三教平心論 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

[Han] Yu also said: 'His body has long been dead; withered, rotten bones, the foul remnants of misfortune—how could they be suited to enter the palace precincts?' He compared the śarīra of the Buddha's body to the rotten bones of ordinary mortals; how could his recklessness reach such an extreme? The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'At that time, the World-Honoured One, through the power of great compassion, caused fire to burst forth from his chest outside the coffin, gradually cremating (jhāpeti) his golden body and reducing it to powdered śarīra.' From this we know that the Buddha's bone is the Buddha's śarīra. In the fourth year of the Chiwu era of Sun Quan of Wu, Tripiṭaka Master Kang Senghui of Kangju arrived in Jinling. He was summoned by imperial decree and questioned about the circumstances. Senghui stepped forward and said: 'A thousand years have passed since the Great Master Tathāgata entered parinirvāṇa, yet the numinous bone śarīra responds miraculously without limit.' Thereupon he purified himself with fasting and earnestly prayed; on the twenty-first day, a clanging sound was heard. Rising to look into the vase, five colors shone forth in mingled radiance. Quan and his dukes, ministers, and commoners gathered to gaze upon it, saying: 'This is a rare auspicious sign in this world!' He ordered a strongman to strike it with a hammer, and the anvil shattered, while the light remained unchanged. Thereupon a pagoda was erected, and the place was called Fotuoli (Buddha Village). Furthermore, at Jingyan Monastery in Xiuzhou there was a śarīra: one day it would circumambulate (cankama), and one day it would enter samādhi. When circumambulating, it rotated unceasingly; when entering samādhi, it was utterly still and motionless. Chan Master Song wrote the 'Record of the Circumambulating Śarīra,' taking it as proof of its Way. The Nine Schools and Hundred Philosophers are clamorous; if spoken of as the Way, they do not originally differ from the Buddha, yet when examining their verification, none exists under heaven. They compete to honor their masters, claiming that the Buddha is not worthy to be compared to their sages and worthies; yet when they die, within a few days their bodies rot, and within a hundred years their bones decay, their spirits drifting indistinctly into nothingness. Could it be that their Way has not attained that of the Buddha? Now, cases of śarīra manifesting throughout the world have been numerous from ancient times to the present: there are those that soar hovering in the sky, those that arrive without reason, those emitting light rivaling the sun and moon, those that cannot be destroyed, and those that cannot be crushed. But like this circumambulation, vibrating day and night without ceasing—this had never before been seen under heaven. When one held up its stupa in reverent devotion, the golden bells turned all the more, as if resonating in harmony with human intent. How marvelous and exquisite! Such being the miraculous wonder of śarīra, is it permissible to compare it to ordinary bones? Liezi said: 'In life, one is a Yao or a Shun; in death, rotten bones.' Therefore, even those praised and lauded as 'great and transforming' or 'sagely and unfathomable' cannot escape smelling foul and rotting away along with the grass and trees. How could they be like the Buddha's bones, which after several thousand years remain miraculous, extraordinary, and distinct, serving as auspicious omens and blessings for the world?

2.3

[Han] Yu also said: "I beg that this bone be cast into water and fire; only then may it be known whether the actions of the Great Sage surpass ordinary [men] ten-thousand-fold." Indeed, that he did not recognize the Buddha as a Great Sage—how could he be so utterly perverse and muddled? Zhang Wujin asked Chan Master Dahui: "Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang were all sages. Why is it that the Buddha did not speak of them at all?" The Master replied: "Comparing Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang to King Brahmā and Śakra, is there any superiority or inferiority?" The Duke said: "How could Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang compare to King Brahmā and Śakra?" The Master said: "The Buddha regarded King Brahmā and Śakra as ordinary worldlings; how much more so the rest!" The Duke then clapped in admiration, taking it to be a lofty argument. Viewed from this perspective, Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang fall far short of King Brahmā and Śakra, yet Brahmā and Śakra are still ordinary worldlings. From Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang down to Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius, Confucianism refers to them all as sages. Even Boyi, Yi Yin, and Liuxia Hui, who each distinguished themselves by a single virtue, are also called sages. Yet among the multitude of sages, there must be one who is great. Zai Wo said: "As I look upon the Master, he is far worthier than Yao and Shun." Zigong said: "Since the birth of humankind, there has never been one greater than Confucius." Thus Confucius is the Great Sage of Confucianism. Yet the Buddha is the Sage of sages. If you do not believe it, please look at the ultimate achievements of the Buddha recorded earlier: the Buddha cultivated causes through hundreds of millions of kalpas and attained the fruit in this present life; the six perfections and ten thousand practices were all cultivated alike, and merits numerous as the sands of the Ganges were all brought to completion. Liezi cited the words of Confucius, saying: "I, Qiu, have heard that in the west there is a Great Sage who does not govern, yet there is no disorder." Fan Weizong, in his *Discourse on the Western Regions*, wrote: "It is the place where divine sages descend and gather, and where virtuous and eminent ones step forth into life." When someone asked Wenzhongzi about the Buddha, he answered that he was a sage. When Xuanzang translated the sūtras, Emperor Taizong of the Tang named [his preface] the *Preface to the Holy Teaching*. Emperor Taizong of our dynasty bestowed upon the Indian Tripiṭaka Master Tianxizai a preface to his sūtra translations, entitled *Preface to the Tripiṭaka Holy Teaching*, which says: "Translating the true tenets of the palm leaves, continuing the holy teaching of gods and men." Emperor Zhenzong bestowed upon the Indian Master of Illuminating the Teaching Faxian a preface to his sūtra translations, entitled *Preface on Continuing the Holy Teaching*, which says: "The holy writings of the Dragon Palace are renewed; the bhikṣus of the Vulture Peak look up in sighing praise." Xiao Yu said: "The Buddha is a sage; one who is not a sage has no teaching." Pei Xiu said: "The Buddha is a Great Sage; his teaching has inconceivable matters." Looking upon these in accumulation, who among those called sages in the world surpasses the Buddha? Those who disbelieve in the Buddha and slander the Buddha will live as foolish people and die as foolish ghosts, casting off bodies and receiving bodies ever lower and lower. Could one who chooses his path well truly act like this?

