集沙門不應拜俗等事 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Compiled by Śramaṇa Yancong of Hongfu Temple

5.2

Chapter 3: Deliberations on Bowing under the Holy Dynasty (Part 1)

As for 'Deliberations on Bowing', it clarifies whether śramaṇas should pay homage. In the past, when the August Awakened One governed the realm, he still opened the origins of faith and slander; how could it be that in the Semblance and Final ages alone, generous and comprehensive deliberations would not circulate? Recently, because the ocean of the Dharma is vast and spacious and its kinds are gathered together yet hard to distinguish, impurities in the profound path have reached the ears of the court. This has caused scholars who cling to the texts to abandon the Way and follow men; speaking comparatively, this cannot yet be called a great song of broad accommodation. Therefore, I have investigated past precedents and criticized them accordingly, hoping that gentlemen who revere the Buddha might examine them in detail.

5.4

Deliberations in favor of bowing concurrently:
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Cui Andu, Secretary Shen Xuanming, and others of the Left Guard of Intimidation, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Li Qia and others of the Right Guard of the Clear Way, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Magistrate Zhang Songshou and others of Chang'an County, one piece.

5.5

Deliberations ordering them to bow:
Memorial of deliberations by Lesser Vice Minister of Personnel Yang Sixuan, Grand Master of Merit Evaluation Yang Shouzhuo, and others of the Department of State Affairs, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Grand Minister of Judicial Review Yan Liben and others, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Bureau Director Li Chunfeng and others of the Department of the Secret Archives of the Orchid Terrace, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Erudite Lü Cai and others of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Assistant Doulu Jian and others of the Court of the Imperial Granaries, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Chamberlain Yang Sixian and others of the Court of the Imperial Insignia, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Assistant Han Chuxuan and others of the Court of the Imperial Stud, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Lesser Minister of Justice Yuan Dashi and others of the Court of Judicial Review, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Assistant Xie You and others of the Court of State Ceremonial, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Assistant Liu Yuanzhen and others of the Palace Administration, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Supervisor of Fords Li Renfang and others, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Adjutant for Military Storage Zhao Chongsu and others of the Right Militant Guard, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Li Yifan and others of the Right Military Guard, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by General Xuegu Wuren, Administrator Liu Wencong, and others of the Right Guard of the Golden Plumage, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Palace Guard Commander Neng Xuanyi and others of the Right Gate Guard, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Metropolitan Governor Li Kuan and others of the Superior Area, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Middle Protector of the Left Spring Office Helan Minzhi, Mentor Yang Lingjie, and others, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Middle Protector of the Right Spring Office Hao Chujun, Mentor Yang Sizheng, and others, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Assistant Zhang Yue and others of the Court of the Night Watches, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Granary Officer Wang Jiusi and others of the Left Martial Guard, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by General Husi Jingze and others of the Right Martial Guard, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Ma Dashi and others of the Left Guard of Imperial Protection, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Cui Chongye and others of the Right Guard of Imperial Protection, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Jiang Zhenzhou and others of the Left Guard of the Clear Way, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Dou Shangyi and others of the Left Guard of Palace Enclosure, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Li Xingmin and others of the Right Guard of Palace Enclosure, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Qiu Shenjing and others of the Left Guard of Respectful Abundance, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Commander Wei Huaijing and others of the Right Guard of Respectful Abundance, one piece;
Memorial of deliberations by Merit Officer Liu Renrui and others of Yongzhou, one piece.

5.6

Memorials deliberating that śramaṇas should bow concurrently, three pieces in total:

5.7

Memorial of deliberations by Administrator Cui Andu, Secretary Shen Xuanming, and others of the Left Guard of Intimidation, one piece.

5.8

I venture to consider: When the purple vapour soared with the Real, the influence of the Mysterious Female spread west; when the white rainbow sank in transformation, the treasury of nirvāṇa flowed east. Reining in feathers and soaring upon clouds, their reflections rested on the Jade Capital, condensing manifold wonders; ferrying with compassion and illuminating quiescence, they opened the Golden Park, harmonizing with the supreme Way. Their doctrines surpass emptiness and existence; their principles penetrate the subtle and silent. They deliver and dispel the benighted dust of ignorance, perfuming and purifying karmic encumbrances. That the spiritual Way aids secular teaching is verified here; clear tracks have already been followed, yet degenerating abuses inherently demand restraint and reform. (Critique: Maintaining the Dharma with detachment is termed a 'degenerating abuse', while violating the scriptures to bow to laypeople is called 'restraint and reform'. When the practical matter itself is intolerable, how can the principle stand?)

