集沙門不應拜俗等事 3.43

3.43

臣聞。三災變火六度逾凝。二字為經百代攸緬。是以白毫著相。闡一乘於萬劫。紫氣浮影。混萬殊於一致。爰有儒津復軔殊軫。秀天地陰陽之稟。禮君臣父子之穆。故知循名責實矩跡端形。則教先於闕里。齋心力行修來悔往。則化漸於連河。釋為內防。雅有制於魏闕。儒為外檢。不能括其靈臺。別有玄宗素範振蕩風物。翾鵬逸鷃促椿遼菌。無為無事何得何失。然則道佛二教俱為三寶。佛以佛法僧為旨。道以道經師為義。豈直攝生有託陶性通資。信亦為政是基裨聲濃化。而比丘未喻先生多僻。恃出俗而浮逸。以矜傲為誇誕。處匹夫之賤。直形骸於萬乘。忘子育之恩。不降屈於三大。固君父所宜革。乃臣子所知。非遂降綸璽是改其弊。雖履孝居忠昌言改轍。而稽古愛道參酌群情。懷響者谷不銷聲。撫塵者山無隔細。必備輿人之頌。以貢蒭蕘之說。何則柱史西浮千有餘祀。法流東漸六百許年。雖歷變市朝而事無損益。唯庾氷責沙門之拜。桓玄議比丘之禮。幸有何充進奏慧遠陳書。事竟不行道終不墜。是以大易經綸三聖。蠱象不事王侯。大禮充仞兩儀。儒行不臣天子。亦有嚴陵踞謁光武。亞夫長揖漢文。介冑豈曰觸鱗。故人不為嬰網。惟舊詎先師道。法侶何後戎照。上則九天真皇十地菩薩。下則南山四皓淮南八公。或順風而禮謁。或御氣而遊處。一以貫之。靡得而屈。十室忠信亦豈無其人哉。五刑之設關。三木者不拜。豈五德之具居三服者拜之。罪之不責恭肅德之。誠足容養。然則含識之類懷生之流。莫不致身以輸忠。彼則不臣王者。莫不竭力而遵孝。彼則不敬其親。雖約弛三章律輕三尺。有一於此三千其大。而不被以嚴誅寘於巨責者。豈不以道釋與堯孔殊制。傷毀與禮教正乖。蓮華非結綬之色。貝葉異削珪之旨。人以束帶為彝章。道則冠而不帶。人以束髮為華飾。釋則落而不容。去國不為不忠。出家不為不孝。出塵滓割愛於君親。奪嗜欲棄情於妻子。理乃區分於物類。不可涯檢於常塗。生莫重於父母。子則不謝。施莫厚於天地。物則不答。君親之恩事絕名象。豈稽首拜首可酬萬分之一者歟。出家之於君父。豈曰全無輸報。一念必以人王為願首。四諦則於父母為弘益。方祛塵劫永離死生。豈與夫屈膝為盡忠。色養為純孝而已矣。必包之俗境處之儒肆。屈其容降其禮。則不孝莫過於絕嗣。何不制以婚姻。不忠莫大於不臣。何不令稱臣妾。以袈裟為朝服稱貧道而趨拜。儀範兩失名稱兼舛。深恐一跪之益。不加萬乘之尊。一拜之勞。式彰三服之墜。則所不可而豈然乎。王者無父事三老。無兄事五更。君人之尊亦有所敬。法服之敬不敬其人。若屈其數則卑其道。數而可卑道則云缺矣。豈若存敬於己存道於物。敬存則己適。道在則物尊。尊道所以敬於物。敬於物所以尊於己也。況復形猶身也。道若影焉。身既如聲。道亦如響。形動則影隨。聲揚則響應。道崇則身寵。身替則道息。豈可使居身之道屈於道外之身。豈可使方外之人存於身中之敬。又彼守一居道不雜塵俗。若可拜之是謂俗道而可俗。俗又參道則一當有二。而道不專行矣。安可以區道俗之常域。保專一之至誠哉。據僧祇律。敬袈裟如敬佛塔。謂袈裟為福田衣。衣名銷瘦。取能銷瘦煩惱。鎧名忍辱。取能降伏魔軍。亦喻蓮花不染泥滓。亦為諸佛之所幢相。則袈裟之為義其至矣。

Your servants have heard that when the three disasters transform into fire, the six perfections become ever more steadfast; when the two words become the classic, a hundred generations look up to them. For this reason, the white curl manifest its mark, expounding the One Vehicle across myriad kalpas; the purple vapor drifted in shadow, harmonizing the myriad diversities into a single uniformity. Then there is the ford of Confucianism, which sets a different wheel on a different track: it displays the endowment of heaven and earth, yin and yang, and solemnizes the harmony of ruler and minister, father and son. Thus we know that following the name to demand the reality, rectifying the traces and uprighting the form, instruction begins at the Village of Que; purifying the mind and striving in practice, cultivating the future and repenting the past, transformation gradually advances by the Lian River. Buddhism serves as the inner defense, admirably providing restraint from within the palace; Confucianism serves as the outer check, but cannot encompass the spiritual terrace. Separately, there is the mysterious school's pure model that stirs and sweeps over the wind and things: the soaring peng and the carefree quail, the fleeting chun tree and the short-lived fungus—acting through non-action and attending to nothing, what gain or what loss is there? Thus, the two teachings of Daoism and Buddhism both constitute the Three Jewels: Buddhism takes the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha as its core purport, while Daoism takes the Dao, Scriptures, and Masters as its principle. How could it be merely that the nourishment of life has something to rely upon and the cultivation of nature is broadly aided? Truly it is also the foundation of governing the state, enriching renown and deepening moral transformation. Yet bhikṣus may not have comprehended, and Daoist gentlemen have many eccentricities: relying on leaving the world, they are fleeting and unrestrained; taking pride and arrogance, they are boastful and extravagant. Dwelling in the lowly status of common men, they stiffen their bodies before the lord of ten thousand chariots; forgetting the kindness of parental upbringing, they do not bow down before the three greats. This is indeed what ruler and father should reform, and what ministers and sons understand. However, to