鐔津文集 8.15
English (machine translation) 8.15
- Language
- English
8.15.1
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.
8.15.2
They merely see that his followers do not engage in worldly affairs, leave their families and flee, cast off their physical bodies, and do not personally produce their clothing and food; regarding this as bizarre and far removed from common custom, they criticize it deeply and sharply. They merely hate freckles and dark spots as an affliction, but do not see that the sickness of the pulse is profound. Dark spots do nothing more than alter the skin; when the sickness of the pulse is extremely profound, it cuts off a person's life. Now, the Sage leads them to sever affection and love, and to entrust their bodies beyond the mundane world, wishing that they preserve the ultimate root of nature and life in order to cure the great disease of birth and death; this is what is called treating that which transcends the world. It is as Laozi said: 'The reason I have great calamity is that I have a body; when I have no body, what calamity do I have?' Nowadays, people do not express the slightest gratitude for its ability to cure this great affliction for the realm; instead, they invariably compare it to worldly teachings and criticize it. This is also because their insight has not penetrated. Moreover, I have heard that in all things, that which takes form is easy to see, while that which lies in principle is difficult to perceive. For what takes form is conspicuous, while what pertains to principle is subtle and obscure. Although the present teachings of the Buddha bring vast benefits to worldly affairs in great abundance, because their principles are profound and mysterious, few scholars are able to see them. Although I am unworthy of understanding them, let me now venture to deduce their broad outlines, presenting them straightforwardly to Your Majesty, in the hope that Your Majesty will deign to impart them to instruct the scholars of the world; that would be the greatest good fortune for life and death. I have heard that the essence of the Buddha's Dharma lies in people rectifying their minds. If one's mind is truly rectified, then its Way is supreme and its virtue is abundant. For in what it expounds, passions and nature are distinguished, and the true and the false are examined. Today, if Your Majesty nurtures sincerity through Great Harmony and embraces the realm with benevolence, grace, ritual, and righteousness, then although Your glorious excellence has already proven efficacious, if You rectify Your mind through the Buddha's Dharma, Your Way and virtue will become ever more full and flourishing. The sutra says: 'The wondrous, pure, and luminous mind natures all minds.' This is what it means. In the past, Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang initially enlisted the followers of the Buddha and Laozi to perceive the nature through non-action, and thereupon became pure of himself, engaging in cultivation and perfume; thus, during the Kaiyuan era, the realm was well ordered for thirty years, richly possessed of the style of the Zhenguan reign, and the Son of Heaven lived to the age of seventy-eight, enjoying the state for forty-five years. How could one know that this was not due to the Buddha's Dharma assisting his Way and virtue in this way? Emperor Wu of the Liang kept the fasts and maintained purity surpassing that of eminent monks, and he also enjoyed the throne for nearly fifty years; the Jiangbiao region enjoyed modest prosperity, and his lifespan was exceptionally long. This is also proof of the Buddha's Dharma assisting government. If the Tang emperor had not indulged his passions and the Liang emperor had not become excessively humble, if both had known men and employed them, and had been cautious in their virtue from beginning to end, would they not have been completely good and completely beautiful? Yet these are matters upon which Your Majesty has long set Your mind; that which secretly assists Your Majesty's sagacious wisdom is what Your Majesty knows and attains of Yourself. How could it rely on the words of a mere wood-gatherer? Nevertheless, the reason I must set this forth at length is in the hope that Your Majesty will issue an edict to show it to scholars, so that they may know that the Buddha's Dharma benefits the Way and virtue of sovereigns in this manner. Furthermore, I have heard that the Buddha's Dharma takes the promotion of good and the cessation of evil as its primary principle. This is also what benefits Your Majesty's transformative teachings the most. Please allow me to test and compare them. Today, in our realm and state, prefectures