鐔津文集 14.6.5

14.6.5

持戒者唯欲其徒潔清其淫嗜之行。 俗戒則容其正偶。 非一切斷人相生養之道也。 然情之為累淫累為謹。 諸教教人慎淫窒欲。 無欲而天下猶紛然。 溺於淫嗜至于喪心陷身者也。 韓子何必恐人男女之不偶。 見人辟穀遽憂其遂絕五穀之種。 無乃過慮乎。 夫清淨謂其性之妙湛。 寂謂至靜。 滅謂滅其情感之累非取其頑寂死滅之謂也。 夫出家持戒者。 佛用其大觀耳。 聖人大觀乎人間世天地夫婦常倫萬端皆以情愛所成。 都一浮假如夢。 貪斯著斯苦斯樂斯榮斯辱斯狥斯弊斯恩愛斯煩惱斯以至死不覺其為大假大夢。 不知其為大患。 而大寧至正之妙誠乎亡矣。 出家者乃遠塵絕俗。 神專思一。 固易覺而易修。 視身無我奚著。 視心無意奚貪。 視有為之事不足固何必狥。 是故大寧矣至正矣。 勝德可得而聖道可成也。 語曰。 子絕四。 母意母必母固母我。 老子曰。 吾所以有大患者為吾有身。 及吾無身吾有何患。 是二者與佛出家法其因似。 是唯大聖人皆知而究之。 使聖人只狥浮世迷不知出虛死生一世與凡人何遠乎。 故孔子稍言之。 蓋微存於世書耳。 其廣說大明研幾極妙行而效之。 若待乎佛出世之教。 宜為然耳。 此蓋可以冥數審也。 今佛以其出家持戒特欲警世之浮假大夢。 揭人業障而治其死生之大患也。 而韓子反以此為患者。 假其介冑其障者而毅然排佛。 謂佛詭擾我世治。 此韓子以己不見而誣人之見。 其情弊如此之甚也。 佛尚何云。 異書云古有夢國舉其國人皆以夢而為覺。 及其以真覺者諭之。 而偽覺之人反皆詬曰。 爾何以夢而欺我耶。 彼覺者默然無如之何。 是頗與韓子屬拒佛類也。 韓子詩曰。 莫憂世事兼身事。 須著人間比夢間。 是必因於大顛稍省。 乃信有外形骸以理自勝者始爾。 雖然其前說已傳。 欲悔言何及也。 又曰。 嗚呼其幸而不出於三代之後。 不見黜於禹湯文武周公孔子也。 其亦不幸而不出於三代之前。 不見正於禹湯文武周公孔子也。 此韓子疑耳無斷。 君子臨事即以理決之。 何必賴古人。 使韓子出入為將相。 臨國大事尚曰此未可黜。 未正于禹湯文武周公孔子。 猶豫則其大事去矣。 何用將相為。 夫百行潔身禁。 非不出乎齋戒也。 群善致政不出乎正心也。 佛法大率教人齋戒正心。 無惡不斷有善不宰。 今世後世蓋當有聖賢自以其道理辨。 奚必其既死之文武周公正之黜之乃為信耶。 儒書之言性命者。 而中庸最著。 孔子於中庸特曰。 質諸鬼神而不疑。 百世以俟聖人而不惑質諸鬼神而無疑知天也。 百世以俟聖人而不惑知人也。 是必俟乎大知性命之聖人。 乃辨其中庸幽奧而不惑也。 然自孔子而來將百世矣。 專以性命為教。 唯佛者大盛於中國。 孔子微意其亦待佛。 以為證乎。 不然此百世復有何者聖人。 太盛性命之說而過乎佛歟。 斯明孔子正佛亦已效矣。 韓子何必疑之。 又曰。 斯何道。 曰斯吾所謂道也。 非向所謂老與佛之道也。 堯以是傳之舜。 舜以是傳之禹。 禹以是傳之湯。 湯以是傳之文武周公孔子。 孔子傳之孟軻。 軻之死不得其傳焉。 按韓子此文乃謂堯舜禹湯文武周公孔子孟軻九聖賢。 皆繼世相見以仁義而相傳授也。 若禹與湯。 湯與文武周公。 周公與孔子。 孔子與孟子者。 烏得相見而親相傳稟耶。 哂韓子據何經傳輒若是云乎。 孟子曰。 舜禹至乎湯五百有餘歲。 湯之至乎文王五百有餘歲。 由文王至乎孔子五百有餘歲。 由孔子而來至今百有餘歲。 而禹湯文武周公孔子孟軻。 其年世相去賒邈既若此矣。 而韓子不顧典籍。 徒尊其所傳欲其說之。 勝強而不悟其文之無實。 得不謂謾亂之也。 而韓子之言可尚信乎。 論語謂堯將傳天下于舜。 乃告之曰。 咨爾舜天之曆數在爾躬允執厥中。 舜亦以命禹。

Those who maintain the precepts only desire that their disciples purify conduct related to lust and craving. The lay precepts allow for proper spousal union; they do not entirely cut off the way people give birth to and nurture one another. Yet among the burdens of the emotions, the burden of lust is the most perilous. The various teachings instruct people to be cautious of lust and to stifle desire. Even without desires, the world is still chaotic; how much more so when people drown in lust and craving to the point of losing their minds and destroying their bodies! Why must Han [Yu] fear that men and women will not mate? Seeing someone abstain from grain, must he hastily worry that the seeds of the five grains will thereupon be eradicated? Is that not overanxiety? Now, 'purity' refers to the wondrous clarity of the nature; 'quiescence' refers to supreme stillness; 'cessation' refers to ceasing the burdens of the emotions and sensations—it does not mean taking up senseless torpor or lifeless annihilation. When people leave home and keep the precepts, the Buddha simply employs his grand contemplation. The Sage contemplates that in the human world, the enduring relations of heaven and earth, husband and wife, in all their myriad varieties, are all formed through emotional attachment. They are all entirely fleeting, insubstantial, and like a dream. People crave them, cling to them, suffer from them, take pleasure in them, find glory in them, find disgrace in them, pursue them, are corrupted by them, cherish them with affection, and worry over them with afflictions, up to their very deaths without awakening to the fact that these are a great illusion and a great dream. They do not realize that these are a great calamity; and the wondrousness of great serenity and supreme correctness is truly lost! Those who leave home distance themselves from the dust and sever worldly ties; their spirit is concentrated and their thoughts are unified. Naturally, they are easy to awaken and easy to cultivate: seeing the body as having no self, to what could they cling? Seeing