鐔津文集 16

English (machine translation) 16

Language: English

16.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Qisong of Dongshan, Tanjin, Tengzhou

Master Han wrote in his biographical account (xingzhuang) for Ma Hui, the late Prefect of Jiangzhou: 'When the Grand Preceptor passed away, [Ma Hui] pricked his arm for blood to write more than a thousand words of Buddhist sutras, hoping thereby to repay [his father's] virtue.' He also said: 'His conduct during mourning surpassed that of other men.' He further said: 'Since Yu has long been acquainted with the family through generations and has heard in detail of their ancestral lineage and deeds, following the request of the Director of the Palace Administration (Shaofu), I have selected the major points to compile this biographical account, entrusting it to noble gentlemen who establish teachings in words, in order to seek his immortality.' Ma Hui was the eldest son of the Prince of Beiping Commandery and Grand Preceptor, Ma Sui. 'When the Grand Preceptor passed away' refers to his being in mourning for his father. Pricking his arm to draw blood to write Buddhist sutras was something that Master Han ought to have refuted, yet instead he praised it. Was Master Han perhaps just beginning to recognize and understand Buddhist sutras? The virtue of parents is vast as the boundless heavens; who indeed could ever repay it? Now he said, 'hoping thereby to repay [his father's] virtue'—did Master Han thereby know that the Dharma of the Buddha reaches [the ultimate]? Saying, 'His conduct during mourning surpassed that of other men' was also exalting his ability to practice the deeds of the Buddha. In saying, 'I have selected the major points to compile this biographical account, entrusting it to noble gentlemen who establish teachings in words, in order to seek his immortality,' did Master Han also wish that all people be encouraged to devote themselves to the Buddha? When I examine the time Master Han composed this biographical account, he was already thirty-four or thirty-five years of age; having taken his place at court, he had recently served as Erudite (boshi) and Censor (yushi). Master Han himself claimed that he had always read books and composed writings, and that the teachings of Yang, Mo, Śākya, and Lao had never entered his mind. Yet at this point he praised Hui for doing things of the Buddhists. Could it be that once Master Han reached prime adulthood, his spirit and vitality grew bright and flourishing, he first perceived truth, and thereupon realized that what the Buddha expounded is supreme? Later, although he slightly disputed Buddhism (as in the affair of disputing the Buddha's bone), was he outwardly devoting himself solely to Confucianism to safeguard his reputation, while inwardly in the end silently venerating its marvelous Dao? If not, why did he, straight through to old age, remain on such attentive and intimate terms with Dadian on account of the Dao? The Buddha is indeed the greatest of men; how could he be disparaged? Disparaging him merely suffices to diminish oneself—what harm could it do to the Buddha? Even so, in his *Yuandao*, he first rejected Buddhism—how excessively harsh! Yet in his biographical account, he promoted Buddhism—how single-minded! Master Han certainly was not constant in his virtue. (Note: In Master Han's *Jinxue jie*, it is said that he overtly denounced Buddhism and Daoism; hence, his writing of *Yuandao* was the earliest.)

16.5

Fifteen

16.6

When reading the *Tangshu*, I saw that in the dispute between Master Han and Li Shen over the morning audience at the Censorate (taican), official dispatches were exchanged back and forth discussing the proper status and decorum between the Censorate (tai) and the Capital Prefecture (fu); and I saw that Yu’s disposition was obstinate and contentious, his words disrespectful, causing a great clamor in public opinion. And looking at Master Han’s 'Letter Answering a Friend Concerning the Capital Prefect Not Attending the Censorate Audience', his manner was impatient and his words harsh in disputing it. Alas! Han and Li were both famous ministers of the Tang; why did they act like this in their conduct? According to the precedents of the Tang, the Censorate (Yushitai) was in charge of upholding the penal laws and statutes of the state in order to keep the court solemn and correct. Although the Jingzhao Prefecture administered the capital district and its subprefectures, its actual substance was merely that of a large regional governorship. Comparing the Censorate and the Prefecture, the Censorate was indeed weightier than the Prefecture. Han held the concurrent title of Grand Master of the Censorate (Yushi Dafu), while Li was titular Vice Censor-in-Chief (Zhongcheng). Now, the Grand Master was certainly higher than the Vice Censor-in-Chief, yet between Han and Li each held a kind of weight over the other; this was what gave rise to their quarrel. If Master Han had perceived the subtle cues, he should have stepped aside and yielded at the outset; that would have been proper. If not that, he should have provisionally followed the court's old ritual; why did he let it come to a prompt quarrel? During the Spring and Autumn period, when the lords of Teng and Xue had audience in Lu, they contested precedence. Confucius despised their lack of propriety and recorded it, leaving it to Zuo Qiuming to reveal its subtle import. How could the sage not have used the past to admonish posterity? Even if Shen and Yu could not perceive the subtle cues and gain some realization, did they not think of the principle of the *Chunqiu* and fear it? However, I shall not discuss Master Li. Master Han claimed to be a devoted Confucian and resolutely wished to be a disciple of the sage. Does this not also mean knowing that among Confucians, those with rank yield to one another, those of long standing treat one another with deference, those from afar draw near one another, and among coarse barbarians one does not contend? It is also said: 'The gentleman is dignified but does not contend.' Master Han and Gongchui (Li Shen) had been on good terms all their lives. At the beginning, when Gongchui stood for the jinshi examination, Master Han wrote a letter praising his talent and recommended him to Vice Director Lu. Arriving at this juncture, he could well have deferred to him out of regard for their former friendship, yet instead he contested with him, making an uproar at court. Where was Master Han's Confucian conduct? Where was the way of old friends? What were later scholars to take as a model? Supposing the court showed favor to Master Han and issued an edict specifically exempting him from the Censorate audience, Master Han ought to have felt that he dared not diminish the established ordinances of the court; he certainly should have yielded rank, showed respectful decorum, and daily hastened to the Censorate audience. If Li Shen was a man of understanding, would he not have been ashamed and submitted? Would not those who wished to shift blame onto the two men have had their treacherous schemes thwarted and regretted them? Would they not have attributed deep virtue to Master Han and praised him as an elder? Would this merely have brought shame to [Li] Fengji at that time? It would also have served as a model for scholar-officials of later generations. Alas, that he could not practice this to consummate his virtue! Was Master Han's power insufficient, or his understanding inadequate? In ancient times, Lian Po refused to submit to his position beneath Lin Xiangru, openly declaring his desire to humiliate him; yet whenever it was time for morning court, Xiangru frequently pleaded illness, not wishing to contest rank with Po. I have always admired Xiangru's capacity and insight, how he maintained the greater body of affairs when facing situations. The Grand Historian said that by stepping back and yielding to Po, his renown became weightier than hills and mountains; it was fitting that he gained such great renown! Compared to this, he was far superior to Master Han. In the time of Emperor Xiaojing of the Han, Dou Ying and Tian Fen mutually disparaged and contested each other at court. After withdrawing, the Marquis of Wu'an was enraged that Censor-in-Chief Han Anguo did not exclusively assist him. Anguo thereupon reproached Fen, saying: 'When Weiqi disparaged you, you should have removed your cap, unfastened your seal and ribbon, and returned home, saying: "Your servant has been fortunate to await punishment, but this office is certainly not my calling; what Weiqi said is entirely correct." If you had done this, the sovereign would surely have commended your yielding virtue. Now another man disparages you, and you also disparage him—this is like a merchant clerk and a woman trading insults; how utterly lacking in the greater body of affairs!' Although Master Han at that time was fortunate not to incur the censure of a censor, now, recorded in the historical books, he is mocked by men of understanding throughout ten thousand generations, which is even worse than Anguo's rebuke. Be careful! Be careful!

