English (machine translation)
Translation of 集沙門不應拜俗等事
- Language
- English
- Extent
- 336 passages, 63,642 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.2108 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…
Contents
Text
1.1
Preface to the Collection on Why Śramaṇas Should Not Bow to Laypeople
1.2
Composed by Wang Yinke, courtesy name Shaowei, of Taiyuan
1.3
Now, when primordial chaos separated into unity, the sagacious dragon inaugurated the triad. Fuxi's trigrams soared, surpassing knotted cords; Xuan Yuan's writing emerged, transcending notched tallies. In solemn majesty before the imperial screen, the ruler was honored within the jade halls; with bustling shoes and fluttering robes, illustrious ministers assisted beside the gemstone avenues. Yet their grand designs went no further than rites and music, and their eminent undertakings stopped at benevolence and righteousness. There were also talents who roosted in moonlight and embraced the rosy clouds, and heroes who mounted giant turtles and reined in river carps. Strangling desires, shedding form, and swallowing cinnabar, they sprouted in secret caves; ceasing grains and casting off shadows, they sipped blue dew on divine mounds. Yet in the end they were startled by the swift passage of time, vainly indulging in gatherings of fleeting joy. How could this compare to the Capable and Benevolent (Śākyamuni), who attuned to cosmic destiny and established the school with the Brahminic texts? He turned the wondrous wheel, setting it into motion; he mounted the jeweled steed and rode far aloft. Birth without birth—he probed ever-renewed birth down to its utmost subtlety; extinction without extinction—he exhausted cessation upon cessation back to its profound source. The great chiliocosm is illumined by the blaze of the torch of wisdom; the myriad realms echo with the sound of the Dharma conch. Densely woven snares were loosed, far surpassing the three charms of King Tang's era; the turbulent waves of suffering were stemmed, outstripping the four conveyances of Yu the Great. Moisture steeped the myriad regions, spreading beneficence; crossing countless eons, spiritual merit coalesced. Those who donned its vestments caused even the Purple Sovereign to bend in reverence; those who entered its Way were marked as revered above the black-haired people. It became an excellent support for transcending habitual attachments, an asylum amid worldly defilements. Then, as the sacrificial rites by the river shone brightly and the dream of the sun shed flying light, the statue of the Prince of Xiutu was conveyed to the east, and the transformation of Jibin gradually spread to the west. Eminent masters answered the call, unfolding wondrous teachings from silver cases; those of flourishing virtue followed shoulder to shoulder, expressing true words upon palm leaves. Feudal lords revered and upheld it, and successive dynasties admired and honored it. Thus Fu Jian of the Qin calmed his thoughts and shared the imperial palanquin in mutual delight; Liu of the Han showed sincere reverence, descending from his carriage to pay respect. It was only in the late destiny of the House of Jin that the light of wisdom grew dim and then brightened again; in the declining era of the Imperial Line, the waters of virtue froze and then flowed once more.
1.4
Our Great Tang has clarified the solar sea and extinguished the fires upon the rosy Kunlun. Extending blessings and pouring down good omens, bright splendor offers auspiciousness. Fashioning the purple universe, it flourishes with the merit of altering the grain; sheltering the common multitude, it spreads wide with the achievement of instituting robes.