2.4

[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.

2.5

When Yu Di became prime minister, Han Yu submitted a letter to flatter him. Examining the Tang history, Di was stubborn and defied orders, committing the rebellion of seizing Dengzhou without authorization; he broadly recruited warriors with the ambition of dominating Hannan for himself; he trained dancers in the eight rows of eight, his pomp and display grand and extravagant, harboring designs of usurpation. The Son of Heaven regarded him as deeply harboring treacherous plots, and Wang Yanwei considered it fortunate that his neck was spared. Thus Di was of the same ilk as Shao Cheng and Yuanji. Yet Yu chanted his praises, claiming that he had the words and deeds of sages and worthies, claiming that he possessed virtue and eloquence, and comparing him to the vastness of the *Books of Shang* and the solemnity of the *Books of Zhou*. Was not Yu's sycophancy extreme? In the past, Yuwen Shiji praised Taizong, and Taizong rebuked his flattery; the hermit Fan Zhixuan praised Song Jing, and Song Jing reprimanded his adulation. With Taizong's intelligence and martial prowess and Song Jing's unyielding uprightness, for those two men to praise them was truly not excessive, yet they could still not escape the reproach of sycophancy. How much worse with Yu Di, who secretly harbored treacherous ambitions right under the court's nose, yet Yu praised him to the utmost! Such was Yu's fawning and flattery. Clever words and a plausible appearance were shamed by Confucius; slander, obsequiousness, and adulation were warned against by Mencius. Thus Yu's conduct can once again be known.

2.6

Once demoted to Chaoyang, terrified and panic-stricken, he hastily submitted a letter to the Son of Heaven subtly urging the Feng and Shan sacrifices, intending to offer flattery to the court in hopes of escaping his exile. Little did he reflect that the doctrine of the Feng and Shan sacrifices does not originate in the books of the Two Emperors and Three Kings, but was innovated during the times of the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of Han. Therefore, Ni Kuan's *Memorial on the Feng and Shan Sacrifices* said: "The rites of sacrifice and offering are not recorded in the classics." Thus, that the Feng and Shan sacrifices are uncanonical does not wait for the discerning to be known. Throughout his life, Han Yu prided himself on exclusively clarifying the teachings of the Two Emperors and Three Kings and skillfully repudiating the uncanonical theories of the hundred schools. Why then, upon suddenly suffering demotion, did he at once degenerate into error, flattering his ruler with the uncanonical practices of the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of Han? Even in an era of utmost peace and governance, requesting the Feng and Shan sacrifices would still be unacceptable. How much more so when the regional commands had just been pacified, a time when there was scarcely leisure enough to practice frugality and restraint—could he lead [the sovereign] into extravagance? Even among the ranks of high ministers joining in harmonious song, requesting the Feng and Shan sacrifices would still be unacceptable. How much more so when already suffering reprimand and exile, a time when there was scarcely leisure enough to shut one's door and await punishment—could he overstep his position to speak out? The occult practitioner, Immortal Mao, was one who practiced heterodox arts to bring disorder to government. While Yu was desolate and depressed over his exile, the Immortal reassured him with auspicious omens. Thereupon he wrote the *Preface for the Eighteenth Brother, Immortal Mao*, saying: "My brother's words indeed have proof," even going so far as to say: "I shall at once sweep my room of family burdens, not to mention having a day of joy and laughter." If one does not know the Mandate, one cannot be a gentleman; why was Yu so easily shaken like this? Yu denounced the Buddha as heterodoxy, yet he bowed his head, humbled his heart, bent his body, and held his breath to treat the bizarre man Immortal Mao as an elder brother. How exceedingly devoid of steadfast principle he was!

