鐔津文集 8.15.4

8.15.4

若關乎佛氏所云其三界者也。 注疏者亦牽於教。 不復能遠推之。 豈為然也。 其一曰。 凶短折壽。 其五曰。 惡惡醜也。 若有殤子者。 纔生則死。 豈亦惡政所加而致凶短折耶。 蓋人生其相狀妍醜者。 乃父母所生其形素定。 豈必謂當世惡政而致之乎。 然聖人含其意而未發者。 豈不以人情便近而昧遠。 未即以他生語之疑。 其亦有所待者也。 及乎佛教。 謂人生之美惡適以其往世修與不修致如此也。 此世修與不修。 則其美惡之報復在其後世耳。 用此以求孔子之意。 可盡也。 若繫辭曰。 原始要終故有死生之說。 精氣為物游魂為變。 是故知鬼神之情狀。 是豈不與佛氏所謂生死者皆以神識出沒諸趣者似乎。 孔子略言。 蓋其發端耳。 及佛氏所明夫生死變化者。 非謂天地造化自然耳。 蓋生死者各以其業感為人為鬼神為異類。 而其生死變化之所以然者。 于此不亦益明乎。 詩曰。 神之格思。 不可度思。 矧可射思。 書曰。 茲致多生先哲王在天。 是不唯聖人但欲致敬於鬼神耳。 亦意謂人之精明不滅。 不可不治之也。 此與佛教人人為德為善資神以清升者何以異乎。 孔子但不顯說耳。 及佛氏則推而盡之矣。 晉書。 王坦之與竺法師相約報驗之事。 其亦明矣。 佛教其言不虛。 多此類也。 而如此數說者皆造其端於儒。 而廣推效於佛。 豈聖人自以冥數潛通不使人而輒識乎。 不爾何其道理之相貫如此也。 漢書曰。 蓋遵俗無方適物異會取諸同歸指諸疑說。 則大道通耳。 豈不然乎。 而列子亦謂。 孔子嘗曰。 西方之人有聖者焉。 不治而不亂。 不言不自信。 不化而自行。 蕩蕩乎民無能名焉。 然列子之說雖不載於五經六籍。 蓋尊中國聖人以立教。 或雖有其言而不宜書之。 諸子得以誌之耶。 此儒佛不可相非。 又益明矣。 抑又聞佛謂於其道未有了者謂之權教。 於其道了然者謂之實教。 實者受人以頓。 權者受人以漸。 所謂人天乘者蓋言其漸之漸者也。 今以儒五常之教較之。 正與其五教十善人天乘者同也。 豈儒之聖人不亦以佛之權者而教人以漸乎。 佛經所謂孔子乃是昔儒童聖人焉。 或其然也。 故傳曰。 可與適道未可與權。 權者不亦甚而不易知乎。 然佛法播此。 故亦已久矣。 見重於人君臣之聖賢者。 胡可勝數。 而陛下之聖祖。 宗奉其法而張之。 其又過於古之天子也。 先皇帝至聖最知。 其然雖作崇釋論廣之。 今　陛下明聖。 又悉究其道妙天下方向風慕德。 欲因　陛下而以佛為善也。 世之學者何其未知信也。 然雖大公之世可以顯大道。 大明之人可以斷大疑。 今　陛下聖人誠大明也　陛下盛世誠大公也。 而正夫儒佛二聖人之道斷天下之疑。 豈不屬　陛下今日耳。 某幸　陛下出其書與公卿詳之。 苟其說不甚謬妄。 願垂天下使儒者儒之佛者佛之。 各以其法贊　陛下之化治如前所論。 遺為萬世定鑒而後制絕其相訾之說。 俾佛法而更始自　陛下聖朝。 是不唯佛之徒之幸。 抑亦天下生靈之幸豈唯生靈之幸。 亦天下鬼神之大慶也。 抑又聞　陛下存佛教於天下者。 必欲其與生為福之。 効天下之人以為其徒者。 必欲行其教法也。 欲其教行則必欲以其法而導人為善也。 如此則天下為善為福誠繫於其法。 法行與否誠繫於其徒也。 是以天下務其徒而為急。 苟存其法而其徒不得其人。 其法亦何以為効也。 易曰。 苟非其人道不虛行。 豈不然哉。 然則得人在制其徒。 及其時而學習之使成其器。 及其時則其學習易成人。 過其時則其教諭難入也。 昔佛制使人年盈二十。 乃使得受具足戒出家則聽以其沙彌從事沙彌者蓋容以其童子而出家也。 其意以後世其人根器益鈍而頓解者鮮。 必資其早教少習。 及其心未濫而漸之於道也。 二十乃得受具足戒者。

[These things] pertain to what the Buddhists speak of as the three realms. The commentators, too, have been constrained by their own tradition, no longer able to trace them back deeply. How could that be right? The first [misfortune in the *Great Plan*] is called 'calamitous early death'; the fifth is called 'ugliness'. If there is a child dying in infancy, who dies just after being born, how could that be brought about by the afflictions of a wicked government so as to cause a calamitous early death? And as for human beings born with attractive or ugly features, these forms are endowed by their parents and determined from the outset; how must one claim that they are brought about by a wicked government of the present age? The sages concealed this meaning and did not set it forth—was this not because human sentiment is comfortable with what is near and blind to what is distant, so they did not immediately speak to them of other lifetimes, perhaps waiting for the right moment? When it comes to the teachings of the Buddha, it is said that whether human life is fair or foul is precisely brought about by cultivation or lack of cultivation in past lifetimes; whether one cultivates or not in this lifetime, the retribution of beauty or ugliness will return in future lifetimes. If one seeks Confucius's meaning through this, it can be fully understood. As the 'Appended Statements' say: 'Tracing things to their origins and following them to their ends, one therefore possesses explanations of death and life. The gathering of essence and qi constitutes things; the wandering soul constitutes change. It is for this reason that one knows the conditions of ghosts and spirits.' Is this not similar to what the Buddhists mean when they say that death and life are entirely the consciousness emerging and submerging through various destinies? Confucius spoke briefly, merely providing an initial opening; when it comes to what the Buddha illuminated regarding death, life, and