三教平心論 2.4

2.4

愈又曰。臣雖至愚。必知陛下不惑於佛。又曰。衛而出之於境。不令惑眾。蓋謂憲宗為佛所惑。而又因以惑眾也。愈又不思甚哉。孔子曰。智者不惑。謂天下之可惑者皆愚者也。智者既明且哲。洞屬是非。凡所作為必真見其理之可為而後為之。斷斷乎不為事物所惑矣。故以愚人而奉佛。謂之受惑可也。以明主而奉佛。謂之受惑不可也。若憲宗者。聰明果決得於天性。是豈愚者。豈是易惑者乎。非特憲宗為然也。唐世人主如太宗之聰明英武。由漢以來未之有也。而其篤信佛教。始終如一。觀其剏宏福寺也。則曰。專為崇穆太后追福。言發涕零。躬自制疏。稱皇帝菩薩戒弟子。及玄奘法師之譯經也。則為之序。而名之曰御製三藏聖教序。覽菩薩藏經。愛其祠旨微妙也。則詔皇太子撰菩薩藏經序。虞世南之卒。而夢其進讜言如平生也。則即其家齋僧造像。以資冥福。念建義兵以來殞身以行陣者莫之極也。則普為義士兇徒建寺剎。享太平之後。念手誅千餘人者。不及見也。則以御服施僧而求薦擢。蓋太宗之聰明。遠過於憲宗也。而太宗之奉佛。尤不止如憲宗之迎骨也。是豈為佛所惑乎。使太宗果愚而受惑。則當時房杜王魏直言無隱。胡為不諫其奉佛乎。不惟不諫其奉佛也。若房梁公玄齡。則相與命玄奘譯經。杜萊公如晦。則以法尊京兆玄琬。其欽崇歸向之心。君臣同一德。又不惟房杜二公為然也。宋璟剛介為唐朝第一。則以佛法師於曇一。裴晉公以身繫天下安危。則執弟子禮於徑山法針。抱大節忠於國家死而不變者。孰若顏魯公。則以戒稱弟子於湖州慧明。問道於江西嚴峻。輕名利少緣飾純孝而清正者。孰若天魯山。則以母亡而刺血書佛經數千言。至於張說撰心經之序。孟簡結塵外之交。杜鴻漸參無住之禪。權德輿著草衣之記。彼諸賢聖。皆表表然不世出者。使佛教果能惑人。亦安能惑如是之聖賢耶。以是知唐之君臣次非受惑。而愈之惑亦甚矣。雖然愈之惑不足論也。而其惑天下後世。則非細故也。蓋愈以儒自負。經生學士視之如太山北斗。愈之所是從而是之。愈之所非從而非之。誰復詳審諦察。而考其所以操履者。則何如哉。吾嘗因其遺文考其操履。乃知愈光範三書。求售於時宰。何其急於富貴乎。孔子曰。儒有席上之珍以待聘。夙夜強學以待問。懷忠信以待舉。力行仁以待取。其待而不求也如此。蓋以道義自重也。孟子曰。迎之致敬以有禮言。將行其言也則就之。禮貌衰則去之。其難進易退也如此。蓋以道義自高。愈之嗜進一至於此。則於道義掃地矣。愈之書欲朝廷因己之爵祿。以誘至天下之遺才。殊不知。天下之士固有不隕穫於負賤。不充溢於富貴。大能守道抱義如尹傅之流者。非幣帛之聘肖像之求。不輕其身以為世用也。古之人未嘗不欲仕也。又惡不由其道。不由其道而往者。與鑽穴隙之類也。則愈之操履蓋可知矣。

