廣弘明集 25.49

25.49

竊惟。佛道二門虛寂一致。縱不能練心方外擯影人間。猶須迹與俗分事與時隔。然今出家之輩多雜塵伍。外以不屈自高。內以私謁為務。徒有入道之名。竟無離俗之實（彈曰。不科簡懲屈者奉法而然。私謁者誠違教義。只可峻其彼不逞之流。寧容縱火崑崗而欲俱焚玉石耶）至若君親之地禮兼臣子。孝敬所宗義深家國。不有制度何以經綸。望請僧尼道士女冠等。道為時須事因法會者。雖在君后聽依舊式。捨此以往並令讚拜。若歸覲父母子道宜申。如在觀寺任遵釋典（彈曰。夫僧尼合拜則無宜不拜。不合豈簡時方何得剃髮。同是一人約處便開。異禮法服始終無二。據事遂制殊經此乃首鼠兩端。要時妄立）庶其以卑屈為恥。稍屏浮競。以道德自尊。漸弘教法。輒進愚管。伏增慚戰。謹議。

I venture to think that the two gates of Buddhism and Daoism share the same emptiness and stillness. Even if they cannot train their minds beyond the world and cast off their shadows from human society, they must still separate their traces from the secular and set their affairs apart from the times. Yet today those who leave the household mostly mix with the ranks of the dust: outwardly taking non-bending to make themselves lofty, inwardly pursuing private audiences. They have in vain the name of entering the Way, yet completely lack the reality of departing from the mundane. (Refutation: Not distinguishing or forcibly bending them is because they uphold the Dharma. Private audiences indeed violate the teaching's principles. One should only crack down on those disobedient types; how could one set fire to Mount Kunlun and desire to burn both jade and stone together?) As for the positions of ruler and parents, their rites encompass both subject and child; where filial piety and respect are rooted, the meaning runs deep in family and state. Without regulations, how can there be ordering? We request that for monks, nuns, Daoist priests, and Daoist nuns, when their path is required by the times and the matter is due to a Dharma assembly, even before the ruler and empress they be permitted to follow the old rules; outside of this, let them all be ordered to proclaim and perform obeisance. If returning to visit parents, the path of a child should be fulfilled; if inside cloisters and temples, let them follow the Śākya scriptures at will. (Refutation: If monks and nuns ought to pay obeisance, there is no reason they should not; if they ought not, how could one differentiate time and place? How can it be that shaving the hair belongs to the same person, yet depending on the place different rituals are opened, while their Dharma robes remain one and the same from first to last? Enacting regulations based on arbitrary affairs contradicts the scriptures; this is wavering between two ends and falsely establishing rules to suit the occasion.) May they thus take humble bowing as a shame and gradually discard frivolous rivalry, esteeming themselves through Dao and virtue, and gradually propagating the teaching and Dharma. I venture to present my foolish views, and am overwhelmed with trepidation. Respectfully submitted.