集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.38

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?