廣弘明集 25.34

25.34

The monk Daoxuan and others address the court ministers and grand dukes: We humbly observe that the edict commands monks to pay homage to the ruler and fathers. The underlying principles of this matter are profound and far-reaching, not to be measured by shallow feelings. Now, the traces of leaving home follow the same rule as the ranks of sages; the regulations for the real and the conventional are the same path for a hundred kings. When Ganmu was in Wei, he held himself aloof and called upon Marquess Wen; when Ziling dwelt in Han, he bowed with folded hands and sought out Guangwu. Even those praised as following minor paths still cherished the path of lofty withdrawal; how could these śramaṇas not display the beauty of leisurely detachment? It is only that with the Three Jewels occupying the place of reverence, the rituals of taking refuge and veneration are thereby displayed; the Five Assemblies offer their sincerity, and the path of the field of merit is thereby opened. Now, to reduce them to conformity with Confucian rites would mean that the Buddha is not a person who transcended the mundane; to bow down to the ruler and fathers would mean that a monk is not an appearance worthy of reverence. If so, then the Three Jewels would all be abolished, and refuge and precepts would be severed from human relations; Confucianism and Daoism would become the teachers, and the Confucian scriptures would be esteemed above the Śākya canon. In the past, under the Jin and Song dynasties, precedents were fully established; the detailed deliberations of the Eight Ministries suffice as a clear mirror. We monks, having been entrusted with the state's grave responsibility and permitted to leave home, uphold the Dharma and practice the Way, reverently receiving the sacred guidelines. Suddenly being ordered to pay homage will bring distress to the profound scriptures; bowing and looking up in anxiety, we know not where to seek refuge. We have respectfully listed the internal scriptures and historical precedents, citing them fully as above, to submit for court deliberation, begging that you deign to examine and adopt them. Respectfully submitted. On the fifteenth day of the fifth month, a great assembly of civil and military officials of the ninth rank and above, together with prefectural and county officials, totaling over a thousand people, sat together in the Grand Hall of the Central Department to deliberate on the matter. At that time, Śramaṇa Daoxuan of Ximing Temple in the capital, Śramaṇa Weixiu of Dazhuangyan Temple, Śramaṇa Linghui of Dacien Temple, Śramaṇa Huiyin of Hongfu Temple, and others, more than three hundred people in total, took the scriptural passages and the earlier memorial, presenting their historical precedents to set forth their reasoning. At that time, the Director of Sacrificial Rites, Po, Prince of Longxi Commandery, said to the śramaṇas: 'The imperial decree ordered worldly officials to deliberate in detail; the masters may withdraw.' At that time, the various opinions were divided and could not be harmonized. The Prince of Longxi said: 'The transmission of the Buddha-Dharma across imperial reigns has been long. An edict was issued ordering homage to the ruler and parents, but also permitting court deliberation. Now that everyone has established their arguments, they cannot be universally followed. Since the Ministry of Rites is the office responsible, it may propose a draft first; those who agree may sign their names, and those who disagree need not.' At that time, Grandee of the Ministry of Rites Kong Zhiyue held the brush and drew up the memorial as follows below. He ordered the director of affairs to read it aloud, whereupon they signed according to their rank; those who signed were nearly a majority. Director of the Left Cui Yuqing said: 'The decree ordered the offices to establish deliberations separately; this cannot be adopted on one's own authority. The Ministry of Rites is requested to dismiss the assembly; each may submit their separate memorials to the Department.' At that time, the submitted memorials varied widely and were mixed in their affirmations and denials. Now, respectfully distinguishing them according to the rank of the responsible offices, I first present the texts against paying homage, next set forth the memorials for paying partial homage, and finally recount the deliberations for paying homage. Both the good and the bad are recorded, itemized as follows: