鐔津文集 14.6.6

14.6.6

而堯舜禹其傳授如此。 未聞止傳仁義而已。 至于湯文武周公孔子孟軻之世。 亦皆以中道皇極相募而相承也。 中庸曰。 從容中道聖人也。 孟子亦曰。 中道而立能者從之。 豈不然哉。 如其不修誠不中正。 其人果仁義乎。 如其誠且中正。 果亡仁義耶。 韓子何其未知夫善有本而事有要也。 規規滯迹不究乎聖人之道奧耶。 韓氏其說數端。 大率推乎人倫天常與儒治世之法。 而欲必破佛乘道教。 嗟夫韓子徒守人倫之近事。 而不見乎人生之遠理。 豈暗內而循外歟。 夫君臣父子昆弟夫婦者資神而生。 神有善惡之習而與神皆變。 善生人倫惡生異類。 斯人循法不循法。 皆蔽一世茫乎未始知其身世今所以然也。 謂生必死死而遂滅。 乃恣欲快其一世。 雖內自欺亦莫知愧乎神明焉。 及乎佛法教人內省不滅。 必以善法修心。 要其生生不失於人倫益修十善蓋取乎天倫。 其人乃知其萬世事之所以然。 上下千餘載中國無賢愚無貴賤。 高下者遂翕然以佛說自化。 縱未全十善而慎罪募福信有冥報。 則皆知其心不可欺。 此屬幾滿天下。 今里巷處處所見者。 縱然佛猶於高城重垣闢其門而與人通其往來者。 若於大暗之室揭其窓牖而與人內外之明也。 比以詩書而入善者。 而以佛說入者。 益普益廣也。 比以禮義修身名當世者。 而以善自內修入神者切親也。 益深益遠也。 較其不煩賞罰居家自修。 其要省國刑法而陰助政治。 其效多矣。 此不按而不覺耳。 彼悟浮生謂死生為夢為幻。 而出家修潔以其道德報父母為重甘旨之勤為輕者。 是亦生人萬分而其一乃爾也。 雖然猶制其得減衣資以養其親。 非容其果棄父母也。 夫佛之設法如此。 其於世善之耶惡之乎。 其於人倫有開益耶無濟益歟。 與儒之治道其理教乎順耶。 韓子屬蓋深探而遠詳之。 老子之教雖其法漸奧與佛不侔。 若其教人無為無欲恬淡謙和。 蓋出於三皇五帝之道也。 烏可與楊墨概而排之。 孔子以列聖大中之道斷天下之正為魯春秋。 其善者善之。 惡者惡之。 不必乎中國夷狄也。 春秋曰。 徐伐莒。 徐本中國者也。 既不善則夷狄之。 曰齊人狄人盟于刑。 狄人本夷狄人也。 既善則中國之。 聖人尊中國而卑夷狄者。 非在疆土與其人耳。 在其所謂適理也。 故曰。 君子之於天下也。 無適也無莫也。 義之與比。 若佛之法方之世善。 可謂純善大善也。 在乎中道其可與乎可拒乎。 苟不以聖人中道而裁其善惡正其取舍者。 乃庸人愛惡之私不法。 何足道哉。