establish schools and districts set up academies in order to arouse transformative teachings. The discourses of the Odes, Documents, ritual, and righteousness are practiced among the people, wishing that their good deeds will increase day by day and hoping that villainy and evil will not sprout in their hearts. Officials and teachers are further relied upon to proclaim government and transformation, and the flourishing of literary scholars cannot be surpassed even by the Three Dynasties or the Two Han Dynasties. Yet in the homes of the village lanes and rural hamlets, there are still people with ears who have never heard the sounds of the Odes and Documents, and with mouths that do not speak the words of ritual and righteousness; how could there be a limit to such people? Furthermore, they are accustomed to hearing what the Buddha taught—that doing good brings about fortune, and doing evil brings about guilt; guilt extends to the ghosts and spirits, while fortune extends through birth and death. From the foolishness of men and women, husbands and wives below, up to the ranks of the worthy and wise above, there are few who are not transformed by this. Restraining themselves, observing the fasts, releasing life, and stopping killing, whether for days, months, or years, or cultivating their bodies, chanting Buddhist sutras—within the four seas of the realm, it pervades almost all the neighborhoods and garrisons. Meanwhile, there are not a few whose hearts have repented and whose conduct has changed, who practice benevolence, compassion, filial piety, incorruptibility, deference, obedience, truthfulness, and sincerity. These are matters that the ears and eyes of both past and present constantly encounter. If one were to visit house to house and door to door and observe them in this way, I fear they would constitute no less than half the realm. Although the starting point of their practice differs from that of the Ruists, as for entering goodness and achieving good order, how does it differ from what is brought about by the Odes, Documents, ritual, and righteousness? What is meant by 'benefiting Your Majesty's transformative teachings the most' is precisely this. The Book of Tang says: 'Although it is a teaching from a foreign land, it does not harm the source of principle.' This is what it means. Moreover, I have heard that the Dharma of the Buddha uses the five precepts and ten good deeds to teach and guide the worldly, meaning that the cultivation of the five precepts is that by which one becomes a human, and the cultivation of the ten good deeds is that by which one is born in heaven. If one does not regulate either of these two and gives free rein to one's mind in the ten evils, not only will one fail to reach the realms of devas and humans, but one's spirit will subsequently sink into fallen places. Today, the people of the realm who cultivate themselves through the five precepts and ten good deeds are already numerous. In general, following good leaves no room for evil; when there is no evil, punishments need not be troubled. Today, because people follow the precepts and virtues so that Your Majesty's penal laws need not be troubled, how could the realm claim there is no benefit? This is realized of itself without investigation. And in the commanderies and districts throughout the realm, punishments are sometimes curtailed and prisons are sometimes emptied; how could one know that this is not due to hidden assistance? He Shangzhi of the Song said to his ruler: 'If one can practice one good deed, then one evil is eliminated; when one evil is eliminated, one punishment is halted. When one punishment is halted in a family, ten thousand punishments are halted in the state. Thus Your Majesty's words about sitting back and bringing about Great Peace are true.' Indeed, that the Buddha's Dharma can reduce punishments and prisons for Your Majesty is also like this. Furthermore, I have heard that the Buddha is a person of spiritual, divine, and sagacious wisdom, whom the ancients called a 'great and fathomless person.' Birth, death, and transformations left him unperturbed, and birth and death could not transform him. This is because the Way he attained was supremely wondrous; it was more wondrous than heaven, earth, ghosts, and spirits, and heaven, earth, ghosts, and spirits praised it. As a sage, he was also different from what the world calls a sage. Fan Ye's Treatise on the Western Regions states: 'The place where the divine and sagacious descend and gather, the place where the worthy and noble are born.' Pei Xiu also said: 'We know that the Buddha is a great sage, and his teaching has inconceivable matters.'
