[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) › 1.23 # 三教平心論 1.23 三教平心論 1.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.23) 厥後有韓愈者。其見猶傅奕也。原道佛骨。佛作奕之章疏也。奕謗佛於前。即有師政以辯其惑。愈謗佛於後。曷為無人以議其非。蓋奕為太史令。特藝者耳。愈以文章顯。乃儒者也。藝者之言。夫人固得與之辯是非。儒者之論。世俗每不敢以致可否。吾則曰。言之而當理。雖非儒而可遵。言之而涉誣。雖果儒而可辯。愈不明吾道一貫之理。可不明而辯之。使其言之誤後世乎。愈之言曰。佛者夷狄之一法。彼徒見佛法來自西域。遂從而夷之。殊不知。佛生於天竺。而五天竺為南閻浮提之正中。是佛家固以彼為中也。後漢書曰。佛道神化興自身毒。其國則殷乎中上玉燭和氣。是儒家亦以彼為中也。由是知此固一中國也。反彼亦一中國也。而謂之夷可乎。天地之大無窮盡。列子曰。無極復無極。無盡復無盡。是知其無極無盡者。而不知其有極有盡也。阿育王藏如來舍利於閻浮提者。八萬四千所。而在今中華者。僅一十九所。則中華在閻浮提內。豈不猶稊米之在太倉乎。何以知此果為中而彼果非中乎。愈之見但知四海九州之內為中國。四海九州之外為四夷。外此更無去處矣。豈知四夷之外復有非夷者哉。愈之見坐井觀天之見也。不然北史所載大秦國者。去幽州數萬里。而居諸夷之外。其國衣冠禮樂制度文章與中華同一殷盛。故號曰大秦。而與大漢齒。由是觀之。則四夷之外固有中國。而漢書以身毒為中國。信不誣也。井鼃不足以語海。固非愈之所能知也。 > Subsequently, there was Han Yu, whose views were just like Fu Yi's. His 'Inquiry into the Dao' and 'Memorial on the Bone of the Buddha' were mere commentaries on Yi. When Yi slandered the Buddha earlier, there was immediately Fazhi to resolve his confusion; when Yu slandered the Buddha later, why was there no one to dispute his errors? It was because Yi was Director of the Astrological Bureau, merely a man of techniques; Yu was renowned for his literary compositions, a Confucian scholar. As for the words of a man of techniques, people certainly were willing to dispute their correctness; but regarding the treatises of a Confucian scholar, the secular world usually dared not express approval or disapproval. I say: If a statement accords with principle, even if it does not come from a Confucian, it can be followed; if a statement involves slander, even if it indeed comes from a Confucian, it can be disputed. When Yu failed to understand the principle of the one thread running through our Way, how could one fail to clarify and dispute it, allowing his words to mislead later generations? Yu's words say: 'The Buddha is a teaching of the barbarians.' He merely saw that the Buddha-Dharma came from the Western Regions, and thereupon treated it as barbarian. He did not know that the Buddha was born in Tianzhu, and the five Tianzhus are the exact center of southern Jambudvīpa; thus the Buddhists certainly take it as the center. The Book of the Later Han says: 'The divine transformations of the Buddha-Dao arose in Shendu. That country is flourishing and opulent, blessed with harmonious air of the jade candle.' Thus the Confucians also take it as the center. From this we know that this \[realm\] is indeed a central realm, and conversely that \[realm\] is also a central realm; can one call it barbarian? The greatness of heaven and earth is inexhaustible and without end. Liezi says: 'Beyond the limitless there is again the limitless; beyond the inexhaustible there is again the inexhaustible.' This recognizes that it is limitless and inexhaustible, but does not know that it has limits and ends. King Aśoka enshrined the relics of the Tathāgata in eighty-four thousand locations throughout Jambudvīpa, yet in present-day China there are only nineteen locations. Is not China within Jambudvīpa like a single grain of millet in a great granary? How can one know that this is truly the center while that is truly not the center? Yu's view only recognized what was within the four seas and the nine provinces as the Central Realm, and what was outside the four seas and the nine provinces as the four barbarian lands; beyond this, there was nowhere else. How could he know that beyond the four barbarian lands there are again regions that are not barbarian? Yu's view was the view of one sitting at the bottom of a well looking at the sky. Otherwise, the country of Da Qin recorded in the History of the Northern Dynasties was tens of thousands of li away from Youzhou, lying outside the various barbarian lands; its caps and robes, rites and music, systems and literary culture were equally flourishing as those of China, and therefore it was called Da Qin and ranked on equal terms with the Great Han. Viewed from this perspective, there certainly is a central realm outside the four barbarian lands, and that the Book of the Han takes Shendu as a central realm is truly no falsehood. A frog in a well cannot be spoken to about the sea; it was truly beyond what Yu could know. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.22) - [Next: 1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.24) - [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.1.23) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.23) · Pramāṇa