集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.36

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.