集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.36

1.36

初答　難曰。沙門之敬。豈皆略形存心。懺悔禮拜亦篤於事　答曰。夫沙門之道。自以敬為主。但津塗既殊。義無降屈。故雖天屬之重。形禮都盡也。沙門所以推宗師長自相崇敬者。良以宗致既同則長幼成序。資通有係則事與心應。原佛法雖曠而不遺小善。一介之功報亦應之。積毫成山。義斯著矣　難曰。君道通生則理應在本。在三之義。豈非情理之極哉　答曰。夫君道通生則理同造化。夫陶鑄敷氣功則弘矣。而未有謝惠於所稟。措感於理本者何。良以冥本幽絕。非物象之所舉。運通理妙。豈麁迹之能酬。是以夫子云。可使由之。不可使知之。此之謂也　難曰。外國之君非所應喻。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　答曰。夫神道設教誠難以言辯意。以為大設靈奇示以報應。此最影響之實理。佛教之根要。今若謂三世為虛誕。罪福為畏懼。則釋迦之所明。殆將無寄矣。常以為周孔之化救其甚弊。故言迹盡乎一生。而不開萬劫之塗。然遠探其旨。亦往往可尋。孝悌仁義明不謀而自同四時之生殺。則矜慈之心見。又屢抑仲由之問。亦似有深旨。但教體既殊故此處常昧耳。靜而求之。殆將然乎。殆將然乎　難曰。君臣之敬愈敦於禮。如此則沙門不敬。豈得以道在為貴哉　答曰。重尋高論。以為君道運通理同三大。是以前條已粗言意。以為君人之道竊同高旨。至於君臣之敬。則理盡名教。今沙門既不臣王侯。故敬與之廢耳　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　答曰。前所以云歷有年代者。正以容養之道。要當有以故耳。非謂已然之事。無可改之理也。此蓋言勢之所至。非㦎然所據也。胡人不接王者。又如高唱。前代之不論。或在於此耶　難曰。此蓋是佛法之功。非沙門傲誕之所益。今篤以祇敬。將無彌濃其助哉　答曰。敬尋來論。是不誣佛理也。但傲誕之迹。有虧大化。誠如來誨。誠如來誨。意謂沙門之道可得稱異而非傲誕。今若以千載之末淳風轉薄。橫服之徒多非其人者。敢不懷愧。今但謂自理而默差可遺人而言道耳。前答云。不以人為輕重。微意在此矣　難曰。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　答曰。以為釋迦之道深則深矣。而瞻仰之徒。彌篤其敬者。此蓋造道之倫必資行功。行功之美莫尚於此。如斯乃積行之所因。來世之關鍵也。且致敬師長。功猶難抑。況擬心宗極。而可替其禮哉。故雖俯仰累劫。而非謝惠之謂也。

First Reply:

[You] objected: "Does the reverence of a śramaṇa indeed completely omit physical form and reside only in the mind? In repentance and prostration they are also meticulous in their practice. When it comes to their teachers and senior monks, compared with laypeople's bows and kneeling, they differ only slightly in form. Since they cannot forget physical form there, why do they neglect ritual here? Moreover, the principle of a teacher lies in taking the facilitation of enlightenment as virtue. The ruler's way sustains all life, so in principle its source should be honored. The meaning of serving the three [superiors]—is this not the ultimate requirement of human feeling and principle?"

I reply: The way of the śramaṇa naturally takes reverence as paramount. But because their paths are different, in principle there is no lowering or yielding. Therefore, despite the gravity of natural kinship, physical rituals are entirely set aside. The reason śramaṇas venerate their teachers and elders and esteem one another is simply that, their shared purpose being identical, seniors and juniors are properly ordered; and because their transmission and advancement are tied together, their actions correspond to their minds. In origin, though the Buddha's teaching is vast, it does not overlook slight goods: even the merit of a single straw receives its corresponding retribution. Accumulating fine hairs forms a mountain—this meaning is quite clear.

[You] objected: "The ruler's way sustains all life, so in principle its source should be honored. The meaning of serving the three [superiors]—is this not the ultimate requirement of human feeling and principle?"

I reply: The ruler's way sustains all life, and thus its principle is identical with the Creation. Molding and diffusing the vital breath, his achievement is vast indeed. Yet why has no one ever thanked the source for the gifts bestowed, or directed their gratitude to the root of principle? It is precisely because the mysterious origin is obscure and beyond reach, not something that phenomenal images can capture; its operation is pervasive and its principle wondrous—how could crude traces repay it? Therefore the Master said: "They can be made to follow it; they cannot be made to understand it." This is what it refers to.