[Han] Yu also said: "Although your subject is utterly foolish, he certainly knows that Your Majesty is not deluded by the Buddha." He also said: "Have it guarded and escorted out of the border, so as not to allow it to delude the masses." This meant that Emperor Xianzong was deluded by the Buddha and thereby went on to delude the masses. How exceedingly thoughtless Han Yu was! Confucius said: "The wise are not deluded." This means that in the world, those who can be deluded are all fools. The wise are both enlightened and discerning, clearly seeing right from wrong; in whatever they do, they must truly see that its principle is tenable before they act. They are resolutely not deluded by external things. Therefore, when a foolish person reveres the Buddha, it may be said to be delusion; when an enlightened sovereign reveres the Buddha, it cannot be called delusion. As for Xianzong, his intelligence and decisiveness were endowed by his nature; was he a fool? Was he someone easily deluded? It was not Xianzong alone who was like this. Among sovereigns of the Tang dynasty, none since the Han had the brilliance and martial valor of Taizong. Yet his devout faith in Buddhism was consistent from beginning to end. Look at his founding of Hongfu Monastery: he said, "It is solely to pursue blessings for Empress Dowager Chongmu"; as he spoke, tears fell, and he composed the prayer with his own hand, referring to himself as "the Emperor, a disciple of the bodhisattva precepts." When Master Xuanzang translated the sūtras, he wrote a preface for him, titling it *Imperial Preface to the Tripiṭaka Holy Teaching*. Reading the *Bodhisattvapiṭaka Sūtra* and delighting in its subtle and profound purport, he decreed that the Crown Prince write a preface to the *Bodhisattvapiṭaka Sūtra*. When Yu Shinan died, and Taizong dreamed that he presented straightforward advice as he had in life, he at once held a vegetarian feast for monks and made images at his home to aid his posthumous blessings. Mindful that since the raising of the righteous troops those who had fallen in the ranks were beyond count, he founded monasteries everywhere for the righteous soldiers and violent rebels alike. After enjoying peace, mindful of the more than one thousand men executed by his own hand who did not live to see it, he donated imperial robes to monks to seek their salvation. Taizong's intelligence far surpassed that of Xianzong, and Taizong's devotion to the Buddha went far beyond Xianzong's mere reception of the bone. Could he have been deluded by the Buddha? If Taizong were truly foolish and deluded, why did the ministers of that time—Fang, Du, Wang, and Wei, who spoke straightforwardly without concealment—fail to remonstrate against his reverence for the Buddha? Not only did they not remonstrate against his reverence for the Buddha, but Duke Liang, Fang Xuanling, joined in commanding Xuanzang to translate sūtras, and Duke Lai, Du Ruhui, revered Xuanwan of Jingzhao for the Dharma. In their reverence and devotion, sovereign and ministers shared a single virtue. Nor was it only the two dukes Fang and Du. Song Jing was the foremost in unyielding integrity in the Tang dynasty, yet he took Tanyi as his master in the Buddha-Dharma. Duke Jin, Pei [Du], on whose person rested the safety of the empire, paid the respects of a disciple to Fachan of Jingshan. Among those who embraced great integrity and loyalty to the state, unswerving unto death, who was like Duke Lu, Yan [Zhenqing]? Yet as a recipient of the precepts he called himself a disciple before Huiming of Huzhou, and inquired into the Way with Yanjun of Jiangxi. Among those who made light of fame and gain, cared little for worldly trappings, and were purely filial and upright, who was like Yuan Lushan? For his mother's death, he pricked his blood to write several thousand words of Buddhist sūtras. As for Zhang Yue writing a preface to the *Heart Sūtra*, Meng Jian forging friendships beyond the mundane dust, Du Hongjian practicing the Chan of Wuzhu, and Quan Deyu composing the record of Caoyi—all those worthies and sages were preeminent figures of an era. If Buddhism could truly delude people, how could it delude such sages and worthies? From this we know that the sovereigns and ministers of the Tang were not deluded; rather, Han Yu's own delusion was extreme! Even so, Han Yu's delusion is not worth discussing; yet his deluding of the world and later generations is no trifling matter. Han Yu prided himself on being a Confucian, and scriptural scholars looked upon him as Mount Tai and the Northern Dipper; whatever Yu deemed right, they followed and deemed right; whatever Yu deemed wrong, they followed and deemed wrong. Who among them ever examined closely and scrutinized what his conduct actually was? I once examined his conduct through his extant writings, and only then did I know of his three letters to Guangfan seeking to sell himself to the prime ministers of the time—how impatient he was for wealth and status! Confucius said: "The Confucian has treasures upon his mat waiting to be engaged; he studies diligently day and night waiting to be questioned; he harbors loyalty and trustworthiness waiting to be promoted; he strives to practice benevolence waiting to be selected." Such is his waiting without seeking; it is because he respects himself through Dao and righteousness. Mencius said: "When received with utmost respect and polite words, if [the ruler] is going to practice his words, he approaches him; when courteous manners decline, he leaves." Such is his difficulty in advancing and ease in retreating; it is because he holds himself high through Dao and righteousness. That Han Yu's craving to advance went this far means that his Dao and righteousness were swept into the dust! Yu's letters wished the court to use his own ranks and emoluments to entice the neglected talents of the empire. Little did he realize that among the scholars of the empire there were indeed those who were not dejected by poverty and lowliness, not puffed up by wealth and status, and grandly able to preserve the Dao and embrace righteousness like Yi [Yin] and Fu [Yue], who would not make light of themselves to be used by the world unless invited with gifts of silk or sought out by portrait. The ancients never disliked taking office, yet they hated not doing so by the proper way; to go forward not by the proper way is of the same kind as boring holes through walls. Thus Yu's conduct can well be known.