北山錄 5.2.9

5.2.9

況君死耶。 凡帝天下者以任忠良為聖。 忠良以衛社稷為賢。 故文武之臣。 進思盡忠。 退思補過。 雖當時應金陵之氣。 偶時邕之運。 台袞不聞於廟算。 征帥匪思於取勝。 是以尸素之門各各以文章自衒（沈約．何尚之．顏延年等）如法寶聯璧．形神滅論．并答佛性二諦難等。 君罔其威。 臣與害隣（罔無也。 害侯景）綢繆苑囿。 物役非任。 莊氏云。 庖人雖不治庖。 尸祝豈可越於罇俎耶。 昔陳平不對於廩粟（文帝問周勃。 天下粟廩多少庫藏錢物出入日有多少。 周勃流汗而不能對問陳平。 平云。 廩庫之事各有司存。 宰相但調陰陽而已）邴吉但問於牛喘（丙吉。 字少卿。 北海人。 漢宣帝時為相。 見喘牛問之來近遠。 若近則是陰陽失度）故為王者當為於無為（天子垂衣裳而端拱冕旒黈纊而已。 此即無為也）不以己能於有為。 不以己能於無為。 不使君為於無為也（臣不能執政使君自主之也）由是燎原之火焯厥無赦（書云。 惡之易也。 若火之燎于原。 不可向邇。 其由可撲滅乎）脫輻輿尸（易小畜卦九二辭也輿脫輻師卦六五爻辭云弟子輿尸）何嗟及矣。 詩曰。 靖恭爾位。 正直是與。 神之聽之。 式穀以汝（詩小雅靖治也。 尒汝也。 式用也。 穀祿也。 言敬治汝職位政事。 正直之人乃與為倫。 神聽汝之所為。 用福與汝）彼不與直式穀何望焉。 賓曰。 憍陳如弊服五錢。 須菩提華房百寶。 俱聖人也（憍陳如。 亦云憍陳那。 則五俱倫也。 不求華飾耳。 須菩提出家之後久不得道果。 佛問阿難。 阿難云。 闕於寶翫之具故也。 佛令阿難為置。 阿難無寶具。 佛令王宮借之布於房內。 即得解脫。 證阿羅漢果）衡岳終身一衲（南嶽惠思也）玄景每曙更衣（高僧玄景。 每日必換新衣。 經於身則以施人）俱高僧也。 將修于已四者何先。 主人曰。 善乎善者無不善。 不善乎善者無可善。 故此四者克不克在于我。 可不可不在乎物（能修不能修在於人。 非由乎外物也）何則夫貧則獨善其身。 富則博施廣濟。 奢則務禮。 儉則近仁。 是賢智也。 貧則隕穫。 富則家食（大畜卦文也。 大畜之實以之養賢。 命賢者不家食也）奢則僭逸（不遜故也。 若季氏等）儉則固陋（如晏嬰儉不合禮。 皆為固陋也）是愚鄙也。 故聖不隔於貧富。 處貧富俱為聖人。 賢不隔於奢儉。 處奢儉俱為高僧。 古人言。 儉德之恭也。 侈惡之大也。 而實不德不儉惡盈而侈誠為禍胎安不忌歟。 易曰。 豐其屋。 蔀其家。 窺其戶。 閴其無人。 三歲不覿凶（蔀覆障也。 易豊卦上六爻辭也。 其意云。 無德而祿身之災也。 三年必受其殃。 故云閴其無人也）但繒纊皮革。 聖慈所許。 今有行之則為寡德。 反之則為合道。 是惑也（以著絲綿者為寡德。 以屏棄為合道。 殊不知如來有開遮之道。 以俗情堅執也）其有務自苦節。 麻艾充軀。 高靜其業。 茲可尚也。 若矯行沽名。 服輕緆曳纖絇（沽賣也。 矯誑也。 緆細布也。 本無道德。 詐見孤節。 以細布為衣。 以黲布作襪。 何儉之有）誠則侈靡傷財。 孰為廉士。 夫服者心行之表。 得其儀則鮮辱寡過。 違其義則啟姦納害。 故禮云。 君子居縗絰則有哀色。 居端冕則有敬色。 居介冑則有不可辱色。 方茲沙門居稻畦則當有虛靜之色（稻畦袈裟也。 佛見水田指示阿難言。 我弟子當割截為衣。 如此水田有出生之義。 可以生於福田也）虛者道也。 故所服在乎道不必抑以皮纊而舉氈紵獎人務詐矣（若專獎布紵。 則詭詐者務於矯飾也）梁沈約以沙門食肉。 小教雖容而後教塞違。 蠶綿之理則何不然。 但教來遺闕非所可也。 遂撰究竟慈悲論。 廣申其例。 然慮沈說非也（沈約。 字休文。 吳興武康人。 流寓孤貧。 篤志好學。

How much more so when the ruler dies! In general, one who emperors the realm considers employing the loyal and good to be sagacity; the loyal and good consider defending the altars of soil and grain to be worthiness. Therefore ministers of the civil and military, when advancing, think of exhausting their loyalty, and when retreating, think of rectifying errors. Although they then corresponded to the aura of Jinling and happened upon an era of harmony, the highest ministers were unheard of in court strategy, and commanding generals did not think of seizing victory. Because of this, the houses of corpse-like sinecures each flaunted their literary writings (such as Shen Yue, He Shangzhi, Yan Yannian, and others)—such as the *Fabaolianbi*, the *Treatise on the Extinction of the Soul and Body*, and their replies to difficulties regarding buddhadhātu and the two truths. The ruler lost his majesty, and the ministers neighbored harm (lost means had none; the harm was Hou Jing). Entangled in parks and gardens, they took up duties not of their charge. Zhuangzi said: 'Even though the cook does not manage his kitchen, how could the impersonator of the dead and the liturgist leap over the wine jars and sacrificial vessels?' Of old, Chen Ping gave no reply concerning the grain in the granaries (Emperor Wen asked Zhou Bo: 'How much grain is in the granaries of the realm, and how much money and goods go in and out of the treasuries each day?' Zhou Bo broke into a sweat and could not answer. When asked, Chen Ping said: 'The affairs of the granaries and treasuries each have their presiding officials; the chancellor only regulates yin and yang'); Bing Ji only inquired about the panting of an ox (Bing Ji, courtesy name Shaoqing, was a man of Beihai. When chancellor under Emperor Xuan of the Han, he saw a panting ox and asked how far it had come; for if near, then yin and yang were out of measure). Therefore, one who would be king should act through wuwei (the Son of Heaven lets fall his robes, holds his