鐔津文集 14.6.5

14.6.5

Those who maintain the precepts only desire that their disciples purify conduct related to lust and craving. The lay precepts allow for proper spousal union; they do not entirely cut off the way people give birth to and nurture one another. Yet among the burdens of the emotions, the burden of lust is the most perilous. The various teachings instruct people to be cautious of lust and to stifle desire. Even without desires, the world is still chaotic; how much more so when people drown in lust and craving to the point of losing their minds and destroying their bodies! Why must Han [Yu] fear that men and women will not mate? Seeing someone abstain from grain, must he hastily worry that the seeds of the five grains will thereupon be eradicated? Is that not overanxiety? Now, 'purity' refers to the wondrous clarity of the nature; 'quiescence' refers to supreme stillness; 'cessation' refers to ceasing the burdens of the emotions and sensations—it does not mean taking up senseless torpor or lifeless annihilation. When people leave home and keep the precepts, the Buddha simply employs his grand contemplation. The Sage contemplates that in the human world, the enduring relations of heaven and earth, husband and wife, in all their myriad varieties, are all formed through emotional attachment. They are all entirely fleeting, insubstantial, and like a dream. People crave them, cling to them, suffer from them, take pleasure in them, find glory in them, find disgrace in them, pursue them, are corrupted by them, cherish them with affection, and worry over them with afflictions, up to their very deaths without awakening to the fact that these are a great illusion and a great dream. They do not realize that these are a great calamity; and the wondrousness of great serenity and supreme correctness is truly lost! Those who leave home distance themselves from the dust and sever worldly ties; their spirit is concentrated and their thoughts are unified. Naturally, they are easy to awaken and easy to cultivate: seeing the body as having no self, to what could they cling? Seeing the mind as devoid of preconceptions, what could they crave? Seeing conditioned affairs as unworthy of attachment, why must they pursue them? For this reason, they attain great serenity and supreme correctness; superior virtues can be attained, and the sagely Way can be accomplished. An adage says: 'The Master was free from four things: he had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary predeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egotism.' Laozi said: 'The reason I have great calamity is that I have a body. When I have no body, what calamity do I have?' The underlying cause in these two masters resembles the Buddha's method of leaving home. Only great sages understand and penetrate this. If the sages were merely to pursue the fleeting world, straying without knowing how to escape, spending their lives in vain—how would they differ from ordinary men? Therefore Confucius spoke of it sparingly; it is only subtly preserved in worldly books. As for expounding it extensively, making it brilliantly clear, investigating its subtleties to the utmost, and putting it into practice with efficacy—that was awaiting the supramundane teaching of the Buddha. It was fitting that this should be so. This can be verified by mysterious destiny. Now the Buddha, with his ordination and precept-keeping, specifically wished to warn the world against its fleeting, illusory, great dream, to unveil humanity's karmic obstacles, and to remedy their great calamity of birth and death. Yet Han [Yu] perversely considered this a calamity; donning the armor of his own hindrances, he resolutely rejected the Buddha, claiming that the Buddha deceitfully threw our worldly governance into disorder. Here Han [Yu], on account of his own blindness, slandered the vision of others; the error of his feelings was severe to such a degree! What more could the Buddha say? A strange book records that anciently there was a Land of Dreams, whose people all considered their dreams to be waking. When a truly awakened person tried to instruct them, the falsely awakened people instead all reviled him, saying: 'Why do you deceive us with dreams?' That awakened one fell silent, helpless to do anything. This is quite similar to Han [Yu] and his ilk rejecting the Buddha. Han [Yu]'s poem says: 'Do not grieve over worldly affairs and personal matters; / you must look upon the human realm as comparable to the realm of dreams.' This must have been because he gained a slight awakening through Dadian, and only then began to believe that there is that which transcends the physical form and overcomes oneself through principle. Even so, his previous theories had already spread; though he wished to regret his words, how could it avail? He also said: 'Alas! It was fortunate that it did not appear after the Three Dynasties, and so was not rejected by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius. It was also unfortunate that it did not appear before the Three Dynasties, and so was not rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Here Han [Yu] merely doubted without making a decision. When a gentleman faces an affair, he resolves it by principle; why must he rely on ancient men? Had Han [Yu] served as a general or chief minister, when facing great affairs of state he would still have said: 'This cannot yet be rejected, for it has not been rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Hesitating like that, the great affairs would have been lost! Of what use would such a general or minister be? Now, the purity of all conduct and the restraint of body and prohibition of wrongs do not arise outside of purification and fasting; the alignment of all virtues toward good governance does not arise outside of rectifying the mind. The Buddha's Dharma for the most part teaches people to purify themselves, observe fasting, and rectify the mind; there is no evil that is not severed, no good that is not cultivated without attachment. In this age and later ages, there should naturally be sages and worthies who discern things according to their own principles. Why must it be verified only when rectified or rejected by the long-dead Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou for it to be believable? Among Confucian books that speak of human nature and destiny, the *Zhongyong* is the most prominent. In the *Zhongyong*, Confucius specifically stated: 'Tested against ghosts and spirits, they leave no doubt; awaiting a sage for a hundred generations, they show no confusion.' To test them against ghosts and spirits without doubt is to know Heaven; to await a sage for a hundred generations without confusion is to know humanity. This necessarily awaits a sage who has great knowledge of nature and destiny to discern the deep obscurities of the *Zhongyong* without delusion. Yet from Confucius until now, nearly a hundred generations have passed. As for exclusively taking nature and destiny as the teaching, only the Buddha's teachings have greatly flourished in China. Could Confucius's subtle meaning also have been awaiting the Buddha to bear witness to it? If not, what sage could there be in these hundred generations whose discourse on nature and destiny has flourished more abundantly and surpassed the Buddha? This makes it clear that Confucius's rectification of the Buddha has already shown its efficacy. Why must Han [Yu] doubt it? He also said: 'What Way is this? I say: This is what I call the Way, not what was previously referred to as the Way of Lao[zi] and the Buddha. Yao transmitted it to Shun; Shun transmitted it to Yu; Yu transmitted it to Tang; Tang transmitted it to Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius; Confucius transmitted it to Meng Ke; and upon Ke's death, it was not transmitted further.' According to this text of Han [Yu], he claimed that these nine sages and worthies—Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke—succeeded one another across generations, saw one another, and transmitted benevolence and righteousness in succession. But how could Yu and Tang, Tang and Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, or Confucius and Mencius have seen one another and personally received the transmission? One laughs at what classic or commentary Han [Yu] relied upon to make such a rash claim. Mencius said: 'From Shun and Yu to Tang was more than five hundred years; from Tang to King Wen was more than five hundred years; from King Wen to Confucius was more than five hundred years; from Confucius to the present is more than a hundred years.' Thus, the generations separating Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke were as distant and remote as this! Yet Han [Yu] disregarded canonical texts, blindly venerating what he claimed was transmitted in his desire to make his doctrine prevail by force, unaware of the emptiness of his writing. Can this not be called reckless and disorderly? Can Han [Yu]'s words still be trusted? The *Analects* says that when Yao was about to transmit the realm to Shun, he advised him, saying: 'Ah! You, Shun, the celestial calendar rests on your person. Sincerely hold fast to the Mean!' Shun also commanded Yu in this manner.