弘明集 12.78

12.78

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.