集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.34

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]?