三教平心論 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Preface to the Treatise on the Three Teachings with an Impartial Mind

The three luminaries adorn the heavens, shining through myriad ages without end; the hundred streams reach the sea, uniting in a single taste and losing their names. The emergence of the Three Teachings dates back to antiquity. Circulating together in the world, they have transformed and completed all under heaven. If one debates them based on their outward traces, they have never been otherwise than distinct; if one traces them by principle, they have never been otherwise than identical. They are one yet three, three yet one, and cannot be held near or far. Master Yuan of Gushan said: “The Three Teachings are like a tripod: missing one, it cannot stand.” This is truly an incontrovertible statement for all ages. Alas, those who cling to outward traces and are deluded about principle reject one another, thereby bringing it about

1.3

that the effortless Way of the ancient sages turns into a source of contentious dispute. How lamentable indeed! Recently, I examined this treatise on principle composed by Scholar Jingzhai: its words are concise, its principles exhaustive, fully good and fully beautiful. It plumbs the origins of Confucianism and Daoism and opens the profound secrets of the gate of Śākya. In analyzing doubts and discerning right from wrong, it never fails to proceed from impartial judgment. It is like the stars upon a steelyard, leaving no discrepancy in weight; or like a mirror before its stand, making it impossible to conceal beauty or ugliness. The composition of this treatise truly has good reason. Upright Layman Wu Dinglai of Tongcheng, whose wisdom and understanding are transcendent and whose associations are entirely fair-minded (the term “associations” comes from the Shiji, meaning that words and intentions agree, and one associates with them as friends), commissioned artisans to carve it into printing blocks in order to spread its transmission broadly. He wished to cause readers—such as Bai Juyi, Zhang Shangying, and other worthies of the Tang and Song dynasties—to examine its ultimate principle and directly proceed

1.4

to the limit of reality, together shedding the burdens of worldly dust. How could this be of only minor benefit?

1.5

Respectfully prefaced on the first day of the seventh month, autumn, in the year of the Dragon [Year of Jiazi].

1.6

Composed by Scholar Jingzhai, Liu Mi

1.7

I have observed the existence of the Three Teachings in China. Ever since Fuxi drew the eight trigrams, Confucianism began with this. Ever since Laozi composed the Daodejing, Daoism began with this. Ever since Emperor Ming of Han dreamed of the golden man, Buddhism began with this. Such is the sequence of the Three Teachings in China. In general, Confucianism establishes its teaching through rectitude; Daoism establishes its teaching through reverence; Buddhism establishes its teaching through greatness. If we observe their love of life and hatred of killing, they share the same benevolence. In regarding others as oneself, they share the same impartiality. In checking anger, restraining desires, prohibiting faults, and guarding against wrongdoing, they share the same cultivation and conduct. In thundering to awaken the deaf and shining as the sun and moon to enlighten the blind, they share the same civilizing influence. Considered from their coarse traces, the principles under heaven are nothing more than the two paths of good and evil, and the intent of the Three Teachings is nothing other than wishing to bring humanity to return to goodness. Therefore, Emperor Xiaozong composed the Discourse on Tracing the Way, saying: “Treat the mind with Buddhism; treat the body with Daoism; treat the world with Confucianism.” If one truly knows that among mind, body, and world, not one can be left untreated, then how could any of the Three Teachings be left unestablished? Layman Wujin composed the Treatise in Defense of the Dharma, saying: “Confucianism treats the skin; Daoism treats the bloodstream; Buddhism treats the bone marrow.” If one truly knows that among skin, bloodstream, and bone marrow, not one can be left untreated, then how could any of the Three Teachings be left unpracticed?

1.8

As for Confucianism in China, it causes the moral order to be correct and human relationships to be clear; the four aspects of ritual, music, penal law, and administration reach everywhere without contradiction; and heaven, earth, and the myriad things find their proper places and nurture. Its merit for all under heaven is vast indeed. Therefore, though the First Emperor of Qin sought to eliminate Confucianism, in the end Confucianism could not be eliminated.

1.9

As for Daoism in China, it causes people to preserve themselves in purity and emptiness, and sustain themselves in humility and pliancy; to wash away the habits of turbulence and entanglement entirely, and return to the realm of silence and non-action. Its benefit to the instruction of the world is utmost indeed. Therefore, though Emperor Wu of Liang sought to abolish Daoism, in the end Daoism could not be abolished.

1.10

As for Buddhism in China, it causes people to abandon ostentation and approach the real, to turn their backs on falsehood and return to truth; to advance from diligent practice to natural and tranquil practice, and from self-benefit to the benefit of others. As that upon which living people rely and take refuge, nothing can surpass it. Therefore, though the three rulers named Wu sought to extinguish Buddhism, in the end Buddhism could not be extinguished.