1.5
The Emperor, mounting thunder, shakes the celestial pole; flashing lightning, he blazes from the palace. Driving nine mottled coursers, he gallops afar; riding eight wings, he crosses the vast heavens. Cherishing the style of high crags, he established the Crane Park in the divine capital; looking up to conversion along the Heavenly River, he built the terrace in the sacred land. He widely manifests the fine patterns of guidance and gathers support, cultivating the grand model of love and reverence. Yet, holding that ruling the state must depend on loyalty, and managing the family truly relies on filial piety, an order was issued that monks and nuns should render the ceremony of kneeling and prostrating. The Emperor harbored a broad mind, inquiring into general norms through the administrative offices; from deep affection and concern, he collected public sentiment among the noble ministers. Although clamorous debates clashed as each expressed his views, the imperial heart examined them all and ultimately followed the customary ways. Especially mindful of the deep debt to parents, he still required the bowing upon ascending the ancestral hall. Master Yancong has an empty mind of tranquil serenity, an eminent capacity of graceful elegance; his distant tone is forceful and clear, his lofty register leisurely and free. The fortress of his body is quiet without waves; flying a precious blade, he reaches the sky. The tree of his mind spreads luxuriantly, lifting prized tips to brush the Milky Way. Having thoroughly mastered the essentials of the nine schools of literati, he went on to fathom the subtleties of the two canons. The monastic community admires his fine conduct; the lay companions look up to his illustrious prestige. Truly, he is one who walks alongside those floating on cups and matches those who fly with staffs! Fearing that confused beings with prejudiced learning and narrow-minded knowledge might take the expedient means of worldly adaptation as the ultimate truth of realizing reality, and wishing to appeal to the Phoenix Gate without success, or knock on the imperial palace without a way forward, he thereupon gave rise to a mind of protection and undertook this clarifying work. From the Jin dynasty down to our sacred era, all discussions concerning the matter of bowing were collected and recorded. Compiled into three sections, they are divided into six fascicles. He composed praises and treatises for them, standardizing them into an accessible path. The ornate doctrines resonate with splendor; the polished words shine with radiance. Truly, this serves to inspire profound insight and wash clean the dark ford! I, Yinke, have slight learning and meager talent; my fame is barren and my insight shallow. Sitting in the misty suburbs, I hide my traces; lodging by the windy door, I settle my spirit. Merely because I have long cherished the Buddhist texts and deeply revered the palm leaves, I rejoice in this splendid achievement, composing this preface for it. The faint glow of an autumn firefly cannot assist the radiance of the blazing sun; the humble sound of a spring frog can hardly supplement the music of the grand court orchestra. I offer this merely to express my sentiment—how could it be called exhibiting literary talent? To those who share my aspirations, I hope you will not mock me.
1.6
Compiled and recorded by the śramaṇa Shi Yancong of Hongfu Temple
1.7
Precedents Section, Part One (Volume 1)
1.8
The "Precedents" clarify the matters of śramaṇas paying reverence from the Sui dynasty and earlier. Since the Great Dharma flowed eastward for more than six hundred years, faith and disparagement have alternated, and praise and blame have contended with each other. Often subjected to decline and repeatedly ordered to kneel and bow down, yet because this matter does not govern the state and its principle surpasses mundane constants, regarding it as destructive to the Way, the past practices have always been retained.
1.9
Memorials:
Memorial of the Jin Minister of Personnel He Chong and others holding that śramaṇas should not pay reverence to the ruler,
three pieces (with preface)
1.10
Edicts:
Two edicts issued by General of Chariots and Cavalry Yu Bing on behalf of Emperor Cheng ordering śramaṇas to pay reverence
1.11
Letters:
One letter by Grand Defender Huan Xuan to the Eight Ministers, Huan Qian and others, arguing that men of the Way should pay reverence (with preface);
One letter by the Eight Ministers and others replying to Huan Xuan clarifying that men of the Way should not pay reverence;
One letter by Huan Xuan to the Director of the Palace Secretariat Wang Mi arguing that śramaṇas should pay reverence;
One letter by Wang Mi replying to Huan Xuan clarifying that śramaṇas should not pay reverence
1.12
Refutations:
Three refutations by Huan Xuan against Wang Mi on the issue of not paying reverence
1.13
Replies:
Three replies by Wang Mi to Huan Xuan's refutations on paying reverence
1.14
