弘明集 12.18

12.18

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.