Now, as for reverence towards the Three, the six lines of the hexagram elevate the emblems of superior and inferior; as the root of the hundred conducts, the Four Beginnings signal discourse on boundless affection. Only when the root is established does the Way arise; when reverence takes form, rites become solemn. This is truly the beginning of royal transformation, the constant warp of Heaven and Earth. The Buddha takes the Dharma as his master; the sovereign takes Heaven as his standard. Within the realm there are four great things, and the king occupies one of them. Since the kingly way matches them in balance, the heavenly law is fundamentally unified with them. The body is a Dharma vessel, and the Dharma is the root of the Way. Yellow-crowned Daoists admire the Way, and black-robed monks revere the Buddha. In paying reverence to sovereign and father, they profoundly accord with the dark waves of truth. (Critique: The Buddha-Dharma is the most venerable beyond the realm, while the sovereign and Heaven are the greatest within the realm. When the teaching persists yet monks are made to bend their unbridled stance and return to the ranks of registered commoners, this dams the waters of the Dharma so they cannot flow; how could it 'profoundly accord with dark waves'?)

Furthermore, even when someone is only slightly higher in ordination records, one exhausts solemnity in prostrating to him; how much more so when the noble and base are far apart—should one abruptly neglect respect in bending the knee? (Critique: Wang Mi said: 'The reason śramaṇas pay mutual respect between superior and inferior yet stand as equals in etiquette before the imperial residence is truly because, their religious aims being identical, an order between senior and junior is formed; whereas there is a gulf between the mundane and spiritual paths, so in principle there is no bowing down.' True indeed are these words; they may serve as a mirror.)

If one must roam alone through mountain forests, forgetting both self and other, conflating intimate and distant, treating praise and disgrace alike, then when benefit comes to me I would not deem it right, and when loss harms oneself, how could one call it wrong? Naturally, one ought to be obliterated of passions and constantly tranquil in quiescence; why rely on facing toward Kapilavastu to touch one's brow to the ground, or looking upon the Heavenly Worthy to make graceful bows? If one's dusty appearance does not differ from the secular, paying reverence does not contravene the Real. (Critique: Śramaṇas cast aside colored dress and wear black, creating a vast gulf between the sacred and the secular. Bowing violates the Buddha's teaching, as is fully revealed in the scriptural texts. Yet you claim that 'reverence does not contravene the Real' and 'appearance does not differ from the secular'—this is pointing south and calling it north, turning white into black.)

Moreover, Boyang left his instruction on 'softening one's glare', and Sadāparibhūta preached the teaching through constant bowing; these wondrously accord with the virtue of humbling the honored and remotely tally with the rule of illuminating neighbours. (Critique: Boyang was born in the Ji clan of Zhou and served as Clerk of the Pillars. As an official, he held a post in the royal court; as for his words on the Way, they were of a school kindred to the Confucians. Bowing down to sovereign and parents was certainly appropriate for him. As for Sadāparibhūta paying homage to the fourfold assembly, he enacted it based on principle. Principle makes no distinction between enemies and loved ones; he paid homage universally to noble and base alike. The imperial edict, however, restricts it to the supreme authorities and does not decree bowing to the humble and lowly. The Jing and Wei rivers are entirely distinct; they must not be conflated.)

Furthermore, among the Three Extremes, the teacher occupies the lowest place. If reverence is still shown to the branch, why should there be any doubt concerning the root? (Critique: The reason the disciples of the Śākya clan show mutual respect between teacher and student is precisely because their doctrinal principles are not distinct. It is not spoken of in terms of root and branch. How could you be so reckless?)

If one considers that the kāṣāya differs from dragon-embroidered robes, and the gauze kerchief is distinct from the pheasant cap, since the attire is already foreign, why must the bow be Chinese? Let each follow their own origin without violating the standard model. As for those whose pure conduct is one of upright retirement, whose pure rules inspire the secular, whose spiritual transformation echoes far, whose precepts and practice are diligent, whose literary elegance blooms like phoenixes in wutong trees, whose Sanskrit chanting is pure like cranes in the clouds, who summon wild beasts with brocade banners, or control spirits with jade tallies—for those of outstanding virtue and advanced age, exempt them from the bowing ritual. As for the rest, the beginners and junior students whose worldly fame is silent and scarce, order all of them to exhaust reverence toward sovereign and father, and we request that this be promptly codified into permanent statutes. (Critique: If not bowing is wrong, why should those of outstanding virtue and advanced age be exempted? If not bowing is right, junior students and beginners should not be ordered to bow. Moving back and forth, you contradict yourself, and your acceptance and rejection clash with each other. Requesting that this be promptly codified into permanent statutes—how short-sighted is your view!)

In this way, as they advance their virtue and cultivate their vocation, the path of transcending the dust will be all the more elevated; and as they dwell in austerity on their altars, their resolve to enter the Way will be even more spurred. The mysterious influence will thus reach far, and the state's statutes will be harmoniously woven together. We hope this will clearly demonstrate luminous standards and quiet and unify false abuses. (Critique: Taking deviation from the tradition as a luminous standard, and calling the observance of the Dharma a false abuse—judging by this, what in the rest of it is worth looking at?)

