鐔津文集 16.10

16.10

韓子與孟簡尚書書曰。來示云。有人傳愈近少奉釋氏者。傳者之妄也。潮州時有一老僧號大顛。頗聰明識道理實能外形骸以理自勝。不為事物侵亂。要自以為難得。因與往來。及祭神至海上。遂造其廬。及來袁州留衣與之別。乃人之情。非崇信其法求福田利益也。噫韓子雖強為之言務欲自掩。豈覺其言愈多而其迹愈見。韓子謂大顛實能外形骸而以理自勝不為事物侵亂也者。韓子雖謂人情且爾。亦何免己信其法也矣。夫佛教至論乎福田利益者。正以順理為福。得性如法不為外物所惑。為最利益也。韓子與大顛游。其預談理論性。已廁其福田利益矣。韓子何不思以為感。乃復云云。吾少時讀大顛禪師書見其謂。韓子嘗問大顛曰。云何為道。大顛即默然良久。韓子未及諭旨。其弟子三平者遂擊其床大顛顧謂三平何為。三平曰。先以定動後以智拔。韓子即曰。愈雖問道於師。乃在此上人處得入。遂拜之。以斯驗韓子所謂以理自勝者是也。韓子雖巧說多端欲護其儒名。亦何以逃識者之所見笑耶。大凡事不知即已。不信即休。烏有知其道之如此。信其徒之如是。而反排其師忍毀其法。君子處心豈當然乎。大顛者佛之弟子也。佛者大顛之師也。夫弟子之道。固從其師之所得也。韓子善其弟子之道。而必斥其師。猶重人子孫之義方而輕其祖禰。孰謂韓子知禮乎。又曰。積善積惡殃慶各自以其類至。何有去聖人之道。捨先王之法。而從夷狄之教以求福利也。此韓子未之思也。夫聖人之道善而已矣。先王之法治而已矣。佛以五戒勸世。豈欲其亂耶。佛以十善導人。豈欲其惡乎。書曰。為善不同。同歸于治。是豈不然哉。若其教人解情妄捐身世。修潔乎神明。此乃吾佛大聖人之大觀。治其大患以神道設教者也。其為善抑又至矣深矣。廣大悉備矣。不可以世道輒較也。孔子曰。君子之於天下也。無適也無莫也。義之與比。義也者理也。謂君子理當即與不專此不蔑彼。韓子徒見佛教之迹。不睹乎佛教聖人之所以為教之理。宜其苟排佛老也。文中子曰。觀極讜議知佛教可以一矣。此固韓子之不知也。又曰。且彼佛者果何人哉。其行事類君子耶小人耶。若君子也。必不妄加禍於守道之人。如小人也。其身已死其鬼不靈云云。此乃韓子疑之之甚也。既未決其類君子小人。烏可輒便毀佛耶。其閭巷凡庸之人最為無識。欲相詬辱也。猶知先探彼所短果可罵者。乃始罵而揚之。今韓子疑佛。未辨其類。君子之長小人之短。便酷詆之。不亦暴而妄乎哉。幾不若彼閭巷之人為意之審也。謂佛為大聖人。猶不足以盡佛。況君子小人耶。雖古今愚鄙之人。皆知佛非可類夫君子小人。而韓子獨以君子小人類佛。又況疑之而自不決乎。誠可笑也。又曰。天地神祇昭布森列。非可誣也。又肯令其鬼行胸臆作威福於其間哉。夫天地神祇誠不可誣。固如韓子之言。但其欲賴天地神祇不令鬼作威福。此又韓子識理不至也。苟自知其所知詣理。理當斥斥之。理不當斥則不斥。知明則不待外助。理當則天地自順。吾輩於事是非抑揚。特資此矣。不類韓子外引神祇以為呪矢而賴之也。易曰。先天而天弗違。後天而奉天時。天且弗違。況於人乎。況於鬼神乎。韓子之徒。何嘗彷彿見乎聖人之心耶。劉昀唐書謂。韓輩抵排佛老於道未弘誠不私也。史臣之是非不謬也矣。

