鐔津文集 14.6.6

14.6.6

Thus the transmission among Yao, Shun, and Yu was like this; we have not heard that it was merely the transmission of benevolence and righteousness alone. Reaching down to the eras of Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke, they also all emulated and succeeded one another through the Middle Way and the Grand Polarity. The *Zhongyong* says: 'He who naturally and easily embodies the Middle Way is a sage.' Mencius also said: 'Standing in the Middle Way, those who are able follow him.' How could it not be so? If one does not cultivate sincerity and is not balanced and correct, could that person truly be benevolent and righteous? If one is sincere, balanced, and correct, could benevolence and righteousness truly be lacking? How is it that Han [Yu] did not know that goodness has its root and affairs have their essentials, rigidly clinging to outer traces and failing to investigate the deep subtleties of the sages' Way? Master Han presented several arguments, for the most part promoting human relations, heavenly norms, and the Confucian methods for ordering the world, intending thereby to overthrow the Buddha Vehicle and the Daoist teaching. Alas, Han [Yu] merely adhered to the immediate affairs of human relations, failing to see the distant principle of human life. Is this not being blind to the internal while following the external? Ruler and minister, father and son, elder and younger brothers, husband and wife—these are born dependent upon the spirit. The spirit has habits of good and evil, and changes along with the spirit: goodness gives birth to human relations; evil gives birth to other species. Whether these people follow the law or do not follow the law, they are all blinded by this single lifetime, completely ignorant from the beginning of why their current body and existence are as they are. Thinking that life inevitably leads to death and that death means total extinction, they indulge their desires to enjoy their single lifetime; although deceiving themselves inwardly, they feel no shame before the gods. But when the Buddha's Dharma teaches people to reflect inwardly without extinction, they must cultivate their minds through wholesome methods, ensuring that in life after life they do not lose the human realm, and by further cultivating the ten virtues they aspire to the heavenly realm. Only then do people understand the reason behind affairs of myriad generations. For more than a thousand years, throughout China, whether wise or foolish, noble or base, high and low have harmoniously transformed themselves through the Buddha's teachings. Even if they have not perfected the ten virtues, they are cautious about sin, aspire to blessings, and believe in unseen retribution; thus all know that their own minds cannot be deceived. People of this sort almost fill the world; they are seen everywhere in the lanes and neighborhoods today. Even so, the Buddha opening doors in high citadels and double walls to let people come and go is like cutting windows and apertures in a pitch-black room to give people light both inside and out. Compared to those who enter goodness through the *Odes* and *Documents*, those who enter through the Buddha's teachings are vastly more widespread and comprehensive. Compared to those who cultivate the body through ritual and righteousness to gain a reputation in their contemporary age, those who cultivate themselves inwardly through goodness to enter into spirit are much more intimate, profound, and far-reaching. When we compare how, without troubling with rewards and punishments, people cultivate themselves at home—the essential thing is that it reduces the state's penal laws and secretly aids governance; its effects are abundant! This is simply not realized if not examined. Those who awaken to the fleeting nature of life, regarding birth and death as a dream and an illusion, and who leave home to cultivate purity—regarding repaying parents with virtue and the Way as heavy, and the toil of providing delicacies as light—amount to only one in ten thousand among the living. Even so, the precepts still allow them to reduce their own clothing and provisions to support their parents; they by no means permit them to truly abandon their parents. When the Buddha established the Dharma in this manner, is it good or evil for the world? Does it bring benefit or no aid to human relations? With respect to the Confucian way of governance, is its principle compliant or rebellious? Han [Yu] and his ilk should have investigated this deeply and scrutinized it afar! Although the teaching of Laozi is gradually esoteric and not equal to the Buddha's, in that it teaches people non-action, freedom from desire, tranquility, and humble harmony, it genuinely originated from the Way of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. How could it be rejected along with Yang Zhu and Mozi indiscriminately? Confucius used the Way of the Great Mean of the successive sages to judge what was correct in the realm when compiling the *Spring and Autumn Annals* of Lu. What was good he praised as good; what was evil he condemned as evil; he did not distinguish simply by China and barbarian. The *Spring and Autumn Annals* says: 'Xu attacked Ju.' Xu was originally part of China, but since its action was not good, he treated it as barbarian. It says: 'The men of Qi and the Di people made a covenant at Xing.' The Di people were originally barbarians, but since their action was good, he treated them as part of China. That the Sage honored China and looked down upon barbarians was not a matter of territory or persons; it lay in what accorded with principle. Therefore it is said: 'The gentleman, in his relations with the world, has no predilections and no rejections; he aligns with righteousness.' If we compare the Buddha's Dharma to worldly goodness, it may be called pure goodness and great goodness. In terms of the Middle Way, should it be embraced or should it be rejected? If one does not use the sages' Middle Way to judge good and evil and rectify what to accept and reject, it is merely the unauthorized prejudice of ordinary people's likes and dislikes—what is it worth mentioning?