Letters:
One letter by Huan Xuan to Dharma Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu asking him to state the rationale why śramaṇas do not pay reverence to the ruler (along with Huiyuan's two exchanges in reply)
1.15
Three memorials of He Chong and others under the Jin dynasty holding that śramaṇas should not pay reverence to the ruler (with preface)
1.16
In the sixth year of the Xiankang era of the Eastern Jin, Emperor Cheng was young. At that time, the Empress Dowager held court and issued decrees. Minister of Works Wang Dao, concurrently overseeing the Department of Affairs of State, assisted in governing the court along with the emperor's uncle, the Director of the Palace Secretariat Yu Liang. After Dao and the others died, Yu Bing took charge of the government. He asserted that all śramaṇas should pay full reverence to the ruler. Chong and others argued that they should not pay reverence. The matter was submitted to the ritual officials for deliberation, and the erudites agreed with Chong. The Chancellery, complying with Bing's intention, raised an objection. Chong and the others thereupon submitted this memorial. The first memorial reads:
1.17
He Chong, Minister of the Department of Affairs of State, Champion General, Army Pacifying General, and Marquis of Duxiang; He Sha, Cavalier Attendant Regular, Left Vice Director of the Department of Affairs of State, and Count of Changping; Zhuge Hui, Cavalier Attendant Regular, Right Vice Director of the Department of Affairs of State, and Count of Jian'an; Feng Huishou, Minister of State and Marquis of Guanzhong; Xie Guang, Minister of State and Viscount of Chang'an; and others state: The Ancestor of the Dynasty, Emperor Wu, received the mandate in flourishing brilliance; the Venerable Ancestor, Emperor Ming, possessed sagacious discernment and profound insight. Was it that in those times śramaṇas could not easily have been made to bend their knees? Rather, it was considered that by leaving it unchanged, their method of cultivating good would unite the wills under Heaven. We humbly consider that complying with and continuing the precedents of the former emperors is superior in principle.
1.18
Two edicts issued by Yu Bing on behalf of Emperor Cheng ordering śramaṇas to pay reverence
1.19
The first edict:
1.20
The myriad regions have diverse customs, and the spiritual ways are difficult to discern; they have their origins. Those who take an expansive view and understand broadly should indeed find nothing strange in this. Moreover, regarding the etiquette of bending down, kneeling, and prostrating, why must it be exalted in this way? One must return to the original intent behind why the former kings exalted it: did they merely take pleasure in these bowings and kneelings and casually devise bending and prostrating? It was certainly not so! Based on the reverence between father and son, they established the hierarchy between ruler and minister; they instituted laws and regulations and exalted ritual ranks. How could this be in vain? There is truly a reason for it! Since there is a reason, how can it be altered? If so, could the institution of names and rites be devoid of human feeling? Furthermore, is there ultimately a Buddha now, or is there no Buddha? If there is a Buddha, his Way is certainly vast; if there is no Buddha, on what principle can one rely? Even if one believes it to be so, it belongs to affairs beyond the realm. Can affairs beyond the realm be embodied within the realm? That one should distort bodily demeanor, depart from ordinary duties, alter ritual texts, and discard the Teaching of Names is what I deeply doubt. The Teaching of Names has its origin; it has not been discarded through a hundred generations. Even when made exceedingly illustrious from early dawn, later generations still fell into peril; the causes of such perils and abuses are difficult to trace. Yet now, in distant longing for what is vast, indistinct, and unresolved, to discard rites in a single morning and abolish teaching in the present age, allowing ordinary folk to arrogantly flout constitutional ordinances, is also what I deeply doubt. Even if it is true, and even if it exists, I would merely comprehend it in the spiritual realm and keep it within the chest. But the grand norms of the laws and regulations must not be discarded in the imperial court! All people of this kind are subjects of the Jin; in evaluating their talents and wisdom, they are merely ordinary men. That they should, based on what is difficult to discern in their doctrines, adopt special attire to transcend standards, maintaining the haughty rituals of unusual customs and straightening their bodies before the sovereign of ten thousand chariots, is also what I cannot accept. You gentlemen are all pillars of the state. When discoursing, you should fathom what is profound; when discussing governance, you should esteem the national statutes. If not so, what would there be for me to transmit?