Hanzi's letter to Minister Meng Jian says: “Your letter states: 'Someone has reported that recently Yu has slightly honored the Buddhist religion.' This reporter was talking nonsense. While in Chaozhou, there was an old monk named Dadian, who was quite clever and understood principles. Truly capable of detaching from his physical body and mastering himself through principle, he was not intruded upon or disturbed by worldly things and affairs. Considering him in himself to be rare to find, I therefore associated with him. When going out to the sea to sacrifice to the deities, I then went to his hut. When coming to Yuanzhou, leaving my clothes to bid him farewell was merely human feeling, not honoring and having faith in his Dharma to seek the benefits of the field of merit.” Alas! Though Hanzi strained himself to make these words, striving to conceal himself, did he not realize that the more words he spoke, the more his traces were exposed? Hanzi said that Dadian was truly capable of detaching from his physical body and mastering himself through principle, not being intruded upon or disturbed by worldly things and affairs. Even though Hanzi said this was merely human feeling, how could he avoid having believed in his Dharma? Now when Buddhism speaks to the utmost of the benefits of the field of merit, it is precisely taking accord with principle as merit, and attaining one's nature in accordance with the Dharma without being deluded by external things as the greatest benefit. Hanzi associated with Dadian; when he took part in discussing principle and examining nature, he had already placed himself within its field of merit and its benefits. Why did Hanzi not reflect on this with gratitude, but instead said such things? In my youth, reading the records of Chan Master Dadian, I saw it said: Hanzi once asked Dadian, saying: “What is the Way?” Dadian remained silent for a good while. Before Hanzi could grasp the purport, his disciple Sanping struck the bed. Dadian turned and asked Sanping: “What was that for?” Sanping said: “First move with concentration; later uproot with wisdom.” Hanzi then said: “Although Yu asked about the Way from the Master, it was through this Superior One that I gained entry.” He thereupon bowed to him. This verifies that Hanzi's words about “mastering himself through principle” are indeed true. Although Hanzi spoke with many clever words wishing to protect his reputation as a Confucian, how could he escape being laughed at by those with discernment? In general, if one does not understand a matter, one leaves it at that; if one does not believe in it, one rests it. How could one know that their Way is like this, believe that their disciple is like this, and yet conversely reject their teacher and bear to defame their Dharma? How could a gentleman harbor such an intention? Dadian was a disciple of the Buddha; the Buddha was Dadian's teacher. Now the Way of a disciple is certainly attained from his teacher. Hanzi deemed the Way of the disciple good, but insisted on denouncing his teacher; this is like honoring the upright conduct of someone's descendants while scorning their ancestors. Who could say that Hanzi understands propriety? [Hanzi] also said: “The accumulation of good and the accumulation of evil bring calamity and blessing respectively, each according to its kind. Why should one abandon the Way of the sage, forsake the laws of the ancient kings, and follow the teaching of the barbarians to seek blessing and benefit?” This is something Hanzi did not reflect upon. Now the Way of the sages is goodness and nothing more; the laws of the ancient kings are good order and nothing more. The Buddha admonished the world with the five precepts: did he desire disorder? The Buddha guided people with the ten virtues: did he desire evil? The Book of Documents says: “The practices of goodness are different, but they all lead to good order.” How could this not be so? As for his teaching people to dissolve passions and delusions, renounce body and worldly existence, and cultivate purity of the spiritual luminescence—this is indeed the grand vision of our great sage, the Buddha, who cures great afflictions and establishes teachings by the spiritual way. His doing of good is furthermore supreme and profound, vast and complete in all respects. It cannot be compared offhand to worldly ways. Confucius said: “A gentleman toward all under Heaven has no set inclinations or aversions; he aligns with what is right.” “Rightness” is principle. This means that when the gentleman sees that principle is appropriate, he accords with it, neither adhering exclusively to this nor scorning that. Hanzi merely saw the external traces of Buddhism, but did not observe the principle by which the sage of Buddhism established the teachings. It was fitting that he thoughtlessly rejected the Buddhists and Daoists. Wenzhongzi said: “Observing the utmost straightforward discussions, one knows that Buddhism can be unified [with our Way].” This was certainly something Hanzi did not know. [Hanzi] also said: “Moreover, what kind of person was that Buddha really? Were his deeds akin to a gentleman or a petty man? If he was a gentleman, he would certainly not recklessly bring calamity upon one who keeps to the Way. If he was a petty man, his body is already dead and his ghost has no spiritual power,” and so forth. This was Hanzi's extreme doubt. Since he had not determined whether he was akin to a gentleman or a petty man, how could he rashly defame the Buddha? Even the most ignorant and ordinary people of the lanes and alleys, when wishing to revile each other, still know to first investigate the other's shortcomings to see if they truly can be scolded, and only then begin to scold and broadcast them. Now Hanzi doubted the Buddha, not having distinguished his kind—the strengths of a gentleman or the shortcomings of a petty man—and immediately denounced him harshly. Is this not violent and reckless? He was almost inferior to those people of the lanes and alleys in examining their thoughts! To call the Buddha a great sage is still not enough to describe the Buddha completely; how much less a gentleman or a petty man! Even foolish and base people throughout ancient and modern times all know that the Buddha cannot be compared to a gentleman or a petty man, yet Hanzi alone compared the Buddha to a gentleman or a petty man, and what is more, doubted it and could not determine it himself! It is truly laughable. [Hanzi] also said: “The spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth are clearly displayed and densely arrayed; they cannot be deceived. How could they willingly allow his ghost to act on its whims, displaying authority and dispensing blessing in their midst?” Now, the spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth truly cannot be deceived, just as Hanzi said. But his wanting to rely on the spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth not to let the ghost display authority and dispense blessing—this again shows that Hanzi's understanding of principle was not thorough. If one knows of oneself that what one knows attains principle, then if principle demands rejection, one rejects it; if principle does not demand rejection, one does not reject it. If one's knowledge is clear, it does not rely on external aid; if the principle is appropriate, Heaven and Earth will naturally accord with it. When we judge right and wrong, or praise and censure in matters, we uniquely rely on this. It is unlike Hanzi, who externally invoked deities as an oath and arrow to rely upon. The Book of Changes says: “He acts in advance of Heaven and Heaven does not contradict him; he follows Heaven and accords with the seasons of Heaven.” Even Heaven does not contradict him; how much less human beings, and how much less ghosts and spirits? How could the like of Hanzi ever have vaguely seen the mind of the sage? Liu Yun's Tang History states: “When Han and his peers attacked and rejected the Buddhists and Daoists, their Way was not yet broad, and truly they were not free from bias.” The historians' judgment of right and wrong was indeed not mistaken!