Why be constrained by the old when establishing our own precedent? To mirror an extraordinary principle, one must rely on extraordinary illumination. The heavenly mirror and profound perception embody sagacity and discern the subtle, exploring the legacy of principles beyond forms and exhausting the hidden import within the realm. Though this might temporarily startle ordinary ears, it will ultimately harmonize with the Great Way. Respectfully deliberated.

5.9

The above deliberation in one petition by Li Qia, Senior Cleric of the Guard of the Clear Way, and others.

5.10

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.

5.11

Deliberation in one petition by Zhang Songshou, Magistrate of Chang'an County.

5.12

I venture to reflect: The two gates of Buddhism and Daoism are identical in emptiness and quiescence. Even if one cannot train the mind beyond the realm and discard one's shadow from human society, one must still keep one's traces distinct from the secular and one's affairs separated from the worldly. However, nowadays those who enter renunciation often mingle with the dusty ranks; externally they regard themselves as lofty by not bending, while internally they devote themselves to private solicitation. In vain do they bear the name of entering the Way, possessing no reality of leaving the secular. (Critique: Not bending is done out of upholding the Dharma; private solicitation is indeed contrary to the teaching's principles. One should only tighten the disciplinary rules to punish those unruly elements; how could one set fire to Mount Kunlun wanting to incinerate both jade and stone alike?)

As for the standing of sovereign and parents, etiquette embraces both subject and child; where filial reverence is centered, its significance for family and state is profound. Without regulations, how could governance be maintained? We request that for monks, nuns, Daoist priests, and Daoist priestesses, when the Dao is demanded by the times or matters arise from Dharma assemblies, even before the sovereign and empress they may be permitted to follow the old model. Beyond this, we request that all be ordered to bow. If returning home to visit parents, the way of a son should be expressed; if in monasteries or abbeys, let them follow the Buddhist scriptures at will. (Critique: If monks and nuns ought to bow, there is no occasion when they should not bow; if they ought not, how can one distinguish times and places? How can a tonsured person be the same individual, yet differentiated rites are permitted based on location, while the Dharma robe is from beginning to end unchanging, yet distinct scriptures are fabricated based on practical events? This is wavering between two sides, merely courting contemporary acclaim; it cannot be called having an ambition to exalt family and state or offering loyalty and uprightness.)

We hope that, regarding humble subservience as a shame, they will gradually banish superficial rivalry, honor themselves with the Way and virtue, and progressively propagate the teachings of the Dharma. I venture to present my humble view, bowed down with increasing trepidation. Respectfully deliberated.

5.13

Deliberations on śramaṇas offering bows, twenty-nine petitions in total.

5.14

Deliberation in one petition by Yang Sixuan, Junior Grand Master of Ranks of the Central Department, Yang Shouzhuo, Grand Master of Merits, and others.

5.15

I venture to consider: The two teachings of Buddhism and Daoism fundamentally value the void and dark; expounding expedient means in the three vehicles, they accord with forgetting words through a single pointing finger. Solely silent and solitary, what do their silence and solitude not encompass? Neither existent nor non-existent, what do their existence and non-existence not perceive? The modern companions of the Dharma are indeed numerous, yet for long they have diminished the ritual of prostrating and kneeling. (Critique: May I ask where they were ever ordered to bow, such that you speak of 'diminishing' it?)
They place themselves in a lofty position, relying on conditioned precepts to merely clasp their hands to the unsurpassed sovereign and parents. (Critique: Having shaved their heads and embraced the Śākya lineage, in upholding the precepts it is improper to perform mundane bows.)
Examined through human feelings, their sentiment borders on reckless arrogance; sought in ultimate principle, the principle remains unconvincing. (Critique: Examined through human feelings, Chaofu and Xu You were never called reckless and arrogant; sought in ultimate principle, can śramaṇas ever be said to be unconvincing?)
Ordering them to pay reverence to sovereign and parents will hopefully hand down a standard for future generations. Respectfully deliberated.

5.16

Deliberation in one petition by Yan Liben, Grand Master of Rites and Judicial Officer, and others.

5.17

I venture to consider: Though quiescence and extinction hand down guidelines, they still promote the ritual of filial reverence; though non-action sets forth transformation, it ultimately accords with the etiquette of devout respect. Although the Way transcends what can be spoken of, the Way is still tied to the Three Honored Ones; though the Dharma empties all phenomena, the Dharma still encompasses the four great things. How much more so as the imperial plan extends far, unfurling the righteousness of Earth to proclaim its influence, and the sagely bounty moistens from afar, permeating the warp of Heaven to sprinkle its moisture! The influence of ultimate virtue in principle is not partitioned between the unseen and the manifest; the Great Way penetrates everywhere, and thus makes no division between the real and the secular. Yet men who transgress their bounds are vainly deluded by minds that attach to characteristics, and those who sink into the secular are still ensnared by the encumbrance of selfhood. (Critique: All the present monks have been ordained on behalf of the state since the sacred dynasty, intending thereby to assist the imperial tombs and bridge the common multitudes. To call them men who transgress their bounds or sink into the secular—does this not harm the fortune of the imperial house?)
They fail to recognize the nobility of the Ninefold Court, and are ignorant of the venerability of attaining the One; severing loyalty and filiality toward sovereign and father, they cast aside reverence and love toward the mother and empress. Seeking this in ultimate principle, I venture to deem it unreasonable. For all to bow to sovereign and parents does not violate the old statutes. Respectfully deliberated.