1.21
The second memorial: He Chong, Minister of the Department of Affairs of State, Champion General, Army Pacifying General, and Marquis of Duxiang; He Sha, Cavalier Attendant Regular, Left Vice Director of the Department of Affairs of State, and Count of Changping; Zhuge Hui, Cavalier Attendant Regular, Right Vice Director of the Department of Affairs of State, and Count of Jian'an; Feng Huishou, Minister of State and Marquis of Guanzhong; Xie Guang, Minister of State and Viscount of Chang'an; and others state: The edict is as stated above. We, your ministers, are dim and shallow, insufficient to praise the sagacious intent or proclaim the great principle. Bowing to read the enlightened edict, we tremble with fear and unease. We have together examined the matter: whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha is truly not something we can determine. However, examining his surviving texts and probing his essential tenets, the prohibitions of the five precepts genuinely aid the royal transformation; they demean visible worldly fame and conduct, and value invisible hidden discipline. Their practice of virtue lies in forgetting oneself, cherishing the pure subtlety of a unified mind. Moreover, arising from the Han dynasty down to the present day, although the Dharma has had periods of prosperity and decline, its defects have never involved demonic delusion. In terms of spiritual ways, its enduring longevity has had no equal. While curses bring harm, blessings surely bring benefit. Our sincere desire is truly that our slight contributions of dust and dew may moisten Mount Song and Mount Dai, and our humble prayers may above assist the imperial sovereign. If we now make them bow at once, their Dharma will be ruined, and the custom of cultivating goodness will be abolished in this sagacious age. When habit becomes constant practice, it will surely cause grief and distress; in our hearts, we privately feel uneasy. Although we are obtuse, how could we dare confuse the imperial hearing with prejudiced views? We merely believe that through three reigns, the rulers have been bright and sagacious; if no new restriction is made now, there will be no defect in the royal law, and the path to the unseen realms will not be obstructed. Therefore, we again present our sincere thoughts, begging for your imperial examination and reflection. Respectfully submitted.
1.22
Second edict: I have examined what was presented and fully understand your sentiments and intent. Matters of the unseen and obscure are indeed not something metaphors can exhaust. However, their outline is merely the regular standard of great men and spirits, roughly possessing general distinctions. In general, though the laws instituted by the hundred kings adapted simplicity and refinement to the times, there has never been a case where alien customs were mixed into governance or absurdities confused the transformation of the people. Could it be that former sages were unenlightened, while the later sages are broadly accommodating? Moreover, the minor good of the five precepts roughly resembles human relationships, yet should they on that account neglect ritual and reverence toward the lord of the world? Rites are weightiest; reverence is greatest; the net of governance is exhausted in these! The ruler of ten thousand chariots does not love honor for himself, nor do the people of the realm love humility for themselves; but if the humble and the honorable are not set in order, the royal teaching will fall into chaos. This is why the former sages established laws and embodied the state, something about which one should not be deluded. Broadly learned talents collect and often practice these teachings extensively; practicing them for oneself or for one's family is permissible, but practicing them for the state and the imperial court is impermissible. Is this not obvious? From examining what was presented, it turns out you too are unable to know whether he exists or does not exist. Even if you knew he existed, I would still say this cannot be mixed into governance; how much less so when there is nothing at all—how could one rely on it to govern the south?
1.23
Third Memorial: Your servant Chong and others state: Although your servants are truly unenlightened and do not comprehend your profound intent, yet as for our earnest diligence, day and night we contemplate adhering to the royal standard. How could we recklessly cling to a partial viewpoint and disrupt the great social bonds? It is simply that from the Han and Wei down to the Jin, no divergent opinions were heard, and the codes of noble and base were never once compromised. Now, the strict observance of the precepts by śramaṇas is purely focused, and when it comes to their rituals, they are unified and singular. As for those who are devoted in observing the precepts, they do not begrudge even the loss of life; how would they dare to use their bodily frames to slight ritual reverence? Whenever we observe them burning incense and offering prayers, they invariably put the state first; their desire for the flourishing of good fortune and protection knows no bounds. Serving their superiors and venerating obedience stems from what is natural to them. The simplicity of their rites and ceremonies is precisely because of their single-minded adherence to the Dharma. Therefore, when former sages governed the world, they accommodated them and did not alter their ways. The net of Heaven is vast; though wide-meshed, it lets nothing slip through. Your servants repeatedly maintain that not requiring them to bow entails no detriment to the royal law. Benefiting them by according with what benefits them will ensure that neither the worthy nor the foolish dare fail to exert their sincerity; then above there will be the grace of Heaven covering and Earth sustaining, and below there will be people who preserve the One and cultivate goodness. Respectfully we present once more our foolish and shallow views, hoping they may receive your examination. Respectfully submitted. — At that time, Yu Bing's proposal was shelved, and [the śramaṇas] ultimately did not render homage.