8.15.3
From these two [rulers], one begins to see why the Buddha is a sage. Therefore, his teachings and his words can move heaven and earth and embrace the ghosts, spirits, and the unseen realm. Seeking out his teachings and revering his words, the ancients often gave expression [to them] through shamans, diviners, and invocators, and encountered [them] in dreams—such [instances] were indeed numerous. When rivers and seas churn with surging waves, their boats on the verge of sinking and people on the brink of drowning, once they cast forth a Buddhist sūtra, the waves grow calm, the waters level, and the common people escape harm. When the people desire fair weather, if they pray to heaven and earth with his rites, heaven and earth become fair. When the people desire rain, if they pray with his rites, rarely does it fail to be effective. Thus, his lingering influence and remaining methods bring fortune and auspiciousness to the world like this. This, too, is what people's ears and eyes constantly encounter. How does this differ from Your Majesty performing the yin sacrifice to heaven and earth, offering sacrifices to the altars of soil and grain, praying to the hundred spirits, and bringing blessings to the people? The 'Sacrificial Regulations' state: 'If a practice confers benefits upon the people, sacrifices are made to it; if it can ward off great disasters and defend against great calamities, sacrifices are made to it.' In the case of the present Buddhist teaching, at the highest level, it secretly assists the virtue of the Son of Heaven; next, it aids education and moral transformation for the realm; next, it lessens punishments and legal trials; and next, it brings blessings and wards off calamities for the realm. If we judge it by the laws of the ancient kings, should it be rejected, or should it be served? Yet Confucians consider the Buddhist way to be a heterodoxy; abhorring that it mixes with Confucian arts and hinders the practice of the sages' Way, they compare it to the mundane ways of Yang Zhu and Mo Di and reject it. This, too, is an error of superior persons. Yet the Buddha and Laozi, along with Confucius and the Duke of Zhou—emperors and kings since antiquity have employed their teachings side by side to govern their realms, and this custom has endured for nearly a hundred generations. The teaching of the Buddha is lofty and majestic, concerning heaven, earth, humans, and spirits—how could it be compared to Yang and Mo? The critics have simply not reflected on what is meant by 'hindering one another.' In general, when matters differ and their intents differ, they rarely accomplish anything; when the intent is the same though the matters differ, they rarely fail to accomplish things. Now, when matters fail, that is what is called hindering one another; but when they accomplish things, how can it be called hindering one another? Now, the teachings of the Buddha are inherently the same: they guide people to do good. Although their works arose earlier and later, the earlier and later mutually assist each other. Who can say that they hinder the Way of the sages? As for places where the Confucian classics share similar intentions with Buddhist sūtras, several points contain and conceal [these ideas], as if waiting for the Buddhist teaching to elucidate them. Yet the intent is profound and far-reaching, and later Confucians, constrained by their teachings when writing commentaries, were unable to perceive from afar the sage's profound intent. Is this not what the transmission meant by: 'The Master's cultural teachings may be heard, but the Master's words on human nature and the Way of Heaven cannot be heard'? Now let me briefly compare them, also hoping that Your Majesty will deign to bestow this upon scholars. For instance, the Zhongyong states: 'From sincerity comes illumination—this is called nature; from illumination comes sincerity—this is called teaching.' Is this not similar to what the sūtras call 'the one mark of the real nature'? The Zhongyong only speaks of sincerity, but never fully explains that by which it is sincere. When the Buddhists elaborate on that by which it is sincere, it is said to suffuse the Dharma realm, pervade all existing things, give form to heaven and earth, and work mysteriously through ghosts and spirits; yet while constantly manifested, heaven, earth, ghosts, and spirits do not perceive its source. This speaks only of its broad outlines. As for what is called layered profundity and repeated wonder, they are preserved in the various sūtras. Might this not be considered to broaden the sage's discourse on sincerity and verify it? Confucius said: 'It is tested against ghosts and spirits and finds no doubt; it awaits a sage for a hundred generations and meets no perplexity.' Is this not what he intended? It also says: 'Only the utmost sincerity under heaven can fully develop its nature. Being able to fully develop its nature, it can fully develop the nature of others. Developing the nature of others, it can fully develop the nature of things, reaching even to standing as a triad with heaven and earth.' This clearly illuminates that the nature of heaven, earth, humans, and things is interconnected. Is this not similar to what the Buddhist teaching calls 'all things share one and the same true nature'? Although the Zhongyong speaks of their great unity, it has not revealed that by which they are unified. When the Buddhists infer that by which they are unified, they say that the root of all things is singularly pure; when defilements occur, they then become human beings and things, thereby differing from the sages. This is what is meant by 'the identical yet different, the different yet identical.' Clarifying their identity is the means to cause them to seek the root so as to cultivate outer traces and advance toward the Way of the sages. Clarifying their difference is the means to cause them to cultivate outer traces and return to the root, not daring to overstep the virtue of the sages. It further