Thus the transmission among Yao, Shun, and Yu was like this; we have not heard that it was merely the transmission of benevolence and righteousness alone. Reaching down to the eras of Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke, they also all emulated and succeeded one another through the Middle Way and the Grand Polarity. The *Zhongyong* says: 'He who naturally and easily embodies the Middle Way is a sage.' Mencius also said: 'Standing in the Middle Way, those who are able follow him.' How could it not be so? If one does not cultivate sincerity and is not balanced and correct, could that person truly be benevolent and righteous? If one is sincere, balanced, and correct, could benevolence and righteousness truly be lacking? How is it that Han [Yu] did not know that goodness has its root and affairs have their essentials, rigidly clinging to outer traces and failing to investigate the deep subtleties of the sages' Way? Master Han presented several arguments, for the most part promoting human relations, heavenly norms, and the Confucian methods for ordering the world, intending thereby to overthrow the Buddha Vehicle and the Daoist teaching. Alas, Han [Yu] merely adhered to the immediate affairs of human relations, failing to see the distant principle of human life. Is this not being blind to the internal while following the external? Ruler and minister, father and son, elder and younger brothers, husband and wife—these are born dependent upon the spirit. The spirit has habits of good and evil, and changes along with the spirit: goodness gives birth to human relations; evil gives birth to other species. Whether these people follow the law or do not follow the law, they are all blinded by this single lifetime, completely ignorant from the beginning of why their current body and existence are as they are. Thinking that life inevitably leads to death and that death means total extinction, they indulge their desires to enjoy their single lifetime; although deceiving themselves inwardly, they feel no shame before the gods. But when the Buddha's Dharma teaches people to reflect inwardly without extinction, they must cultivate their minds through wholesome methods, ensuring that in life after life they do not lose the human realm, and by further cultivating the ten virtues they aspire to the heavenly realm. Only then do people understand the reason behind affairs of myriad generations. For more than a thousand years, throughout China, whether wise or foolish, noble or base, high and low have harmoniously transformed themselves through the Buddha's teachings. Even if they have not perfected the ten virtues, they are cautious about sin, aspire to blessings, and believe in unseen retribution; thus all know that their own minds cannot be deceived. People of this sort almost fill the world; they are seen everywhere in the lanes and neighborhoods today. Even so, the Buddha opening doors in high citadels and double walls to let people come and go is like cutting windows and apertures in a pitch-black room to give people light both inside and out. Compared to those who enter goodness through the *Odes* and *Documents*, those who enter through the Buddha's teachings are vastly more widespread and comprehensive. Compared to those who cultivate the body through ritual and righteousness to gain a reputation in their contemporary age, those who cultivate themselves inwardly through goodness to enter into spirit are much more intimate, profound, and far-reaching. When we compare how, without troubling with rewards and punishments, people cultivate themselves at home—the essential thing is that it reduces the state's penal laws and secretly aids governance; its effects are abundant! This is simply not realized if not examined. Those who awaken to the fleeting nature of life, regarding birth and death as a dream and an illusion, and who leave home to cultivate purity—regarding repaying parents with virtue and the Way as heavy, and the toil of providing delicacies as light—amount to only one in ten thousand among the living. Even so, the precepts still allow them to reduce their own clothing and provisions to support their parents; they by no means permit them to truly abandon their parents. When the Buddha established the Dharma in this manner, is it good or evil for the world? Does it bring benefit or no aid to human relations? With respect to the Confucian way of governance, is its principle compliant or rebellious? Han [Yu] and his ilk should have investigated this deeply and scrutinized it afar! Although the teaching of Laozi is gradually esoteric and not equal to the Buddha's, in that it teaches people non-action, freedom from desire, tranquility, and humble harmony, it genuinely originated from the Way of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. How could it be rejected along with Yang Zhu and Mozi indiscriminately? Confucius used the Way of the Great Mean of the successive sages to judge what was correct in the realm when compiling the *Spring and Autumn Annals* of Lu. What was good he praised as good; what was evil he condemned as evil; he did not distinguish simply by China and barbarian. The *Spring and Autumn Annals* says: 'Xu attacked Ju.' Xu was originally part of China, but since its action was not good, he treated it as barbarian. It says: 'The men of Qi and the Di people made a covenant at Xing.' The Di people were originally barbarians, but since their action was good, he treated them as part of China. That the Sage honored China and looked down upon barbarians was not a matter of territory or persons; it lay in what accorded with principle. Therefore it is said: 'The gentleman, in his relations with the world, has no predilections and no rejections; he aligns with righteousness.' If we compare the Buddha's Dharma to worldly goodness, it may be called pure goodness and great goodness. In terms of the Middle Way, should it be embraced or should it be rejected? If one does not use the sages' Middle Way to judge good and evil and rectify what to accept and reject, it is merely the unauthorized prejudice of ordinary people's likes and dislikes—what is it worth mentioning?