transformation, it is not merely the natural process of Heaven and Earth's creation. Rather, death and life are each brought about by karmic resonance—becoming human, ghost, spirit, or other types of beings. Is not the reason behind this death, life, and transformation made all the more evident here? The *Classic of Odes* says: 'The arrival of the spirits cannot be calculated, how much less treated with contempt!' The *Classic of Documents* says: 'This brings the many deceased former wise kings who are in Heaven.' This was not merely the sages wishing to extend reverence to ghosts and spirits; it also implied that the luminosity of human essence is never extinguished and cannot be left uncultivated. How does this differ from the Buddhist teaching that everyone should cultivate virtue and goodness so as to sustain the spirit to ascend in purity? Confucius merely did not state it explicitly, whereas the Buddha traced it to its utmost conclusion. In the *Book of Jin*, the matter of the agreement between Wang Tanzhi and Master Zhu regarding the verification [of karmic retribution] is also clear. The words of Buddhism are not empty; there are many such instances. Several such theories had their beginnings in Confucianism and their broad verification in Buddhism. Could it be that the sages, secretly attuned through hidden principle, did not allow people to discern it readily? Otherwise, how could their principles be so consistent with one another? The *Book of Han* says: 'Following customs without rigid norms, adapting to things in their diverse encounters, drawing together what converges in unity, and resolving doubtful doctrines—then the Great Way will penetrate.' How could this not be so? Furthermore, Liezi also stated that Confucius once 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!' Although this statement in *Liezi* is not recorded in the Five Classics and the Six Canonical Books, this was because [Confucius's followers] revered the sages of the Middle Kingdom to establish their teaching; or perhaps, though such words existed, they were not deemed suitable to be recorded in them, and so the various masters were able to record them. From this, that Confucianism and Buddhism must not negate each other becomes even clearer. Moreover, I have heard that when the Buddha found that someone had not yet fully penetrated his Way, he called it the provisional teaching; when someone had penetrated his Way clearly, he called it the real teaching. The real receives people abruptly; the provisional receives people gradually. What is called the vehicle of humans and devas refers to the most gradual of gradual paths. If we now compare it with the Confucian teaching of the Five Constant Virtues, it is precisely the same as the vehicle of humans and devas with its five precepts and ten virtuous deeds. Did not the Confucian sages also use the Buddha's provisional means to instruct people gradually? In the Buddhist sūtras it is said that Confucius was formerly the Sage Youth of Classical Learning (Māṇava); perhaps this was so. Therefore the commentary says: 'One may set out on the Way with someone, but one cannot yet weigh provisional circumstances with them.' Is not the provisional exceedingly difficult to fathom? Furthermore, the Buddhadharma has spread here for a very long time. How can one count all the sages and worthies among rulers and ministers who have revered it? And Your Majesty's holy ancestors honored and propagated its teachings, surpassing