廣弘明集 25.40

25.40

臣聞三災變火六度逾凝。二字為經百成攸緬。是以白毫著相。闡一乘於萬劫。紫氣浮影。混萬殊於一致。爰有儒津復軔殊軫。秀天地陰陽之稟。禮君臣父子之穆。故知循名責實矩跡端形。則教先於闕里。齋心力行修來悔往。則化漸於連河。釋為內防。雅有制於魏闕。儒為外檢。不能括其靈臺。別有玄宗素範振蕩風物。翾鵬逸鷃促椿遼菌。無為無事何得何失。然則道佛二教俱為三寶。佛以佛法僧為旨。道以道經師為義。豈直攝生有託陶性通資。信亦為政是基裨聲濃化。而比丘未喻先生多僻。恃出俗而浮逸。以矜傲為誇誕。處匹夫之賤。直形骸於萬乘。忘子育之恩。不降屈於三大。固君父所宜革。乃臣子所知非。遂降綸璽是改其弊。雖履孝居忠昌言改轍。而稽古愛道參酌群情。懷響者谷不銷聲。撫塵者山無隔細。必備輿人之頌。以貢芻蕘之說。何則柱史西浮千有餘祀。法流東漸六百許年。雖曆變市朝而事無損益。唯庾氷責沙門之拜。桓玄議比丘之禮。幸有何充進奏慧遠陳書。事竟不行道終不墜。是以大易經綸三聖。蠱象不事王侯。大禮充牣兩儀儒行不臣天子。亦有嚴陵踞謁光武。亞夫長揖漢文。介冑豈曰觸鱗。故人不為纓網。惟舊詎先師道。法侶何後戎昭。上則九天真皇十地菩薩。下則南山四皓淮南八公。或順風而禮謁。或御氣而遊處。一以貫之靡得而屈。十室忠信亦豈無其人哉。五刑之設關三木者不拜。豈五德之具居三服者拜之。罪之不責。恭肅德之誠足容養。然則含識之類。懷生之流。莫不致身以輸忠。彼則不臣王者。莫不竭力而尊孝。彼則不敬其親。雖約㢮三章律輕三尺。有一於此。三千其大。而不被以嚴誅。寘於巨責者。豈不以道釋與堯孔殊制。傷毀與禮教正乖。蓮華非結綬之色。貝葉異削珪之旨。人以束帶為彝章。道則冠而不帶。人以束髮為華飾。釋則落而不容。去國不為不忠。辭家不為不孝。出塵滓割愛於君親。奪嗜欲棄情於妻子。理乃區分於物類。不可涯檢於常塗。生莫重於父母。子則不謝。施莫厚於天地。物則不答。君親之恩事絕名象。豈稽首拜首可酬萬分之一者歟。出家之於君父。豈曰全無輸報。一念必以人王為願首。四諦則於父母為弘益。方祛塵劫永離死生。豈與夫屈膝為盡忠。色養為純孝而已矣。必包之俗境。處之儒肆。屈其容降其禮。則不孝莫過於絕嗣。何不制以婚姻。不忠莫大於不臣。何不令稱臣妾。以袈裟為朝服。稱貧道而趨拜。儀範兩失名稱兼舛。深恐一跪之益。不加萬乘之尊。一拜之勞式彰三服之墜。則所不可而豈然乎。王者無父事三老。無兄事五更。君人之尊亦有所敬。法服之敬不敬其人。若屈其數則卑其道。數而可卑道則云缺矣。豈若存敬於己。存道於物。敬存則己適。道在則物尊。尊道所以敬於物。敬物亦所以尊於己也。況復形猶身也。道若影焉。身既如聲。道亦如響。形動則影隨。聲揚則響應。道崇則形寵。身替則道息。豈可使居身之道屈於道外之身。豈可使方外之人存於身中之敬。又彼守一居道不離塵俗。若可拜之是謂俗之道而可俗俗又參道。則一當有二而道不專行矣。安可以區道俗之常域保專一之至誠哉。據僧祇律。敬袈裟如敬佛塔。謂袈裟為福田衣。衣名銷瘦。取能銷瘦煩惱。鎧名忍辱。取能降伏魔軍。亦喻蓮華不染泥滓。亦為諸佛之所幢相。則袈裟之為義其至矣。夫若損茲佛塔壞彼幢相。將輕忍辱更貶福田。甚用危疑終迷去取。解衣而拜則越俗非章甫之儀。整服而趨則緇衣異朝宗之典。故禪幽舍衛之境。步屏高門之地。理絕朝請事乖榮謁。豈不謂我崇其道。所以彼請其來。請而卑之復何為者。廬山為道德所居。不在搜揀之例。甘棠為聽訟所息。式致勿翦之思。山與樹之無心。且以德而存物。法與道之有裕。豈崇道而遺人。語曰。人能弘道則道亦須人而行也。王人雖微位。在諸侯之上。行道之輩焉復可卑其禮。若謂兩為欺詭。則可一而寢之。寢之之道則芟薙之之謂。是則所奪者多。何止降屈而已。若謂兩為濃助。則宜崇之。崇之之道則尊貴之之謂。豈可尊貴其道而使其恭敬哉。假以金翠為真儀。不以金翠而增肅。以芻狗而尊像。不以芻狗而加輕。肅敬終寄於道輕重不係於物。物之不能遷道。亦猶道之恒隨於物矣。沙門橫服於己。資法服而為貴。莫不敬其法服而豈係於人乎。不拜之典義高經律。法付國王事資持護。法為常也。常行不易。一隅可革千門或爽。通有護法之資。塞有墜法之慮。與其墜之曷若護之。何必屈折於僧容。盤辟於法服。使萬國歸依者居蔕芥於其間哉。語曰因人所利而利之。則利之之術亦可因其精詣而為利矣。洎乎日光上照皇運攸宗。海接天潢枝連寶構。藉無上之道。闡無疆之業。別氏他族敬猶崇往。神基靈派道豈撝今。此為甚不可一也。月氏東國寶祚斯俟。定水玄波法雲彩潤。高解脫之慶。演常住之福。王前帝昔尚或攸遵。主聖臣良胡寧此變。臣愚千慮萬不一得。儻緣斯創造無益將來。於恒河沙劫有毫釐之累。雖率土碎首群生粉骨。何以塞有隱之責。蠲不忠之罪。此為甚不可二也。臣所以汲汲其事區區其誠。搔首捫心隳肝瀝膽。伏願聖朝重興至教。恒春柰苑永轉法輪。一心歡錄其人。百祚遠光於帝冊。則雖死猶生朝夕可矣。竊惟詔旨微婉義難適莫。天情畫一則可使由之。睿想傍求。則誰不竭慮。臣以庸昧何足寓言。以兩教為無。則崇之於聖運。聖而崇之則非無矣。以兩教為有。則筆削於明時。時而削之恐非有矣。斯所以岐路徘徊兩端交戰。道宜存跡理未懕心。管豈天窺蛙焉海測。理絕庶幾之外。事超智識之表。自可懷鉛閣筆扣寂銷聲。而欲鳥處程言竽中竊吹。將聾聽而齊俗。與瞽視而均叟。雖有罄於心靈。終不詣於聞見也。直以八風逈扇。萬籟咸貢其音。兩曜昇暉。千形不匿其影。茲焉企景是庶轉規。就日心葵輸涓驛露。而靦顏漿夏履薄氷春。兢惕已甚。𧹞畏交集。謹議。

Your servant has heard that though the three calamities transform into fire, the six perfections remain ever firmer; though two words form the warp of the classics, a hundred accomplishments lie distant. Thus the white ūrṇā reveals its mark, proclaiming the One Vehicle throughout myriads of kalpas; the purple vapour casts its drifting shadow, blending myriad diversities into a single consensus. Then there is the ford of Confucianism, which sets its carriages upon distinct tracks: it brings to flower what is endowed by Heaven, Earth, yin, and yang, and solemnises the decorum between ruler and minister, father and son. Hence we know that for following names and demanding realities, regulating tracks and straightening forms, the teaching begins first in the village of Queli; for purifying the mind, exerting oneself in practice, cultivating the future, and regretting the past, the transforming influence spreads gradually along the Lotus River. Buddhism serves as an inner defense, gracefully maintaining order within the imperial palaces; Confucianism serves as an outer regulation, unable to encompass the spiritual platform of the heart. There is apart from them the Mysterious School and its pristine model, which stirs and billows through the winds of phenomena: soaring peng and flying quail, brief-lived toon and enduring morning fungus; in non-action and non-doing, what gain or what loss is there? Thus both teachings, Daoism and Buddhism, possess the Three Jewels: Buddhism takes the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha as its tenets; Daoism takes