[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [集沙門不應拜俗等事](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108) › 4.50 # 集沙門不應拜俗等事 4.50 集沙門不應拜俗等事 4.50 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4.50) 一勅云。連河之化付以國王。裁制之由諒歸斯矣者。竊尋付囑之意。恐不如此。何者。佛以像法末年淳心漸薄。邪見增長正法衰替。四部之眾無力弘宣。是以付囑國王令王擁護如其王者不護。法當衰沒自壞。豈勞付囑令王毀壞。今僧徒雖復凡鄙而容儀似佛。使之跪拜。還如佛拜。一至於此則存之無益。且夫去好異順大同者。君子之道也。故　先朝云。以人從欲亂於大道。君子所恥。此風未遠。伏願依行。人或問曰。經中既說。新學比丘禮維摩詰足。不輕菩薩亦致敬於慢眾。況今　聖主示為白衣。神德則不謝於維摩。立行則不同於慢眾。今使僧拜正合其宜。更有何辭敢不從順。答不可以一人別行而亂於大教。若以比丘頂禮於居士。則令五眾設拜於君親。俗人有居母喪而不哀。豈使天下喪親而不哭。至如莊周對婦屍而歌樂。知存歿如四時。孟孫居母喪而不慼。達死生乎一貫。此皆體道勝軌。何不令天下俱行。若以體道之情。不可施於國法者。彼亦證理之行。豈得施於大化之議風也　夫議者蓋欲取其大理。以成畫一之法。三教之法即國王法。其法既成終天不易。若不行用則須除廢。若行用之必須述其教跡。昔聞帝王禮佛。未見佛禮帝王。所以帝王敬法服者。以先聖國王受佛付囑。歷代遵承佛教故也。父母敬其袈裟。不可屈其佛衣。招父母之過。自古帝王度人出家。去其鬚髮與其佛衣。不拘常俗。令作導師。敷演法教而作福田。若令其禮拜則屈其尊服。付囑之義安在。今欲改變。恐昧理之流心有疑惑。因生其過。譬由敬泥龕木像以其圖寫佛容。若不覩相欽承。泥木一何可貴。泥木尚假佛儀。僧尼還託法服。無假無託釁伐誰代。如愚所見。望請循舊不拜為定。謹議。 > Next: The imperial edict states, 'The transformation along the \[Nairañjanā\] River was entrusted to state rulers; the reason for making regulations surely reverts to this.' Upon investigating the intention of that entrustment, we fear it is not like this. Why so? The Buddha knew that in the final years of the Semblance Dharma, pure hearts would gradually thin, wrong views would increase, the true Dharma would decline, and the fourfold assembly would lack the strength to propagate it widely. Therefore he entrusted it to state rulers, ordering the kings to protect it. If kings do not protect it, the Dharma will naturally decline and destroy itself; why bother entrusting it to command the kings to destroy it? Although the monastic community is ordinary and vulgar, their demeanor resembles that of the Buddha; to make them kneel and bow is just like making the Buddha bow. Once it comes to this, retaining them brings no benefit. Moreover, discarding the love of oddity and complying with the great consensus is the Way of the gentleman. Thus the previous court stated: 'To follow human desires and disturb the Great Way is a disgrace to the gentleman.' This style is not far removed; we humbly wish that it be followed and practiced. Someone might ask: 'Since the scriptures state that newly trained monks bowed to the feet of Vimalakīrti, and the Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging also paid homage to the arrogant multitude—not to mention that the present Holy Sovereign manifests as a white-robed layman, his divine virtue is not inferior to Vimalakīrti, and his established practices are not the same as the arrogant multitude—now to make monks bow is precisely fitting. What further excuse could there be to dare not comply?' We answer: One cannot disturb the great teaching on account of an individual person's particular practice. If on the grounds of monks prostrating to a lay householder, one were to order the fivefold assembly to bow to sovereign and parents, \[consider this:\] some laypeople observe mourning for their mother without sorrow, yet could one cause all under heaven not to weep when mourning parents? Zhuang Zhou sang and made music facing his wife's corpse, knowing that life and death are like the four seasons; Mengsun was not grieved during mourning for his mother, realizing that life and death are of one continuum. These are all superior tracks of embodying the Way; why not command all under heaven to practice them together? If feelings that embody the Way cannot be applied to state laws, could those actions that realize the principle be applied to deliberating customs for the great transformation? Now those who deliberate intend to grasp the great principle to establish uniform laws. The laws of the Three Teachings are the laws of the state ruler; once these laws are established, they remain unchanged to the end of time. If they are not to be employed, they should be abolished; if they are to be employed, one must follow their doctrinal traces. In the past, we have heard of emperors bowing to the Buddha, but never seen the Buddha bowing to emperors. The reason emperors revere the Dharma robes is that former sagely state rulers received the Buddha's entrustment and successive generations complied with and upheld the Buddha's teachings. Parents revere their kāṣāya; they cannot bend the Buddha's robes and incur guilt upon parents. From antiquity, when emperors allowed people to renounce household life, they removed their hair and beard and gave them the Buddha's robes, freeing them from ordinary customs and having them act as guiding teachers, expounding the teachings of the Dharma and acting as fields of merit. If they are ordered to bow down, this debases their honored robes; where would the meaning of entrustment remain? Now to change this, we fear that those who are benighted concerning the principle will harbor doubt in their hearts, and thereby commit offenses. It is like venerating a clay niche or a wooden image because they depict the Buddha's countenance; if one did not view the forms and pay reverence, why would clay and wood be worthy of honor? Even clay and wood borrow the Buddha's demeanor; monks and nuns likewise depend on the Dharma robes. Without borrowing or dependence, who would bear the burden of transgressions? According to our foolish view, we hope and request that following the old ways and not bowing be settled as the norm. Respectfully submitted. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4.49) - [Next: 4.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4.51) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108~en-mt.4.50) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2108.4.50) · Pramāṇa