1.24
A Letter from Huan Xuan to the Eight Ministers, Huan Qian and Others, Discussing Whether Men of the Way Should Pay Homage (with Preface)
1.25
During the Yuanxing era of the Jin dynasty, Emperor An was in exile amidst the dust of travel outside the capital. The Grand Defender Huan Xuan, holding an awe-inspiring authority that intimidated the sovereign, wished to order the men of the Way to prostrate themselves before him. Thereupon he set forth the old controversy between He [Chong] and Yu [Bing], asserting that the principle had not been fully resolved. Therefore, he addressed a letter to the Eight Ministers and others, saying:
1.26
Xuan bows twice and knocks his head. The eighth day is approaching. Why did the śramaṇas of old all fail to show reverence to the ruler? Although He [Chong] and Yu [Bing] previously debated it, both followed merely their own views; neither brought the other to submit by means of principle. Yu's intention was to exalt the sovereign, yet his grounds of reasoning were incomplete. He [Chong] proceeded from partial belief and consequently degraded the institutional order. Now, although the transforming influence of the Buddha is vast and unbounded, reaching beyond seeing and hearing, it nonetheless takes reverence as its foundation; in this respect, there is no difference. The ultimate attainment they seek may be extraordinary, but that does not mean respectful deference should be abolished. Laozi counted kings and lords among the Three Greats; examining what he valued, it all resides in sustaining life and facilitating fortune. How could it be merely because a sage occupies the throne that he is equated with Heaven and Earth? It is because the great virtue of Heaven and Earth is called life, and the sustenance of life and governing of things depend upon the king. Therefore, his sacred vessel is exalted, and the rites accorded to him are truly grand. How could this be an empty elevation, with its significance resting merely on the ruler's control? The very reason śramaṇas are able to sustain their lives and survive is also their daily reliance on the ruler's governance and mandate. How could they receive his virtue yet omit his rites, or partake of his kindness yet discard their reverence? This is both impermissible in principle and unsettling to the feelings. As this is a momentous affair of an entire generation, we ought together to seek an equitable resolution. I hope we can examine and exhaust it together, so that by the eighth day a detailed decision may be reached. Huan Xuan bows twice and knocks his head, respectfully stating.
1.27
A Reply Letter from the Eight Ministers and Others to Huan Xuan Clarifying That Men of the Way Should Not Pay Homage
1.28
General of the Central Army, Prefect of the Masters of Writing, and Founding Marquis of Yiyang, Huan Qian, and others, in dread and under penalty of death: We have received your instruction concerning having the śramaṇas pay homage to the ruler. Although He and Yu debated it, their intentions were not fully exhausted. This is a momentous matter, and it should indeed be brought to a fitting mean; it is truly as your refined argument states. However, the Buddha-Dharma and Yao and Confucius have different directions; their ritual teachings diverge from one another. Ordinary people regard hair and skin as weighty, yet those monks shave and shear them without hesitation; renouncing their families and abandoning their kin, they do not regard cheerful service as filial piety. Viewing their physical bodies as earth and wood, they sever desires and cease contention; not expecting blessings in a single lifetime, they seek them across ten thousand kalpas. What the world values, they have already cast aside; what the ritual teachings esteem, their minds have entirely severed. Serving one's father and serving one's ruler are the utmost of natural ties; yet if they can detach themselves even from their own flesh and blood, how could they render ritual homage to the ruler of ten thousand chariots? By the force of circumstances, [such homage] naturally ought to be set aside. Across the span of three dynasties, they were left unbridled; this must be because the divine intelligence is without fixed direction, showing that it cannot be restrained within boundaries. Beyond what is seen and heard, there may well be another principle. If we now make them show deference, we fear that much would need to be changed, not just kneeling and rising. Furthermore, when rulers venerate the Dharma, it arises from reverence; to believe in its principles yet alter its rituals would likewise be baffling to human feelings. To accommodate them as they are is precisely the magnanimity of letting things be and tolerating them. The Director of the Imperial Secretariat has separately replied to your difficulties; Kong Guo and Zhang Chang are there, and I imagine they have already consulted you face-to-face on what they hold; Daobao and the other men of the Way are all fully capable of answering your exalted views. We subordinates do not understand Buddhist principles and have merely spoken straightforwardly according to our sentiments, ashamed that our words are unworthy of your perusal. Qian and others, in dread, under penalty of death.