[You] objected: "The rulers of foreign realms are not fit as an analogy. The rise of Buddhism also reveals its underlying purpose. Was it not because the six barbarian tribes were arrogant and fierce, unable to be transformed by ordinary teachings, that marvelous wonders were displayed on a grand scale to make them submit in awe?"

I reply: "Establishing teachings by the divine way" is indeed difficult to argue in words. If you consider displaying marvelous wonders and demonstrating retribution to be mere contrivances, in truth these are the genuine principles of resonance and response, the very root and essence of Buddhism. If one now regards the three periods of time as empty fabrications and karma and retribution as mere intimidations, then that which Śākyamuni revealed would be left with almost no foundation. I have always thought that the teachings of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius remedied acute decline; hence their words and traces were exhausted in a single lifetime and did not open up the path of myriad kalpas. Yet when we probe deeply into their intent, traces can still often be found. Their illumination of filial piety, fraternal duty, benevolence, and righteousness spontaneously aligned without contrivance with the generative and destructive rhythms of the four seasons, revealing a mind of compassion. Moreover, [Confucius] repeatedly discouraged Zilu's inquiries [about spirits and death], which also seems to have had a profound intent. But because the styles of teaching differ, this point has always remained obscure. If sought in stillness, would it not be so? Would it not be so?

[You] objected: "Reverence between ruler and minister is all the more earnest in ritual. If so, then for a śramaṇa not to show reverence—how can this be justified by 'valuing where the Way resides'?"

I reply: Re-examining your noble discourse, you maintain that the ruler's way is all-pervading and equal in principle to the three great forces [Heaven, Earth, and Man]. Hence in the previous article I already sketched my view, secretly agreeing with your noble idea regarding the way of ruling men. As for the reverence between ruler and minister, its principle is fully encompassed by the Teaching of Names. Now, since śramaṇas do not serve kings and lords as subjects, reverence toward them is accordingly abrogated.

[You] objected: "Remaining unchanged through successive dynasties is no valid proof. In the past, the people of the Jin rarely practiced Buddhism, and the śramaṇa assemblies were all various foreigners. Moreover, sovereigns did not interact with them, so their foreign customs could be tolerated without regulation."

I reply: The reason I previously mentioned the passing of dynasties was precisely that the manner of accommodating and nurturing them must surely have had its justification. I did not mean that a past precedent admits of no change in principle. This was merely expressing the momentum of the situation, not an inflexible premise. That foreigners did not interact with sovereigns—this is also as your noble discourse proclaims; perhaps the lack of debate in former eras lay precisely in this.

[You] objected: "This is the efficacy of the Buddha's Dharma, not a benefit produced by the śramaṇa's haughtiness. If they were now made earnest in reverent respect, would that not enrich its assistance even further?"

I reply: Respectfully examining your discourse, it does not slander the principles of the Buddha. But as for traces of haughtiness impairing the great transformation, it is truly as your instruction notes, truly as your instruction notes! I submit that the way of the śramaṇa may be called distinct, but not haughty. Now, if at the end of a millennium the pure manner has grown thin, and many among those wearing the robe are not proper practitioners, how could I dare not feel ashamed? At present, I only mean that according to principle, one may quietly leave aside the persons and discuss the Way. When my former reply stated that "we do not assess the Way based on whether the person is noble or base," my subtle intent lay here.

[You] objected: "If when merit is profound and kindness weighty one must omit thanks, is the virtue of Śākyamuni profound or shallow? If shallow, a minor way should not disrupt the great human relationships. If profound, how could they maintain solemn respect toward him while relaxing their reverence toward the ruler?"

I reply: In my view, the Way of Śākyamuni is profound indeed! Yet for those who look up to him to become ever more earnest in their reverence—this is because those who cultivate the Way must rely on practice and merit, and among the virtues of practice and merit, none surpasses this. Such [reverence] is the basis of accumulating practice and the key to future lives. Furthermore, when paying homage to teachers and elders, its merit is already difficult to dismiss; how much more so when directing one's mind to the supreme ultimate—how could its ritual be neglected? Thus, though bowing down through repeated kalpas, this cannot be called merely repaying kindness.