有福於世。 今佛者其為心則長誠。 齋戒則終身。 比其修齋戒之數日。 福亦至矣。 豈盡無所資乎。 曰男有室女有家。 全其髮膚以奉父母之遺體。 人倫之道也。 而子輩反此自為其修。 超然欲高天下。 然修之又幾何哉。 混然何足辨之。 曰為佛者齋戒修心。 義利不取雖名亦忘。 至之遂通於神明。 其為德也抑亦至矣。 推其道於人則無物不欲善之。 其為道抑亦大矣。 以道報恩何恩不報。 以德嗣德何德不嗣。 已雖不娶而以其德資父母。 形雖外毀而以其道濟乎。 親泰伯豈不虧形邪。 而聖人德之。 伯夷叔齊豈不不娶長往於山林乎。 而聖人賢之。 孟子則推之曰。 伯夷聖之清者也。 不聞以虧形不娶而少之。 子獨過吾徒邪。 夫世之不軌道久矣。 雖賢父兄如堯舜周公。 尚不能必制其子弟。 今去佛世愈遠。 教亦將季。 烏得無邪人寄我以偷安邪。 雖法將如之何。 大林中固有不材之木。 大畝中固有不實之苗。 直之可也。 不可以人廢道。 曰而言而之教若詳。 誠可尚也。 然則辨教之說皆張於方今。 較之孰為優乎。 曰叟愚也。 若然者皆聖人之教。 小子何敢輒議。 然佛吾道也。 儒亦竊甞聞之。 若老氏則予頗存意。 不已而言之。 諸教也亦猶同水以涉而厲揭有深淺。 儒者聖人之治世者也。 佛者聖人之治出世者也。

If someone is unable to be like this, the fault is that person's own; how could the Buddha's Dharma be in error? Mencius said: 'Here is a man who is filial at home and fraternal abroad, and who preserves the way of the ancient kings to await future learners, and yet he cannot obtain food from you. Why do you honor carpenters and carriage-makers, while disparaging those who practice benevolence and righteousness?' Is not Confucianism the same? Before Yao and Shun, the people were not divided into four classes; at that time, were all those people farmers and artisans? We have not heard that their food and necessities were insufficient. In the time of King Ping of Zhou, the well-field system was still maintained, yet the people were already exhausted and destitute. When Qin abolished the royal regulations, all under Heaven became even more disordered. At that time, neither the Buddha nor Laozi had yet appeared; could their teachings have been inflicted on the four classes of people to become a pestilence? For humans living between Heaven and Earth, their food and necessities probably have a predetermined share. Your anxiety for the world is too excessive, and your calculation for mankind is too narrow! As for karmic retribution: Confucians speak of auspicious omens and calamitous warnings, stating that 'the family that accumulates good will surely have an abundance of blessings; the family that accumulates evil will surely have an abundance of calamities.' This is already quite clear. As for what is called almsgiving: the Buddha held that when a person wishes to give and confer kindness, it must stem from a good mind. If the mind is truly good, when it matches auspicious omens, how could there not be a response? Who has spoken in vain? Relinquishing and bestowing kindness is truly difficult for human nature to accomplish. If one can indeed accomplish what is difficult to accomplish, is not one's goodness supreme? The Analects says: 'If there were one who gave broadly to the people and was able to aid the multitude, how would that be? Could he be called benevolent?' The Master said: 'Why merely benevolent? Surely he must be a sage! Even Yao and Shun would still fall short of it.' This means that even sages found it difficult, and feared they could not accomplish it. That the Buddha necessarily exhorted people with this was simply intended to release people from greed and stinginess, and to broaden their good minds. The world should examine whether one's giving to others is public-spirited or selfish; one should not arrogantly disparage the act of giving. When the rituals are to serve Heaven, Earth, ghosts, and spirits, even for a single day's sacrifice, there must be several days of fasting; this is because they wish people to make their minds sincere and purify their bodies, thereby praying for blessings to certainly come upon the world. Now, as for Buddhists, their minds are constantly sincere, and their fasting and precepts last their whole lives. Compared to the few days of fasting, their blessings will also arrive; how could they be entirely without benefit? The interlocutor said: 'A man has his chamber and a woman her home; preserving one's hair and skin intact to serve the physical form handed down by one's parents is the way of human relationships. Yet your kind violates this to practice your cultivation, aspiring transcendently to stand above all under Heaven. But how many actually cultivate it? In such confusion, how is it worth distinguishing them?' I said: 'Those who follow the Buddha fast, keep precepts, and cultivate their minds; they do not grasp at profit and righteousness, and even forget fame. When they reach the utmost, they penetrate to the spiritual and luminous. Their virtue is indeed supreme! When they extend their Way to others, there is no being they do not wish to improve; their Way is indeed vast! Repaying kindness through the Way, what kindness cannot be repaid? Continuing virtue through virtue, what virtue cannot be continued? Although one does not marry, one uses one's virtue to benefit one's parents; although one's physical form is outwardly damaged, one uses one's Way to rescue one's parents. Did not Taibo mutilate his body? Yet the Sage praised his virtue. Did not Boyi and Shuqi refrain from marrying and dwell forever in the mountain forests? Yet the Sage esteemed them as worthy. Mencius praised him, saying: 'Boyi was the pure one among the sages.' We have not heard that they were belittled for mutilating their bodies or remaining unmarried. Why do you find fault only with our disciples? The world has departed from the proper path for a long time. Even worthy fathers and elder brothers like Yao, Shun, and the Duke of Zhou could not necessarily restrain their sons and younger brothers. Today, we are increasingly distant from the time of the Buddha, and the teaching is entering its degenerate age; how could there not be corrupt people who lodge among us to live in indolence? Even with the Dharma, what can be done? In a vast forest, there are inevitably useless trees; in a vast field, there are inevitably unripened sprouts. One should simply straighten them; one must not abandon the Way on account of the person.' The interlocutor said: 'Your words and your teaching appear detailed and are truly worthy of esteem. However, the arguments distinguishing the teachings are all flourishing at present. In comparison, which is superior?' I said: 'I am an old fool. Teachings such as these are all the teachings of sages; how would a lesser person like me dare to presume to debate them? Yet Buddhism is my Way; of Confucianism, I have also secretly heard a little; as for Laozi, I have paid considerable attention. If I cannot help but speak of them: the various teachings are like wading across the same river, where hitching up the robes is deep or shallow. Confucians are sages who govern the mundane world; the Buddha is a sage who governs the supramundane world.'