>The Great Vacuity of necessity consists of material force (qi). Material force of necessity integrates to become the myriad things. Things of necessity disintegrate and return to the Great Vacuity. Appearance and disappearance following this cycle are a matter of necessity. When, in the midst [of this universal operation] the sage fulfills the Way to the utmost, and identifies himself [with the universal processes of appearance and disappearance] without partiality (i.e., lives the best life and takes life and death objectively), his spirit is preserved in the highest degree. Those (the Buddhists) who believe in annihilation expect departure without returning, and those (the Taoists) who cling to everlasting life and are attached to existence expect things not to change. While they differ, they are the same in failing to understand the Way. Whether integrated or disintegrated, it is my body just the same. One is qualified to discuss the nature of man when he realizes that death is not annihilation.>The Buddhists do not understand destiny decreed by Heaven and think that the production and annihilation of the universe are due to the elements of existence (dharmas) created by the mind. They regard the small (human consciousness) as the cause of the great (reality), and the secondary as the cause of the fundamental. Whatever they cannot understand thoroughly, they regard as illusion or error. They are indeed [summer insects] which doubt the existence of ice.>Confucianists investigate principle and therefore can follow their nature. This constitutes the Way. Buddhists, on the other hand, do not know how to investigate principle and arbitrarily consider [Emptiness] as the true nature. Consequently their theory cannot prevail>In trying to understand spirits, Buddhists say that beings with consciousness die and are born in cycles. They are therefore tired of suffering and seek to escape from it. Can they be said to understand spiritual beings? They consider human life as a delusion. Can they be said to understand man? Heaven and man form a unity, but they accept one (the ultimate nature of Heaven) and reject the other (human af- fairs). Can they be said to understand Heaven? What Confucius and Mencius called Heaven, they call the Path. "The wandering away of the spirit (material force) [as it disintegrates] becomes change,"85 but the deluded Buddhists call this transmigration. They just don't think.
>>23821698>The doctrines of Buddhism are not worthy of matching the doctrines of our Sage. One need only compare them and having observed that they are different, leave Buddhism alone. If one tries to investigate all its theories, it is probably an impossible task. Before one has done that, he will already have been transformed into a Buddhist. But let us take a look at Buddhism from the point of view of facts. In deserting his father and leaving his family, the Buddha severed all human relationships. It was merely for himself that he lived alone in the forest. Such a person should not be allowed in any community. Generally speaking, he did to others what he himself despised. Such is not the mind of the sage, nor is it the mind of a superior man. The Buddhists themselves will not abide by the principles of the relationship between the ruler and minister, between father and son, and between husband and wife, and criticize others for not doing as they do. They leave these human relationships to others and have nothing to do with them. They set themselves apart as a special class. If this is the way to lead the people, it will be the end of the human race. As to their discourse on principle and the nature of things, it is primarily for the sake of life and death. Their feelings are basically love of life and fear of death. This is selfishness.>You cannot say that the teachings of the Buddhists are ignorance, for actually they are extremely lofty and profound. But essentially speak- ing, they can finally be reduced to a pattern of selfishness. Why do we say this? In the world there cannot be birth without death or joy without sorrow. But wherever the Buddhists go, they always look for an opportunity to tell subtle falsehood and exercise deception, and to preach the elimination of birth and death and the neutralization of joy and sorrow. In the final analysis this is nothing but self-interest. The teachings of the Taoists even carry with them an element of treachery, as evidenced in their sayings that the purpose of giving is to take away and the purpose of opening is to close.58 Furthermore, their general intention is to fool the people and to be wise themselves. When the ruler of Ch'in (221-206 B.C.) fooled his people, his tricks probably derived from the Taoists. >The Buddhists have the doctrine of renunciation of the family and the world. Fundamentally the family cannot be renounced. It is of course possible for them to run away inasmuch as they do not treat their fathers as fathers and their mothers as mothers. But as to the world, how can they escape from it? As they have already claimed to have renounced it, that is possible only when they no longer stand under heaven or upon the earth. But they still drink when thirsty and eat when hungry, and still stand under heaven and set their feet on the earth.
>>23821702>The Buddhists talk about formation, remaining in the same state, deterioration, and extinction. This indicates that they are ignorant of the Way. There are only formation and deterioration but no remaining or extinction. Take plants, for example. When they are first produced, they are already formed. As they approach the highest point of growth, they immediately begin to decay. The Buddhists think that in the life of plants, they grow until they reach maturity, remain in that state for some time, and then gradually deteriorate. But nothing in the world remains in the same state. Any day added to the life of an infant means a day spent. Since when can one stay in the same state?>Followers of Zen Buddhism always talk about the realms of human nature and human destiny in high-sounding words. As to human affairs, very often some of them are just totally ignorant. This is simply because they really achieve nothing by their talk.
