弘明集 12.78

12.78

故本起經云。正言似反。此之謂矣。公云。行功者當計其為功之勞。何得直以珍仰釋迦而云莫尚於此耶。請試言曰。以為佛道弘曠事數彌繁。可以練神成道。非唯一事也。至於在心無勌於事能勞珍仰宗極。便是行功之一耳。前答所以云。莫尚於此者。自謂擬心宗𨅊其理難尚。非謂禮拜之事。便為無取也。但既在未盡之域。不得不有心於希通。雖一分之輕微。必終期之所須也。公云。君臣之敬。皆是自然之所生。理篤於情本。豈是名教之事耶。敬戢高論。不容間然。是以前答云。君人之道竊同高旨者。意在此也。至於君臣之敬事盡揖拜。故以此為名教耳。非謂相與之際盡於形迹也。請復重申以盡微意。夫太上之世。君臣已位。自然情愛則義著化本。于斯時也。則形敬蔑聞。君道虛運。故相忘之理泰。臣道冥陶。故事盡於知足。因此而推形敬不與心為影響。殆將明矣。及親譽既生茲禮乃興。豈非後聖之制作事與時應者乎。此理虛邈良難為辯。如其未允。請俟高尚。

Therefore the Benqi jing says: “Right words seem their contrary”—this is what it means. You say: “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?” Allow me to venture a reply: I consider the Buddhist Dao to be vast and expansive, its items and practices immensely manifold; through them one can train the spirit and accomplish the Dao, which is not confined to a single matter. As for the mind being unwearied in its tasks, able to endure the toil of revering and admiring the ultimate origin—this is simply one aspect of practicing merit. The reason my earlier reply said that “nothing surpasses this” was in reference to setting one's mind upon the ultimate origin, whose principle is difficult to surpass; it did not mean that the act of bowing and prostrating is without value. But being in the realm of the unperfected, one cannot but set one's mind upon aspiring to reach through. Even if it is a single light and subtle part, it is indispensable for the ultimate goal. You say: “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?” I hold your lofty argument in reverence; there is no room for divergence. This is why my previous reply stated that the way of ruling men is secretly in accord with your noble intent—this was the meaning. As for the respect between ruler and subject being realized through bowing and prostrating, it was only for this reason that I regarded it as the teaching of names; I did not mean that the relationship between them is limited to outward forms. Allow me to state this again to express my slight meaning fully. In the highest antiquity, the positions of ruler and subject were already established; the natural affection of sentiment and righteousness was manifest at the root of civil transformation. At that time, bodily expressions of respect were unheard of; the way of the ruler moved through non-action, and thus the principle of mutual oblivion was untroubled; the way of the subject was darkly molded, and affairs were concluded in contentment. Deducing from this, that bodily respect does not serve as shadow or echo to the mind is almost plain to see. When intimacy and praise arose, this ritual then sprang forth; is this not the creation of later sages, whose actions responded to the times? This principle is ethereal and remote, truly difficult to debate. If you do not yet agree, I must await your elevated judgment.