維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.50

1.50

問：隋煬帝、陳後主皆師稟天台，何皆無道失國耶？豈大師之累乎？答：始善終凶以至失國，苟稟師訓行之靡替，豈至是哉？故《書》曰「惟狂克念作聖，惟聖罔念作狂。」故中人之性不可不慎，上智則不然也。故曰「有始有卒，其唯聖人乎。」故行之在彼，豈責其師？昔李斯學儒於苟子、元嵩學佛於亡名。李斯相秦而坑儒焚書、元嵩輔周而滅釋毀佛，豈歸罪於師耶？抑又聖如堯、舜、周公，而子有丹朱、商均之不肖，弟有管叔、蔡叔之不仁，豈堯舜周公教之不至耶？文中子曰「詩書盛而秦滅，非仲尼之罪也。虛玄長而晉亂，非老聃之罪也。齋戒修而梁國危，非釋迦之罪也。」以是明之，隋煬之無道、後主之荒恣，非智者之罪也。又菩薩住首楞嚴，或現無道、或現有道，現無道則為百王之殷鑒，俾遠其惡；現有道則為百王之師範，俾遷其善。夫如是則隨機理應，豈言論之可及。

Question: Both Emperor Yang of the Sui and the Last Ruler of the Chen were disciples of the Master of Tiantai. Why were both unprincipled and lost their states? Could this be an embarrassment to the Great Master? Answer: They were good at the start and disastrous at the end, leading to the loss of their states; if they had truly received their master's teachings and practiced them without lapse, how could it have come to this? Thus the Shangshu says: "Even the madman, if he can be mindful, becomes a sage; even the sage, if he is unmindful, becomes a madman." Therefore, those of middling capacity cannot fail to be cautious, whereas those of superior wisdom are not like this. Thus it is said: "To have a beginning and an end—is that not the mark of the sage alone?" Hence the conduct rested with them; how could one blame their master? In the past, Li Si studied Ruism under Xunzi, and Yuansong studied Buddhism under Master Wangming. Li Si became Chancellor of Qin and buried Ruist scholars and burned books; Yuansong assisted the Northern Zhou and eliminated the Śākya [monks] and destroyed Buddhism. Could the blame ever be placed on their masters? Furthermore, with sages like Yao, Shun, and the Duke of Zhou, their sons included the unworthy Danzhu and Shangjun, and their brothers included the unbenevolent Guan Shu and Cai Shu; could it be that the teachings of Yao, Shun, and the Duke of Zhou were inadequate? Wenzhongzi said: "When the Classic of Poetry and the Book of History flourished, Qin collapsed; this was not Confucius's fault. When vacuous mystery proliferated, Jin fell into disorder; this was not Laozi's fault. When the fasting precepts were cultivated, the state of Liang was endangered; this was not Śākyamuni's fault." Clarified by this, Emperor Yang of the Sui's lack of virtue and the Last Ruler's dissolute self-indulgence were not Zhizhe's fault. Furthermore, a bodhisattva abiding in the śūraṅgama[-samādhi] may manifest as devoid of virtue or manifest as possessing virtue. Manifesting as devoid of virtue serves as a mirror of warning to all kings, causing them to stay away from evil; manifesting as possessing virtue serves as a model to all kings, causing them to turn toward goodness. Being like this, they respond in accordance with capacities and principle—how could words and debate ever reach it?