16.7

Sixteen

16.8

Master Han composed the 'Text for the Crocodile' (Eyu wen) to address the creature, and told the world that the crocodile departed on account of it. I consider this not to be so. A crocodile is an insect-like, ignorant creature; how could it comprehend Master Han's text? Yet if Master Han had sincerity, he surely could have moved things through sincerity alone, and that would have been that; why was a text necessary? Text is that by which the sage treats human beings. To bestow text upon insects and fish—is that not degrading [the text]? Even when men are addressed with text, there are still things they do not understand; how much more so with insects and reptiles? To claim that the crocodile departed because of it—I fear this was not so. Although the *Tangshu* praises it, this was simply a lack of discernment on the part of the historians.

16.9

Seventeen

16.10

Hanzi's letter to Minister Meng Jian says: “Your letter states: 'Someone has reported that recently Yu has slightly honored the Buddhist religion.' This reporter was talking nonsense. While in Chaozhou, there was an old monk named Dadian, who was quite clever and understood principles. Truly capable of detaching from his physical body and mastering himself through principle, he was not intruded upon or disturbed by worldly things and affairs. Considering him in himself to be rare to find, I therefore associated with him. When going out to the sea to sacrifice to the deities, I then went to his hut. When coming to Yuanzhou, leaving my clothes to bid him farewell was merely human feeling, not honoring and having faith in his Dharma to seek the benefits of the field of merit.” Alas! Though Hanzi strained himself to make these words, striving to conceal himself, did he not realize that the more words he spoke, the more his traces were exposed? Hanzi said that Dadian was truly capable of detaching from his physical body and mastering himself through principle, not being intruded upon or disturbed by worldly things and affairs. Even though Hanzi said this was merely human feeling, how could he avoid having believed in his Dharma? Now when Buddhism speaks to the utmost of the benefits of the field of merit, it is precisely taking accord with principle as merit, and attaining one's nature in accordance with the Dharma without being deluded by external things as the greatest benefit. Hanzi associated with Dadian; when he took part in discussing principle and examining nature, he had already placed himself within its field of merit and its benefits. Why did Hanzi not reflect on this with gratitude, but instead said such things? In my youth, reading the records of Chan Master Dadian, I saw it said: Hanzi once asked Dadian, saying: “What is the Way?” Dadian remained silent for a good while. Before Hanzi could grasp the purport, his disciple Sanping struck the bed. Dadian turned and asked Sanping: “What was that for?” Sanping said: “First move with concentration; later uproot with wisdom.” Hanzi then said: “Although Yu asked about the Way from the Master, it was through this Superior One that I gained entry.” He thereupon bowed to him. This verifies that Hanzi's words about “mastering himself through principle” are indeed true. Although Hanzi spoke with many clever words wishing to protect his reputation as a Confucian, how could he escape being laughed at by those with discernment? In general, if one does not understand a matter, one leaves it at that; if one does not believe in it, one rests it. How could one know that their Way is like this, believe that their disciple is like this, and yet conversely reject their teacher and bear to defame their Dharma? How could a gentleman harbor such an intention? Dadian was a disciple of the Buddha; the Buddha was Dadian's teacher. Now the Way of a disciple is certainly attained from his teacher. Hanzi deemed the Way of the disciple good, but insisted on denouncing his teacher; this is like honoring the upright conduct of someone's descendants while scorning their ancestors. Who could say that Hanzi understands propriety? [Hanzi] also said: “The accumulation of good and the accumulation of evil bring calamity and blessing respectively, each according to its kind. Why should one abandon the Way of the sage, forsake the laws of the ancient kings, and follow the teaching of the barbarians to seek blessing and benefit?” This is something Hanzi did not reflect upon. Now the Way of the sages is goodness and nothing more; the laws of the ancient kings are good order and nothing more. The Buddha admonished the world with the five precepts: did he desire disorder? The Buddha guided people with the ten virtues: did he desire evil? The Book of Documents says: “The practices of goodness are different, but they all lead to good order.” How could this not be so? As for his teaching people to dissolve passions and delusions, renounce body and worldly existence, and cultivate purity of the spiritual luminescence—this is indeed the grand vision of our great sage, the Buddha, who cures great afflictions and establishes teachings by the spiritual way. His doing of good is furthermore supreme and profound, vast and complete in all respects. It cannot be compared offhand to worldly ways. Confucius said: “A gentleman toward all under Heaven has no set inclinations or aversions; he aligns with what is right.” “Rightness” is principle. This means that when the gentleman sees that principle is appropriate, he accords with it, neither adhering exclusively to this nor scorning that. Hanzi merely saw the external traces of Buddhism, but did not observe the principle by which the sage of Buddhism established the teachings. It was fitting that he thoughtlessly rejected the Buddhists and Daoists. Wenzhongzi said: “Observing the utmost straightforward discussions, one knows that Buddhism can be unified [with our Way].” This was certainly something Hanzi did not know. [Hanzi] also said: “Moreover, what kind of person was that Buddha really? Were his deeds akin to a gentleman or a petty man? If he was a gentleman, he would certainly not recklessly bring calamity upon one who keeps to the Way. If he was a petty man, his body is already dead and his ghost has no spiritual power,” and so forth. This was Hanzi's extreme doubt. Since he had not determined whether he was akin to a gentleman or a petty man, how could he rashly defame the Buddha? Even the most ignorant and ordinary people of the lanes and alleys, when wishing to revile each other, still know to first investigate the other's shortcomings to see if they truly can be scolded, and only then begin to scold and broadcast them. Now Hanzi doubted the Buddha, not having distinguished his kind—the strengths of a gentleman or the shortcomings of a petty man—and immediately denounced him harshly. Is this not violent and reckless? He was almost inferior to those people of the lanes and alleys in examining their thoughts! To call the Buddha a great sage is still not enough to describe the Buddha completely; how much less a gentleman or a petty man! Even foolish and base people throughout ancient and modern times all know that the Buddha cannot be compared to a gentleman or a petty man, yet Hanzi alone compared the Buddha to a gentleman or a petty man, and what is more, doubted it and could not determine it himself! It is truly laughable. [Hanzi] also said: “The spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth are clearly displayed and densely arrayed; they cannot be deceived. How could they willingly allow his ghost to act on its whims, displaying authority and dispensing blessing in their midst?” Now, the spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth truly cannot be deceived, just as Hanzi said. But his wanting to rely on the spiritual deities of Heaven and Earth not to let the ghost display authority and dispense blessing—this again shows that Hanzi's understanding of principle was not thorough. If one knows of oneself that what one knows attains principle, then if principle demands rejection, one rejects it; if principle does not demand rejection, one does not reject it. If one's knowledge is clear, it does not rely on external aid; if the principle is appropriate, Heaven and Earth will naturally accord with it. When we judge right and wrong, or praise and censure in matters, we uniquely rely on this. It is unlike Hanzi, who externally invoked deities as an oath and arrow to rely upon. The Book of Changes says: “He acts in advance of Heaven and Heaven does not contradict him; he follows Heaven and accords with the seasons of Heaven.” Even Heaven does not contradict him; how much less human beings, and how much less ghosts and spirits? How could the like of Hanzi ever have vaguely seen the mind of the sage? Liu Yun's Tang History states: “When Han and his peers attacked and rejected the Buddhists and Daoists, their Way was not yet broad, and truly they were not free from bias.” The historians' judgment of right and wrong was indeed not mistaken!

