鐔津文集 8.15.3

8.15.3

是二者始知佛之所以為聖人也。 故其為法為言。 乃能感天地而懷鬼神幽冥。 要其法欽其言。 而古人嘗發於巫覡卜祝接於夢寐者。 固亦多矣。 河海方波濤𭰔湧其舟欲沒人之欲溺。 及投佛之經則波清水平民得無害。 民欲暘若以其法而禱之天地。 而天地暘。 民欲雨若以其法而禱之。 尠不之效。 然其遺風餘法。 與天下為福為祥而如此。 此又人耳目之所常接者也。 與　陛下禋天地祀社稷禱乎百神而與民為福者。 何以異乎。 祭法曰。 法施於民則祀之。 能禦大菑能捍大患則祀之。 若今佛法也。 上則密資天子之道德。 次則與天下助教化。 其次則省刑獄。 又其次則與天下致福却禍。 以先王之法裁之。 可斥乎可事乎。 然儒者以佛道為異端。 惡其雜儒術以妨聖人之道行乃比楊墨俗法而排之。 是亦君子之誤也。 而佛老與孔周。 自古帝王並用其教以治其世。 俗幾乎百代。 是佛之教巍巍然關乎天地人神。 豈以楊墨為比。 蓋論者未思其所以相妨之謂也。 大凡其事異而意異者鮮能濟事。 意同而事不同者鮮不濟事。 夫於事不濟乃謂相妨而濟事。 豈謂相妨乎。 今佛者其教固同。 導人而為善。 雖其所作者而有前後。 蓋以前後而相資也。 孰謂有妨聖人之道乎。 若夫儒經有與佛經意似者。 數端含而蘊之。 若待佛教而發明之。 然意密且遠。 而後儒注解牽於教。 不能遠見聖人之奧旨。 豈非傳所謂夫子之文章可得而聞也。 夫子之言性與天道。 不可得而聞也。 今試較之亦幸　陛下垂之學者。 若中庸曰。 自誠明謂之性。 自明誠謂之教。 是豈不與經所謂實性一相者似乎。 中庸但道其誠。 未始盡其所以誠也。 及乎佛氏演其所以誠者。 則所謂彌法界遍萬有。 形天地幽鬼神。 而常示而天地鬼神不見所以者。 此言其大略耳。 若其重玄疊妙之謂則群經存焉。 此疑若與聖人廣其誠說而驗之乎。 孔子曰。 質諸鬼神而無疑。 而百世以俟聖人而無惑。 其意豈非如此也。 又曰。 惟天下至誠能盡其性。 能盡其性則能盡人之性。 盡人之性則盡物之性。 以至與天地參耳。 是蓋明乎天地人物其性通也。 豈不與佛教所謂萬物同一真性者似乎。 中庸雖謂其大同。 而未發其所以同也。 及佛氏推其所以同。 則謂萬物其本皆一清淨。 及其染之遂成人也物也。 乃與聖人者差異。 此所謂同而異。 異而同者也。 明其同所以使其求本以修迹趨乎聖人之道也。 明其異所以使其修迹而復本不敢濫乎聖人之道德也。 其又曰至誠無息。 不息則久。 久則徵。 徵則悠遠以至悠久。 所以成物博厚配地。 高明配天。 悠久無疆如此者不見而章。 不動而變。 無為而成。 天地之道可一言而盡矣。 豈不與佛所謂法界常住不增不減者似乎。 中庸其意尚謙。 未踰其天地者也。 及佛氏所論法界者。 謂其廣大靈明而包裹乎十方者也。 其謂博厚高明。 豈止與天地相配而已矣。 經曰。 不知色身外洎山河大地虛空咸是妙明真心中物。 豈不然乎。 而孔子未發之者。 蓋尊天地而欲行其教也。 其所謂悠久所以成物。 是亦可求其包含之意耳。 其又曰。 其為物不貳則其生物不測。 天地之道博也厚也高也明也悠也久也。 今夫天斯昭昭之多。 及其無窮也。 日月星辰繫焉。 萬物覆焉。 以至夫地一撮土之多云云者。 是豈不與佛教所謂世界之始乃有光明風輪先色界天其後有安住風輪成乎天地者似乎。 中庸雖尊其所以生。 而未見其所以生也。 及佛氏謂乎天地山河之所以生者。 其本由夫群生心識之所以變。 乃生此諸有為之相耳。 故經曰。 想澄成國土。 知覺乃眾生。 孔子所謂其為物不二。 其生物不測者。 似此而不疑。 亦以分明者也。 若洪範五福六極之說者。 此儒者極言其報應者也。 嘗竊考之其意微旨。

From these two [rulers], one begins to see why the Buddha is a sage. Therefore, his teachings and his words can move heaven and earth and embrace the ghosts, spirits, and the unseen realm. Seeking out his teachings and revering his words, the ancients often gave expression [to them] through shamans, diviners, and invocators, and encountered [them] in dreams—such [instances] were indeed numerous. When rivers and seas churn with surging waves, their boats on the verge of sinking and people on the brink of drowning, once they cast forth a Buddhist sūtra, the waves grow calm, the waters level, and the common people escape harm. When the people desire fair weather, if they pray to heaven and earth with his rites, heaven and earth become fair. When the people desire rain, if they pray with his rites, rarely does it fail to be effective. Thus, his lingering influence and remaining methods bring fortune and auspiciousness to the world like this. This, too, is what people's ears and eyes constantly encounter. How does this differ from Your Majesty performing the yin sacrifice to heaven and earth, offering sacrifices to the altars of soil and grain, praying to the hundred spirits, and bringing blessings to the people? The 'Sacrificial Regulations' state: 'If a practice confers benefits upon the people, sacrifices are made to it; if it can ward off great disasters and defend against great calamities, sacrifices are made to it.' In the case of the present Buddhist teaching, at the highest level, it secretly assists the virtue of the Son of Heaven; next, it aids education and moral transformation for the realm; next, it lessens punishments and legal trials; and next, it brings blessings and wards off calamities for the realm. If we judge it by the laws of the ancient kings, should it be rejected, or should it be served? Yet Confucians consider the Buddhist way to be a heterodoxy; abhorring that it mixes with Confucian arts and hinders the practice