issue imperial edicts to alter their defects suddenly—though practicing filial piety and abiding in loyalty, boldly arguing for changing course—one must also examine antiquity, cherish the Way, and take into account the sentiments of the multitude. The valley that holds an echo does not obliterate sound; the mountain that gathers dust does not reject fine grains. One must gather the songs of the people of the carriages to offer up the opinions of the grass-cutters. Why is this? The Scribe of the Pillar traveled west more than a thousand years ago; the Dharma stream flowed east for some six hundred years. Although changing through marketplaces and courts, the matter has suffered neither loss nor gain. Only Yu Bing demanded the bowing of śramaṇas, and Huan Xuan deliberated on the etiquette of bhikṣus. Fortunately, He Chong submitted a memorial, and Huiyuan presented a letter; the matter ultimately was not put into practice, and the Way in the end did not fall. Thus, the Great Changes was ordered by the three sages, and the Gu hexagram's image "does not serve kings and princes"; the Great Rites fill heaven and earth, and the Confucian Conduct "does not act as a subject to the Son of Heaven." There was also Yan Ling who sat casually before Guangwu, and Yafu who gave a deep bow to Han Wendi. How could wearing armor be called offending the imperial dragon-scales? An old friend is not caught in the worldly net. Regarding the past, how could the way of the teacher precede it? How could the Dharma companions be placed behind military attire? Above, there are the True Sovereigns of the Nine Heavens and the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Stages; below, there are the Four Whiteheads of Mount Shang and the Eight Immortals of Huainan. Some paid homage and had audience by following the wind; some traveled and dwelt by riding the clouds. A single principle runs through them all; they cannot be bent. In a hamlet of ten households with loyalty and faithfulness, could there be no such men? When the five punishments are instituted, those bound in the three wooden instruments do not bow; how could those endowed with the five virtues and wearing the three robes bow? If guilt is not rebuked for lack of reverence, virtue is truly sufficient to receive forbearance. Now, among all sentient beings and the classes of living things, there is none who does not dedicate his body to render loyalty, yet these do not serve the king as subjects; there is none who does not exhaust his strength to follow filial piety, yet these do not show reverence to their parents. Although the simplified three chapters of law and the light three-foot statutes consider that having any one of these faults is among the greatest of the three thousand crimes, why are they not subjected to severe execution or placed under immense blame? Is it not because Daoism and Buddhism have systems different from Yao and Confucius, and bodily harm runs directly contrary to ritual propriety? The lotus is not of the color of bureaucratic cords; the palm-leaf manuscript is different from the purport of carved jade tablets. People consider binding the belt as the regular standard, while the Daoist wears a cap without a belt; people consider binding the hair as an ornament of beauty, while the Buddhist shaves it off and leaves no adornment. Leaving one's country is not considered disloyalty; renouncing one's family is not considered unfilial. Leaving the dust and defilement, they sever love for ruler and parents; casting off desires, they abandon attachment to wife and children. Principle indeed differs among the varieties of