鐔津文集 8.15.1

8.15.1

年月日。 杭州靈隱永安蘭若沙門臣契嵩。 謹昧死上書　皇帝陛下。 某聞。 窮不忘道學者之賢也。 亡不忘義志士之德也。 於此有人。 雖非賢德而未始忘其道義也。 今欲究其聖人之法之微。 此所謂不忘道也。 今憂虧損　陛下之政治。 是所謂不忘義也。 某其人也。 某嘗以古今文興儒者以文排佛而佛道浸衰。 天下其為善者甚惑。 然此以關　陛下政化。 不力救則其道與教化失。 故山中嘗竊著書以諭世。 雖然亦冀傳奏　陛下之丹墀。 而微誠不能上感。 嘗恐老死巖壑與其志背。 今不避死亡之誅。 復抱其書趨之轂下。 誠欲幸　陛下察其謀道不謀身。 為法不為名。 發其書而稍視。 雖伏斧鑕無所悔也。 若今文者皆曰必拒佛故世不用。 而尊一王之道慕三代之政。 是安知佛之道與王道合也。 夫王道者皇極也。 皇極者中道之謂也。 而佛之道亦曰中道。 是豈不然哉。 然而適中與正不偏不邪。 雖大略與儒同。 及其推物理而窮神極妙則與世相萬矣。 故其法。 曰隨欲。 曰隨宜。 曰隨對治。 曰隨第一義。 此其教人行乎中道之謂也。 若隨欲者姑勿論。 其所謂隨宜者。 蓋言凡事必隨其宜而宜之也。 其所謂隨其對治。 蓋言其善者則善治之。 惡者則惡治之。 是二者與夫王法以慶賞進善以刑罰懲惡。 豈遠乎哉。 但佛心大公天下之道善而已矣。 不必已出者好之。 非已出者惡之。 然聖人者必神而為之。 而二帝三皇庸知其非佛者之變乎。 佛者非二帝三皇之本耶。 詩曰。 神之格思。 不可度思。 矧可射思。 是蓋言神之所謂不可測也。 苟有以其所宜而宜之　陛下乃帝王之真主也。 宜善帝王之道也。 今　陛下專志聖斷。 益舉皇極以臨天下。 任賢與才政事大小必得其所。 號令不失其信。 制度文物不失其宜。 可賞者賞之。 可罰者罰之。 使　陛下堯舜之道德益明益奮。 則佛氏之道果在　陛下之治體矣。 經曰。 治世語言資生業等皆順正法。 此之謂也。 此推聖人之遠體。 不止論其近迹耳。 然遠體者人多不見。 近迹者僧多束執。 惟　陛下聖人。 遠近皆察。 幸　陛下發其遠體。 使儒者知之。 諭其近迹。 使僧者通之。 夫迹者屬教。 而體者屬道。 非道則其教無本。 非教則其道不顯。 故教與道相須也。 昔唐德宗欲慕其道而不奉其教。 非知道也。 懿宗泥其教而不體其道。 非知教也。 武宗蔑佛蓋不知其教道者也。 某竊窺　陛下讚誦佛乘之文　陛下可謂大明。 夫佛氏教道者也。 而學者乃有不諭　陛下聖德如此。 何其未之思也。 洪範曰。 會其有極。 歸其有極。 此總謂之皇建。 其有極之意。 明王道唯以大中為准。 必無黨無偏無反無側。 其合會其有中道者同歸其中道耳。 春秋之法尊中國而卑夷狄。 其時諸侯雖中國。 或失其義亦夷狄之。 雖夷狄者。 苟得其義亦中國之。 是亦孔子用其大中之道也。 故傳曰。 君子之於天下也。 無適也無莫也。 義之與比。 義者理也。 聖人唯以適理為當。 豈不然乎。 而學者胡不審洪範春秋之旨酌仲尼之語以為議論。 何其取捨與聖人之法相盩。 徒欲苟三代而無佛耶。 夫三代之時。 其民初宜一教治之。 故獨用其一教也。 三代之後。 其民一教將不暇治。 或曰天以佛教相與而共治之乎。 夫天下之不可欺。 莫甚乎天人之際也。 今欲明此不若以天人而驗之。 佛教傳之諸夏垂千載矣。 舉其法必天地鬼神順之人民從之。 深感而盛化者益以多矣。 其事古今之所聞見者。 皆可以條對而籌數也。 凡所謂教者皆古聖人順天時適民所宜而為之。 以救世治者也。 然聖人之心宜與天心相同。 但在於逐人不陷惡而已矣。 豈局其教之一二乎。 書豈不曰。 為善不同同歸乎治也。 今論者不探其所以為教之深遠者。

On the [blank] day of the [blank] month of the [blank] year, Śramaṇa, your subject, Qisong of the Yong'an Aranya at Lingyin in Hangzhou, respectfully braving death, submits this memorial to Your Imperial Majesty: I have heard that not forgetting the Way in poverty is the virtue of scholars; not forgetting righteousness in peril is the virtue of men of purpose. Here is a man who, though lacking such virtue and worth, has never forgotten their way and righteousness. Now wishing to plumb the subtleties of the Sage's Dharma—this is what is meant by not forgetting the Way. Now fearing harm to Your Majesty's governance—this is what is meant by not forgetting righteousness. I am that man. I have observed that throughout ancient and modern times, whenever literature flourished, Confucians used writing to reject Buddhism, so that the Buddha's Way gradually declined, and those who would do good in the world became greatly bewildered. Yet this concerns Your Majesty's governance and edification; if no strenuous effort is made to rescue it, then that Way and edification will be lost. Therefore, living in the mountains, I have privately authored writings to instruct the world. Nevertheless, I also hoped these would be presented to Your Majesty's cinnabar steps; yet my modest sincerity could not move the throne above. I often feared that I would grow old and die in the crags and valleys, running counter to my aspiration. Now, braving the capital penalty of death, I once again embrace my writings and hurry to the foot of your imperial chariot. I truly hope that Your Majesty will perceive that I plan for the Way and not for myself, that I act for the Dharma and not for fame, and will open my writings and glance at them briefly. Even if I must face the executioner's block, I shall have no regrets. The writers of today all say that Buddhism must be rejected and therefore not employed by the world, while honoring the way of the unified monarch and longing for the governance of the Three Dynasties. How can they fail to