1.11

When Li Shiqian of the Sui dynasty discussed the Three Teachings, he called the Buddha the sun, Daoism the moon, and Confucianism the five planets. Is it not that, just as heaven cannot lack any of the three luminaries, so the world cannot lack any of the Three Teachings? Although they differ in excellence, in essence they do not permit partial neglect. Yet people have differing minds, and minds hold differing views. Those who admire the Dao claim that the Buddha is not as reverend as the Dao; those who turn toward the Buddha claim that the Dao is not as great as the Buddha. The Confucians maintain themselves in rectitude and reject both Daoism and Buddhism, regarding them as heterodoxy. Affirming and denying, tangled in confusion—so it has been for hundreds and thousands of years. As I now intend to clarify and distinguish them, I submit that one must not judge with selfish bias, nor with a mind of love and hate. Only by calming one's mind and investigating their ultimate achievements can the matter dissolve away like melting ice. Now, “ultimate achievement” is the point where causes are gathered and fruit is produced. All affairs and things under heaven have their ultimate achievement. Soaking one's body and soiling one's feet is the affair of the farmer; when it comes to barns and granaries being full, that is the farmer's ultimate achievement. Traipsing through weeds and sleeping in the dew is the affair of the merchant; when it comes to gold filling his baskets, that is the merchant's ultimate achievement. The same holds true for the Three Teachings. Confucianism has its ultimate achievement; Daoism has its ultimate achievement; Buddhism has its ultimate achievement. When their relative superiority is viewed in terms of their ultimate achievements, it will be clear without awaiting debate.

1.12

Looking at it from the present perspective, the teaching of Confucianism extends from one's own person to one's family, from one's family to the state, and from the state it expands to the four seas and fills the six directions. It can be said to hold to the essential while bestowing broadly. Yet what of that which lies beyond the four seas and the six directions? Its teachings say: “Advancing to the east and covering to the west, reaching as far as the four seas.” Thus, its utmost distance reaches no further than the conclusion of the four seas; it halts here and has nowhere else to go. Such is the teaching of Confucianism. Therefore, those who study Confucianism preserve the mind and nourish their nature, treading in benevolence and walking in righteousness, becoming pure gentlemen complete in the Way and endowed with perfection. Manifested in governance and applied to practical affairs, they can assist the sovereign, shower grace upon the people, bring peace to the state, establish the altars of soil and grain, uphold the worldly teaching, and bring about Great Peace. When their work is accomplished and their bodies grow old, their names are recorded in the green annals of history. The ultimate achievement of Confucianism is just this. Zengzi said: “Only with death does it end; is this not indeed far-reaching?” Truly, upon reaching death, it has reached its limit.

1.13

The teaching of Daoism extends from one's own person to penetrate the unseen realms, from the human world to transcend into the heavens, and from mountain forests and rocky caverns to reach the vast Daluo and the towering Golden Gate. It can be said to transcend the ordinary and enter the sacred. Yet what of that which lies beyond heaven, earth, and the creative transformation? Its teachings say: “Broadly, it encompasses the realm of heaven; finely, it enters a minute speck of dust.” Thus, its greatest extent reaches no further than encompassing the realm of heaven; its realm is limited to this, and whatever lies outside this is not within its knowledge. Such is the teaching of Daoism. Therefore, those who study Daoism concentrate their spirit in singleness of purpose, their movements harmonizing with the formless, rising high into the realm of purity and few desires. Inhaling the new and exhaling the old, accumulating merit and multiplying deeds, they can achieve release by means of a corpse or ascend by flight; they can command ghosts and spirits and summon wind and rain; they can assist creation and establish profound merit. With limitless lifespan, they abide in joyous ease and self-mastery. The ultimate achievement of Daoism is just this. The Huangtingjing says: “With long life and enduring vision, one then flies away.” Truly, upon reaching long life, it has reached its limit.