the Way, the scriptures, and the masters as its doctrine. How could they merely be that wherein life-nurturing finds rely and through which nature-cultivation is fully endowed? In truth, they also serve as foundations for governance, assisting reputation and enriching civilising influence. Yet monks are not all enlightened, and masters of Dao have many deviations: relying on having renounced the world, they are buoyant and carefree; taking pride and arrogance for lofty boasting, dwelling in the lowliness of commoners, they hold their forms upright before the sovereign of myriad chariots; forgetting the kindness of parental nurture, they do not bend before the three supreme authorities. This is certainly what rulers and fathers should reform, and what ministers and sons know to be wrong. Thus the imperial rescript was issued to correct these abuses. Although those who tread in filial piety and abide in loyalty loudly advocate altering the course, still in examining antiquity and cherishing the Way one must consult and weigh the feelings of the multitude. For a valley that cherishes an echo does not extinguish sounds, and a mountain that receives dust does not reject fine grains. One must fully gather the songs of the common folk to offer up the opinions of the woodcutters. Why is this? More than a thousand years have elapsed since the Archivist floated westward; for some six hundred years the flow of the Dharma has gradually spread eastward. Though reigns have changed and markets and courts transformed, this practice has suffered neither decrease nor addition. Only Yu Bing demanded the prostration of śramaṇas, and Huan Xuan deliberated over the etiquette for monks. Fortunately He Chong submitted a memorial, and Huiyuan presented a letter; in the end the measure was not enacted, and the Way ultimately did not fall. Thus in the Great Changes the three sages ordered the realm, yet the hexagram Gu speaks of not serving kings and princes; the Great Rites fill heaven and earth, yet the 'Conduct of the Scholar' speaks of not acting as minister to the Son of Heaven. There was also Yan Ling sitting cross-legged to meet Guangwu, and Zhou Yafu bowing with clasped hands before Han Wendi. How could wearing armour be called brushing the dragon's scales? An old friend is not bound by the nets of court ribbons. If ancient friendship does not take precedence over the Way of the teacher, why should the companions of the Dharma rank behind the honours of war? Above, there are the True Sovereigns of the Nine Heavens and the bodhisattvas of the ten stages; below, there are the Four Whiteheads of the Southern Mountain and the Eight Dukes of Huainan: some followed the wind to pay respects, while others rode the vapor to wander and abide; stringing them together with a single thread, none could be brought to bend. In a hamlet of ten households, where loyalty and trustworthiness dwell, how could such men be lacking? When the five punishments are instituted, those bound in the three wooden cangues do not bow; how then could those endowed with the five virtues and wearing the three monastic robes bow? If guilt is not made to show respect, virtue is certainly sufficient to be tolerated and nurtured. That being so, among all conscious beings and creatures endowed with life, none fails to present their bodies to display loyalty, yet those [renunciants] do not act as ministers to kings; none fails to exhaust their strength to honour filial piety, yet those [renunciants] do not pay homage to their parents. Though the three articles of the code be softened and the three-foot statutes lightened, to possess even one of these [faults] is the greatest of the three thousand offenses. Yet that they are not subjected to severe execution or placed under immense censure—is it not because the