5.18

Deliberation in one petition by Li Chunfeng, Gentleman of the Palace Library Bureau.

5.19

I venture to consider: Among the gravest of the three thousand punishments, none is worse than coercing the sovereign and having no superior; (Critique: Śramaṇas enter the Way by receiving imperial grace; this is not called coercing the sovereign.)
among the extremities of the five punishments, none is worse than unfiliality and having no parents. (Critique: When parents release them to enter renunciation, how can this be unfilial?)
Therefore, rebelling against virtue and rebelling against propriety are the fundamental source of great disorder; (Critique: Monks act in every movement according to scriptural teachings; they do not rebel against virtue and propriety.)
reverence alone and loyalty alone are the correct path for ordering the state. (Critique: Although monks bodily omit serving parents, internally they cherish filial reverence; though their ritual diverges from serving the ruler, in their hearts they harbor indebtedness and loyalty.)
Now, the teaching of Lord Lao is empty and tranquil, relying on yielding weakness to achieve wholeness; the Buddhist scriptures are harmonious and serene, with Sadāparibhūta practicing universal reverence. (This matter is as critiqued in the Left Guard of Terror deliberation.)
We have never heard of arrogance toward sovereign and parents or boastful pride before the multitudes (Critique: Śramaṇas possess in their bodies the Buddha's precepts and embody the Buddha's deportment; humans and devas naturally revere them—how is this boastful pride?)
being that by which pure customs are encouraged or the state and family are brought to peace. If Daoist priests, Daoist priestesses, monks, and nuns are now ordered to respectfully bow to sovereign and parents, it causes no loss to Daoism or Buddhism, (Critique: A sūtra says: 'Bowing to a sovereign harms the sovereign; bowing to parents harms the parents.' If performing reverence violates the teaching, who can say there is no loss?)
while returning to the righteous law of the worldly king, greatly reforming former abuses and thoroughly eliminating moral decay. (Critique: Taking compliance with the Dharma as moral decay, and using violation of the teaching as reform and elimination—this can truly be called turning one's head toward the dark while going to Yue; the further one goes, the more one deviates from the Way.)
This will cause them forever to recognize the path of compliance and further understand the gravity of inborn nature. Respectfully deliberated.

5.20

Deliberation in one petition by Lü Cai, Erudite of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, and others.

