鐔津文集 16.30

16.30

韓子斥潮州。其女拏從之。商南層峯驛遂死。其後移葬。韓子銘其壙。恨其路死。遂至罵佛。因曰。愈之少為秋官言。佛夷鬼其法亂治。梁武事之。卒有侯景之敗。可一掃刮絕去。不宜瀾漫。夫華夏有佛。古今賢愚雖匹夫匹婦莫不皆知佛非鬼。知其法不教人為凶惡以亂政治。而韓子獨以為鬼亂治。韓女自斃。何關乎佛。而韓子情泥私其女。至乃戾古今天下之人。褻酷乎不測之聖人。誣毀其法尤甚。列子謂。西方之人有聖者焉不治而不亂。不言而自信。不化而自行。蕩蕩乎民無能名焉。非此謂三王五帝三皇之言聖者也。宋文帝謂其群臣何尚之等曰。佛制五戒十善。若使天下皆遵此化。朕則垂致太平。韓子叢蔽而固不省此言也。又其作詩送澄觀而名之。詞意忽慢如規誨俗子小生。然澄觀者似是乎清涼國師。觀公謂詩詞有云。皆言澄觀雖僧徒。公才吏用當今無。又云。借問經營本何人。道人澄觀名籍籍。或云。別自一澄觀者。夫僧儒於其教名以道德。道德尊故有天子而不名高僧。唐之太宗以公稱玄奘是也。傳曰。盛德之士不名。太宗豈用此法耶。然春秋書名。非善之之意也。既贈之詩。特名呼而規刺之。豈其宜乎。縱非清涼國師已不當然。果在觀公益不可也。若觀法師者。自唐之代宗延禮問道。至乎文宗乃為其七朝帝者之師。其道德尊妙學識該通內外。壽百有餘歲。當其盛化之時。料韓氏方後生小官。豈敢以此詩贈之。是必韓子以觀公道望尊大。當佛教之徒冠首假之為詩示其輕慢。卑抑佛法之意氣。而惑學者趨尚之志耳。非真贈觀者也。韓子雖漫然不顧道理可否橫斥於佛。殊不知并其君與其本朝祖宗而辱之也。禮不敢齒君輅。馬蹴其芻有罰。見君之几杖則起。過君之車乘即下。尊敬其君故也。適韓子乃特慢忽其君之師。天子嘗所禮貌之者。其於禮義何若也。如德宗皇帝誕聖節賜輩延之內殿談法廣敷新經。帝時默湛海印朗然大覺。誡於群臣曰。朕之師。言雅而簡。詞典而富。扇真風於第一義天。能以聖法清涼朕心。仍以清涼賜為國師之號。然法師道德位貌若此尊嚴。可侮而失禮君師之德義乎。不唯無禮其君師與朝廷。抑又發乎後生小子輕薄之心。吾知而今而後天下不遵禮義。忽慢道德之士。其輕薄之風自韓子始也。

