三教平心論 2.15

2.15

其送文暢上人序曰。晉宋以來。有道林道安遠法師休上人。其所與游則謝安石王逸少習。鑿齒謝靈運鮑昭之徒。皆時之選。由是真乘法印。與儒典並用。而人知方向。至於送琛上人序。送舉上人序。送暠上人序。製南嶽大明律師碑。製六祖賜諡碑。製南嶽彌陀和尚碑。作法證律師塔碑。作永州淨土院記。作柳大雲寺記。無非闡明佛法開示冥愚。故東坡過曹溪而題曰。釋教譯于中國。必托於儒之能言者。然後傳遠。子厚南遷作曹溪南嶽諸碑。妙絕古今。蓋推本其言與孟軻氏合。可不使學者日見而誦之。然則子厚之碑於佛教如此。宜東坡喜稱而樂道之也。然儒家不滿於子厚者。以其失節於王叔文耳。斯固子厚之失。而深求子厚之心。亦下惠不羞污君之意。初非附權勢而饕富貴也。觀其永州之斥。怡然自得。所謂請封禪求仙翁禱二妃之事。未嘗有焉。則其安恬處順。亦可見矣。及起為柳州刺史。而友人劉禹錫得播州。子厚曰。播非人所居。禹錫親在堂。吾不忍其窮。即具表請以柳易播。雖禹錫得改連州。不待以柳播相易。然即此一念其賢於愈之患失者。豈不猶伯夷之於盜跖乎。深求韓柳之為人。大概韓嗜進。而柳安靜。韓奔競而柳恬退。故子厚送浩初上人序曰。儒者韓退之嘗病予嗜浮圖。予以為凡為其道者。不愛官不爭能。其賢於逐逐然。惟印組是務者亦遠矣。妙哉子厚之言。深中愈之膏肓也。又曰。浮圖誠有不可斥者。往往與易論語合。不與孔子異道。雖聖人復生。不可得而斥也。又曰。退之所罪者。其跡也。曰髠而緇。無夫婦父子。不為耕農蠶桑。忿其外而遺其中。是知石而不知韞玉也。又曰果不信道。而斥焉以夷。則將友惡來盜跖。而賤季札由余乎。詳觀子厚之言。則韓柳之見。豈不天淵也哉。後世經生學士。不及詳考韓之是非。而徒欲傚韓之詆佛。歐陽文忠公今之韓愈也。舊唐書謂。愈性愎忤。當時達官皆薄其為人。而公則喜其攘斥佛老。乃隱其惡著其善。而稱其佐佑六經。

In his 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Wenchang', he says: 'Since the Jin and Song dynasties, there have been Daolin, Dao'an, Master Huiyuan, and Superior Xiu. Those with whom they associated were Xie Anshi, Wang Yishao, Xi Zuochi, Xie Lingyun, Bao Zhao, and their peers, all chosen figures of their times. Because of this, the True Vehicle and the Dharma-seal were used in tandem with the Confucian canons, and people knew where to turn.' As for his 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Chen', 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Ju', and 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Gao', his composition of the stele for Vinaya Master Daming of Nanyue, his composition of the stele for the Sixth Patriarch's posthumous title, his composition of the stele for Venerable Amitābha of Nanyue, his writing of the pagoda stele for Vinaya Master Fazheng, his writing of the 'Record of the Pure Land Cloister in Yongzhou', and his writing of the 'Record of Dayun Monastery in Liuzhou'—all of them, without exception, expound the Buddha Dharma and enlighten the dark and foolish. Therefore, when Dongpo passed Caoqi, he inscribed: 'When the Buddha's teachings were translated in China, they necessarily had to rely on Confucians capable of literary expression before spreading far. When Zihou was banished to the south, he composed various steles at Caoqi and Nanyue that are wondrously supreme past and present; their words trace the roots back to harmonize with Mencius. How could we not have scholars see and recite them daily?' Thus, such were Zihou's steles on Buddhism, and it was right for Dongpo to delight in praising and speaking of them. However, what Confucians find dissatisfying about Zihou is merely that he compromised his integrity under Wang Shuwen. This was indeed Zihou's fault; yet if one delves deeply into Zihou's heart, it was also Liu Xiahui's intention of not being ashamed of a vile prince, and not originally a case of attaching himself to power and greedily seeking wealth and rank. Observing his banishment in Yongzhou, he was serene and self-contained; the so-called matters of petitioning for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, consulting an Immortal, and praying to the Two Consorts never occurred with him. Thus his peaceful equanimity and compliance with circumstances can be seen. When he was recalled to become Prefect of Liuzhou, his friend Liu Yuxi was assigned to Bozhou. Zihou said: 'Bozhou is no fit place for human dwelling, and Yuxi's mother is elderly at home; I cannot bear his destitution.' He immediately prepared a memorial requesting to exchange Liuzhou for Bozhou. Although Yuxi was able to be reassigned to Lianzhou, not needing the exchange between Liuzhou and Bozhou, yet this single thought—how much superior was it to Yu's worry about losing his post! Was it not like Bo Yi compared to Robber Zhi? If one deeply examines the character of Han and Liu: roughly speaking, Han was fond of advancement, while Liu was peaceful and quiet; Han rushed after ambition, while Liu was calm and retiring. Therefore, Zihou's 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Haochu' says: 'The Confucian Han Tuizhi once criticized my fondness for the Buddha. I consider that all who practice its Way do not crave office and do not compete for ability; how much further superior are they to those who frantically pursue nothing but official seals and ribbons!' How wondrous are Zihou's words! They hit deeply at Yu's incurable flaw. He also says: 'The Buddha truly has that which cannot be denounced; it often accords with the *Changes* and the *Analects*, not diverging in Way from Confucius. Even if the sage were reborn, it could not be denounced.' He also says: 'What Tuizhi condemns are merely its outward traces: he says they shave their heads and wear black robes, have neither wife nor child, and do not plow the fields or raise silkworms. Angered at their outside, he discards what is inside; this is knowing the stone while being ignorant of the jade contained within.' He also says: 'If one truly does not believe in the Way and denounces it as barbarian, then should one take E Lai and Robber Zhi as friends, while looking down on Jizha and You Yu?' Examining Zihou's words in detail, were not the insights of Han and Liu as far apart as heaven and the abyss? Later classical scholars and men of letters have failed to examine Han's rights and wrongs in detail, and have merely wished to imitate Han's denunciation of Buddhism. Duke Ouyang Wenzhong is the Han Yu of today. The *Old Book of Tang* states that Yu was by nature obstinate and contrarian, and the high officials of the time all held his character in low regard; yet the Duke delighted in his rejection of Buddhism and Daoism, and thus concealed his faults, displayed his virtues, and praised him for upholding the Six Classics.