鐔津文集 2.16

2.16

教不可泥。道不可罔。泥教淫迹。罔道棄本。泥也者。過也。罔也者。不及也。過與不及。其為患一也。聖人所以為理必誠。為事必權。而事與理皆以大中得也。夫事有宜。理有至。從其宜而宜之。所以為聖人之教也。即其至而至之。所以為聖人之道也。梁齊二帝（梁武齊文宣也）反其宜而事教。不亦泥乎。魏周二君（魏武周武）泯其至而預道。不亦罔乎。夫聖人之教。善而已矣。夫聖人之道。正而已矣。其人正人之。其事善事之。不必僧不必儒。不必彼不必此。彼此者情也。僧儒者迹也。聖人垂迹。所以存本也。聖人行情。所以順性也。存本而不滯迹。可以語夫權也。順性而不溺情。可以語夫實也。昔者。石虎。以柄國殺罰。自疑其事佛無祐。而佛圖澄。乃謂石虎曰。王者當心體大順動合三寶。如其兇愚不為教化所遷。安得不誅。但刑其可刑。罰其可罰者。脫刑罰不中也。雖輕財奉佛。何以益乎。宋文帝。謂求那跋摩曰。孤媿。身狥國事。雖欲齋戒。不殺安得如法也。跋摩曰。帝王與匹夫所修當異。帝王者。但正其出言發令。使乎人神悅和。人神悅和則風雨順。風雨順則萬物遂其所生也。以此持齋。齋亦至矣。以此不殺。德亦大矣。何必輟半日之飡。全一禽之命。為之修乎。帝撫几稱之曰。俗迷遠理。僧滯近教。若公之言。真所謂天下之達道。可以論天人之際矣。圖澄跋摩。古之至人也。可謂知權乎。

The teachings must not be clung to; the Way must not be disregarded. Clinging to the teachings leads to excessive preoccupation with traces; disregarding the Way leads to abandoning the root. Clinging is excess; disregarding is falling short. Excess and falling short are alike in being harmful. Therefore, in what the sage does for the fundamental principle, he is inevitably sincere; in what he does for practical affairs, he is inevitably expedient; and both practical affairs and the fundamental principle are attained through the Great Mean. Practical affairs have what is appropriate; the fundamental principle has its ultimate. Following what is appropriate and treating it as appropriate is how the sage establishes his teachings. Approaching its ultimate and treating it as ultimate is how the sage establishes his Way. Did not the two emperors of the Liang and the Qi (Emperor Wu of the Liang and Emperor Wenxuan of the Northern Qi) act contrary to what was appropriate in serving the teachings, and was this not clinging? Did not the two rulers of the Wei and the Zhou (Emperor Wu of the Northern Wei and Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou) obliterate its ultimate in treating the Way, and was this not disregarding? The teachings of the sage are simply goodness. The Way of the sage is simply correctness. Correct the person with what is correct; treat affairs well with what is good. One need not insist on the Sangha, nor insist on the literati; one need not insist on that, nor insist on this. That and this are matters of emotion; the Sangha and the literati are traces. The sage leaves traces behind in order to preserve the root; the sage acts with human emotion in order to accord with nature. Preserving the root without being impeded by traces is what may be called expediency. According with nature without drowning in emotion is what may be called reality. In former times, when Shi Hu, through holding the reins of the state with executions and punishments, doubted within himself whether his serving the Buddha brought no protection, Fotudeng said to Shi Hu: 'A sovereign should internally embody great accordance and in his movements harmonize with the Three Jewels. If the fierce and foolish cannot be transformed by moral instruction, how could they not be executed? Only punish those who may properly be punished, and penalize those who may properly be penalized. If executions and punishments do not hit the mark, even if one spends wealth freely to revere the Buddha, how could it be of any benefit?' Emperor Wen of the Song said to Guṇavarman: 'I am ashamed that, dedicating my person to the affairs of state, though I wish to maintain the vegetarian fast and precepts, how can my non-killing conform to the Dharma?' Guṇavarman said: 'What is cultivated by an emperor and what is cultivated by an ordinary man should be different. An emperor need only rectify the decrees he issues and the commands he gives, causing humans and spirits to be pleased and harmonious. When humans and spirits are pleased and harmonious, the wind and rain are seasonal; when the wind and rain are seasonal, the myriad things achieve their growth. By this means to uphold the fast is fasting in its ultimate. By this means not to kill makes one's virtue great indeed. Why must one abandon half a day's meal or preserve the life of a single fowl to practice it?' The emperor stroked his table and praised him, saying: 'The worldly are confused by distant principles; monks are constrained by immediate teachings. Words such as yours are truly what the world calls the universal Way, capable of discussing the boundary between Heaven and man.' Fotudeng and Guṇavarman were consummate persons of antiquity; can they not be said to have understood expediency?