[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) › 2.32 # 三教平心論 2.32 三教平心論 2.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2.32) 至於達磨大師既葬之後。而以肉身西歸。萬回大士一日之間。而能往返萬里。耆域以一身。而同時應百家之供。圓澤於一世。而悉能知三生之事羅漢作禮仰山寂。嶽神受戒於嵩岳珪。曇始劍所不傷。寒山隱入石壁。生死去來惟意所適。神通變化不可測量。是雖佛教之糟粕。初非宗門之所尚。然自餘教觀之。終未有如是之奇踪異軌。見既未能及此而欲輕議佛教。不知其果何說也。若曰。因果之說不足信也。則作善降之百祥。作不善降之百殃。積善必有餘慶。積不善必有餘殃。儒家固以因果教人也。豈謂敬不足行。謂暴為無傷者。反為知道乎。若曰。齋潔之說不足取也。則不茹葷者。孔子以為祭祀之齋。致齋三日者。禮記以為清明之德。儒家固以齋潔教人也。豈垂肉為林日食萬錢者。反為美事乎。若曰。殺生之戒非是。則成湯之祝網。趙簡子之放生。皆是意也。齊宣不忍一牛。孟子謂之仁術。宋庠救諸螻蟻。君子以為美談。儒家曷嘗不以護生為盛德之事哉。若曰。飲酒之戒非是。則大禹之惡旨酒。光武之不飲酒。皆是意也。沈亂於酒。所以干先王之誅。醉而號呶。所以致賓筵之刺。儒家曷嘗不以沈湎為召禍之本哉。若曰。盜取之戒非儒家之所尚。則伊尹所謂非其道也。非其義也。一介不以取諸人。東坡所謂。天地之間物各有主。苟非吾之所有。雖一毫而莫取是果何說也。若曰。妄語之戒非儒家之所急。則司馬溫公至誠之學。自不妄語。始又其作資治通鑑。謂秦孝公不廢移木之賞。齊威公不背曹沬之盟。晉文公不貪伐原之利。是果何意也。若曰。邪婬之戒為臆說。則美反正刺婬泆見於聲。詩之所詠。是儒家未嘗縱人邪婬也。若曰。布施之說為狂言。則賜貧窮賑乏絕。見戴禮之所記。是儒家未嘗禁人布施也。若曰。禪定非善道。則知止而後有定。大學何為取之。若曰。忍辱非美事。則小不忍必亂大謀。論語何為戒之。若曰。惡口不必戒。則禮記何以曰。惡言不出於口。若曰嗔恚不必戒。則尚書何以曰不啻不敢含怒。若曰。兩舌之戒非急務。則爾無面從退有後言。何以諄複於帝舜之命。若曰。綺語之戒為迂闊。則巧言如簧顏之厚矣。何以見刺於小雅之章。若曰貪欲無傷於事。則貪人敗類。詩人何為刺之。若曰。邪見無害於道。則邪說誣民。孟子何為闢之。若曰。毀其形緇其服。非天下之中道。則泰伯斷髮文身。何為稱之有至德。若曰。不嫁娶不養育。絕人倫之常道。則魯山終身不聚。何為謚之以文行佛之大道遠理。固未易與俗人言。姑以其粗迹論之。不知何者為可非。何者為可毀乎。見聞不廣而妄肆非毀是不免為舜犬妾婦而已矣。 > Furthermore, Great Master Bodhidharma, after he was buried, returned to the west in his bodily form; the Mahāsattva Wanhui could travel back and forth ten thousand li in a single day; Jīvaka with a single body responded simultaneously to offerings from a hundred households; and Yuanze within a single lifetime fully knew the events of three births. An arhat bowed in homage to Yangshan Huiji; a mountain god received the precepts from Songyue Yuangui; Tanshi could not be harmed by swords; Hanshan vanished into a stone wall. Their coming and going in life and death was solely according to their will, and their supernatural transformations were beyond measure. Although these are merely the dregs of Buddhism and were not originally what the ancestral school esteemed, yet viewed from the standpoint of other teachings, none have ever shown such extraordinary traces and unusual courses. When one's own vision has not even reached this level and yet one wishes to lightly criticize Buddhism, I know not indeed what grounds there are for such statements. If one says that the teaching of cause and effect is unworthy of belief, then \[the ancient books say:\] 'Upon the doer of good \[Heaven\] sends down all blessings; upon the doer of evil it sends down all calamities,' and 'A family that accumulates good will surely have an excess of celebration; a family that accumulates evil will surely have an excess of calamities.' Confucianism certainly instructs people through cause and effect; could it be that those who say reverence is not worth practicing and who claim cruelty causes no harm are instead the ones who understand the Way? If one says that the teaching of purification and abstention is unworthy of adoption, then refraining from pungent roots and meat was regarded by Confucius as the fasting of sacrifice, and undertaking three days of fasting was regarded by the Book of Rites as the virtue of purity and clarity. Confucianism certainly instructs people through purification and abstention; could it be that hanging meat to make a forest and spending ten thousand cash daily on food is on the contrary an admirable deed? If one says that the precept against killing living beings is wrong, then Tang of Shang's praying over the net and Zhao Jianzi's releasing of living creatures were both of this intent. King Xuan of Qi could not bear \[the terror of\] an ox, which Mencius called the art of benevolence; Song Xiang saving the ants was taken by gentlemen to be an admirable tale. When has Confucianism ever failed to take the protection of life as a matter of great virtue? If one says that the precept against drinking wine is wrong, then the Great Yu's hatred of fine wine and Emperor Guangwu's abstention from wine were both of this intent. Being sunk and disordered in