集沙門不應拜俗等事 6.42

6.42

論曰。威衛司列等狀詞則美矣。其如理何咸不惟。故實昧於大義。苟以屈膝為敬。不悟亡脣之禍。內經稱。沙門拜俗損君父功德及以壽命。而抑令俯伏者。胡言之不認輕發樞機哉。雖復各言其志。亦何傷之太甚。而威衛等狀通塞兩兼。司列等狀一途氷執。或訪二議優劣。余以為楚則失矣。齊亦未為得也。然兩兼則膚腠。氷執乃膏肓。故升威衛於乙科。退司列於景第。至若範公質議則旨贍文華。隴西執奏言約理舉。既而人庶斯穆龜筮叶從。故得天渙下覃載隆高尚之美慈育之地。更弘拜伏之仁。時法侶名僧都鄙耆耋。僉曰。叶私志矣。違教如何。於是具顯經文廣陳表啟。匪朝伊夕連訴庭闕。但天門邃遠申請靡由。奉　詔求宗難為去取。易曰。羝羊觸蕃。羸其角方之釋。侶豈不然歟。贊曰。

The commentary states: The wording of the submissions by the Guard of Prestige and the Ministry of Appointments was fine indeed, but what could be done about the principle? Neither considered precedents, and they were blind to the Great Righteousness. Merely taking bending the knee as respect, they failed to realize the disaster of lips being lost. The inner scriptures state that when a śramaṇa bows to laypeople, it diminishes the merit and lifespan of the ruler and parents; yet forcing them to prostrate—why did they speak without understanding, recklessly setting the pivotal mechanisms in motion? Although each expressed their intention, why was the harm so excessive? Now the submission of the Guard of Prestige combined both accommodation and restriction, while the submission of the Ministry of Appointments adhered as rigidly as ice to a single path. If one inquires into the merits and demerits of the two arguments, I believe Chu was in error, and Qi was not right either. However, combining both is merely superficial, while ice-like obstinacy is deep in the core. Therefore the Guard of Prestige was placed in the second grade, and the Ministry of Appointments was relegated to the third rank. As for Lord Fan's inquiry and deliberation, its points were ample and its writing was brilliant; the Longxi memorial was concise in words and comprehensive in principle. Thereupon the populace became harmonious, and the tortoises and milfoil agreed. Thus the heavenly favor descended broadly, once again enhancing the detached beauty; and in the place of loving nurturing, the benevolence of bowing down was further promoted. At that time, renowned monks of the Dharma assembly, elders from both the capital and the countryside, all said: 'It satisfies personal intentions, but what of its violation of the teaching?' Thereupon they fully revealed the scriptural passages and widely presented memorials and petitions; day and night without interruption they pleaded before the palace gates. But the gates of Heaven were deep and distant, and there was no way for their requests to penetrate. Receiving an imperial edict that inquired after the fundamental principles, it was hard to know what to accept and what to reject. The *Book of Changes* says: 'A ram butts against a hedge and entangles its horns.' Comparing this to the companions of Śākya, is it not indeed so? The encomium states: