[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [三教平心論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117) › 1.22 # 三教平心論 1.22 三教平心論 1.22 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.22) 能仁未興於上古。聖人開務於後來。故棟宇易橧巢之居。文字代結繩之制。飲血茹毛之俗。雖先用而非珍。火化粒食之功。雖後作而非弊。豈得以詩書先播而當崇。修多羅晚至而當替哉。傅云。佛是妖魅之氣。寺為淫邪之祀。其亦不思之甚也。昔自東漢至於大唐。代代皆禁妖言。處處悉斷邪祀。豈因捨其財力營魑魅之殿堂。放其土民入魍魎之徒眾。況宰輔冠蓋人倫羽儀。王道庾亮之徒。戴逵許詢之輩。皆厝心而崇信。並稟教以歸依。是豈尊妖干魅以自屈乎。良由觀妙知真使之然耳。傅云。趙時梁時皆有僧反。此又不思之言也。若以昔有反僧。而廢今之法眾。豈得以古有叛臣。而不任今之明士。古有亂民。而不養今之黎庶乎。夫青衿有罪。非尼父之失。皂服為非。豈釋尊之咎。僧干朝憲尼犯俗刑。譬誦律而穿窬。如讀禮而憍倨。但應禁非以弘法。不可以人而賤道也。傅云。道人梟皆是貪逆之惡種。此又不思之言也。夫以捨俗修道故稱道人。蠕動之物猶不加害。況為梟獍之事乎。嫁取之禮。尚捨不為。況為禽獸之心乎。何乃引離欲之上人。匹聚塵之下物。毀大慈之善眾。比不祥之惡鳥。以道人為逆種。以梵行比獸心。害善亦何甚乎。傅云。西域胡人因泥而生。是以便事泥瓦。此又不思之言也。且中國之廟以木為主。豈可謂制禮君子皆從木而育乎。親不可忘。故為之神主。以表罔極之心。佛不可忘。故立其形像。以伸如在之敬。欽聖仰德何失之有哉。傅云。帝王無佛則國治年長。後世有佛則政虐祚短。不思能仁設教。豈𨴻淫虐之風。菩薩立言。豈弘桀紂之事。羲軒舜禹之德。在六度而包籠。羿浞辛癸之咎。總十惡以防禁。向使桀遵少欲之教。紂順大慈之道。則伊呂無所用其謀。湯武焉得行其計哉。傅云。未有佛之前。人皆淳和世無篡逆。不思九黎亂德。豈非無佛之年。三苗逆命。非當有佛之後。夏殷之季何有淳和。春秋之時豈無篡逆。佛之為教也。勸臣以忠勸子以孝。勸國以治勸家以和。弘善則示天堂之樂。一非則示地獄之苦。乃謂傷和而長亂。不亦誣謗之甚哉。亦何傷於佛日乎。但自淪於苦海耳。夫以傅奕而肆誣謗之言。以師政而著辯惑之論。是非曲有坦然明甚。萬世之下可以觀矣。 > The Capable and Benevolent One did not arise in high antiquity; the sages initiated their undertakings in later times. Thus buildings replaced dwellings in trees, and writing replaced the system of knotted cords. Although the custom of drinking blood and eating raw flesh was practiced earlier, it was not precious; although the benefit of cooking food with fire and eating grain arose later, it was not an evil. How can one maintain that the Odes and Documents should be revered because they spread earlier, while the sūtras should be discarded because they arrived later? Fu \[Yi\] says: 'The Buddha is an aura of monstrous spectres; temples are shrines of licentious perversion.' This is exceedingly unthinking of him. In the past, from the Eastern Han down to the Great Tang, every dynasty prohibited uncanny talk and every place suppressed perverse shrines. How could they have expended their wealth and resources to construct halls for mountain demons, or released the people of their land to become the followers of monstrous sprites? What is more, prime ministers and high-ranking dignitaries—the paragons of human relations—such as Wang Dao and Yu Liang, and those of the rank of Dai Kui and Xu Xun, all set their hearts to reverence and believe, taking up the teachings and taking refuge. Would they have debased themselves by honoring demons and soliciting sprites? It was truly because they observed the wondrous and recognized the true that made them do so. Fu says: 'In the Zhao and Liang periods, there were monks who rebelled.' This again is an unthinking statement. If one is to abolish the assembly of the Dharma today because there were rebellious monks in the past, how could one fail to employ the brilliant scholars of today because there were treacherous ministers in antiquity, or fail to sustain the common folk of today because there were disorderly people in ancient times? If the wearers of blue collars commit crimes, this is not the fault of Father Ni; if those in black robes do wrong, how could it be the fault of Śākyamuni? A monk offending against the imperial statutes or a nun violating secular penalties is like one who recites the laws yet engages in burglary, or like one who reads the Rites yet acts arrogantly. One ought merely to prohibit wrong conduct in order to propagate the Dharma; one cannot despise the Dao on account of the persons. Fu says: 'Monks are like owls and ape-like fiends, all of a covetous and rebellious bad seed.' This again is an unthinking statement. It is because they abandon the