鐔津文集 1.13

1.13

潛子為勸書。或曰。何以勸乎。曰勸夫君子者自信其心。然後事其名為然也。古之聖人有曰佛者。先得乎人心之至正者。乃欲推此與天下同之。而天下學者反不能自信其心之然。遂毅然相與排佛之說。以務其名。吾嘗為其悲之。夫人生名孰誠於心。今忽其誠說而狥乎區區之名。惑亦甚矣。夫心也者聖人道義之本也。名也者聖人勸善之權也。務其權而其本不審。其為善果善乎。其為道義果義乎。今學者以適義為理。以行義為道。此但外事中節之道理也。未預乎聖人之大道也大理也。夫大理也者固常道之主也。凡物不自其主而為為之果當乎。漢人有號牟子者。嘗著書以諭佛道曰。道之為物也。居家可以事親。宰國可以治民。獨立可以治身。履而行之則充乎天地。此蓋言乎世道者資佛道而為其根本者也。夫君子治世之書頗嘗知其心之然乎。知之而苟排之。是乃自欺其心也。然此不直人心之然也。天地之心亦然。鬼神異類之心皆然。而天地鬼神益不可以此而欺之也。然此雖概見百家之書。而百家者未始盡之。佛迺窮深極微。以究乎死生之變。以通乎神明之往來。乃至於大妙。故世俗以其法事於天地而天地應之。以其書要於鬼神而鬼神順之。至乎四海之人以其說而舍惡從善者。不待爵賞之勸。斐然趨以自化。此無他也。蓋推其大誠與天地萬物同。而天人鬼神自然相感而然也。曰此吾知之矣。姑從吾名教乃爾也。曰夫欲其名勸之。但誠於為善。則為聖人之徒固已至矣。何必資斥佛乃賢邪。今有人日為善物於此。為之既專及寢則夢其所為宛然。當爾則其人以名夢乎。以魂夢邪。是必以魂而夢之也。如此則善惡常與心相親。柰何徒以名夸世俗而不顧其心魄乎。君子自重輕果如何哉。昔韓子以佛法獨盛。而惡時俗奉之不以其方。雖以書抑之。至其道本而韓亦頗推之。故其送高閑序曰。今閑師浮圖氏。一死生解外膠。是其心必泊然無於所起。其於世必澹然無於所嗜。稱乎大顛則曰。頗聰明識道理。又曰。實能外形骸以理自勝。不為事物侵亂。韓氏之心於佛亦有所善乎。而大顛禪書亦謂。韓子甞相問其法。此必然也。逮其為絳州刺史馬府君行狀乃曰。司徒公之薨也。刺臂出血書佛經千餘言。期以報德。又曰。其居喪有過人行。又曰。掇其大者為行狀。託立言之君子而圖其不朽焉。是豈盡非乎為佛之事者邪。韓子賢人也。臨事制變。當自有權道。方其讓老氏則曰。其見小也。坐井觀天曰天小者。非天罪也。又曰。聖人無常師。萇弘師襄老聃郯子之徒。其賢不及孔子。孔子三人行則必有我師。是亦謂孔子而師老聃也。與夫曾子問司馬遷所謂孔子問禮於老聃類也。然老子固薄禮者也。豈專言禮乎。是亦存其道也。驗太史公之書。則孔子聞道於老子詳矣。昔孟子故擯夫為楊墨者。而韓子則與墨曰。孔子必用墨子。墨子必用孔子。不相用不足為孔墨。儒者不尚說乎死生鬼神之事。而韓子原鬼稱乎羅池柳子厚之神奇而不疑。韓子何嘗膠於一端而不自通邪。韓謂聖賢也。豈其是非不定而言之反覆。蓋鑒在其心。抑之揚之。或時而然也。後世當求之韓心不必隨其語也。曰吾於吾儒之書見其心亦久矣。及見李氏復性之說益自發明。無取於佛也。止渴不必柬井而飲。充飢不必擇庖而食。得子審其心為善不亂可也。豈抑人必從於我不然也。他書雖見乎性命之說大較。恐亦有所未盡者也。吾視本朝所撰高僧傳。謂李習之嘗聞法於道人惟儼。及取李之書詳之。其微旨誠若得於佛經。但其文字與援引為異耳。然佛亦稍資諸君之發明乎。曰雖然子盍盡子之道歟。曰於此吾且欲諸君之易曉耳。遽盡吾道則恐世誕吾言而益不信也。勿已幸視吾書曰廣原教者可詳也。

Qianzi composed the Exhortations. Someone asked, 'How do you exhort?' I replied: 'I exhort gentlemen to have faith in their own minds first, and only then treat external reputation as valid. Among the sages of antiquity there was one called the Buddha, who first attained what is utmost and correct in the human mind, and wished to extend this so that all under Heaven might share in it. Yet scholars of the world, unable to have faith in the correctness of their own minds, resolutely join together to reject the Buddha's teachings in order to pursue mere reputation. I have often grieved for them. In human life, between reputation and mind, which is the more genuine? Now people neglect the genuine and pursue trivial fame—is this not extreme confusion? The mind is the root of the sages' Way and righteousness; reputation is the sages' expedient means to encourage good. If one pursues the expedient means without examining the root, is one's doing of good truly good? Is one's morality truly righteous? Today's scholars take fittingness to righteousness as principle and the practice of righteousness as the Way; this is merely the principle of external actions conforming to proper measure, not yet participating in the Great Way and Great Principle of the sages. The Great Principle is indeed the master of the constant Way. If things do not act from their master, can what they do truly be proper? In the Han dynasty there was a man named Mouzi who wrote a treatise to explain the Buddhist Way, saying: "As for the Way, when practiced at home it serves to attend to parents; when ruling a state it serves to govern the people; when standing alone it serves to cultivate one's person. When carried out in practice, it fills Heaven and Earth." This means that worldly ways rely on the Buddhist Way as their fundamental root. Do the books by which gentlemen govern the world ever know this reality of the mind? If they know it and yet reject it, they are simply