鐔津文集 16.26

16.26

韓子論佛骨表。以古之帝王運祚興亡其年壽長短校之。謂無佛時其壽祚自長。事佛則乃短。指梁武侯景之事。謂其事佛求福。迺更得禍。以激動其君也。當南北朝時。獨梁居江表垂五十年時稍小康。天子壽八十六歲。其為福亦至矣。春秋時。殺其君者謂有三十六。彼君豈皆禍生於事佛乎。韓子不顧其福而專以禍而誣佛。何其言之不公也。自古亂臣竊發。雖天地神祇而無如之何。豈梁必免耶。此韓子未識乎福之所以然也。夫禍福報應者。善惡為之根本也。佛之所以教人修福其正欲天下以心為善。而不欲其為惡也。猶曾子曰人之好善福雖未至去禍遠矣。人之為惡。凶雖未至去禍近矣。佛之意正爾。但以三世而校其報施者。曾氏差不及佛言之遠也。故其禍福之來。自有前有後。未可以一世求。苟以其壽祚之短謂事佛無效。欲人不必以佛法為則。洪範以五福皇極教人。合極則福而壽。反極則禍而凶短折。如漢之文景最為有王之道。何則孝文為天子纔二十三載。年四十七而死。孝景即位方十六載。年四十八而死。其曆數也。皆未及一世。其壽考也。皆未及下壽。豈謂孔子所說無驗而即不從其教耶。嗚呼聖人為教設法。皆欲世之為善而不為亂。未必在其壽祚之短長也。韓子謂。假如其身至今尚在。奉國命來朝。陛下接之不過宣政一見禮賓一設賜衣一襲。衛而出境不令惑眾也。況其身死已久。枯朽之骨凶穢之餘。豈可直入宮禁云云。此韓子蔑佛之太過也。佛雖非出於諸夏。然其神靈叡智。亦真古之聖人也。又安可概論其舍利與凡穢之骨同校也。雖中國之聖人如五帝三皇者。孰有更千歲而其骨不朽。況復其神奇殊異。有以與世為祥為福耶。此韓子亦宜稍思而公論也。昔有函孔子之履與王莽之首骨者。累世傳之。至晉泰熙之五載。因武庫火遂燔之。夫大善者莫若乎孔子之聖人也。大惡者莫若乎王莽之不肖也。前世存其迹而傳之。蓋示不忘其大善也。留誡其大惡也。古今崇佛靈骨者。其意蓋亦慕乎大善也。若前所謂不過禮賓一設者。是乃示其不知禮而待人無品也。借令佛非聖人。固亦異乎異域之眾人者。安可止以一衣一食而禮之也。昔季札由余入中國。而中國者以賢人之禮禮之。彼季札由余第世之人耳。未必如佛神靈而不測者也。至使其君待佛。而不若乎季札由余者也。孔子曰。事君欲諫不欲陳。謂不可揚君之過于外也。假或唐之天子以佛而為惡也。韓子乃當婉辭而密諫。況其君未果為惡。烏得訐激而暴揚其事乎。昔魏徵能諫。不能忘其言。書之以示史官。而識者少之。馬周垂死命焚其表草。曰管晏彰君之過。以求身後之名。吾弗為也。而君子賢之。若韓子之諫比魏徵。則未必為當留其表。使世得以傳其為謬。固又過於徵也。而全君之美。不及馬周之賢遠矣。又況君之所為未至為惡。而暴表論之。乃見斥流放抑留其說以自影其識智膚淺。播極醜于後世也。嗚呼。