1.14

As for the teaching of Buddhism, when a single Buddha appears, he takes a trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātū as his reward kṣetra. Speaking provisionally of a single world: in the midst of a single world there is Mount Sumeru, towering out of the great ocean above the nine heavens. The sun and moon revolve around the waist of the mountain, dividing day and night. The four sides of Sumeru form four continents: the east is Pūrvavideha, the west is Aparagodānīya, the south is Jambudvīpa, and the north is Uttarakuru. In each of the four continents there are three thousand continents. The world today is Jambudvīpa. The Central Floriate Kingdom [China] today is one continent among the three thousand continents of the southern continent. Śākya descended to be born in Tianzhu, which is the exact center of the southern continent. The place around the four flanks of Sumeru that looks down upon the sun and moon is called Śakra's heaven. Further up, dwelling radiantly in the midst of empty space, four tiers of cloud heavens are collectively named the kāmadhātu. Further up, eighteen tiers of cloud heavens are collectively named the rūpadhātu. Further up, four tiers of space heavens are collectively named the ārūpyadhātu. In this way, the sentient beings in the traidhātuka undergo birth, old age, sickness, and death; this constitutes a single world. A thousand such worlds are called a minor-thousand [world system]. A thousand such minor-thousand world systems are called a medium-thousand [world system], which is one million. A thousand such medium-thousand world systems are called a great-thousand [world system], which is ten billion. Because 'thousand' is spoken three times, it is called a trisāhasramahāsāhasra; in reality, it is simply one great-thousand. Within one great-thousand there are ten billion Mount Sumerus, ten billion suns and moons, and ten billion four-continents. It is like one million strings of small coins: placing one coin for every world, it is only when these one million strings are exhausted that it constitutes a great-thousand world. This is the reward kṣetra of a single Buddha. When a single Buddha appears, he simultaneously manifests ten billion bodies in ten billion worlds. Therefore the Brahmā Net Sūtra says: 'A single flower holds ten billion lands, and in each land is a Śākya, each seated beneath a Bodhi tree, simultaneously attaining the Buddha path. Such are the hundreds of thousands of myriads [of manifestations] of the original body of Rocana; hundreds of thousands of myriads of Śākyas, each receiving dust-mote assemblies.' This is called the hundreds of thousands of myriads of nirmāṇakāyas. With these hundreds of thousands of myriads of nirmāṇakāyas, he transforms and delivers the womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, miraculously born, the footless, two-footed, four-footed, many-footed, form, formless, with-thought, thoughtless, and even the neither-with-thought-nor-thoughtless in hundreds of thousands of myriads of worlds, causing all to attain deliverance. Such is the teaching of Buddhism. Therefore, those who study Buddhism realize that the pañca-skandhas are all empty and purify the ṣaḍ-indriyas; they distance themselves from the ten unwholesome deeds and cultivate the ten wholesome deeds; they contemplate the catuḥ-smṛtyupasthānas and practice the catuḥ-samyakprahāṇas; they eliminate the sixty-two wrong views so that what is perverse and false has nowhere to abide; they sever the ninety-eight anuśayas so that afflictions cannot cause disturbance; they scrupulously observe the three thousand dignified demeanors and eighty thousand subtle deeds; they constantly perfume and cultivate the catvāry apramāṇāni and the ṣaṭ-pāramitās. In the midst of this, in forgetting their bodies for the sake of the Dharma, they are like those who flay their skin and pierce their blood to write sūtras, or sever their arms and cast down their bodies to seek instruction, without fear or doubt. In forgetting themselves for the sake of other beings, they are like those who endure suffering to cut off flesh to feed a hawk, or abandon life to offer their bodies to feed a tigress, without terror or dread. Money, treasures, cities, wives, and children they cast away like worn sandals; limbs, hands, feet, head, eyes, marrow, and brain they relinquish like shed garments. From life to life through hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of lives, this mind does not retrogress; from kalpa to kalpa through hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of kalpas, this mind becomes ever more vigorous. As a result, when the fruits of the three asaṃkhyeyas are fulfilled and the merits of the myriad virtues are perfected, they depart from the catuṣkoṭi. The 'catuṣkoṭi' means that phenomena do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from others, nor together, nor without cause; therefore it is said that they are unarisen, cutting off the hundred negations. They thoroughly penetrate immeasurable and boundless dharma-gates, skillfully enter immeasurable and boundless samādhis, accomplish the five faculties and five powers, fully possess the three masteries and three clarities, roundly manifest the four wisdoms and trikāya, transcendently realize the ṣaḍ-abhijñās and five eyes, attain the catasraḥ pratisamvidaḥ to preach boundlessly, and enter the catvāra ṛddhipādāḥ for unimpeded supernatural powers. The aṣṭāv abhibhv-āyatanāni and aṣṭau vimokṣāḥ constantly appear before them; the catvāri vaiśāradyāni and catvāri saṃgrahavastūni are inexhaustibly enjoyed. The āryāṣṭāṅgamārga and the aṣṭādaśāveṇikadharmāḥ are not on a par with the three vehicles. The thirty-two marks and eighty minor signs adorn the subtle and wondrous Dharmakāya. Through dust-mote kalpas of the past and dust-mote kalpas of the future, nothing is not clearly seen; in the dust-mote worlds of the present, the dust-mote minds of sentient beings are all known. Perfectly luminous as the Honoured One of the ten epithets, they transcend the traidhātuka; this is sarvākārajñatā, this is the God of Gods, this is the unexcelled Dharma King, this is samyaksaṃbodhi transcending all expedient means to accomplish the ten powers, returning to deliver all sentient beings in the realm of phenomena. The ultimate achievement of Buddhism is nothing more than this. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'It is for the sake of the one great cause that the Tathāgata appears in the world, universally desiring to cause all sentient beings to accomplish this path together.' For his great vow and great power swear that all sentient beings shall realize the wondrous fruit of unexcelled nirvāṇa. Therefore, those who distinguish the Three Teachings must not discuss them with selfish partiality, nor with hearts of love and hate. If one merely calms one's thoughts and examines their ultimate achievements, one will know that when those in the world who study Confucianism reach the harvest of causes and effects, it is merely leaving behind merit and fame. When those in the world who study Daoism reach the harvest of causes and effects, it is merely obtaining longevity. When those in the world who study Buddhism reach the harvest of causes and effects, they can extinguish life and death, attain ultimate nirvāṇa, and universally deliver all sentient beings to jointly accomplish right awakening. How could their relative superiority and inferiority not be clearly evident? Thus, by way of analogy: where Confucianism operates is China; where Daoism operates is heaven and the human world; where Buddhism operates is the entirety of space throughout the realm of phenomena. Confucianism is like governing a single family, where authority and orders are exercised within the boundary fence, but beyond the fence, it is impossible to summon anyone. Daoism is like presiding over a single town, where governance and instruction reach within its four borders, but beyond the four borders, it is impossible to exercise control. Buddhism is like possessing the four seas to become the lord of all under heaven, where across the entire realm all are subjects, and rites, music, and punitive expeditions all issue from oneself. This is the distinction between the broad and narrow of the Three Teachings. Those who study Confucianism stop only with death; this is a matter of a hundred years. Those who study Daoism strive for longevity; this is a matter of thousands or myriads of years. Those who study Buddhism wish to cut off life and death and dwell serenely forever; this spans dust-mote kalpas without end. Confucianism is like the light of a single lamp shining for a single night: when the bell sounds and the water clock runs out, the oil is exhausted and the lamp goes out. Daoism is like King Ajātaśatru making a hundred-year lamp to illuminate the relics of the Buddha: when the hundred years have passed, the lamp is extinguished. Buddhism is like the bright sun shining through countless kalpas, eternally luminous, setting in the west and rising in the east, revolving without rest. This is the distinction between the enduring and ephemeral of the Three Teachings.