1.29
A Letter from Huan Xuan to the Director of the Palace Secretariat Wang Mi Discussing Why Śramaṇas Should Pay Homage
1.30
That śramaṇas treat the Supreme Sovereign as an equal in ritual is precisely what is unsettling to human feelings. As this is a momentous affair of an entire generation, we ought to discuss and exhaust it together. The letter to the Eight Ministers was sent to the capital a moment ago; I now convey this message [to you]. You are the one who should take charge of this reasoning; I eagerly await hearing your virtuous voice.
1.31
A Reply Letter from Wang Mi to Huan Xuan Clarifying That Śramaṇas Should Not Pay Homage
1.32
General Who Protects the Army, Minister of Personnel, Director of the Palace Secretariat, and Baron of Wugang, Wang Mi, in dread and under penalty of death: I have received your instruction concerning the men of the Way treating the Supreme Sovereign as an equal in ritual, and I have also seen your letter to the Eight Ministers, thoroughly grasping your exalted purpose. The words of your generous expression are comprehensive in both phrasing and principle. Recently, I also heard a general account of your public discourse, though I have not yet managed to explore it thoroughly. Examining the two proposals of He and Yu, I likewise regret not knowing them in full, and consider that both treatises were flawed by partiality and lacked clear comprehension to satisfy the mind, just as your refined instruction noted. Now, the rise of the Buddha-Dharma originated in Tianzhu. Its core tenets are obscure and distant, difficult to debate in words; yet since it touches upon teaching, it can be spoken of in broad strokes. In my opinion, although different regions and divergent customs often diverge in what they find comfort, when it comes to the principle of royal governance, none are not inevitably the same. Now, although the śramaṇas are profound in their intent regarding reverence, they do not take physical bowing as their ritual; their presence fills the realm, yet their aims transcend worldly bounds. For this reason, 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. Looking back, the propagation of the Great Dharma has truly endured for a long time, exceeding four hundred years across three dynasties; although customs have shifted and regimes have changed, the propagation of it has remained unaltered. Is this not because this peerless teaching is effective for gradual cultivation, and its pure, restrained style does no harm to prosperous peace? Therefore, the ruler folds his hands and does not regret an incomplete register, while the śramaṇa preserves truth and does not doubt himself in a decadent world. You noted that the sustenance of life and governing of things depend upon the king; examining where principle leads, it is truly as your fine argument states, and upon repeatedly reading your virtuous voice, I cannot help but sigh in admiration. Although I wish to offer a reply, words seem to fail me. Yet I still consider that 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 virtue of universal deliverance and support? Your Excellency has not forgotten me with your kind regard and has condescended to question me; I have therefore straightforwardly set forth my foolish and limited views, hoping only not to incur suspicion regarding what I uphold. I hope you will not disregard the words on account of the person. In submitting this, I am restless and ill at ease. Mi, in dread, under penalty of death.
1.33
Three Refutations by Huan Xuan against Wang Mi Concerning Why Homage Should Not Be Paid
1.34
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]?