states: 'Utmost sincerity is ceaseless. Ceaseless, it endures long; enduring long, it is verified; verified, it is far-reaching, and thus endures forever. That by which it completes things is broad and thick, matching Earth; high and brilliant, matching Heaven; enduring forever without boundary. Being like this, without showing itself it manifests; without moving it transforms; without doing it accomplishes. The Way of heaven and earth can be stated in a single word.' Is this not similar to what the Buddha calls 'the Dharma realm is eternally abiding, neither increasing nor decreasing'? The intent of the Zhongyong remains modest and does not transcend heaven and earth. When the Buddhists discuss the Dharma realm, they say it is vast, spiritually luminous, and encompasses the ten directions. When they speak of 'broad and thick, high and brilliant,' how could it be merely matched with heaven and earth? A sūtra states: 'They do not know that outside the physical body, extending to the mountains, rivers, the great earth, and empty space, all are things within the wondrously bright true mind.' How could it be otherwise? That Confucius did not reveal this was because he revered heaven and earth and wished to practice his teaching. His speaking of 'enduring forever, by which things are completed' can also be sought in its encompassing meaning. It further states: 'Its being as a thing is not double, so its generation of things is unfathomable. The Way of heaven and earth is broad, thick, high, brilliant, far-reaching, and long-enduring. Now, heaven is as much as this manifold brightness, yet when it comes to its infinity, the sun, moon, stars, and constellations are suspended from it, and the myriad things are covered by it. Down to earth being as much as a handful of soil,' and so forth. Is this not similar to what the Buddhist teaching calls 'at the beginning of a world there is the luminous wind-circle preceding the heavens of the form realm, and thereafter there is the stable wind-circle that forms heaven and earth'? Although the Zhongyong reveres that by which they are generated, it does not perceive that by which they are generated. When the Buddhists speak of that by which heaven, earth, mountains, and rivers are generated, their root arises from the transformations of the mind-consciousness of sentient beings, which then give birth to all these conditioned marks. Therefore, a sūtra states: 'Thoughts settled form the realms and lands; awareness and perception are sentient beings.' What Confucius called 'its being as a thing is not double, so its generation of things is unfathomable' resembles this without doubt and is also quite clear. As for the discourse on the five blessings and the six extremities in the Hongfan, this is the Confucians speaking to the utmost of karmic retribution. I have ventured to examine its subtle purport.
8.15.4
[These things] pertain to what the Buddhists speak of as the three realms. The commentators, too, have been constrained by their own tradition, no longer able to trace them back deeply. How could that be right? The first [misfortune in the *Great Plan*] is called 'calamitous early death'; the fifth is called 'ugliness'. If there is a child dying in infancy, who dies just after being born, how could that be brought about by the afflictions of a wicked government so as to cause a calamitous early death? And as for human beings born with attractive or ugly features, these forms are endowed by their parents and determined from the outset; how must one claim that they are brought about by a wicked government of the present age? The sages concealed this meaning and did not set it forth—was this not because human sentiment is comfortable with what is near and blind to what is distant, so they did not immediately speak to them of other lifetimes, perhaps waiting for the right moment? When it comes to the teachings of the Buddha, it is said that whether human life is fair or foul is precisely brought about by cultivation or lack of cultivation in past lifetimes; whether one cultivates or not in this lifetime, the retribution of beauty or ugliness will return in future lifetimes. If one seeks Confucius's meaning through this, it can be fully understood. As the 'Appended Statements' say: 'Tracing things to their origins and following them to their ends, one therefore possesses explanations of death and life. The gathering of essence and qi constitutes things; the wandering soul constitutes change. It is for this reason that one knows the conditions of ghosts and spirits.' Is this not similar to what the Buddhists mean when they say that death and life are entirely the consciousness emerging and submerging through various destinies? Confucius spoke briefly, merely providing an initial opening; when it comes to what the Buddha illuminated regarding death, life, and transformation, it is not merely the natural process of Heaven and Earth's creation. Rather, death and life are each brought about by karmic resonance—becoming human, ghost, spirit, or other types of beings. Is not the reason behind this death, life, and transformation made all the more evident here? The *Classic of Odes* says: 'The arrival of the spirits cannot be calculated, how much less treated with contempt!' The *Classic of Documents* says: 'This brings the many deceased former wise kings who are in Heaven.' This was not merely the sages wishing to extend reverence to ghosts and spirits; it also implied that the luminosity of human essence is never extinguished and cannot be left uncultivated. How does this differ from the Buddhist teaching that everyone should cultivate virtue and goodness so as to sustain the spirit to ascend in purity? Confucius merely did not state it explicitly, whereas the Buddha traced it to its utmost conclusion. In the *Book of Jin*, the matter of the agreement between Wang Tanzhi and Master Zhu regarding the verification [of karmic retribution] is also clear. The words of Buddhism are not empty; there are many such