of the sages' Way, they compare it to the mundane ways of Yang Zhu and Mo Di and reject it. This, too, is an error of superior persons. Yet the Buddha and Laozi, along with Confucius and the Duke of Zhou—emperors and kings since antiquity have employed their teachings side by side to govern their realms, and this custom has endured for nearly a hundred generations. The teaching of the Buddha is lofty and majestic, concerning heaven, earth, humans, and spirits—how could it be compared to Yang and Mo? The critics have simply not reflected on what is meant by 'hindering one another.' In general, when matters differ and their intents differ, they rarely accomplish anything; when the intent is the same though the matters differ, they rarely fail to accomplish things. Now, when matters fail, that is what is called hindering one another; but when they accomplish things, how can it be called hindering one another? Now, the teachings of the Buddha are inherently the same: they guide people to do good. Although their works arose earlier and later, the earlier and later mutually assist each other. Who can say that they hinder the Way of the sages? As for places where the Confucian classics share similar intentions with Buddhist sūtras, several points contain and conceal [these ideas], as if waiting for the Buddhist teaching to elucidate them. Yet the intent is profound and far-reaching, and later Confucians, constrained by their teachings when writing commentaries, were unable to perceive from afar the sage's profound intent. Is this not what the transmission meant by: 'The Master's cultural teachings may be heard, but the Master's words on human nature and the Way of Heaven cannot be heard'? Now let me briefly compare them, also hoping that Your Majesty will deign to bestow this upon scholars. For instance, the Zhongyong states: 'From sincerity comes illumination—this is called nature; from illumination comes sincerity—this is called teaching.' Is this not similar to what the sūtras call 'the one mark of the real nature'? The Zhongyong only speaks of sincerity, but never fully explains that by which it is sincere. When the Buddhists elaborate on that by which it is sincere, it is said to suffuse the Dharma realm, pervade all existing things, give form to heaven and earth, and work mysteriously through ghosts and spirits; yet while constantly manifested, heaven, earth, ghosts, and spirits do not perceive its source. This speaks only of its broad outlines. As for what is called layered profundity and repeated wonder, they are preserved in the various sūtras. Might this not be considered to broaden the sage's discourse on sincerity and verify it? Confucius said: 'It is tested against ghosts and spirits and finds no doubt; it awaits a sage for a hundred generations and meets no perplexity.' Is this not what he intended? It also says: 'Only the utmost sincerity under heaven can fully develop its nature. Being able to fully develop its nature, it can fully develop the nature of others. Developing the nature of others, it can fully develop the nature of things, reaching even to standing as a triad with heaven and earth.' This clearly illuminates that the nature of heaven, earth, humans, and things is interconnected. Is this not similar to what the Buddhist teaching calls 'all things share one and the same true nature'? Although the Zhongyong speaks of their great unity, it has not revealed that by which they are unified. When the