systems of Daoism and Buddhism differ from those of Yao and Confucius, and bodily injury and shaving are entirely contrary to the ritual teachings? The lotus is not the colour of an official sash; the pattra leaf differs from the principle of carving jade sceptres. Ordinary people take binding the belt as an established norm, but the Daoist wears a cap without a belt; ordinary people take binding the hair as an ornament, but the Buddhist shaves it and leaves no appearance. Leaving one's state is not considered disloyalty; departing from one's family is not considered unfilial. Leaving the dust and defilement cuts off affection toward ruler and parent; surrendering appetites and desires abandons sentiment toward wife and child. In principle, categories of beings are distinct and cannot be bounded by ordinary paths. In birth nothing is weightier than father and mother, yet a son does not return thanks; in bestowal nothing is thicker than Heaven and Earth, yet things do not repay it. The kindness of ruler and parent transcends all names and forms; how could bowing the head and prostrating repay one ten-thousandth of it? When it comes to leaving home with respect to ruler and father, how could one say there is no recompense whatsoever? With every thought one necessarily takes the mortal king as the foremost object of vows; through the Four Truths, one brings immense benefit to father and mother. Just when one is banishing kalpas of dust and leaving birth and death forever, how could it be compared merely to bending the knee as the utmost loyalty, or providing bodily nourishment as pure filial piety? If they must be enclosed in mundane bounds and situated within Confucian stalls, bending their demeanor and lowering their etiquette, then since no unfilial act exceeds severing lineage, why not prescribe marriage for them? Since no disloyalty is greater than not being a subject, why not command them to style themselves ministers and concubines? To make the kāṣāya a court dress, and styling oneself 'poor monk' while scurrying to prostrate—etiquette and model are both lost, names and designations both confounded. I deeply fear that the benefit of a single kneeling will not add to the majesty of the myriad chariots, while the exertion of a single prostration will visibly demonstrate the fall of the three robes. Would that which is impermissible really be so? When the king has no father, he serves the Three Elders; when he has no elder brother, he serves the Five Experienced Ones. Even in the nobility of the lord of men, there are those he respects. The respect shown to the Dharma robes is not respect shown to the person. If their standing is bent, their Way is lowered; if their standing can be lowered, the Way is said to be deficient. How can that compare to preserving respect within oneself and preserving the Way among things? When respect is preserved, oneself is at ease; when the Way exists, things are honoured. To honour the Way is how one respects things; to respect things is also how one honours oneself. Moreover, bodily form is like a body, and the Way is like its shadow; the body is like a sound, and the Way is like its echo. When the form moves, the shadow follows; when the sound sounds forth, the echo responds. When the Way is elevated, the form is favoured; when the body declines, the Way rests. How could one allow the Way abiding in the body to bend before a body outside the Way? How could one allow a person beyond the mundane realm to preserve respect centered on the body? Furthermore, if those who preserve oneness and dwell in the Way do not leave the worldly dust, and if they may be bowed to, this means that the worldly Way may be treated as worldly, and the worldly again participates in the Way; then what should be one becomes two, and the Way cannot