弘明集 5.50

5.50

答曰。玄古之民。大朴未虧其禮不文。三王應世。故與時而變。因茲以觀。論者之所執。方內之格言耳。何以知其然。中國之所無。或得之於異俗。其民不移其道未止。是以天竺國法。盡敬於所尊。表誠於神明。率皆袒服。所謂去飾之甚者也。雖記籍末流茲土。其始似有聞焉。佛出於世因而為教。明所行不左故應右袒。何者。將辯貴賤必存乎位。位以進德。則尚賢之心生。是故沙門越名分以背時。不退已而求先。又人之所能。皆在於右。若動不以順則觸事生累。過而能復雖中賢猶未得。況有下於此者乎。請試言之。夫形以左右成體。理以邪正為用。二者之來各乘其本。滯根不拔則事未愈。應而形理相資其道。微明世習未移應徵。難辯袒服既彰則形。隨事感理悟其心。以御順之氣表誠之體。而邪正兩行。非其本也。是故世尊以袒服篤其誠而閑其邪。使名實有當敬慢不雜。然後開出要之路。導真性於久迷。令淹世之賢不自絕於無分。希進之流不惑塗而旋步。於是服膺聖門者。咸履正思順異跡同軌。緬素風而懷古。背華俗以洗心。專本達變即近悟遠。形服相愧理深其感。如此則情禮專向修之不倦。動必以順不覺形之自恭。斯乃如來勸誘之外因。斂麁之妙跡。而眾談未諭。或欲革之。反古之道。何其深哉。

I replied: 'The people of profound antiquity had their great simplicity unmarred, and their ritual propriety was not ornate. The Three Kings responded to the times, and so changed with the times. Viewing it from this, what the debaters hold to is merely the standard sayings of this realm. How do we know this to be so? What the Central States lack may be found in foreign customs. If its people do not change, its Dao does not cease. Therefore, according to the laws of the country of Tianzhu, to exhaust reverence toward the venerable and express sincerity toward the spiritual and luminous, all universally bare their robes, which is what is called the utmost removal of ornament. Although its records and texts have not flowed down to this land, in the beginning there seems to have been some hearing of it. The Buddha appeared in the world and established teachings accordingly, clarifying that what is practiced is not sinister (left), and therefore one should bare the right shoulder. Why is this? To distinguish the noble and base, it must depend on position; position being used to advance virtue, the heart of esteeming the worthy arises. Therefore, the śramaṇa transcends names and status to turn his back on the worldly, not putting himself behind to seek precedence. Moreover, that which human beings are capable of all lies on the right; if actions are not in accord with compliance, then in every encounter entanglements arise. To be able to return after erring is something even middling worthies cannot yet achieve, how much less those below them? Please allow me to try to explain it: form forms substance through left and right, and principle operates through the depraved and the correct. The arrival of these two each mounts its own root; if the stuck root is not uprooted, affairs are not rectified. As they respond, form and principle aid each other, and their Dao is subtle and clear. When worldly habits have not changed, the response and verification are hard to discern. Once baring the shoulder is made manifest, form is moved according to affairs, and principle awakens the mind. Using the qi of mastering compliance to manifest the bodily form of sincerity, while depraved and correct operate together, is not its original ground. For this reason, the World-Honoured One used baring the robe to solidify sincerity and block depravity, making name and reality correspond and reverence and remissness unmixed. Afterwards, he opened the path to the essential escape and guided the true nature out of long-standing delusion, preventing worthies submerged in the world from cutting themselves off from having no share, and preventing those aspiring to progress from being confused about the path and turning back. Thereupon, those who held the sacred gate to their breasts all trod the upright and contemplated compliance, walking the same track despite different traces; looking afar to the pristine wind they cherished antiquity, turning their backs on luxurious customs to cleanse their minds. Concentrating on the root and penetrating transformations, grasping the near they awakened to the far. Form and dress shaming each other, principle deeply moved their feelings. In this way, affect and ritual propriety were single-mindedly directed and cultivated without weariness, actions were necessarily compliant, and they were unaware of their forms naturally becoming reverent. This is indeed the Tathāgata's external cause for admonishing and inducing, the subtle trace of gathering in the coarse. Yet the various talkers do not understand, and some wish to alter it; how deep is their turning against the ancient Dao!'