the mind as devoid of preconceptions, what could they crave? Seeing conditioned affairs as unworthy of attachment, why must they pursue them? For this reason, they attain great serenity and supreme correctness; superior virtues can be attained, and the sagely Way can be accomplished. An adage says: 'The Master was free from four things: he had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary predeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egotism.' Laozi said: 'The reason I have great calamity is that I have a body. When I have no body, what calamity do I have?' The underlying cause in these two masters resembles the Buddha's method of leaving home. Only great sages understand and penetrate this. If the sages were merely to pursue the fleeting world, straying without knowing how to escape, spending their lives in vain—how would they differ from ordinary men? Therefore Confucius spoke of it sparingly; it is only subtly preserved in worldly books. As for expounding it extensively, making it brilliantly clear, investigating its subtleties to the utmost, and putting it into practice with efficacy—that was awaiting the supramundane teaching of the Buddha. It was fitting that this should be so. This can be verified by mysterious destiny. Now the Buddha, with his ordination and precept-keeping, specifically wished to warn the world against its fleeting, illusory, great dream, to unveil humanity's karmic obstacles, and to remedy their great calamity of birth and death. Yet Han [Yu] perversely considered this a calamity; donning the armor of his own hindrances, he resolutely rejected the Buddha, claiming that the Buddha deceitfully threw our worldly governance into disorder. Here Han [Yu], on account of his own blindness, slandered the vision of others; the error of his feelings was severe to such a degree! What more could the Buddha say? A strange book records that anciently there was a Land of Dreams, whose people all considered their dreams to be waking. When a truly awakened person tried to instruct them, the falsely awakened people instead all reviled him, saying: 'Why do you deceive us with dreams?' That awakened one fell silent, helpless to do anything. This is quite similar to Han [Yu] and his ilk rejecting the Buddha. Han [Yu]'s poem says: 'Do not grieve over worldly affairs and personal matters; / you must look upon the human realm as comparable to the realm of dreams.' This must have been because he gained a slight awakening through Dadian, and only then began to believe that there is that which transcends the physical form and overcomes oneself through principle. Even so, his previous theories had already spread; though he wished to regret his words, how could it avail? He also said: 'Alas! It was fortunate that it did not appear after the Three Dynasties, and so was not rejected by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius. It was also unfortunate that it did not appear before the Three Dynasties, and so was not rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Here Han [Yu] merely doubted without making a decision. When a gentleman faces an affair, he resolves it by principle; why must he rely on ancient men? Had Han [Yu] served as a general or chief minister, when facing great affairs of state he would still have said: 'This cannot yet be rejected, for it has not been rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Hesitating like that, the great affairs would have been lost! Of what use would such a general or minister be? Now, the purity of all conduct and the restraint of body and