集古今佛道論衡 2.23

2.23

[Dao]lin presented: "To regulate error and guard against wrongdoing was originally for producing good; the precepts are for stopping evil in body and speech without transgression. Cessation amidst conditions, severing both the prohibitive and the natural [faults]—only then is it called the good of the precepts. Now, a person who can tolerate alcohol does not confuse his mind, nor does he break other precepts; in actual principle, there is no transgression. It is precisely because drinking gives rise to transgressions and externally violates the prohibitive teaching, thereby incurring a breach amidst conditions, that it is still called transgression. By deviating from non-drinking, one is still not upholding the precepts." An imperial decree stated: "When a great being cherishes the Way, the essential lies in wondrous understanding. When a consummate person attains elevated heights, he values detachment. One expands the mind to be as broad as the Dharma-nature, and gives free rein to intention to be of the same measure as empty space. If among the myriad things there is nothing that is not good, how could evil not be the Way? Thus, dwelling among wine and sleeping upon meat, how could there be transgression? Wandering with a wife and holding a child in one's arms, how could one speak of producing a fault? Thus it was that the Crown Prince took a wife and attained the Way, whereas Zhou-tuo (Cūḍapanthaka) abandoned his wife and sank into delusion. Vimalakīrti attained elevated heights while dwelling in the mundane, whereas Śāriputra was foolishly attached to leaving the household. Therefore, what is good cannot yet be made solely good, and what is evil is hardly worth calling evil. The oddity of forbidding alcohol and cutting off meat deviates greatly from the Great Way." [Dao]lin presented: "Dragons and tigers take scales and fangs as their capabilities; apes and birds take leaping and soaring as their talents. The noble person takes understanding and practice as the Way; the worthy and wise take truth and actuality to accomplish virtue. Hence, both inner and outer traditions acclaim what is extraordinary, and the monastics and the laity hold high what is lofty. If there is only understanding without practice, it is like a well in the sand that yields no moisture; to focus solely on the empty and devoid of reality is like empty clouds without rain. Therefore, those who fashion the myriad things take the carpenter's line and ink as standard; those who govern all under heaven take law and principle as fundamental. Thus can they skillfully prevent evil sprouts and guard against as well as scrutinize villainy. Thus, a failing in a single act hurts more than cutting the flesh; the goodness of a single word is heavier than a thousand pieces of gold. If wondrous understanding of the mind-root makes dwelling in evil into good, and empty illumination of spiritual wisdom turns living in transgression into blessing, one could just as well move this minister's lowly person to occupy heaven's heavy charge, and transfer Your Majesty's supreme honor to this minister's humble place. Then lord and minister would be jumbled, and the upper and lower inverted. In actual practice this is impossible; from antiquity to the present it has never occurred. How does this differ from speaking of loyalty and filial piety while one's body is constantly in rebellion, or discoursing on compassion and renunciation while one's person is always killing and stealing? One's mouth is skilled in a hundred arts, yet when facing tasks one has no capability; one's words reach ten thousand leagues, yet one's feet never step beyond the threshold. These are all vehement in emotion yet extravagant in reality, emptily lofty and useless. Therefore, talent may be great yet useless, and principle may be small yet necessarily penetrating. To cling to this as the Way is truly difficult to accept with trust." An imperial decree stated: "One who is attached to sentiment cannot discuss the Way; one of petty wisdom is hard to converse with concerning truth. Therefore, how could a fish in a puddle-well know the depth and breadth of the Eastern Sea? How could swallows and sparrows flitting about hedges envy the journey of the rocs and phoenixes? These all stubbornly hold to the petty and oppose the great direction; they abide by the literal text to the detriment of the broad path. If one regards things through the self, there is nothing that is not the self; if one regards the self through things, there is no self that is not a thing. Since the self is not different from things, how again are things different from the self? When both self and things are forgotten, self and other become equal. To one of open mind, all things are without difference; to one who forgets achievements, there is no affair that is impermissible." [Dao]lin presented: "I humbly attend to Your Majesty's decree. Its designations and principles are profound and broad, and the source of its tenet is vast and boundless, beyond scrutiny and examination. In this matter, it is like peering at the sky—who can measure its breadth? It is also like plumbing the sea—how can one know its depth? If by what is small one makes the great small, there is no greatness that is not small; if by what is great one makes the small great, there is no smallness that is not great. If the great is not un-great, then an autumn down is not small; if the small is not un-small, then Mount Tai is not greatly great. Therefore, greatly great is not the greatness of the small, and small-small is not the smallness of the great. Thus, small and great differ in identity, and great and small are identical in difference. When there is neither identity nor difference of great and small, how can there be identity and difference of great and small? Only then does one know: that which is non-different can be differentiated from identity—how could there be an identity that could identify difference? When there is no identity that could identify difference, non-difference is identical; when there is no difference that could