In Master Han's memorial on the Buddha's relic bone, he compared the dynastic fortunes and the lengths of lifespans of ancient sovereigns, asserting that when there was no Buddha, their lifespans and dynastic fortunes were naturally long, whereas when serving the Buddha, they were short. Pointing to the affair of Emperor Wu of the Liang and Hou Jing, he claimed that in serving the Buddha to seek blessings, he instead incurred misfortune, using this to provoke his lord. During the Northern and Southern Dynasties, only the Liang occupied the region south of the Yangtze for nearly fifty years in modest prosperity, and the Son of Heaven lived to the age of eighty-six; his blessings were consummate indeed. In the Spring and Autumn period, thirty-six rulers are said to have been slain; did the misfortunes of all those rulers arise from serving the Buddha? Master Han ignored his blessings and focused solely on misfortune to slander the Buddha; how unfair his words are! Since ancient times, when rebellious ministers secretly arose, even the deities of heaven and earth could do nothing about it; could the Liang alone have been exempt? In this, Master Han failed to understand the cause of blessings. Now, retribution through misfortune and blessings has wholesome and unwholesome deeds as its root. That the Buddha teaches people to cultivate blessings is precisely because he desires that all under heaven take goodness to heart and does not desire that they do evil. It is just as Zengzi said: 'When a man loves the good, though blessing has not yet arrived, misfortune is far from him. When a man does evil, though calamity has not yet arrived, misfortune is close upon him.' The Buddha's intent is precisely this. It is only in comparing retribution and recompense across the three periods of existence that Master Zeng falls somewhat short of the far-reaching scope of the Buddha's words. Therefore, the coming of misfortune and blessing naturally has a former and a later; they cannot be sought within a single lifetime. If on account of shortness of lifespan or dynastic fortune one claims that serving the Buddha is ineffective and wishes that people need not take the Buddhadharma as their standard—[consider that] the 'Great Plan' teaches people through the five blessings and the royal ultimate: conforming to the ultimate brings blessings and longevity, while rebelling against the ultimate brings misfortune, calamity, and premature death. Take the emperors Wen and Jing of the Han, who best possessed the way of true kings: Filial Wen was Son of Heaven for only twenty-three years and died at forty-seven; Filial Jing had been on the throne for only sixteen years and died at forty-eight. Their reigns each fell short of a single generation, and their lifespans both fell short of the lower age of longevity. Could one say that what Confucius stated was unverified, and thus immediately refuse to follow his teachings? Alas! When sages formulate teachings and establish methods, they all desire that the world do good and not create chaos; it is not necessarily a matter of the length of their lifespans and dynastic fortunes. Master Han stated: 'Supposing he were still alive today and came to court on an official mission of his state, Your Majesty would receive him with no more than an audience at the Xuanzheng Hall, a single banquet from the Court of State Ceremonial, a bestowal of a suit of robes, and an escort out of the borders to prevent him from misleading the masses. How much more so when he has long been dead, and these are withered, rotten bones, the foul remnants of ill fortune—how could they enter directly into the palace precincts?' and so forth. In this, Master Han went much too far in disparaging the Buddha. Although the Buddha did not arise from the Central Plains, his divine spirit and perspicacious wisdom made him a true sage of antiquity. How can one sweeping statement equate his śarīra with ordinary, defiled bones? Even among the sages of China, such as the Five Thearchs and Three Sovereigns, who among them has bones that have not decayed after a thousand years, not to mention having miraculous and extraordinary qualities that bring auspicious signs and blessings to the world? Master Han ought to have reflected slightly and judged fairly on this. In ancient times, there were those who encased the shoes of Confucius and the skull of Wang Mang, transmitting them through successive generations until the fifth year of the Taixi era of the Jin, when they were burned in a fire at the armory. Now, as for great goodness, none compares to the sage Confucius; as for great evil, none compares to the unworthy Wang Mang. Past generations preserved their traces and handed them down surely to show that they did not forget great goodness and to leave a warning against great evil. Those of ancient and modern times who revere the wondrous bones of the Buddha also do so out of yearning for great goodness. As for what was said earlier about 'no more than a single banquet from the Court of State Ceremonial,' this shows that he did not know ritual and treated people without propriety. Even granting that the Buddha were not a sage, he was surely distinct from the common run of people from foreign lands; how could one observe etiquette toward him with merely a single suit of clothing and a single meal? In ancient times, when Jizha and Youyu entered China, China observed etiquette toward them with the rites due to worthy men. Those men, Jizha and Youyu, were merely worldly men; they were not necessarily possessed of divine and unfathomable spirit like the Buddha. Yet he would have his ruler treat the Buddha worse than Jizha and Youyu! Confucius said: 'In serving one's lord, one should remonstrate without laying open [his faults],' meaning that one must not proclaim one's lord's errors to the outside world. If the Tang Son of Heaven had done evil on account of the Buddha, Master Han should have used mild words and remonstrated in secret; how much more so when his lord had not actually committed an evil act—how could he attack, provoke, and blatantly expose the matter? In ancient times, Wei Zheng was able to remonstrate, but he could not forget his words; he wrote them down to show the court historians, and men of discernment belittled him for it. When Ma Zhou was near death, he ordered his draft memorials burned, saying: 'Guan [Zhong] and Yan [Ying] made their lords' faults conspicuous in order to seek a posthumous name; I will not do so.' And gentlemen deemed him worthy. If Master Han's remonstrance is compared to Wei Zheng's, it was not necessarily appropriate to preserve his memorial and allow the world to transmit his error, in which he indeed surpassed Zheng; and in preserving his lord's excellence, he fell far short of Ma Zhou's worthiness. How much more so when what his lord did did not amount to evil, yet he blatantly presented a memorial to denounce it; he was then demoted and banished, yet he left behind his statements to expose his own shallow knowledge and wisdom, broadcasting supreme ugliness to later generations. Alas!