三教平心論 1.22

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.