know that the Buddha's Way accords with the Kingly Way? Now, the Kingly Way is the Imperial Ultimate; the Imperial Ultimate means the Middle Way. And the Buddha's Way is also called the Middle Way. How could it be otherwise? Indeed, to hit the mean and correctness, being neither biased nor perverse, is in broad terms identical to Confucianism; but when it comes to plumbing the principles of things, exhausting the spiritual, and fathoming the wondrous, it differs from the worldly by ten-thousandfold. Therefore, its methods are said to be: according with desires, according with what is fitting, according with antidotes, and according with the primary truth. This is what is meant by its teaching people to practice the Middle Way. As for 'according with desires,' let us set that aside for now. What is called 'according with what is fitting' means that in all matters one must accord with what is appropriate and treat it as appropriate. What is called 'according with antidotes' means treating the good with good methods and treating the evil with evil methods. How far removed are these two from the King's law, which encourages the good with rewards and chastises the evil with punishments? It is only that the Buddha's mind is completely impartial; its sole concern is the goodness of the realm's ways. It does not necessarily love what originates from itself, nor despise what does not originate from itself. Yet sages surely act with spiritual subtlety; who knows whether the Two Emperors and Three Sovereigns were not transformations of the Buddha? Might the Buddha not be the very root of the Two Emperors and Three Sovereigns? The Classic of Poetry says: 'The arrival of the spirits / cannot be fathomed; / how much less can it be dismissed with disdain!' This speaks of how the spiritual is unfathomable. If one has that by which to accord with what is fitting and treat it appropriately, then Your Majesty is the true lord among emperors and kings, and it is fitting to make good the way of emperors and kings. Now Your Majesty devotes your mind to sage decisions, increasingly upholding the Imperial Ultimate to preside over the realm; you employ the worthy and talented, ensuring that affairs of state, whether great or small, find their proper place; commands do not fail in their trustworthiness; institutions and cultural forms do not fail in what is fitting; those who deserve reward are rewarded, and those who deserve punishment are punished. Causing Your Majesty's Yao- and Shun-like virtue and Way to become ever brighter and more vigorous—then the Buddha's Way indeed resides within Your Majesty's body of governance! A sutra states: 'The worldly words and professions of livelihood all accord with the True Dharma.' This is what it refers to. This traces the Sage's profound essence, not merely debating his superficial traces. Yet few men perceive this profound essence, while monks mostly cling fast to the superficial traces. Only Your Majesty is a sage who observes both the profound and the superficial. I hope Your Majesty will reveal this profound essence so that Confucians may understand it, and clarify these superficial traces so that monks may comprehend them. The traces belong to the teaching, while the essence belongs to the Way. Without the Way, the teaching has no root; without the teaching, the Way cannot be manifested. Therefore, the teaching and the Way depend upon each other. In the past, Emperor Dezong of the Tang longed for its Way but did not uphold its teaching; this was not truly knowing