2.7

The Shrine of the Two Consorts at Huangling is for spirits not recorded in the official sacrificial canons. When Yu was exiled to Chaoyang and passed across Lake Dongting, he thereupon prayed to the Two Consorts seeking deliverance from misfortune. When he was able to return, he gave out money to repair their shrine, offered sacrifices with full ritual, and wrote an essay to commemorate it. Now, does not a gentle, virtuous gentleman seek blessings without turning crooked? Why then did Yu act with such crooked servility in seeking blessings? Yu condemned the Buddha as a barbarian ghost, yet timid and cowering, wagging his tail to beg for mercy, he did so toward the ghosts of women! How utterly shameless he was! When a gentleman suffers hardship, he conducts himself appropriately in hardship; when he suffers poverty and low station, he conducts himself appropriately in poverty and low station. Yu had only just been banished when he immediately became disoriented, disturbed, depressed, and sorrowful. He both dropped hints to the Son of Heaven concerning the Feng and Shan sacrifices, sought [divinations of] fortune and misfortune from the Daoist Immortal Mao, and prayed to the Two Consorts over calamity and upheaval—was Yu one who steadfastly preserved the Way without changing? Therefore, at that time Dadian said to Yu: 'I know that life and death, misfortune and good fortune, are indeed tied to Heaven. How could that shrine at Huangling possibly bring you fortune? The Present Emperor succeeded after the Tianbao era. Treacherous ministers betrayed the state, and [the court] launched punitive campaigns against them; rations and souls gathered like clouds, and dead bodies filled the wild plains before victory could barely be won! Yet before the wounds have healed, you now wish to have the Feng and Shan sacrifices performed to report achievements, so as to flaunt them before and agitate the realm, with your true intention resting on your desire to return! How can you bear to do this? Moreover, to throw yourself into turmoil over adversity and sacrifice to female ghosts shows an ignorance of fate; to agitate the realm without regard [for others] merely to serve your own convenience shows an ignorance of humaneness!' He spoke with forceful words to confound him, and these words are recorded in the *Alternative Biography of Tuizhi*. From this, the conduct of Yu can be seen again.

2.8

Confucius said: 'Can a petty man serve the prince? When he has not got [his post], he worries about getting it'—this is Yu's offering himself through the 'Three Memorials to the Guangfan Pavilion'. 'Once he has got it, he worries about losing it'—this is Yu's degrading himself to serve Yu Di to gain favor. 'If he worries about losing it, there is nothing he will not do'—this is Yu's petitioning for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, consulting Immortal Mao, and praying to the Two Consorts. With Yu's conduct being such, even if his writings were celebrated throughout the realm, how would they be worth mentioning? Master Zhou's *Tongshu* says: 'Those who do not apply themselves to virtue, but take literary skill as their mastery, are merely artisans of art.' Judged from this, then Yu, [Fu] Yi, and their like were all mere artisans. Who would say that Yu can be counted a Confucian? Moreover, in Yu's compositions, there are aspects that are especially open to criticism. In his *Origins of the Way*, he says: 'Universal love is called humaneness; acting in accordance with what is fitting is called righteousness; proceeding along this path is called the Way.' Yet he did not reflect that the Supreme Ultimate that is without ultimate is precisely what is called the Way. At that moment, how could there be the so-called universality of love or the fittingness of actions? The universality of love and the fittingness of actions are nothing other than the outflow and manifestation of this Way. Yet Yu asserted that the Way arises from universal love and fitting actions; is this not an extreme inversion? Yu's ignorance of the Way is like this.

2.9

In his 'Stele for the Confucius Temple in Chuzhou', he states: 'The altars to the Soil and Grain are not enclosed by walls and roof, so how could they compare to Confucius's imposing presence presiding over his seat?' Yet he did not reflect that the Soil and Grain are used to communicate the vital energies of Heaven and Earth; it is precisely because they are not roofed over that their open altars are revered. It was only the Soil altar of a conquered state that was roofed, to show that yang was cut off and yin was communicated, which was in fact its disgrace. Yet Yu took the fact that the Soil and Grain have no roof as being inferior to the glory of Confucius possessing a roof; is this not extremely contrary to principle? Yu's ignorance of the classics is like this.