1.15

From this we know that there are mundane dharmas and supramundane dharmas. The two teachings of Confucianism and Daoism are mundane dharmas. Buddhism begins with mundane dharmas and concludes with supramundane dharmas. Why is it called 'mundane'? The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'There is the heavenly world, there is the human world, and there is the realm of King Yama.' Within the traidhātuka, all is called 'mundane'. If there is a dharma that causes people to cycle through life and death endlessly without departing from within the traidhātuka, it is called a mundane dharma. The one true awakened nature enfolds the ten directions and cannot be bound by the traidhātuka; this is called a supramundane dharma. The Buddha established teachings by means of the five vehicles. The former two vehicles, called the human vehicle and the heavenly vehicle, are mundane dharmas. The latter three vehicles, called the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva vehicles, are supramundane dharmas. The human vehicle refers to the five precepts. The first is not killing, which means one should cherish life and must not lightly commit violence against any creature, not merely abstaining from eating its flesh. The second is not stealing, which means not taking what is not right, not merely abstaining from seizing others' possessions. The third is not committing sexual misconduct, which means not behaving debauchedly with anyone who is not one's spouse. The fourth is not speaking falsely, which means not deceiving people with words. The fifth is not drinking liquor, which means not throwing one's cultivation of the mind into confusion through intoxication. Upholding these five is what provides the basis for being human. The five constants of Confucianism are precisely this meaning.

1.16

The heavenly vehicle refers to the ten wholesome deeds. First, not killing; second, not stealing; third, not committing sexual misconduct; fourth, not speaking falsely—these four have the same meaning as in the five precepts. The fifth is not speaking frivolous words, meaning not making up words to cover up wrongs. The sixth is not being double-tongued, meaning not saying one thing to a person's face and another behind their back. The seventh is not using harsh speech, meaning not scolding or speaking of what is unrighteous. The eighth is not coveting/jealousy, meaning being free of jealousy. The ninth is not harboring malice, meaning not keeping resentment and hatred in one's heart. The tenth is not being deluded, meaning not being blind to good and evil. Jointly cultivating these ten wholesome deeds is the retribution by which one is born in heaven. The Daoist 'Nine Perfected Wondrous Precepts' are precisely this meaning. The human vehicle is that by which one plants human causes; the heavenly vehicle is that by which one may obtain heavenly fruits. Mundane dharmas reside in this; this is what is attained in common by all Three Teachings. As for the latter three vehicles, they lead their disciples to transcend and leave the world, causing them to forget both good and evil and proceed directly toward the true reality, acting with spiritual penetration in a manner that the mundane cannot fathom.

1.17

Some merely see Gongsun Hong's crooked learning to flatter the age, Zhu Qinming's sweeping the Five Classics to the ground, Yang Ziyun's flattering of the Duke of Han despite understanding the subtlety of the Taixuan, and Xu Jingzong's forfeiting himself to an empress despite knowing the righteousness of Diqiu—all of these emerged from Confucianism. The Rat Daoist deceived Dongpo with his midnight arts; Lin Lingsu deluded Emperor Huizong with dreams of Shenxiao; the heavenly immortal Zheng Huaji was actually a mediocre mediocrity; the earthly immortal He Deyi was actually an ordinary commoner—all of these emerged from Daoism. The foreign monk's incantations could not kill Fu Yi; the stone Buddha's emitting of light could not deceive Cheng Hao; the Buddha tooth was considered miraculous, yet it was smashed by Fu Yi's sheep horn; the Buddha tooth relic was considered spiritual, yet it was destroyed by Zhao Feng's battle-axe—all of these emerged from Buddhism. Viewing them all together, none of the Three Teachings in China has been entirely pure and aligned with the correct path; why then make petty distinctions of superiority and inferiority? Yet they do not consider what I am discussing: it is Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism [as teachings]. Confucianism teaches people with broad uprightness; when those who act as Confucians often rebel against the Way in their conduct, they are sinners against Confucianism. Daoism teaches people with purity and non-action; when those who adhere to Daoism gladly stoop to heterodox arts, they are sinners against Daoism. Buddhism takes love of life as its heart, not even permitting human feet to tread on living grass; can one say that it teaches incantations to kill people? Buddhism takes signlessness as its essential doctrine, holding that one cannot perceive the Tathāgata through bodily forms; can one say that it relies on inert stone to delude the masses? If a tooth can be smashed, it was stone and not a [Buddha's] tooth; if a tooth can be destroyed, it was counterfeit and not genuine. All those who falsely make use of the religious gate to create monstrosities and set up fabrications are sinners against Buddhism. How could one seize upon these to judge the Three Teachings?