1.35
Three Replies by Wang Mi to Huan Xuan's Refutations Concerning the Requirement to Pay Homage
1.36
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.
1.37
Huan Xuan's Second Objection to Wang Mi
1.38
Second Objection:
Having examined your reply, my doubts remain unresolved. Following upon your letter, I roughly state my objections again. In the principle of sentiment and reverence, how could there be two different standards? Both arise from within and extend outward. Once one has entered the realm of sentient beings, they cannot be absent. If, as you say, the sovereign is equal to the Creation, and no one has ever thanked the source for the gifts bestowed or directed their gratitude to the root of principle, this means that his merit is mysterious and his principle profound, with none greater than this. How then could the Buddha's transformation surpass it? Yet your discourse says: "Because their paths are different, in principle there is no lowering or yielding. 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." If principle resides in one's own root, and profound virtue abides in the ultimate, how can one speak of a difference in paths and call it lowering or yielding? What is this shared purpose? If study and practice are taken as the shared purpose, then that which is studied only brings forth one's spontaneous nature. If the spontaneous nature has a source from which it is received, then the root of this spontaneity can be readily known. The realization gained from instruction and advancement merely burnishes its branches. If actions correspond to minds, how could this apply here but not there?
Furthermore, you say that the transformations of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius remedied acute decline, hence being exhausted in a single lifetime without opening up the path of myriad kalpas. Now, when transformation is conducted through the miraculous and marvelous, the teachings are easy to practice, unlike urging through benevolence and righteousness and exhausting human affairs. This is why practitioners of Yellow Turban delusions gathered like clouds. If this were the true principle and also easy to practice, why would the sages abandon the true way that is easy, to engage in the non-essential affairs that are difficult to practice? That this is not so is also quite clear. It must be that teachings are adapted to different customs, and their principle lies in expedient salvation; the purport of these extravagant assertions can easily be grasped.
Furthermore, you say that the reverence between ruler and minister is fully encompassed by the Teaching of Names, and now that śramaṇas do not serve kings and lords as subjects, reverence toward them is accordingly abrogated. Why should this be so? The principle of reverence has already been detailed in my previous letter. Reverence between ruler and minister is naturally generated; its principle is rooted in the source of human feeling—how could it be a mere contrivance of the Teaching of Names? My former discourse already stated: "The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is called life." Sustaining life and ordering all things rests with the sovereign. If what sustains life lies here, how could it not be honored by nature?
Furthermore, you say that those who cultivate the Way must rely on practice and merit, that it is the basis of accumulating practice and the key to future lives; that directing one's mind to the supreme ultimate, one must not neglect reverence toward it; and that though bowing down through repeated kalpas, this cannot be called merely repaying kindness. Let me draw upon your own words to raise an objection. According to your letter, taking reverence as the foremost practice is the height of esteeming reverence. But practice and merit should be calculated by the toil of performing them; how can you simply value and admire Śākyamuni and say nothing surpasses this? That kindness is not thanked is understood by the perceptive; it is simply that the root of principle is profound and ultimate, so sentiment and reverence cannot be absent. When ministers revere their ruler, is it merely to thank him for kindness?
1.39
Wang Mi's Second Reply to Huan Xuan
1.40
Second Reply:
I have received your letter with its repeated objections, fully taking in your noble ideas. This principle is subtle and abstruse, exceedingly difficult to express in words. Moreover, as this is a momentous affair of the present era, it must be thoroughly clarified in due time. My talent does not fathom the profound, and I especially lack analytical penetration; furthermore, the wondrous principle is difficult to attain with precision, which only increases my bewilderment. But since your noble words have arrived, I dare not remain silent, and so again presumptuously put forward my shallow views to make a clumsy reply to your instruction. Unable to elucidate your magnanimous intent, I am only uneasy and anxious, hoping you will also consult the various men of the Way who possess comprehensive talent to remedy my deficiencies.