16.11

Chapter 18

16.12

In the past, Yang Cheng was summoned as an unregistered scholar (chushi) and promoted to Grand Master of Remonstrance (jianyidafu). For a long time, his remonstrance and dispute were not seen. The multitude all mocked Cheng for having an empty reputation, claiming that he disgraced his post. Master Han then composed "A Treatise on the Remonstrating Minister" to criticize him. His idea was likewise that since Cheng occupied the post of a remonstrating official yet caused the realm not to hear his words of remonstrance and dispute, how could this be the doing of a man of the Dao? Later, when Cheng went out to govern Daozhou, he was heard of for his benevolent administration. When Master Han wrote a preface seeing off the imperial academy student He Jian returning to Cheng's prefecture, he specifically praised Cheng's governed domain as a state having the Dao, uniquely comparing it to Huang Ba of the Han governing Yingchuan, which received congratulations for phoenixes gathering and singing. When I examined these two accounts in my youth, I found it strange that Master Han's discussions were inconsistent and that his rights and wrongs were contradictory. What is right must be affirmed as right, and what is wrong must be condemned as wrong; how could his before and after be so confused? Discussions from ancient to modern times state that the reason sages and worthies are esteemed precisely lies in their ability to recognize persons before they are famous and foresee affairs before they have happened. Formerly, Wang Jun had grand ambitions; before he had proven himself, people all mocked him. Only Yang Shuzi (Yang Hu) said that he would certainly prove equal to great undertakings and treated him well, and Jun indeed established achievements for the Jin. At the time of the Tang expedition against Huaixi, Li Guangyan was initially obscure in the ranks and unknown to people. Pei Zhongli (Pei Du) alone praised his talent to Xianzong, and within a few days it was memorialized that Guangyan had thoroughly crushed the rebel troops. During the Jin dynasty, Dai Xi had talent and cleverness in his youth, and everyone praised him as having long-term administrative capacity; only Palace Attendant Ji (Ji Shao) said that he would certainly never become a worthy vessel. Thereafter, Xi was indeed cashiered for lack of conduct. Therefore, the Tang and Jin histories praised their knowledge of men, and the excellence of the three gentlemen—Ji, Yang, and Duke of Jin Pei—shines brightly across ten thousand generations. Master Han was a worthy; his discernment of persons ought certainly to have been like this. Supposing Cheng were truly worthy, then when his remonstrance and dispute were not yet heard of, Master Han should have promoted him to arbitrate against the mutual derision of the crowd. How could he first deem him unworthy, and later, following the praises of the times, subsequently deem him worthy again? If it is like this, then whether Master Han praises someone as possessing the Dao or lacking the Dao is all merely contingent on others. How could it be that Master Han knew this of himself? Examining the Tang History, I see that Master Yang was fundamentally a gentleman. It was not that he was worthy as a prefect but unworthy as a remonstrating official; it was simply that Master Han himself did not understand Yang. Master Han said that Kangzong (Yang Cheng) occupied the office of a remonstrating official yet sought to preserve the resolve of an unregistered scholar; he then cited the upper nine of "Gu" (Hexagram 18) and the six in the second place of "Jian" (Hexagram 39) in the *Classic of Changes* to refute his conduct. This showed that Yang's holding of office inherently contained the intent of a royal minister speaking out honestly, which Master Han failed to see. According to the Tang History, in the beginning of the Zhenyuan era, remonstrating officials vied with one another in garrulous speech; nothing, no matter how trivial, went unsubmitted. The Son of Heaven grew increasingly weary and burdened by it. Under such circumstances, when Kangzong was summoned from the mountain forests as one who possessed the Dao to join the ranks of remonstrators, he ought certainly to have acted according to the times. How could he, like other remonstrating ministers, aggressively wag his tongue in dispute to add to the sovereign's disgust? Carefully examining Kangzong's tenure in office, that people did not see his remonstrance and dispute was not because he did not speak; he was applying the principle of the five kinds of remonstrance from the rites, whose subtle and direct unfoldings naturally had an order that could not be casually seen. These five kinds of remonstrance are called indirect suggestion (feng), compliance (shun), observation (kui), pointing (zhi), and risking danger (xian). Remonstrance by indirect suggestion means knowing the sprouts of calamity and suggesting them beforehand. Remonstrance by compliance means uttering words meekly and obediently without running counter to the ruler's mind. Remonstrance by observation means remonstrating by observing the ruler's facial expressions. Remonstrance by pointing means remonstrating by directly identifying the matter. Remonstrance by risking danger means speaking of harm to the state and forgetting one's own life for the sake of the ruler. However, if the matter has not reached the point of the destruction of the state or great injury to governance, one may not employ pointing or risking danger. Pointing and risking danger mean that the words are blunt and the tone is severe; they provoke the sovereign to wrath, frequently resulting in the destruction of oneself with little accomplished. Wei Wenzheng said: 'I wish Your Majesty would make me a good minister, not a loyal minister. Even if a loyal minister sacrifices his life to obtain the name of direct remonstrance, it does not benefit the matter and further exposes the ruler's wickedness.' If so, then indirect remonstrance is indeed superior to and more subtle than direct remonstrance. Is direct remonstrance not used only when there is no alternative? Therefore, the sages and worthies of antiquity mostly valued indirect remonstrance. Confucius said: 'Shall I follow indirect remonstrance?' The *Rites* says: 'The etiquette of a minister is not to remonstrate overtly.' It also says: 'In serving one's ruler, one desires to remonstrate but not to display it.' How could this not be so? Master Yang was likely of this kind. When Pei Yanling and his cohort held power, wicked men formed a faction, overturned the grand councilor, and brought great harm to state governance. Kangzong had no choice; he thereupon prostrated himself below the palace gate with Wang Zhongshu, submitting a single memorial exposing their villainy and treachery. The Son of Heaven was indeed enraged and wanted to punish and execute Cheng; it happened that Shunzong was currently in the Eastern Palace and rescued him, so he barely escaped. Thus, in Cheng's methods of remonstrance and dispute, firmness and laxity followed what was appropriate to the matter. At first, Cheng drank heavily day and night with his two younger brothers; if a visitor came to Cheng intending to ask about his affairs, Cheng knew his intent, immediately seated the guest, and plied him with wine until he was drunk, so that the guest had no leisure to speak. This fully demonstrates that Master Yang had his reasons in holding office; even an ordinary scholar could deduce Master Yang's intentions. Why was Master Han so uniquely obtuse that he hastily composed a treatise clamoring in debate, casually quoting the words of 'Jun Chen' from the *Classic of Documents*, saying: 'What the *Documents* mentions is the affair of great ministers and grand councilors, not what should be practiced by Master Yang'? This again shows that Master Han did not know the classics. For 'Jun Chen' says: 'If you have good counsels and plans, enter and report them to your ruler within; and you should comply with them outside, saying, "These counsels and plans are the virtue of my ruler." Alas! When ministers all act like this, how good and illustrious they are!' The reason for exclaiming 'Alas!' is lamenting that if all who are ministers to others were to follow this way of entering to report within and complying outside, would they not become good ministers who can greatly illuminate their ruler's virtue? Kong Anguo's commentary is also like this. In this case, regarding entering to remonstrate with one's ruler and not letting outsiders know upon leaving, why should this be practiced solely by great ministers and grand councilors? When Master Yang stood at court as Grand Master of Remonstrance, was his position so very lowly? Was his office so very small? That he remonstrated upon entering and did not let people know upon leaving—was this not suitable for his conduct? Who can say it was impermissible? From antiquity, remonstrance and dispute have rarely achieved their proper place. In the Han, the skilled remonstrators were Yuan Ang and Ji An; yet their speech in affairs still offended the sovereign, and the reason they did not bring destruction upon themselves was that they relied on virtuous rulers like Wen and Wu who accepted remonstrance. Later, men like Xue Guode, Zhu Yun, and Liu Fu enraged the Son of Heaven to an even greater degree. Master Yang's remonstrance and dispute were modeled on the classics and had a method; Master Han ought certainly to have promoted it to teach later generations. To undermine it instead with such fallacious discourse—is that not too frivolous?

