辯正論 2.11

2.11

儒生曰。夫五千文探道德之奧。順古歸朴致之太和。貴虛靜以守真。軌至言以崇本。其文恢廓以弘遠。其教淡泊以柔弱。棄忽名利而潛世。聖智遺心而成功不在於己。而究萬物之幽。情存聖人之風。是以班固楊雄尚不訾毀子長。或以先於六經。冠於儒首。叔皮君山或以言約易守用過儒術。蓋知言之機。知道之微。可為百王不刊之誡矣。而開士抑為世訓同之俗典。若是可乎。開士曰。智大者盤桓於山峙。器小者蓬飛而萍浮。吾聞為可為於可為之世。則天下同為是為可為也。今示子以為明可為者可以不為矣。夫五色致盲。謂貪淫好色傷精失明也。豈非淨名云所見色與盲等乎。五音致聾。謂耽淫聲則損和氣心。不能聽無聲之樂也。豈非淨名云所聞聲與響等乎。五味致爽。謂人嗜五味則舌損而厭生也。豈非淨名云所食味不分別乎。不貴難得之貨息盜也。豈非觀受無常乎。不見可欲自靜也。豈非靜也。非觀身不淨乎。去煩亂令心虛。愛精血令骨強。則有心可虛有骨可疆。氣散形枯非心虛也。神去體朽非骨疆也。挫其銳黜思也。解其紛不鬪也。但是抑其聰明息其紛競。清儉自守不與物嫌。蓋為士之一志。非通人之大度也。和其光不亂人也。同其塵不自別也。直是揚波淈泥以避患。未能利益同事以化生乃為有為事有事。非無為無事也。以己而和不知物之所以自和。則和所不能和也。盤跚形體之間。倥傯分別之境。例可知矣。

The Confucian scholar said: "The Five Thousand Characters probe the profundity of the Dao and its virtue, following antiquity to return to simplicity and bringing things to Great Harmony. It values emptiness and stillness to preserve truth, and takes ultimate words as a standard to honor the root. Its text is expansive and far-reaching; its teaching is placid and supple. It discards fame and profit to conceal itself from the world; its holy wisdom leaves behind the mind, and its success does not lie within itself. Yet it investigates the depths of the myriad things, harboring the spirit of a sage. For this reason, Ban Gu and Yang Xiong did not criticize or disparage it; Sima Qian even placed it before the Six Classics and crowned it above the Confucians. Ban Biao and Huan Tan considered its words concise, easy to maintain, and its utility surpassing Confucian methods. This is because they knew the crux of words and the subtlety of the Dao, making it an indelible admonition for a hundred kings. Yet you, bodhisattva, disparage it as worldly admonitions, equating it with mundane texts. Can this be right?" The bodhisattva said: "Those of great wisdom tower like mountains; those of small capacity fly about like tumbleweed and drift like duckweed. I have heard that if one does what can be done in an era where it can be done, the whole world acts together, and this is what 'can be done'. Now I shall show you that what can be done can also be not done. That 'the five colors cause blindness' means that lusting after sights damages the essence and loses sight. Is this not what the Vimalakīrti says: 'The forms seen are equal to blindness'? That 'the five sounds cause deafness' means indulging in licentious sounds damages harmonious qi, so that the mind cannot hear the soundless music. Is this not what the Vimalakīrti says: 'The sounds heard are equal to an echo'? That 'the five flavors cause the palate to be spoiled' means that if a person relishes the five flavors, the tongue is damaged and revulsion arises. Is this not what the Vimalakīrti says: 'In the flavors consumed, one does not make distinctions'? Not valuing goods hard to obtain brings an end to thievery—is this not contemplating that feeling is impermanent? Not looking at what is desirable leads to natural calmness—is this not contemplating that the body is impure? Dispelling turmoil makes the mind empty; cherishing essence and blood makes the bones strong; thus there is a mind that can be emptied and bones that can be strengthened. When qi disperses and the body withers, that is not an empty mind; when the spirit departs and the body rots, that is not strong bones. 'Blunting sharpness' is dismissing thoughts; 'untangling knots' is not fighting. This merely reins in cleverness and halts strife, maintaining purity and frugality within oneself without friction with things. This is only a single aim for a gentleman, not the magnanimity of a man of penetration. 'Harmonizing one's light' is not confusing others; 'becoming one with their dust' is not distinguishing oneself. It is simply churning the waves and stirring the mud to avoid disaster; it cannot benefit others through common endeavors to transform living beings. This is having saṃskṛta affairs and having concerns; it is not wuwei or being without affairs. Using oneself to harmonize without knowing how things harmonize themselves means one harmonizes what cannot be harmonized. Wandering amid bodily forms and hastening into the realm of discrimination—the rest may be inferred by analogy."