differentiate identity, there is no identity or difference. Therefore, having no identity while identical is non-identity; having no difference while different is non-difference. What identity or difference could differentiate identity? What non-identity or non-difference could identify difference?" The Emperor thereupon gave no reply. Thereupon lord and minister were silent and did not speak for a long while. The decree then asked: "Why are you so quiet? Do you intend to dissolve being and return to non-being? Do not, because the talk does not suit your mood, put an end to pure debate!" [Dao]lin presented: "The ancients felt fear when facing speech, and felt anxiety when uttering words. Therefore in antiquity there was the ruler who did not speak, and the world transmits [tales of] scholars who forgot achievement. My ceasing speech expresses knowledge; it is not that [the discussion] did not suit me." The decree stated: "The consummate person practices non-action, yet there is nothing he does not do; the wise person does not speak, yet there is nothing he does not say. There is also the parrot that speaks but is useless, and the phoenix that does not speak yet becomes a model; there is the tree that, having no utility, is preserved, and the goose that, not cackling, meets death. Now, in choosing and discarding, how do you find ease?" He also said: "There are scholars who know a person through a single word; there are those who preserve the Way upon meeting eyes. There are also those who discern feelings by observing appearances, and those who distinguish virtue by listening to words. We have spoken with you for many days; could you not have grasped the general drift of the purport during this time? You may record it for Us and set it forth where appropriate, so that the people of the world may know Our intention. In this, how could your aiding Us fall short of loyalty?" Because the Buddha-Dharma had fallen into ruin, [Dao]lin risked death to submit his petition. The Emperor was obstinate in his views and did not follow what had been argued. Although the debate was lucid, it was ultimately not the Emperor's original intent. Receiving word that after the proscription of the teaching in Chang'an, a separate Tongdao Monastery (Abbey of Penetrating the Way) was established, where what was studied was exclusively Laozi and Zhuangzi, and they were fond of presenting empty talk to synthesize the three teachings, [Dao]lin hoped to rely on the force of doctrine to verify and illuminate the Buddhist scriptures. He then submitted a memorial recommending ten śramaṇas of doctrinal learning in the city of Ye, all intelligent, lofty, and brilliant, requesting that they be admitted to the Tongdao Monastery. When His Majesty viewed the memorial, he immediately said: "Your entering the Tongdao Monastery is very good; there will be nothing left unlearned, and your consummate discourses will supplement Us and be of great benefit." A meal was then served, after which he said: "You may pack your baggage and enter the Pass before the assembly. Turn back on the first day of the fifth month, and come to the Yanshou Hall in Chang'an for an audience." On the twenty-fourth day, the Emperor went to the Yunyang Palace. On the first day of the sixth month, the Emperor passed away. Tianyuan (Emperor Xuan) ascended the throne in Tongzhou. On the thirteenth day of the ninth month, the Grand Minister of Rites, Duke of Qi, submitted a memorial, and the Emperor gave his assent, saying: "The Buddhist principles are vast and great, and the Way reaches the utmost hidden and subtle. Promoting and implementing them must have regulations; the Dharma requires investigation. Repeatedly memorializing like this, We fear there may be delays and infractions." [Dao]lin presented: "This minister originally stated this matter solely for the promotion of the Dharma; I have made several earnest petitions, only hoping for its swift implementation. Now that Your Holy Majesty has assented and the deliberative bureau has memorialized its decision, both above and below are broad and inclusive, and there is certainly no differing direction. The day it is promulgated, all under heaven will rejoice. How could this minister dare say more?" On the fifteenth day of the first month of the first year of Dacheng (579 CE), a decree stated: "Promoting and establishing the mysterious style, the Triratna is respected and revered; it is especially fitting to cultivate reverence. As the Dharma's transformation is vast and broad, in principle it should be returned to and exalted. Among the former śramaṇas, seven whose virtuous conduct is pure and lofty shall be installed to practice the Way to the west of the Zhengwu Hall." On the twenty-sixth day of the second month, the era name was changed to Daxiang. An edict was further issued: "The Buddha-Dharma is vast and great, and has been jointly revered for a thousand ages. How could it be kept hidden and abandoned without being practiced? From this day forward, from princes and dukes down to the common people, all should cultivate and serve it, knowing Our intention." On that very day, the hall was adorned with venerable images and devotion was fully cultivated. At that time, the two assemblies of Buddhists and Daoists each selected one person of great virtue and ordered them to ascend the Dharma seat to extol and propagate the wondrous scriptures. Thereupon, each harbored fearlessness and reciprocally uttered subtle words. The Buddhist principles were vast, profound, and unfathomable; the Daoist tenet was adrift, and its limpid shallowness could be known. In vanquishing sharpness upon the mats, the princes and dukes sighed in admiration. On the twenty-eighth day of the fourth month, a decree was issued: "The Buddhist principles are abstruse and profound, marvelous and vast. One must broadly open ritual forms of transformation to allow its cultivation. Those who venerate and uphold it should examine themselves according to the scriptures. Those who follow the Way need not shave their hair or disfigure their forms so as to deviate from