1.18

Others merely see that Daoism has the Scripture of Converting the Barbarians (Huahu jing), claiming that Śākya and Mañjuśrī were transformed by Laozi and Yin Xi; and that Buddhism has the Treatise Refuting Heterodoxy (Poxie lun), claiming that the Buddha dispatched three disciples to convert Cīnasthāna, where Confucius was Bodhisattva Māṇava, Yan Hui was Bodhisattva Viśuddhaprabha, and Laozi was Mahākāśyapa. If it were truly thus, how could the superiority and inferiority of the Three Teachings be decided in an instant's discussion? Little do they realize that the authors of both books each wished to exalt themselves and belittle the other, thereby constructing fabrications that departed from reality.

1.19

Wang Fu composed the *Scripture on Converting the Barbarians* (*Huahu jing*), claiming that when Laozi and Yin Xi wished to convert the barbarians, [they attained] Buddhahood and thereupon transformed their bodies into Śākya and Mañjuśrī, after which the barbarians accepted conversion. But did he not consider that the year of the Buddha's birth was the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao of Zhou? The year of the Buddha's demise was the fifty-second year of King Mu of Zhou. Three hundred and forty-two years after the Buddha's demise, in the time of King Ding, Laozi was first born in Ku County of Chu and served as an archivist under the Zhou pillars. When he passed through the Hangu Pass and met Yin Xi, the Buddha had already manifested nirvana more than four hundred years earlier. To transform the Dao of a later age into the Buddha of an earlier age implies that the Dao was insufficient to convert the barbarians, and that one necessarily had to borrow the Buddha to convert them. Yang Su, Vice Director of the Right under the Sui, said: 'I have heard that when Lord Lao converted the barbarians, the barbarians did not accept him, so he and Yin Xi transformed their bodies into Buddhas, whereupon the barbarians finally accepted them. If this is so, then Lord Lao was incapable of converting the barbarians, and it is plain that the barbarians had long revered the Buddha.' Su also frequently said to followers of the Dao: 'Why did Laozi not convert the barbarians into Daoists? What was the use of converting them into Buddhas? Is this not because conversion by the Dao does not equal conversion by the Buddha?' Thus Wang Fu's claim sought to demean the Buddha, without realising that it served precisely to venerate him. Falin composed the *Treatise Refuting Heresy* (*Poxie lun*), which in general stated that Buddhism penetrates to the source of all phenomena, whereas Confucius and Laozi merely pertained to governance within the realm, claiming thereby to refute heterodox doctrines and awaken the ignorant. But did he not consider that Confucius and Yan Hui were by no means bodhisattvas, and Laozi was by no means Kāśyapa? In seeking to rectify the other's falsehoods, how could one produce falsehoods oneself? Therefore, to call Confucius and Yan Hui bodhisattvas is not yet too great an error; but when it comes to designating Laozi as Kāśyapa, it is an enormous blunder. Kāśyapa received the separate transmission outside the teachings, succeeding Śākya as patriarch; of the sublime wonder of the supreme vehicle of that time, which cannot be expressed in words, hundreds of thousands of humans and devas were formerly at a complete loss, and only Kāśyapa attained it. How could Laozi be a transformation of Kāśyapa? Therefore, after Kāśyapa transmitted the Dharma to Ānanda, he entered samādhi on Mount Kukkuṭapāda to await the descent of Maitreya into this world. Since Maitreya has not yet been born, he has not emerged from his samādhi; thus Kāśyapa's physical body remains in samādhi to this day. That he did not emerge to become Laozi is evident. If one takes Kāśyapa to be Laozi, then Laozi is a patriarch of our lineage—is this not an extreme absurdity? Thus Falin's claim intended to demean the Dao, without realising that it served precisely to venerate the Dao. Fabricated words and gross falsehoods—how could the discerning accept them?

1.20

Others, again, merely see Master Yuancheng's words, which state: 'The words of Confucius and the Buddha form beginning and end to one another. Confucius and the Buddha are fundamentally one; they differ only in the practical provisions of their schools.' Thus Confucianism and Buddhism have never failed to coincide. Or the words of Layman Guitang, who said: 'The Buddha is the culmination of nature (*xing*); the Dao is the culmination of destiny (*ming*). When the two teachings stand opposite each other and interpenetrate, then the mystery of innate nature and destiny is first perfected.' Thus Buddhism and Daoism have never failed to be identical. Or the verse by Mahāsattva Fu, which says: 'A Daoist cap, Confucian shoes, and a Buddhist kāṣāya; / Blending the three schools to make one single family.' Thus the Three Teachings have never failed to unite into one. If we now favour Buddhism alone while disparaging Confucianism and Daoism, would that be the intention of the worthy predecessors? What they do not realise is that the words of the worthy predecessors were merely the skillful means of the worthy predecessors.