instances. Several such theories had their beginnings in Confucianism and their broad verification in Buddhism. Could it be that the sages, secretly attuned through hidden principle, did not allow people to discern it readily? Otherwise, how could their principles be so consistent with one another? The *Book of Han* says: 'Following customs without rigid norms, adapting to things in their diverse encounters, drawing together what converges in unity, and resolving doubtful doctrines—then the Great Way will penetrate.' How could this not be so? Furthermore, Liezi also stated that Confucius once said: 'Among the people of the West there is a sage. He does not govern, yet there is no disorder; he does not speak, yet he is spontaneously trusted; he does not transform, yet [the Way] is spontaneously practiced. So vast is he that the people can find no name for him!' Although this statement in *Liezi* is not recorded in the Five Classics and the Six Canonical Books, this was because [Confucius's followers] revered the sages of the Middle Kingdom to establish their teaching; or perhaps, though such words existed, they were not deemed suitable to be recorded in them, and so the various masters were able to record them. From this, that Confucianism and Buddhism must not negate each other becomes even clearer. Moreover, I have heard that when the Buddha found that someone had not yet fully penetrated his Way, he called it the provisional teaching; when someone had penetrated his Way clearly, he called it the real teaching. The real receives people abruptly; the provisional receives people gradually. What is called the vehicle of humans and devas refers to the most gradual of gradual paths. If we now compare it with the Confucian teaching of the Five Constant Virtues, it is precisely the same as the vehicle of humans and devas with its five precepts and ten virtuous deeds. Did not the Confucian sages also use the Buddha's provisional means to instruct people gradually? In the Buddhist sūtras it is said that Confucius was formerly the Sage Youth of Classical Learning (Māṇava); perhaps this was so. Therefore the commentary says: 'One may set out on the Way with someone, but one cannot yet weigh provisional circumstances with them.' Is not the provisional exceedingly difficult to fathom? Furthermore, the Buddhadharma has spread here for a very long time. How can one count all the sages and worthies among rulers and ministers who have revered it? And Your Majesty's holy ancestors honored and propagated its teachings, surpassing even the emperors of antiquity. The Late Emperor, supremely holy and most understanding, even though he composed the *Chongshenglun* to expand upon it; now Your Majesty, brilliant and holy, has also thoroughly investigated its profound subtleties, and the whole realm turns to your wind and longs for your virtue, wishing to follow Your Majesty in taking the Buddha as good. Why are the scholars of the world still so slow to believe? Yet an era of great impartiality can manifest the Great Way, and a person of great brilliance can resolve great doubts. Now Your Majesty the Sage is truly of great brilliance, and Your Majesty's flourishing era is truly of great impartiality. To rectify the ways of the two sages, Confucius and the Buddha, and resolve the doubts of all under Heaven—does this not belong to Your Majesty today? I humbly hope that Your Majesty will publish this work and examine it thoroughly with the court ministers. If its statements are not overly mistaken or deluded, may you bestow it upon all under Heaven, so that Confucians remain Confucians and Buddhists remain Buddhists, each assisting Your Majesty's transformative governance with their respective teachings, as argued above. Hand it down as a definitive standard for ten thousand generations, and thereafter prohibit and end the talk of mutual disparagement, so that the Buddhadharma may have a fresh start beginning from Your Majesty's sacred reign. This would not only be the good fortune of the followers of the Buddha, but also the good fortune of all living beings under Heaven; and not only the good fortune of living beings, but a great celebration for all the ghosts and spirits under Heaven! Moreover, I have heard that Your Majesty preserves the Buddhist teachings in the realm certainly wishing that they bring blessings to living beings; and when the people of the world become its disciples, they certainly wish to practice its teaching and discipline. Wishing for the teaching to be practiced, one must wish to use its method to guide people toward goodness. In this way, all under Heaven doing good and obtaining blessings is truly tied to its teachings, and whether the teachings are practiced or not is truly tied to its disciples. Therefore, the realm considers the matter of its disciples an urgent priority. If its teachings are preserved, yet its disciples do not obtain the right people, how can its teachings take effect? The *Classic of Changes* says: 'If it is not the right person, the Way does not operate in vain.' How could that not be so? Thus, obtaining the right people lies in regulating its disciples, having them learn and practice at the proper time so that they become suitable vessels. If it is done at the proper time, their study and practice easily complete the person; if the proper time is passed, instruction and admonition are difficult to penetrate. Anciently, the Buddha instituted that a person must reach the age of twenty before being permitted to receive the full ordination; if they left home [earlier], they were permitted to engage as novices (śrāmaṇera), 'novice' meaning allowing them to leave home as boys. The intent was that because in later generations human faculties would become increasingly dull and those who awaken abruptly would be few, one must rely on early teaching and youthful training, so that before their minds become corrupted, they may gradually be steeped in the Way. Reaching twenty, they were then permitted to receive full ordination.
