集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.42

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.