deceiving their own minds. Yet this is not only true of the human mind; the mind of Heaven and Earth is also thus, and the minds of ghosts, spirits, and non-human beings are all thus. And Heaven, Earth, ghosts, and spirits can even less be deceived in this regard. Although this is glimpsed generally in the writings of the hundred schools, the hundred schools have never exhausted it. The Buddha alone plumbed the profound and reached the utmost subtlety, investigating the transformations of birth and death and penetrating the comings and goings of the divine and luminous, reaching supreme wonder. Therefore, when ordinary people serve Heaven and Earth with his methods, Heaven and Earth respond; when they adjure ghosts and spirits with his scriptures, ghosts and spirits comply. Even when people of the four seas abandon evil and follow good through his teachings, they do not wait for the encouragement of rank and reward, but eagerly hasten to transform themselves. This is due to nothing else: he extended his great sincerity to be one with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things, and thus Heaven, humanity, ghosts, and spirits naturally resonate with it.' The questioner said, 'I already know this; I simply follow our teaching of names.' I replied: 'If you wish to use reputation to encourage them, as long as they are sincere in doing good, they are already fully disciples of the sages. Why must they rely on denouncing the Buddha to be considered worthy? Now suppose someone does good deeds daily: having applied himself with total devotion, when he sleeps he dreams vividly of what he did. At that moment, does he dream by virtue of his reputation, or does he dream by virtue of his soul? He must surely dream by virtue of his soul. In this way, good and evil are always intimate with the mind. Why merely boast to the world through reputation while disregarding one's own mind and soul? What, indeed, do gentlemen hold dear or light? In the past, Master Han saw that the Buddhist teachings alone flourished, and disliked the fact that contemporary customs venerated them without proper measure. Although he repressed them in his writings, when it came to the root of their Way, Master Han also respected it considerably. Thus in his "Preface on Seeing off Gao Xian," he wrote: "Now Master Xian is a follower of the Buddha. Having unified life and death and released external entanglements, his mind must be tranquil with nothing arising, and toward the world he must be placid with no cravings." In praising Dadian, he wrote: "He is quite intelligent and understands principle," and further: "He is truly able to regard his physical form as external, overcome himself through principle, and not be disturbed or thrown into disorder by worldly affairs." In Master Han's mind, was there not something he appreciated in Buddhism? Moreover, Dadian's Chan records also state that Master Han once inquired into his teachings; this must surely be so. When he wrote the biographical account for Lord Ma, Governor of Jiangzhou, he said: "When the Minister of Works passed away, he pricked his arm to draw blood and wrote out over a thousand words of Buddhist sutras, hoping thereby to requite his virtue." He also said: "His conduct during mourning surpassed that of ordinary men," and further: "I have gathered the major points to compose this biographical