secular to practice the Dao that they are called 'men of the Dao'. They do not harm even creeping creatures—how much less would they commit the deeds of owls and fiends! They even abandon and do not perform the rites of marriage—how much less would they harbor the hearts of birds and beasts! Why then drag in superiors free from desire to pair them with base beings mired in the dust, or defame the virtuous assembly of great compassion by comparing them to ominous, evil birds, regarding men of the Dao as a rebellious breed and likening pure conduct to a beastly mind? How extreme is this harm done to goodness! Fu says: 'The barbarians of the Western Regions were born from mud, and therefore they easily worship mud and tiles.' This again is an unthinking statement. The ancestral shrines of the Central Realm take wood as their spirit tablets; can one say that the gentlemen who formulated the rites were all born from wood? Since parents cannot be forgotten, spirit tablets are made for them to express boundless grief; since the Buddha cannot be forgotten, his images are erected to extend reverence 'as if he were present'. Where is the error in revering the sage and admiring virtue? Fu says: 'When sovereigns had no Buddha, the state was well-governed and their years were long; in later generations when there was the Buddha, the administration was tyrannical and reigns were short.' He does not consider: How could the Capable and Benevolent One have established teachings to foster a wind of licentiousness and tyranny? How could the Bodhisattva have instituted words to promote the deeds of Jie and Zhou? The virtues of Fuxi, Xuan Yuan, Shun, and Yu are encompassed within the six perfections; the crimes of Houyi, Han Zhuo, Xin, and Gui are all restrained and prohibited by the ten unwholesome deeds. If Jie had previously complied with the teaching of few desires, and Zhou had accorded with the way of great compassion, then Yi Yin and Lü Shang would have had nowhere to employ their stratagems, and how could Tang and Wu have executed their plans? Fu says: 'Before there was the Buddha, people were all pure and harmonious, and the world was free of usurpation and rebellion.' He does not consider: When the Jiuli disrupted virtue, was that not a time without the Buddha? When the Sanmiao rebelled against the imperial command, was that not before there was the Buddha? How was there purity and harmony at the end of the Xia and Yin? How could the Spring and Autumn period have been without usurpation and rebellion? The Buddha's teaching advises ministers to be loyal and children to be filial, advises the country to be well-governed and the family to be harmonious. To propagate good, it displays the bliss of heavenly realms; for a single wrong, it reveals the suffering of hells. To say that it harms harmony and fosters disorder—is this not an extreme slander? How could it harm the sun of the Buddha? It only plunges \[the slanderer\] into the sea of suffering. Thus, when Fu Yi unleashed his slanderous words, Fazhi composed his treatise resolving doubts; the right and wrong, the crooked and the straight, were exceedingly distinct and clear, available for observation through myriad generations. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.21) - [Next: 1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.23) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117~en-mt.1.22) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [佛祖歷代通載](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.11.10.3) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.22) · Pramāṇa