5.21

First, we respectfully examine the Daodejing of Laozi, which says: "Within the realm there are four greats, and the king occupies one of them." We also examine the Humane Kings Prajñā Sūtra, which says: "Bodhisattvas at the position of the three kinds of worthies prior to the stages serve as the lords of the four continents." An inner scripture also says: "Even if a bhikṣu attains the fruit of srotāpanna, only after eighty thousand kalpas will he first see [a bodhisattva] prior to the stages." Now, ordering Daoist priests and priestesses to bow in reverence to the Great One within the realm, and monks and nuns to bow in reverence to bodhisattvas prior to the stages, does not contravene the original teachings; it is precisely appropriate. (Critique: The reason the Buddhist scriptures do not allow monks to revere laypeople is truly that their stations of renunciation and mundane life are different. Even though bodhisattvas of the three kinds of worthies are lords of the four continents, they still display the appearance of possessing wives and children and do not abandon their domestic status. While [scriptures] express deep faith in them in this manner, there is no explicit statement that one should pay homage to them. Hence, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Renunciants, when inquiring about and receiving what they have not yet heard from laypeople, should not make prostrations." According to this, it profoundly contravenes the original teaching; how could one say it is "precisely appropriate"?) The Empress and Crown Prince share equal honor with the Sovereign; by principle, it is appropriate to pay homage to them. (Critique: The Humane Kings Sūtra says: "The rule for renunciants is not to bow to kings." When bowing even to kings is not permitted, it can be clearly known regarding those below them.) Furthermore, we examine the Daoist scriptures, which state: "When a single Daoist priest attains the Way, posthumous glory extends to parents of seven generations." This means that establishing oneself and achieving the Way values glorifying earlier generations posthumously. Those of the present day who have not yet attained the Way should, by principle, bow in reverence to their living parents. Moreover, we examine the inner scriptures, which state that the Western Land of Wonderful Joy was originally established by the power of the vows of the bhikṣu Dharmākara; thus we know that the place of Wonderful Joy is the realm to which bhikṣus vow to be reborn. We also examine the Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life Sūtra, which says: "Those who vow to be reborn in the Land of Wonderful Joy must first be filial and support their parents," and later states, "and fully observe the rules of monastic conduct." Now, not seeing one's parents overnight requires kneeling and inquiring after them; this is the etiquette of filial piety. If one does not bow to parents, how can that constitute filial support? Now, requiring monks, nuns, Daoist priests, and priestesses to bow in reverence to their parents also does not violate the original teachings. (Critique: What the sūtra refers to regarding rebirth in the Western land covers both monastics and laity. Mentioning "filial support of parents" clarifies the cause for rebirth while dwelling in secular life; mentioning "fully observing the rules of monastic conduct" clarifies the cause for rebirth through renunciation. These represent a vast distance between the monastic and the secular, with two entirely distinct tracks of practice. How can one conflate those two causes and apply them both to the monastic assembly? Furthermore, filial support takes different forms according to station; how could it be limited to the rite of kneeling? Making one's name renowned in subsequent generations is also its ultimate reach. Thus, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states: "If śramaṇas were to carry their parents on their left and right shoulders, letting them defecate and urinate upon their bodies, even for an entire kalpa, they still could not repay a moment of their kindness. If they teach their parents to recognize the Three Jewels and the Four Noble Truths, receive and observe the five precepts, and practice the ten virtuous paths, in a single thought-moment they have repaid the kindness of their parents. Why is this? Carrying them and such things are merely mundane good deeds and cannot cause them to be born in heaven or realize sagely attainments. If they teach their parents to recognize the Noble Truths, the Jewels, and cause and effect, and to observe the upavāsa and keep the precepts, through these conditions they will be able to realize sagely attainments." The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya also states: "The Buddha said that a bhikṣu should not pay homage to any layperson." Although parents are said to occupy a revered place, they ultimately belong to the ranks of laypeople. The Buddha's teaching does not permit bowing to them; if one bows, one traps one's living parents in the posture of receiving reverence, bringing upon them immeasurable severe transgressions upon death. Could unfiliality at its extreme exceed this?) Respectfully examining the Rites of Zhou, there are nine types of prostrations; the first is called the "grounding-head bow" (qishou), about which the commentary states: "The head touches the ground." Examining the Book of Documents, the prostrations before Yu, Yi, and others are all described as the "grounding-head bow." This is the reverence of bowing to the ruler, universal throughout antiquity and the present. Now, the prostrations performed by monks and nuns precisely accord with the method of the grounding-head bow. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: "Guiding the multitude through quietude, hence they bow with grounded heads." However, if nuns are now ordered to perform the kneeling and prostrations of secular women, it is feared that because their robes are unsuited, this would violate conventional sentiment. The Sage has no fixed mind; he takes the minds of the hundred surnames as his own. When secular customs have long been practiced, one does not seek to alter them. Now, in requiring nuns and the like to bow in reverence, we request that they be permitted the grounding-head bow. This will not contravene the rituals of antiquity and the present, and will accord with the praise of the common people. (Critique: He who aspires to Yan Hui belongs to Yan's kind; the team of horses that emulates the swift steed belongs to the steed's category. Now, the nuns have relinquished worldly splendor alike and entered the Way without distinction; why should one solely worry about violating conventional sentiment and therefore wish to have them use the grounding-head bow? If one does not seek alteration, the grounding-head bow is not yet following the ordinary; since conventional sentiment is not followed, how could it accord with the praise of the common people?) We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.22

Deliberation submitted by Doulou Jian, Vice Director of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, and others (one piece)

5.23

We reflect that the models bequeathed by the Buddhist gate have their significance in quietude and emptiness, and the teachings established by the Daoist school find their principle in diminishment and humility. How could self-exaltation and esteem be considered nobility? (The matter is as critiqued in the deliberation of the Department of the Palace Library.) As for the decorum between sovereign and minister, father and son, and the ranks of the honored and humble, the noble and base, they share the same trajectory along different paths with the Confucian teachings. However, those of black robes and yellow caps have not penetrated the true Dharma; they cannot steadfastly uphold true words and pure precepts, but merely rely on robes and bowls to elevate and honor themselves. (Critique: The sūtras state that the kāṣāya is the banner-form of all buddhas, and also state that it is equivalent to a buddha's stūpa. The alms bowl is a vessel conforming to Dharma; from ancient times all buddhas have shared this vessel. Thus the Daśacakra Sūtra states: "An elephant king saw a hunter wearing a kāṣāya; out of reverence, he pulled out his own tusks and gave them to this hunter." Moreover, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: "The venerable Sāgata subdued a poisonous dragon within his bowl." Hence we know that the compliant vessel and the Dharma robe possess no small power. To wear them is inherently noble; why harbor deep doubts about it? Furthermore, Zhongni (Confucius) still showed reverence toward those carrying register tablets or wearing ceremonial robes; how much more should this vessel and robe not be revered?) The path of humility being deficient, the practice of perfumed cultivation is all the more lost. Thus, supreme majesty and reverence inherently belong to the sovereign and parents; in the return of reverence and homage, what distinction can there be between monastic and secular? May it move the imperial reflection above, while gathering these humble words below: by overhauling and renewing [the regulations], we request that the ritual of bowing be observed. We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.24

