鐔津文集 2.27

2.27

吾聖人之作。當周之盛世也。瑞氣見乎昭王。而周書不書。避異也。化人自西極而至。將穆王以神游。聖人其兆於諸夏也。十八異僧如秦。而始皇怪之。佛法其東播之漸也。夢於漢而聲教遂振。其冥數之當興也。出於彼而不出於此何也。以彼一天下之大中也。將表其心其權其道之大中乎。聖人以道作。以權適宜。以所出示迹。夫道也者聖人之理中也。權也者聖人之事中也。所出也者聖人之示中也。示中則聖人之心可知也。理中則聖人之道之至也。事中則聖人之事之得也。傳謂彼一天下其所統者若中國之所謂其天下者。殆有百數。而中國者以吾聖人非出中國而夷之。豈其所見之未博乎。春秋以徐伐莒不義。乃夷狄之。以狄人與齊人盟于刑得義。乃中國之。春秋固儒者聖人之法也。豈必以所出而議其人乎。然類不足以盡人。迹不足以盡道。以類而求夫聖人。不亦繆乎。以迹而議夫聖人之道。不亦妄乎。聖人見乎五帝三王之後。而不見乎五帝三王之先何謂也。聖人非苟見也。聖人以人心所感而見也。五帝三王之前群生之心不感。而聖人不來也。五帝三王之後群生之心感。聖人之迹所以至也。道在眾生之謂因。道在聖人之謂緣。因緣有稔焉。有未稔焉。因緣稔矣。雖眾生不求而聖人必至。因緣未稔。雖群生求之而聖人不應。是知聖人與眾生蓋以道而自然相感。非若世之有所為者。以情而取之以情而舍之也。

When our Sage arose, it was during the prosperous age of the Zhou. Auspicious omens appeared in the time of King Zhao, yet the Zhou documents did not record them, wishing to avoid what was strange. A transformed being arrived from the westernmost bounds and took King Mu on a spiritual journey; the Sage showed his portents in the Chinese lands. Eighteen extraordinary monks went to Qin, and the First Emperor found them strange; this was the gradual eastward transmission of the Buddha's Dharma. The Han dreamed of him, and his teachings and renown thereupon flourished; this was when his hidden destiny was due to arise. Why did he appear there and not appear here? Because that was the great center of the world under Heaven. Was it not to signify the great centrality of his mind, his expedient means, and his Way? The Sage arises through the Way, adapts appropriately through expedient means, and reveals traces through where he appears. Now, the Way is the Sage's centrality of principle; expedient means is the Sage's centrality of affairs; the place of appearance is the Sage's manifestation of centrality. When centrality is manifested, the Sage's mind can be known; when principle is central, the Sage's Way is ultimate; when affairs are central, the Sage's affairs are fitting. Traditions say that the realms governed by that single world under Heaven are nearly a hundred times greater than what the Central Realm calls its 'world under Heaven.' Yet the Central Realm regards our Sage as a barbarian simply because he did not appear in the Central Realm; is their perspective not narrow? The Spring and Autumn Annals considered Xu's attack on Ju to be unrighteous and therefore treated Xu as barbarian; it considered the Di people's covenant with the people of Qi at Xing to have attained righteousness and therefore treated them as part of the Central Realm. The Spring and Autumn Annals is indeed the standard of the sages of Confucianism; how could one judge a person merely by where he appeared? However, categories are insufficient to exhaust the person, and traces are insufficient to exhaust the Way. To seek the Sage by means of categories—is that not erroneous? To judge the Sage's Way by means of traces—is that not delusional? The Sage appeared after the Five Thearchs and Three Kings, and did not appear before the Five Thearchs and Three Kings; what does this mean? The Sage did not appear haphazardly; the Sage appeared in response to the minds of humanity. Before the Five Thearchs and Three Kings, the minds of living beings were not stimulated to respond, so the Sage did not come. After the Five Thearchs and Three Kings, the minds of living beings were stimulated to respond, and this is why the Sage's traces arrived. When the Way is in sentient beings, it is called the cause; when the Way is in the Sage, it is called the condition. Causes and conditions have their times of ripening and times of non-ripening. When causes and conditions are ripe, even if sentient beings do not seek him, the Sage will surely arrive. When causes and conditions are not ripe, even if living beings seek him, the Sage will not respond. Thus we know that the Sage and sentient beings respond to each other naturally through the Way, unlike worldly people who act with purpose, accepting things through emotion and discarding things through emotion.