the Way. Emperor Yizong was mired in its teaching and did not embody its Way; this was not truly knowing the teaching. Emperor Wuzong despised Buddhism, showing that he understood neither its teaching nor its Way. I have privately observed Your Majesty's writings praising and reciting the Buddha vehicle; Your Majesty can truly be called profoundly enlightened regarding the Buddha's teaching and Way. Yet among scholars there are some who do not understand that Your Majesty's sage virtue is like this; how thoughtless they are! The 'Great Plan' states: 'Assemble in the ultimate, and return to the ultimate.' This summarizes what is meant by 'the sovereign sets up his supreme standard.' It clarifies that the Kingly Way takes only the Great Middle as its standard, necessarily having no faction, no bias, no deflection, and no deviation. Bringing together those who possess the Middle Way, they all return to that Middle Way. The method of the Spring and Autumn Annals honors the central lands and disdains the barbarian tribes. In that era, even if a feudal lord belonged to the central lands, if he lost his righteousness, he was treated as a barbarian; even if one was a barbarian, if he attained righteousness, he was treated as belonging to the central lands. This too was Confucius's application of the Great Middle Way. Thus the commentary says: 'The gentleman, in dealing with the realm, has no absolute predetermined inclination nor refusal; he sides with what is right.' Righteousness is principle. The sage merely takes what accords with principle as correct; how could it be otherwise? Why then do modern scholars not examine the purport of the 'Great Plan' and the Spring and Autumn Annals, or weigh the words of Zhongni to formulate their discourses? Why do their choices and rejections conflict so sharply with the sage's methods, merely wishing to long blindly for the Three Dynasties while excluding Buddhism? In the time of the Three Dynasties, the people were initially suited to be governed by a single teaching; therefore, that single teaching alone was used. After the Three Dynasties, a single teaching could no longer manage to govern the people; could it be that Heaven brought in the Buddhist teaching to govern together with it? Now, regarding that in which the world cannot be deceived, nothing is greater than the juncture between Heaven and mankind. If one wishes to clarify this today, there is no better way than to test it against Heaven and mankind. Buddhism has been transmitted to the Hua-Xia realms for nearly a thousand years. Whenever its teachings have been upheld, Heaven, Earth, ghosts, and spirits have surely complied with them, and the common people have followed them; those who have been deeply moved and grandly transformed have grown ever more numerous. These events, witnessed and heard from ancient times to the present, can all be listed item by item and counted. All that are called 'teachings' were established by ancient sages in accordance with the seasons of Heaven and what was suited to the people, in order to save the world and govern it. Now the mind of the sage should be identical to the mind of Heaven: it consists simply in pursuing people so that they do not fall into evil. How could it be restricted to just one or two teachings? Does the Book of Documents not state: 'The practice of goodness differs, but they all converge in good governance'? Yet the commentators of today do not plumb the profound and far-reaching reasons for which these teachings were established.