鐔津文集 16.10

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!