operate singularly. How can one demarcate the ordinary domains of the Way and the secular to preserve the utmost sincerity of single-minded devotion? According to the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, respecting the kāṣāya is like respecting a stūpa of the Buddha. The kāṣāya is called the robe of the field of merit; the robe is named 'wasting away', meaning it can waste away afflictions; the armour is named 'forbearance', meaning it can subdue the army of Māra. It is also compared to the lotus unstained by muddy defilement, and is the banner-emblem of all Buddhas. Thus the meaning of the kāṣāya is supreme! If one damages this Buddha-stūpa and destroys that banner-emblem, one will slight forbearance and further disparage the field of merit; bringing grave danger and doubt, one will end in utter confusion over what to accept and reject. If they remove the robe to bow, going beyond ordinary customs does not match the etiquette of the Zhangfu cap; if they arrange their robes and scurry forth, the black robes are contrary to the protocol of audience at court. Therefore, in meditating on the secluded realm of Śrāvastī and walking to screen off the place of lofty gates, principle cuts off court attendance and matters depart from glorious audiences. Is this not to say: because we honour their Way, we invite their coming; having invited them, to then debase them—what purpose does that serve? Mount Lu is where the Way and virtue reside, and was not included among those subject to screening; the sweet pear tree was where disputes were settled, evoking the sentiment of 'do not clip it'. If mountain and tree have no mind, yet through virtue preserve things, when Dharma and the Way are abundant, how could one revere the Way while abandoning the person? The saying goes: 'Man can magnify the Way; thus the Way also requires man to be practiced.' Though the royal envoy be of humble rank, his seat is above the feudal lords. How could the etiquette of those who practice the Way be debased? If it is said that both teachings are deceitful, then one may abolish them together; the method of abolishing them is what is meant by weeding them out. In that case, what is taken away is much; why stop at merely making them bend and submit? If it is said that both teachings provide rich assistance, then one should revere them; the method of revering them is what is meant by honouring them. How could one honour their Way yet make them perform prostrations? If gold and kingfisher feathers are used for a true image, it is not on account of gold and kingfisher that one increases solemnity; if a straw dog is used to honour a figure, it is not on account of the straw dog that one treats it more lightly. Solemnity and respect are ultimately entrusted to the Way; weight and lightness are not tied to physical things. That things cannot displace the Way is just as the Way constantly follows along with things. The śramaṇa wears the robes across his person, relying on the Dharma robes to be noble; everyone respects his Dharma robes, so how is it tied to the man? The principle of not bowing stands high in the sūtras and vinaya; the Dharma was entrusted to kings, and its affairs depend on upholding and protecting it. The Dharma is constant: what is constantly practiced should not be altered. What can be reformed in one corner may disrupt a thousand gates. Keeping it open brings the resource of protecting the Dharma; shutting it raises the anxiety of the Dharma falling into decline. Rather than letting it fall, how much better to protect it! Why must one bend the demeanor of the saṅgha and demand kneeling in the Dharma robes, causing those of the myriad states who take refuge to harbour resentments therein? The saying goes: 'Benefit them through that which benefits them'; then