16.13

Nineteen

16.14

When Master Han read Mozi, he stated that Confucius would certainly have employed Mozi and Mozi would certainly have employed Confucius; not employing each other would be insufficient to be Confucius or Mozi. Yet in his letter to Minister Meng Jian, he said: 'The Dao of the two emperors, the three kings, and the host of sages has been greatly ruined; later scholars have had nothing to pursue, falling into obscurity down to the present day. The disaster arose because Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di] ran unchecked with no one to restrain them.' How could Master Han's words be so self-contradictory? It misleads people without providing any standard.

16.15

Twenty

16.16

In his preface seeing off Gao Xian, Master Han said: 'Now Master Xian follows the Buddhists; he unifies death and life and dissolves outer absurdities. In what he makes of his mind, it must be tranquil and without arousal; toward the world, he must be detached and without craving.' In making this statement, Master Han seems to have understood that the Buddha's teachings are truly profound and beneficial to the nature and life of human beings. Unifying death and life means that death is like life and life is like death; according to principle, it is as if there were no birth or death. Once one perceives this principle of no dying and no being born, then that person does not crave life nor abhor death. Dissolving outer absurdities means that outside one's essential nature and principle, the defilements of passion between male and female, appetites, desires, and the hundred kinds of lustful delusion are all fallacious absurdities. Once absurdities are released and birth and death are equalized, the person's nature and life become pure, tranquil, and attain the utmost correctness. Laozi said: 'Purity and stillness are the standard for the world.' These words resemble this. When nature and life are already correct, why must it be that people like Xian have to wait until they die and are reborn to become sages, spirits, or great realized persons? In the present world itself, one can truly become an upright person of supreme conduct: already worthy, one becomes more worthy; what was not good must become good. Yet Master Han did not keep to his words to Xian; in his *Yuandao*, he instead said: 'They sever your ways of mutual birth and nourishment to seek what they call purity, stillness, and extinction (nirvāṇa).' Purity, stillness, and extinction precisely mean guiding people to equalize birth and death, dissolve outer absurdities, and relieve the encumbrance of clinging passions, so as to complete the correctness of their nature and life. When Master Han wrote, he did not look back to what he had said before and after, but precipitously wrote the *Yuandao*; and later, superficial scholars whose minds do not penetrate principle look at it and suppose that Master Han's intention ended there. They follow his tracks to the end of their lives, darkening their nature and life and arrogantly defying the Buddha, not realizing that Master Han spoke without reflection. Even if we follow what was said to Xian, it merely took Xian's Buddhist allegiance as the basis without intending to promote his Dao as beneficial to the world; yet if an idea is truly beneficial to the world, why would a gentleman not praise it? Confucius said: 'A great man does not initiate idle words,' which means that if words are not beneficial in application, one does not speak them. If one considers Master Han a disciple of the sages and worthies, how could he utter useless words? Or could it be that, although Master Han is called a man of letters, he truly had not arrived at the Dao? I do not know.

16.17

Twenty-One

16.18

The Tang dynasty author Yu Zhigu, in a letter discussing literature with Master Ouyang, stated that when Master Han of recent times wrote *Yuandao*, he modeled it on Cui Bao's letter answering Niu Xiang; when he wrote *Huiban* (Debate on Taboo Names), it was Zhang Zhao's treatise on old names; when he wrote the *Biography of Mao Ying*, it was Yuan Shu's *Nine Bestowals of Prince Dalan*; when he wrote the *Essay on Sending Away Poverty*, it was Yang Xiong's *Rhapsody on Driving Away Poverty*; when he wrote the *Memorial on the Buddha Relic*, it was Liu Zhou's remonstrance to the King of Qi. Although he relied on earlier texts like this, I have not yet evaluated their merits and faults. However, Yu's discussion is not worth examining for its correctness. The *Essay on Sending Away Poverty* claims that poverty has a ghost; the ghost of poverty was merely an unverified colloquial fabrication of the back alleys. When Master Han composed literature, even if one took it as actually witnessing such a ghostly form, how strange it is! Han thereupon relied on this to express himself; what an ominous thing to draw an analogy from! If Master Han's wisdom and literary learning relied on ghosts for their composition, could Master Han have considered himself a sincere and illuminated man? The words of a gentleman are standard words; only if they can instruct people will a gentleman speak them. If they cannot instruct people, a gentleman does not speak them. Therefore Confucius said: 'A great man does not initiate idle words.' Being like this, how could Master Han instruct people? The *Analects* says: 'The gentleman stands firm in poverty; the petty man, when impoverished, gives way to excess.' If Han was indeed impoverished, he should especially have held firm as a gentleman; how could he casually seize upon the vulgar banter of humble alleys and make literature of it for amusement?