wine was the reason for incurring punishment from the former kings, and being drunk and bawling was the cause of satire in the banquet songs. When has Confucianism ever failed to regard intoxication as the root that summons disaster? If one says that the precept against stealing is not what Confucianism esteems, then what Yi Yin said—'If it is not according to the Way, if it is not according to righteousness, one would not take a single blade of grass from others'—and what Dongpo said—'Between Heaven and Earth, all things have their masters; if it is not my possession, I will not take even a hair'—what indeed could these statements mean? If one says that the precept against false speech is not an urgent concern for Confucianism, then the Sima Duke of Wen's learning of utmost sincerity began with not speaking falsely; and when he wrote the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Governance, he noted that Duke Xiao of Qin did not revoke the reward for moving the log, Duke Huan of Qi did not violate the covenant with Cao Mo, and Duke Wen of Jin did not covet the gain from attacking Yuan—what indeed was the intent of these? If one says that the precept against sexual misconduct is an unfounded claim, then praising return to correctness and criticizing wanton licentiousness appear in the voices sung in the Book of Odes; thus Confucianism has never permitted people to engage in sexual misconduct. If one says that the teaching of giving is raving nonsense, then bestowing upon the poor and relieving the destitute appears in the records of the Dai Rites; thus Confucianism has never forbidden people to practice giving. If one says that dhyāna-meditation is not a good way, then 'Only after knowing what to abide in can there be stability'—why did the Great Learning take this up? If one says that forbearance is not an admirable matter, then 'Lack of forbearance in small matters upsets great plans'—why did the Analects warn against this? If one says that harsh speech does not need to be abstained from, why does the Book of Rites say, 'Wicked words do not issue from the mouth'? If one says that anger does not need to be abstained from, why does the Book of Documents say, 'Not merely not daring to harbor anger'? If one says that the precept against duplicity is not an urgent matter, then 'Do not obey in person and speak otherwise in retreat'—why was this reiterated in Emperor Shun's mandate? If one says that the precept against frivolous speech is impractical, then 'Clever talk is like a reed organ, their faces are thick indeed'—why was this satirized in the Lesser Odes? If one says that greed causes no harm to affairs, then 'Greedy people destroy their kind'—why did the poets satirize it? If one says that wrong views do not harm the Way, then 'Heterodox theories deceive the people'—why did Mencius refute them? If one says that shaving one's appearance and donning black robes is not the Middle Way of all under Heaven, then Taibo cut his hair and tattooed his body—why was he praised as possessing the utmost virtue? If one says that not marrying and not raising offspring cuts off the constant way of human relations, then \[Yuan\] Lushan remained unmarried throughout his life—why was he posthumously titled 'Cultured Conduct' (Wenxing)? The great Way and profound principle of the Buddha are indeed not easily discussed with ordinary folk. Let us merely discuss them based on these rough traces: I know not what among them is open to fault, or what is open to slander? Lacking broad learning and experience while recklessly indulging in condemnation and slander—this cannot but make one a dog of Shun or a concubine and wife. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2.31) - [Next: 2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2.33) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117~en-mt.2.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.2.32) · Pramāṇa