Deliberation submitted by Yang Sixian, Chamberlain for the Palace Patrol, and others (one piece)

5.25

The unyielding breaks while the yielding endures—this fanned the wondrous purports of the Mysterious Wind. Afflicting the body and sweetening humiliation—this promoted the subtle words of the Buddhist path. Therefore, they were able to open the source of being good at placing oneself below, and magnify the practice of Never Despising. (The matter is as critiqued in the deliberation of the Palace Library.) Thus, the Śrāvakas lowered their etiquette before the Vimalakīrti householder, (Critique: The sūtra says: "The householder Vimalakīrti manifested illness in Vaiśālī; though appearing to have a wife and children, he constantly practiced the pure brahma-conduct; though appearing to have dependents, he constantly took joy in remote seclusion." Although he was a layperson, he upheld the pure vinaya practices of a śramaṇa. Since he was equal to the monastic ranks, kneeling and bowing was indeed the standard decorum. Furthermore, he manifested past insight; when he attained the Dharma, how could they not bear reverence toward him? To cite this as a precedent is, we fear, inappropriate.) and the Archivist (Laozi) pledged his allegiance to the King of Zhou. These form the adornments of the black robes and establish the model for the yellow caps. From then on, their fundamental rules were lost; successive generations drowned in their true principle, and entrenched customs clung to their straying path. (Critique: Since Buddhism entered China, it has passed through generations of illustrious and sagely rulers; five times it faced submission through bowing, and three times it suffered expulsion and eradication. In all cases, because principle and facts could not be contravened, the old tracks were restored. Saying now that they "cling to confusion and drown in principle" seems rather absurd.) When the One Man acts, all things behold it. Uniting the cords of heaven and earth, drawing alongside the hundred kings, he turns the golden wheel across supreme territories and erects the Jade Capital within the mysterious realm. Consequently, he causes Daoist priests who have turned their backs on the true to pursue the distant style of the Archivist, and errant Buddhist śramaṇas to mend the discarded canons of the Śrāvakas. (Critique: What the Buddhist teachings clarify is that there are two kinds of people: first, Śrāvakas; second, Bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas have no fixed form and adjust their decorum according to each category; Śrāvakas shave their hair, dye their robes, and uphold elevated detachment to form a rule. The disciplinary rules of the Śrāvaka assembly do not allow them to pay homage to laypeople. Following this in respectful practice, why call it "errant Buddhism"?) Furthermore, the sun sheds its brilliance, marking peerless light in Heaven; the Great Emperor claims supreme honor, governing the realm and reaching the pinnacle of the three domains. Moreover, although the discipline and models of the two teachings sever secular appearances, their practice is confined to renouncing home; they have not managed to flee the state. (Critique: The reason śramaṇas do not bow to laypeople is precisely because they have severed secular appearances, not because they flee the state. As for the likes of Yan Guang and Duan Ganmu, or the assembly of the Ying riverbank and Mount Shang: some sat squatting upon meeting or merely bowed with clasped hands, yet their arrival did not mean remaining; some washed their ears to decline glory, and when summoned, would not arrive. This too was simply aloof detachment; did they flee the state?)

5.26

They share their endowment of form under the Xia mirror, and all look up to moral transformation under the Shun wind. How could they contest propriety with the imperial palace and hold aloof their true rules alone? Disrespecting the venerable and acting arrogant toward elders is insubordination among men. To serve the sovereign as a minister and revere the father carries no conflict with the Way. Examining and clarifying its principles, kneeling and bowing is appropriate. We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.27

Deliberation submitted by Han Chuxuan, Vice Director of the Court of the Imperial Chariots, and others (one piece)

5.28

In ritual there is nothing not revered, and the Teaching of Names is placed first. Sovereign and father are equally sustained; this is what the cardinal relationships esteem. Moreover, the Realized Man is good at placing himself below, finding subtlety in softening one's glare; the Bodhisattva Never Despising has his essential purpose in crushing arrogance. (The matter is as critiqued in the deliberation of the Chamberlain for the Palace Patrol.) These divergent thoughts arrive at the same destination; divided streams share the same source. This is that by which the hundred kings regulate order and fashion all things. Yet the companions of black and yellow have followed entrenched habits as ordinary customs, extinguishing love and respect for sovereign and parents, and practicing conceit toward the supreme pinnacle. Merely indulging private desires, (Critique: Śramaṇas cast off hair and beard, abandon worldly striving, and steadfastly preserve the Way without yielding; how could they be indulging private desires? The Book of Changes states: "Words are the hinge and spring of the gentleman; honor and disgrace reside therein." How can one not be cautious?) they casually throw the heavenly norm into disorder, staining the clear dust of Laixiang (Laozi's birthplace) and betraying the wondrous purports of the Lian River (where the Buddha entered parinirvāṇa). (Critique: The universal teachings at the Lian River all state that ordering śramaṇas to bow harms sovereign and parents. The pronouncements and edicts are manifest; how can one say they betray the purports?) Reflecting upon this in silent thought, it is truly chilling to the heart. (Critique: The Brahmājāla Sūtra states: "The rule for renunciants is not to pay homage to kings and parents." Also, the Satyakanirgrantha Sūtra states: "If a person slanders the Dharma of the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, reviles and obstructs it, all the good spirit kings will not protect his state; bandits will arise from the four quarters, flood and drought will become irregular, and the dead will be countless." Now, refusing to believe the Buddha's teachings and forcing them to kneel and prostrate is slander of the Dharma, and is obstruction. If the Buddha's words hold true, even smashing the head and crushing the body would not suffice to atone for the offense. How could it be avoided by mere silent thought and a chilled heart?) According to our humble opinion, performing prostrations is appropriate. We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.29

