北山錄 5.2.9

5.2.9

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).