集沙門不應拜俗等事 5.10

5.10

竊以。道教沖虛釋門祕寂。至於照仁濟物崇義為心。乃睠儒風。理將無異（彈曰。儒教所明不踰寰域釋宗所辯高出見聞。故魏東陽王丕曰。佛法沖洽非儒墨者所知今言不異。何多謬耶）至若宿德耄齒戒律無虧。棲林遯谷高尚其事。若斯儔輩可致尊崇。其有弱齓蒙求熏修靡譽。背真混俗心行多違。以此不拜。義難通允（彈曰。夫稱沙門者何也。謂紹法象賢發蒙啟化。儀異搢紳之飾教殊廊廟之規。求宗故所以直骸。孰可分其德業。矯俗故由茲抗禮。寧容隔以尊卑）但在家在國事君事親。不拜之儀。何可以訓（彈曰。誠哉奉君親者。無宜不拜沙門不事王侯背思天屬以拜為訓似未之思）望請勒拜。垂憲於後。謹議。

I venture to consider: The Daoist teaching is open and void, while the gate of the Śākya is secret and quiescent. As for illuminating benevolence to rescue living beings and revering righteousness in their hearts, when looking upon the Confucian tradition, in principle they should not differ. (Critique: What Confucian teaching illuminates does not exceed the worldly realm; what the Śākya school expounds towers far above what is seen and heard. Therefore, Prince Pi of Dongyang of the Wei dynasty said: 'The Buddha-Dharma is profound and vast, not something those of the Ru or Mo schools can understand.' Now you say they do not differ; how full of error!)

As for those of long-standing virtue and advanced age whose Vinaya discipline is without flaw, who dwell in forests and withdraw to valleys, holding their pursuit aloft—cohorts such as these may be accorded reverence. But as for young novices seeking learning whose cultivation has earned no renown, who turn their backs on the Real and mingle with the secular, their mental conduct full of transgressions—for these to not bow, it is hard for this principle to be accepted. (Critique: What does it mean to be called a śramaṇa? It means continuing the Dharma, emulating the worthy, enlightening the ignorant, and initiating transformation. His demeanor differs from the attire of court officials, and his teachings are distinct from the rules of ancestral temples and courts. In seeking the fundamental truth, he holds his body upright; who can divide this based on virtue and enterprise? To rectify worldly customs, he stands as an equal in etiquette; how could he allow himself to be partitioned by worldly status?)

Now, at home or in the state, serving the sovereign or serving parents, how could the ceremony of not bowing be used as a moral instruction? (Critique: True indeed! Those who serve the sovereign and parents should certainly not fail to bow. But the śramaṇa does not serve kings or princes, and has turned his back on natural family affections; to take bowing as an instruction seems ill-considered.)

We request that they be ordered to bow, handing down a statute for posterity. Respectfully deliberated.