2.10

In *Origins of the Way*, he states that Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang transmitted the Way to each other, which is true. But after Yu died, four hundred years passed before Tang was born; to say that Tang received Yu's transmission is acceptable, yet Yu claimed: 'Yu transmitted it with this to Tang.' After Tang died, six hundred years passed before King Wen and King Wu emerged; to say that Wen and Wu received Tang's transmission is acceptable, yet Yu claimed: 'Tang transmitted it with this to Wen and Wu.' How could there be someone who, having already been dead for hundreds of years, could transmit the Way to others? [The classic] says: 'He died and did not obtain its transmission.' Yu also knew that upon death one cannot transmit the Way. Why then could the long-dead Yu and Tang transmit the Way to later generations? Yu's ignorance of the Way is also like this.

2.11

In his letter to Feng Su, he compared himself to Master Yang when he composed the *Taixuan*, and moreover claimed it surpassed Laozi, and further cited Hou Ba's argument that the *Xuan* surpassed the *Book of Changes*. Now Laozi's five thousand words were certainly beyond Master Yang's reach. As for the *Changes*, it underwent several sages before becoming a complete classic. Even the sage Confucius still said: 'Give me a few years, so that at fifty I may study the *Changes*, and I may be free of major faults.' Yet Yu claimed that it did not measure up to Master Yang's *Taixuan*. How absurd! Master Yang composed the *Taixuan* to simulate the *Changes*; ancients said it was like the states of Wu and Chu usurping the title of king. Simulating the *Changes* still could not escape usurpation, so how could one say it surpassed the *Changes*? Yu's ignorance of the classics is also like this.

2.12

The Tang writer Huang Pu, discussing Ouyang Zhan, criticized him for being unfilial because he died of grief over a singing courtesan. But Yu, composing a dirge for Ouyang Zhan, praised him as serving his parents with utmost filial piety and being humane to his wife and children. Now to praise what is deserving of condemnation shows that his words were exceedingly deceitful. In his 'Treatise on Remonstrance Officials', he mocked Yang Cheng as not being a man of the Way. Yet when Cheng governed Daozhou, Yu, seeing off the imperial academy student He Jian on his return to Daozhou, again praised Cheng's administration as that of a man of the Way, comparing it to Huang Ba governing Yingzhou. Now, to condemn previously and then praise afterward shows that his words were also exceedingly inconsistent.

2.13

In *Origins of the Way*, he says: 'Laozi spoke of what he called the Way, which is not what I call the Way.' Yet in his 'On Teachers', he claims: 'Confucius took Lao Dan as a teacher.' If it were truly like this, then Confucius's Way originated from Laozi's Way, and can also be called speaking of what he called the Way! In his letter to Meng Jian, he says: 'The Way of the flock of sages fell into great ruin, and the disaster originated from Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di].' Yet in his 'Reading Mozi', he claims: 'Confucius and Mozi complemented each other.' If it were truly like this, then Confucius's Way was originally the same as Mozi's Way, and could also be said to have ruined the Way of the flock of sages! Now Lao[zi] and Mo[zi] are the ways of heterodox traditions; Yu already denounced and rejected them, yet he then identified Confucius with Laozi and also identified Confucius with Mozi. Is this not an extreme betrayal of Confucius? To learn from Confucius and yet betray Confucius is like Chen Xiang turning his back on his master, or Feng Meng shooting Yi. When later classical scholars and men of letters take Yu's denunciation of Buddhism as something worthy of imitation, is Yu's betrayal of Confucius also worthy of imitation? Furthermore, although Yu denounced Buddhism, he also drew upon Buddhism. In his association with Dadian, he drew upon his intelligence and understanding of principle; in seeing off Gaoxian, he drew upon his viewing life and death as one and freeing himself from external entanglements; in composing the biographical account for Ma Hui, he drew upon his pricking his blood to write Buddhist sūtras. He both denounced it and drew upon it; he both condemned it and affirmed it—Yu can indeed be called one whose virtue was inconstant! Truly, in Yu's heart, there was originally no settled view; between right and wrong, accepting and rejecting, he did not know what to follow. Thus, whatever he let out from his mouth compromised according to the moment, with the front not looking to the back and the back not looking to the front, no longer caring whether he would leave a foul reputation for myriad generations. Men of discernment, in evaluating this, must not judge with private partiality, nor judge with feelings of love and hatred; try to evaluate him with an impartial mind: as for Yu's character, was he ultimately a gentleman or a petty man? Was he ultimately a Confucian or not a true Confucian?

2.14

At that time, Han and Liu were both renowned for their prose. Han denounced Buddhism, while Liu studied Buddhism. Look at Zihou's 'Preface on Presenting Dharma Master Chongxun': 'From my youth I have studied Buddhism and sought its Way, amassing thirty years. Furthermore, among those who penetrated it through Confucianism were Secretariat Drafter Zheng, Changzhou Prefect Meng, and Vice Censor-in-Chief Lian. With the Vice Censor-in-Chief's wide eloquence, the Changzhou Prefect's keen penetration, and the Secretariat Drafter's purity, uprightness, and gravity, they still revered and valued its Way—how much more so for one unenlightened like myself?'

