廣弘明集 14.16

14.16

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.