>>23821698>It is not necessary to examine the doctrines of Buddhism and Taoism deeply to understand them. The mere fact that they discard the Three Bonds (between ruler and minister, father and son, and husband and wife) and the Five Constant Virtues (righteousness on the part of the father, deep love on the part of the mother, friendliness on the part of the elder brother, respect on the part of the younger brother, and filial piety on the part of the son) is already a crime of the greatest magnitude. Nothing more need be said about the rest.>As to your contention that in Zen, entering into meditation is to cut off thought and to reveal the Principle of Nature completely, that is especially wrong. When thinking is correct, there is the Principle of Nature. In all operations and functioning, there is none which is not a revelation of the Principle of Nature. Does it need to wait to have all thoughts cut off before the Principle of Nature can be revealed? Furthermore, what is this that we call the Principle of Nature? Are humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom (the four moral qualities natural to man) not the Principle of Nature? Are the five human relations between ruler and minister, between father and son, between old and young, between husband and wife, and between friends not the Principle of Nature? If the Buddhists have really seen the Principle of Nature, why should they violate and confuse [truth] like this, destroy everything, and darken and delude their original mind without realizing it themselves? All these (Buddhistic doctrines) are great defects of recent generations which have fallen and degenerated into depraved doctrines. I am surprised that an enlightened person (like you) cannot avoid the popular trend and express such ideas.
>Although rules of propriety are purely detailed expressions of the Principle of Nature, they must be embodied in human desires to be seen. Principle is a latent principle for activities, but its function will become prominent if it varies and conforms to them. It is precisely for this reason that there can never be a Heaven distinct from man or a principle dis- tinct from desires. It is only with the Buddhists that principle and desires can be separated. . . . Take fondness for wealth and for sex. Heaven, working unseen, has provided all creatures with it, and with it man puts the great virtue of Heaven and Earth into operation. They all regard wealth and sex as preserved resources. Therefore the Book of Changes says, "The great characteristic of Heaven and Earth is to produce. The most precious thing for the sage is [the highest] position. To keep his position depends on humanity. How to collect a large population depends on wealth."12 Thus in sound, color, flavor, and fragrance we can broadly see the open desires of all creatures, and at the same time they also consti- tute the impartial principle for all of them. Let us be broad and greatly impartial, respond to things as they come, look at them, and listen to them, and follow this way in words and action without seeking anything out- side. And let us be unlike Lao Tzu, who said that the five colors blind one's eyes and the five tones deafen one's ears,13 or the Buddha, who despised them as dust and hated them as robbers. . . . If we do not un- derstand the Principle of Nature from human desires that go with it, then although there may be a principle that can be a basis,14 nevertheless, it will not have anything to do with the correct activities of our seeing, hearing, speech, and action. They thereupon cut off the universal opera- tion of human life, and wipe it out completely. Aside from one meal a day, they would have nothing to do with material wealth and aside from one sleep under a tree, they would have nothing to do with sex. They exterminate the great character of Heaven and Earth and ruin the great treasure of the sage. They destroy institutions and eliminate culture. Their selfishness is ablaze while principles of humanity are destroyed. It is like the fire of thunder or a dragon. The more one tries to overcome it, the more it goes on. Mencius continued the teaching of Confucius which is that wherever human desires are found, the Principle of Nature is found.
>Master Ch'eng [Hao (Ch'eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085)] said that in discussing human nature and material force, "It would be wrong to consider them as two."2 But he also said, "Due to the material force with which men are endowed, some become good from childhood and others become evil."3 Chu Hsi said, "As soon as there is the endowment by Heaven, there is the physical nature. They cannot be separated,"4 but he also said, "Since there is this principle, why is there evil? What is called evil is due to material force."5 It is regrettable that although they were highly intelligent, they were unwittingly influenced and confused by the Buddhist doctrine of the "Six Robbers" (the six senses, which avoid perception or give wrong perception), and said two different things in the same breath without realizing it. If we say that material force is evil, then principle is also evil, and if we say that principle is good, then material force is also good, for material force is that of principle and principle is that of material force. How can we say that principle is purely and simply good whereas material force is inclined to be evil?
