三教平心論 1.21

1.21

蓋儒家得時行道。任職居官。權衡予奪無不出於其手。吾若尊佛教而卑儒教。則彼必仗儒教而抑佛教。武宗相李德裕。而毀招提蘭若四萬餘區。誰實致之。道家道其所道德其所德。措心積慮。不使人得而軋已者。吾若尊佛教而藐道教。則彼必尊道教而黜佛教。崔浩信寇謙之。而悉誅沙門毀諸經。像誰實召之。故莫若以方便之心。為方便之說。謂佛教與儒教合。則庶不激儒教之怒。謂佛教與道教同。則庶不啟道教之爭。謂三教可合而為一。則若儒若道。皆可誘而進之於佛。故曰前賢之言前賢之方便也。而世之好議論者。心心有主喙喙爭鳴。劣儒者議儒。劣道者議道。劣佛者議佛。三教雖不同。而涉議論則一。吾將平其心以評之。切以為議之當其罪。則彼說不容於不屈。議之失其實。則已說有時而自屈。是非得失至理而止。天下後世不可誣也。今取議儒者觀之。司馬遷曰。儒者博而寡要。勞而無功。抑不思一物不知。君子所恥。可謂博矣。而忠恕之道一以貫之。謂之寡要可乎。焚膏繼咎兀兀窮年。可謂勞矣。而修身及家平均天下。謂之無功可乎。蓋遷之學非儒學也。宜其不足以知儒也。程頤。儒者也。其論佛也則以為邪誕妖異之言。塗生民之耳目。蓋佛之說無涯。而頤之見有限。對醯鵒而談浩劫。宜其以邪誕妖異目之也。然頤亦嘗反而思之乎。邪誕妖異於儒教則有之。易曰。見豕負塗載鬼一車。詩曰。天命玄鳥降而生商。史曰。甲申乙酉魚羊食人。傳曰齊侯見豕人立而啼。至于神降于莘。石言于晉。魏顆見老人。狐突遇申生。謂之邪可也。謂之妖可也。謂之異可也。詩曰。帝謂文王。予懷明德。夫天不言也久矣。偶有言焉。人烏得而聞之。今也予懷之語。若見其口耳之相接。不謂之誕可乎。因程頤邪誕妖異之謗。而求儒家邪誕妖異之實。蓋有不可得而掩者。今取議佛者觀之。唐有傅奕者。精術數之書。掌司天之職。前後七上疏。謗褻佛教。時有李師政者。著內德論以辯之。其論曰。傳謂。佛法本出於西胡。不應奉之於中國。則不然矣。夫由余出于西戎。輔秦穆以開埧業。曰磾生於北狄。侍漢武而除危害。何必取其同俗。而捨其異方乎。夫絕群之駿。非邑中之產。曠世之珍。非諸華之物。是以漢求西域之名馬。魏收南海之明珠。物生遠域。尚於此而為珍。道出於遠方。獨柰何而可棄。若藥物出於戎夷。禁呪起於胡越。苟可去病而蠲邪。豈以遠來而不用。夫除八苦以致常藥。其去病也久矣。滅三毒以證無為。其蠲邪也至矣。何待拘遠近而計親疎乎。傳謂。詩書所未言。以為修多羅不足。尚又不然也。且周孔未言之物。蠢蠢無窮。詩書不載之事。茫茫何限。何得拘六經之局教。而特三乘之通旨哉夫。

