[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [北山錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113) › 9.2.4 # 北山錄 9.2.4 北山錄 9.2.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2.4) 斯乃與西域外道同見（如自然外道云。 誰尖棘刺畫离獸。 誰掘河海與川源。 暴風卒起。 還自定萬法。 須知皆自然）豈謂迦葉之貳化歟（清淨法行經云。 老子是迦葉所化也）而洙泗之門以仁為至行非道德則必先於仁矣。 故雖由也可使治千乘之賦（諸侯之賦。 可使子路治之）赤也可使束帶立於朝（公西華可使為通使之官立朝與賓客言也）楚子文無三巳之色（楚令尹。 姓鬪。 名穀。 字烏兔。 三仕為令尹不喜。 三巳去職亦不慍。 舊令尹之政必告新令尹）陳文子棄十乘之馬。 求其仁稱（陳須無也。 時崔杼弑君。 文子棄四十匹馬而奔惡之也）仲尼之所不與（孔子皆曰。 不知其仁明仁道難也）彼仁也者。 通乎百行。 協于一德（專一之德）未有不由仁而廣大者。 在五天稱菩薩。 在九州稱仁人。 蓋人能慈慧。 慈慧能仁。 菩薩行仁之極行。 君子漸得其門者矣。 若使梁武不由二教。 安得為君子儒而至於大方乎（方道也。 若言梁武局執。 豈得稱君子儒而至於大道乎）今為論者必張孫吳之勢（孫武吳起並六國時良將。 各著兵書善戰陣。 今論義者與敵鏗鏘。 如孫吳之戰勢也）學戒者必敦顏柳之節（顏叔子孤居有少女。 夜風雨屋倒投之宿。 叔子拒之不已。 出屋令其入舍也。 柳下惠姓展名离。 食邑柳下諡惠。 寒夜婦不及國門。 柳下惠以衣覆之。 至明而去不犯男子不仁之行也）栖禪者必慕巢由之高（許由巢父皆堯時高士。 堯將禪位。 惡之而洗耳隱居不仕也）維持者必思齊魯之變（綱紀維持之者。 必須改更匡引。 如齊一變至於魯。 魯一變至於道也）故持外教以誘掖。 窺內法以激志。 亦惡有害焉（惡安也。 初以外教誘引。 後將內教訓導。 亦安有害也）夫登木者競其高。 鑿泉者競其深。 不有前懦。 誰為後勇。 但梁氏雖至信。 不審觀前往存亡。 式恒其事（式用也）驟欲遷物從道以窮物之性不虞東野畢之御而終於佚矣（顏回見東野畢車知其必敗。 以其馬未調良故也。 既御果輸敗而馬傷也）甞讀斷酒肉之文。 慈愈於佛。 輕身貸法。 事過帝王（三度捨身入寺。 與眾為奴。 臣下備錢百萬。 贖之眾僧。 默許方歸。 雖屈身為座亦未過此。 何必然也）且勅綾錦窠不得有鳥獸之形。 而嫌裁剪起殺傷之意（恐傷仁恕之道）斯雖得養虎之術。 而亦誨人殺心矣（周宣王之牧正梁鴦善養虎。 以不與之生物為其因殺而怒也。 不以全物與之。 為碎之而怒。 饑飽以時。 達其怒心不逆其意也。 不使之喜。 喜復必怒。 雖欲絕之殺心而翻生其殺念者也。 羅綺本無殺相。 今強興殺想。 此乃從無。 設有亦是教人殺心之義也）宗廟郊祀。 以麵為犧牲不為則不為何誣祖考耶。 而或有負之（以麵作肉。 則成誣誑。 不為又負祖考也）子由緇而乘。 不鑒妍蚩。 式顯誇傲。 題于縹墉素扆之上。 特不知是誘敵致寇也（今有自披緇至顯榮。 不辯善惡。 空恣傲倪。 而又兼以捐棄上教之事。 題粉壁素屏之上。 可謂自招於槃詰）昔周道安二教論。 隋彥琮通極論。 恣縱心目。 出沒玄奧。 假立賓主。 先設奇難。 後始通之。 將探賾異黨枳棘邪徑為法繚垣（先假立異宗。 詰難本教。 然後答之。 預備異宗所見也）而後世李仲卿等得之穿窬為盜。 隱其所通。 演其所難。 以製十異九迷等論。 誑彼所不知者（皆唐朝邪見之徒。 誑以淺學者。 不見安琮之論也）濟其毀詞。 豈非二士圖馴而反噬（皆由二子著論防微反遭竊器以相攻也）將安而貨危也。 但此論未已。 邪難未止。 夫先王以衡斗去盜。 而人以之于盜焉（置劍者比為殺賊。 今賊反得以用之）以兵戈止殺而人以之于殺焉。 故所防逾多。 所資逾遠。 噫難乎哉。 然守本教者。 朴則有餘。 兼異學者。 競則有餘。 非君子罔以謹其極矣（若守本宗。 > This is indeed identical to the views of the non-Buddhists of the Western Regions (as the svabhāvavāda non-Buddhists say: 'Who made thorns sharp and variegated beasts? Who dug rivers, oceans, and streams' sources? Sudden violent winds arise, yet they naturally settle of themselves. Know that all things are inherently spontaneous'). How could it be called a secondary transformation by Kāśyapa? (The Sutra of the Pure Practice of the Dharma says that Laozi was transformed by Kāśyapa.) Yet, at the gate of the Zhu and Si rivers, benevolence was regarded as the supreme practice; if not the Dao and Virtue, priority must certainly be given to benevolence. Thus, although You could be entrusted with managing the military levies of a state of a thousand chariots (Zi Lu could be made to manage the levies of the feudal lords), and Chi could be made to put on his sash and stand at court (Gongxi Hua could be appointed an envoy to stand at court and converse with guests), Chu's Ziwen showed no sign \[of emotion\] at thrice being dismissed (the Chief Minister of Chu, whose surname was Dou, given name Gu, and courtesy name Wutu; thrice he served as Chief Minister without joy, and thrice he was dismissed from office without anger, always reporting the old policies of the Chief Minister to the new Chief Minister), and Chen Wenzi abandoned ten teams of horses, seeking a reputation for benevolence (Chen Xuwu; when Cui Zhu assassinated the ruler, Wenzi abandoned forty horses and fled because he detested him)—Zhongni did not grant this to them (Confucius said in each case: 'I do not know whether he was benevolent,' clarifying the difficulty of the way of benevolence). That benevolence pervades the hundred actions and accords with the unified virtue (the dedicated single virtue); never has there been anything that did not become vast and great through benevolence. In the Five Indias it is called a bodhisattva; in the Nine Provinces it is called a benevolent person. For when humans are capable of compassion and