You ask: "What is this shared purpose? If study and practice are taken as the shared purpose, then that which is studied only brings forth one's spontaneous nature. If the spontaneous nature has a source from which it is received, then the root of this spontaneity can be readily known." Now, I consider the shared purpose to be the supreme guide to which one aspires; study and practice are the daily fish-traps and hare-snares. Seeking now to reach that ultimate end, one cannot help but rely on the fish-traps and hare-snares to transport oneself. Thus we know that the effort one relies upon is not yet the ultimate realm. Those who accumulate learning to reach the ultimate must ascend from the coarse to the subtle; "once the fish is caught, the trap is discarded"—the principle is evident here.
You consider transformation through the miraculous to be easy, and the work of benevolence and righteousness to be difficult, asking why the sages would abandon the true way that is easy to engage in the non-essential affairs that are difficult to practice, concluding that its falsehood is also quite clear. In my view, the Buddha's teaching and the inner sages are eternally distinct; since they are distinct, their principles cannot be conflated. Now in discussing the Buddhist principle, one must naturally base one's words upon its own doctrine; only then can the paths of obstruction and unobstructed flow be examined in detail. The reason my former reply said that practices of benevolence and goodness and the principle of not killing seem to be compatible was merely to draw them into agreement on this point. As for setting forth arguments, the paths to which they lead are indeed difficult to unify.
Yet in my humble opinion, the Buddhist teachings are rather the more difficult! Why do I say this? Now, what the inner sages illuminate holds that if one utters good words, the response is like an echo, and if one's words are not good, people oppose them from a thousand li away. In this way, good and bad respond in an instant, and calamity and fortune confront one right before one's eyes. Moreover, practicing benevolence depends on oneself, and broadening it brings correctness; yet there are still those who abandon the upright to pursue the perverse, and turn their backs on the Way to follow their desires. How much more so when the Buddhist teaching compares a single lifetime to the snap of a finger and sets the final culmination in eternal kalpas, speaking of miracles beyond fixed status and positing retribution before any omen appears? To bring people to believe this—is it not exceedingly difficult? Therefore, since its transformation reached the Central Realm, those who realize it have been few. Thus the Benqi jing says: "True words seem paradoxical." This is what it means.
1.41
You say that those who perform practice and merit should calculate the toil of performing them, and ask how one can simply value and admire Śākyamuni and say nothing surpasses this. Let me venture to speak: I hold that the Buddha's Way is vast and its practices are exceedingly numerous; what can refine the spirit and complete the Way is not a single matter alone. As for keeping the mind tireless in practice and being able to toil in valuing and admiring the supreme ultimate, this is simply one aspect of practice and merit. The reason my former reply said "none surpasses this" meant that directing the mind to the supreme vehicle is a principle difficult to approach; it did not mean that the act of prostration is supreme above all else. But since we are still in the realm of the incomplete, we cannot help having our minds set on aspiring to penetrate it. Though as slight as a single straw, it is indispensable for the ultimate culmination.
1.42
You stated: 'Reverence between ruler and minister is entirely born of what is natural; its principle is rooted in fundamental feeling—how could it be an affair of the Teaching of Names?' I respectfully take note of your lofty argument, which leaves no room for dissent. This is precisely why my previous reply stated that the way of ruling men is secretly in accord with your lofty intent. As for the reverence between ruler and minister, in practical matters it culminates in bows and prostrations; hence it is considered part of the Teaching of Names. It was not meant that their reciprocal relationship is limited to outward signs. Allow me to state this again to convey my humble intent. In the high antiquity of supreme antiquity, rulers and ministers were already ranked; natural feelings and love made righteousness manifest as the basis of transformation. In those times, bodily reverence was unheard of, and the way of the ruler operated in emptiness; thus the principle of mutual oblivion was relaxed, and the way of the minister was subtly shaped. Therefore, matters ended with contentment. Deducing from this, it is almost entirely clear that bodily reverence does not follow the mind like shadow and echo. Only when affection and praise arose did such rituals appear; was this not a creation of later sages, adapting their works to the times? This principle is ethereal and remote, truly difficult to debate. If it is not yet agreeable, I beg to await your lofty judgment.
First 42 of 342 passages. Read on