三教平心論 1.21

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?'