1.21

For Confucians have attained their time to practice the Way, holding office and occupying official posts, with the scales of bestowal and deprivation issuing entirely from their hands. If we were to venerate Buddhism and demean Confucianism, they would surely rely on Confucianism to suppress Buddhism. When Emperor Wuzong took Li Deyu as chief minister and destroyed more than forty thousand saṅghārāmas and monasteries, who was it that truly brought this about? Daoists take what they consider the Way as the Way and what they consider Virtue as Virtue; they plot and scheme deliberately, never allowing others to overcome them. If we were to venerate Buddhism and despise Daoism, they would surely venerate Daoism and expel Buddhism. When Cui Hao believed Kou Qianzhi and executed all the śramaṇas and destroyed the scriptures and images, who was it that truly brought this on? Therefore, nothing compares to using a mind of skillful means to utter words of skillful means: saying that Buddhism harmonises with Confucianism avoids provoking the wrath of Confucianism; saying that Buddhism is identical with Daoism avoids triggering the contention of Daoism; saying that the Three Teachings can unite as one allows both Confucians and Daoists to be enticed and advanced into Buddhism. Hence it is said: the words of the worthy predecessors were the skillful means of the worthy predecessors. Yet the argumentative people of the world each hold their own convictions and contend vociferously: those who disparage Confucianism critique Confucianism; those who disparage Daoism critique Daoism; those who disparage Buddhism critique Buddhism. Though the Three Teachings are not the same, they are identical in being subject to critique. I shall appraise them with an impartial mind: I firmly hold that if a critique accurately addresses their faults, their doctrines cannot but yield; if a critique misses their reality, one's own arguments will eventually collapse. Right and wrong, gain and loss, end where the ultimate truth lies; the world and posterity cannot be deceived. If we now examine those who critique Confucianism: Sima Qian said, 'Confucians are broad but lack essentials; they labor hard but achieve little.' Yet does he not consider that not knowing a single thing is a shame to a gentleman? This can certainly be called broad. And with the Way of loyalty and reciprocity unifying it all, can one call it lacking essentials? Burning oil into the night and toiling relentlessly year after year can certainly be called laborious; yet cultivating the self, regulating the family, and bringing peace to all under heaven—can this be called having no achievement? Qian's learning was not Confucian learning, so it is natural that he was inadequate to understand Confucianism. Cheng Yi was a Confucian; yet when he discussed Buddhism, he regarded it as 'heretical, absurd, monstrous, and anomalous words that smear the ears and eyes of the people.' Buddhism's teachings are boundless, while Yi's views were limited; talking of vast kalpas to a vinegar gnat, it is natural that he viewed it as heretical, absurd, monstrous, and anomalous. Yet did Yi ever reflect upon this? Heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly indeed exist within Confucianism! The *Book of Changes* says: 'Seeing a pig bearing mud, carrying a wagon-load of ghosts.' The *Book of Songs* says: 'Heaven commanded the dark bird to descend and give birth to Shang.' The *Historical Records* say: 'In the jiashen and yiyou years, fish and sheep devoured men.' The *Zuo Commentary* says that the Lord of Qi saw a pig standing like a man and weeping. As for a spirit descending at Shen, a stone speaking in Jin, Wei Ke seeing the old man, and Hu Tu meeting Shen Sheng—these can be called heretical, they can be called monstrous, and they can be called anomalous. The *Book of Songs* says: 'The Lord said to King Wen: "I cherish your illustrious virtue."' Heaven has not spoken for a long time; even if by chance it spoke, how could a mortal hear it? Now, words like 'I cherish' make it seem as if mouth and ear met face-to-face—can one not call this absurd? If, on the basis of Cheng Yi's slander of heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly, one seeks the reality of heresy, absurdity, monstrosity, and anomaly in Confucianism, there is indeed much that cannot be concealed. If we now examine those who critique Buddhism: in the Tang dynasty there was Fu Yi, who was skilled in books of occult arts and held the post of Astrologer. He submitted seven memorials in succession, slandering and disparaging Buddhism. At that time there was Li Shizheng, who authored the *Treatise on Inner Virtue* (*Neide lun*) to dispute it. His argument stated: 'Tradition says: "The Buddha's teaching originally came from the western barbarians; it should not be revered in the Central Land." But this is not so. Youyu came from the Western Rong, yet he assisted Duke Mu of Qin in founding his hegemony; Jin Midi was born among the Northern Di, yet he served Emperor Wu of Han and eliminated perils. Why must one accept only those of the same customs and discard those from different lands? Indeed, an extraordinary steed is not bred in an ordinary town; a rare treasure of an age is not produced in the Chinese lands. Thus the Han sought famous horses from the Western Regions, and the Wei gathered bright pearls from the South Seas. If things produced in distant realms are still prized here, why should a Way issuing from distant lands alone be discarded? If medicines come from the Rong and Yi, and incantations arise among the Hu and Yue, as long as they can cure disease and dispel evil, why should one refuse to use them because they come from afar? Eliminating the eight sufferings to attain the eternal medicine—its healing of disease is long-established; eradicating the three poisons to realise unconditioned reality—its dispelling of evil is supreme. Why bother to be constrained by distant and near, or calculate familiarity and estrangement? Tradition says: "What is not spoken of in the *Odes* and *Documents* makes the sūtras inadequate." This, too, is not so. The things not spoken of by Zhou and Confucius are myriad and endless; the matters not recorded in the *Odes* and *Documents* are vast and boundless. How can one be confined to the limited teachings of the Six Classics and reject the universal purport of the Three Vehicles?'