For Confucians have attained their time to practice the Way, holding office and occupying official posts, with the scales of bestowal and deprivation issuing entirely from their hands. If we were to venerate Buddhism and demean Confucianism, they would surely rely on Confucianism to suppress Buddhism. When Emperor Wuzong took Li Deyu as chief minister and destroyed more than forty thousand saṅghārāmas and monasteries, who was it that truly brought this about? Daoists take what they consider the Way as the Way and what they consider Virtue as Virtue; they plot and scheme deliberately, never allowing others to overcome them. If we were to venerate Buddhism and despise Daoism, they would surely venerate Daoism and expel Buddhism. When Cui Hao believed Kou Qianzhi and executed all the śramaṇas and destroyed the scriptures and images, who was it that truly brought this on? Therefore, nothing compares to using a mind of skillful means to utter words of skillful means: saying that Buddhism harmonises with Confucianism avoids provoking the wrath of Confucianism; saying that Buddhism is identical with Daoism avoids triggering the contention of Daoism; saying that the Three Teachings can unite as one allows both Confucians and Daoists to be enticed and advanced into Buddhism. Hence it is said: the words of the worthy predecessors were the skillful means of the worthy predecessors. Yet the argumentative people of the world each hold their own convictions and contend vociferously: those who disparage Confucianism critique Confucianism; those who disparage Daoism critique Daoism; those who disparage Buddhism critique Buddhism. Though the Three Teachings are not the same, they are identical in being subject to critique. I shall appraise them with an impartial mind: I firmly hold that if a critique accurately addresses their faults, their doctrines cannot but yield; if a critique misses their reality, one's own arguments will eventually collapse. Right and wrong, gain and loss, end where the ultimate truth lies; the world and posterity cannot be deceived. If we now examine those who critique Confucianism: Sima Qian said, 'Confucians are broad but lack essentials; they labor hard but achieve little.' Yet does he not consider that not knowing a single thing is a shame to a gentleman? This can certainly be called broad. And with the Way of loyalty and reciprocity unifying it all, can one call it lacking essentials? Burning oil into the night and toiling relentlessly year after year can certainly be called laborious; yet cultivating the self, regulating the family, and bringing peace to all under heaven—can this be called having no achievement? Qian's learning was not Confucian learning, so it is natural that he was inadequate to understand Confucianism. Cheng Yi was a Confucian; yet when he discussed Buddhism, he regarded it as 'heretical, absurd, monstrous, and anomalous words that smear the ears and eyes of the people.' Buddhism's teachings are boundless, while Yi's views were limited; talking of vast kalpas to a vinegar gnat, it is natural that he viewed it as heretical, absurd, monstrous, and anomalous. Yet did Yi ever reflect upon this? Heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly indeed exist within Confucianism! The *Book of Changes* says: 'Seeing a pig bearing mud, carrying a wagon-load of ghosts.' The *Book of Songs* says: 'Heaven commanded the dark bird to descend and give birth to Shang.' The *Historical Records* say: 'In the jiashen and yiyou years, fish and sheep devoured men.' The *Zuo Commentary* says that the Lord of Qi saw a pig standing like a man and weeping. As for a spirit descending at Shen, a stone speaking in Jin, Wei Ke seeing the old man, and Hu Tu meeting Shen Sheng—these can be called heretical, they can be called monstrous, and they can be called anomalous. The *Book of Songs* says: 'The Lord said to King Wen: "I cherish your illustrious virtue."' Heaven has not spoken for a long time; even if by chance it spoke, how could a mortal hear it? Now, words like 'I cherish' make it seem as if mouth and ear met face-to-face—can one not call this absurd? If, on the basis of Cheng Yi's slander of heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly, one seeks the reality of heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly in Confucianism, there is indeed much that cannot be concealed. If we now examine those who critique Buddhism: in the Tang dynasty there was Fu Yi, who was skilled in books of occult arts and held the post of Astrologer. He submitted seven memorials in succession, slandering and disparaging Buddhism. At that time there was Li Shizheng, who authored the *Treatise on Inner Virtue* (*Neide lun*) to dispute it. His argument stated: 'Tradition says: "The Buddha's teaching originally came from the western barbarians; it should not be revered in the Central Land." But this is not so. Youyu came from the Western Rong, yet he assisted Duke Mu of Qin in founding his hegemony; Jin Midi was born among the Northern Di, yet he served Emperor Wu of Han and eliminated perils. Why must one accept only those of the same customs and discard those from different lands? Indeed, an extraordinary steed is not bred in an ordinary town; a rare treasure of an age is not produced in the Chinese lands. Thus the Han sought famous horses from the Western Regions, and the Wei gathered bright pearls from the South Seas. If things produced in distant realms are still prized here, why should a Way issuing from distant lands alone be discarded? If medicines come from the Rong and Yi, and incantations arise among the Hu and Yue, as long as they can cure disease and dispel evil, why should one refuse to use them because they come from afar? Eliminating the eight sufferings to attain the eternal medicine—its healing of disease is long-established; eradicating the three poisons to realise unconditioned reality—its dispelling of evil is supreme. Why bother to be constrained by distant and near, or calculate familiarity and estrangement? Tradition says: "What is not spoken of in the *Odes* and *Documents* makes the sūtras inadequate." This, too, is not so. The things not spoken of by Zhou and Confucius are myriad and endless; the matters not recorded in the *Odes* and *Documents* are vast and boundless. How can one be confined to the limited teachings of the Six Classics and reject the universal purport of the Three Vehicles?'