2.15

In his 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Wenchang', he says: 'Since the Jin and Song dynasties, there have been Daolin, Dao'an, Master Huiyuan, and Superior Xiu. Those with whom they associated were Xie Anshi, Wang Yishao, Xi Zuochi, Xie Lingyun, Bao Zhao, and their peers, all chosen figures of their times. Because of this, the True Vehicle and the Dharma-seal were used in tandem with the Confucian canons, and people knew where to turn.' As for his 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Chen', 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Ju', and 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Gao', his composition of the stele for Vinaya Master Daming of Nanyue, his composition of the stele for the Sixth Patriarch's posthumous title, his composition of the stele for Venerable Amitābha of Nanyue, his writing of the pagoda stele for Vinaya Master Fazheng, his writing of the 'Record of the Pure Land Cloister in Yongzhou', and his writing of the 'Record of Dayun Monastery in Liuzhou'—all of them, without exception, expound the Buddha Dharma and enlighten the dark and foolish. Therefore, when Dongpo passed Caoqi, he inscribed: 'When the Buddha's teachings were translated in China, they necessarily had to rely on Confucians capable of literary expression before spreading far. When Zihou was banished to the south, he composed various steles at Caoqi and Nanyue that are wondrously supreme past and present; their words trace the roots back to harmonize with Mencius. How could we not have scholars see and recite them daily?' Thus, such were Zihou's steles on Buddhism, and it was right for Dongpo to delight in praising and speaking of them. However, what Confucians find dissatisfying about Zihou is merely that he compromised his integrity under Wang Shuwen. This was indeed Zihou's fault; yet if one delves deeply into Zihou's heart, it was also Liu Xiahui's intention of not being ashamed of a vile prince, and not originally a case of attaching himself to power and greedily seeking wealth and rank. Observing his banishment in Yongzhou, he was serene and self-contained; the so-called matters of petitioning for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, consulting an Immortal, and praying to the Two Consorts never occurred with him. Thus his peaceful equanimity and compliance with circumstances can be seen. When he was recalled to become Prefect of Liuzhou, his friend Liu Yuxi was assigned to Bozhou. Zihou said: 'Bozhou is no fit place for human dwelling, and Yuxi's mother is elderly at home; I cannot bear his destitution.' He immediately prepared a memorial requesting to exchange Liuzhou for Bozhou. Although Yuxi was able to be reassigned to Lianzhou, not needing the exchange between Liuzhou and Bozhou, yet this single thought—how much superior was it to Yu's worry about losing his post! Was it not like Bo Yi compared to Robber Zhi? If one deeply examines the character of Han and Liu: roughly speaking, Han was fond of advancement, while Liu was peaceful and quiet; Han rushed after ambition, while Liu was calm and retiring. Therefore, Zihou's 'Preface on Seeing Off Superior Haochu' says: 'The Confucian Han Tuizhi once criticized my fondness for the Buddha. I consider that all who practice its Way do not crave office and do not compete for ability; how much further superior are they to those who frantically pursue nothing but official seals and ribbons!' How wondrous are Zihou's words! They hit deeply at Yu's incurable flaw. He also says: 'The Buddha truly has that which cannot be denounced; it often accords with the *Changes* and the *Analects*, not diverging in Way from Confucius. Even if the sage were reborn, it could not be denounced.' He also says: 'What Tuizhi condemns are merely its outward traces: he says they shave their heads and wear black robes, have neither wife nor child, and do not plow the fields or raise silkworms. Angered at their outside, he discards what is inside; this is knowing the stone while being ignorant of the jade contained within.' He also says: 'If one truly does not believe in the Way and denounces it as barbarian, then should one take E Lai and Robber Zhi as friends, while looking down on Jizha and You Yu?' Examining Zihou's words in detail, were not the insights of Han and Liu as far apart as heaven and the abyss? Later classical scholars and men of letters have failed to examine Han's rights and wrongs in detail, and have merely wished to imitate Han's denunciation of Buddhism. Duke Ouyang Wenzhong is the Han Yu of today. The *Old Book of Tang* states that Yu was by nature obstinate and contrarian, and the high officials of the time all held his character in low regard; yet the Duke delighted in his rejection of Buddhism and Daoism, and thus concealed his faults, displayed his virtues, and praised him for upholding the Six Classics.