1.22

The Capable and Benevolent One did not arise in high antiquity; the sages initiated their undertakings in later times. Thus buildings replaced dwellings in trees, and writing replaced the system of knotted cords. Although the custom of drinking blood and eating raw flesh was practiced earlier, it was not precious; although the benefit of cooking food with fire and eating grain arose later, it was not an evil. How can one maintain that the Odes and Documents should be revered because they spread earlier, while the sūtras should be discarded because they arrived later? Fu [Yi] says: 'The Buddha is an aura of monstrous spectres; temples are shrines of licentious perversion.' This is exceedingly unthinking of him. In the past, from the Eastern Han down to the Great Tang, every dynasty prohibited uncanny talk and every place suppressed perverse shrines. How could they have expended their wealth and resources to construct halls for mountain demons, or released the people of their land to become the followers of monstrous sprites? What is more, prime ministers and high-ranking dignitaries—the paragons of human relations—such as Wang Dao and Yu Liang, and those of the rank of Dai Kui and Xu Xun, all set their hearts to reverence and believe, taking up the teachings and taking refuge. Would they have debased themselves by honoring demons and soliciting sprites? It was truly because they observed the wondrous and recognized the true that made them do so. Fu says: 'In the Zhao and Liang periods, there were monks who rebelled.' This again is an unthinking statement. If one is to abolish the assembly of the Dharma today because there were rebellious monks in the past, how could one fail to employ the brilliant scholars of today because there were treacherous ministers in antiquity, or fail to sustain the common folk of today because there were disorderly people in ancient times? If the wearers of blue collars commit crimes, this is not the fault of Father Ni; if those in black robes do wrong, how could it be the fault of Śākyamuni? A monk offending against the imperial statutes or a nun violating secular penalties is like one who recites the laws yet engages in burglary, or like one who reads the Rites yet acts arrogantly. One ought merely to prohibit wrong conduct in order to propagate the Dharma; one cannot despise the Dao on account of the persons. Fu says: 'Monks are like owls and ape-like fiends, all of a covetous and rebellious bad seed.' This again is an unthinking statement. It is because they abandon the secular to practice the Dao that they are called 'men of the Dao'. They do not harm even creeping creatures—how much less would they commit the deeds of owls and fiends! They even abandon and do not perform the rites of marriage—how much less would they harbor the hearts of birds and beasts! Why then drag in superiors free from desire to pair them with base beings mired in the dust, or defame the virtuous assembly of great compassion by comparing them to ominous, evil birds, regarding men of the Dao as a rebellious breed and likening pure conduct to a beastly mind? How extreme is this harm done to goodness! Fu says: 'The barbarians of the Western Regions were born from mud, and therefore they easily worship mud and tiles.' This again is an unthinking statement. The ancestral shrines of the Central Realm take wood as their spirit tablets; can one say that the gentlemen who formulated the rites were all born from wood? Since parents cannot be forgotten, spirit tablets are made for them to express boundless grief; since the Buddha cannot be forgotten, his images are erected to extend reverence 'as if he were present'. Where is the error in revering the sage and admiring virtue? Fu says: 'When sovereigns had no Buddha, the state was well-governed and their years were long; in later generations when there was the Buddha, the administration was tyrannical and reigns were short.' He does not consider: How could the Capable and Benevolent One have established teachings to foster a wind of licentiousness and tyranny? How could the Bodhisattva have instituted words to promote the deeds of Jie and Zhou? The virtues of Fuxi, Xuan Yuan, Shun, and Yu are encompassed within the six perfections; the crimes of Houyi, Han Zhuo, Xin, and Gui are all restrained and prohibited by the ten unwholesome deeds. If Jie had previously complied with the teaching of few desires, and Zhou had accorded with the way of great compassion, then Yi Yin and Lü Shang would have had nowhere to employ their stratagems, and how could Tang and Wu have executed their plans? Fu says: 'Before there was the Buddha, people were all pure and harmonious, and the world was free of usurpation and rebellion.' He does not consider: When the Jiuli disrupted virtue, was that not a time without the Buddha? When the Sanmiao rebelled against the imperial command, was that not before there was the Buddha? How was there purity and harmony at the end of the Xia and Yin? How could the Spring and Autumn period have been without usurpation and rebellion? The Buddha's teaching advises ministers to be loyal and children to be filial, advises the country to be well-governed and the family to be harmonious. To propagate good, it displays the bliss of heavenly realms; for a single wrong, it reveals the suffering of hells. To say that it harms harmony and fosters disorder—is this not an extreme slander? How could it harm the sun of the Buddha? It only plunges [the slanderer] into the sea of suffering. Thus, when Fu Yi unleashed his slanderous words, Fazhi composed his treatise resolving doubts; the right and wrong, the crooked and the straight, were exceedingly distinct and clear, available for observation through myriad generations.

1.23

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.

