弘明集 12.82

12.82

Recently I received your note and the essays of various people, none of which has resolved my doubts; proceeding to debate further will likely only lead us astray. Now I shall once more reiterate my previous intention and present it in detail; I hope you will be able to halt the reins of your White Horse and know that debate must have its limits. What the Buddhist teaching values is entirely based on prizing the spirit; therefore, masters and disciples respect one another, with no peer to compare with this relationship. Generally speaking, the brightness or darkness of spirits each has its original allotment; that which this allotment draws upon has its original endowment. The merit of a master lies in evoking awakening, just like polishing and burnishing the rough jade of Jing. If the substance is not fine jade, what benefit is there in cutting and grinding? Thus beauty and ugliness reside in nature; profound virtue lies in the initial endowment, and the labor of burnishing is truly secondary. Having jade within oneself and then being crafted into an implement by an artisan—without the way of the ruler, there would be no means to develop this life and allow the realization of its Dao. Thus among the weight of the 'Three to be Served', the master is secondary. Why do I say this? The way of the ruler embraces the master, whereas the master does not embrace the ruler. Teaching to broaden them, laws to equalize them—this is the way of the ruler. Is it not so? How can one, based on the lesser principle, strip away the respect due to the sovereign? Reading through this principle repeatedly, I am all the more perplexed and astonished. The intention of creating rituals belongs to the former, not the latter; applying them mistakenly will only make the harm worse. I hope you will grasp the purport and prize the substance, attaining it as if on the river Hao.