弘明集 12.18

12.18

祇洹寺釋慧義等五十人。敬白諸檀越。夫沙門之法。政應謹守經律。以信順為本。若欲違經反律師心自是。此則大法之深患。穢道之首也。如來制戒有開有閉。開則行之無疑。閉則莫之敢犯。戒防沙門不得身手觸近女人。凡持戒之徒。見所親漂溺深水。視其死亡無敢救者。於是世人謂沙門無慈。此何道之有。是以如來為世譏嫌開此一戒。有難聽救。如來立戒。是畫一之制。正可謹守而行。豈容以意專輒改作。俗儒猶尚謹守夏五。莫敢益其月者。將欲深防穿鑿之徒。杜絕好新樂異之容。而況三達制戒。豈敢妄有通塞。范檀越欲令此眾改偏從方。求不異之和。雖貪和之為美。然和不以道。則是求同非求和也。祇洹自有眾已來至於法集。未嘗不有方偏二眾。既無經律為證。而忽欲改易佛法。此非小事。實未敢高同。此寺受持僧祇律為日已久。且律有明文。說偏食法凡八議。若元無偏食之制。則無二百五十矣。云食不得置於床上。所棄之食置於右足邊。又云。不得懸足累脛。此豈非偏食之明證哉。戒律是沙門之祕法。自非國主不得預聞。今者檀越疑惑方偏。欲生興廢。貧道不得不權其輕重。略舉數條示其有本。甘受宣戒之罪。佛法通塞繼諸檀越。通則共獲護法之功。塞必相與有滅法之罪。幸願三思令幽顯無恨。

Fifty men, including Shi Huiyi of the Jetavana Monastery, respectfully address the dānakapatis: As for the rules of a śramaṇa, they should precisely and strictly adhere to the sūtras and vinaya, taking faith and obedience as the foundation. If one wishes to contravene the sūtras, rebel against the vinaya, follow one's own mind, and consider oneself right, this is a profound catastrophe for the Great Dharma and the head of defiling the Way. In establishing precepts, the Tathāgata made exceptions and prohibitions: where there is an exception, one practices it without doubt; where there is a prohibition, no one dares violate it. The precepts guard the śramaṇa from touching or approaching women with his body or hands. Practitioners keeping the precepts, seeing a female relative drifting and drowning in deep water, watched her die and none dared rescue her. Thereupon, the worldly people said that śramaṇas have no compassion, asking what kind of Way this was. Therefore, because of the world's criticism and suspicion, the Tathāgata made an exception for this one precept, allowing rescue in times of disaster. The precepts established by the Tathāgata are a uniform institution; one can only strictly observe and practice them—how could one allow private opinion to arbitrarily change or create them? Even mundane Confucians still strictly preserve the 'Xia fifth month' omission, none daring to supplement its month, wishing profoundly to guard against far-fetched interpretations and cut off the tendency to delight in novelty and difference. How much more so with the precepts instituted by the One of Triple Knowledge—how would anyone dare arbitrarily open or restrict them? Dānapati Fan wishes to have this assembly abandon the squatting posture to follow the square, seeking a harmony free of difference. Although you cherish the beauty of harmony, harmony that is not in accordance with the Way is seeking mere conformity, not seeking true harmony. Ever since this Jetavana Monastery had an assembly up to the Dharma gatherings, there has never been a time without both square and squatting groups. Since there is no evidence in the sūtras or vinaya, yet you suddenly wish to alter the Buddha's Dharma, this is no small matter, and we truly dare not agree to your high opinion. This monastery has received and upheld the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya for a long time. Furthermore, the vinaya contains explicit text explaining the method of squatting to eat in eight discussions. If originally there were no regulation for squatting to eat, then the two hundred and fifty precepts would not exist. It states: 'Food must not be placed on the couch; discarded food must be placed by the right foot.' It also states: 'One must not dangle the feet or cross the shins.' Is this not clear proof of squatting to eat? The vinaya precepts are the secret Dharma of the śramaṇa; unless one is the ruler of a state, one may not participate in hearing them. Now the dānapati doubts the square and squatting postures, wishing to initiate their rise or fall. I, a poor monk, cannot but weigh their importance and briefly cite several items to show that they have a source, willingly enduring the transgression of proclaiming the precepts. The opening or closing of the Buddha's Dharma rests with the dānakapatis: if opened, we together obtain the merit of protecting the Dharma; if blocked, we shall together incur the sin of destroying the Dharma. I sincerely hope you will reflect three times, so that both the unseen and the manifest may have no regret.