the Great Way; they may retain their beards and hair and wear dignified garments to advance toward the lofty aim. Let one hundred and twenty former śramaṇas of fine virtue, purity, vast learning, and renowned actuality, whose reputation is commendable, be chosen to practice the Way for the state at Zhihu Temple. Requisites of the four necessities are to be supplied without shortage. Meditation and recitation among the populace shall not be hindered in the least. Only the capital and Luoyang shall each establish one temple; in the other prefectures and commanderies it is not yet permitted." On the twenty-eighth day of the fifth month of the first year of Daxiang of the Zhou dynasty (579 CE), Dharma Master Ren Daolin compiled and recorded these events at the residence of Wei Daohu in Tongzhou, and presented them to the throne. Pei Peigong (Yuwen Yi), the Palace Secretariat Director, personally inspected it; the Lesser Palace Secretariat Director, Lord of Linjing Yuwen Hong, read it through; Tokto Xinggong, Senior Servitor of Regular Rites, thoroughly investigated it; and Shikou Chen, Chief Senior Servitor, scrutinized it. Emperor Gaozu's taboo name was Yong; he was the third son of Yuwen Heitai (Yuwen Tai), Prime Minister of the Western Wei. Tai died in the third year of the Deposed Emperor of the Wei dynasty. His heir, Lord of Luoyang Jue, succeeded to the position, received the abdication of the Wei, and took the title of Great Zhou. In that year he was deposed, and his younger brother, Lord of Ningdu Yu, was enthroned. He passed away after three years and was posthumously titled Emperor Ming. His younger brother, the Duke of Lu, was enthroned; this was Gaozu. He changed the era name to Baoding; after five years, he changed the era name to Tianhe; after six years, he changed the era name to Jiande. In the third year [of Jiande], he eliminated the Buddha-Dharma. In the sixth year, he pacified Qi; the Jiang-Huai, Bashu, and the Central Plains were unified. The Emperor, believing he had attained governance over all under heaven, changed the era name to Xuanzheng. In the fifth month, he passed away. Initially, the Emperor deeply believed in the Buddhist teaching and had no second thoughts. A popular apocryphon stated: 'One in black garments shall be king.' Because the monks wore black robes, he was all the more troubled. Therefore, when Taizu entered the Pass, he changed all garments and banners to black to avert the omen. Furthermore, Emperor Gao of Qi secretly suspected the śākya clan and was about to execute them; Master Chou, because of his penetrating awareness, avoided harm. This caused the Zhou Ancestor to follow suit in suspecting them. When danger threatened his person and affairs were pressing, he trusted slander and flattery; ultimately his faith was not thoroughgoing, and so he accepted these words. Without considering that it would bring disaster to the state and destruction to himself, he acted with fierce resolve to purge and destroy. The Triratna was smashed to pieces, and his precious mandate melted away. Therefore, as soon as his governance was exhausted, he perished in that very year. His son Yun succeeded to the throne, changing the era name to Dacheng. On the twenty-sixth day, he abdicated to his son Yan and changed the era name to Daxiang; Yun took the title Tianyuan. In the fifth month of the following year, Tianyuan passed away again. In the first month of the year after that, the era name was changed to Dading. In the second month, the state was abdicated to the Sui, and the era name was changed to Kaihuang. He changed all the black garments universally to yellow. From this one knows that apocrypha are absurd and empty; Emperor Guangwu had already established the precedent, and divination is hard to rely on, though Master Yu embellished it. In the late Han, a folk rumor said: 'One in yellow garments shall be king.' Zhang Jue and Zhang Lu both changed their garments to accord with it; the Huangchu and Huangwu reign eras also changed their names to align with it. These arts ultimately did not escape ruin. Furthermore, looking at the mutual abdication between Zhou and Sui, the verification through events ultimately amounts to emptiness. Now, as for the way of flourishing and decline, the calendar and numbers have their appointed times. Because of destruction there is prosperity; destruction is also to be valued. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Thinking that [the Buddha] is difficult to encounter has ceased; for this reason the Great Sage broke his body.' Salvation comes in accordance with capacity; the Pure Land has never been destroyed. Was not the Zhou Emperor Wu's conduct also appropriate? Dharma Master Daolin, whose secular surname was Ren, was a famous and greatly virtuous master in Xiangzhou in the city of Ye during the Northern Qi. When the Zhou pacified the east and eradicated the Buddhist lineage, at that time Gaozu summoned the monks to debate proscription and preservation together. Shangtong and the others, over five hundred men, dared not make any protest. Dharma Master Huiyuan stepped forward boldly to resist the decree, and the Emperor had no reply, yet subsequently eliminated [the teaching] through force. Dharma Master Daolin was initially away on other travels, and later submitted a memorial. Emperor Wu, being broad-minded, summoned him to the imperial seat and debated with him face to face for over twenty days, across more than seventy rounds. The Emperor examined and probed to the utmost, yet was ultimately unable to bend him. Since the principles had their proper place, it was referred to the deliberative bureau to weigh its feasibility. It happened that the Emperor passed away and Tianyuan succeeded to the throne. On the twenty-ninth day of the eighth month of the first year of Daxiang, they discussed the mourning; when it was memorialized in the ninth month, [the Emperor] granted deep assent face to face. In the first month of the following year, an imperial decree was finally promulgated. Thereupon, the Buddha-Dharma was broadly disseminated as before.