8.15.5
This is because their habitual nature has already formed and their resolve and thoughts are already settled, so that they can be made to maintain the precepts and practice the Way. Once they are like this themselves, they will surely be able to extend it to bring goodness to others. Therefore, it is said that among the Three Jewels, the mutual transmission that continues the Buddha's life of wisdom relies solely upon the Sangha Jewel. The system for renouncing the household life is, within the Vinaya Piṭaka, the most fixed of rules, and must not be casually transgressed. Formerly, those who submitted memorials to Your Majesty said: 'Those who have not reached the age of twenty must not be permitted to leave the household life.' How greatly this conflicts with the Buddha's regulations! If one leaves the household life at twenty, one may perhaps barely be allowed to share in the monks' superior conditions; but if one desires them to become great vessels, to practice the Way, and to assist Your Majesty in guiding people toward goodness, I fear this will not come to pass. This can be verified by experience. If someone only begins to leave the household life at twenty, even supposing they are somewhat intelligent and bright, toiling diligently at reciting a single sūtra with no leisure to practice anything else, three or four years will barely suffice. When they take the examination, not even one or two in a hundred will pass on their first attempt. The next sort take five or six years before they can recite a single sūtra. The next sort, who are dull and slow, may take ten years and barely be able to recite it. If they are like this, by the time they are fortunate enough to receive the precepts and become monks, they are not thirty but already forty years old. Even if such a person is allowed to take the great precepts at thirty-five or thirty-six, one still fears that they will be rigid and unable to cope with their studies. How much less, at thirty or forty, can one expect them to comprehend and thoroughly master what is known as Chan, lecturing, the Vinaya, morality, concentration, and wisdom, or the Ways of the sages of other teachings, and the languages of distant regions and alien customs! This, again, I fear they will be unable to do. If it must be that they are only allowed to renounce the household life at twenty, is this not mistaken? The memorial also considered it objectionable that youths, being numbered among the monastic order, should be placed above seniors of advanced age, and thus called for this restriction. However, this can simply be settled by the Vinaya rules governing the seating order of monks. In the seating order of monks, there are also cases where rank is determined relative to reputation and virtue; it is not simply that those of advanced monastic age must sit above, while those of renowned virtue who are young must sit below. Now, to determine the system of renunciation solely on account of high and low seating ranks—how could that be considered appropriate to the matter? The Vinaya regulations established by the Buddha for renouncing the household life are the very source and fountainhead from which his disciples are born. If one muddies the source yet desires the stream to be clear, this too is confusion. In general, when people know the Way and have something to hold fast to, they will seldom do wrong. When they do not know the Way and have nothing to hold fast to, they will surely commit many errors. That monks in recent times have transgressed and run foul of Your Majesty's penal prohibitions is because their training was improper and they had nothing to hold fast to—which brought this about. I secretly fear that from now on, his disciples will have even less to hold fast to, will frequently incur penal prohibitions, and will thereby disgrace their teachings and Way. I also worry that the Dharma will increasingly fail to find the right people, and the sage's Dharma will dwindle and ultimately perish. Because of this, I often find no peace in sleep and no sweetness in food. I truly desire that Your Majesty restore the old system, comply with and practice the laws of the Late Emperor, and strive to keep close to the Buddha's regulations. In renouncing the household life, there should be no limitation to the young or the mature. Where their learning is somewhat refined, it should be broadened; where their minds are ever more sincere, they should be corrected. In this way, there is hope that one in ten thousand might be the right person. Moreover, I hope Your Majesty will refine their monastic leaders: those who are upright should be encouraged, and