集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.34

1.34

初難　來示云。沙門雖意深於敬。而不以形屈為禮　難曰。沙門之敬。豈皆略形存心。懺悔禮拜亦篤於事。爰暨之師逮于上座與世人揖跪。但為小異其制耳。既不能忘形於彼。何為忽儀於此。且師之為理。以資悟為德。君道通生則理宜在本。在三之義。豈非情理之極哉　來示云。外國之君莫不降禮。良以道在則貴。不以人為輕重也　難曰。外國之君非所宜喻。而佛教之興亦其指可知。豈不以六夷驕強非常教所化。故大設靈奇使其畏服。既畏服之。然後順軌。此蓋是大懼鬼神福報之事。豈是宗玄妙之道耶。道在則貴。將異於雅旨。豈得被其法服便道在其中。若以道在然後為貴就如君言。聖人之道道之極也。君臣之敬愈敦於禮。如此則沙門不敬。豈得以道在為貴哉　來示云。歷年四百歷代有三。而弘之不異。豈不以獨絕之化有日用於陶漸。清約之風無害於隆平者乎　難曰。歷代不革。非所以為證也。曩者晉人略無奉佛。沙門徒眾皆是諸胡。且王者與之不接。故可任其方俗不為之檢耳。今主上奉佛親接法事。事異於昔。何可不使其禮有准日用清約有助于教。皆如君言。此蓋是佛法之功。非沙門傲誕之所益也。今篤以祇敬將無彌濃其助哉　來示云。功高者不賞。惠深者忘謝。雖復一拜一起。豈足答濟通之恩　難曰。夫理至無酬。誠如來旨。然情在罔極則敬自從之。此聖人之所以緣情制禮。而各通其寄也。若以功深惠重。必略其謝。則釋迦之德為是深耶。為是淺耶。若淺耶。不宜以小道而亂大倫。若深耶。豈得彼肅其恭而此弛其敬哉。

First Refutation: Your letter stated: 'Although the śramaṇas are profound in their intent regarding reverence, they do not take physical bowing as their ritual.' To this I refute: In the reverence of the śramaṇas, how could it be that they completely omit the physical form and retain only the mind? In repentance, ritual bowing, and prostration, they are exceedingly attentive in practice. Reaching down to their masters and up to the seniors, their clasping of hands and kneeling before worldly people merely differ slightly in ritual regulations. Since they cannot forget physical form toward those persons, why do they neglect ritual ceremonies toward this [sovereign]? Furthermore, the master's principle takes assisting enlightenment as its virtue; but the ruler's Way sustains all life, so principle dictates that one's foundation lies here. Does the duty owed to the three [father, master, and ruler] not represent the utmost of human feelings and principle? Your letter stated: 'Rulers of foreign realms all lower their rites [before them]; this is truly because where the Way resides, it is noble, and it does not make light of or value things based on mere person.' To this I refute: Rulers of foreign realms are not fitting analogies to employ, and the original aim behind the rise of Buddhism may also be known. Was it not because the six barbarian tribes were arrogant and unyielding, unable to be transformed by ordinary teachings, that marvelous marvels were vastly displayed to cause them to submit in awe? Only after they submitted in awe did they follow the proper tracks. This is merely a matter of profound fear of ghosts and spirits and of karmic retribution; how could it be that they venerate the profound and subtle Way? Saying 'where the Way resides, it is noble' must diverge from your refined intention; how could donning their Dharma robes mean that the Way resides within them? If it is because the Way resides there that one is deemed noble, just as you said, the Way of the sages is the ultimate of the Way, yet the reverence between ruler and minister is all the more earnest in ritual. This being so, how could the lack of reverence by śramaṇas be excused by claiming that 'where the Way resides, it is noble'? Your letter stated: 'Exceeding four hundred years across three dynasties, the propagation of it has remained unaltered. Is this not because this peerless teaching has a daily use for gradual cultivation, and its pure, restrained style does no harm to prosperous peace?' To this I refute: That successive dynasties did not alter it cannot serve as proof. Formerly, the people of Jin scarcely venerated the Buddha; the śramaṇas and their followers were all Hu barbarians. Moreover, the rulers did not interact with them, and therefore could leave them to their regional customs without restraining them. Today, the sovereign venerates the Buddha and personally attends Buddhist services; the situation differs from the past, so how could their rituals not be made to conform to a standard? As for their daily use, pure restraint, and aid to governance, it is all as you said; yet this is the merit of the Buddha-Dharma, not something benefited by the haughtiness of the śramaṇas. If we now make their reverence earnest, will it not make that assistance all the richer? Your letter stated: 'Those of supreme merit are not rewarded, and those of deep benevolence are not thanked. Even if one were to kneel once and rise once, how could that ever suffice to repay the benevolence of universal deliverance and support?' To this I refute: When principle is ultimate, it admits of no recompense; this is truly as you said. Yet when emotion is boundless, reverence naturally follows it. This is why the sages instituted rituals based on human emotion, allowing each to express what it conveys. If because merit is deep and benevolence is weighty one must omit expressions of gratitude, then is Śākyamuni's virtue deep or shallow? If shallow, one should not disrupt the great social bonds for the sake of a minor teaching. If deep, how could one show solemn reverence toward him while relaxing reverence toward this [sovereign]?