集沙門不應拜俗等事 2.18

2.18

答曰。夫幽宗曠邈神道精微。可以理尋。難以事詰。既涉乎教則以因時為檢。雖應世之具優劣萬差。至於曲成在用感。即民心而通其分。分至則止其智之所不知。而不開其外者也。若然則非體極者之所不兼。兼之者不可並御耳。是以古之語大道者。五變而形名可舉。九變而賞罰可言。此但方內之階差。而猶不可頓設。況其外者乎。請復推而廣之。以遠其類。六合之外存而不論者。非不可論。論之或乖。六合之內論而不辯者。非不可辯。辯之或疑。春秋經世先王之志。辯而不議者。非不可議。議之惑亂。此三者皆即其身耳目之所不至。以為關鍵。而不開視聽之外者也。因此而求聖人之意。則內外之道可合而明矣。常以為道法之與名教。如來之與堯孔。發致雖殊潛相影響。出處誠異終期則同。詳而辯之指歸可見。理或有先合而後乖。有先乖而後合。先合而後乖者。諸佛如來則其人也。先乖而後合者。歷代君王未體極之主。斯其流也。何以明之。經云。佛有自然神妙之法。化物以權廣隨所入。或為靈仙轉輪聖王。或為卿相國師道士。若此之倫在所變現。諸王君子莫知為誰。此所謂合而後乖者也。或有始創大業而功化未就。迹有參差。故所受不同。或期功於身後。或顯應於當年。聖王師之而成教者。亦不可稱算。雖援引無方。必歸塗有會。此所謂乖而後合者也。若令乖而後合。則擬步通塗者。必不自崖於一撿。若令合而後乖。則釋迦之與堯孔歸致不殊。斷可知矣。是故自乖而求其合。則知理會之必同自。合而求其乖則悟體極之多方。但見形者之所不兼。故惑眾塗而駭其異耳。因茲而觀。天地之道功盡於運化。帝王之德理極於順通。若以對夫獨絕之教不變之宗。固不得同年而語其優劣。亦已明矣。

Answer: The profound Ultimate is vast and distant; the spiritual path is subtle and minute. It can be sought through principle, but is difficult to investigate through external affairs. Once it touches upon teachings, it takes adaptation to the times as its measure. Although the instruments for responding to the world differ in ten thousand grades of excellence and inferiority, as for adapting flexibly according to function and response, it accesses the people's minds to accommodate their capacity. When their capacity is reached, it stops where their wisdom does not know, and does not open what lies beyond it. If this is so, it is not that the one who embodies the pinnacle cannot combine them, but that combining them, they cannot be administered simultaneously. Therefore, when the ancients spoke of the Great Way, it took five alterations before forms and names could be raised, and nine alterations before rewards and punishments could be mentioned. These were merely gradations within the realm, yet they still could not be established all at once; how much less what lies beyond it! Let us further infer and broaden this to extend the analogy. What lies beyond the six directions is preserved but not discussed, not because it cannot be discussed, but because discussing it might lead to divergence. What lies within the six directions is discussed but not differentiated, not because it cannot be differentiated, but because differentiating it might lead to doubt. The Spring and Autumn Annals records the affairs of the world and the aspirations of the former kings; it differentiates but does not debate, not because it cannot be debated, but because debating it leads to confusion and disorder. These three all take where their physical body, ears, and eyes cannot reach as the hinge, and do not open what lies beyond seeing and hearing. If one seeks the intention of the sages through this, then the ways of the internal and external can be united and understood. I have always considered that the Dharma of the Way and the Teaching of Names, the Tathāgata and Yao and Confucius, although their manifestations differ, they secretly influence each other; their renunciation and worldly engagement are indeed different, but their ultimate destination is identical. If examined and analyzed in detail, their orientation can be seen. In principle, there are those who first unite and later diverge, and those who first diverge and later unite. Those who first unite and later diverge are the Buddhas and Tathāgatas. Those who first diverge and later unite are the monarchs of successive dynasties and rulers who have not yet embodied the pinnacle; they belong to this stream. How do we know this? The scriptures say: 'The Buddha possesses natural, divine, and marvelous dharmas; he transforms beings with expedient means, broadly following wherever he enters. He may become a spiritual immortal or a wheel-turning sage king; he may become a minister, state preceptor, or Daoist priest.' Such types appear in various transformations, and kings and gentlemen do not know who he is. This is what is meant by uniting and later diverging. Or there are those who initially establish a great undertaking, but their merit and transformation are not yet complete; their traces are uneven, and thus what they receive differs. Some look forward to efficacy after their death; some display visible responses in their own lifetime. The sage kings who took them as teachers and thereby accomplished their teachings are also innumerable. Although the citations are boundless, their paths will surely converge at the end. This is what is meant by diverging and later uniting. If they diverge and later unite, then those who intend to tread the broad path must not confine themselves to a single measure. If they unite and later diverge, then the ultimate goal of Śākya and that of Yao and Confucius are not different; this can be known for certain. Therefore, seeking their union from their divergence, one knows that the convergence of principle is surely identical; seeking their divergence from their union, one realizes that embodying the pinnacle has many methods. It is only because those who see physical forms cannot combine them that they are bewildered by the many paths and alarmed by their differences. Viewing it from this: the way of Heaven and Earth exhausts its merit in moving transformation; the virtue of emperors and kings reaches its limit of principle in compliant governance. If contrasted with the singularly peerless teaching and the unchanging Ultimate, they certainly cannot be spoken of in the same breath regarding excellence and inferiority; this is already clear.