2.16

Emperor Taizong delivered the world and brought peace to the people, being a ruler without peer. Yet [Ouyang Xiu], detesting his re-establishment of the Buddhists, concealed his virtues and censured his shortcomings, designating him a ruler of mediocre capacity. Whenever people of the Tang turned to the Mahāyāna teaching and respectfully adhered to it in faith, he utterly disparaged them. When celebrated ministers and worthy grandees frequently associated with Chan monks and had fateful occasions and occurrences, he indignantly expunged them and would not record them. Furthermore, he said, "In an age without the Buddha, when the sounds of the Odes, the Documents, the Ya, and the Song prevailed, the people enjoyed blessings." Yet he failed to reflect that though schools were scrupulously instituted to establish instruction, those with sheep-like substance in tiger's skins, possessing the chirping of phoenixes but the wings of birds of prey, were everywhere overflowing; but upon hearing that doing good receives the recompense of heaven, a wholesome mind arises of its own accord without anticipation. Though rites and music were expounded to educate the people, those with the mouths and brushes of Yi Yin and the Duke of Dan, yet with the bodies and minds of Guan Zhong and Shang Yang, were ubiquitous; but upon hearing that doing evil incurs the suffering of hell, an unwholesome mind is spontaneously reformed without anticipation. Emperor Xiaozong's 'Inquiry into the Origin of the Way' states: "The Buddha established the five precepts, namely, not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, and not drinking alcohol. Now, not killing is benevolence; not stealing is righteousness; not engaging in sexual misconduct is propriety; not drinking alcohol is wisdom; and not lying is trustworthiness. How can the Way of Zhongni (Confucius) be far from this?" Judged by this, how could the teaching of the Buddhists be inferior to the Odes, Documents, Ya, and Song?

2.17

Furthermore, he said: "Their words are wild and vague, diffuse and extravagant, filled with strange illusions and apparitions, adroit at adducing unverifiable things without reality." Yet he failed to reflect that speaking of the vast duration of kalpas is because the Buddha's vision penetrates the past and future without limitation or obstruction; it is not like the Confucians, who rely upon written records and know merely the events of several thousand or hundred years and go no further. Speaking of the vastness of the worlds is because the Buddha's vision penetrates space and the dharma-realm without boundaries; it is not like the Confucians, who check the regional treatises for verification and know merely the events of China and the four barbarian tribes and go no further. Layman Wujin's 'Treatise on Protecting the Dharma' says: "Among human beings, there are those who are extremely intelligent and those who are extremely dull. The intelligent are able to know the traces of the rise and fall of antiquity and the treatises of the Six Classics, philosophers, and histories; whereas the dull truly do not know them. How could one take what those [intelligent ones] know to be preposterous?" Judged by this, how could the sayings of the Buddhists be called unverifiable and lacking reality?

2.18

Furthermore, he said: "Emperor Xianzong sought fortune yet met with disaster." Yet he failed to reflect that that which occurs without anyone doing it is Heaven, and that which arrives without anyone bringing it about is destiny. The Confucians call it the Mandate of Heaven; the Buddhists call it fixed karma (niyatavipāka). These are indeed unavoidable destinies. How could they be caused merely by the good and evil of the present moment? That the Robber Zhi died in old age while Zilu was minced into meat was not because the Confucian teaching is unverifiable. Furthermore, he said, "The Buddha is a great calamity for China." Yet he failed to reflect that while Confucians indeed transform China with the good, would the Buddha ever teach China with evil? Their ways of doing good differ, but they arrive together at good order; both are undeniable truths. What calamity could there possibly be? That heavenly and human beings turn toward him and ghosts and spirits revere him must bring great benefit to them. Generally speaking, his disparagement of Buddhism was modeled on [Han] Yu, and his conduct in life was likewise modeled on Yu: calling out his name in the imperial court and raising his voice to plead for imperial grace was just like Han Yu's presenting three memorials; taking the lead in proposing the Prince Pu debate and causing an uproar in public opinion was just like Han Yu's petitioning for the feng and shan sacrifices; in old age, sorrowful and grieving, looking back with anxious concern—as Zhang Wujin said, looking at Xiu's letters, he chattered incessantly in self-pity over old age and illness, and though dwelling in riches and nobility, he was distressingly ill at ease, displaying the very same outlook as Han Yu's failure to comprehend the Mandate of Heaven, seeking immortals and praying to spirits. In the Tang History he compiled, the gems did not cover the flaws; as Zhang Wujin said, he made arbitrary praise and blame based on personal conjectures, and Wu Zhen pointed out more than two hundred errors in it, showing the very same mindset as Han Yu's unbridled writing that contained quite a few fallacious arguments. Vehemently and fiercely he rejected Buddhism, yet in his late years he styled himself a 'layman' (jushi). Later, when he saw the Alternative Biography of Han Yu, he wrote a postscript to it, saying: "When I was an official in Langya, someone showed me the Alternative Biography of Han Tuizhi. Reading and chanting it repeatedly, I came to know that Dadian was indeed no ordinary man. I had always been distressed by the prominence of Buddhism and admired Tuizhi's assertions, but when I observed Dadian's words, I knew that Zihou had not gone too far." Having rejected Buddhism and yet later embraced it, his turnabout was identical to Han Yu's associating with Dadian, seeing off Gaoxian, and praising Ma Hui. Their fellowship in the Way and alignment in thought were such that calling him the 'Han Yu of today' is truly warranted!

