鐔津文集 1.10.4

1.10.4

If someone is unable to be like this, the fault is that person's own; how could the Buddha's Dharma be in error? Mencius said: 'Here is a man who is filial at home and fraternal abroad, and who preserves the way of the ancient kings to await future learners, and yet he cannot obtain food from you. Why do you honor carpenters and carriage-makers, while disparaging those who practice benevolence and righteousness?' Is not Confucianism the same? Before Yao and Shun, the people were not divided into four classes; at that time, were all those people farmers and artisans? We have not heard that their food and necessities were insufficient. In the time of King Ping of Zhou, the well-field system was still maintained, yet the people were already exhausted and destitute. When Qin abolished the royal regulations, all under Heaven became even more disordered. At that time, neither the Buddha nor Laozi had yet appeared; could their teachings have been inflicted on the four classes of people to become a pestilence? For humans living between Heaven and Earth, their food and necessities probably have a predetermined share. Your anxiety for the world is too excessive, and your calculation for mankind is too narrow! As for karmic retribution: Confucians speak of auspicious omens and calamitous warnings, stating that 'the family that accumulates good will surely have an abundance of blessings; the family that accumulates evil will surely have an abundance of calamities.' This is already quite clear. As for what is called almsgiving: the Buddha held that when a person wishes to give and confer kindness, it must stem from a good mind. If the mind is truly good, when it matches auspicious omens, how could there not be a response? Who has spoken in vain? Relinquishing and bestowing kindness is truly difficult for human nature to accomplish. If one can indeed accomplish what is difficult to accomplish, is not one's goodness supreme? The Analects says: 'If there were one who gave broadly to the people and was able to aid the multitude, how would that be? Could he be called benevolent?' The Master said: 'Why merely benevolent? Surely he must be a sage! Even Yao and Shun would still fall short of it.' This means that even sages found it difficult, and feared they could not accomplish it. That the Buddha necessarily exhorted people with this was simply intended to release people from greed and stinginess, and to broaden their good minds. The world should examine whether one's giving to others is public-spirited or selfish; one should not arrogantly disparage the act of giving. When the rituals are to serve Heaven, Earth, ghosts, and spirits, even for a single day's sacrifice, there must be several days of fasting; this is because they wish people to make their minds sincere and purify their bodies, thereby praying for blessings to certainly come upon the world. Now, as for Buddhists, their minds are constantly sincere, and their fasting and precepts last their whole lives. Compared to the few days of fasting, their blessings will also arrive; how could they be entirely without benefit? The interlocutor said: 'A man has his chamber and a woman her home; preserving one's hair and skin intact to serve the physical form handed down by one's parents is the way of human relationships. Yet your kind violates this to practice your cultivation, aspiring transcendently to stand above all under Heaven. But how many actually cultivate it? In such confusion, how is it worth distinguishing them?' I said: 'Those who follow the Buddha fast, keep precepts, and cultivate their minds; they do not grasp at profit and righteousness, and even forget fame. When they reach the utmost, they penetrate to the spiritual and luminous. Their virtue is indeed supreme! When they extend their Way to others, there is no being they do not wish to improve; their Way is indeed vast! Repaying kindness through the Way, what kindness cannot be repaid? Continuing virtue through virtue, what virtue cannot be continued? Although one does not marry, one uses one's virtue to benefit one's parents; although one's physical form is outwardly damaged, one uses one's Way to rescue one's parents. Did not Taibo mutilate his body? Yet the Sage praised his virtue. Did not Boyi and Shuqi refrain from marrying and dwell forever in the mountain forests? Yet the Sage esteemed them as worthy. Mencius praised him, saying: 'Boyi was the pure one among the sages.' We have not heard that they were belittled for mutilating their bodies or remaining unmarried. Why do you find fault only with our disciples? The world has departed from the proper path for a long time. Even worthy fathers and elder brothers like Yao, Shun, and the Duke of Zhou could not necessarily restrain their sons and younger brothers. Today, we are increasingly distant from the time of the Buddha, and the teaching is entering its degenerate age; how could there not be corrupt people who lodge among us to live in indolence? Even with the Dharma, what can be done? In a vast forest, there are inevitably useless trees; in a vast field, there are inevitably unripened sprouts. One should simply straighten them; one must not abandon the Way on account of the person.' The interlocutor said: 'Your words and your teaching appear detailed and are truly worthy of esteem. However, the arguments distinguishing the teachings are all flourishing at present. In comparison, which is superior?' I said: 'I am an old fool. Teachings such as these are all the teachings of sages; how would a lesser person like me dare to presume to debate them? Yet Buddhism is my Way; of Confucianism, I have also secretly heard a little; as for Laozi, I have paid considerable attention. If I cannot help but speak of them: the various teachings are like wading across the same river, where hitching up the robes is deep or shallow. Confucians are sages who govern the mundane world; the Buddha is a sage who governs the supramundane world.'