三教平心論 1.26

1.26

[Han] Yu also said: 'Of peasant households there is one, while of grain-consuming households there are six. How then could the common people not be destitute and turn to thievery?' He meant that the followers of the Buddha eat without plowing, causing the people to become destitute and thieves. But has he not considered: are the followers of the Buddha alone in the world in eating without plowing? Gongsun Chou asked Mencius, 'The Book of Songs says, "He eats not the bread of idleness!" Why does the gentleman eat without plowing?' Mencius said, 'When a gentleman resides in a state, if its prince employs him, he enjoys peace, wealth, honor, and glory; if its young people follow him, they become filial, fraternal, loyal, and trustworthy. "He eats not the bread of idleness!"—what could be greater than this?' Those today who take the Buddha as their master are sincere in silence and good in speech. Wherever they go, they exhort people to turn away from evil and hasten toward goodness. The people, transformed by this, conquer themselves and observe the fasts, cherish life and cease killing, chant the Buddhist sūtras, reform their hearts and alter their conduct to be benevolent and compassionate, filial, incorruptible, respectful, and compliant. Thus daily they advance toward goodness without even knowing it. 'He eats not the bread of idleness!'—what indeed could be greater than this? How could the poverty and thievery of those common people have anything to do with the Buddhists? The Book of Songs says: 'In the lesser east and the greater east, shuttles and spools lie idle.' The commentary says: 'The people wear the look of hunger; in the wilds lie those starved to death.' These describe the poverty of the people. At those times, was there no Buddha in China? The Book of Documents says: 'They steal the sacrificial victims of the gods and spirits, and whole animals are used with connivance.' The commentary says: 'Robbers cannot be checked or put to an end.' Furthermore, this failed to stop the people's thievery. At those times, too, there was no Buddha in China! During the Zhenguan reign of Emperor Taizong, the Buddhist teaching was exceptionally flourishing, and monks and nuns were beyond count; their consumption of food was exceedingly extensive. Yet outer doors were not closed, and travelers did not carry provisions. Why were these people neither destitute nor thieves? In the Kaiyuan era of Minghuang, the followers of the Buddha grew even more numerous; the monks and nuns were no fewer than in Zhenguan, and their food and provisions were no less than in Zhenguan. The realm had abundance to spare, and petty theft and robbery came to a total stop. Why were these people neither destitute nor thieves? From this we know clearly that the poverty and thievery of the people was definitely not caused by the Buddhists. If one must claim that with the Buddha people become destitute, why, in a time without the Buddha, did Tang the Successful have to worry about distress and poverty? If one must claim that with the Buddha people turn to thievery, why, in a time without the Buddha, did Ji Kangzi have to worry about robbers? When Confucius said, 'If you were not covetous, though you rewarded them, they would not steal,' what did that have to do with the proliferation of those who leave home?