2.19

From the time [Ouyang Xiu] took Han Yu as his teacher, the various Confucians vied to take Han Yu as their teacher. Cheng Mingdao said, "The Buddhists only strive to attain what is above, and have no learning from below." Yet he failed to reflect that the six pāramitās of the Buddhists are all doctrines of learning from below and attaining what is above. The dhyāna-pāramitā means reaching the other shore by means of meditative absorption (dhyāna); meditative absorption is learning from below, and reaching the other shore is attaining what is above. The dāna-pāramitā means reaching the other shore by means of giving (dāna); giving is learning from below, and reaching the other shore is attaining what is above. So too with vigor (vīrya), keeping precepts (śīla), patience (kṣānti), and wisdom (prajñā): reaching the other shore is attaining what is above. Therefore the Sutra of Definite Meaning on Liberation says: "There are six practices in learning, which are called the six pāramitās. Giving, precepts, and patience are the higher training in morality (adhiśīla-śikṣā); meditative absorption is the higher training in mind (adhicitta-śikṣā); and prajñā is the higher training in wisdom (adhiprajñā-śikṣā)." Furthermore, the Four Universal Vows say: "Dharma-gates are measureless, I vow to learn them; the Buddha Way is unexcelled, I vow to achieve it." There is nothing in this that does not proceed from learning from below to reaching what is above. How could one say that they have no learning from below?

2.20

Zhu Hui'an said: "The Buddhists consider themselves to point directly to the human mind to see one's nature and become a Buddha, but in truth they do not know the mind and nature." Yet he failed to reflect that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is profound learning on the mind and nature. Its words state: "External dusts and illusions deceive your true nature." It also says: "Losing the intrinsically wondrous, completely wondrous, luminous mind, the precious and luminous wondrous nature"—this is how it refutes the deluded mind. It also says: "If apart from external dusts there is a discriminative nature, that is your true mind." It also says: "I see the Tathāgata's hand opening and closing of itself, but it is not that my seeing-nature opens and closes"—this is how it clarifies the true mind. It also says: "Not knowing that the physical body, outward to the mountains, rivers, empty space, and the great earth, are all things within the wondrously luminous true mind"—this is how it clarifies that this mind is all-pervading and has nothing outside it. It also says: "Each knows of oneself that the mind pervades the ten directions, and that all things existing in all worlds are all the primordial, wondrously luminous mind of bodhi; distinctly knowing of oneself that one has obtained the original wondrous mind which abides permanently and is never destroyed"—this is how one realizes the empty, wondrous mind and enters the realm of the Buddhas. How could one say they do not know the mind and nature?

2.21

Zhang Hengqu did not believe in the doctrine of saṃsāra, stating that the Buddha's assertion that the death of sentient beings leads to rebirth in saṃsāra was something unthought-of. This is just Zhuangzi's view of "giving me rest through death." His idea was that in death there is rest, and nothing further remains. Little did he realize that birth and death are boundless, saṃsāra is unceasing, and within the four modes of birth and six destinies beings receive retribution according to their karma. How could one say there is no saṃsāra? The History of the Southern Dynasties records that Emperor Wu of Liang dreamed of a one-eyed monk holding a hand-censer entering the palace desiring to be reborn into the royal palace; when he awoke, the imperial concubine gave birth to a son, Yi, who in childhood suffered from eye disease that could not be cured by medical treatment and ultimately ended up blind in one eye—this was Emperor Yuan. The Records of the Words and Deeds of Famous Ministers records that when Fan Zuyu was about to be born, his mother dreamed of a robust man standing beside her saying, "I am General Deng Yu of the Han." Upon waking, she gave birth to the child, and accordingly named him Zuyu, and because Deng Yu's personal conduct was pure and complete, she gave him the courtesy name Chunfu. Using this as proof, Confucian books indeed contain the doctrine of saṃsāra! To regard the Buddhist doctrine of saṃsāra as incorrect—how unobservant this is! Cheng Mingdao did not believe in the doctrine of hell, claiming that the Buddha established this false teaching for those of inferior faculties to terrify them into doing good. This is just the petty person's view that small evils cause no harm. His idea was that having committed transgressions in life, who will pursue and punish them after death? Little did he realize that the divine beings of heaven and earth are clearly and solemnly deployed, rewarding good and punishing evil as a shadow follows the form. How could one say there is no hell? The History of the Sui records that during the Kaihuang era, the Deputy of the Court of the Imperial Treasury Zhao Chang died and returned to life, saying that in the netherworld he saw Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou undergoing punishment. The Emperor said to Zhao Chang: "When you return home, my lord, tell the Sui Emperor on my behalf that the sin of my destroying the Buddhist Dharma is grave; let him perform meritorious deeds on my behalf so that I may leave hell." Zhao Chang memorialized the matter, and Emperor Wen thereupon decreed that monks and nuns throughout the empire chant the Diamond Sūtra for Emperor Wu of Zhou. The Records of the Words and Deeds of Famous Ministers records that Wang Jinggong's son was named Pang, whose conduct was unwholesome; whenever Jinggong acted contrary to reason and harmful to the Way, it mostly stemmed from Pang. After Pang died, Jinggong seemed to see Pang carrying an iron cangue and standing beside the door. Thereupon he gave up his residence at Banshan to become the Zhongshan Monastery, in order to seek post-mortem blessings for him. Using this as proof, Confucian books inherently contain the doctrine of hell! To claim that the Buddhist doctrine of hell is nonexistent—how unreflective this is!