things, and cannot be measured and restrained by ordinary paths. In life, nothing is heavier than parents, yet a son does not thank them; in giving, nothing is thicker than heaven and earth, yet creatures do not requite them. The kindness of ruler and parents is an affair transcending names and images; how could a kowtow or prostration repay one ten-thousandth of it? As for the renunciation of worldly life regarding ruler and father, can it be said that there is entirely no repayment? In a single thought, they surely take the human king as the foremost of their vows; in the Four Truths, they bring vast benefit to their parents. Just as they dispel kalpas of dust and forever transcend birth and death, how could this be compared merely to bending the knee to exhaust loyalty or pleasing parents to achieve pure filial piety? If one must enclose them within the worldly realm and place them in the Confucian marketplace, bending their appearance and lowering their etiquette, then since nothing is more unfilial than ending one's lineage, why not regulate them by marriage? Since nothing is more disloyal than declining vassalage, why not command them to style themselves as subjects and concubines? To make the kāṣāya a court dress and to rush forward bowing while calling oneself "impoverished man of the Way" would lose both forms of decorum and confuse both names and titles. We deeply fear that the benefit of a single kneeling will add nothing to the dignity of the lord of ten thousand chariots, while the toil of a single bowing will visibly manifest the fall of the three robes. Then would not doing what should not be done be truly so? A king treats the Three Elders as if having no father, and treats the Five Experienced Ones as if having no elder brother; the honor of the ruler of men also has that which it reveres. The reverence shown to the Dharma robe is not reverence for the person. If one bends their rules, one debases their Way; if rules can be debased, then the Way is impaired. How could that compare to preserving reverence in oneself and preserving the Way in things? When reverence is preserved, oneself is at ease; when the Way exists, things are venerated. To venerate the Way is the means to revere things; to revere things is the means to venerate oneself. Moreover, form is like the body, and the Way is like the shadow; the body is like the sound, and the Way is like the echo. When the form moves, the shadow follows; when the sound is raised, the echo responds. When the Way is esteemed, the body is favored; when the body declines, the Way ceases. How could one cause the Way residing in the body to bend before a body outside the Way? How could one cause a person beyond the realm to preserve the reverence within the body? Furthermore, they preserve oneness and dwell in the Way, not mingling with worldly dust. If they could bow, this would mean the worldly is the Way and the Way can be worldly; if the worldly also mingles with the Way, then one would become two, and the Way would not operate solely. How then could one demarcate the constant realms of the Way and the world, and preserve the ultimate sincerity of devoted oneness? According to the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, revering the kāṣāya is like revering a Buddha stūpa. It calls the kāṣāya the robe of the field of merit; the robe is named "emaciating" because it can emaciate afflictions; the armor is named "forbearance" because it can subjugate the demon armies. It is also compared to the lotus unstained by mire, and serves as the banner-mark of all Buddhas. Thus, the meaning of the kāṣāya is supreme indeed.