Deliberation submitted by Yuan Dashi, Junior Lord of the Court of Judicial Review, and others (one piece)

5.30

We reflect that when the white horse returned to the east, monasteries and saṅghārāmas were thereupon founded; when the green ox journeyed up to the west, abbeys and pedestals were first raised. None failed to illuminate the benighted and guide transformations forward. Yet the models for revering the sovereign are sparse and lacking in explicit words, whereas the custom of not bowing has been followed and inherited from the past. Not only does this violate human sentiments and propriety, it also contradicts the sacred scriptures. (The matter is as critiqued in the deliberation of the Department of Civil Service of the Central Ministry.) Furthermore, the ordained forms of Dharma robes demonstrate severance from the constant reverence of the ordinary stream; but how could the precious lotus pedestal teach not bowing to sovereign and parents? (Critique: Copper is born from stone, pearls are nurtured by water; only those who extract them understand them, whereas those who transmit rumors are bewildered. How much more so with the obscure and subtle Buddhist teachings, whose principles are difficult to fathom? To act without knowing—does it not mean precisely this?) The sovereign possesses the honor of Heaven and Earth; revering the sovereign distantly accords with scriptural teachings. Parents display the benevolence of birth and rearing; bowing to parents profoundly meets the source of the Dharma. Assessing affairs, it benefits the scriptures; exploring principles, it does not impair the Dharma. Marshalling our humble opinions, offering reverence is appropriate. We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.31

Deliberation submitted by Xie You, Vice Director of the Court of State Ceremonial, and others (one piece)

5.32

We reflect that the gravity of sovereign and parents reaches as high as the Vast Heavens; the rites of reverence and respect permeate the principle of the Teaching of Names. As for focusing the mind on the mysterious path or committing one's steps to the Dharma gate, none fail to revere the spirits and deities and not despise any creature. (The matter is as critiqued in the deliberation of the Court of the Imperial Chariots.) How could there be negligence and arrogance toward one's parents and refusal to submit before sovereign and father? Since this violates the etiquette of respectful obedience, we fear it encumbers the cause of seeking the Way. (Critique: The sincere cause is not encumbered; rather, what about trapping sovereign and parents?) We request that the old customs be reformed and that bows be offered in accordance with the imperial edict. We respectfully submit our deliberation.

5.33

Deliberation submitted by Liu Yuanzhen, Assistant of the Directorate of the Inner Palace Treasury, and others (one piece)

5.34

We venture to consider: In the rites, there is nothing that is not revered, and the Teaching of Names is primary. Ruler and father share in the same reliance; constant human norms hold them supreme. Moreover, after the Buddha entered extinction, the Dharma was entrusted to the kings of states; the regulations of unfolding and folding [the teachings] logically center upon the wise and holy. (Critique: The memorial of the Right Household Spring Secretariat states: "As for the entrustment, the Buddha saw that in the final years of the Semblance Dharma, wholesome minds would gradually thin out, wrong views would grow, and the correct Dharma would decline, such that the fourfold assembly would lack the power to propagate it widely. Therefore, he entrusted it to the kings of states to have them protect it. If they do not protect it, the Dharma will naturally disintegrate; why would an entrustment be required to have the kings destroy it?" Indeed, this grasps the intent of the entrustment.) Yet when extraordinary institutions are enacted, the black-haired commoners are constantly startled, while to share unthinkingly in unanimous opinion is a shame to the gentleman. When we ourselves institute the precedent, the statutes hanging like the sun and moon are established; though "the people may be made to follow them," why be constrained by the fondness for the winds and rains? In our foolish, limited view, rendering bows is appropriate. Respectfully submitted.

5.35

One memorial submitted by Li Renfang and others, Director of the Ford Control Office.

