集沙門不應拜俗等事 2.11

2.11

In examining the essential points clarified by the Buddha's teachings, the difference lies between renunciation and remaining [in the world]. Among those who have left home, there are broadly four classes. Their propagation of the Dharma and benefit to beings equal the merit of emperors and kings, and their transformation combines with the way of governance. As for moving the mundane and awakening the age, there is no generation that lacks them. However, they act or withdraw according to circumstance; hence their decline or flourish is merely concealment or manifestation. Among these that can be discussed, allow me to speak briefly. Those who revere the Dharma while remaining at home are subjects who comply with transformation. Their feelings have not departed from convention, and their traces are identical with those within the realm. Thus they have the love of natural kinship and the propriety of serving their sovereign. Propriety and reverence have their source, and taking this as the basis, the teaching is formed; tracing back that on which it is based, its merit stems from the past. For this reason, based on affection toward kin, love is taught, causing the people to know that there is natural grace; based on strictness, respect is taught, causing the people to know that there is natural gravity. The coming of these two is truly due to hidden response. Since the response does not lie in the present, one ought to trace its root. Therefore, retributive punishment for offenses is used as penalty to make them cautious after being fearful; heavenly palaces are used as noble rewards to make them act after being pleased. These all clarify the teaching based on retributive effects, reaching through compliance without altering what is natural. Why is this? Cherishing the person and preserving life take being fettered by attachment as an entanglement. The root is deep and the cause lies in the self; inverted views are not yet forgotten. They are just about to take emotions and desires as their parks and groves, sights and sounds as their spectacles; immersed in worldly pleasures, they cannot exert themselves to stand out. Therefore, the restriction of the teaching takes this as its boundary, and does not clarify what lies beyond it. When what lies beyond is not yet clarified, then they are largely the same as those who comply with transformation. Hence they cannot receive the [ruler's] virtue while neglecting his rites, nor partake of his benevolence while abandoning respect for him. Therefore, those who delight in the tradition of Śākya always first serve their parents and revere their sovereign; those who change their worldly ways and cast aside their hairpins must await orders and act in compliance. If sovereign or parents have doubts, they withdraw to pursue their aspiration and await mutual awakening. This is how the Buddha's teaching values the sustenance of life and assists the royal transformation in the way of governance. The purport of the disputants' arguments seemingly shares some common ground. Therefore, I establish the division between internal and external to clarify their devotion to the three [father, ruler, and teacher], briefly recounting the scripture's meaning to convey what I harbor in mind.