集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.22

1.22

重詔　省所陳具情旨。幽昧之事。誠非寓言所盡。然其較略。乃大人神之常度。粗復有分例耳。大都百王制法雖質文隨時。然未有以殊俗參治恢誕雜化者也。豈曩聖之不達。而末聖而宏通哉。且五戒之小善。粗擬似人倫。而更於世主略其禮敬耶。禮重矣。敬大矣。為治之綱盡於此矣。萬乘之君非好尊也。區域之人非好卑也。而卑尊不陳王教則亂。斯曩聖所以憲章體國。所宜不惑也。通才博採往往備修之。修之身修之家可矣。修之國及朝則不可。斯豈不遠也。省所陳果亦未能了有之與無矣。縱其了猶謂不可以參治。而況都無而當以南行耶。

Second edict: I have examined what was presented and fully understand your sentiments and intent. Matters of the unseen and obscure are indeed not something metaphors can exhaust. However, their outline is merely the regular standard of great men and spirits, roughly possessing general distinctions. In general, though the laws instituted by the hundred kings adapted simplicity and refinement to the times, there has never been a case where alien customs were mixed into governance or absurdities confused the transformation of the people. Could it be that former sages were unenlightened, while the later sages are broadly accommodating? Moreover, the minor good of the five precepts roughly resembles human relationships, yet should they on that account neglect ritual and reverence toward the lord of the world? Rites are weightiest; reverence is greatest; the net of governance is exhausted in these! The ruler of ten thousand chariots does not love honor for himself, nor do the people of the realm love humility for themselves; but if the humble and the honorable are not set in order, the royal teaching will fall into chaos. This is why the former sages established laws and embodied the state, something about which one should not be deluded. Broadly learned talents collect and often practice these teachings extensively; practicing them for oneself or for one's family is permissible, but practicing them for the state and the imperial court is impermissible. Is this not obvious? From examining what was presented, it turns out you too are unable to know whether he exists or does not exist. Even if you knew he existed, I would still say this cannot be mixed into governance; how much less so when there is nothing at all—how could one rely on it to govern the south?