鐔津文集 8.15.5

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