even the emperors of antiquity. The Late Emperor, supremely holy and most understanding, even though he composed the *Chongshenglun* to expand upon it; now Your Majesty, brilliant and holy, has also thoroughly investigated its profound subtleties, and the whole realm turns to your wind and longs for your virtue, wishing to follow Your Majesty in taking the Buddha as good. Why are the scholars of the world still so slow to believe? Yet an era of great impartiality can manifest the Great Way, and a person of great brilliance can resolve great doubts. Now Your Majesty the Sage is truly of great brilliance, and Your Majesty's flourishing era is truly of great impartiality. To rectify the ways of the two sages, Confucius and the Buddha, and resolve the doubts of all under Heaven—does this not belong to Your Majesty today? I humbly hope that Your Majesty will publish this work and examine it thoroughly with the court ministers. If its statements are not overly mistaken or deluded, may you bestow it upon all under Heaven, so that Confucians remain Confucians and Buddhists remain Buddhists, each assisting Your Majesty's transformative governance with their respective teachings, as argued above. Hand it down as a definitive standard for ten thousand generations, and thereafter prohibit and end the talk of mutual disparagement, so that the Buddhadharma may have a fresh start beginning from Your Majesty's sacred reign. This would not only be the good fortune of the followers of the Buddha, but also the good fortune of all living beings under Heaven; and not only the good fortune of living beings, but a great celebration for all the ghosts and spirits under Heaven! Moreover, I have heard that Your Majesty preserves the Buddhist teachings in the realm certainly wishing that they bring blessings to living beings; and when the people of the world become its disciples, they certainly wish to practice its teaching and discipline. Wishing for the teaching to be practiced, one must wish to use its method to guide people toward goodness. In this way, all under Heaven doing good and obtaining blessings is truly tied to its teachings, and whether the teachings are practiced or not is truly tied to its disciples. Therefore, the realm considers the matter of its disciples an urgent priority. If its teachings are preserved, yet its disciples do not obtain the right people, how can its teachings take effect? The *Classic of Changes* says: 'If it is not the right person, the Way does not operate in vain.' How could that not be so? Thus, obtaining the right people lies in regulating its disciples, having them learn and practice at the proper time so that they become suitable vessels. If it is done at the proper time, their study and practice easily complete the person; if the proper time is passed, instruction and admonition are difficult to penetrate. Anciently, the Buddha instituted that a person must reach the age of twenty before being permitted to receive the full ordination; if they left home [earlier], they were permitted to engage as novices (śrāmaṇera), 'novice' meaning allowing them to leave home as boys. The intent was that because in later generations human faculties would become increasingly dull and those who awaken abruptly would be few, one must rely on early teaching and youthful training, so that before their minds become corrupted, they may gradually be steeped in the Way. Reaching twenty, they were then permitted to receive full ordination.