集沙門不應拜俗等事 5.70

5.70

竊以。三教五儀咸窮叡想。殊塗一致必俟尊嚴。釋老戒時尊崇是務。周孔訓俗嚴敬為先。遂使緇衣之酋抽簪奉教。青襟之伍映雪傳芳。為百代之楷模。作千齡之准的。且誕靈舍衛道自尸毘。既有母子之恩（事如右司禦衛議中彈）豈隔君臣之禮。緇黃雖異賢智寧殊。拜伏君親誠乖昔典（彈曰。據教令拜。有益乎。有損乎。有益也。豈以乖昔典而不拜乎。有損也豈以順昔典而令拜乎。今只可約損益以昌。言無宜據乖順而申議）無聖即仍舊。有聖則典移。法既俟聖方興。亦冀緣興改法。曹司僉議。請從拜禮。謹議。

We venture to consider: the three teachings and the five rituals all exhaust sagely thought; though taking different paths to the same goal, they inevitably rely on veneration and dignity. When Śākya and Laozi gave precepts to their times, reverence was their concern; when the Duke of Zhou and Confucius instructed the mundane, solemn respect was foremost. Thus the leaders of the black robes cast off hairpins to uphold the teaching, and the ranks of blue collars reflected snow to transmit fragrant learning, serving as models for a hundred generations and standards for a thousand years. Moreover, the Holy One was born in Śrāvastī and the Way originated with King Śibi; since there is the debt to mother and son (this matter is refuted as in the petition of the Right Palace Guard), how could the etiquette of ruler and minister be severed? Although black and yellow differ, how could the worthy and wise be distinct? Bowing down to ruler and parents admittedly departs from ancient statutes (Refutation: Ordering bowing based on the teachings—is it beneficial, or is it harmful? If beneficial, how could one fail to bow merely because it departs from ancient statutes? If harmful, how could one order bowing merely because it accords with ancient statutes? Now, one should only speak based on benefit and harm; it is unfitting to submit a deliberation merely based on departure or accord). In the absence of a sage, one maintains the old; when a sage appears, the statutes shift. Since the Dharma awaited a sage before flourishing, we also hope that, following this flourishing, the rules may be amended. The unanimous deliberation of our office requests that the bowing ritual be observed. Respectfully submitted.