廣弘明集 25.72

25.72

論曰。威衛司列等狀。詞則美矣。其如理何。咸不惟故實昧於大義。苟以屈膝為敬。不悟亡脣之禍。內經稱沙門。拜俗損君父功德及以壽命。而抑令俯伏者。胡言之不訒輕發樞機哉。雖復各言其志。亦何傷之大甚。而威衛等狀通塞兩兼。司列等狀一途氷執。或訪二議優劣。余以為楚則失矣。齊亦未為得也。然兩兼則膚腠。氷執乃膏肓。故升威衛於乙科。退司列於景第。至若範公質議則旨贍文華。隴西執奏言約理舉。既而人庶斯穆龜筮叶從。故得天渙下覃。載隆高尚之美慈育之地。更弘拜伏之仁。時法侶名僧都鄙耆耋僉曰。叶私志矣。違教如何。於是具顯經文廣陳表啟。匪朝伊夕連訴庭闕。但天門邃遠。申請靡由。奉詔求宗。難為去取。易曰。羝羊觸蕃羸其角。方之釋侶。豈不然歟。

The treatise states: The memorials presented by the Court of Imperial Insignia and the Ministry of Personnel are indeed beautiful in diction, but how do they fare in principle? Neither considered historical precedents and both were blind to the great principles. Merely taking bending the knee as respect, they failed to realize the disaster of losing one's lips [which leaves the teeth exposed]. The internal scriptures declare that a śramaṇa bowing to secular folk diminishes the merit and lifespan of rulers and parents; to force them to prostrate themselves—why were their words so unmeasured, and why did they lightly trigger the mechanism of state? Though each spoke his mind, why did they inflict such great harm? The memorial of the Court of Imperial Insignia and others combined both the adaptable and the rigid, while the memorial of the Ministry of Personnel and others rigidly clung to a single path. If someone inquires into the merits and demerits of the two arguments, I would say that Chu went astray, but Qi was not necessarily right either. Yet combining both is only skin-deep, while rigid obstinacy reaches the marrow; therefore, the Court of Imperial Insignia was placed in the second grade, and the Ministry of Personnel was demoted to the third. As for the refined discourse of Master Fan [Xuanling], its purport was rich and its literary quality splendid; the memorial presented by the Duke of Longxi [Li Shenfu] was concise in wording and elevated in principle. Subsequently, the common people were in harmony, and the tortoise-shell and yarrow divinations agreed. Thus the heavenly favor spread downward, again exalting the beauty of aloof nobility, while in the realm of loving nurture, the benevolence of bowing and prostrating was re-established. At that time, renowned monks among the dharma companions, as well as elders from the capital and the provinces, all said: 'This accords with private sentiments, but how does it stand with violating the teachings?' Thereupon, fully setting forth scriptural passages and widely presenting memorials, from morning until evening they continuously appealed to the imperial palace. Yet the heavenly gates were remote and profound, and there was no way for their petitions to get through. Having received the edict seeking the core truth, it was difficult to decide what to accept or reject. The Book of Changes states: 'A ram butts against a hedge and entangles its horns.' When applied to the monastic assembly, is it not precisely so?