(牟子既修經傳，諸子書無大小，靡不好之，雖不樂兵法，然猶讀焉。雖讀神仙不死之書，抑而不信，以為虛誕。是時靈帝崩後，天下擾亂，獨交州差安，北方異人咸來在焉，多為神仙辟穀長生之術，時人多有學者，牟子常以五經難之，道家術士，莫敢對焉。時牟子年方盛，志精於學，又見世亂，無仕宦意，竟遂不就，乃歎曰：「老子絕聖棄智，修身保真，萬物不干其志，天下不易其樂，天子不得臣，諸侯不得友，故可貴也。」於是銳志於佛道，兼研《老子》五千文，含玄妙為酒漿，翫五經為琴簧，世俗之徒，多非之者，以為背五經而向異道，欲爭則非道，欲默則不能，遂以筆墨之間，略引聖賢之言證解之，名曰《牟子理惑》云。)

(Mouzi studied the classics and commentaries, and among the writings of the various philosophers, no work, great or small, did he fail to enjoy. Though he took no pleasure in military texts, he still read them. Though he read books on immortals and deathlessness, he suppressed belief in them, regarding them as false and absurd. At that time, after Emperor Ling's death, the realm was in turmoil; only Jiaozhou was somewhat peaceful, and extraordinary people from the north all came to stay there, most of them practicing the arts of immortality, grain avoidance, and long life. Many people of the time studied these, but Mouzi would always challenge them with the Five Classics, and none of the Daoist adepts dared respond. Mouzi was then in the prime of youth, his resolve focused on learning, and seeing the world in chaos, he had no ambition for office and never took a post. He sighed and said: "Laozi cut off sageliness and discarded wisdom, cultivated himself and preserved his true nature; the myriad things did not disturb his purpose, the whole world could not alter his joy; the Son of Heaven could not make him a subject, nor the feudal lords make him a friend—this is what makes him worthy of honor." Thereupon he devoted his resolve to the Buddhist path, and also studied Laozi's five thousand words. He took its mysterious subtlety as his wine, and delighted in the Five Classics as his lute. The common folk of the world mostly criticized him, thinking he had turned his back on the Five Classics and turned toward a foreign path. When he wished to argue, it seemed contrary to the Way; when he wished to stay silent, he could not. So in his writing he briefly cited the words of sages and worthies to explain and defend himself, naming it Mouzi's Resolution of Doubts.)

或問曰：「何以正言佛，佛為何謂乎？」牟子曰：「佛者諡號，猶名三皇神，五帝聖也。佛乃道德之元祖，神明之宗緒。佛之言覺也，怳惚變化，分身散體，或存或亡，能小能大，能圓能方，能老能少，能隱能彰，蹈火不燒，履刃不傷，在汙不染，在禍無殃，欲行則飛，坐則揚光，故號為佛也。」問曰：「何謂之為道，道何類也？」牟子曰：「道之言導也，導人致於無為，牽之無前、引之無後，舉之無上、抑之無下，視之無形、聽之無聲，四表為大，綩綖其外，毫釐為細，間關其內，故謂之道。」問曰：「佛道至尊至大，堯、舜、周、孔，曷不修之乎？七經之中，不見其辭，子既耽詩、書，悅禮、樂，奚為復好佛道，喜異術，豈能踰經傳，美聖業哉！竊為吾子不取也。」牟子曰：「書不必孔丘之言，藥不必扁鵲之方，合義者從，愈病者良，君子博取眾善，以輔其身。子貢云：『夫子何常師之有乎？』堯事尹壽，舜事務成，旦學呂望，丘學老聃，亦俱不見於七經也。四師雖聖，比之於佛，猶白鹿之與麒麟，鷰鳥之與鳳凰也，堯、舜、周、孔且尤之，而況佛身相好、變化、神力無方，焉能捨而不學乎？五經事義，或有所闕，佛不見記，何足怪疑哉！」問曰：「云佛有三十二相，八十種好，何其異於人之甚也？殆富耳之語，非實之云也。」牟子曰：「諺云，少所見，多所怪，睹馲駝，言馬腫背。堯眉八彩，舜目重瞳，皋陶鳥喙，文王四乳，禹耳三漏，周公背僂，伏羲龍鼻，仲尼反頨，老子日角目玄，鼻有雙柱，手把十文，足蹈二五，此非異於人乎？佛之相好，奚足疑哉！」問曰：「佛道言人死當復更生，僕不信此言之審也。」牟子曰：「人臨死，其家上屋呼之，死已復呼誰？」或曰：「呼其魂魄。」牟子曰：「神還則生，不還神何之乎？」曰：「成鬼神。」牟子曰：「是也，魂神固不滅矣，但身自朽爛耳。身譬如五穀之根葉，魂神如五穀之種實，根葉生必當死，種實豈有終亡，得道身滅耳。老子曰：『吾所以有大患，以吾有身也，若吾無身，吾有何患？』」或曰：「為道亦死，不為道亦死，有何異乎？」牟子曰：「所謂無一日之善，而問終身之譽者也。有道雖死，神歸福堂；為惡既死，神當其殃。愚夫闇於成事，賢智預於未萌，道與不道，如金比草，善之與惡，如白方黑，焉得不異，而言何異乎？」問曰：「孔子云，『未能事人，焉能事鬼，未知生，焉知死。』此聖人之所紀也。今佛家輒說生死之事，鬼神之務，此殆非聖哲之語也。夫履道者，當虛無澹泊，歸志質樸，何為乃道生死以亂志，說鬼神之餘事乎？」牟子曰：「若子之言，所謂見外，未識內者也。孔子疾，子路不問本末，以此抑之耳。《孝經》曰：『為之宗廟，以鬼享之，春秋祭祀，以時思之。』又曰：『生事愛敬，死事哀慼。』豈不教人事鬼神，知生死哉？周公為武王請命曰：『旦多才多藝，能事鬼神。』夫何為也？佛經所說生死之趣，非此類乎？老子曰：『既知其子，復守其母，沒身不殆。』又曰：『用其光，復其明，無遺身殃。』此道生死之所趣，吉凶之所住，至道之要，實貴寂寞，佛家豈好言乎，來問不得不對耳，鐘鼓豈有自鳴者，桴加而有聲矣。」問曰：「吾子以經傳理佛之說，其辭富而義顯，其文熾而說美，得無非其誠是子之辯也？」牟子曰：「非吾辯也，見博故不惑耳。」問曰：「見博其有術乎？」牟子曰：「由佛經也，吾未解佛經之時，惑甚於子，雖誦五經，適以為華，未成實矣。吾既睹佛經之說，覽老子之要，守恬惔之性，觀無為之行，還視世事，猶臨天井而闚溪谷，登嵩岱而見丘垤矣！五經則五味，佛道則五穀矣！吾自聞道已來，如開雲見白日，炬火入冥室焉。」問曰：「子以經傳之辭，華麗之說，褒讚佛行，稱譽其德，高者陵青雲，廣者踰地坼，得無踰其本，過其實乎？而僕譏刺，頗得疹中，宜其病也。」牟子曰：「吁！吾之所褒，猶以塵埃附嵩岱，收朝露投滄海。子之所謗，猶握瓢觚欲減江海，操耕耒欲損崑崙，側一掌以翳日光，舉土塊以塞河衝，吾所褒，不能使佛高，子之毀，不能令其下也。」(詳如《弘明集》)