wisdom, compassion and wisdom make them benevolent. The bodhisattva practices the ultimate degree of benevolence; the noble man gradually enters its gate. If Emperor Wu of Liang had not drawn upon both teachings, how could he have become a noble Ruist and arrived at the Great Method? (Method means the Dao. If one says Emperor Wu of Liang was narrow-minded and dogmatic, how could he be called a noble Ruist who reached the Great Dao?) Nowadays, disputants inevitably assume the aggressive stance of Sun and Wu (Sun Wu and Wu Qi were both fine generals of the Warring States period, each writing military texts and excelling in battle arrays; nowadays disputants clash with opponents like the battlefield tactics of Sun and Wu); those who study the precepts must foster the integrity of Yan and Liu (Yan Shuzi lived alone, and a young woman sought shelter with him on a night of wind and rain when her house collapsed; Shuzi continuously refused her, stepped outside, and let her enter the house. Liuxia Hui, surname Zhan, given name Qin, fief at Liuxia, posthumous title Hui; on a cold night a woman arrived too late for the city gates, and Liuxia Hui covered her with his robe until dawn without transgressing into a man's unbenevolent conduct); those who dwell in dhyāna inevitably admire the loftiness of Chao and You (Xu You and Chaofu were both lofty scholars of Yao's time; when Yao intended to abdicate the throne, they detested it, washed their ears, and lived in seclusion without serving as officials); those who sustain the order must reflect on the transformations of Qi and Lu (those who uphold the bonds and standards must revise and guide, just as Qi transformed to Lu, and Lu transformed to the Dao). Therefore, to take the external teachings to guide and encourage, and to look into the inner Dharma to stimulate determination—how could this be harmful? ('How' means 'in what way'. First using the external teachings to entice, then using the inner teachings to instruct—how could there be any harm?) Indeed, those who climb trees vie for height, and those who dig springs vie for depth. Without prior timidity, who would display subsequent courage? Yet, although the Liang ruler possessed utmost faith, he did not carefully observe the successes and failures of the past to standardize his undertakings ('standardize' means to employ). He abruptly wished to transform things according to the Dao to exhaust their natures, failing to foresee the fate of Dongye Bi's driving and in the end lapsing into indulgence (when Yan Hui saw Dongye Bi's chariot, he knew he would surely fail, because his horses were not well-trained; once he drove, he indeed suffered defeat and the horses were harmed). I once read his text on abstaining from wine and meat, in which his compassion surpassed that of the Buddha; he debased his own person to ransom the Dharma, going beyond what befits an emperor (three times he renounced his body into a monastery to be a servant to the assembly; his ministers provided hundreds of thousands of cash to ransom him from the saṅgha, and only after their tacit consent did he return; although bending one's body to be a seat does not surpass this, why must it be like this?). Furthermore, he decreed that the patterns on brocades and damasks could not depict the shapes of birds and beasts, lest the act of cutting them arouse thoughts of killing and harming (fearing to harm the way of benevolence and forbearance). Although this followed the art of rearing tigers, it actually taught people the intention to kill (the master of herds Liang Yang under King Xuan of Zhou was skilled at rearing tigers; he did not feed them living creatures because killing them would provoke anger, nor