16.19

Twenty-Two

16.20

Master Han wrote an elegy for Ouyang Zhan, saying that Zhan served his parents with utmost filial piety and was benevolent to his wife and children; he also said: 'His loving-kindness and filial devotion were most exalted.' Yet the Tang figure Huang Pu, in his biography of Zhan, stated that Zhan died from a single grief over a singing courtesan, and mocked Zhan for being unfilial; he cited Meng Jian's poem weeping for Zhan: 'May later generations not fall into delusion; delusion forfeits one's true nature.' Pu was Zhan's fellow townsman, so his evaluation of Zhan should certainly be accurate. The *Tan Gong* says: 'At the funeral of Wenbo, Jing Jiang leaned upon the bed and did not weep, because Wenbo had won too much of the affections of women, and she suspected him of neglecting the rites.' How much worse is it to die for the sake of a woman and leave behind sorrow for one's parents! That Master Han praised Zhan's filial piety as exalted—is this not deceiving himself out of partiality for his partisan? Is it not inferior even to Jing Jiang's knowledge of ritual? (Note: The reason for Zhan's death also appears in the *Taiping Guangji*.)

16.21

Twenty-Three

16.22

Master Han wrote the stele inscription for the Luochi Shrine, and the Tang History criticized him for it; it was indeed right to criticize him. In serving spirits, Master Han ought to have made discerning distinctions; instead, he followed along in divinizing it and embellished such accounts. How excessively fond of the bizarre! A saying goes: 'The Master did not speak of the bizarre, feats of strength, disorders, or spirits.' Yet Master Han acted thus—did this not run contrary to Confucius?

16.23

Twenty-Fourth

16.24

Master Han wrote the 'Biography of Mao Ying' (the Brush), and the historians criticized him for it. The Book of Documents says: 'Where virtue flourishes, one does not make light of or treat others with contempt.' It also says: 'Trifling with men degrades one's virtue; trifling with things saps one's purpose.' Was Master Han not treating things with contempt and trifling with them? Could that be called virtue?

16.25

Twenty-Fifth

16.26

In Master Han's memorial on the Buddha's relic bone, he compared the dynastic fortunes and the lengths of lifespans of ancient sovereigns, asserting that when there was no Buddha, their lifespans and dynastic fortunes were naturally long, whereas when serving the Buddha, they were short. Pointing to the affair of Emperor Wu of the Liang and Hou Jing, he claimed that in serving the Buddha to seek blessings, he instead incurred misfortune, using this to provoke his lord. During the Northern and Southern Dynasties, only the Liang occupied the region south of the Yangtze for nearly fifty years in modest prosperity, and the Son of Heaven lived to the age of eighty-six; his blessings were consummate indeed. In the Spring and Autumn period, thirty-six rulers are said to have been slain; did the misfortunes of all those rulers arise from serving the Buddha? Master Han ignored his blessings and focused solely on misfortune to slander the Buddha; how unfair his words are! Since ancient times, when rebellious ministers secretly arose, even the deities of heaven and earth could do nothing about it; could the Liang alone have been exempt? In this, Master Han failed to understand the cause of blessings. Now, retribution through misfortune and blessings has wholesome and unwholesome deeds as its root. That the Buddha teaches people to cultivate blessings is precisely because he desires that all under heaven take goodness to heart and does not desire that they do evil. It is just as Zengzi said: 'When a man loves the good, though blessing has not yet arrived, misfortune is far from him. When a man does evil, though calamity has not yet arrived, misfortune is close upon him.' The Buddha's intent is precisely this. It is only in comparing retribution and recompense across the three periods of existence that Master Zeng falls somewhat short of the far-reaching scope of the Buddha's words. Therefore, the coming of misfortune and blessing naturally has a former and a later; they cannot be sought within a single lifetime. If on account of shortness of lifespan or dynastic fortune one claims that serving the Buddha is ineffective and wishes that people need not take the Buddhadharma as their standard—[consider that] the 'Great Plan' teaches people through the five blessings and the royal ultimate: conforming to the ultimate brings blessings and longevity, while rebelling against the ultimate brings misfortune, calamity, and premature death. Take the emperors Wen and Jing of the Han, who best possessed the way of true kings: Filial Wen was Son of Heaven for only twenty-three years and died at forty-seven; Filial Jing had been on the throne for only sixteen years and died at forty-eight. Their reigns each fell short of a single generation, and their lifespans both fell short of the lower age of longevity. Could one say that what Confucius stated was unverified, and thus immediately refuse to follow his teachings? Alas! When sages formulate teachings and establish methods, they all desire that the world do good and not create chaos; it is not necessarily a matter of the length of their lifespans and dynastic fortunes. Master Han stated: 'Supposing he were still alive today and came to court on an official mission of his state, Your Majesty would receive him with no more than an audience at the Xuanzheng Hall, a single banquet from the Court of State Ceremonial, a bestowal of a suit of robes, and an escort out of the borders to prevent him from misleading the masses. How much more so when he has long been dead, and these are withered, rotten bones, the foul remnants of ill fortune—how could they enter directly into the palace precincts?' and so forth. In this, Master Han went much too far in disparaging the Buddha. Although the Buddha did not arise from the Central Plains, his divine spirit and perspicacious wisdom made him a true sage of antiquity. How can one sweeping statement equate his śarīra with ordinary, defiled bones? Even among the sages of China, such as the Five Thearchs and Three Sovereigns, who among them has bones that have not decayed after a thousand years, not to mention having miraculous and extraordinary qualities that bring auspicious signs and blessings to the world? Master Han ought to have reflected slightly and judged fairly on this. In ancient times, there were those who encased the shoes of Confucius and the skull of Wang Mang, transmitting them through successive generations until the fifth year of the Taixi era of the Jin, when they were burned in a fire at the armory. Now, as for great goodness, none compares to the sage Confucius; as for great evil, none compares to the unworthy Wang Mang. Past generations preserved their traces and handed them down surely to show that they did not forget great goodness and to leave a warning against great evil. Those of ancient and modern times who revere the wondrous bones of the Buddha also do so out of yearning for great goodness. As for what was said earlier about 'no more than a single banquet from the Court of State Ceremonial,' this shows that he did not know ritual and treated people without propriety. Even granting that the Buddha were not a sage, he was surely distinct from the common run of people from foreign lands; how could one observe etiquette toward him with merely a single suit of clothing and a single meal? In ancient times, when Jizha and Youyu entered China, China observed etiquette toward them with the rites due to worthy men. Those men, Jizha and Youyu, were merely worldly men; they were not necessarily possessed of divine and unfathomable spirit like the Buddha. Yet he would have his ruler treat the Buddha worse than Jizha and Youyu! Confucius said: 'In serving one's lord, one should remonstrate without laying open [his faults],' meaning that one must not proclaim one's lord's errors to the outside world. If the Tang Son of Heaven had done evil on account of the Buddha, Master Han should have used mild words and remonstrated in secret; how much more so when his lord had not actually committed an evil act—how could he attack, provoke, and blatantly expose the matter? In ancient times, Wei Zheng was able to remonstrate, but he could not forget his words; he wrote them down to show the court historians, and men of discernment belittled him for it. When Ma Zhou was near death, he ordered his draft memorials burned, saying: 'Guan [Zhong] and Yan [Ying] made their lords' faults conspicuous in order to seek a posthumous name; I will not do so.' And gentlemen deemed him worthy. If Master Han's remonstrance is compared to Wei Zheng's, it was not necessarily appropriate to preserve his memorial and allow the world to transmit his error, in which he indeed surpassed Zheng; and in preserving his lord's excellence, he fell far short of Ma Zhou's worthiness. How much more so when what his lord did did not amount to evil, yet he blatantly presented a memorial to denounce it; he was then demoted and banished, yet he left behind his statements to expose his own shallow knowledge and wisdom, broadcasting supreme ugliness to later generations. Alas!