Someone asked, "Why do you speak so directly about the Buddha? What does 'Buddha' actually mean?"

Master Mou replied: "'Buddha' is a title of praise, much like calling the Three August Ones 'divine' or the Five Emperors 'sages.' The Buddha is the original ancestor of morality and the root source of all spiritual beings. The word 'Buddha' means 'awakened.' He is elusive and ever-changing, dividing his body and scattering his form. He may appear or vanish, become small or large, round or square, old or young, hidden or revealed. He walks through fire without being burned, treads on blades without being cut, dwells in filth without being stained, meets disaster without harm. When he wishes to move, he flies; when he sits, he radiates light. That is why he is called Buddha."

The questioner asked, "What is the Path, and what is it like?"

Master Mou said: "'Path' means 'to guide.' It guides people to reach non-action. Pull it from the front—there is nothing ahead. Draw it from behind—there is nothing behind. Lift it up—there is nothing above. Push it down—there is nothing below. Look at it—it has no form. Listen for it—it has no sound. As vast as the four directions, it wraps around the outside of everything. As fine as a hair's breadth, it threads through the inside of everything. That is why it is called the Path."

The questioner asked, "The Buddha's Path is supremely honored and supremely great. Why did Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius not practice it? In the Seven Classics, no such words appear. You, sir, have immersed yourself in the Poetry and Documents, delighted in the Rites and Music—why then do you also favor the Buddha's Path and delight in strange arts? How could this surpass the classics and glorify the sage's work? I privately think this is not something you should do."

Master Mou replied: "Writing need not come from Confucius; medicine need not come from Bian Que. Whatever fits the truth, follow it; whatever cures the illness, is good. A noble person broadly gathers all that is good to support himself. Zigong said, 'Where did the Master always have a fixed teacher?' Yao served Yin Shou, Shun served Wu Cheng, the Duke of Zhou studied under Lü Wang, and Confucius studied under Lao Dan—yet none of these appear in the Seven Classics. These four teachers, though sages, compared to the Buddha are like a white deer beside a qilin, or a swallow beside a phoenix. Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius themselves still surpassed others—how much more so the Buddha, whose bodily marks are excellent, who transforms at will, and whose spiritual power knows no bounds? How could one abandon him and not learn from him? The meaning of the Five Classics is sometimes incomplete. That the Buddha is not recorded there—why should that be strange or doubtful?"

The questioner asked, "It is said the Buddha has thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks. How is he so extraordinarily different from other people? This is probably just exaggerated talk, not the truth."

