弘明集 12.75

12.75

又云。周孔之化救其甚弊。故盡於一生而不開萬劫之塗。夫以神奇為化。則其教易行異於督以仁義盡於人事也。是以黃巾妖惑之徒。皆赴者如雲。若此為實理。行之又易。聖人何緣舍所易之實道。而為難行之末事哉。其不然也。亦以明矣。將以化教殊俗理在權濟恢誕之談。其趣可知。又云。君臣之敬理盡名教。今沙門既不臣王侯。故敬與之廢。何為其然。夫敬之為理。上紙言之詳矣。君臣之敬。皆是自然之所生。理篤於情本。豈是名教之事耶。前論已云。天地之大德曰生。通生理存乎王者。苟所通在斯。何得非自然之所重哉。又云。造道之倫必資功行。積行之所因。來世之關鍵也。擬心宗極不可替其敬。雖俯仰累劫而非謝惠之謂。請復就來旨而借以為難。如來告。是敬為行首。是敦敬之重也。功行者當計其為功之勞耳。何得直以珍仰釋迦而云莫尚於此耶。惠無所謝。達者所不惑。但理根深極情敬不可得無耳。臣之敬君。豈謝惠者耶。

You also say: “The teachings of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius remedied acute corruptions, hence they were restricted to a single lifetime and did not open up the path of myriad kalpas.” Now, transforming [people] through the miraculous and extraordinary makes a teaching easy to propagate, unlike exhorting with benevolence and righteousness, which is thoroughly restricted to human affairs. This is why the likes of the bewitched Yellow Turban rebels gathered like clouds. If this were the genuine truth and so easy to practice, for what reason would the sages have abandoned the easy, real Dao to engage in secondary matters that are difficult to practice? That this is not so is abundantly clear. Converting and teaching strange customs relies upon expedient salvation through extravagant, baseless talk; its purport can well be known. You also say: “The respect between ruler and subject finds its rationale fully in the teaching of names. Since śramaṇas do not serve kings and nobles as subjects, respect is abolished along with it.” Why should that be so? As for the principle of respect, it was stated in detail in my previous letter. The respect between ruler and subject is entirely born of what is natural; its principle is deeply rooted in the fundamental sentiments—how could it be merely a matter of the teaching of names? The previous treatise already said: “The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is called life; the continuity of life lies with the ruler.” If that which gives continuity resides in him, how could it not be revered by nature itself? You also say: “Those who cultivate the Dao must rely upon meritorious practice. The accumulation of practice is the pivot of future lifetimes. When directing one's mind toward the ultimate origin, one's respect cannot be discarded; though one bows and prostrates for accumulated kalpas, it is not a matter of thanking for favors.” Allow me to take up your stated intent and use it to present a challenge. According to your letter, respect is the foremost among practices; this is to prize respect heavily. As for meritorious practice, one ought to calculate the labor of one's achievement; how could one merely revere and admire Śākyamuni and claim that nothing surpasses this? That no favors are to be thanked is something the enlightened do not doubt, but because the root of the principle is exceedingly deep, the respect of natural feeling cannot be dispensed with. How could a minister's respect for a ruler merely be to thank him for favors?