廣弘明集 14.16

14.16

傅云。趙時梁時皆有僧反。況今天下僧尼二十萬眾。此又不思之言也。若以昔有反僧而廢今之法眾。豈得以古有叛臣而棄今之多士。隣有逆兒而逐己之順子。昔有亂民而不養今之黎庶乎。夫普天之下。出家之眾。非雲集於一邑。寔星分於九土。攝之以州縣。限之以關河。無徵發之威權。有憲章之禁約。縱令五三凶險一二闡提。既無緣以烏合。亦何憂於蟻聚。且又沙門入道。豈懷亡命之謀。女子出家。寧求帶鉀之用。何乃混計僧尼之數。雷同梟鏡之黨。搆虛以亂真。蔽善而稱惡。君子有三畏。豈當如是乎。夫青衿有罪。非關尼父之失。皂服為非。豈是釋尊之咎。僧干朝憲尼犯俗刑。譬誦律而穿窬。如讀禮而驕倨。但以人稟頑嚚之性而不遷於善。非是經開逆亂之源而令染於惡。人不皆賢法實盡善。何得因怒惡而及善。以咎人而棄法。夫口談夷惠而身行桀蹠。耳聽詩禮而心存邪僻。夏殷以降何代無之。豈得怒蹠而尤夷惠疾邪而廢詩禮。然則人有可誅之罪。法無可廢之過。但應禁非以弘法。不可以人而賤道。竊篤信于妙法。不苟黨於沙門。至於耘稊稗以植嘉苗。肅姦回以清大教。所深願矣。所深願矣。

Fu says: 'During the Zhao and the Liang, there were monks who rebelled; how much more so now, when the world has a multitude of two hundred thousand monks and nuns?' These, too, are unconsidered words. If one were to abolish today's assembly of the Dharma because there were rebellious monks in the past, how could one discard today's many scholars because there were traitorous ministers of old, banish one's own obedient son because a neighbor has a rebellious child, or refuse to nourish today's common folk because there were riotous subjects in antiquity? Indeed, under all of heaven, the assembly of renunciants is not gathered like clouds in a single town, but scattered like stars across the nine realms. They are controlled by prefectures and counties, and bounded by passes and rivers; they possess no authority of conscription, but have the prohibitions of statutes and ordinances. Even if there be three or five dangerous villains, or one or two icchantikas, since they have no means to assemble like crows, why worry about an gathering of ants? Furthermore, when śramaṇas enter the Way, how could they harbor plots of fugitives? When women leave the household, would they seek military use clad in armor? Why then lumped together the numbers of monks and nuns, echoing the slander that equates them with owls and jing-beasts, constructing falsehood to confuse the true, and veiling the good while acclaiming the evil? The gentleman has three awes; how could he act like this? Indeed, when the blue-collared students commit offenses, it is of no concern to Father Ni's failings; when black-robed monks do wrong, how could it be the fault of the World-Honored Śākya? A monk offending against the court's ordinances, or a nun violating secular punishments, is like reciting the penal code while burglarizing through holes, or reading the rites while behaving arrogantly. It is only because individuals receive a stubborn and perverse nature and do not alter toward the good; it is not that the scriptures open up a source of rebellion and order them to be tainted by evil. People are not all worthy, but the Dharma is truly utterly good; how can one extend anger at evil onto the good, or abandon the Dharma on account of fault in people? Talking of Bo Yi and Liu Xiahui with one's mouth while acting like Jie and Zhi with one's body, or hearing the Odes and Rites with one's ears while harboring deviance and perversity in one's heart—since the Xia and Yin dynasties, which era has lacked such? How could one blame Bo Yi and Liu Xiahui out of anger at Zhi, or abolish the Odes and Rites out of hatred for evil? Thus, while people commit crimes deserving of execution, the Dharma possesses no fault that warrants abolition. One should simply prohibit wrongdoing to propagate the Dharma, and not disparage the Way on account of people. I privately have deep faith in the wondrous Dharma, but do not blindly take sides with śramaṇas. As for weeding out tares and darnel to plant fine sprouts, and purging treachery to purify the great teaching—this is what I profoundly desire; this is what I profoundly desire.