Master Mou said: "As the saying goes, 'What one has seen little of, one finds very strange.' One who sees a camel for the first time says the horse has a swollen back. Yao had eyebrows of eight colors; Shun had double pupils in his eyes; Gao Yao had a bird's beak; King Wen had four nipples; Yu had three openings in his ears; the Duke of Zhou was hunchbacked; Fuxi had a dragon's nose; Confucius had a concave crown; Laozi had a sun-shaped forehead, dark eyes, a double-columned nose, ten lines on his palms, and the numbers two and five on the soles of his feet. Are these not different from ordinary people? Why should the Buddha's marks be doubted?"

The questioner asked, "The Buddha's Path says that when people die, they are reborn again. I do not believe this claim is true."

Master Mou said: "When a person is about to die, the family calls up to the roof for them. After death, whom do they call for?"

Someone said, "They call for the soul."

Master Mou said: "If the spirit returns, the person lives. If the spirit does not return, where does it go?"

The reply came: "It becomes a ghost or spirit."

Master Mou said: "Exactly. The soul and spirit are certainly not extinguished—only the body itself rots away. The body is like the roots and leaves of grain; the soul and spirit are like the seed within the grain. The roots and leaves, once grown, must die, but how could the seed ever perish? One who attains the Path merely lets the body perish. Laozi said, 'I have great trouble because I have a body. If I had no body, what trouble would I have?'"

Someone said, "Whether one practices the Path or not, one still dies. What difference is there?"

Master Mou said: "That is like someone who does not do a single day's good, yet asks for a lifetime's reputation. One who has the Path may die, but the spirit returns to the hall of blessings. One who does evil may die, but the spirit receives its punishment. The foolish are blind to what has already happened; the wise anticipate what has not yet sprouted. The Path and the not-Path are like gold compared to grass. Good and evil are like white compared to black. How could there be no difference? How can you say there is no difference?"

The questioner asked, "Confucius said, 'Before you can serve people, how can you serve ghosts? Before you know life, how can you know death?' This is what the sage recorded. Now the Buddhists readily speak of life and death and the affairs of ghosts and spirits—this is hardly the language of sages and wise men. One who walks the Path should be empty, still, and plain, returning the mind to simplicity. Why then speak of life and death to confuse the mind, and discuss leftover matters of ghosts and spirits?"

Master Mou said: "By saying this, you are looking at the outside but have not understood the inside. Confucius was ill, and Zigong did not ask about first and last things, so Confucius restrained him with these words. The Classic of Filial Piety says, 'Establish ancestral temples so that ghosts may enjoy them; in spring and autumn, sacrifice and remember them in due season.' It also says, 'Serve them in life with love and respect; serve them in death with grief and sorrow.' Does this not teach one to serve ghosts and spirits and to understand life and death? The Duke of Zhou, pleading for King Wu's life, said, 'I, Dan, am talented and skilled and can serve ghosts and spirits.' What was that about? Are the Buddha's scriptures on the destinies of life and death not of this kind? Laozi said, 'Once you know the child, return and guard the mother; to the end of your days you will not be in danger.' He also said, 'Use its light, return to its brightness, and bring no disaster upon your body.' This is where the Path of life and death leads, where good and bad fortune reside. The essence of the highest Path truly values stillness. Would the Buddhists enjoy speaking of these things? When someone comes asking, one cannot but answer. Do bells and drums ever sound by themselves? Only when the drumstick is applied do they make sound."

The questioner asked, "You, sir, use the language of the classics to explain the Buddha's teachings. Your words are rich and your meaning clear, your writing brilliant and your exposition beautiful. Could it be that this is not the truth, but merely your own clever argument?"

Master Mou said: "It is not my clever argument. Because I have seen much, I am not confused."

The questioner asked, "Is there a method to seeing much?"

Master Mou said: "It comes from the Buddhist scriptures. Before I understood the Buddhist scriptures, I was more confused than you. Though I recited the Five Classics, they served only as flowers, not yet as fruit. But after I saw the teachings in the Buddhist scriptures and examined the essentials of Laozi, guarding a calm and tranquil nature and observing the practice of non-action, I looked back at the affairs of the world as though peering down from a high well into a ravine, or climbing Mount Song or Mount Tai to gaze at anthills. The Five Classics are like the five flavors; the Buddha's Path is like the five grains. Since I heard the Path, it has been like clouds parting to reveal the bright sun, or carrying a torch into a dark room."

The questioner asked, "You use the words of the classics and ornate speech to praise the Buddha's conduct and extol his virtue. You raise him so high he brushes the blue clouds; you broaden him so wide he exceeds the cracks in the earth. Is this not beyond what is fundamental and beyond what is true? And my criticism, having hit the sore spot rather precisely, rightly provokes your rebuttal."

Master Mou said: "Ah! What I praise is like adding dust to Mount Song or Tai, or pouring morning dew into the vast sea. What you slander is like holding a ladle or cup to try to diminish the rivers and seas, or grasping a plow to try to reduce Mount Kunlun, or tilting a single palm to block the sunlight, or lifting a clod of earth to dam a rushing river. What I praise cannot make the Buddha higher; what you destroy cannot make him lower."