prohibition of wrongs do not arise outside of purification and fasting; the alignment of all virtues toward good governance does not arise outside of rectifying the mind. The Buddha's Dharma for the most part teaches people to purify themselves, observe fasting, and rectify the mind; there is no evil that is not severed, no good that is not cultivated without attachment. In this age and later ages, there should naturally be sages and worthies who discern things according to their own principles. Why must it be verified only when rectified or rejected by the long-dead Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou for it to be believable? Among Confucian books that speak of human nature and destiny, the *Zhongyong* is the most prominent. In the *Zhongyong*, Confucius specifically stated: 'Tested against ghosts and spirits, they leave no doubt; awaiting a sage for a hundred generations, they show no confusion.' To test them against ghosts and spirits without doubt is to know Heaven; to await a sage for a hundred generations without confusion is to know humanity. This necessarily awaits a sage who has great knowledge of nature and destiny to discern the deep obscurities of the *Zhongyong* without delusion. Yet from Confucius until now, nearly a hundred generations have passed. As for exclusively taking nature and destiny as the teaching, only the Buddha's teachings have greatly flourished in China. Could Confucius's subtle meaning also have been awaiting the Buddha to bear witness to it? If not, what sage could there be in these hundred generations whose discourse on nature and destiny has flourished more abundantly and surpassed the Buddha? This makes it clear that Confucius's rectification of the Buddha has already shown its efficacy. Why must Han [Yu] doubt it? He also said: 'What Way is this? I say: This is what I call the Way, not what was previously referred to as the Way of Lao[zi] and the Buddha. Yao transmitted it to Shun; Shun transmitted it to Yu; Yu transmitted it to Tang; Tang transmitted it to Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius; Confucius transmitted it to Meng Ke; and upon Ke's death, it was not transmitted further.' According to this text of Han [Yu], he claimed that these nine sages and worthies—Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke—succeeded one another across generations, saw one another, and transmitted benevolence and righteousness in succession. But how could Yu and Tang, Tang and Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, or Confucius and Mencius have seen one another and personally received the transmission? One laughs at what classic or commentary Han [Yu] relied upon to make such a rash claim. Mencius said: 'From Shun and Yu to Tang was more than five hundred years; from Tang to King Wen was more than five hundred years; from King Wen to Confucius was more than five hundred years; from Confucius to the present is more than a hundred years.' Thus, the generations separating Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke were as distant and remote as this! Yet Han [Yu] disregarded canonical texts, blindly venerating what he claimed was transmitted in his desire to make his doctrine prevail by force, unaware of the emptiness of his writing. Can this not be called reckless and disorderly? Can Han [Yu]'s words still be trusted? The *Analects* says that when Yao was about to transmit the realm to Shun, he advised him, saying: 'Ah! You, Shun, the celestial calendar rests on your person. Sincerely hold fast to the Mean!' Shun also commanded Yu in this manner.