三教平心論 2.29

2.29

謝顯道。歷舉佛說與吾儒同處問伊川。伊川答曰。任他同處。雖多只是本領不是。一齊差却。夫伊川不能明指其何處差何處不是。而徒泛言其差與不是。豈天下之公論乎。夫不能指其何處差。是終不見其有差處也。不能指其何處不是。且終不見其不是處也。直欲以愛憎之心。而誣之曰差。誣之曰不是。天下後世。豈無根之語所能欺哉。至於晦菴指其實見之差。謂釋氏之學正謂惡此理之充塞無間。而使已不得一席無理之地以自安。厭此理之流行不息。而使已不得無理之時以自肆。殊不知。釋氏非厭惡此理而欲無此理也。正以世有二障。曰事障。曰理障不特事能障吾之心。而理亦能障吾之心。圓覺經曰。若諸眾生。先除事障未除理障。但能悟入聲聞緣覺。未能顯住菩薩境界正此意也。故學佛者。不明此理。固無以識心性之真。而執滯此理。亦未免為心性之礙。是以勉強力行之初。固當研窮此理。從容中道之後。則不可執滯此理。故曰渡河須用筏。到岸不須船。不特釋教如此。而儒教亦如此。只如周文王。不大聲不長夏。則是除事障也。至於不識不知。則理障除矣。顏氏不遷怒不貳過。則是除事障也至於如愚坐忘。則理障除矣。文王聖人也。顏子幾聖也。固能不為理所障。若分量未至於聖。則只能改過遷善。以除事障。安能不思不勉以除理障哉。晦菴分量遠未到此。所以徒欲執滯此理。而謂釋氏不合厭惡此理。且指為實見之差。識者觀之。則知差不在釋氏。而在晦菴也。嗟夫。望山者其高蒼蒼。望海者其遠茫茫。振屣而昇蒼蒼彌高。鼓棹而遊茫茫彌遠。而後進向之所覩未盡也。所覩未盡。而輕議論。辭窮理屈。則寂無容聲。明道曰。釋氏之說。若欲窮其說而去取之。則其說未能窮。固已化而為佛矣。明道於此始知釋氏之說。非儒者所能窮也。晦菴曰。就使其說有實。非吾儒之說所及者。是乃過乎中正。而與不及者無以異。晦菴於此始知釋氏之說。非儒者所能及也。

Xie Xiandao cited point by point where the Buddha's teachings agree with our Confucianism to ask Yichuan. Yichuan answered: "No matter how many points of agreement there are, their fundamental basis is simply wrong, and so everything goes awry together." Now, Yichuan was unable to point out clearly where it goes awry or where it is wrong, but merely spoke vaguely of its going awry and being wrong. How could this be an impartial verdict for the world? Being unable to point out where it goes awry shows that he never actually saw where it went awry; being unable to point out where it is wrong shows that he never actually saw where it was wrong. He merely wished, with a mind of love and hate, to slander it by saying it goes awry and slander it by saying it is wrong. How could the world and posterity ever be deceived by baseless words? As for Hui'an pointing out the error in their actual view, he claimed that the Buddhist teaching precisely hates that this principle is pervasive and without gap, leaving oneself without a single inch of ground devoid of principle in which to be at ease, and loathes that this principle flows ceaselessly, leaving oneself without a moment devoid of principle in which to indulge oneself. Little did he know that the Buddhists do not loathe this principle and wish it away. It is precisely because in the world there are two obstacles: the obstacle of phenomena and the obstacle of principle. Not only can phenomena obstruct our minds, but principle can also obstruct our minds. The *Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment* states: "If sentient beings first eliminate the obstacle of phenomena but have not yet eliminated the obstacle of principle, they can only awaken and enter [the stages of] śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, but are not yet able to abide manifestly in the realm of bodhisattvas." This is precisely the meaning. Therefore, when students of Buddhism do not understand this principle, they will certainly have no way to recognize the truth of the mind-nature; yet if they cling stubbornly to this principle, it also cannot avoid becoming an obstruction to the mind-nature. For this reason, at the beginning of exerting effort and energetically practicing, one must indeed thoroughly investigate this principle; but after leisurely hitting the mark in the Middle Way, one must not cling stubbornly to this principle. Hence it is said: "To cross the river one must use a raft, but having reached the shore one has no need for the boat." Not only is the Buddhist teaching like this, but the Confucian teaching is also like this. Take, for example, King Wen of Zhou: "He did not raise his voice, nor prolong his punishments"—this is eliminating the obstacle of phenomena. As for "knowing nothing and recognizing nothing"—then the obstacle of principle is eliminated. Yanzi "did not transfer his anger, nor repeat a fault"—this is eliminating the obstacle of phenomena. As for "seeming foolish" and "sitting in forgetfulness"—then the obstacle of principle is eliminated. King Wen was a sage; Yanzi was close to a sage. They were indeed able not to be obstructed by principle. If one's capacity has not yet reached that of a sage, one can only correct faults and move toward goodness so as to eliminate the obstacle of phenomena. How could one, without thinking and without effort, eliminate the obstacle of principle? Hui'an's capacity fell far short of this. Therefore, he merely wished to cling stubbornly to this principle, claiming that the Buddhists improperly loathed this principle, and pointing to it as an error in their actual view. When discerning people examine this, they know that the error does not lie with the Buddhists, but with Hui'an. Alas! To one gazing at a mountain, its height is vast and azure; to one gazing at the sea, its expanse is boundless and hazy. If one lifts one's shoes and ascends, the azure grows ever higher; if one plies the oars and roams, the hazy expanse grows ever farther. Only then does one realize that what one saw before was incomplete. Before seeing it completely, to make light critiques, and when words fail and reason is bent, to sink into silence without room for utterance! Mingdao said: "If one wishes to exhaust the Buddhist teachings in order to accept or reject them, then before their teachings can be exhausted, one will already have transformed into a Buddha." At this, Mingdao finally realized that the Buddhist teachings cannot be exhausted by Confucians. Hui'an said: "Even if their teachings have substance that is beyond the reach of our Confucian teachings, this is going beyond the mean and correctness, and is no different from falling short." At this, Hui'an finally realized that the Buddhist teachings cannot be reached by Confucians.