集沙門不應拜俗等事 5.68

5.68

When the Two Modes were first opened, the way of ruler and minister was already exalted; when the Three Powers were first divided, the affection of father and son was already present. None failed to exert their limbs and all complied with affection and reverence. Therefore we know that ruler and minister, father and son, are endowed by nature; between the utmost veneration and utmost intimacy, nothing can intervene. As for the teachings of Śākya and Laozi, they have only been revered in recent times: Buddhism arose during the Han dynasty, while Daoism was established in the Song dynasty. Both depended on the decrees of the rulers of the time and parental permission to dye their black robes and claim to enter the Way. Without such sanction, they could not renounce the world. Although renouncing the world is called leaving behind the mundane sphere, they still dwell within the realm to practice the Way (this matter is refuted as in the petition of the Office of Fords). All within the realm are called the king's subjects; we have never heard that this was limited to the black or the white (this matter is refuted as in the petition of the Left Street-Clearing Guard). Father gives birth and mother nurtures—boundless is the debt, difficult to repay. Although they claim to leave the dust behind in their practice, they must still honor benevolence and righteousness in their persons. How could it be tolerated that, having never demonstrated loyalty as ministers or extended warmth and care as sons, they merely take advantage of imperial favor to change into plain robes, shave their hair, and claim to have truly entered the Way, yet relying on this boastful arrogance they slight the ruler and disparage parents, holding themselves aloof before emperors and not bowing to father and mother? As ministers, they incur the fault of lax negligence; as sons, they invite the crime of disrespect (this matter is refuted as in the petition of the Left Street-Clearing Guard). Mediocre fellows consider this natural, and past dynasties forgave their ignorance (Refutation: Formerly, the Han Emperor lowered his etiquette before Moteng [Kāśyapa Mātanga], and the Ruler of Wu yielded his status before Kang Senghui. In the state of Zhao, Fotudeng received favored prestige and brocade robes; under the Qin, Dao'an enjoyed the honor of sharing the imperial carriage. These all showed that their virtue swayed the ruler of ten thousand chariots and their Way humbled the supreme pinnacles. How much more so when the worthy are everywhere to be found—how could they be called 'mediocre fellows without knowledge'?). Because this has been followed for a long time, it has been practiced without reform. His Holy Majesty, having resumed the imperial standard, wishes to reform previous errors, govern the common people with filial piety, and uphold the Teaching of Names. Hence he issued an imperial decree to clarify the standard statutes, yet fearing to violate customary feelings, specially ordered detailed deliberations. We have respectfully examined the extant texts of both Buddhism and Daoism: those who are self-conceited and proud are difficult to deliver (Refutation: Upholding the Way without bending—how can that be considered pride?). In all matters, modesty and restraint must be observed without losing humble yielding. Quietly reflecting on these words, the meaning becomes apparent. Even those who, having achieved the Way, soar through the void and mount cranes, or who deeply cultivate dhyāna and attain the five superknowledges—such people are still willing to be humble and yield. How much more so for mediocre monks and nuns living today in the king's land, whose black robes merely distinguish them from laypeople, yet who understand little else? (Refutation: Dongfang Manqian said, 'How easy it is to talk! How easy it is to talk!' Alas! Within the śramaṇa community, achievements are truly abundant; since the Sacred Dynasty began, there have certainly been many. Moreover, in the imperial capital, the ranks of monks with flourishing virtue are like a forest! To briefly cite the ten categories to enlighten the uncomprehending: as for translating scriptures, there are Prabhākaramitra and Xuanzang; for doctrinal interpretation, Sengbian and Fachang; for the practice of dhyāna, Tancheng and Huiyin; for protecting the Dharma, Falin and Mingzhan; for illuminating the Vinaya, Xuanwan and Zhishou; for sympathetic resonance, Tongda and Zhuanming; for self-renunciation, Xuanlan and Fakuang; for recitation, Huiquan and Kongzang; for virtuous reputation, Zhikai and Fayan; at Hongfu Temple, there are Demei and Zhixing. People of this kind are fully listed in the monastic histories. To say they 'understand little else'—how utterly thoughtless!). They only pride themselves on staying above others. In Buddhist teachings, such an attitude is never heard of. Whenever one meets any person, one should pay reverence according to the scriptures; how much more so before the supreme sovereign and one's parents! To order them to bow down is entirely reasonable. As for monks, nuns, Daoist priests, and Daoist priestesses, regarding the Emperor, the Empress, the Crown Prince, and their own parents, we request that they all be ordered to kneel in accordance with the imperial edict, so that the humility of the two teachings may shine forth and the Teaching of Names may flourish for ten thousand generations. Respectfully submitted.