集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.53

1.53

知以方外遺形故不貴為生之益。求宗不由順化故不重運通之資。又云。內乖天屬之重而不違其孝。外闕奉主之恭而不失其敬。若如來言。理本無重。則無緣有致孝之情。事非資通。不應復有致恭之義。君親之情許其未盡。則情之所寄何為絕之。夫累著在於心滯不由形敬。形敬蓋是心之所用耳。若乃在其本而縱以形敬。此復所未之喻。又云。佛教兩弘亦有處俗之教。或澤流天下道洽六親。固以協讚皇極而不虛霑其德矣。夫佛教存行各以事應因緣有本必至無差者也。如此則為道者。亦何能違之哉。是故釋迦之道。不能超白淨於津梁。雖未獲須陀。故是同國人所蒙耳。就如來言。此自有道深德之功。固非今之所謂宜教者所可擬議也。來示未能共求其理。便大致慨然。故是未之喻也。想不惑留常之滯。而謬情理之用耳。

I understand that by dwelling beyond the realm and abandoning the physical form, one does not prize the benefits of sustaining life, and that because seeking the ultimate does not stem from conforming to transformation, one does not esteem the resources that foster harmony. You also say that inwardly they depart from the gravity of natural kin without violating filial piety, and outwardly they lack the humility of serving the sovereign without losing reverence. If, as you say, the principle inherently lacks gravity, then there would be no reason for feelings of filial piety to arise; if matters do not depend on sustaining harmony, there should no longer be any duty of showing humility. If feelings toward ruler and parents are admitted not to have ended, why should the expression of those feelings be severed? Affliction and attachment lie in the mind's stagnation and do not stem from bodily reverence; bodily reverence is merely the instrument of the mind. If the feelings remain in the foundation while letting bodily reverence go slack, this is something I do not yet comprehend. You also say that the Buddhist teaching promotes both, including teachings for living in the world, and that grace flows through the realm while the Way permeates the six relations, thereby assisting the imperial ultimate without vainly partaking of its virtue. In the Buddhist teaching, practices correspond to their circumstances; causes and conditions have their origins and inevitably come to fruition without error. If so, how could those who practice the Way violate them? Thus the Way of Śākyamuni could not carry Śuddhodana across the ford; though he had not yet attained srotāpanna, he merely received what his fellow countrymen received. Even taking your words, this itself was the merit of deep virtue in the Way, which cannot be compared to what is currently taught. Your letter failed to join in seeking the principle, but instead broke into great lamentation, which is why it remains unconvincing. I trust you will not be confused by conventional attachments and err in the application of feelings and principles.