2.22

Zhang Hengqu said, "Its error lies in reducing the six directions to mere dust and chaff; its narrowness lies in treating the human world as a dream and illusion." Yet he failed to reflect that Zhuangzi said: "The four seas between heaven and earth are like an anthill in a great marsh; the states within the seas are like a grain of panic grass in a great granary." What is this if not dust and chaff? Bai Letian said: "Yesterday one could warm one's hands at the rooftop; today outside the gate one might set bird-nets. Do not laugh at the poor and base nor boast of wealth and nobility: both become withered bones, so what difference is there?" What is this if not dream and illusion? Hengqu himself was blind to this; how could one claim that those who realize it are incorrect? Cheng Mingdao said: "The Buddhists seek to speak of eliminating the sense faculties and dusts, but there is no such principle; if there were such a principle, it could only be death." Yet he failed to reflect that Chan Master Dahui said: "Mind, intellect, and consciousness obstruct the Way worse than poisonous snakes and fierce tigers. Fierce tigers can still be avoided, but there is nowhere for you to avoid mind, intellect, and consciousness." How then could a practitioner of the Way be encumbered by faculties and dusts? The Sixth Patriarch said: "Bodhi originally has no tree, / nor does the bright mirror have a stand. / Fundamentally not a single thing exists, / so where can dust settle?" When has one who has awakened to the Way ever been encumbered by faculties and dusts? Mingdao did not understand this himself; how could he say that no such principle exists under heaven?

2.23

Zhang Hengqu said: "When the Buddhists speak of the ultimate reality (bhūtakoṭi), they arrive at what those who know the Way call sincerity; even if they attain it, it is sincerity that hates clarity." Now, for Hengqu to consider ultimate reality to be sincerity is acceptable, but to say that it is sincerity that hates clarity is unreflective. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: "The culmination of clarity is the Tathāgata; the culmination of purity is the penetration of light." The Lotus Sūtra says: "Universal clarity illuminates the world, with a clear and resolute mind." How could one who hates clarity be like this? Lord Wen (Sima Guang) said: "What is marvelous in it cannot surpass our school; what is false in it I do not believe. The marvelous lies in egolessness; its talk of heaven and hell is not worthy of belief." Now, for Lord Wen to regard egolessness as marvelous is acceptable, but not to believe in heaven and hell is unreflective.

2.24

Liu Yuancheng said: "Whenever something is beyond what human ears and eyes can reach, how can one know it does not exist?" Lie Yukou said: "The imperial son was confident in himself, yet confident in slandering the principle; could not believing truly be called knowing the principle?"

2.25

Hengqu said: "The Buddhists falsely accuse heaven and earth of being illusory." Why does he not look at the Rhapsody on the Red Cliff, which says: "Viewed from the perspective of their changing aspect, even heaven and earth cannot endure for a single instant"? Thus, that heaven and earth ultimately exhaust themselves indeed originated from Su Dongpo's statement; how could the Buddhists alone have maintained this?

2.26

Mingdao said: "It is claimed that the Buddhists actually cherish the body and cannot let it go. Why not look at the *History of the Five Dynasties*? It says: 'The Buddha gave his head, eyes, hands, and feet away to others.' Thus, that the Buddha did not cherish his body surely comes from the brush of Lord Ouyang. How could it be that only Buddhist scriptures contain this statement?"

2.27

Yichuan said: "In the past, those who deluded people took advantage of their ignorance and darkness. Nowadays, those who delude people capitalize on their lofty intelligence." But does he not consider: The wise observe before things have taken shape, whereas the foolish are blind even to accomplished facts. Having already called them "lofty and intelligent," to claim again that they succumb to delusion—can that be right?

2.28

Mingdao said: "The words of the Buddha and Laozi approach principle, and are not to be compared to Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di]; therefore, the disaster and harm they cause are worse than the harm of Yang and Mo." But does he not consider: All ten thousand forms suffer decay; principle alone is imperishable. Having already said that they approach principle, to claim again that they cause harm—can that be right?

First 28 of 37 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

三教平心論 — Classical Chinese