those who are upright should have their influence broadened. In this way, there is also hope that one in ten thousand of his disciples will follow the proper course and make few errors. Those termed 'monastic leaders' are today's leaders of Chan assemblies throughout the realm, leaders of lecturing assemblies, and those established as rectifying officials—today's monastic rectors of prefectures and commanderies. If they are not merely opportunistic, but are truly able to expand the teachings and the Dharma, I hope they will be treated with some measure of courtly courtesy. Even if, in the execution of public duties, they make an error, they should also be pardoned. Slander by officials should be examined so that there are no punishments based on wrongful entrapment. In this way, his disciples can be led to admire and esteem them. This is also a way of providing encouragement and guidance. If his disciples wish to seek teachers and inquire into the Way across a thousand li, the officials should not obstruct them with travel permits, so that people may come and go freely without distress or anxiety. The system of travel permits was originally used to prevent evil; yet when petty clerks abuse it, it turns instead to preventing good. This, again, is something the various officials ought to examine deeply. As for me, I have long abandoned myself to the mountain valleys and have not frequently involved myself in the world. When I was writing this book and wished to leave the mountains, elders took me by the sleeve and detained me, saying: 'You have found self-fulfillment in the mountain forests through the Way; this can be called attaining it. Why should you suddenly take action all at once? Why not value your own decisions on when to serve and when to withdraw? Stay for a while.' I said to them: 'Our Buddha-Dharma is truly the source of the Way of sages and worthies, and the root of goodness in the world. Nowadays, people do not understand this; instead, they join together to ridicule the Buddha and obstruct the Dharma. I worry that they will damage the root of goodness in the world, and wish to go and rely upon our Sovereign to encourage and guide them, and also to assist his governance of the world. The luminous spirits above have truly heard these words. This is not like other arts, hawked about in opportunistic pursuit of personal gain. Living my whole life for the Dharma and not for myself—is this not weighty? As for me, a mere individual keeping faith unto death, how could I deem myself weighty or light?' The person further said: 'Our Sovereign has established temples for your order throughout the four seas; is that not flourishing? What else is there to say?' I said to him again: 'You know one aspect, but do not know the other. The Way of the sage lies in being correct, not in flourishing.' My humble, ant-like intention is truly like this. If Your Majesty would deign to bestow the examination of Heaven and Earth upon it, that would indeed be fortunate. As for Qisong's memorials: in addressing myself as 'subject' at the beginning and end, while using my personal name in between, there is also a rationale. The term 'ruler and subject' was established by the sages to fix the noble and humble among those serving in public office. From ancient times, has it not applied only to those wearing robes and caps, the official elite? Today, as a monk who has shaved his hair and abandoned standard bodily deportment, my rules are different from those of the human world; yet if I am casually equated with the robed and capped, does that not fail to be appropriate to the matter? Confucius said: 'Must it not be the rectification of names?' For a monk to be included under the term 'subject'—how could that name be correct? Among the Confucians, there were those who did not act as subjects to the Son of Heaven above, nor serve the feudal lords below. Formerly, Wang Ba and Yan Guang did not act as subjects nor submit their names to the Han; was that not so? A monk fundamentally treads the Way outside the world; how could he presume to usurp the title of 'subject'? However, that monks refer to themselves as 'subjects' is largely derived from recent unexamined precedents. That I refer to myself as 'subject' at the beginning and end of the memorial indicates that throughout, I dare not violate precedent; that I use my personal name in between
8.15.6
expresses that I dare not presume to present myself before Your Majesty using what is not appropriate. Transgressing against the Heavenly Majesty, I am overwhelmed by the utmost trepidation. Respectfully submitted.
Linked texts (1)
- 鐔津文集 — Classical Chinese