Buddhists infer that by which they are unified, they say that the root of all things is singularly pure; when defilements occur, they then become human beings and things, thereby differing from the sages. This is what is meant by 'the identical yet different, the different yet identical.' Clarifying their identity is the means to cause them to seek the root so as to cultivate outer traces and advance toward the Way of the sages. Clarifying their difference is the means to cause them to cultivate outer traces and return to the root, not daring to overstep the virtue of the sages. It further states: 'Utmost sincerity is ceaseless. Ceaseless, it endures long; enduring long, it is verified; verified, it is far-reaching, and thus endures forever. That by which it completes things is broad and thick, matching Earth; high and brilliant, matching Heaven; enduring forever without boundary. Being like this, without showing itself it manifests; without moving it transforms; without doing it accomplishes. The Way of heaven and earth can be stated in a single word.' Is this not similar to what the Buddha calls 'the Dharma realm is eternally abiding, neither increasing nor decreasing'? The intent of the Zhongyong remains modest and does not transcend heaven and earth. When the Buddhists discuss the Dharma realm, they say it is vast, spiritually luminous, and encompasses the ten directions. When they speak of 'broad and thick, high and brilliant,' how could it be merely matched with heaven and earth? A sūtra states: 'They do not know that outside the physical body, extending to the mountains, rivers, the great earth, and empty space, all are things within the wondrously bright true mind.' How could it be otherwise? That Confucius did not reveal this was because he revered heaven and earth and wished to practice his teaching. His speaking of 'enduring forever, by which things are completed' can also be sought in its encompassing meaning. It further states: 'Its being as a thing is not double, so its generation of things is unfathomable. The Way of heaven and earth is broad, thick, high, brilliant, far-reaching, and long-enduring. Now, heaven is as much as this manifold brightness, yet when it comes to its infinity, the sun, moon, stars, and constellations are suspended from it, and the myriad things are covered by it. Down to earth being as much as a handful of soil,' and so forth. Is this not similar to what the Buddhist teaching calls 'at the beginning of a world there is the luminous wind-circle preceding the heavens of the form realm, and thereafter there is the stable wind-circle that forms heaven and earth'? Although the Zhongyong reveres that by which they are generated, it does not perceive that by which they are generated. When the Buddhists speak of that by which heaven, earth, mountains, and rivers are generated, their root arises from the transformations of the mind-consciousness of sentient beings, which then give birth to all these conditioned marks. Therefore, a sūtra states: 'Thoughts settled form the realms and lands; awareness and perception are sentient beings.' What Confucius called 'its being as a thing is not double, so its generation of things is unfathomable' resembles this without doubt and is also quite clear. As for the discourse on the five blessings and the six extremities in the Hongfan, this is the Confucians speaking to the utmost of karmic retribution. I have ventured to examine its subtle purport.