16.27

Twenty-Sixth

16.28

Master Han presented a letter to Yu Di in which he praised Di as if he possessed the words and conduct of sages and worthies, saying: 'Truly, he has both virtue and eloquent words!' He then quoted Yang Ziyun's words: 'The Shang Book is vast and expansive; the Zhou Book is solemn and awe-inspiring. Truly, he is able to be vast and expansive, as well as solemn and awe-inspiring.' Yet this contradicts Di's biography [in the dynastic history]; was this not sycophancy?

16.29

Twenty-Seventh

16.30

When Master Han was banished to Chaozhou, his daughter Na followed him and died at the Cengfeng Postal Station in Shangnan. Later, when reburying her, Master Han wrote an epitaph for her tomb; grieving that she died on the road, he went so far as to revile the Buddha, declaring: 'When Yu was young and served as a judicial official, he said that the Buddha was a barbarian ghost whose teachings bring disorder to governance. Emperor Wu of the Liang served him and in the end suffered the defeat by Hou Jing. He should be swept away, scraped clean, and eradicated completely; he must not be allowed to spread unchecked.' Now, China has had the Buddha, and throughout ancient and modern times, whether wise or foolish, even common men and women all know that the Buddha was no ghost and know that his teachings do not instruct people to commit atrocities and throw governance into disorder. Yet Master Han alone considered him a ghost who brought disorder to governance. Master Han's daughter died of herself; what had this to do with the Buddha? Yet Master Han, blinded by personal affection for his daughter, went so far as to oppose the people of the whole world throughout ancient and modern times, brutally desecrating an unfathomable sage and slandering his teachings with extreme severity. Liezi 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.' This was not spoken of the sages among the Three Kings, Five Thearchs, and Three Sovereigns. Emperor Wen of the Song said to his ministers He Shangzhi and others: 'The Buddha established the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds; if all under heaven were brought to follow this transformation, I would effortlessly bring about the Great Peace.' Master Han was deeply obscured and stubbornly failed to reflect upon these words. Furthermore, when he composed a poem to see off Chengguan, he addressed him by name, and his phrasing was contemptuous and haughty, like reproving and instructing a vulgar fellow or an inexperienced youngster. Now, this Chengguan seems to have been National Preceptor Qingliang. With regard to Master Guan, the lines of the poem say: 'All say that though Chengguan is among the monastic throng, / For ministerial talent and administrative skill, today he has no equal.' It also says: 'May I ask who it was that originally managed this? / The man of the Way Chengguan, whose reputation is widely recorded.' Some say it was another Chengguan. Now, both monks and Confucians in their respective teachings are renowned for their virtue; because their virtue is revered, there are Sons of Heaven who do not address eminent monks by personal name. Taizong of the Tang referring to Xuanzang with the honorific gong is an example of this. The commentary states: 'A gentleman of consummate virtue is not addressed by name.' Did Taizong not apply this rule? Now, when the Spring and Autumn Annals records a personal name, it is not with the intent of commending him. When he presented him with a poem, specifically calling him by name and reproving and pricking him—how could that be appropriate? Even if he was not National Preceptor Qingliang, this would already be improper; if it was indeed Master Guan, it was all the more impermissible! As for Master of the Dharma Guan, from the time Emperor Daizong of the Tang invited him with courtesy to inquire about the Way down to Emperor Wenzong, he served as preceptor to the emperors of seven reigns. His virtue was revered and wondrous, and his learning and insight thoroughly mastered the internal and external; he lived to over a hundred years of age. At the peak of his flourishing transformation, one can reckon that Master Han was merely a youthful petty official; how would he have dared present him with such a poem? Master Han must have seen that Master Guan's moral prestige was revered and immense, standing at the head of the Buddhist fold, and used him fictitiously to compose the poem to display his own slight and disdain, showing his spirit of debasing the Buddhadharma and misleading the aspiring minds of scholars; it was not genuinely presented to Guan. Although Master Han recklessly and without regard for whether the principle was permissible broad-mindedly reviled the Buddha, he was utterly unaware that he was thereby insulting his own ruler and the ancestral sovereigns of his own dynasty. The Book of Rites says that one does not dare to mention the horses of the lord's carriage; if a horse treads on their fodder, there is punishment. When one sees the lord's armrest or staff, one stands up; when passing the lord's carriage, one alights. This is out of reverence for one's lord. Yet Master Han went so far as to blatantly slight and disdain his lord's preceptor, someone to whom the Son of Heaven had consistently extended polite courtesy; what became of his propriety and righteousness? For instance, on the imperial birthday of Emperor Dezong, he bestowed a carriage to invite him to the inner palace to expound the Dharma and broadly set forth the new scriptures. At that time, the Emperor silently plunged into the oceanic seal samādhi and was clearly and greatly awakened. He admonished his gathered ministers, saying: 'My preceptor's words are elegant and concise; his expressions are canonical and rich. He fans the true wind in the heaven of supreme truth, and is able to refresh my heart with the sacred Dharma.' Thereupon he bestowed upon him the title of National Preceptor Qingliang ('Refreshing'). Now, when a Dharma master's virtue, position, and presence are as venerable as this, could one insult him and abandon the virtuous righteousness due to the ruler's preceptor? Not only was he disrespectful to his ruler's preceptor and the imperial court, but he also aroused frivolous minds among younger generations. I know that henceforth the failure of the world to follow propriety and righteousness and its contempt for men of virtue—this frivolous trend began with Master Han.