1.24

Yu further said: 'Shun and Yu were on the throne for a hundred years; at this time, there was no Buddha in China. In the time of Emperor Ming of the Han, the Buddha-Dharma first appeared, and he was on the throne for only eighteen years.' Little did he know that the span of longevity and shortness of life depends on good and evil, and the retribution of good and evil extends through the three time periods. Therefore it is said: 'If you wish to know the causes of past lives, look at what you experience in this life; if you wish to know the fruits of future lives, look at what you do in this life.' From this we know that the longevity or brevity of this life originates from the good and evil of past lives, and the good and evil of this life in turn lays the foundation for the longevity or brevity of future lives. The longevity of a sovereign's reign is caused by the good of past lives; the brevity of a dynastic fortune is caused by the evil of past lives. How can one judge merely by what is before one's eyes? And how could it be caused by the presence or absence of the Buddha? Confucius said: 'The benevolent are long-lived.' If so, then the benevolent must have long years, and the unbenevolent must die prematurely. Yet Yan Hui, who 'subdued himself and returned to propriety', can be called benevolent, and yet Hui died young. Robber Zhi, who fed on the livers of men, can be called unbenevolent, and yet Zhi lived long. Can one say that Confucius's statement lacked verification and therefore refuse to follow his teaching? The Great Plan instructs people through the royal standard, the five blessings, and the six extremes. Conforming to the standard brings blessing and longevity; opposing the standard brings disaster and misfortune. In premature death, Emperors Wen and Jing of the Han were rulers of the highest virtue, and regarding the sovereign establishing the standard, the two monarchs should have had no shame. Yet Filial Wen was on the throne for only twenty-three years and his age reached only forty-seven; Filial Jing was on the throne for only sixteen years and his age reached only forty-eight. Their reigns did not even reach a single generation, and their spans of life did not even reach lower longevity. Can one say that the statement of the Great Plan is false and burn its book? Only by verifying it with the doctrine of cause and effect and examining it across the span of the three periods can one become clear and free of doubt. If one must insist that without the Buddha one enjoys long life, Shun and Yu were indeed on the throne for a hundred years; but Emperor Wuzong of the Tang destroyed Buddhism—why was he on the throne for only six years, and his lifespan reached only thirty-three? If one must insist that with the Buddha one's years are cut short, Emperor Ming of the Han reigned for only eighteen years; but Emperor Wu of the Liang was an adherent of Buddhism—why was he on the throne for forty-eight years, and his lifespan reached eighty-six?

1.25

Yu further said: 'Ancient teachers occupied one; modern teachers occupy three.' He merely saw that from high antiquity onward there was only Confucianism, and modern Buddhism seemed to be an extraneous wart. Little did he know that the Buddha's establishment of teaching does not run contrary to Confucianism; thus the Buddha's transformation of people is also without difference from that of Confucians. Confucians expound the teaching of the Odes, Documents, rites, and righteousness, supplementing it with the authority of punishments, governance, awe, and blessings; they seek nothing more than for all under heaven to move toward goodness and keep far from crime. Yet there are certainly those who are rewarded without being encouraged, punished without being deterred, and who, though instructed face-to-face and taken by the ear, ultimately do not follow the teaching. When they hear the Buddha teach that doing good brings blessings and doing evil brings retribution, none fail to abandon evil and hasten toward goodness. How is this teaching of the Buddha different from the teaching of the Confucians? Emperor Wen of the Song said to He Shangzhi: 'I have just seen Yan Yanzhi and Zong Bing write treatises explaining the Buddha-Dharma, which are very reasonable. If all within our borders were influenced by this transformation, I could sit with folded hands and effortlessly bring about supreme peace.' Shangzhi said: 'In a township of a hundred households, if ten people uphold the five precepts, then ten people will be pure and cautious; in a city of a thousand households, if a hundred people cultivate the ten wholesome deeds, then a hundred people will be harmonious. If this custom and teaching are spread throughout the realm, among millions of registered households there will be millions of good people. If one can practice one good deed, one eliminates one evil deed; eliminating one evil deed puts an end to one criminal punishment. One punishment ceasing in a household means ten thousand punishments ceasing in the state; this is precisely what Your Majesty calls effortlessly bringing about supreme peace.' Li Jie of the Tang, in his preface to the farewell for the monk Shuyan, said: 'The teaching of the Buddha takes purity, tranquility, and emptiness as meditation, and gentle humility and yielding as patience; therefore grudges and disputes can be put to rest. It takes austerity and diligence as spiritual practice, and poverty, success, longevity, and early death as cause and effect; therefore the lowly can find contentment. When the world declines and customs become degraded, if there were no Buddhism to transform their minds, the brave would fiercely think of fighting, the wise would calmly think of plotting, and the people of the paths and fields would rise up in turmoil in droves.' Lü Xiaqing said in his 'Sūtra on Entering the Teacher': 'Petty men do not fear the criminal prisons, but they fear the hells. If all people under heaven, in matters great and small, believed in cause and effect, dared not deceive their own hearts, and were free from the winds of encroachment, usurpation, and contention, would punishments not be laid aside, creating an era of ultimate good governance?' Viewed from this perspective, Buddhism's contribution to the worldly teaching is grand indeed! Why then harbor resentment against the teachings being three?

First 25 of 31 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

三教平心論 — Classical Chinese