5.36

The way of love and reverence finds its ultimate principle in the ruler and parents. The virtue of respectful harmony is brilliantly manifest in the teachings of Śākya and Laozi. How could one, given life through the cover of Heaven and support of Earth, contend in etiquette with gods and men, or, having received one's physical form, hair, and skin [from them], make oneself equal in honor to one's parents? Looking at what is beyond the realm, one has not yet departed from the space between Heaven and Earth; considering the sphere beyond the mundane, one still dwells within the realm of Jambudvīpa. (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Court of the Imperial Guards.) Yet, by not bowing to the Son of Heaven, they resemble Yan Zun in declining vassalage; by making a deep bow with clasped hands to their closest kin, they are like the man of Song who called his mother by name. How can this serve as a bridge for all living categories, or guide the common masses? Could the teachings of the holy and wise ever come to this? (Critique: The Book of Changes states: "Using white reeds for a mat." It also states: "Submissiveness beneath the bed; profusely auspicious, then it will be without fault." Never has there been an instance of coercing them to bow while simultaneously saying, "Be a bridge." If you honor them and yet humiliate them, how is one to choose?) Having received the imperial edict to deliberate and report, we prostrate and request that they be ordered to bow. Respectfully submitted.

5.37

One memorial submitted by Zhao Chongsu and others, Military Affairs Administrative Assistant of the Right Militant Guard.

5.38

We venture to consider: When the Three Teachings arose, they all urged and encouraged goodness. Though their streams diverged, they converged in their direction toward virtue. Although the tracks of the black-robed and yellow-capped differ slightly, how could the decorum toward ruler and parents be severed? How could it be that, merely having cast off mundane robes, one immediately scorns the deportment of ritual, making a high bow to the imperial carriage and refusing to bow to one's strict father? The way of according reverence is deficient, and the traces of loyalty and filial piety are suddenly broken. This custom of Laozi and Śākya is not entirely good. (Critique: The inner and outer are opposed; the ultimate truth and the mundane contradict each other. How can one lightly wield the brush-tip and airily overlook the profound ultimate? Confucius said: "He who denies the sage is without law." How true indeed!) At present, standards are being bequeathed and institutions established, so that virtue and rites may harmonize. Where the canonical texts have suffered deviations and loss, they should be carefully deliberated and reorganized. Grounded in principle and examining sentiment, bowing is truly appropriate. Respectfully submitted.

5.39

One memorial submitted by Li Yifan and others, Chief Clerk of the Right Garrison Guard.

5.40

A father's benevolence and a son's filial piety stem from the heavenly constants; a ruler's righteousness and a minister's loyalty rely on the earthly rites. Among the weight of the Three Honored Ones, the ruler is foremost; of what is venerated in the Five Teachings, the father stands at the head. They are the nexus of human relations and the ultimate refuge of ministers and sons. Before the Buddha's path flourished, the black-robed and the mundane walked different paths; after its decline, both have depended upon the king of the state. Lianhe was governed by the sovereign lord, and the entire district of Laixiang was registered as imperial households. Moreover, when Śākyamuni attained extinction, he entrusted [the Dharma] to the kings of states. (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Inner Palace Palace Service.) The descendant of Old Lao has accomplished this magnificent enterprise: donning black and yellow in place of mundane dress, holding the precious mirror to preside over the realm as lord. Even if the Buddha's path is solemn and revered, the heavenly throne is ever weightier: the emperor and the mother of the state are supreme and most honored. To touch one's head to the ground with devout sincerity does not impede the awakening to the Way. (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Tongwen Office.) While the ultimate true principle is still cultivated daily with diligence, honoring the Buddha and bowing to Heaven only further perfects correct enlightenment. Respectfully submitted.

5.41

One memorial submitted by General Xuegu Wuren, Chief Clerk Liu Wencong, and others of the Right Golden Guard.

5.42

The Daoist school establishes its tenets valuing softness and humility; the Buddhist teaching takes guidance and rescue as its essential aim. Even though one may surpass the nine classes of immortals and take flight, one's purpose should not conflict with harmonizing with the mundane dust; though one transcends the ten grounds and lets one's spirit wander, how could one's practice run counter to forbearance? Furthermore, the ruler and parents are honored and weighty, rivaling Heaven and the sternest authority with abundance; ministers and sons are loyal and respectful, rendering bows and prostrations without transgressing. This is indeed the great constant of ten thousand states, the enduring track of a thousand generations; in moments of haste one must tread it, and even for a brief instant it can hardly be abandoned. As for the two teachings of the black and yellow, they abruptly undermine this decorum, exclusively monopolizing practices of arrogance and failing to cultivate the deportment of according reverence. (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Imperial Chariot Service.) They vainly initiate a corrupt custom and truly deviate from constant standards. (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Right Militant Guard.) Although the methods of urging and guidance take many paths, they all converge in benefiting living beings; how could they abandon the proper norms of righteousness? Why must an arrogant posture be assumed before one can scale the realm of all marvels, or reverent compliance in expressing integrity suddenly estrange one from the sphere of thusness? (This matter is as critiqued in the memorial of the Left Garrison Guard.) Examining their essential purport from afar, we deeply consider this not to be so. Rendering bows to the ruler and parents is truly the universal principle. We respectfully exhaust our foolish understanding, hoping it might accord with the grand design. Deeply fearing we may be mistaken, we withdraw with shame and trepidation. Respectfully submitted.

First 42 of 74 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

集沙門不應拜俗等事 — Classical Chinese