hands in greeting, wears his crown and ear-stoppers—that is all. This indeed is wuwei); he does not use his own abilities in saṃskṛta, he does not use his own abilities in wuwei, and he does not let the sovereign act in wuwei (ministers cannot direct the governance and leave the sovereign to take charge alone). Because of this, a prairie fire blazed forth without pardon (the *Book of Documents* says: 'Evil spreads easily; like a fire blazing upon the prairie, it cannot be approached. How then could it be extinguished?'); 'the axle breaks from the carriage, the juniors haul corpses' (these are lines from the nine at the second place in the Hexagram Xiaoxu, 'the carriage loses its axle-straps', and the six at the fifth place in the Hexagram Shi, 'the juniors haul corpses')—what use then is lamentation? The *Book of Odes* says: 'Be reverently attentive in your post; / associate with the upright and straight. / The spirits will hear it / and grant you blessing' (*Mao* 207; the *Odes* Lesser Court Hymns: 'jing' means to govern; 'er' means you; 'shi' means to use; 'gu' means eminence and emolument. It means respectfully govern your post and government affairs; only with upright persons make company. The spirits will hear what you do and use blessings to give you). When they did not associate with the straight, how could they hope for granted blessings? / The guest said: 'Kauṇḍinya wore a ragged robe worth five copper coins, while Subhūti had a lavish room filled with a hundred treasures; both were sages (Kauṇḍinya, also called Kauṇḍina, was of the group of five; he simply did not seek splendid ornamentation. After Subhūti went forth from home, he went long without attaining the fruit of the Way; the Buddha asked Ānanda, and Ānanda said: 'It is because he lacks precious playthings.' The Buddha ordered Ānanda to arrange them; Ānanda had no precious implements, so the Buddha ordered them borrowed from the royal palace and arranged in his room; he immediately attained liberation and realized arhatship). He of Hengyue spent his whole life in a single patched robe (this is Nanyue Huisi), while Xuanjing changed his robes every morning (the eminent monk Xuanjing necessarily changed into new clothes every day, and once worn on his body, he gave them away to others); both were eminent monks. If one is to cultivate oneself, which of these four is to be prioritized?' / The host said: 'One who is good to the good leaves nothing un-good; one who is not good to the good has nothing that can be good. Therefore, whether these four succeed or fail depends on oneself; their permissibility or impermissibility does not lie in external things (whether one can cultivate or not lies in the person, not due to external things). Why so? In poverty, one cultivates personal goodness in isolation; in wealth, one gives broadly and aids universally. In extravagance, one attends to ritual; in frugality, one approaches benevolence. Such are the worthy and wise. In poverty, one collapses and despairs; in wealth, one dines only at home (this is from the Hexagram Daxu: the substance of Daxu is used to nourish worthies, commanding that worthies do not dine at home). In extravagance, one is arrogant and dissolute (because of lack of deference, like the Ji clan and others); in frugality, one is obstinate and crude (like Yan Ying, whose frugality did not accord with ritual, all being obstinate and crude). Such are the foolish and vulgar. Therefore sagacity is not separated by poverty or wealth: whether dwelling in poverty