whole carcasses because tearing them apart would provoke anger; feeding them in a timely manner, he understood their angry impulses and did not go against their nature; he did not cause them joy, for joy would again turn to anger; though wishing to extinguish their intention to kill, it instead aroused their murderous thoughts. Silk brocade originally lacks the aspect of killing; now forcefully giving rise to the idea of killing creates something from nothing, and even so it amounts to teaching people the sense of a murderous intention). At the ancestral temples and suburban sacrifices, using flour for the sacrificial beasts—if one does not perform them, one does not, but why deceive the ancestors? Yet one might fail them (making meat out of flour constitutes deceit; not performing it fails the ancestors). From wearing the black robe to rising in rank, \[some\] fail to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly, openly display arrogance, and write it upon pale walls and plain screens, simply unaware that this invites enemies and incurs bandits (today there are those who, having donned the black robe, attain high honors, fail to distinguish good from evil, indulge in idle pride, and furthermore discard the higher teachings, inscribing their words on plastered walls and plain screens; this can be called inviting cross-examination upon oneself). In the past, Dao'an of the Zhou composed the \*Treatise on the Two Teachings\*, and Yancong of the Sui composed the \*Treatise on Penetrating the Ultimate\*; giving full rein to their mind and sight, moving in and out of the profound and abstruse, they posited host and guest, first setting forth extraordinary objections and only afterwards resolving them. They intended to probe the brambles and crooked paths of heterodox factions, serving as an enclosure for the Dharma (first setting up rival traditions to interrogate and object to their own teaching, and then answering them, preparing in advance against the views of rival schools). But later generations such as Li Zhongqing and others stole through walls like thieves, concealing their resolutions and elaborating their objections to compose treatises such as the \*Ten Heterodoxies\* and \*Nine Confusions\*, deceiving those who did not know (these were all people of wrong view in the Tang dynasty who deceived shallow students who had not seen the treatises of An and Cong), thus abetting their slanderous words. Is this not a case of the two scholars seeking to tame \[a beast\] only to be bitten by it? (This is because the treatises composed by the two masters to guard against subtleties were instead stolen as tools to attack them.) Intending to bring security, they instead bought danger. Yet this discussion has not ended, and perverse objections have not ceased. The former kings used steelyards and bushels to eliminate theft, but people used them for theft (the sword was fashioned to kill bandits, yet now bandits turn it to their own use); they used weapons and spears to stop killing, but people used them for killing. Therefore, the more things are guarded against, the further their exploitation spreads. Alas, how difficult it is! Thus, those who preserve their original teaching have an excess of simplicity, while those who combine deviant teachings have an excess of contention. None but a noble man can maintain vigilance to the utmost limit (if one preserves the original tradition...). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2.3) - [Next: 9.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2.5) - [Up: 9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113~en-mt.9.2.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.9.2.4) · Pramāṇa