When Master Han was banished to Chaozhou, his daughter Na followed him and died at the Cengfeng Postal Station in Shangnan. Later, when reburying her, Master Han wrote an epitaph for her tomb; grieving that she died on the road, he went so far as to revile the Buddha, declaring: 'When Yu was young and served as a judicial official, he said that the Buddha was a barbarian ghost whose teachings bring disorder to governance. Emperor Wu of the Liang served him and in the end suffered the defeat by Hou Jing. He should be swept away, scraped clean, and eradicated completely; he must not be allowed to spread unchecked.' Now, China has had the Buddha, and throughout ancient and modern times, whether wise or foolish, even common men and women all know that the Buddha was no ghost and know that his teachings do not instruct people to commit atrocities and throw governance into disorder. Yet Master Han alone considered him a ghost who brought disorder to governance. Master Han's daughter died of herself; what had this to do with the Buddha? Yet Master Han, blinded by personal affection for his daughter, went so far as to oppose the people of the whole world throughout ancient and modern times, brutally desecrating an unfathomable sage and slandering his teachings with extreme severity. Liezi said: 'Among the people of the west there is a sage; he does not govern, yet there is no disorder; he does not speak, yet he is spontaneously trusted; he does not transform, yet [the Way] is spontaneously practiced. So vast is he that the people can find no name for him.' This was not spoken of the sages among the Three Kings, Five Thearchs, and Three Sovereigns. Emperor Wen of the Song said to his ministers He Shangzhi and others: 'The Buddha established the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds; if all under heaven were brought to follow this transformation, I would effortlessly bring about the Great Peace.' Master Han was deeply obscured and stubbornly failed to reflect upon these words. Furthermore, when he composed a poem to see off Chengguan, he addressed him by name, and his phrasing was contemptuous and haughty, like reproving and instructing a vulgar fellow or an inexperienced youngster. Now, this Chengguan seems to have been National Preceptor Qingliang. With regard to Master Guan, the lines of the poem say: 'All say that though Chengguan is among the monastic throng, / For ministerial talent and administrative skill, today he has no equal.' It also says: 'May I ask who it was that originally managed this? / The man of the Way Chengguan, whose reputation is widely recorded.' Some say it was another Chengguan. Now, both monks and Confucians in their respective teachings are renowned for their virtue; because their virtue is revered, there are Sons of Heaven who do not address eminent monks by personal name. Taizong of the Tang referring to Xuanzang with the honorific gong is an example of this. The commentary states: 'A gentleman of consummate virtue is not addressed by name.' Did Taizong not apply this rule? Now, when the Spring and Autumn Annals records a personal name, it is not with the intent of commending him. When he presented him with a poem, specifically calling him by name and reproving and pricking him—how could that be appropriate? Even if he was not National Preceptor Qingliang, this would already be improper; if it was indeed Master Guan, it was all the more impermissible! As for Master of the Dharma Guan, from the time Emperor Daizong of the Tang invited him with courtesy to inquire about the Way down to Emperor Wenzong, he served as preceptor to the emperors of seven reigns. His virtue was revered and wondrous, and his learning and insight thoroughly mastered the internal and external; he lived to over a hundred years of age. At the peak of his flourishing transformation, one can reckon that Master Han was merely a youthful petty official; how would he have dared present him with such a poem? Master Han must have seen that Master Guan's moral prestige was revered and immense, standing at the head of the Buddhist fold, and used him fictitiously to compose the poem to display his own slight and disdain, showing his spirit of debasing the Buddhadharma and misleading the aspiring minds of scholars; it was not genuinely presented to Guan. Although Master Han recklessly and without regard for whether the principle was permissible broad-mindedly reviled the Buddha, he was utterly unaware that he was thereby insulting his own ruler and the ancestral sovereigns of his own dynasty. The Book of Rites says that one does not dare to mention the horses of the lord's carriage; if a horse treads on their fodder, there is punishment. When one sees the lord's armrest or staff, one stands up; when passing the lord's carriage, one alights. This is out of reverence for one's lord. Yet Master Han went so far as to blatantly slight and disdain his lord's preceptor, someone to whom the Son of Heaven had consistently extended polite courtesy; what became of his propriety and righteousness? For instance, on the imperial birthday of Emperor Dezong, he bestowed a carriage to invite him to the inner palace to expound the Dharma and broadly set forth the new scriptures. At that time, the Emperor silently plunged into the oceanic seal samādhi and was clearly and greatly awakened. He admonished his gathered ministers, saying: 'My preceptor's words are elegant and concise; his expressions are canonical and rich. He fans the true wind in the heaven of supreme truth, and is able to refresh my heart with the sacred Dharma.' Thereupon he bestowed upon him the title of National Preceptor Qingliang ('Refreshing'). Now, when a Dharma master's virtue, position, and presence are as venerable as this, could one insult him and abandon the virtuous righteousness due to the ruler's preceptor? Not only was he disrespectful to his ruler's preceptor and the imperial court, but he also aroused frivolous minds among younger generations. I know that henceforth the failure of the world to follow propriety and righteousness and its contempt for men of virtue—this frivolous trend began with Master Han.