[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [廣弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103) › 25.47 # 廣弘明集 25.47 廣弘明集 25.47 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [25.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25.47) 竊以道教冲虛釋門祕寂。至於照仁濟物崇義為心。乃睠儒風理言不異（彈曰。儒教所明不踰寰域。釋宗所辯高出見聞。故魏東陽王丕曰。佛法冲洽非儒墨者所知。今言不異。何多謬耶）至若宿德耄齒。戒律無虧。栖林遯谷。高尚其事。若斯儔輩可致尊崇。其有弱齓蒙求薰修靡譽。背真混俗心行多違。以此不拜義難通允（彈曰。夫稱沙門者何也。謂紹法象賢。發蒙啟化。儀乏搢紳之飾。教殊廊廟之規求宗故所以直骸孰可分其德業。矯俗故由茲抗禮。寧容隔以尊卑）但在家在國事親事君。不拜之儀何可以訓（彈曰。誠哉奉君親者無宜不拜。沙門不事王侯。背恩天屬。以拜為訓。似未之思）望請勒拜垂憲於後。謹議。 > I venture to submit that the Daoist teaching is empty and vacuous, and the gate of Śākya is secret and still. In illuminating benevolence to save beings and esteeming righteousness as their heart, when we look upon the Ruist breeze, their principles and words do not differ. (Refutation: What the Ruist teaching clarifies does not exceed the earthly realm; what the Śākya tradition analyzes stands high above ordinary sights and sounds. Therefore King Pi of Dongyang of the Wei said: 'The Buddha-Dharma is profound and boundless, not something known by the Ruists or Mohists.' Now to say they do not differ—how full of error!) As for those of veteran virtue and advanced age, whose precepts are without flaw, who dwell in forests and withdraw to valleys, holding their pursuit high—peers such as these may be accorded reverence. But those who are tender youths still seeking instruction, whose cultivation bears no renown, who turn their backs on the true and mingle with the secular, their mental conduct full of transgressions—for these not to pay obeisance is difficult to allow in principle. (Refutation: What does one mean by a śramaṇa? It means continuing the Dharma and modeling oneself on the worthy, uncovering ignorance and initiating transformation. In deportment they lack the adornments of gentry robes, and in teaching they differ from the rules of the court. Seeking the lineage, they therefore stand erect—who can divide their virtue and practice? Reforming vulgarity, they therefore stand on equal terms—how could they allow division by noble and base?) But at home and in the state, serving parents and serving the ruler, how could the ritual of non-obeisance serve as an instruction? (Refutation: Truly, those serving ruler and parents ought never to omit obeisance. The śramaṇa does not serve kings and lords, and turns his back on the favors of heavenly kin; to use obeisance as an instruction seems not to have been properly thought through.) We request that they be ordered to pay obeisance, bequeathing a statute for later times. Respectfully submitted. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 25.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25.46) - [Next: 25.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25.48) - [Up: 25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103~en-mt.25.47) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [集沙門不應拜俗等事](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.5.10) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.25.47) · Pramāṇa