三教平心論 2.32

2.32

Furthermore, Great Master Bodhidharma, after he was buried, returned to the west in his bodily form; the Mahāsattva Wanhui could travel back and forth ten thousand li in a single day; Jīvaka with a single body responded simultaneously to offerings from a hundred households; and Yuanze within a single lifetime fully knew the events of three births. An arhat bowed in homage to Yangshan Huiji; a mountain god received the precepts from Songyue Yuangui; Tanshi could not be harmed by swords; Hanshan vanished into a stone wall. Their coming and going in life and death was solely according to their will, and their supernatural transformations were beyond measure. Although these are merely the dregs of Buddhism and were not originally what the ancestral school esteemed, yet viewed from the standpoint of other teachings, none have ever shown such extraordinary traces and unusual courses. When one's own vision has not even reached this level and yet one wishes to lightly criticize Buddhism, I know not indeed what grounds there are for such statements. If one says that the teaching of cause and effect is unworthy of belief, then [the ancient books say:] 'Upon the doer of good [Heaven] sends down all blessings; upon the doer of evil it sends down all calamities,' and 'A family that accumulates good will surely have an excess of celebration; a family that accumulates evil will surely have an excess of calamities.' Confucianism certainly instructs people through cause and effect; could it be that those who say reverence is not worth practicing and who claim cruelty causes no harm are instead the ones who understand the Way? If one says that the teaching of purification and abstention is unworthy of adoption, then refraining from pungent roots and meat was regarded by Confucius as the fasting of sacrifice, and undertaking three days of fasting was regarded by the Book of Rites as the virtue of purity and clarity. Confucianism certainly instructs people through purification and abstention; could it be that hanging meat to make a forest and spending ten thousand cash daily on food is on the contrary an admirable deed? If one says that the precept against killing living beings is wrong, then Tang of Shang's praying over the net and Zhao Jianzi's releasing of living creatures were both of this intent. King Xuan of Qi could not bear [the terror of] an ox, which Mencius called the art of benevolence; Song Xiang saving the ants was taken by gentlemen to be an admirable tale. When has Confucianism ever failed to take the protection of life as a matter of great virtue? If one says that the precept against drinking wine is wrong, then the Great Yu's hatred of fine wine and Emperor Guangwu's abstention from wine were both of this intent. Being sunk and disordered in wine was the reason for incurring punishment from the former kings, and being drunk and bawling was the cause of satire in the banquet songs. When has Confucianism ever failed to regard intoxication as the root that summons disaster? If one says that the precept against stealing is not what Confucianism esteems, then what Yi Yin said—'If it is not according to the Way, if it is not according to righteousness, one would not take a single blade of grass from others'—and what Dongpo said—'Between Heaven and Earth, all things have their masters; if it is not my possession, I will not take even a hair'—what indeed could these statements mean? If one says that the precept against false speech is not an urgent concern for Confucianism, then the Sima Duke of Wen's learning of utmost sincerity began with not speaking falsely; and when he wrote the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Governance, he noted that Duke Xiao of Qin did not revoke the reward for moving the log, Duke Huan of Qi did not violate the covenant with Cao Mo, and Duke Wen of Jin did not covet the gain from attacking Yuan—what indeed was the intent of these? If one says that the precept against sexual misconduct is an unfounded claim, then praising return to correctness and criticizing wanton licentiousness appear in the voices sung in the Book of Odes; thus Confucianism has never permitted people to engage in sexual misconduct. If one says that the teaching of giving is raving nonsense, then bestowing upon the poor and relieving the destitute appears in the records of the Dai Rites; thus Confucianism has never forbidden people to practice giving. If one says that dhyāna-meditation is not a good way, then 'Only after knowing what to abide in can there be stability'—why did the Great Learning take this up? If one says that forbearance is not an admirable matter, then 'Lack of forbearance in small matters upsets great plans'—why did the Analects warn against this? If one says that harsh speech does not need to be abstained from, why does the Book of Rites say, 'Wicked words do not issue from the mouth'? If one says that anger does not need to be abstained from, why does the Book of Documents say, 'Not merely not daring to harbor anger'? If one says that the precept against duplicity is not an urgent matter, then 'Do not obey in person and speak otherwise in retreat'—why was this reiterated in Emperor Shun's mandate? If one says that the precept against frivolous speech is impractical, then 'Clever talk is like a reed organ, their faces are thick indeed'—why was this satirized in the Lesser Odes? If one says that greed causes no harm to affairs, then 'Greedy people destroy their kind'—why did the poets satirize it? If one says that wrong views do not harm the Way, then 'Heterodox theories deceive the people'—why did Mencius refute them? If one says that shaving one's appearance and donning black robes is not the Middle Way of all under Heaven, then Taibo cut his hair and tattooed his body—why was he praised as possessing the utmost virtue? If one says that not marrying and not raising offspring cuts off the constant way of human relations, then [Yuan] Lushan remained unmarried throughout his life—why was he posthumously titled 'Cultured Conduct' (Wenxing)? The great Way and profound principle of the Buddha are indeed not easily discussed with ordinary folk. Let us merely discuss them based on these rough traces: I know not what among them is open to fault, or what is open to slander? Lacking broad learning and experience while recklessly indulging in condemnation and slander—this cannot but make one a dog of Shun or a concubine and wife.