account, entrusting it to a gentleman who establishes words to plan for his immortality." How could this be entirely a condemnation of Buddhist practices? Master Han was a worthy man. When confronting circumstances and managing changes, he naturally had his expedient means. When he criticized Laozi, he said: "His vision was small. To sit in a well and look at the sky and say the sky is small is not the fault of the sky." He also said: "A sage has no constant teacher. Among the likes of Chang Hong, Music Master Xiang, Lao Dan, and the Viscount of Tan, their worthiness did not equal that of Confucius. Confucius said: 'When three people walk together, there must be my teacher.'" This also means that Confucius took Lao Dan as a teacher, which is of the same kind as Zengzi's questioning and Sima Qian's statement that Confucius inquired about ritual from Lao Dan. Yet Laozi certainly held ritual in low esteem; how could he have spoken exclusively of ritual? This also preserved his Way. Examining the Grand Scribe's records, Confucius's hearing of the Way from Laozi is clear in detail. Formerly, Mencius decisively rejected the followers of Yang Zhu and Mozi, yet Master Han agreed with Mozi, saying: "Confucius would certainly have employed Mozi, and Mozi would certainly have employed Confucius. If they did not employ each other, they would not be worthy of being Confucius and Mozi." Ruists do not value discussing the matters of birth, death, ghosts, and spirits, yet Master Han wrote "On the Origin of Ghosts" (Yuan gui) and praised the miraculous wonders of Liu Zihou at Luochi without doubt. When was Master Han ever stuck on one extreme and unable to understand broadly? Han was called a sage and worthy; how could his rights and wrongs be unsettled and his words contradictory? Rather, the mirror was in his mind: repressing or praising, he acted according to the occasion. Later generations should seek Master Han's mind and need not blindly follow his words.' The questioner said, 'I have seen this mind in our Ruist books for a long time. When I saw Master Li's discourse on returning to nature, it clarified itself even further, with nothing borrowed from the Buddha.' [I said:] 'To quench thirst one does not need to choose a specific well to drink from; to satisfy hunger one does not need to choose a specific kitchen to eat from. It is enough if you examine your mind to do good without confusion. How could I compel others to follow me? Far from it! Although the discourse on nature and destiny is seen in other books, in broad outline I fear it still leaves things unexhausted. I have looked at the Biographies of Eminent Monks compiled under our present dynasty, which says that Li Xizhi once heard the Dharma from the Daoist Weiyan; and when I examine Master Li's writings closely, their subtle purport truly seems to derive from the Buddhist sutras, differing only in their wording and citations. Has the Buddha not also slightly aided the insights of you gentlemen?' The questioner said, 'Even so, why do you not fully expound your Way?' I replied: 'At this point I only wish you gentlemen to understand easily. If I were suddenly to expound our Way completely, I fear the world would consider my words extravagant and believe them even less. If you cannot stop here, fortunately you may examine my book called Guang yuanjiao to find the details.'