集沙門不應拜俗等事 4.50

4.50

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.