the art of benefiting them may also bring benefit through their refined achievements. Coming down to the sunlight shining above and the imperial fortune finding its lineage, the sea connects to the Heavenly River and branches join the precious architecture. Relying on the unsurpassable Way, it expands an inexhaustible enterprise. When other clans and different lineages still honoured and revered the past, how could the divine foundation and spiritual descent belittle today? This is the first reason why it is utterly impermissible. The Yuezhi and Eastern Lands await this precious succession; the quiet waters of dark waves and the Dharma clouds moisten with luster, elevating the celebration of liberation and expounding the blessings of the constant abiding. If kings of old and past emperors still observed this, now that the lord is sage and the ministers virtuous, why make this change? In your foolish servant's thousand deliberations, not one in ten thousand succeeds; if perchance this innovation brings no benefit to the future, and causes the slightest burden across kalpas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, then even if all across the land heads were shattered and all living beings had their bones ground to dust, how could it dispel the charge of concealing the truth or absolve the crime of disloyalty? This is the second reason why it is utterly impermissible. That is why your servant is so anxious in this matter and so earnest in sincerity, scratching my head, touching my heart, spilling my liver, and pouring out my gall. I humbly pray that the sage court will once again revive the supreme teaching, keep the Jetavana orchard in perpetual spring, and turn the wheel of the Dharma forever; with one mind joyfully registering these persons, while a hundred fortunes brightly shine afar in the imperial annals. Then even if I die, it will be as if I lived, whether morning or evening! I privately reflect that the imperial decree was subtle and polite, its meaning difficult to take as biased either way. When the Heavenly Will is uniform, it can be made to be followed; when the imperial thought seeks counsel far and wide, who would not exhaust their deliberations? With my mediocrity and ignorance, how am I fit to lodge words? If one considers the two teachings non-existent, yet they are revered under this sage dynasty; if the sage reveres them, then they are not non-existent. If one considers the two teachings existent, yet they are pruned in this enlightened era; if the era prunes them, I fear they are not existent. This is why I linger at the crossroads, two alternatives battling within me. The Way ought to preserve its traces, yet the principle is not yet satisfying to the heart. How could a tube peer at the sky, or a frog measure the sea? Principle transcends the realm of ordinary aspiration; affairs go beyond ordinary intellect and knowledge. One might naturally hold the lead pencil, lay down the writing brush, knock on silence, and extinguish sound; yet wishing to chirp like a bird to set forth words, or secretly blow the yu pipe in the ensemble, this would be like making the deaf hear to equate with the vulgar, or having the blind see to match the aged. Though I have emptied my heart and soul, it ultimately does not reach what can be heard and seen. It is simply that the eight winds blow far, and the ten thousand pipes all offer their sounds; the two luminaries rise in brightness, and a thousand forms do not conceal their shadows. Looking up with admiration at this scene, I hope to turn the dial; like a sunflower turning toward the sun, I offer my drops of morning dew. Yet with a face blushing like melon-wine in summer, treading on thin ice in spring, my trepidation is extreme, and my fright and awe gather together. Respectfully submitted.