鐔津文集 16.26

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!