16.31

Twenty-Eighth

16.32

In his reply to Cui Lizhi, Master Han said: 'I see danger and cannot stop; when I act, I miss the opportune time and stumble in disarray, losing hold of what I grasped. Entrapped, I do not know how to adapt, suffering humiliation repeatedly, pitied and mocked by gentlemen and petty men alike.' He even went so far as to say: 'If nothing can be attained at all, I shall yet plow in the broad and idle wilderness, fish along lonely shores, seek the neglected records of the state, examine the beginnings and ends of worthy men and wise scholars, and compose a single classic for the Tang dynasty, handing it down for limitless generations to come, condemning the treacherous and flattering after their deaths, and revealing the hidden brilliance of latent virtue.' Alas! Master Han’s remark about composing 'a single classic for the Tang' went too far. When the ancients founded writings and established doctrines, every single word and phrase had to serve as a model for later scholars to rely on; if their words did not hit the mark, they led those scholars astray. In the Book of Zhou, 'The Successful Completion of the War' was edited and established by Confucius’s brush, yet because it says 'the blood flowed till it floated the pestles,' Meng Ke still rejected and censured it, saying that it spoke what should not have been spoken and went to excess. When Confucius composed the texts of the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Six Arts, he still did not refer to them himself as 'classics' (jing); they were called 'classics' only when later Confucians revered what the ancient sage had created. Formerly, Yang Xiong composed the Classic of the Great Mystery (Taixuan jing) to model it after the Classic of Changes, yet the Confucians of the Han criticized him, comparing him to the rulers of Wu and Chu who usurped titles and claimed to be kings. Now Master Han rashly speaks of composing a classic—how light-minded he is! Even if Master Han’s virtue had equaled Confucius's and he had actually completed his book, he should still have waited for his peers or later generations to honor it as a classic; how could he have arrogated the title to himself beforehand? Even though it was not finished, to compare him to Yang Xiong would still find him guilty of excessive usurpation. When he says 'condemning the treacherous and flattering after their deaths, and revealing the hidden brilliance of latent virtue,' this expresses the intent of praising good and censuring evil, evaluating and judging; it was merely that Master Han harbored an ardent ambition to compile a history. Yet when one looks at the letter discussing historical writing in reply to Licentiate Liu in his Outer Collection, he was on the contrary fearful and dared not undertake it, saying: 'Those who write history, if they do not meet human calamities, will surely suffer heavenly punishment.' He then cited Confucius, the sage who composed the Spring and Autumn Annals, suffering humiliation in Lu, Wei, Chen, Song, Qi, and Chu, and dying without meeting his time; the grand historians of Qi, whose brothers were almost wiped out; Zuo Qiuming, who chronicled the events of the Spring and Autumn period and lost his sight; Sima Qian, who wrote history and was subjected to castration; Ban Gu, who died emaciated in prison; Chen Shou, who rose and fell and ended up achieving nothing; Wang Yin, who was slandered, dismissed, and died at home; Xi Zuochi, who lost a foot; Cui Hao and Fan Ye, whose clans were exterminated; Wei Shou, whose line heaven cut off; Song Xiaowang, who was executed; and Wu Jing, whom you mention, who likewise is not known to have had lasting fame after personal eminence (one edition merely cites three figures: Sima Qian, Fan Ye, and Zuo Qiuming). Considering this as justification for fault, how laughable that Master Han was so bold in empty words yet so cowardly when it came to actual deeds! Was it truly, as he said before, that 'stumbling in disarray, losing hold of what I grasped,' he uttered this madness?

First 32 of 38 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

鐔津文集 — Classical Chinese