or wealth, both are sages. Worthiness is not separated by extravagance or frugality: whether dwelling in extravagance or frugality, both are eminent monks. The ancients said: 'Frugality is the reverence of virtue; extravagance is the greatest of vices.' If one is truly without virtue and not frugal, and vices overflow into extravagance, it truly is the seed of disaster—how could one not dread it? The *Book of Changes* says: 'He makes his house great, screens his dwelling; peeping through his gate, it is silent with no one there; for three years he is not seen—inauspicious' (the screen is a barrier; this is the text for the top six of the Hexagram Feng. Its meaning is: to enjoy emoluments without virtue is a disaster to the self; in three years one will surely suffer its calamity, hence it says 'silent with no one there'). Yet silk, floss, and leather are permitted by the compassionate sagacity [of the Buddha]; nowadays, if one uses them, it is taken as a lack of virtue, and if one rejects them, it is taken as conforming to the Way—this is confusion (considering wearing silk and floss to be lacking virtue and discarding them to be conforming to the Way; they do not realize the Tathāgata has the way of allowance and prohibition, and stubbornly cling to worldly sentiment). If someone makes an effort at bitter restraint, clad in hemp and mugwort to sustain the body, and raises high and quiets his endeavor, this is commendable. But if one acts deceitfully to fish for fame, wearing light fine hemp and dragging slender shoes (fishing means selling; deceitful means deceptive; xi is fine cloth. Originally possessing no virtue, one fakes the appearance of solitary restraint, making robes of fine cloth and socks of gray cloth—what frugality is there in that?), in truth it is extravagance and a waste of wealth; who could call him a man of integrity? Robes are the outer sign of mental conduct: if one attains their proper deportment, humiliation is rare and errors are few; if one violates their righteousness, it opens the way to treachery and admits harm. Therefore the *Ritual* says: 'When the gentleman wears mourning attire, he wears an expression of sorrow; when he wears the ceremonial cap and gown, he wears an expression of reverence; when he wears armor and helmet, he wears an expression of inviolability.' Likewise, when a śramaṇa wears the rice-paddy [robe], he ought to wear an expression of emptiness and quiescence (the rice-paddy robe is the kāṣāya; when the Buddha saw the wet fields, he pointed them out to Ānanda, saying: 'My disciples should cut cloth into segments to make their robes, for just as these wet fields produce growth, so may they produce fields of merit'). Emptiness is the Way. Therefore what one wears lies in the Way; one need not suppress leather and floss while exalting felt and ramie, encouraging people to practice deceit (if one solely promotes cloth and ramie, then deceitful people will strive for affected ornament). Shen Yue of Liang believed that while the Lesser Teaching permitted śramaṇas to eat meat, the Later Teaching barred such infraction; why should the principle of silkworm silk not be the same? He considered that if the teachings omitted it, it was impermissible, and so he composed the *Treatise on Ultimate Compassion* (*Jiujing cibei lun*) to widely set forth the case. Yet I fear Shen's discourse was mistaken (Shen Yue, courtesy name Xiuwen, was a man of Wukang in Wuxing; adrift in orphanhood and poverty, he was resolute in his love for learning).